By the same argument, why is talking to someone on a cell phone while driving any different than talking to someone sitting in the car while driving? I don't know about you, but I only ever have one hand on the wheel anyway, so the fact that the other is holding a phone doesn't change the fact that I am talking to another person while driving.
"Is there some cool Blu-Ray specific feature that I've not seen yet?"
Yeah, it's called 1080p. HD-DVD is only 720 lines, making it visually inferior to Bluray. In two years, all LCDs will probably be 1080p native, so you will probably be happier with a media format that supports that resolution instead of stretching 720 out to 1080, interpolating fully one third of the scan lines.
I certainly have a choice... everyone has a choice. The choices are Comcast, DSL/Fios, Sattelite, T-something, paying extra for the business connection, or turning it all off. There's plenty of choice out there, and no one choice ever satisfies all requirements.
There will never have a two-way multi-megabit connection with a static IP, no ports blocked, and a commerical ToS, all for the price of a coffee at starbucks.
If the INTENT of the act of violence is to terrorize, then it becomes a terrorist act, regardless of whether anyone actually perceived any threat or terror. It makes no difference whether someone perceives themselves as a potential victim, or if there are even any actual victims.
I don't know how the Linux stack handles TCP sequence impropriety. But, you may be right. That's why I was asking - the point is that I bet there is a way to use iptables to avoid being stomped on my the comcast whores. With a little collaboration, perhaps that solution can be found.
The fake RST will probably not have a valid sequence number for the established TCP connection, so the Linux stack will flag it as a NEW connection, and the fact that you're getting a RST for a NEW connection should be good enough alarm.
Or maybe it would also work with just the matching code
You've obviously never been to a peace "protest," nor do you know much about the Boston Tea Party. The BTP was certainly an act of Terrorism by a small army of smugglers who were making fortunes off of breaking the Law. It was certainly not an act of Patriotic protest, but rather an act of economic terrorism perpetuated by a band of common criminals who didn't take kindly to the disruption of their racket. The BTP was neither supported nor condoned by the government of the colonies, and extensive case studies have found that, while considered a tipping point in the course of human history, the revolution was imminent with or without the occurrence of the BTP.
While one could certainly argue that The King's economic treatment of the colonies was certainly biased and unfair, committing acts of terrorism is not an effective way to discuss grievances. The Declaration of Independence had not been envisioned until June, the following year, so to draw some kind of causality between the BTP and the creation of the USA is strictly speculative. In fact, nowhere in the text of the DofI is the Tea Tax mentioned with specificity.
There is a difference between peaceful assembly and non-peaceful assembly. The latter is an act of terrorism and the former is a constitutionally protected right. When you intentionally obstruct the rights of others during the course of your protest, you cross the line that distinguishes between "peaceably assembling" and "committing an overt act of terrorism."
Examples: Obstructing rush hour traffic by laying down arm-in-arm across the street, spray painting fur coats, setting fire to a parking lot full of un-sold SUVs, breaking noise ordinances, throwing objects at people and police, disobeying the restrictions of your assembly permit... all of these throw you into the bin of common criminals as far as I am concerned. These people are the ones who destroy the process for the redress of grievances for everyone else who conducts themselves lawfully.
It doesn't matter what the industry is. Automation is always a "threat" to jobs. But, people still work in the auto industry, and people still work in IT. You can look at automation two ways. You can view it as a threat to yourself, and you will be one of the poor-attitude IT workers that get laid off. Or, you can look at automation as a tool to let you get more done, and you will be one of the self-motivated go-getters that can be a VP of Technology since you don't have to bother yourself with peon work anymore.
It doesn't take a conviction to get into the NCIC. All it takes is an arrest, and let's face it folks, most peace terrorists have been arrested in their lifetimes, usually for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and other misdemeanor crimes.
When there are multiple targets in the field of view of a single-point, colocated radar, where the transmitter and receiver are in the same place, there is no assurance that the speed of ANY particular target in the field of view is measured. Due to the mutual impedance of multiple targets, moving at different speeds, the far field from the scatterers can become so incoherent that a decisive measurement is impossible.
The radar might show a speed, but it is not necessarily the speed of any of the targets. It may be a mixing product of the speed of two or more targets, a mixing product of the speed of one target with the difference in speed between two or more targets, or so on.
Police radar is wholly unreliable unless there is only a single target in the field of view.
