the truth is, fusion is N billion dollars away (I'm not sure about the N, probably 20-30), and the world is only willing to pay over 50 years. I think after this scare, some governments will try to speed up the process.
They'd probably be better off spending that money building reactors based upon more modern designs that won't suffer from the defects that are causing Japan's problems now.
Now that actually makes sense. Forget the jammer: everybody who's irritated at some loud-talking cell-phone user should just whip out their paintball guns and toss a few rounds his way.
Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.
Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.
OR, use guidance systems that are completely self-contained (inertial dead-reckoning, computer vision, etc.) so that GPS is completely irrelevant. Cruise missiles hit targets from substantial distances without having any need for GPS input.
ONLY thinks like child porn? ONLY things like mass produced soap operas?
I take it you welcome porn for adults, "Return of the Condor Heroes", news of the Jasmine Revolution?
BTW, the phrase "information shaping" is a bit revealing.
Yes. Synonymous with "filtering based upon identification of specific content."
Yeah I wasn't saying it was exclusively US companies, but I do know that companies like Cisco played a big part.
They just got the ball rolling. I don't think China has any intention of being dependent upon Cisco (or any other foreign corporation) for critical infrastructure for any longer than necessary to develop their on in-house replacements.
No doubt some of those small start ups will soon become big defense contractors!"
Or they'll be bought by big defense contractors, and the existing big defense contractors will continue to be the big defense contractors....
More likely they'll be papered around with overbroad patents, force out of business by frivolous litigation, and the big boys will pick up the "intellectual property" for pennies on the dollar.
Any type of activist is a good. It sure beats the usual sheepish (american) who is content with letting 400 people have everything, while they sit and watch NCIS and eat big macs.
I'm guessing you meant "sheeplike", not "sheepish", and what do you have against Big Macs? Or NCIS?
The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.
Well, like Stephen Colbert said, the idiots stuck their collective dick into a hornet's nest. I'm sure Aaron Barr and Co. were more than a little surprised when it turned out that his rather direct challenge (and threat) to Anonymous resulted in a demonstration of blackhattery that was on par with his own. He should have known better, and taken steps.
That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them.
You can't compare an amorphous, shifting multinational group like Anonymous with Batman, mainly because Anonymous has no stated political goals. What goals they do have are largely spur-of-the-moment, and tend to last only until the next big thing comes along to garner their attention. That's actually what makes them so dangerous: they're not predictable in any particular regard (like Batman invariably is, and which is always used against him) and somewhere amongst that morass of script-kiddies is some real talent.
It's an act. How is this any different from movies depicting adults doing bad things to children?
Presumably because our lawmakers (and, consequently, law enforcement) feel that this issue is of overriding importance. Personally, I think there are actually other, possibly more important things they could be spending our tax dollars fighting, but hey, I'm not a politician trying to show that he's "doing something" to justify the votes we throw his way.
Of course, it helps that the multi-billion-dollar motion picture industry has plenty of well-paid attorneys on staff to protect their Constitutional rights.
Or maybe the person with the facebook account doesn't care if some faceless corp knows his name, email, and what him and his friends are doing for dinner.
Maybe instead of assuming the user is ignorant, assume that he isn't a paranoid jackass?
1. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you,
2. If you know they're out to get you and you do nothing, you're not paranoid... you're fucking stupid.
Mod up.
By openly breaching the ToS and sharing your password... you run the risk of losing said Facebook account. But hey, its for security so its all good.
Yes, because losing your Facebook account would, in fact, improve the security if your personal information.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
Oh, there's no question that a large corporation, with the resources of a Du Pont or a British Petroleum, can do both. Matter of fact, it's the companies that have large R&D investments that are most into the "suppression" business.
I see. This explains why we are still using DuPont black powder in our muskets.
They shouldn't. However, they have every (and should have every) -right- to ask.
I disagree with you, and you're not seeing the bigger picture here.
In any event, I wouldn't be so sure that they automatically have that right. The fact is, there are many things that an employer cannot ask a job applicant. Religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation are a few that are generally prohibited. So far as I'm concerned, if a company cannot ask someone if they are straight or gay, they sure as Hell shouldn't be allowed to ask for their Facebook password. Or their email account, or their bank account, or anything else along those lines (and if you think it will stop with social networking, you're naive, I'm afraid.) I'm of the opinion that employers should be barred from any such investigation of candidates: would you want to be judged by the contents of your Facebook page (or the contents of the Facebook pages of your family and friends?) Think about that for a moment, and then tell me that employers should have any rights whatsoever in this regard.
If your job is so sensitive that your resume and references are insufficient (and I might that that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the job market is so critical) then let them pay for a background check.
