On the one hand, the freedom of speech lover in me thinks that this goes to far, as I do with many things the French do...
On the other hand, I imagine what CNN would be like if they had to report or analyze a story instead of asking what Twitter thinks of a story...
If you are actually interested in news, just watch C-SPAN. Yeah, sometimes it's dry as hell and the callers are often painful, but it actually does a really good job of presenting both sides, and there are no ads. Bottom line: "I heard Rep X say this on the House floor and then Rep Y said this" wins a lot more arguments than "I heard talking heads X and Y scoring points on CNN."
If you're in the DC area, 90.1 FM is C-SPAN radio, and they have XM, webcasting, etc. If you're up late, they play historic Supreme Court cases.
Please tell me how you figure this isn't a limitation on freedom of speech?? It's not just a limitation on freedom of speech. It's a directive that requires news organisations to make the news vaguer. If an issue has been discussed on Facebook, and they are forced to say "social network sites" and not identify the social network, that's diluted the information. Idiotic!
I read the summary/article differently, your case is allowed. What it disallows is using broadcast time to advertise Facebook and twitter pages for the channel, which is hardly censorship of information or an attack on free speech. I would think it closer to age restriction censorship which is good or in very lest necessary.
Anti (some) Americans rant: Seriously how can you use the idea of freedom of speech to make it sound like a good idea to allow advertising or promotions of companies into news broadcasts.
You don't prevent the government from doing things because those things are always good. You prevent it because people have an inalienable right to do them. From a more practical perspective, it's damned near impossible to understand the unseen consequences and the more laws you have the more you don't know what problems are caused by people exercising their rights and what problems are caused by laws themselves. From a more cynical perspective, if there's some asshole lobbyist / politician / special interest saying how it's going to promote civility and make everyone's children happier and no reasonable person can possibly disagree with this, he's probably lying out his ass.
Anti-Euro and various ex-colonies question: how the hell do you still have state-run media? Are you children that need Loving Mother Government to tell you what's going on in the world?
Product placement is not allowed in state channels, commercial websites are just that, products.
And in Europe, it's taken for granted that this is a reasonable restriction and that the idea of state channels is reasonable.
Most Americans (and probably a lot of Euros) don't grasp that European leftism != American leftism and European rightism != American rightism. There are strong parallels in abstract, but as you cross the pond you see a fundamental change in the cultural gestalt of the relationship between the state and the individual.
Anyway, exactly how do they report a currently hypothetical purchase of say, Twitter by Facebook? "The world's largest social media company, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, has bought another?" Even that is pretty self-explanatory.
FTFS: unless the terms are specifically part of a news story
This isn't limiting freedom of speech. Granted it sucks (I know in Australia we've had all kinds of stupid/funny "if we get x followers on twitter we'll do y" things on breakfast shows that this sort of thing would stomp on were it here), but it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.
How do you figure it's not limiting freedom of speech or, at least, freedom of the press?
It might be acceptable or justified based on whatever doctrine you're working from. But if you can't say X, Y or Z, it's a limitation, any way you slice it.
Generally, if you have to say something or can't say something, it impacts your freedom, but more importantly implements a level of control on you. And, generally, if someone went to the trouble of lobbying the government to control your speech, it will definitely sound like it's for the betterment of all mankind, but it will be tailored to their narrow interests.
What trouble and expense? TLS (SSL is obsolete) is only expensive if you need to get your certificates signed by a commercial CA i.e. if you are interacting with random people who are not affiliated with you or your organization. If you are only deploying TLS for internal purposes, just maintain your own internal CA and deploy your internal signing key to all of your organization's systems.
Having your own CA raises the distribution problem, which is different or at least flaky for virtually every browser / OS combination, and you're still running on what may as well be a compromised system so TLS is irrelevant since the attacker can just root the system and grab keypresses.
