Re:What the article poster forgot...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 1
oop, to correct myself: LMCTF was for QuakeII. Part of LMCTF became part of the Quake3 Alliance mod. anyhow.. forgive my screw up.
Re:What the article poster forgot...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, the sole mention of Quake/Quakeworld is exactly one sentence that simply says, "Oh, and Id Software let people mod Doom and Quake in the early 90's." Teamfortress for Quakeworld and Loki's Minions CTF (LMCTF) for QuakeIII were it as far as my reclusive ass was concerned. My impression is that the writer (Michel Marriott) knows next to nothing about Mods and did a little googling along with some emailing. To be fair, it wasn't a historical overview. I'm just boohooing since Quakeworld mods weren't acknowledged as the "true" originator of the Mod Community.. (cry cry)
Too bad they didn't mention Multitheft Auto for Vice City. Those guys made their own netcode and everything with no access to the source code.. don't ask me how that sort of thing is done. (I'm sure there's someone here who will inform me that "it actually isn't very hard to do.") The only thing (IMFO) that the GTA franchise is missing is solid multiplayer functionality.
Are you joking? Sports nut, ESPN addicted folks would not want to play their favorite position on some online sports game? My guess is that many sports fans are really into competition (hmm, could this be true?).. and what's more fun that smoking the computer? Smoking another person. To top it off.. people get to specialize and focus on the particulars that interest them instead of focusing on every last detail. You get to have leaderboards with all these amazing statistical categories.. sacks, tackles, pass completion, home runs, stolen bases, ERAs.. Sports (as a singular monolithic concept) is perfect for this kind of thing. And, then people can organize into teams and play others.. this is worth the money so much more than the more ephemeral type games. In an online sports game, there is specific structure and easily quantifiable goals. The only thing slowing it down is the difficulty in appropriately coding a game of this nature (I assume.)
I'd pay $10 a month to play an online hockey game where I could organize into a team with other players and beat up on other people.. and I don't even watch sports on television.
Yah, he killed himself because of persecution by the British authorities. Wonder why it's considered bad to point it out.. I'd always hoped that homosexuals would mention people like Turing more often than just the same old run of the mill "creative, artistic writer, singer, actor types" If I was gay, I'd be annoyed by the prevailing homo-stereotypes.. eg 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' (variations on flaming queen to touchy feely style maven) or well.. nevermind.. I just find it odd that you never hear it mentioned that Turing or Hardy (well, they could claim him.. since he seemingly wasn't heterosexual) or any number of scientist who weren't openly gay.. (but "might" have been.. oh well, we shall never know)
If you have any chance, you should quit, obviously. While I was at Dell last winter doing the Optiplex Tech support... they required everyone to use their new "logging" software called DSN. What we were doing was beta-testing the software that they would use to guide the Indians in their trouble shooting. You just check boxes based on the answers the customers give.. then it gives you new questions to ask. Check more boxes.. etc. "Let us know if we need to add more options for questions," they said.
I found it fairly funny that this was the "way of the world".. people helping to optimize the software that would ensure the loss of their job. Anyhow, I quit. Though, it seemed pretty obvious that the Bangalore Call Centers were going to be problematic. People were always complaining about the Indian techs they talked to.. wrong parts, wrong address, etc. But, then again, I got complaints like that about the Call Center in Alabama, too.. wonder which is worse..hmm.
somehow "commercial email" is not considered spam, but they talk about "unwanted commercial email." (S 877) House Modification of the bill. "unwanted sexually explicit" emails? It's all very confusing.. they seem to be concerned about wireless phone spam... and seem to be making all sorts of thing illegal.. but absolutely no talk on how they track these people down and actually prosecute them. Oh well, such a "vailiant effort" and "congratulations" on "stopping evil and rascality" as Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan said.
It's funny how "have been compromised" turns into "was hacked into." Everyone knows that the weak link is always the user.. it is more than likely that this was a password compromise.. or some sort of social engineering sort of thing. So.. since many seem to read your "grumble" as interesting.. maybe you can use your interesting-skills to explain how social engineering or password snatching has anything to do with the security of Linux or, most specifically, Debian?
Naturally, if it actually was some sort of exploit of the software... then you get to dance around and be right. And I will hate you.
