It doesn't seem like the definition of a scientific term is something that should be left to a democratic vote. Public opinion with regards to science is never a good thing to rely on (creation vs evolution, naturalistic healing, etc).
But you miss the central point of the story.
There is no formal definition, scientific or otherwise. Its just a term in common usage with no universally agreed upon definition.
As such voting is as good a method of arriving at a definition as any other, and certainly a better method than was originally used (namely no method at all).
True, but it would be easy to forget that a text message might also set it off, and even if they did remember this, many older phones did not have the ability ring differently for one sms source as opposed to another.
Either that or they care so little about the suicide bombers that they didn't bother doing the extra work to prevent this.
LOL. (Who modded this insightful? Its clearly the funniest post in this thread).
Its also entirely possible that the detonation was triggered by police, by having knowledge of a plot but no specifics. All they would have to do is order the (largely) state controlled carriers to wish every recently activated cell a Happy New Year and then listen for the booms.
Most of the bomb makers tie into the speaker or vibrator circuit as trigger. Takes two minutes with a soldering iron. They are not technical enough to tie into specific calling number. As such just about any event, a phone call, a text message, or even a timer/calendar event will work.
Women, (seldom ever educated in backward muslim countries) are more and more being recruited to carry the bombs. Often these are the widows of other fighters who preceded them in death, or the half witted washer woman with no real means of support.
The one with brains are holding the remote detonation cell phone and building the bombs.
I'm constantly astounded by people who start by saying "its almost certainly a hoax" and then appeal to a movie as justification for their views.
A movie? Seriously?
As for your speculated KGB involvement, its entirely possible the KGB sent the text message, having partially penetrated the cell, in which case I say good for the KGB.
Your stalkers probably know your friends faces and names too. And with facial recognition tools becoming mainstream it seems this is a pretty lame time to start this approach. Yet another juvenile approach to security by a company that just would rather not be bothered with the entire concept.
One thing FaceBook has going for it is that Https impact is far less significant as a percentage of time and actual server loading on sites where content can't be (or isn't typically) cached, and delivery is more than a few words.
Setup is expensive, but once negotiated data transmission is not that bad.
Fetching a tweet would really hurt under ssl, but a facebook page is usually fairly significant in size. Making lots of short requests over HTTPS will be quite a bit slower than HTTP, but if you transfer a lot of data in a single request, the difference will be insignificant. If Facebook implements http keep-alive oh https connections you should be able to reuse the the connection.
Yes the handshake is longer (usually 5 traverses vs 2). We are talking about 200ms vs 500ms for the first connection. But during that time the web server isn't having to pound content down the pipe so it might not be as bad as it sounds.
I missed the Sarcasm emoticon in your post just after you said:
It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame
The NY Times is all located in the US, in New York state, and mostly in New York City. So a take down notice is easily delivered. Besides, the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left, and not likely to leak anything of importance.
First Amendment you claim? If you still believe it has any teeth in the light of recent history you are delusional.
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
In line with my sig of the week, I think we should be called owners.
After all, "We built this internet one Dial-UP account at a time" for the last 20 or 30 years. We built the carriers and ISPs with our dollars. We hired them to run it, not to own it.
They run infrastructure thru right-of-way corridors granted by us, and send content thru the airways granted by us, and we pay the bills. Every month. Between cellular and internet connections most geeks pay well north of $100 per month to these companies. Its time we had our say.
If you can identify the top jet in this image http://twitpic.com/3lw29q you can get a pretty good size comparison.
The old bit about radar cross sections is meaningless without the some reference to the aspect. (Coming, going, side on, bottom view, etc). As posted above, f-117 are not all that hard to spot with old school long wave radars.
The British and Australians have been tracking F117 flights for a long time, out to 150 miles away. Even during Desert Storm.
Yugoslav air defences tracked F-117s with old Russian radars operating on long wavelengths. Long-wave radars present a serious threat to stealth aircraft like the F-117, and there is a lot of that old junk on the market.
I can't believe you waded into a thread about how the Chinese obtained technology from a SHOT DOWN F-117 to remind us just how stealth they are.
The 117 is old hat, and was never all that stealthy.
The new Chinese J20 fighter reported recently is based on features found on much later US and Russian designs, and bears little resemblance to the F117.
Technology stolen would probably include anti-radar coatings and perhaps engine and avionics.
MS doesn't know that you didn't activate it and never intend to, all they know is that you didn't activate it YET.
The license is still bought and paid for and can be activated any time you wish.
What is needed is an option to have it shipped with NO Os installed, or a permanent deactivation of that serial number followed by a check from Microsoft.
Most people would be very unhappy with the pittance they get back, because MS will at best give you an OEM price back not a retail price. The OEMs pay Microsoft a tiny fraction of what you pay for windows when.
https won't protect from a keylogging javascript being attached to the login page by an ISP.
It would protect if there was no http login page. You have to get the javascript installed before you launch https because you can't get it installed later.