The best solution short of buying laptops and putting epoxy in the ports is mastering a Knoppix CD. You can get a kiosk-style browser loaded with only your org's CA and a TLS client certificate. If you can distribute your own CA certs, you may as well also distribute client certs. You can disable storage drivers except for ramFS. You can block everything but 443 outgoing. You can verify your server before launching the browser.
You now have a simple procedure to force users to access your site properly. There is no possibility of a MITM by creating a fake site from a misspelling, and rather than clicking through security warnings, you can display a dialog telling them that something is seriously wrong and who they need to call, with no way of just clicking through the warnings.
You have two factor authentication; the client cert on the CD and password are separate factors. You have honest to god protection from CA fraud since only the CA you created is loaded. The only ways (I know of...) to compromise this setup are a hardware attack, user completely bypassing you by booting in a VM, or a rootkit in BIOS or the hypervisor.
Salting has been around since the 70s and it makes rainbow tables completely useless. If I add salt, I'm now storing H(salt & pass), where & is binary concatenation. Now if my salt is, say, 16 bits the rainbow table be 65536 as large and take 65536 times as long to generate. 32 bits of salt makes *each* password require 4 billion entries.
So the only reason anyone is being cracked by using rainbow tables is that they are making well known mistakes trying to solve problems that have been solved thirty years ago.
You must store a separate, completely random salt for each stored hash. There should be a SALT column in your database along with USERNAME and HASHED_PASSWORD. The salt is not supposed to be a secret! The salt is to force the attacker to attack each hash individually and to make rainbow tables infeasible. Salting does not actually make any individual password harder to break, it makes it harder to attack *groups* of passwords.
Do not store one salt for the whole system. Do not use the salt as a key to a cipher on the hash, e.g. C(key=salt, H(password)) does not work, nor does H(password) XOR salt. Do verify that the salts really are random. Do use a reliable RNG, like/dev/urandom or Java's crypto PRNG.
The next item is to use a hash function that is designed for password hashing. MD5, the SHA family, etc., are fast hashes, designed to digest huge amounts of data quickly and prevent collisions, accidental or deliberate. These have important security applications, but they are not appropriate for hashing passwords.
If you're hashing a password, use a slow hash, one that can be "stretched" to take seconds of CPU time. If it takes a second of CPU time to hash a password, your attacker is going to need 6622 years of CPU time to break an 8 character A-Z password, whereas you'll need one second to approve a valid user. Even assuming it's some years down the road and they have specialized hardware, you can have passwords that are a reasonable length and still infeasible to break.
Don't try to roll your own slow hash by using many rounds of a fast hash, there are slow hashes that have been designed and reviewed by the security community. bcrypt is one I often hear about, but search around, there are others.
And lastly, when it comes time to upgrading your login procedures whether hardware or software, you aren't going to know anyone's password. If you change, say, the hash or the stretching parameter or the salt length, you'll need users to go through a change password screen! That means you have to design your application to handle users having different algorithms with different parameters. All this should really require is adding HASH_FUNC and STRETCH_FACTOR columns.
Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years.
Only by retcon. "Intellectual property" is a fairly new confusion, meant to obscure the distinctions between copyright, patent, and trademark. IP does not have a 300 year history.
So someone invented a blanket term that covered several existing terms, solely to confuse people? To what end?
And please explain how this confusion was necessary, given that they could get stronger laws by simply asking Congress for them?
By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.
Since "intellectual property" is a oxymoron, describing something physically impossible to morons (who else would believe it?), and "IP" is already reserved for "internet protocol", I agree.
Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years. You may not like lawyers but when you dismiss them as "morons," you're operating on the same level as the guy who thought he could get out of paying taxes because the IRS had capitalized his name.
The art of deception and misdirection is all part of a magician's trade. How exactly did Penn & Teller become the deciding factor on whether magnets are beneficial to health?
They didn't. They let the magnet nuts have their say, and they let actual scientists have their say, and provided a running commentary.
