This is what infuriates me about any group that tries to indict another group for actions/thoughts of a few. I'm generally conservative, but that doesn't stop me from fully believing in evolution. Even though 50% of people are on the conservative side of the median, doesn't mean that all 50% think exactly the same. If you want to pick on creationists, or proponents of intelligent design, fine, have at it. You would present a better argument if you thought about it enough to be a little more critical (conservative != creationist). If not, your obvious political bias shines through and you're just another purveyor of group-think.
Try rewriting your attack on conservatives and their supposed reliance on a semi-lie (lumping spleen in with appendix) with, say, a slashdotter lumping all conservatives in with creationists because it fits a preconceived notion...
You are correct that a momentary impulse tangential to orbit (which this ejection almost certainly would not be) will result in an orbit that intersects the original, but there are two reasons the trash would not a problem. One is that while the orbits could intersect, two objects can be in precisely the same orbit and NEVER collide. They don't have to return to the same points at the same time.
The main reason is that the trash would likely be ejected opposite the direction of travel. This results in an elliptical orbit, with the apogee being along the orbit of the ISS (assuming circular orbit), but the rest of the trash orbit inside that of the ISS. However, that point of intersection would recess (or precess, can't remember, but importantly, not be coincident with the ISS orbit) behind the ISS each subsequent orbit, and the uncorrected loss of velocity due to drag would eventually result in the trash being consumed upon reentry. Let's assume intentional trash ejections would only contain items that stood no chance of reaching the surface.
Most posters here are missing the point. The RFID tags are not used to store the images, just a reference to your ID in a database. It's about the same level of additional security the CVV (3 digit number on back of credit card) provides on top of your credit card number. It's a second factor that can provide a verification for the primary data (the picture/name in your passport). It's also like adding the little plastic strip inside US currency. You don't accept money from someone that is blank paper with a plastic strip, it still needs to have the other features that identify the money as legit. And while it still be counterfeited, it takes a bit more expertise and money to do so. Same thing with the RFID. You can't make it 100% impossible to fake a passport, but if this makes it a bit more expensive and difficult, that is a step in the right direction.
There may be legit concerns about the tags being used to track people, which is precisely why the new passports are mini Faraday cages to prevent reading the tags when the passport is closed. And if someone sniffs your ID when it is opened at customs, big deal. The RFID is just secondary confirmation. It still has to be paired with a valid passport with the MATCHING photo from the database that the RFID point to. A random person will not be able to make use of it. And if you're worried about someone snagging the ID of a similar looking person, how is that any different than non-RFID passports, when they can just create one from paper with your identification and their picture?
A healthy dose of paranoia can be helpful, but you have to critically consider the use of the data. The RFID does not replace the passport's primary identification, only augment it.
What, like the clothes you wear that were made by a business, the food you eat that was grown, prepared, delivered by a business, the computer you use to post that was made by a business, the network you use to make riduculous statements that is provided by many businesses... shut up!
I noticed problems first doing some packet captures (as some of my usual work) with requests going to verisign for CRLs. I knew IE had settings for checking cert. revocation, so I gave it a try. Got lucky on this on...
Because of the crl problems, Explorer has been acting slowly doing some seemingly unrelated activities. Copying or right-clicking on folders often is followed by a several second hang.
To workaround, deselect "Check for publisher's certificate revocation" under the Advanced setting for IE (even though it is not IE running, that's where the setting should be changed). After this, no more Explorer hangs.
Hope this helps someone. If you know why Explorer is checking crls for anything when doing a copy operation on files, please post.
Until the protocols are modified (or new ones adapted, more likely) that make it unprofitable to send SPAM, it will not end. As long as it costs virtually nothing to send email, even a.001% response rate is profitable.
Fixes:
1. Convince entire internet population never to respond to SPAM - impossible.
2. Add some CPU cycles to send each email. If mail servers were required to perform some reasonable expensive operations (calculate some expensive hash) that made it cost some money (even.1 cent per would be enough) to send email, SPAM would not be profitable.
3. Require white listing before email accepted (send some message requesting to be put on accept list first, recipient must approve).