What they are trying to do, when you get right down to it, is an end run around the relevant labor and anti-discrimination laws using information from social networking sites. If you happen to be gay, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Tea Party member, would you want a potential employer trolling your Facebook account? The law says such attributes are none of their business, and cannot be used to make a hiring decision. But you also know that if that information is made available to employers, they will most certainly use it. But, if it's illegal to do so anyway, why should they have access to it in the first place? Any company that even asks for your social networking account info just tipped you off to the fact that they do not respect their workers. Keep looking.
You want to know what kind of a worker I am, read my resume, contact my references... and hire me. Or don't. But keep your sticky paws off my privacy. How I present myself to you, as an employer, what information I choose to give you, is up to me. If you later find out that I lied, you can fire my ass, but you are absolutely not entitled to rifle through my private life, no matter how much you might like to do so.
Even if I thought sharing your facebook login with your employer was reasonable (which I don't), why would they need your password? So they could post crap on your account?
I think it's so they can access the private parts of your Facebook account. Stuff that only friends can see for instance.
Of course, in a world full of sophisticated surveillance systems run by sociopathic governmental and private-sector thugs, crawlers that archive everything they can get their grubby little robotic mitts on, and badly-implemented, easily-compromised Web applications, face-to-face is still the safest way to communicate privately. Short of that, communicate via more direct means. So far as Zuckerberg's brainchild is concerned, throwing your innermost thoughts onto a server run by a corporation with a childlike demeanor, ethics of a used-car salesman, and a demonstrated history of defective security measures and even poorer judgment is just asking for trouble. People think they have to have radical or unpopular opinions to get themselves into trouble... they don't. They just have to post something that some human resources drone doesn't like. That's why this should be illegal, it gives too much power to the wrong people.
Consider social-networking services in light of what they really are: high-technology bulletin-board systems that may or not be as private as you think they are, because they probably aren't. Private, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
When are we going to get the hint and switch to unobtanium?
I'm pretty sure that fusion is the same as unobtanium for the foreseeable future.
Maybe we could run it on Ultimatum: just order the hydrogen to fuse .. or else!
Electrons have a negatively charged flavor, so they taste like crap.
Well, that implies that protons are delicious.
the truth is, fusion is N billion dollars away (I'm not sure about the N, probably 20-30), and the world is only willing to pay over 50 years. I think after this scare, some governments will try to speed up the process.
They'd probably be better off spending that money building reactors based upon more modern designs that won't suffer from the defects that are causing Japan's problems now.
Oh, the paintful conversations I have endured...
Now that actually makes sense. Forget the jammer: everybody who's irritated at some loud-talking cell-phone user should just whip out their paintball guns and toss a few rounds his way.
But the idea of abandoning radar as if GPS were a time-tested system is a little scary.
It is time tested. It works very well. It's just more vulnerable.
Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.
Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.
OR, use guidance systems that are completely self-contained (inertial dead-reckoning, computer vision, etc.) so that GPS is completely irrelevant. Cruise missiles hit targets from substantial distances without having any need for GPS input.
or just run your jammer at 100 watts
The FCC will appreciate that I'm sure.
GPS guided ordnance seems absurdly vulnerable to jamming and interference to me.
It is. Which is why such ordnance generally doesn't depend upon GPS, if it uses it at all.
ONLY thinks like child porn? ONLY things like mass produced soap operas? I take it you welcome porn for adults, "Return of the Condor Heroes", news of the Jasmine Revolution? BTW, the phrase "information shaping" is a bit revealing.
Yes. Synonymous with "filtering based upon identification of specific content."
Yeah I wasn't saying it was exclusively US companies, but I do know that companies like Cisco played a big part.
They just got the ball rolling. I don't think China has any intention of being dependent upon Cisco (or any other foreign corporation) for critical infrastructure for any longer than necessary to develop their on in-house replacements.
No doubt some of those small start ups will soon become big defense contractors!"
Or they'll be bought by big defense contractors, and the existing big defense contractors will continue to be the big defense contractors....
More likely they'll be papered around with overbroad patents, force out of business by frivolous litigation, and the big boys will pick up the "intellectual property" for pennies on the dollar.
Any type of activist is a good. It sure beats the usual sheepish (american) who is content with letting 400 people have everything, while they sit and watch NCIS and eat big macs.
I'm guessing you meant "sheeplike", not "sheepish", and what do you have against Big Macs? Or NCIS?
The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.
Well, like Stephen Colbert said, the idiots stuck their collective dick into a hornet's nest. I'm sure Aaron Barr and Co. were more than a little surprised when it turned out that his rather direct challenge (and threat) to Anonymous resulted in a demonstration of blackhattery that was on par with his own. He should have known better, and taken steps.
That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them.
You can't compare an amorphous, shifting multinational group like Anonymous with Batman, mainly because Anonymous has no stated political goals. What goals they do have are largely spur-of-the-moment, and tend to last only until the next big thing comes along to garner their attention. That's actually what makes them so dangerous: they're not predictable in any particular regard (like Batman invariably is, and which is always used against him) and somewhere amongst that morass of script-kiddies is some real talent.