A cyber warrior is as much of a warrior as a pilot or a sniper. Sure a pilot or a sniper doesn't necessarily take as much or the same kind of risk as the guy kicking in doors, but a sniper can be counter sniped. A pilot can be shot to pieces.
I didn't actually address the question of whether they were warriors or not. My point was more that the term, which was already fairly archaic, has become a meaningless buzzword.
When there's an engagement, you generally have the combat units and everyone else. The combat units rehearse battle drills and plans and such, and everyone else's job is to get out of the way. No doubt, the support personnel shoot back when they have to, they take big risks, and their service is perfectly honorable. But their role is not combat oriented, and it's wrongheaded to conflate the two.
Example: you have a convoy. Some trucks are convoy security, some trucks might be EOD. The security elements are the combat elements, they are in charge of the mission and if there is conctact, EOD stick with whatever truck they're assigned to, and don't go off engaging the enemy unless they're returning fire.
And, pardon my vagueness, but I've actually done something close to what "cyberwarriors" might. Though I was also a gunner at the time, this was an additional tactic that was part of our battle plan. But this wasn't about inflicting casualties, rather it was degrading the capacity of the enemy. Computers and radios don't inflict physical damage, and war is still about killing the enemy and occupying territory.
That's really part of why it's a concern that the DoD wants to consider "cyberattacks" to be acts of war. It might be warranted, I'm not sure, but it's very much expanding the scope of what can get us into war.
A hacker can be hacked, and disappeared by counter intelligence.
Cyberwarrior is the most ridiculous piece of psy-op, misinformation the public is bombarded with. A Cyberwarrior is no more a "Warrior" than my tea-cup poodle is a "Guard" dog.
My late grandmother actually had a tiny little poodle that successfully drove off a home invader. Not sure if it was quite teacup-sized, but it definitely earned the title guard dog.
We do need skilled computer scientist, information security specialist, cryptologist, and cryptanalyst to fight against those who would stage attacks against freedom loving internet enthusiasts. But "Warriors" they are not. If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with the dictionary either....I have no love for North Korea but they are only trying to protect themselves from the (US Government and Israel) which the evidence points to them as the aggressors in the Iranian Nuclear Power Plant computer virus...
At least in the Army, the term "warrior" now tends to mean someone who is anything but. After all, everyone who actually does fight has a term for them, I was in the Cavalry, and we're all scouts or cavalry troopers or, sometimes, avatars of awesomeness, the infantry are grunts, infants, special folk, the artillery are arty, gun bunnies or meatrockets.
And the support personnel were cooks, mechanics, riggers, commo, clerks, whatever. Not that life was good back then, or the Army ran particularly well, or anything like that. In fact, there were all kinds of problems, and the commonality was that the solutions looked impressive, made for bilious speeches and no results were expected until that general had moved on to another assignment.
So at some point someone noticed that the Marines were all called Marines (at least twice per sentence, semper fi, Marine, ooh rah!) and decided that obviously something that worked well for a tiny service with a tightly focused mission would work just as well for an incredibly huge organization whose mission includes replacing large portions of an existing government for an unspecified period of time.
I think it was also part of the self-esteem building bullshit that had become vogue in the great circle-jerk of the higher echelons. This all jumped the shark when they decided that everyone should get a black beret to feel special. But before that, they renamed stuff, so Professional Leadership Development Course became Warrior Leaders Course. All the various facilities and ad hoc organizations got Warrior stamped in their name, Warriors' Hall, Warriors' Field, Warrior Platoon, whatever. I didn't realize how widespread it was until I actually worked with pogues for a year. I even debated it, point counterpoint style:
"We go to war, so we're warriors." "As a fucking cook, and even then all you do is reheat shitty food." "We get shot at too!" "That would make you 'targets', not warriors."
You'll also see Soldiers as a generic term if you read publications like Army Times, again capitalized to ape the Marines. Of course, if you know what "soldiering" actually means, that's actually truth in advertising. But calling someone a "warrior" who can barely shoot straight has been happening for at least 10 years now.