Those are the more interesting questions.. to me. People seem to skip right over the notion of "How might we do that?" to simply noting that spammers' could get mail service located in another country. Would you need a license to set up a mail server? So then it'd be illegal to run a mail server? Or is it just illegal to set up a server and then send whole big lots of email from it? What is a lot of email?
If you did the email tax thing, I'd say it'd have to be some bulk tax thing... my assumption is that spammers rate of sending out email far exceeds that of any other internet communication. You find an "upper limit" for the rates on "normal" internet communication to retroactively fine people... oh wait.. nevermind. If it were that easy to get spammers, wouldn't they already be running for their lives? I have to say that I agree with anyone who calls Dayton a friggin bozon. (or maybe a meson or just a fucking fuck fuck chimp) You can't find spammers as it is.. so you decide to tax email.. thus making unlicensed email servers illegal.. which leads to finding people who set up illegal servers.. like say spammers. "We have some difficulties here.."
I wish I could be in some position like that where I could just offer up dumb ideas with no notion or care of how it would work.. "What we need is a magic teleportation device to send people through the air to far away destinations at the speed of light!! Let's pass some legislation on my new idea. This will be good for the country."
I couldn't be less interested in the notion that a computer barfed out all possible solutions. Somehow I imagine we are being denied the real interesting part of this. What seems interesting is the parts mentioned about how certain pieces were always found in a pair. I'd also be interested in how one solution maps into another solution. What clumps and individual parts can be interchanged. Also, someone should do one that fits on the surface of a sphere. (though, probably already been done)
It slightly humorous that your main complaint is about how neither you nor your site host could secure msgeek.org from a horde of morons. As one replier mentioned, on slashdot, just browse at +4 (or even +2 IMO).. and how do you suppose a site like The Well survives? Quite plainly, you think obnoxious idiots should be against the law (forgive my weakness for hyperbole) or that someone else should protect your website... It's like opening a store, leaving the backdoor unlocked and bemoaning the fact that some punk teenagers walked in and posted rude S&M photos all over the walls.
this is on topic and absolutely perfect.. not sure why some whiney baby modded it Troll. It never ceases to amaze me how much pain some dork says he was caused by individuals he will refer to as idiots. If some dumbass meathead says you wear dorky clothes or that you have a little baby weewee, why do you care? Do you feel bad when a random dog barks or growls at you? Oh no, the dog doesn't like me!!?? why?!! I feel so bad. Note: this is in response to all the people who insist verbal abuse is as bad as or worse than physical abuse.
I grew up around idiots in a small town, and I was keenly aware of their idiocy. If you're 7 years old I might feel bad for you, but once you hit middle school.. stop being such a pathetic crybaby. People crying about this shit are born betas. They can't even imagine how to live their lives without some "mean" alphajock keeping them down.
Well... I think the $200 million donation from the McDonald's Hamburger widow will help PBS cover the bandwidth. (if you don't know what I'm talking about.. just take my word that PBS has two hundred million dollars now.)
It's a much more interesting collection of information on string theory. A slide show/audio collection and a video. There's even a section of the main site that explains the branches of mathematics you need to know to actually understand superstrings.
I agree with the series being fairly lame. Brian Greene is annoying. The entire time, he talked as if he was speaking to a little, bitty baby.. Widening his eyes and flapping his arms around a lot.
The production values were ridiculous, extremely over the top. And everyone seems to agree that it is totally devoid of mathematics and it still denies you any sort of strong understanding of the concepts. Just ask anyone who watched it if they can explain how or why the five different versions turned out to be the same (M-Theory). They can't! And that is a joke.. All you know from the Nova show is that oh.. "there were five versions.. but it was really just one"
Go here and listen the audio collection; then give the video a viewing. You may have a hard time soaking up the slides and the audio explaining how M-Theory came to encompass all five.. but it does a lot better job of clarifying the concept.
All Nova did with this show was encourage people to remain ignorant by convincing them that they'd learned something. I don't see what is so wrong with challenging the viewer just a weee little bit. They spent an inordinate amount of time just trying to convince us all that there could be more than three dimensions.
oh well.. I just got real excited and was let down by the whole series..
