The same set of allegations could be said for any random organization of people. I think you're describing the flaws of humanity, not the flaws of Unions.
As far as the UAW causing the failure of GM, sorry, but I just don't buy it. GM first saw unions in its plants in 1936. Are you really trying to tell me that the UAW killed GM and took 73 years to do so?
GM's management and short-sightedness killed GM. How many brain cells does it really take to figure out that cheap oil isn't going to be around forever? Hubberts peak has been around for 50 years, and came to fruition for the U.S. in 1970.
Any large organization will want to control its masses.
True. The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees, while a union can't. That's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence. Union officials are also generally elected positions, so the power flows the other way as well.
Doesn't it seem a little odd that the company that is competing for market shares in the web browser area would create a addon for a competing company?
Not really if you look at where the real competition is occurring.
The REAL product that Microsoft is trying to protect is the Windows platform. This is how Microsoft maintains their monopoly. IE is merely a means to try to control the web market to use Windows only across the board. The windows platform maintains much of its monopoly power by controlling the software to run on only Windows. Microsoft has long known that 3rd party developers were a big factor in building their monopoly, and keeping them on Windows maintains that monopoly.
This plugin lets you run parts of.Net on Firefox, correct?.Net is largely Windows only software, correct? So by having Firefox (an increasingly popular web browser on Windows) run.Net software, Microsoft is trying to maintain.Net on web browsers as a viable platform. By doing this they try to ensure that you'll need a Windows computer to run.Net software on a browser. The alternative is that Web developers increasingly reject.Net components because of the increasing popularity of FireFox (and.Net not running on FireFox, thus developers don't want to lose the market share and choose non.Net alternatives). That's bad for Microsoft, since it means more inter-operability with other OS's, which would decrease the relevance of Windows.
Pretty clever, really. Frankly I think the Firefox developers should stop this nonsense not only because of the security concerns, but mainly because it's an attempt to control Firefox by Microsoft. Does Mozilla really want to answer to whatever Microsoft decides to inject into Firefox this week?
I also think it's a anti-competitive move by Microsoft and an abuse of their monopoly power. I doubt anyone will do anything about it though.
The fact that you spout off a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel (it's all scientists driven by grants and "publish by press release") and then make up a bunch of totally unsupported theories about "we don't know what the ideal pH of the ocean is" and "hey, it'll all just adapt" tells me you've bought into the Big Conservative Lie.
If you want to argue with the science, you need to use science. Ad hominem attacks and pet theories you just made up that I'll bet you haven't researched at all don't impress me. You can always find gaps in science if you try hard enough. That doesn't mean you completely reject everything science tells us about a subject. Though we knew they were wrong at the time, F=MA and the classical laws of motion enough to calculate the trajectories to get us to the moon. If everyone thought like you we'd never have gotten to the moon because gravitation, the laws of motion, and helio-centrism are just "theories cooked up to get research grants", and "how do you know that the astronauts landing won't disrupt the music of the sphere's and crack the moon?"
I'm not a climate scientists, but I also don't pretend to be one. You seem to think your own misunderstanding and ignorance is everyones ignorance. Science doesn't know everything, and can be wrong. Prying open the gaps in our knowledge (which will always exist) and using that as a base for denial of the science is dishonest. That's not science, it's willful ignorance.
If this device is 1000x more sensitive than anything we've had before, it seems to me that we have no real data about how such a low level corresponds to actual cancer risk.
It's been well known for decades that cancer cells are commonly created in the body. Most of the time the immune system takes care of them before cancer gets a foothold. One question I have is, will this sensor be so sensitive it'll detect the normal everyday cancer that our immune system would normally fight off by itself? This could lead to un-necessary intervention, which can cause more harm than good.
Where did you get the idea that the government has to perfectly protect everyone?
(You also seem to be a bit confused about the bill of rights and the constitution. The limits on government powers apply to state and local governments. It's not a limit of only federal government power).
On many standardized tests, including the SATs and ACTs, the tests specify which calculators are permitted for the test.
If this were really truly a threat, then just provide the same calculator for everyone at the test. Calculators aren't that expensive. Ban bringing your own calculator into the test, and collect the calculator at the end of the test. Problem solved.
Moreover, the article seems to suggest that it took at least 20 other servers to replace a single 12 year old mainframe, and that's even using virtualization on the new servers. One wonders how many (more) servers the House could have replaced with a single new mainframe.