Anybody else find it hilarious when governments try to make their "cyberwarfare" divisions sound badass with phrases like "30-strong commando unit of cyberwarriors"?
If it's not something a PR flack dreamt up and is actually known by regular soldiers, it's going to turn into a term of derision instantly, much like the US Army has keyboard commandos and chairborne rangers.
An adversary's Command & Control has always been a prime military target. Why should it be any different in an information age? The only thing that surprises me is the relatively small number of 30 (admitted) members in the unit. I'd bet even money that every single major government in the world has such a cyber unit and probably much larger (*cough* US *cough*) in scale.
They're not exactly a secret. I visited one when I got done with active duty to talk about signing up with them as a reservist.
I guess I was more trying to establish the fact that there wasn't any even resembling a review of the RFID tags. They just tried to scan their luggage and it didn't work.
It's like the new standard for journalism is, "as pointless as Youtube, but better video quality."
Basically their data supports the Dynex paper as the best multipurpose paper, and given their focus on "value" in conclusion it's also the cheapest.
It was best in color gamut, but not text reproduction or bleed through.
I don't like accusing sites of being underhanded because I don't believe in unnecessary cynicism, but given the content of the article and the outright odd nature of suddenly reviewing printer paper, this thing reeks of payola from HP.
Toms is going to decide on someone, since these are all relatively good brands of paper. That someone will probably will be more likely to quote their review if it sounds spammy, and that will send more people back to their site.
Ehh I've got karma to burn on OT. The problem with the idea of free market competition is today's market.
Fuck karma, fuck the mods. It's a hybrid economy. It hasn't been a free market since the New Deal.
The invisible hand doesn't work when you have huge corps that can use economics of scale and pure financial clout (I'll sell my shoes at a loss for years just to stop little guy X from getting a foothold (pun intended)) to kill competition.
Megacorps like Amazon? Got something to sell, they'll set you up with the same facilities that they have for virtually the entire process. Hell, you can rent a fucking supercomputer. Want to publish? Same deal, there are self publishing places galore, places that will help you sell your software, your music, other art, etc. And, yeah, if you're trying to set up a burger chain, you might be SOL, but damned near every immigrant starting a restaurant knows that Americans are sick of burgers and fries.
The job creators (small to medium sized business) are unable to compete with the big players and can *not* get started to a point where they could.
The job creators can't compete with the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. We have $14 trillion of public debt, and if you're trying to raise capital, your business has to compete with the 14 trillion pound gorilla that is the US government.
When they issue bonds, they will raise the rate until they get it. If you need a million dollars of capital, you have to prove that you can promise a better return, in spite of the 80% risk of you failing in the first year, than the guaranteed return of a Treasury bond.
If you're trying to hire employees, you have to provide a better wages and benefits package than the local, state and federal governments are offering.
And, of course, you have to comply with a raft of regulations, affecting everything from the building you're in, to your employees from the day you first meet them to the day they leave, any materials you handle, let alone the materials in your product, to arcane taxation and business filings.
And, unlike the government, you actually have to meet the bottom line while doing all this.
Consciousness is weird. Quantum theory is weird. Therefore quantum theory must explain consciousness.
That's essentially the argument here, and it's pretty easily seen as fallacious. There's no actual evidence that consciousness requires quantum mechanics, besides the trivial fact that our brains are chemical computers and chemistry requires quantum mechanics.
The real test of Science is whether quantum bogodynamics can explain why the fuck this article was written, much less published in Discover, much less posted on/.
Slashdot Mirror
On the one hand, the freedom of speech lover in me thinks that this goes to far, as I do with many things the French do...
On the other hand, I imagine what CNN would be like if they had to report or analyze a story instead of asking what Twitter thinks of a story...
