Oh, I do remember the days of DOS. I also remember that anyone too retarded to use a combination of dir and cd almost by definition did not get to touch a computer.
Because...computer stores refused to take their money?
It must have been a nice world you lived in, because in actual reality clueless nublets with enough money and a good enough excuse (usually business-related) had computers long before many hobbyists. That's pretty much the origin of the embittered technical support dude.
And, from the same waaaayback era, don't forget that autorun isn't a new concept. Back in the day, it was called booting from floppy. That's actually how you did software installations in a lot of cases, back in the pre-Windows era. And, surprise surprise, boot sector viruses were pretty prevalent.
how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine
Here is pretty much the canonical list of outcomes:
Bird hits screen, both bird and screen go into the engine. Similar to status quo, except now there are solid metal or composite bits among the turbine blades.
Bird hits screen, splats. Engine stalls because of sudden disruption in intake airflow. For an F-16, this is a problem, 'cuz it's single-engine. (In the course of my military career, I've heard the Viper jokingly referred to as the Lawn Dart for that very reason.)
Bird never hits screen, but engine performance is continuously degraded because of the screen's affect on airflow and intake pressure. Requires serious redesign in order to compensate for a deliberate design decision based on flight-of-safety considerations. Never mind that having less available power and (perhaps) elevated stall susceptibility is a combat-safety issue (i.e., your hazard level in combat is directly related to the performance superiority of your aircraft over your adversary).
Bird never hits screen, miraculous design work restores full combat specification performance to your warplane, bird hits canopy and knocks out the pilot; unguided plane flies into terrain.
Not everything on that applies to all aircraft, but in general I don't think there's a screen material in the world that would stop birds from engine ingestion (including chunks of bird sucked through a screen) while allowing adequate airflow in a high-performance, high-bypass jet engine. And then that still leaves fuselage, canopy, wing, and empennage birdstrikes.
But facebook is a pre-existing term for a yearbook.
I've heard this assertion several times in this thread. It's also the first time I'm hearing it. Can you find any dated citations to that? (I guess we're claiming some kind of trademark "prior art"?)
set up a search engine called "doogle" and see how long it takes to hear from google's lawyers.
Those guys are BAD. I went to g00gle.com (just like the email said I should) and somehow Google's lawyers infected my machine with all kinds of viruses! I'm really pissed!
I have no idea how I'm going to find some V1agr@ now!
Strangely enough, if I can have to checked only once, but checked nearly fool-proof, yes.
Redundancy can be a negative reliability impact: "Double-engine aircraft have twice the engine failure rate of single-engine aircraft. Put all your eggs in one basket, but make sure it's a really good basket."
Well, any system can be circumvented or generally defeated by an insider with (im)proper motivation. Or, to borrow an old phrase, "It's impossible to idiot-proof, because idiots are so ingenious."
Heh, FWIW, I've been on both sides of that situation. Either can be wrong. And Murphy insists that at least one of them be wrong, at the worst possible opportunity.
A checks-and-balances error prevention regime is nice, but the number of startling disasters brought about by the sequential failure of numerous error gates makes it pretty clear that it's not a cure-all. In the specific situation you cite, diffusion of responsibility is a real risk among the human elements. "I'm sure so-and-so checked this out, and he passed it, so I don't have to bust my butt to double check that." Followed, tragically, by mutual fingerpointing and a chorus of "You were supposed to check that!"
The fundamental faulty premise in all this discussion is that these are the types of actions you take if you're expecting to someday get caught and have to book it.
As far as I can tell, this guy never got to that level. I'm guessing the clever idea of "shoeboxes stashed around the house" was a matter of day-to-day convenience coupled with highly casual concealment. The dude never took credible steps to bolt because he never expected he'd have to.
And frankly, if it were me, and I thought there'd be a reasonable chance I'd have to go on the lam for the rest of an extended statute of limitations, I just wouldn't do it.
And there's always the "I'm too clever to catch" self-delusion issue.
Well, system architecture and tools selection should make it possible for the developer to write a single set of deployment artifacts and have it work on dev, test, and production. Done right, the prod environment shouldn't be the deep dark jungle. And in that case, a deployment failure could start out as the dev's fault. Hopefully, the prod system managers will do the investigation and track down the actual root cause of the problem. If it turns out to be something the dev did (hardcoded paths and URIs, for instance, instead of configs and environment variables), then yes, it's the dev's fault to not account for it.