Talking about costs makes good news. If you want to pick it apart with speculation, go right ahead. You might be right, but without real numbers and real analysis we'll never know. I think the real reason they switched is this:
But the House decided not to buy another mainframe in part because its IT staff has more expertise running x86 and Unix boxes.
"We really don't' have those [mainframe] skill sets in house anymore," Zanatta says. "We try not to maintain architecture that we can't support ourselves."
How many people have you known throughout your IT career that have mainframe experience? I've known exactly two. One of which was my next-door neighbor while growing up who worked as a programmer for Unisys (now retired). The other was a young kid who was hired by company who still had mainframes, and was trained by the old guys who knew how to operate and maintain them. The other several dozen people I've known throughout my career have no real world experience with maintaining them. I knew one guy who had to learn AS400 in tech school (this was only maybe 10 years ago), though never applied any of it and now works with Windows and Unix.
So the point is, how well do you think a piece of technology is going to work if you can't find anyone who knows how to work with it and maintain it? Sure, salaries are cheap in comparison to migrations.. but what are the costs of not being able to do what you want to do because you can't find enough people familiar enough with the technology to accomplish what you want?
Technology always has been, and always will be about the people. Someday all our modern technology, operating systems and the like will die not because it's not "good enough", or is "too expensive" but because the people of that era will have moved on to New Technology Z, and hardly anyone understands Old Technology Y.
. but you don't have bureaucrats wasting billions in order to keep themselves and their buddies rolling in the dough, and billions more being wasted through sheer indifference.
Righto.. in private industry it's CEOs doing all that.
Are you really that naive to think that private business doesn't do the exact same thing all the time?
If you actually look at the output of U.S. healthcare, you might notice we spend the most, and don't get the best care.
Columbus day? You mean the day I wonder why there was no mail delivery? Nobody gets Columbus day off except a few federal and state employees. Only in America do we celebrate a guy who got lost (and really was actually the 2nd European in the "New World").
You're also vulnerable to wiretaps, compromised routers, and all kinds of other network malfeasance.
Which pales in comparison to the risks of browser exploits, flash exploits, adobe exploits, and even OS exploits. Security risks are relative, and MITM attacks are nothing compared to the other very real, and very much exploited vulnerabilities out their. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be fixed, but it should be put in perspective.
Never type a password into a site unless you see a lock icon in your browser.
Check.. I saw the lock icon in the browser thingy... the browser is the whole page, right? If you're used to seeing a green bar, and it disappears*, something is wrong.
Check-O! The whole screen is green, that means it's safe! Don't click "ignore" when your computer gives you some gibberish about a certificate. That means something is wrong.
Yup.. no weird message, whole browser green, lock thingies all over the place. I'm safe! Never open emailed attachments.
I NEVER do that.. unless it's from my friend Nimrod. Nimrod always sends out these HILARIOUS videos. You just gotta click the thingy and it all opens up. I'll send you a couple.. you just gotta see it! Never click "yes" to dialogs you weren't expecting.
I NEVER do that either. The computer always tells me what to expect and exactly what to do, so I'm never surprised. These computers! They're always telling me to do crazy things! Really, there is no prince wanting to give you millions of dollars for nothing.
Gotcha! Hold on, I gotta send money for this fedex package that's going to be delivered to me. I'm gonna be a millionaire! Good thing I renewed my car warranty though through that email I got. Just in time, my alternator is about to go! The dancing bunny isn't worth seeing.
Dually noted. I've always preferred growling squirrels. You GoTTA see the jumping kangaroos someone sent me the other day! If a site asks you for personal information, ask yourself, "is this the kind of site that would legitimately ask for this kind of information?"
Duh! I only give out my personal information when my bank or myspace or paypal or someone I KNOW asks for it. I just click on the link that has their name in it any type away!
This isn't a complete list, but it's a start:
Getting back to reality here, It's not a complete list, nor could it ever hope to be a complete list.
You can't teach people a simple set of rules to not get tricked. The tricksters of the world will ALWAYS be one step ahead of any defined set of "rules to be safe on the internet". Those rules will (and have) become superstitions. If you have ANY hope of people being secure on the internet, you have to teach them to be skeptical. Look for the angles. People aren't used to making judgements about things without people involved. They're unfamiliar with automated attacks. Remember that people have nowhere NEAR the knowledge base that you or I do.
*doesn't chain to an EV provider* it's not much of an exploit,*doesn't chain to an EV provider* it's not much of an exploit, really. No green bar, not safe. really. No green bar, not safe.