If you are actually interested in news, just watch C-SPAN. Yeah, sometimes it's dry as hell and the callers are often painful, but it actually does a really good job of presenting both sides, and there are no ads. Bottom line: "I heard Rep X say this on the House floor and then Rep Y said this" wins a lot more arguments than "I heard talking heads X and Y scoring points on CNN."
If you're in the DC area, 90.1 FM is C-SPAN radio, and they have XM, webcasting, etc. If you're up late, they play historic Supreme Court cases.
Please tell me how you figure this isn't a limitation on freedom of speech?? It's not just a limitation on freedom of speech. It's a directive that requires news organisations to make the news vaguer. If an issue has been discussed on Facebook, and they are forced to say "social network sites" and not identify the social network, that's diluted the information. Idiotic!
I read the summary/article differently, your case is allowed. What it disallows is using broadcast time to advertise Facebook and twitter pages for the channel, which is hardly censorship of information or an attack on free speech. I would think it closer to age restriction censorship which is good or in very lest necessary.
Anti (some) Americans rant: Seriously how can you use the idea of freedom of speech to make it sound like a good idea to allow advertising or promotions of companies into news broadcasts.
You don't prevent the government from doing things because those things are always good. You prevent it because people have an inalienable right to do them. From a more practical perspective, it's damned near impossible to understand the unseen consequences and the more laws you have the more you don't know what problems are caused by people exercising their rights and what problems are caused by laws themselves. From a more cynical perspective, if there's some asshole lobbyist / politician / special interest saying how it's going to promote civility and make everyone's children happier and no reasonable person can possibly disagree with this, he's probably lying out his ass.
Anti-Euro and various ex-colonies question: how the hell do you still have state-run media? Are you children that need Loving Mother Government to tell you what's going on in the world?
Product placement is not allowed in state channels, commercial websites are just that, products.
And in Europe, it's taken for granted that this is a reasonable restriction and that the idea of state channels is reasonable.
Most Americans (and probably a lot of Euros) don't grasp that European leftism != American leftism and European rightism != American rightism. There are strong parallels in abstract, but as you cross the pond you see a fundamental change in the cultural gestalt of the relationship between the state and the individual.
Anyway, exactly how do they report a currently hypothetical purchase of say, Twitter by Facebook? "The world's largest social media company, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, has bought another?" Even that is pretty self-explanatory.
FTFS: unless the terms are specifically part of a news story
This isn't limiting freedom of speech. Granted it sucks (I know in Australia we've had all kinds of stupid/funny "if we get x followers on twitter we'll do y" things on breakfast shows that this sort of thing would stomp on were it here), but it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.
How do you figure it's not limiting freedom of speech or, at least, freedom of the press?
It might be acceptable or justified based on whatever doctrine you're working from. But if you can't say X, Y or Z, it's a limitation, any way you slice it.
Generally, if you have to say something or can't say something, it impacts your freedom, but more importantly implements a level of control on you. And, generally, if someone went to the trouble of lobbying the government to control your speech, it will definitely sound like it's for the betterment of all mankind, but it will be tailored to their narrow interests.
What trouble and expense? TLS (SSL is obsolete) is only expensive if you need to get your certificates signed by a commercial CA i.e. if you are interacting with random people who are not affiliated with you or your organization. If you are only deploying TLS for internal purposes, just maintain your own internal CA and deploy your internal signing key to all of your organization's systems.
Having your own CA raises the distribution problem, which is different or at least flaky for virtually every browser / OS combination, and you're still running on what may as well be a compromised system so TLS is irrelevant since the attacker can just root the system and grab keypresses.
The best solution short of buying laptops and putting epoxy in the ports is mastering a Knoppix CD. You can get a kiosk-style browser loaded with only your org's CA and a TLS client certificate. If you can distribute your own CA certs, you may as well also distribute client certs. You can disable storage drivers except for ramFS. You can block everything but 443 outgoing. You can verify your server before launching the browser.
You now have a simple procedure to force users to access your site properly. There is no possibility of a MITM by creating a fake site from a misspelling, and rather than clicking through security warnings, you can display a dialog telling them that something is seriously wrong and who they need to call, with no way of just clicking through the warnings.