"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002
"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head." Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]
"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary." Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002
"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq." Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002
"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world." Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]
As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."
and some other reputable news sources.. so, do more work than cut and paste from the Bake Sale Message Board.. thanks... Just holding you to same standard of sourcing..
I could care less.. but you'd have to be so wrapped up in playing devil's advocate not to admit that George Bush used to snort coke. (not that it should make a difference.) He just sets lower limits and says, "I haven't used any drugs after that point." This suggest to any reasonable person that before said lower limit, he clearly broke some sort of drug consumption law. I don' think he's just being facetious.
that's where Powell says in Feb 2001 that Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
Anyhow, who gives a shit why "Operation Iraqi Freedom" took place.. we'll never be privy to the exact reason why.. but, it seems that many inside the government did not see Iraq as a threat to their neighbors, let alone the USA. Most evidence suggests that Iraq posed little threat, especially in relation to WMDs, so that implies that the invasion happened for another reason.
p
also, you gotta remove the spaces from the links.. not sure why the slashdot injects them
PS I bet that the Colin Powell speech disappears at some point. (Then again, maybe it won't.. hehe)
well.. the theories about the sun's structure might suggest it to be somewhat difficult for a comet to pass through. Essentially, the sun is dense and massive enough to fuse atoms. I think that alone precludes any sort of object like a comet from passing through.. If single protons and nuetrons have trouble moving around in there.. then any sort of larger matter will too. Maybe it could skim the surface..? (maybe that's what you meant.)
Either way, after seeing the video.. the comets were just consumed by the sun.. they were sucked into it (it appears). Also.. the path from hydrogen to oxygen or even iron is much clearer than the path to uranium. Unless the comet was made of Uranium.. can the sun in its present state make Uranium from it? I don't believe physics "allows" that..
The issue of data signing for some "later time" seems impossible. It's like asking, "How can I be sure that Alice didn't think one thing and now she's telling me something different?" You can't know, you can simply trust them. Bob's computer has Alice's info on it. It doesn't seem to be compromised.. is Alice's info the same? I think so.. There's always some level of distrust.. (theoretically) Maybe Alice could calculate some sort of checksum for her message, memorize it and destroy the physical evidence. Then she could travel to Bob and calculate the checksum of the info he has from her.. if they match.. then maybe that authenticates it. Then again, why was the info transmitted in the first place, why not just wait for her to drop by? You can't be certain that someone you talk to on the phone or over a video link or even in front of you is really who they say they are.. so.. what would be a convincing way to establish integrity of a message?
as the other guy said, "man in the middle alters the data." When they compare a sample subset of the negotiated key, it will not match up, so they will know someone is listening in.
though, as always, the distance issue is the problem. Also, if someone ever figured out a way to calculate the exponent for (a^x)mod P or whatever.. then the RSA keys would be no good.. As for Quantum Key Exchange, you'd have to find a parallel universe with no Uncertainty Principle.
It's a good way to generate a new onetime key for communicating with a new contact.
p
though, the idea that someone in the middle could effectively impersonate both the sender and receiver without them being able to tell is interesting. Essentially, the attacker would have to go through the entire key exchange process to establish a key with one person. THEN manage to transmite the exact key to the other. But this is effectively impossible since even the sender doesn't know what the key will end up being. THey send photons randomly polarized in certain 'directions' and the receiver randomly detects the photons using a polarized filter.. THEN they compare their actions to decide which bits of information to use as their key.
But, I believe the attacker would be able to select the comparison subset in a way that would ensure the final key would be what he needed. Hmm, neat, it seems like that works. A simple way to see that is by transmitting the first bit you need five times in a row using your polarization scheme.. then do the next and the next etc.. Do it in whatever way that you could be relatively certain that the receiver would get at least one of each of the bits for the key you wanted.. then whatever repetition they got, just extract that by using it as your subset for checking the integrity of the transmission.
Slashdot Mirror
oop, to correct myself: LMCTF was for QuakeII. Part of LMCTF became part of the Quake3 Alliance mod. anyhow.. forgive my screw up.