Have you lost your mind, or are you joking?
Assuming a rubber room is being prepared for you, I have to wonder why you would think anyone knows to look for green bars.
I might actually agree with you that this isn't a huge problem, but for very different reasons. MITM attacks are relatively hard to exploit. You're essentially limited to wireless networks, or hostile LANs. Also, this isn't a big deal since if you can already perform a MITM attack there's countless ways to trick the user into thinking the site is secure without even touching SSL.
your understanding of resources is horribly flawed.... it doesn't matter if indium was 100 times more abundant if the processing of it isn't fesible. because indium isn't in concerntrated deposits like silver, it's horribly hard to mine.
I in fact DO understand that. if indium deposits really are out there you'd see a lot of announcments about projects to mine it - there aren't.
That's a rather large assumption. Indium prices are very volatile. As recently as 2003 prices were at $80/kg. It's since gone up to $1000/kg, and back down to $500/kg. Mining companies are generally quite conservative. They aren't going to invest tons of money on something without a proven demand and prices. Sorry, but a 6 year rise in prices and then a fall just isn't a terribly good investment. You're very unlikely find what you're not looking for.
Which is an estimate based on current reserves and production levels. Indium is rare, but it's not THAT rare:
Indium ranks 61st in abundance in the Earth's crust at approximately 0.25 ppm,[13] which means it is more than three times as abundant as silver, which occurs at 0.075 ppm.[14]
The quoted article says Indium was up to $1000 per kilo. Silver is around $500 per kilo, and is 3 times less abundant.
You also have to understand that before LCD screens, there wasn't a big demand for Indium. Basing any conclusions about having enough Indium based on production and reserves today is just wrong. Nobody does exploration and mining for something with little value, or low demand. Indium until recently didn't have a large demand for it.
The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year. It is not particularly more infectious or deadly in any segment of the population than any other flu strain.
This contradicts several news stories I've heard. I haven't heard much about H1N1 being more deadly, but I have heard a higher percentage of people are getting it than normal seasonal flu. Can you provide any references to resolve our contradictory stories? My aunt was a nurse, and thus was required by her job to take the flu shot every year. She had been taking them for nearly a decade when, in her mid-thirties, she was paralyzed from the waist down by the side-effects of the flu shot.
It sounds like your aunt might have gotten Guillain-Barré Syndrome. According to the CDC one study suggested a 1 in a million people will get GBS from flu vaccinations, though several others have shown no such association.
Assuming this is the case, the evidence is sketchy about a correlation between the two. At best it's a one in a million chance.
I do agree though that there's little reason for normal healthy people to get flu vaccinations. I never have myself, and my workplace offers them for free. I've seen a few people feel cruddy, or get mildly sick from flu vaccines, so I personally would rather just take my chances. A think your alarm is a bit unwarranted though. People take much higher risks for far lower rewards every day.
4) Before the bandwagon leaves on the "people who are more likely to get sick are more likely to get vaccinated, accounting for the 100% increase", people who get vaccinations aren't twice as likely to catch flu as people who don't get vaccinations. There's definitely something going on here.
Which shouldn't be surprising at all, since the season flu vaccination is designed (and in fact does) protect people from seasonal flu. Of course vaccinated people are less likely to get flu, there'd be no point in vaccinations if they weren't. We know that the seasonal flu vaccination provides no protection against swine flu/h1n1, so sample bias could easily account for this.
If you wanted to eliminate sample bias, one way would be to try to replicate the demographics of the vaccinated with a set of people who don't get vaccinated against swine flu. If un-vaccinated people with the same demographic profile get H1N1 at a similar rate as the season flu vaccinated group, then the seasonal flu vaccination has nothing to do with it.
You can bounce around Europe crossing borders with little more than a wave of your passport and a friendly nod.
Sometimes even less than that. I visited The Netherlands and Germany in 2008. When crossing from The Netherlands into Germany I expected some big stop to at least check my passport. Nothing. The train was out between the countries (track work), so they had a bus. It never stopped, nobody asked me anything, and I got on the train in Germany without so much as a peep.
Meanwhile I took a separate trip to Tuscon Arizona this past spring. Driving around in my own country I was stopped at least 4-5 times by Homeland Gestapo to make sure I was still an American. They were nice and all, a friendly wave and "Are you a US Citizen?". Being a white guy with a US accent they just waved me through.. but still. For those of you that don't know, Homeland Gestapo sets up stops on northbound highways perhaps 20-30 miles from the U.S. Border (at least they do in Arizona). I find it absurd to be stopped IN MY OWN COUNTRY just to make sure I'm still a US Citizen.