You have two factor authentication; the client cert on the CD and password are separate factors. You have honest to god protection from CA fraud since only the CA you created is loaded. The only ways (I know of...) to compromise this setup are a hardware attack, user completely bypassing you by booting in a VM, or a rootkit in BIOS or the hypervisor.
Salting has been around since the 70s and it makes rainbow tables completely useless. If I add salt, I'm now storing H(salt & pass), where & is binary concatenation. Now if my salt is, say, 16 bits the rainbow table be 65536 as large and take 65536 times as long to generate. 32 bits of salt makes *each* password require 4 billion entries.
So the only reason anyone is being cracked by using rainbow tables is that they are making well known mistakes trying to solve problems that have been solved thirty years ago.
You must store a separate, completely random salt for each stored hash. There should be a SALT column in your database along with USERNAME and HASHED_PASSWORD. The salt is not supposed to be a secret! The salt is to force the attacker to attack each hash individually and to make rainbow tables infeasible. Salting does not actually make any individual password harder to break, it makes it harder to attack *groups* of passwords.
Do not store one salt for the whole system. Do not use the salt as a key to a cipher on the hash, e.g. C(key=salt, H(password)) does not work, nor does H(password) XOR salt. Do verify that the salts really are random. Do use a reliable RNG, like /dev/urandom or Java's crypto PRNG.
The next item is to use a hash function that is designed for password hashing. MD5, the SHA family, etc., are fast hashes, designed to digest huge amounts of data quickly and prevent collisions, accidental or deliberate. These have important security applications, but they are not appropriate for hashing passwords.
If you're hashing a password, use a slow hash, one that can be "stretched" to take seconds of CPU time. If it takes a second of CPU time to hash a password, your attacker is going to need 6622 years of CPU time to break an 8 character A-Z password, whereas you'll need one second to approve a valid user. Even assuming it's some years down the road and they have specialized hardware, you can have passwords that are a reasonable length and still infeasible to break.
Don't try to roll your own slow hash by using many rounds of a fast hash, there are slow hashes that have been designed and reviewed by the security community. bcrypt is one I often hear about, but search around, there are others.
And lastly, when it comes time to upgrading your login procedures whether hardware or software, you aren't going to know anyone's password. If you change, say, the hash or the stretching parameter or the salt length, you'll need users to go through a change password screen! That means you have to design your application to handle users having different algorithms with different parameters. All this should really require is adding HASH_FUNC and STRETCH_FACTOR columns.
Only by retcon. "Intellectual property" is a fairly new confusion, meant to obscure the distinctions between copyright, patent, and trademark. IP does not have a 300 year history.
So someone invented a blanket term that covered several existing terms, solely to confuse people? To what end?
And please explain how this confusion was necessary, given that they could get stronger laws by simply asking Congress for them?
By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.
They'll get GSM jammers.
Since "intellectual property" is a oxymoron, describing something physically impossible to morons (who else would believe it?), and "IP" is already reserved for "internet protocol", I agree.
Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years. You may not like lawyers but when you dismiss them as "morons," you're operating on the same level as the guy who thought he could get out of paying taxes because the IRS had capitalized his name.
The art of deception and misdirection is all part of a magician's trade. How exactly did Penn & Teller become the deciding factor on whether magnets are beneficial to health?
They didn't. They let the magnet nuts have their say, and they let actual scientists have their say, and provided a running commentary.
Disagree.
A cyber warrior is as much of a warrior as a pilot or a sniper. Sure a pilot or a sniper doesn't necessarily take as much or the same kind of risk as the guy kicking in doors, but a sniper can be counter sniped. A pilot can be shot to pieces.
I didn't actually address the question of whether they were warriors or not. My point was more that the term, which was already fairly archaic, has become a meaningless buzzword.