I've written at length about scattering theory and I can tell you with authority that what you're saying is not necessarily true. When there is a field of multiple targets moving at different (or the same, for that matter) speeds, there is no reason to trust that a single fixed-station radar can accurately depict the speed or distance of any one of the targets over another. It doesn't matter how advanced the DSP software in the radar is - the limitation comes from being at a fixed station with only one instantaneous picture of a single point in the far field from the source of the scattering.
The FAA will issue FAR violations based on single-point radar data that can be inaccurate on the order of miles in any direction. Violated pilots often attempt to use GPS data, which is hyperaccurate in comparison, but usually don't get anywhere with it.
Bottom line is, traffic courts are just kangaroo courts - revenue generating machines for local and state governments. Traffic judges are not interested in justice. They are interested in generating revenue. Facts and circumstances are irrelevant.
If you have a 32-bit address space, and your words are also 32 bits, then you get 4 Gigawords at 32 bits each, for 128Gbit. So, they have one more address bit still.
Well, you know as well as I do that we as a species have taken to the idea that if we scream something loud enough, it becomes true.
Every day I hear people on the TV and Radio talking about Manmade Global Warming as "fact," when it still hasn't even come close to being proven. I heard something on the way to work this morning that said that the dinosaurs were not killed by the asteroid that created the gulf of mexico, but rather that it was a warming climate cycle. The study said that the only thing that remained to be proved was how Man caused it to happen.
So, let me get this straight. Verizon takes 300 million in taxpayer money to roll out new infrastructure that they don't have to let me use (they block 25, 80, and 443 inbound), and that they can charge me a ridiculous price for - even though I already paid for it?
Most commercial pilots are Unionized and would jump at the chance to get their employers in trouble for "overloading" the system and "forcing unsafe conditions," and so on...
That's funny, because I have the same policy. I will not go near a Vista machine, not even my Mom's. I've had people offer me a lot of money to try to fix a Vista box, and I won't take it. Ever.
The Max Gross takeoff weight of my plane is 2550 pounds, which is half the weight of my SUV. It holds 50 gallons of fuel, which isn't enough to bring down an important building by any means.
Someone tried to make an "ultra-safe highly computer-assisted" airplane. It's called a Cirrus, and it's the most dangerous thing anyone ever put into the sky. The thing even has its own parachute - for the whole plane - so when the going gets tough, the pilot can just give up and plow the plane into the ground instead of landing it safely like they're supposed to..
Once you have been flying for a while, you will give up this naive attitude.
To an experienced pilot, if it's not an incident or an accident, it is not worthy of mention.
I sorta thought the same way you did when I was a student, and I just wanted to help make the system better. But, once you realize that the government and special interests are only trying to get GA out of the sky, you'll change your views somewhat. Aren't you an AOPA member?
I flew VFR KSWF D-> KLOM the other night, which took me directly over SAX, and although I was quite amazed with how many jets there were on appr to NYC, negotiating the traffic was no big deal.
The responsibility to fly safely lies with the pilots, not ATC, and especially not the government bureaucracy.
"Thing is, with airplanes you only need to build airports, and that's really only just laying down a big long strip of concrete and installing radar."
Neither of these conditions are true. You need neither concrete nor radar to have an airport (although concrete is a reasonable desire). Only Class B, C, and D airports have radar and controlled airspace. There are more Class E radar-less uncontrolled airports than any other kind, and they aggregately handle many more flights. My plane lands on a grass strip just fine, and I only fly to controlled airports if it's convenient and time-saving to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Architect Dude: Here is the model for your building of the future! It has all of these cool features, and looks pretty damn schnazzy to boot
Bean Counter Dude: How much does it cost?
Architect Dude: This baby will cost you about $350 million to build
Bean Counter Dude: Whoa nellie, that's way too freakin much! Let's see, we don't need this here, or that there
Architect Dude: But those are needed for good drainage. Without them, you'll get mold
Bean Counter: That fine - we'll buy dehumidifiers.. either way, I'll be long gone to my next corporate scam by the time that happens
Architect Dude: m'kay
Bean Counter: Let's see, we also don't need this here, or that there
Architect Dude: But those support structures aren't just visual. They keep the Left Wing from sagging under its own weight
Bean Counter: Well, we'll just put less furniture in there. How long would it take to be a problem?
Architect Dude: I dunno, 2 years, maybe 3?