If I screw up, people can't get the correct pills.
It's fun to make other people live dangerously.:-p
FTFY. Well, for certain values of "pharmacy benefit management system". If your production hacking can botch scrip fulfillment, please say what company you're working for so I can try to avoid it like the plague it is.
There are lots of ways to securely stash cash. shoeboxes under the bed are not one of them. a run to home depot for a post hole digger, some PVC pipe and caps = a money safe the feds wont find.
Assuming you paid for your purchases with cash (small denomination, circulated bills) and disposed very securely of the receipt. And made other, more obvious purchases to explain the trip to the home-improvement place and the tools. Like, maybe, putting in your own fence.
Then it's a matter of digging your stash where it won't be obvious someone's dug a hole and filled it in. As well as someplace they won't think to use ground-penetrating radar.
Yeah, maybe buried treasure isn't such a good idea.
I think the point being made is that the word "Jedi" is, by itself, a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier. By your logic, trademarks wouldn't be valid unless they go out in herds.
"Jedi" is not "Windows". It had no common meaning--no meaning in English at all, since it didn't exist--until Lucas conjured it up entirely in association with his media milieu. So, the word "Jedi" isn't a bad trademark because it's unsupported. "Mercedes" is a trademark, entirely self-supported, in the trade realm of cars and trucks, even though it has other non-trademark uses (like, a mildly uncommon female given name, from which the trademark is actually derived).
"Jedi", it could be argued, is bad because it's a trademark for a very odd trade realm: an fantasy metaphysical system, with associated entanglements into paranormal (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc). Not really a service, trade, or product. However, that puts it into the ranks of Scientology (which is also a trademark), except that Lucas isn't apparently taking the faux-religion thing seriously. (Or pushing it seriously as a cult. Or maybe it's just a really successful cult, because neither its external observers nor its members even realize it's a cult.)
Google around a bit: Episode IV is basically a tale of Islamic liberation: an independence movement represented by a small peripheral desert planet whose inhabitants apparently 'hate the Empire' use mystical powers to fight against overwhelming technological and military superiority.
So... Episode IV is Dune, retold poorly and with Jar-jar added for further teeth-gritting annoyance value? Thanks, George.
Checklists etc are necessary in the military because if you screw up in the military, your ability to kill people is reduced.
Wrong. I'm afraid you're letting your mindless cynicism stand in the way of higher cognitive functions.
If you screw up on military hardware, your ability to kill the enemy is reduced, but your ability to kill friendlies (the operators of the hardware, their wingmen/platoonmates/whatever, other technicians on the apron or in the laager) is enhanced. Just like in the "mecical" world.
You'd restore the dynamic range capability of this sensor to the level of lower-resolution (larger pixel) CCDs by... combining pixels? So you're back to lower-resolution imaging.
Are we being "Whooshed!" here? Or are you sincerely saying "Well, we have a 120 megapixel imager, but in order to get good dynamic range we have to process it back to 10 megapixels, just like your crappy cell phone camera."
Doesn't sound any more privacy invading than what On-star advertises that they will do with your Cadillac if you report it stolen.
Well, other than the part where GM remote disables your Escalade and dispatches SWAT to your location because you installed non-AC/Delco(tm) spark plugs. Because, you know, only a dirty hippy commie car thief would perform maintenance on a high-end luxury device anywhere but a GM Goodwrench (tm) service center using genuine GM Parts (maybe tm).
The problem wouldn't be the DAC. Hum would get introduced into the analog audio side (filtering, analog anti-aliasing, amplification). Even if the final-stage amplification happens in a separate box, there'd be ground-loop hum imposed on the low-level analog output of the D/A box.
Ground loop is a potential problem with anything that has an analog input or output. It's worth remembering.
There are 440 characters in the text of the summary plus the introduction you speak of. Disregarding ends-of-lines or the actual URL embedded in the text.
And that makes me wonder how few generations lie between us now and the generation that thinks of pervasive, ubiquitous surveillance the way that fish think about water: none at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I do remember the days of DOS. I also remember that anyone too retarded to use a combination of dir and cd almost by definition did not get to touch a computer.