In other areas of business or life, do you get anything for free or are there really some suckers that are delivering and doing their work of services for free?
Are you kidding? I've got a neighbor who sometimes blows the snow out many other neighbors sidewalks after it snows. Obviously nobody is paying him to do this, he just enjoys it. If you have people over for dinner there's no expectation of payment even though preparing a meal is labor intensive and ingredients aren't free. Many people perform music on street corners for free. (Nobody is forcing you to put any money in the hat). Plenty of people donate their expertise to charitable organizations. Plenty of people are known to even donate MONEY to charity! The exact opposite of getting paid for work. Do you really think all these people are suckers?
If you really think that the only reward people receive for doing work is money, you either haven't thought about the problem very much or you're a selfish bastard. You also don't really understand the open source community very well. There's plenty of developers who are paid to write open source code (i.e. they don't work for free).
No, the idea that software is somehow different from everything else is silly. There's plenty of free things around the world, you just may not be aware of them.
It was likely not far after openSSH became available, and the original SSH was starting to get less and less friendly. The great thing about SSH is is all started out free and open. Early on it was experimental (though very cool). This later changed when the original SSH became commercialized, and the licensing started closing up (thus my switching to openSSH). This was back in the days when an ssh client was something you had to hunt around for and much of the time all that was available was cruddy ssh1 clients.
We've come a long way since then. These days putty and SCP are available for any platform. I haven't even thought about the original ssh from Tatu for years, though I certainly used it so many years ago.
In addition to being protected by the Sun, we are also safeguarded by our planet's own magnetic field, which is strong enough to deflect the vast majority of incoming space radiation, or convert it into harmless, elementary particles.
The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data.
Wrong again. The graph is very clear that the observations are sporadic. The article actually clearly explains this:
Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available
We understand the theory of what influence cosmic rays numbers. It's the solar cycles and the earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field we have geologic evidence of it's strength. Sunspot numbers have sporadic data going back 400 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png).
There's plenty of phenomenon we predict using indirect observations and theory.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?
I realize people get a lot of slack when a family member dies, and should. But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy).
Slashdot Mirror
The same set of allegations could be said for any random organization of people. I think you're describing the flaws of humanity, not the flaws of Unions.
As far as the UAW causing the failure of GM, sorry, but I just don't buy it. GM first saw unions in its plants in 1936. Are you really trying to tell me that the UAW killed GM and took 73 years to do so?
GM's management and short-sightedness killed GM. How many brain cells does it really take to figure out that cheap oil isn't going to be around forever? Hubberts peak has been around for 50 years, and came to fruition for the U.S. in 1970.
Any large organization will want to control its masses.
True. The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees, while a union can't. That's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence. Union officials are also generally elected positions, so the power flows the other way as well.
Doesn't it seem a little odd that the company that is competing for market shares in the web browser area would create a addon for a competing company?
Not really if you look at where the real competition is occurring.
The REAL product that Microsoft is trying to protect is the Windows platform. This is how Microsoft maintains their monopoly. IE is merely a means to try to control the web market to use Windows only across the board. The windows platform maintains much of its monopoly power by controlling the software to run on only Windows. Microsoft has long known that 3rd party developers were a big factor in building their monopoly, and keeping them on Windows maintains that monopoly.
This plugin lets you run parts of .Net on Firefox, correct? .Net is largely Windows only software, correct? So by having Firefox (an increasingly popular web browser on Windows) run .Net software, Microsoft is trying to maintain .Net on web browsers as a viable platform. By doing this they try to ensure that you'll need a Windows computer to run .Net software on a browser. The alternative is that Web developers increasingly reject .Net components because of the increasing popularity of FireFox (and .Net not running on FireFox, thus developers don't want to lose the market share and choose non .Net alternatives). That's bad for Microsoft, since it means more inter-operability with other OS's, which would decrease the relevance of Windows.
Pretty clever, really. Frankly I think the Firefox developers should stop this nonsense not only because of the security concerns, but mainly because it's an attempt to control Firefox by Microsoft. Does Mozilla really want to answer to whatever Microsoft decides to inject into Firefox this week?