It's an act. How is this any different from movies depicting adults doing bad things to children?
Presumably because our lawmakers (and, consequently, law enforcement) feel that this issue is of overriding importance. Personally, I think there are actually other, possibly more important things they could be spending our tax dollars fighting, but hey, I'm not a politician trying to show that he's "doing something" to justify the votes we throw his way.
Of course, it helps that the multi-billion-dollar motion picture industry has plenty of well-paid attorneys on staff to protect their Constitutional rights.
Or maybe the person with the facebook account doesn't care if some faceless corp knows his name, email, and what him and his friends are doing for dinner. Maybe instead of assuming the user is ignorant, assume that he isn't a paranoid jackass?
1. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you,
... you're fucking stupid.
2. If you know they're out to get you and you do nothing, you're not paranoid
This fails to fall under the typical terms of duress
"Do X or you lose your job" isn't duress?
Not implicitly. It depends entirely upon the value of 'X'.
Mod up. By openly breaching the ToS and sharing your password... you run the risk of losing said Facebook account. But hey, its for security so its all good.
Yes, because losing your Facebook account would, in fact, improve the security if your personal information.
If he does exchange keys, have fun.
You mean like him coming home to find me asleep naked on his couch covered in Cheeto dust?
I'm not going to ask what part of your brain coughed up that image.
You *are* aware that this is about a *government job*, aren't you? No corporation is involved here.
No difference. Not anymore. And the government's employment practices are just as deserving of scrutiny and regulation as the private sector's is.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
Oh, there's no question that a large corporation, with the resources of a Du Pont or a British Petroleum, can do both. Matter of fact, it's the companies that have large R&D investments that are most into the "suppression" business.
I see. This explains why we are still using DuPont black powder in our muskets.
You might try reading the rest of my comment.
I mean if US companies did pull out of china
A frustrated China could not be reached for comment.
His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.
What?
They shouldn't. However, they have every (and should have every) -right- to ask.
I disagree with you, and you're not seeing the bigger picture here.
... and hire me. Or don't. But keep your sticky paws off my privacy. How I present myself to you, as an employer, what information I choose to give you, is up to me. If you later find out that I lied, you can fire my ass, but you are absolutely not entitled to rifle through my private life, no matter how much you might like to do so.
In any event, I wouldn't be so sure that they automatically have that right. The fact is, there are many things that an employer cannot ask a job applicant. Religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation are a few that are generally prohibited. So far as I'm concerned, if a company cannot ask someone if they are straight or gay, they sure as Hell shouldn't be allowed to ask for their Facebook password. Or their email account, or their bank account, or anything else along those lines (and if you think it will stop with social networking, you're naive, I'm afraid.) I'm of the opinion that employers should be barred from any such investigation of candidates: would you want to be judged by the contents of your Facebook page (or the contents of the Facebook pages of your family and friends?) Think about that for a moment, and then tell me that employers should have any rights whatsoever in this regard.
If your job is so sensitive that your resume and references are insufficient (and I might that that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the job market is so critical) then let them pay for a background check.
What they are trying to do, when you get right down to it, is an end run around the relevant labor and anti-discrimination laws using information from social networking sites. If you happen to be gay, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Tea Party member, would you want a potential employer trolling your Facebook account? The law says such attributes are none of their business, and cannot be used to make a hiring decision. But you also know that if that information is made available to employers, they will most certainly use it. But, if it's illegal to do so anyway, why should they have access to it in the first place? Any company that even asks for your social networking account info just tipped you off to the fact that they do not respect their workers. Keep looking.
You want to know what kind of a worker I am, read my resume, contact my references
Even if I thought sharing your facebook login with your employer was reasonable (which I don't), why would they need your password? So they could post crap on your account?
I think it's so they can access the private parts of your Facebook account. Stuff that only friends can see for instance.
Of course, in a world full of sophisticated surveillance systems run by sociopathic governmental and private-sector thugs, crawlers that archive everything they can get their grubby little robotic mitts on, and badly-implemented, easily-compromised Web applications, face-to-face is still the safest way to communicate privately. Short of that, communicate via more direct means. So far as Zuckerberg's brainchild is concerned, throwing your innermost thoughts onto a server run by a corporation with a childlike demeanor, ethics of a used-car salesman, and a demonstrated history of defective security measures and even poorer judgment is just asking for trouble. People think they have to have radical or unpopular opinions to get themselves into trouble ... they don't. They just have to post something that some human resources drone doesn't like. That's why this should be illegal, it gives too much power to the wrong people.
Consider social-networking services in light of what they really are: high-technology bulletin-board systems that may or not be as private as you think they are, because they probably aren't. Private, that is.