Yeah, the sole mention of Quake/Quakeworld is exactly one sentence that simply says, "Oh, and Id Software let people mod Doom and Quake in the early 90's." Teamfortress for Quakeworld and Loki's Minions CTF (LMCTF) for QuakeIII were it as far as my reclusive ass was concerned. My impression is that the writer (Michel Marriott) knows next to nothing about Mods and did a little googling along with some emailing. To be fair, it wasn't a historical overview. I'm just boohooing since Quakeworld mods weren't acknowledged as the "true" originator of the Mod Community.. (cry cry)
p
Too bad they didn't mention Multitheft Auto for Vice City. Those guys made their own netcode and everything with no access to the source code.. don't ask me how that sort of thing is done. (I'm sure there's someone here who will inform me that "it actually isn't very hard to do.") The only thing (IMFO) that the GTA franchise is missing is solid multiplayer functionality.
p
Are you joking? Sports nut, ESPN addicted folks would not want to play their favorite position on some online sports game? My guess is that many sports fans are really into competition (hmm, could this be true?).. and what's more fun that smoking the computer? Smoking another person. To top it off.. people get to specialize and focus on the particulars that interest them instead of focusing on every last detail. You get to have leaderboards with all these amazing statistical categories.. sacks, tackles, pass completion, home runs, stolen bases, ERAs.. Sports (as a singular monolithic concept) is perfect for this kind of thing. And, then people can organize into teams and play others.. this is worth the money so much more than the more ephemeral type games. In an online sports game, there is specific structure and easily quantifiable goals. The only thing slowing it down is the difficulty in appropriately coding a game of this nature (I assume.)
I'd pay $10 a month to play an online hockey game where I could organize into a team with other players and beat up on other people.. and I don't even watch sports on television.
p
Yah, he killed himself because of persecution by the British authorities. Wonder why it's considered bad to point it out.. I'd always hoped that homosexuals would mention people like Turing more often than just the same old run of the mill "creative, artistic writer, singer, actor types" If I was gay, I'd be annoyed by the prevailing homo-stereotypes.. eg 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' (variations on flaming queen to touchy feely style maven) or well.. nevermind.. I just find it odd that you never hear it mentioned that Turing or Hardy (well, they could claim him.. since he seemingly wasn't heterosexual) or any number of scientist who weren't openly gay.. (but "might" have been.. oh well, we shall never know)
p
If you have any chance, you should quit, obviously. While I was at Dell last winter doing the Optiplex Tech support... they required everyone to use their new "logging" software called DSN. What we were doing was beta-testing the software that they would use to guide the Indians in their trouble shooting. You just check boxes based on the answers the customers give.. then it gives you new questions to ask. Check more boxes.. etc. "Let us know if we need to add more options for questions," they said.
I found it fairly funny that this was the "way of the world".. people helping to optimize the software that would ensure the loss of their job. Anyhow, I quit. Though, it seemed pretty obvious that the Bangalore Call Centers were going to be problematic. People were always complaining about the Indian techs they talked to.. wrong parts, wrong address, etc. But, then again, I got complaints like that about the Call Center in Alabama, too.. wonder which is worse..hmm.
p
somehow "commercial email" is not considered spam, but they talk about "unwanted commercial email." (S 877) House Modification of the bill. "unwanted sexually explicit" emails? It's all very confusing.. they seem to be concerned about wireless phone spam... and seem to be making all sorts of thing illegal.. but absolutely no talk on how they track these people down and actually prosecute them. Oh well, such a "vailiant effort" and "congratulations" on "stopping evil and rascality" as Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan said.
p
they're talking about it on cspan at this very moment (4:14 PM Central, Texas Time)
tune in for the fun. hahah, they have a "do not spam registry"..
It's funny how "have been compromised" turns into "was hacked into." Everyone knows that the weak link is always the user.. it is more than likely that this was a password compromise.. or some sort of social engineering sort of thing. So.. since many seem to read your "grumble" as interesting.. maybe you can use your interesting-skills to explain how social engineering or password snatching has anything to do with the security of Linux or, most specifically, Debian?
Naturally, if it actually was some sort of exploit of the software... then you get to dance around and be right. And I will hate you.
p
Those are the more interesting questions.. to me. People seem to skip right over the notion of "How might we do that?" to simply noting that spammers' could get mail service located in another country. Would you need a license to set up a mail server? So then it'd be illegal to run a mail server? Or is it just illegal to set up a server and then send whole big lots of email from it? What is a lot of email?