I also think it's a anti-competitive move by Microsoft and an abuse of their monopoly power. I doubt anyone will do anything about it though.
The fact that you spout off a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel (it's all scientists driven by grants and "publish by press release") and then make up a bunch of totally unsupported theories about "we don't know what the ideal pH of the ocean is" and "hey, it'll all just adapt" tells me you've bought into the Big Conservative Lie.
If you want to argue with the science, you need to use science. Ad hominem attacks and pet theories you just made up that I'll bet you haven't researched at all don't impress me. You can always find gaps in science if you try hard enough. That doesn't mean you completely reject everything science tells us about a subject. Though we knew they were wrong at the time, F=MA and the classical laws of motion enough to calculate the trajectories to get us to the moon. If everyone thought like you we'd never have gotten to the moon because gravitation, the laws of motion, and helio-centrism are just "theories cooked up to get research grants", and "how do you know that the astronauts landing won't disrupt the music of the sphere's and crack the moon?"
I'm not a climate scientists, but I also don't pretend to be one. You seem to think your own misunderstanding and ignorance is everyones ignorance. Science doesn't know everything, and can be wrong. Prying open the gaps in our knowledge (which will always exist) and using that as a base for denial of the science is dishonest. That's not science, it's willful ignorance.
I don't. I'm saying that if someone were to propose that I give up anonymous speech because the government protects free speech
Actually many people have argued that the first amendment protects anonymous speech remaining anonymous for the very reasons you give.
If this device is 1000x more sensitive than anything we've had before, it seems to me that we have no real data about how such a low level corresponds to actual cancer risk.
It's been well known for decades that cancer cells are commonly created in the body. Most of the time the immune system takes care of them before cancer gets a foothold. One question I have is, will this sensor be so sensitive it'll detect the normal everyday cancer that our immune system would normally fight off by itself? This could lead to un-necessary intervention, which can cause more harm than good.
Where did you get the idea that the government has to perfectly protect everyone?
(You also seem to be a bit confused about the bill of rights and the constitution. The limits on government powers apply to state and local governments. It's not a limit of only federal government power).
On many standardized tests, including the SATs and ACTs, the tests specify which calculators are permitted for the test.
If this were really truly a threat, then just provide the same calculator for everyone at the test. Calculators aren't that expensive. Ban bringing your own calculator into the test, and collect the calculator at the end of the test. Problem solved.
Moreover, the article seems to suggest that it took at least 20 other servers to replace a single 12 year old mainframe, and that's even using virtualization on the new servers. One wonders how many (more) servers the House could have replaced with a single new mainframe.
Talking about costs makes good news. If you want to pick it apart with speculation, go right ahead. You might be right, but without real numbers and real analysis we'll never know. I think the real reason they switched is this:
How many people have you known throughout your IT career that have mainframe experience? I've known exactly two. One of which was my next-door neighbor while growing up who worked as a programmer for Unisys (now retired). The other was a young kid who was hired by company who still had mainframes, and was trained by the old guys who knew how to operate and maintain them. The other several dozen people I've known throughout my career have no real world experience with maintaining them. I knew one guy who had to learn AS400 in tech school (this was only maybe 10 years ago), though never applied any of it and now works with Windows and Unix.
So the point is, how well do you think a piece of technology is going to work if you can't find anyone who knows how to work with it and maintain it? Sure, salaries are cheap in comparison to migrations.. but what are the costs of not being able to do what you want to do because you can't find enough people familiar enough with the technology to accomplish what you want?
Technology always has been, and always will be about the people. Someday all our modern technology, operating systems and the like will die not because it's not "good enough", or is "too expensive" but because the people of that era will have moved on to New Technology Z, and hardly anyone understands Old Technology Y.
. but you don't have bureaucrats wasting billions in order to keep themselves and their buddies rolling in the dough, and billions more being wasted through sheer indifference.
Righto.. in private industry it's CEOs doing all that.
Are you really that naive to think that private business doesn't do the exact same thing all the time?
If you actually look at the output of U.S. healthcare, you might notice we spend the most, and don't get the best care.
Columbus day? You mean the day I wonder why there was no mail delivery? Nobody gets Columbus day off except a few federal and state employees. Only in America do we celebrate a guy who got lost (and really was actually the 2nd European in the "New World").
You're also vulnerable to wiretaps, compromised routers, and all kinds of other network malfeasance.