When there's an engagement, you generally have the combat units and everyone else. The combat units rehearse battle drills and plans and such, and everyone else's job is to get out of the way. No doubt, the support personnel shoot back when they have to, they take big risks, and their service is perfectly honorable. But their role is not combat oriented, and it's wrongheaded to conflate the two.
Example: you have a convoy. Some trucks are convoy security, some trucks might be EOD. The security elements are the combat elements, they are in charge of the mission and if there is conctact, EOD stick with whatever truck they're assigned to, and don't go off engaging the enemy unless they're returning fire.
And, pardon my vagueness, but I've actually done something close to what "cyberwarriors" might. Though I was also a gunner at the time, this was an additional tactic that was part of our battle plan. But this wasn't about inflicting casualties, rather it was degrading the capacity of the enemy. Computers and radios don't inflict physical damage, and war is still about killing the enemy and occupying territory.
That's really part of why it's a concern that the DoD wants to consider "cyberattacks" to be acts of war. It might be warranted, I'm not sure, but it's very much expanding the scope of what can get us into war.
A hacker can be hacked, and disappeared by counter intelligence.
How?! You watch too many movies.
Cyberwarrior is the most ridiculous piece of psy-op, misinformation the public is bombarded with. A Cyberwarrior is no more a "Warrior" than my tea-cup poodle is a "Guard" dog.
My late grandmother actually had a tiny little poodle that successfully drove off a home invader. Not sure if it was quite teacup-sized, but it definitely earned the title guard dog.
We do need skilled computer scientist, information security specialist, cryptologist, and cryptanalyst to fight against those who would stage attacks against freedom loving internet enthusiasts. But "Warriors" they are not. If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with the dictionary either....I have no love for North Korea but they are only trying to protect themselves from the (US Government and Israel) which the evidence points to them as the aggressors in the Iranian Nuclear Power Plant computer virus...
At least in the Army, the term "warrior" now tends to mean someone who is anything but. After all, everyone who actually does fight has a term for them, I was in the Cavalry, and we're all scouts or cavalry troopers or, sometimes, avatars of awesomeness, the infantry are grunts, infants, special folk, the artillery are arty, gun bunnies or meatrockets.
And the support personnel were cooks, mechanics, riggers, commo, clerks, whatever. Not that life was good back then, or the Army ran particularly well, or anything like that. In fact, there were all kinds of problems, and the commonality was that the solutions looked impressive, made for bilious speeches and no results were expected until that general had moved on to another assignment.
So at some point someone noticed that the Marines were all called Marines (at least twice per sentence, semper fi, Marine, ooh rah!) and decided that obviously something that worked well for a tiny service with a tightly focused mission would work just as well for an incredibly huge organization whose mission includes replacing large portions of an existing government for an unspecified period of time.
I think it was also part of the self-esteem building bullshit that had become vogue in the great circle-jerk of the higher echelons. This all jumped the shark when they decided that everyone should get a black beret to feel special. But before that, they renamed stuff, so Professional Leadership Development Course became Warrior Leaders Course. All the various facilities and ad hoc organizations got Warrior stamped in their name, Warriors' Hall, Warriors' Field, Warrior Platoon, whatever. I didn't realize how widespread it was until I actually worked with pogues for a year. I even debated it, point counterpoint style:
"We go to war, so we're warriors."
"As a fucking cook, and even then all you do is reheat shitty food."
"We get shot at too!"
"That would make you 'targets', not warriors."
You'll also see Soldiers as a generic term if you read publications like Army Times, again capitalized to ape the Marines. Of course, if you know what "soldiering" actually means, that's actually truth in advertising. But calling someone a "warrior" who can barely shoot straight has been happening for at least 10 years now.
Should be:
"Rapid web copy-pasta challenges browser developers."
And the fact that the "standards" are little more than committee wishlists doesn't help much.
Anybody else find it hilarious when governments try to make their "cyberwarfare" divisions sound badass with phrases like "30-strong commando unit of cyberwarriors"?