If you did the email tax thing, I'd say it'd have to be some bulk tax thing... my assumption is that spammers rate of sending out email far exceeds that of any other internet communication. You find an "upper limit" for the rates on "normal" internet communication to retroactively fine people... oh wait.. nevermind. If it were that easy to get spammers, wouldn't they already be running for their lives? I have to say that I agree with anyone who calls Dayton a friggin bozon. (or maybe a meson or just a fucking fuck fuck chimp) You can't find spammers as it is.. so you decide to tax email.. thus making unlicensed email servers illegal.. which leads to finding people who set up illegal servers.. like say spammers. "We have some difficulties here.."
I wish I could be in some position like that where I could just offer up dumb ideas with no notion or care of how it would work.. "What we need is a magic teleportation device to send people through the air to far away destinations at the speed of light!! Let's pass some legislation on my new idea. This will be good for the country."
p
I couldn't be less interested in the notion that a computer barfed out all possible solutions. Somehow I imagine we are being denied the real interesting part of this. What seems interesting is the parts mentioned about how certain pieces were always found in a pair. I'd also be interested in how one solution maps into another solution. What clumps and individual parts can be interchanged. Also, someone should do one that fits on the surface of a sphere. (though, probably already been done)
the truth will be heard.. whatever babytroll mods me offtopic.. I will bring back tenfold ontopic.
It slightly humorous that your main complaint is about how neither you nor your site host could secure msgeek.org from a horde of morons. As one replier mentioned, on slashdot, just browse at +4 (or even +2 IMO).. and how do you suppose a site like The Well survives? Quite plainly, you think obnoxious idiots should be against the law (forgive my weakness for hyperbole) or that someone else should protect your website... It's like opening a store, leaving the backdoor unlocked and bemoaning the fact that some punk teenagers walked in and posted rude S&M photos all over the walls.
Lock your doors. The world is full of idiots.
p
this is on topic and absolutely perfect.. not sure why some whiney baby modded it Troll. It never ceases to amaze me how much pain some dork says he was caused by individuals he will refer to as idiots. If some dumbass meathead says you wear dorky clothes or that you have a little baby weewee, why do you care? Do you feel bad when a random dog barks or growls at you? Oh no, the dog doesn't like me!!?? why?!! I feel so bad. Note: this is in response to all the people who insist verbal abuse is as bad as or worse than physical abuse.
I grew up around idiots in a small town, and I was keenly aware of their idiocy. If you're 7 years old I might feel bad for you, but once you hit middle school.. stop being such a pathetic crybaby. People crying about this shit are born betas. They can't even imagine how to live their lives without some "mean" alphajock keeping them down.
p
ha, oop. guess I just turned on my big, "i am an ass" sign.. oh well.
Well... I think the $200 million donation from the McDonald's Hamburger widow will help PBS cover the bandwidth. (if you don't know what I'm talking about.. just take my word that PBS has two hundred million dollars now.)
Go here
It's a much more interesting collection of information on string theory. A slide show/audio collection and a video. There's even a section of the main site that explains the branches of mathematics you need to know to actually understand superstrings.
p
I agree with the series being fairly lame. Brian Greene is annoying. The entire time, he talked as if he was speaking to a little, bitty baby.. Widening his eyes and flapping his arms around a lot.
The production values were ridiculous, extremely over the top. And everyone seems to agree that it is totally devoid of mathematics and it still denies you any sort of strong understanding of the concepts. Just ask anyone who watched it if they can explain how or why the five different versions turned out to be the same (M-Theory). They can't! And that is a joke.. All you know from the Nova show is that oh.. "there were five versions.. but it was really just one"
Go here and listen the audio collection; then give the video a viewing. You may have a hard time soaking up the slides and the audio explaining how M-Theory came to encompass all five.. but it does a lot better job of clarifying the concept.
All Nova did with this show was encourage people to remain ignorant by convincing them that they'd learned something. I don't see what is so wrong with challenging the viewer just a weee little bit. They spent an inordinate amount of time just trying to convince us all that there could be more than three dimensions.
oh well.. I just got real excited and was let down by the whole series..
p
boring, boring, boring troll.