Which pales in comparison to the risks of browser exploits, flash exploits, adobe exploits, and even OS exploits. Security risks are relative, and MITM attacks are nothing compared to the other very real, and very much exploited vulnerabilities out their. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be fixed, but it should be put in perspective.
Never type a password into a site unless you see a lock icon in your browser.
Check.. I saw the lock icon in the browser thingy... the browser is the whole page, right?
If you're used to seeing a green bar, and it disappears*, something is wrong.
Check-O! The whole screen is green, that means it's safe!
Don't click "ignore" when your computer gives you some gibberish about a certificate. That means something is wrong.
Yup.. no weird message, whole browser green, lock thingies all over the place. I'm safe!
Never open emailed attachments.
I NEVER do that.. unless it's from my friend Nimrod. Nimrod always sends out these HILARIOUS videos. You just gotta click the thingy and it all opens up. I'll send you a couple.. you just gotta see it!
Never click "yes" to dialogs you weren't expecting.
I NEVER do that either. The computer always tells me what to expect and exactly what to do, so I'm never surprised. These computers! They're always telling me to do crazy things!
Really, there is no prince wanting to give you millions of dollars for nothing.
Gotcha! Hold on, I gotta send money for this fedex package that's going to be delivered to me. I'm gonna be a millionaire! Good thing I renewed my car warranty though through that email I got. Just in time, my alternator is about to go!
The dancing bunny isn't worth seeing.
Dually noted. I've always preferred growling squirrels. You GoTTA see the jumping kangaroos someone sent me the other day!
If a site asks you for personal information, ask yourself, "is this the kind of site that would legitimately ask for this kind of information?"
Duh! I only give out my personal information when my bank or myspace or paypal or someone I KNOW asks for it. I just click on the link that has their name in it any type away!
This isn't a complete list, but it's a start:
Getting back to reality here, It's not a complete list, nor could it ever hope to be a complete list.
You can't teach people a simple set of rules to not get tricked. The tricksters of the world will ALWAYS be one step ahead of any defined set of "rules to be safe on the internet". Those rules will (and have) become superstitions. If you have ANY hope of people being secure on the internet, you have to teach them to be skeptical. Look for the angles. People aren't used to making judgements about things without people involved. They're unfamiliar with automated attacks. Remember that people have nowhere NEAR the knowledge base that you or I do.
*doesn't chain to an EV provider* it's not much of an exploit,*doesn't chain to an EV provider* it's not much of an exploit, really. No green bar, not safe. really. No green bar, not safe.
Have you lost your mind, or are you joking?
Assuming a rubber room is being prepared for you, I have to wonder why you would think anyone knows to look for green bars.
I might actually agree with you that this isn't a huge problem, but for very different reasons. MITM attacks are relatively hard to exploit. You're essentially limited to wireless networks, or hostile LANs. Also, this isn't a big deal since if you can already perform a MITM attack there's countless ways to trick the user into thinking the site is secure without even touching SSL.
your understanding of resources is horribly flawed.... it doesn't matter if indium was 100 times more abundant if the processing of it isn't fesible. because indium isn't in concerntrated deposits like silver, it's horribly hard to mine.
I in fact DO understand that.
if indium deposits really are out there you'd see a lot of announcments about projects to mine it - there aren't.
That's a rather large assumption. Indium prices are very volatile. As recently as 2003 prices were at $80/kg. It's since gone up to $1000/kg, and back down to $500/kg. Mining companies are generally quite conservative. They aren't going to invest tons of money on something without a proven demand and prices. Sorry, but a 6 year rise in prices and then a fall just isn't a terribly good investment. You're very unlikely find what you're not looking for.
Which is an estimate based on current reserves and production levels. Indium is rare, but it's not THAT rare:
The quoted article says Indium was up to $1000 per kilo. Silver is around $500 per kilo, and is 3 times less abundant.
You also have to understand that before LCD screens, there wasn't a big demand for Indium. Basing any conclusions about having enough Indium based on production and reserves today is just wrong. Nobody does exploration and mining for something with little value, or low demand. Indium until recently didn't have a large demand for it.
The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year. It is not particularly more infectious or deadly in any segment of the population than any other flu strain.
This contradicts several news stories I've heard. I haven't heard much about H1N1 being more deadly, but I have heard a higher percentage of people are getting it than normal seasonal flu. Can you provide any references to resolve our contradictory stories?
My aunt was a nurse, and thus was required by her job to take the flu shot every year. She had been taking them for nearly a decade when, in her mid-thirties, she was paralyzed from the waist down by the side-effects of the flu shot.