Because...computer stores refused to take their money?
It must have been a nice world you lived in, because in actual reality clueless nublets with enough money and a good enough excuse (usually business-related) had computers long before many hobbyists. That's pretty much the origin of the embittered technical support dude.
And, from the same waaaayback era, don't forget that autorun isn't a new concept. Back in the day, it was called booting from floppy. That's actually how you did software installations in a lot of cases, back in the pre-Windows era. And, surprise surprise, boot sector viruses were pretty prevalent.
how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine
Here is pretty much the canonical list of outcomes:
Not everything on that applies to all aircraft, but in general I don't think there's a screen material in the world that would stop birds from engine ingestion (including chunks of bird sucked through a screen) while allowing adequate airflow in a high-performance, high-bypass jet engine. And then that still leaves fuselage, canopy, wing, and empennage birdstrikes.
The drivers call the airplanes "pilots?"
Now I'm really confused.
But facebook is a pre-existing term for a yearbook.
I've heard this assertion several times in this thread. It's also the first time I'm hearing it. Can you find any dated citations to that? (I guess we're claiming some kind of trademark "prior art"?)
set up a search engine called "doogle" and see how long it takes to hear from google's lawyers.
Those guys are BAD. I went to g00gle.com (just like the email said I should) and somehow Google's lawyers infected my machine with all kinds of viruses! I'm really pissed!
I have no idea how I'm going to find some V1agr@ now!
Where do you live, that cats are ferromagnetic?
Now, steel rabbits and lobsters, I could see.
(Yeah, warning, link is a Flash animation, yadda, yadda. If you're a Flash hatah, google "Lobster Magnet" on youtube HTML5 or whatever you use.)
Strangely enough, if I can have to checked only once, but checked nearly fool-proof, yes.
Redundancy can be a negative reliability impact: "Double-engine aircraft have twice the engine failure rate of single-engine aircraft. Put all your eggs in one basket, but make sure it's a really good basket."
Well, any system can be circumvented or generally defeated by an insider with (im)proper motivation. Or, to borrow an old phrase, "It's impossible to idiot-proof, because idiots are so ingenious."
Heh, FWIW, I've been on both sides of that situation. Either can be wrong. And Murphy insists that at least one of them be wrong, at the worst possible opportunity.
A checks-and-balances error prevention regime is nice, but the number of startling disasters brought about by the sequential failure of numerous error gates makes it pretty clear that it's not a cure-all. In the specific situation you cite, diffusion of responsibility is a real risk among the human elements. "I'm sure so-and-so checked this out, and he passed it, so I don't have to bust my butt to double check that." Followed, tragically, by mutual fingerpointing and a chorus of "You were supposed to check that!"
The fundamental faulty premise in all this discussion is that these are the types of actions you take if you're expecting to someday get caught and have to book it.
As far as I can tell, this guy never got to that level. I'm guessing the clever idea of "shoeboxes stashed around the house" was a matter of day-to-day convenience coupled with highly casual concealment. The dude never took credible steps to bolt because he never expected he'd have to.
And frankly, if it were me, and I thought there'd be a reasonable chance I'd have to go on the lam for the rest of an extended statute of limitations, I just wouldn't do it.
And there's always the "I'm too clever to catch" self-delusion issue.
Well, system architecture and tools selection should make it possible for the developer to write a single set of deployment artifacts and have it work on dev, test, and production. Done right, the prod environment shouldn't be the deep dark jungle. And in that case, a deployment failure could start out as the dev's fault. Hopefully, the prod system managers will do the investigation and track down the actual root cause of the problem. If it turns out to be something the dev did (hardcoded paths and URIs, for instance, instead of configs and environment variables), then yes, it's the dev's fault to not account for it.
If I screw up, people can't get the correct pills. :-p
It's fun to make other people live dangerously.
FTFY. Well, for certain values of "pharmacy benefit management system". If your production hacking can botch scrip fulfillment, please say what company you're working for so I can try to avoid it like the plague it is.
There are lots of ways to securely stash cash. shoeboxes under the bed are not one of them. a run to home depot for a post hole digger, some PVC pipe and caps = a money safe the feds wont find.