"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002
"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]
"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002
"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002
"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]
As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."
p
number one, I source my quote... you just post some barrel of quotes that mainly show up in the same clump on random sites like:
http://www.nowanow.com/ http://www.habitablezone.com/ http://www.thevrwc.org/
and some other reputable news sources.. so, do more work than cut and paste from the Bake Sale Message Board.. thanks... Just holding you to same standard of sourcing..
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/ president.2000/bush.drug/
/ 2001/933.htm
I could care less.. but you'd have to be so wrapped up in playing devil's advocate not to admit that George Bush used to snort coke. (not that it should make a difference.) He just sets lower limits and says, "I haven't used any drugs after that point." This suggest to any reasonable person that before said lower limit, he clearly broke some sort of drug consumption law. I don' think he's just being facetious.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/pow ell-no-wmd.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm
that's where Powell says in Feb 2001 that Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
Anyhow, who gives a shit why "Operation Iraqi Freedom" took place.. we'll never be privy to the exact reason why.. but, it seems that many inside the government did not see Iraq as a threat to their neighbors, let alone the USA. Most evidence suggests that Iraq posed little threat, especially in relation to WMDs, so that implies that the invasion happened for another reason.
p
also, you gotta remove the spaces from the links.. not sure why the slashdot injects them
PS I bet that the Colin Powell speech disappears at some point. (Then again, maybe it won't.. hehe)
well.. the theories about the sun's structure might suggest it to be somewhat difficult for a comet to pass through. Essentially, the sun is dense and massive enough to fuse atoms. I think that alone precludes any sort of object like a comet from passing through.. If single protons and nuetrons have trouble moving around in there.. then any sort of larger matter will too. Maybe it could skim the surface..? (maybe that's what you meant.)
Either way, after seeing the video.. the comets were just consumed by the sun.. they were sucked into it (it appears). Also.. the path from hydrogen to oxygen or even iron is much clearer than the path to uranium. Unless the comet was made of Uranium.. can the sun in its present state make Uranium from it? I don't believe physics "allows" that..
The issue of data signing for some "later time" seems impossible. It's like asking, "How can I be sure that Alice didn't think one thing and now she's telling me something different?" You can't know, you can simply trust them. Bob's computer has Alice's info on it. It doesn't seem to be compromised.. is Alice's info the same? I think so.. There's always some level of distrust.. (theoretically) Maybe Alice could calculate some sort of checksum for her message, memorize it and destroy the physical evidence. Then she could travel to Bob and calculate the checksum of the info he has from her.. if they match.. then maybe that authenticates it. Then again, why was the info transmitted in the first place, why not just wait for her to drop by? You can't be certain that someone you talk to on the phone or over a video link or even in front of you is really who they say they are.. so.. what would be a convincing way to establish integrity of a message?
as the other guy said, "man in the middle alters the data." When they compare a sample subset of the negotiated key, it will not match up, so they will know someone is listening in.
though, as always, the distance issue is the problem. Also, if someone ever figured out a way to calculate the exponent for (a^x)mod P or whatever.. then the RSA keys would be no good.. As for Quantum Key Exchange, you'd have to find a parallel universe with no Uncertainty Principle.
It's a good way to generate a new onetime key for communicating with a new contact.
p
though, the idea that someone in the middle could effectively impersonate both the sender and receiver without them being able to tell is interesting. Essentially, the attacker would have to go through the entire key exchange process to establish a key with one person. THEN manage to transmite the exact key to the other. But this is effectively impossible since even the sender doesn't know what the key will end up being. THey send photons randomly polarized in certain 'directions' and the receiver randomly detects the photons using a polarized filter.. THEN they compare their actions to decide which bits of information to use as their key.
But, I believe the attacker would be able to select the comparison subset in a way that would ensure the final key would be what he needed. Hmm, neat, it seems like that works. A simple way to see that is by transmitting the first bit you need five times in a row using your polarization scheme.. then do the next and the next etc.. Do it in whatever way that you could be relatively certain that the receiver would get at least one of each of the bits for the key you wanted.. then whatever repetition they got, just extract that by using it as your subset for checking the integrity of the transmission.