If it's not something a PR flack dreamt up and is actually known by regular soldiers, it's going to turn into a term of derision instantly, much like the US Army has keyboard commandos and chairborne rangers.
An adversary's Command & Control has always been a prime military target. Why should it be any different in an information age? The only thing that surprises me is the relatively small number of 30 (admitted) members in the unit. I'd bet even money that every single major government in the world has such a cyber unit and probably much larger (*cough* US *cough*) in scale.
They're not exactly a secret. I visited one when I got done with active duty to talk about signing up with them as a reservist.
Exactly. Is it a dick move by the Palestinians? Absolutely.
I guess hateful anti-Semitism is "a dick move."
I guess I was more trying to establish the fact that there wasn't any even resembling a review of the RFID tags. They just tried to scan their luggage and it didn't work.
It's like the new standard for journalism is, "as pointless as Youtube, but better video quality."
Wouldn't this be the shallow end?
The bloke at the airport couldn't get the RFID tag to work after three goes.
(Translation: The guy at the airport couldn't get the RFID tag to work after three tries.)
Basically their data supports the Dynex paper as the best multipurpose paper, and given their focus on "value" in conclusion it's also the cheapest.
It was best in color gamut, but not text reproduction or bleed through.
I don't like accusing sites of being underhanded because I don't believe in unnecessary cynicism, but given the content of the article and the outright odd nature of suddenly reviewing printer paper, this thing reeks of payola from HP.
Toms is going to decide on someone, since these are all relatively good brands of paper. That someone will probably will be more likely to quote their review if it sounds spammy, and that will send more people back to their site.
Ehh I've got karma to burn on OT. The problem with the idea of free market competition is today's market.
Fuck karma, fuck the mods. It's a hybrid economy. It hasn't been a free market since the New Deal.
The invisible hand doesn't work when you have huge corps that can use economics of scale and pure financial clout (I'll sell my shoes at a loss for years just to stop little guy X from getting a foothold (pun intended)) to kill competition.
Megacorps like Amazon? Got something to sell, they'll set you up with the same facilities that they have for virtually the entire process. Hell, you can rent a fucking supercomputer. Want to publish? Same deal, there are self publishing places galore, places that will help you sell your software, your music, other art, etc. And, yeah, if you're trying to set up a burger chain, you might be SOL, but damned near every immigrant starting a restaurant knows that Americans are sick of burgers and fries.
The job creators (small to medium sized business) are unable to compete with the big players and can *not* get started to a point where they could.
The job creators can't compete with the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. We have $14 trillion of public debt, and if you're trying to raise capital, your business has to compete with the 14 trillion pound gorilla that is the US government.
When they issue bonds, they will raise the rate until they get it. If you need a million dollars of capital, you have to prove that you can promise a better return, in spite of the 80% risk of you failing in the first year, than the guaranteed return of a Treasury bond.
If you're trying to hire employees, you have to provide a better wages and benefits package than the local, state and federal governments are offering.
And, of course, you have to comply with a raft of regulations, affecting everything from the building you're in, to your employees from the day you first meet them to the day they leave, any materials you handle, let alone the materials in your product, to arcane taxation and business filings.
And, unlike the government, you actually have to meet the bottom line while doing all this.
Consciousness is weird. Quantum theory is weird. Therefore quantum theory must explain consciousness.
That's essentially the argument here, and it's pretty easily seen as fallacious. There's no actual evidence that consciousness requires quantum mechanics, besides the trivial fact that our brains are chemical computers and chemistry requires quantum mechanics.
In a nuthsell, Quantum woo.
The real test of Science is whether quantum bogodynamics can explain why the fuck this article was written, much less published in Discover, much less posted on /.
[citation needed]
Just cite the Times article that's based on the Wikipedia page.
General products hull material has everything beat.
Handles anything but anti-matter.
And, really, it was only defeated by a *planet* of anti-matter.