Bean Counter: Cool, I'll have my bonus before then and will be retired, living in Costa Rica. Perfect. Take it out!
and so on...
Too often, brilliant technological works are crippled by bean counters with too much throw, to save a small percentage of cost..
By the same argument, why is talking to someone on a cell phone while driving any different than talking to someone sitting in the car while driving? I don't know about you, but I only ever have one hand on the wheel anyway, so the fact that the other is holding a phone doesn't change the fact that I am talking to another person while driving.
"Is there some cool Blu-Ray specific feature that I've not seen yet?"
Yeah, it's called 1080p. HD-DVD is only 720 lines, making it visually inferior to Bluray. In two years, all LCDs will probably be 1080p native, so you will probably be happier with a media format that supports that resolution instead of stretching 720 out to 1080, interpolating fully one third of the scan lines.
I certainly have a choice... everyone has a choice. The choices are Comcast, DSL/Fios, Sattelite, T-something, paying extra for the business connection, or turning it all off. There's plenty of choice out there, and no one choice ever satisfies all requirements.
There will never have a two-way multi-megabit connection with a static IP, no ports blocked, and a commerical ToS, all for the price of a coffee at starbucks.
If the INTENT of the act of violence is to terrorize, then it becomes a terrorist act, regardless of whether anyone actually perceived any threat or terror. It makes no difference whether someone perceives themselves as a potential victim, or if there are even any actual victims.
I hope you like getting a new IP every few hours... and having lots of ports blocked (25, 80, 81, 8080, 443, 445, 137-139, to name a few).
I don't know how the Linux stack handles TCP sequence impropriety. But, you may be right. That's why I was asking - the point is that I bet there is a way to use iptables to avoid being stomped on my the comcast whores. With a little collaboration, perhaps that solution can be found.
use connection tracking on this one:
iptables -I INPUT -j LOG -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m conntrack --ctstate NEW,INVALID
The fake RST will probably not have a valid sequence number for the established TCP connection, so the Linux stack will flag it as a NEW connection, and the fact that you're getting a RST for a NEW connection should be good enough alarm.
Or maybe it would also work with just the matching code
iptables -I INPUT -j LOG -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m state --state NEW,INVALID
What do y'all think?
You've obviously never been to a peace "protest," nor do you know much about the Boston Tea Party. The BTP was certainly an act of Terrorism by a small army of smugglers who were making fortunes off of breaking the Law. It was certainly not an act of Patriotic protest, but rather an act of economic terrorism perpetuated by a band of common criminals who didn't take kindly to the disruption of their racket. The BTP was neither supported nor condoned by the government of the colonies, and extensive case studies have found that, while considered a tipping point in the course of human history, the revolution was imminent with or without the occurrence of the BTP.
While one could certainly argue that The King's economic treatment of the colonies was certainly biased and unfair, committing acts of terrorism is not an effective way to discuss grievances. The Declaration of Independence had not been envisioned until June, the following year, so to draw some kind of causality between the BTP and the creation of the USA is strictly speculative. In fact, nowhere in the text of the DofI is the Tea Tax mentioned with specificity.
There is a difference between peaceful assembly and non-peaceful assembly. The latter is an act of terrorism and the former is a constitutionally protected right. When you intentionally obstruct the rights of others during the course of your protest, you cross the line that distinguishes between "peaceably assembling" and "committing an overt act of terrorism."
Examples: Obstructing rush hour traffic by laying down arm-in-arm across the street, spray painting fur coats, setting fire to a parking lot full of un-sold SUVs, breaking noise ordinances, throwing objects at people and police, disobeying the restrictions of your assembly permit... all of these throw you into the bin of common criminals as far as I am concerned. These people are the ones who destroy the process for the redress of grievances for everyone else who conducts themselves lawfully.
It doesn't matter what the industry is. Automation is always a "threat" to jobs. But, people still work in the auto industry, and people still work in IT. You can look at automation two ways. You can view it as a threat to yourself, and you will be one of the poor-attitude IT workers that get laid off. Or, you can look at automation as a tool to let you get more done, and you will be one of the self-motivated go-getters that can be a VP of Technology since you don't have to bother yourself with peon work anymore.
It doesn't take a conviction to get into the NCIC. All it takes is an arrest, and let's face it folks, most peace terrorists have been arrested in their lifetimes, usually for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and other misdemeanor crimes.