It sounds like your aunt might have gotten Guillain-Barré Syndrome. According to the CDC one study suggested a 1 in a million people will get GBS from flu vaccinations, though several others have shown no such association.
Assuming this is the case, the evidence is sketchy about a correlation between the two. At best it's a one in a million chance.
I do agree though that there's little reason for normal healthy people to get flu vaccinations. I never have myself, and my workplace offers them for free. I've seen a few people feel cruddy, or get mildly sick from flu vaccines, so I personally would rather just take my chances. A think your alarm is a bit unwarranted though. People take much higher risks for far lower rewards every day.
4) Before the bandwagon leaves on the "people who are more likely to get sick are more likely to get vaccinated, accounting for the 100% increase", people who get vaccinations aren't twice as likely to catch flu as people who don't get vaccinations. There's definitely something going on here.
Which shouldn't be surprising at all, since the season flu vaccination is designed (and in fact does) protect people from seasonal flu. Of course vaccinated people are less likely to get flu, there'd be no point in vaccinations if they weren't. We know that the seasonal flu vaccination provides no protection against swine flu/h1n1, so sample bias could easily account for this.
If you wanted to eliminate sample bias, one way would be to try to replicate the demographics of the vaccinated with a set of people who don't get vaccinated against swine flu. If un-vaccinated people with the same demographic profile get H1N1 at a similar rate as the season flu vaccinated group, then the seasonal flu vaccination has nothing to do with it.
You can bounce around Europe crossing borders with little more than a wave of your passport and a friendly nod.
Sometimes even less than that. I visited The Netherlands and Germany in 2008. When crossing from The Netherlands into Germany I expected some big stop to at least check my passport. Nothing. The train was out between the countries (track work), so they had a bus. It never stopped, nobody asked me anything, and I got on the train in Germany without so much as a peep.
Meanwhile I took a separate trip to Tuscon Arizona this past spring. Driving around in my own country I was stopped at least 4-5 times by Homeland Gestapo to make sure I was still an American. They were nice and all, a friendly wave and "Are you a US Citizen?". Being a white guy with a US accent they just waved me through.. but still. For those of you that don't know, Homeland Gestapo sets up stops on northbound highways perhaps 20-30 miles from the U.S. Border (at least they do in Arizona). I find it absurd to be stopped IN MY OWN COUNTRY just to make sure I'm still a US Citizen.
In other areas of business or life, do you get anything for free or are there really some suckers that are delivering and doing their work of services for free?
Are you kidding? I've got a neighbor who sometimes blows the snow out many other neighbors sidewalks after it snows. Obviously nobody is paying him to do this, he just enjoys it. If you have people over for dinner there's no expectation of payment even though preparing a meal is labor intensive and ingredients aren't free. Many people perform music on street corners for free. (Nobody is forcing you to put any money in the hat). Plenty of people donate their expertise to charitable organizations. Plenty of people are known to even donate MONEY to charity! The exact opposite of getting paid for work. Do you really think all these people are suckers?
If you really think that the only reward people receive for doing work is money, you either haven't thought about the problem very much or you're a selfish bastard. You also don't really understand the open source community very well. There's plenty of developers who are paid to write open source code (i.e. they don't work for free).
No, the idea that software is somehow different from everything else is silly. There's plenty of free things around the world, you just may not be aware of them.
It was likely not far after openSSH became available, and the original SSH was starting to get less and less friendly. The great thing about SSH is is all started out free and open. Early on it was experimental (though very cool). This later changed when the original SSH became commercialized, and the licensing started closing up (thus my switching to openSSH). This was back in the days when an ssh client was something you had to hunt around for and much of the time all that was available was cruddy ssh1 clients.
We've come a long way since then. These days putty and SCP are available for any platform. I haven't even thought about the original ssh from Tatu for years, though I certainly used it so many years ago.
Actually, not the Earth's field at all.
Not according to the article:
The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data.
Wrong again. The graph is very clear that the observations are sporadic. The article actually clearly explains this:
How do we know this?
We understand the theory of what influence cosmic rays numbers. It's the solar cycles and the earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field we have geologic evidence of it's strength. Sunspot numbers have sporadic data going back 400 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png).
There's plenty of phenomenon we predict using indirect observations and theory.
The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?
I realize people get a lot of slack when a family member dies, and should. But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy).
The first sentence is way too stupid if it's not funny.