Assuming you paid for your purchases with cash (small denomination, circulated bills) and disposed very securely of the receipt. And made other, more obvious purchases to explain the trip to the home-improvement place and the tools. Like, maybe, putting in your own fence.
Then it's a matter of digging your stash where it won't be obvious someone's dug a hole and filled it in. As well as someplace they won't think to use ground-penetrating radar.
Yeah, maybe buried treasure isn't such a good idea.
I think the point being made is that the word "Jedi" is, by itself, a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier. By your logic, trademarks wouldn't be valid unless they go out in herds.
"Jedi" is not "Windows". It had no common meaning--no meaning in English at all, since it didn't exist--until Lucas conjured it up entirely in association with his media milieu. So, the word "Jedi" isn't a bad trademark because it's unsupported. "Mercedes" is a trademark, entirely self-supported, in the trade realm of cars and trucks, even though it has other non-trademark uses (like, a mildly uncommon female given name, from which the trademark is actually derived).
"Jedi", it could be argued, is bad because it's a trademark for a very odd trade realm: an fantasy metaphysical system, with associated entanglements into paranormal (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc). Not really a service, trade, or product. However, that puts it into the ranks of Scientology (which is also a trademark), except that Lucas isn't apparently taking the faux-religion thing seriously. (Or pushing it seriously as a cult. Or maybe it's just a really successful cult, because neither its external observers nor its members even realize it's a cult.)
Google around a bit: Episode IV is basically a tale of Islamic liberation: an independence movement represented by a small peripheral desert planet whose inhabitants apparently 'hate the Empire' use mystical powers to fight against overwhelming technological and military superiority.
So... Episode IV is Dune, retold poorly and with Jar-jar added for further teeth-gritting annoyance value? Thanks, George.
Checklists etc are necessary in the military because if you screw up in the military, your ability to kill people is reduced.
Wrong. I'm afraid you're letting your mindless cynicism stand in the way of higher cognitive functions.
If you screw up on military hardware, your ability to kill the enemy is reduced, but your ability to kill friendlies (the operators of the hardware, their wingmen/platoonmates/whatever, other technicians on the apron or in the laager) is enhanced. Just like in the "mecical" world.
So. Um.
You'd restore the dynamic range capability of this sensor to the level of lower-resolution (larger pixel) CCDs by... combining pixels? So you're back to lower-resolution imaging.
Are we being "Whooshed!" here? Or are you sincerely saying "Well, we have a 120 megapixel imager, but in order to get good dynamic range we have to process it back to 10 megapixels, just like your crappy cell phone camera."
I'm sorry, did you mean the HTC EVO 4G?
Or the Iphone 4, which in spite of its shininess and hype, is still 3G?
Doesn't sound any more privacy invading than what On-star advertises that they will do with your Cadillac if you report it stolen.
Well, other than the part where GM remote disables your Escalade and dispatches SWAT to your location because you installed non-AC/Delco(tm) spark plugs. Because, you know, only a dirty hippy commie car thief would perform maintenance on a high-end luxury device anywhere but a GM Goodwrench (tm) service center using genuine GM Parts (maybe tm).
Does that mean that
1 > 1
0 < 0
Not only that, this one goes to 11.
The problem wouldn't be the DAC. Hum would get introduced into the analog audio side (filtering, analog anti-aliasing, amplification). Even if the final-stage amplification happens in a separate box, there'd be ground-loop hum imposed on the low-level analog output of the D/A box.
Ground loop is a potential problem with anything that has an analog input or output. It's worth remembering.
There are 440 characters in the text of the summary plus the introduction you speak of. Disregarding ends-of-lines or the actual URL embedded in the text.
Definitely.
I wasn't considering (and, in fact, didn't even mention) default-deny. That's a given. It's also offtopic to this particular application of NAT.
The topology argument is, in fact, security through obscurity, as in "you have no need to know".
You know. Like classified information. It has a legitimate place in professional security planning.
Closely held information can be deduced, probed for, or otherwise externally discerned, but that's still no excuse to just hand it out.
Topology hiding.
My hypothetical organization is NATted. How many computers are on my network? You can't tell. Or, at least, I'm not just giving away that information.
And that makes me wonder how few generations lie between us now and the generation that thinks of pervasive, ubiquitous surveillance the way that fish think about water: none at all.