You missed what I said.
When there are multiple targets in the field of view of a single-point, colocated radar, where the transmitter and receiver are in the same place, there is no assurance that the speed of ANY particular target in the field of view is measured. Due to the mutual impedance of multiple targets, moving at different speeds, the far field from the scatterers can become so incoherent that a decisive measurement is impossible.
The radar might show a speed, but it is not necessarily the speed of any of the targets. It may be a mixing product of the speed of two or more targets, a mixing product of the speed of one target with the difference in speed between two or more targets, or so on.
Police radar is wholly unreliable unless there is only a single target in the field of view.
I've written at length about scattering theory and I can tell you with authority that what you're saying is not necessarily true. When there is a field of multiple targets moving at different (or the same, for that matter) speeds, there is no reason to trust that a single fixed-station radar can accurately depict the speed or distance of any one of the targets over another. It doesn't matter how advanced the DSP software in the radar is - the limitation comes from being at a fixed station with only one instantaneous picture of a single point in the far field from the source of the scattering.
1. Walk into AT&T store and pay cash for a gift card ...
2. Walk into another AT&T store and buy iPhone with said gift card
3.
4. Just kidding...
The FAA will issue FAR violations based on single-point radar data that can be inaccurate on the order of miles in any direction. Violated pilots often attempt to use GPS data, which is hyperaccurate in comparison, but usually don't get anywhere with it.
Bottom line is, traffic courts are just kangaroo courts - revenue generating machines for local and state governments. Traffic judges are not interested in justice. They are interested in generating revenue. Facts and circumstances are irrelevant.
If you have a 32-bit address space, and your words are also 32 bits, then you get 4 Gigawords at 32 bits each, for 128Gbit. So, they have one more address bit still.
Well, you know as well as I do that we as a species have taken to the idea that if we scream something loud enough, it becomes true.
Every day I hear people on the TV and Radio talking about Manmade Global Warming as "fact," when it still hasn't even come close to being proven. I heard something on the way to work this morning that said that the dinosaurs were not killed by the asteroid that created the gulf of mexico, but rather that it was a warming climate cycle. The study said that the only thing that remained to be proved was how Man caused it to happen.
Hah..
So, let me get this straight. Verizon takes 300 million in taxpayer money to roll out new infrastructure that they don't have to let me use (they block 25, 80, and 443 inbound), and that they can charge me a ridiculous price for - even though I already paid for it?
I don't think so...
Most commercial pilots are Unionized and would jump at the chance to get their employers in trouble for "overloading" the system and "forcing unsafe conditions," and so on...
That's funny, because I have the same policy. I will not go near a Vista machine, not even my Mom's. I've had people offer me a lot of money to try to fix a Vista box, and I won't take it. Ever.
The Max Gross takeoff weight of my plane is 2550 pounds, which is half the weight of my SUV. It holds 50 gallons of fuel, which isn't enough to bring down an important building by any means.
Someone tried to make an "ultra-safe highly computer-assisted" airplane. It's called a Cirrus, and it's the most dangerous thing anyone ever put into the sky. The thing even has its own parachute - for the whole plane - so when the going gets tough, the pilot can just give up and plow the plane into the ground instead of landing it safely like they're supposed to..
Once you have been flying for a while, you will give up this naive attitude.
To an experienced pilot, if it's not an incident or an accident, it is not worthy of mention.
I sorta thought the same way you did when I was a student, and I just wanted to help make the system better. But, once you realize that the government and special interests are only trying to get GA out of the sky, you'll change your views somewhat. Aren't you an AOPA member?
I flew VFR KSWF D-> KLOM the other night, which took me directly over SAX, and although I was quite amazed with how many jets there were on appr to NYC, negotiating the traffic was no big deal.
The responsibility to fly safely lies with the pilots, not ATC, and especially not the government bureaucracy.
"Thing is, with airplanes you only need to build airports, and that's really only just laying down a big long strip of concrete and installing radar."
Neither of these conditions are true. You need neither concrete nor radar to have an airport (although concrete is a reasonable desire). Only Class B, C, and D airports have radar and controlled airspace. There are more Class E radar-less uncontrolled airports than any other kind, and they aggregately handle many more flights. My plane lands on a grass strip just fine, and I only fly to controlled airports if it's convenient and time-saving to do so.
if the provider of a service can be charged with Denial of Service, even though they are the providers of the service...