2 or 3 could solve the problem, but neither will happen until the system becomes completely unusable. Nobody likes to adopt new technologies, and no two vendors are going to agree on the proper solution until forced.
Yeah, I'm going put my email account on a list that will just be downloaded by SPAMmers to give them more targets.
Oh wait, it WILL work. When everyone on the list starts getting 100x the SPAM they used to, they can all click through to the sites to force them to pay for the "customer" hits.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what infuriates me about any group that tries to indict another group for actions/thoughts of a few. I'm generally conservative, but that doesn't stop me from fully believing in evolution. Even though 50% of people are on the conservative side of the median, doesn't mean that all 50% think exactly the same. If you want to pick on creationists, or proponents of intelligent design, fine, have at it. You would present a better argument if you thought about it enough to be a little more critical (conservative != creationist). If not, your obvious political bias shines through and you're just another purveyor of group-think.
Try rewriting your attack on conservatives and their supposed reliance on a semi-lie (lumping spleen in with appendix) with, say, a slashdotter lumping all conservatives in with creationists because it fits a preconceived notion...
You are correct that a momentary impulse tangential to orbit (which this ejection almost certainly would not be) will result in an orbit that intersects the original, but there are two reasons the trash would not a problem. One is that while the orbits could intersect, two objects can be in precisely the same orbit and NEVER collide. They don't have to return to the same points at the same time. The main reason is that the trash would likely be ejected opposite the direction of travel. This results in an elliptical orbit, with the apogee being along the orbit of the ISS (assuming circular orbit), but the rest of the trash orbit inside that of the ISS. However, that point of intersection would recess (or precess, can't remember, but importantly, not be coincident with the ISS orbit) behind the ISS each subsequent orbit, and the uncorrected loss of velocity due to drag would eventually result in the trash being consumed upon reentry. Let's assume intentional trash ejections would only contain items that stood no chance of reaching the surface.
There may be legit concerns about the tags being used to track people, which is precisely why the new passports are mini Faraday cages to prevent reading the tags when the passport is closed. And if someone sniffs your ID when it is opened at customs, big deal. The RFID is just secondary confirmation. It still has to be paired with a valid passport with the MATCHING photo from the database that the RFID point to. A random person will not be able to make use of it. And if you're worried about someone snagging the ID of a similar looking person, how is that any different than non-RFID passports, when they can just create one from paper with your identification and their picture?
A healthy dose of paranoia can be helpful, but you have to critically consider the use of the data. The RFID does not replace the passport's primary identification, only augment it.
What, like the clothes you wear that were made by a business, the food you eat that was grown, prepared, delivered by a business, the computer you use to post that was made by a business, the network you use to make riduculous statements that is provided by many businesses... shut up!
I noticed problems first doing some packet captures (as some of my usual work) with requests going to verisign for CRLs. I knew IE had settings for checking cert. revocation, so I gave it a try. Got lucky on this on...
Because of the crl problems, Explorer has been acting slowly doing some seemingly unrelated activities. Copying or right-clicking on folders often is followed by a several second hang. To workaround, deselect "Check for publisher's certificate revocation" under the Advanced setting for IE (even though it is not IE running, that's where the setting should be changed). After this, no more Explorer hangs. Hope this helps someone. If you know why Explorer is checking crls for anything when doing a copy operation on files, please post.
Fixes: .1 cent per would be enough) to send email, SPAM would not be profitable.
1. Convince entire internet population never to respond to SPAM - impossible.
2. Add some CPU cycles to send each email. If mail servers were required to perform some reasonable expensive operations (calculate some expensive hash) that made it cost some money (even
3. Require white listing before email accepted (send some message requesting to be put on accept list first, recipient must approve).
2 or 3 could solve the problem, but neither will happen until the system becomes completely unusable. Nobody likes to adopt new technologies, and no two vendors are going to agree on the proper solution until forced.
Oh wait, it WILL work. When everyone on the list starts getting 100x the SPAM they used to, they can all click through to the sites to force them to pay for the "customer" hits.
Did the SPAMmers write this?