With most browsers, simply having the http page remap to the https page leaves the keylogger free to continue to run. But if you start your session with https you are reasonably safe from key loggers done in javascript.
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
Well its certainly your right to withhold the page until the ads are downloaded (even until they are displayed if you want a high rate of instant exits).
But this isn't a war you can win in the long run. Browsers or plugins will always find a way to defeat your ads, and the harder you try to push them into your reader's faces the less successful you will be.
Whether it the tools simply skip downloading your ads or downloads the ads in the background, people are not going to watch intrusive ads.
The "Skip this welcome page" ad sites have found their bandwidth utilization up, and their customer click-exits growing faster than their content delivery.
Not many people block Google Ads, because they are usually topical and un-intrusive. But any method to insure I read your ads is bound to fail.
Either that or have LDC video screens in the cocpit as backup.
But cockpits are complex enough already and retro fit would be extremely expensive.
Automated Landing Systems might make more sense, since these would be also be useful in other situations. Fully automated landings are permitted in Europe, but I don't think they are in the US.
In most cases no serious damage is done, and the worst case todate has been the need for a go around. That may not last forever.
Catching the culprits is difficult, unless someone happens to see who did it, its just not likely to happen. By the time you mobilize resources they just put it in their pocket and walk away.
If i had known so many people were going to say it I wouldn't have said anything.
Hey, somebody was sure to state it, and getting it in up front wards off all the redundant posters (hopefully).
Perhaps not on Slashdot, but definitely in the general population the majority of people are so far away from understanding this fact that they may have already posted the same thing and we simply won't see if for a X number of posts or several life times.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem like the definition of a scientific term is something that should be left to a democratic vote. Public opinion with regards to science is never a good thing to rely on (creation vs evolution, naturalistic healing, etc).
But you miss the central point of the story.
There is no formal definition, scientific or otherwise. Its just a term in common usage with no universally agreed upon definition.
As such voting is as good a method of arriving at a definition as any other, and certainly a better method than was originally used (namely no method at all).
True, but it would be easy to forget that a text message might also set it off, and even if they did remember this, many older phones did not have the ability ring differently for one sms source as opposed to another.
Either that or they care so little about the suicide bombers that they didn't bother doing the extra work to prevent this.
LOL. (Who modded this insightful? Its clearly the funniest post in this thread).
Its also entirely possible that the detonation was triggered by police, by having knowledge of a plot but no specifics. All they would have to do is order the (largely) state controlled carriers to wish every recently activated cell a Happy New Year and then listen for the booms.
Most of the bomb makers tie into the speaker or vibrator circuit as trigger. Takes two minutes with a soldering iron. They are not technical enough to tie into specific calling number. As such just about any event, a phone call, a text message, or even a timer/calendar event will work.
No longer true. Your article is dated.
Women, (seldom ever educated in backward muslim countries) are more and more being recruited to carry the bombs. Often these are the widows of other fighters who preceded them in death, or the half witted washer woman with no real means of support.
The one with brains are holding the remote detonation cell phone and building the bombs.
I'm constantly astounded by people who start by saying "its almost certainly a hoax" and then appeal to a movie as justification for their views.
A movie? Seriously?
As for your speculated KGB involvement, its entirely possible the KGB sent the text message, having partially penetrated the cell, in which case I say good for the KGB.
All you've seen is concept drawings and vague promises.
The easy part is done. Now lets see actually see one of these things before we start wow-ing.
That was my first thought as well.
Your stalkers probably know your friends faces and names too. And with facial recognition tools becoming mainstream it seems this is a pretty lame time to start this approach. Yet another juvenile approach to security by a company that just would rather not be bothered with the entire concept.
One thing FaceBook has going for it is that Https impact is far less significant as a percentage of time and actual server loading on sites where content can't be (or isn't typically) cached, and delivery is more than a few words.
Setup is expensive, but once negotiated data transmission is not that bad.
Fetching a tweet would really hurt under ssl, but a facebook page is usually fairly significant in size. Making lots of short requests over HTTPS will be quite a bit slower than HTTP, but if you transfer a lot of data in a single request, the difference will be insignificant. If Facebook implements http keep-alive oh https connections you should be able to reuse the the connection.
Yes the handshake is longer (usually 5 traverses vs 2). We are talking about 200ms vs 500ms for the first connection. But during that time the web server isn't having to pound content down the pipe so it might not be as bad as it sounds.
I missed the Sarcasm emoticon in your post just after you said:
It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame
The NY Times is all located in the US, in New York state, and mostly in New York City. So a take down notice is easily delivered. Besides, the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left, and not likely to leak anything of importance.
First Amendment you claim? If you still believe it has any teeth in the light of recent history you are delusional.
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
In line with my sig of the week, I think we should be called owners.
After all, "We built this internet one Dial-UP account at a time" for the last 20 or 30 years. We built the carriers and ISPs with our dollars. We hired them to run it, not to own it.
They run infrastructure thru right-of-way corridors granted by us, and send content thru the airways granted by us, and we pay the bills. Every month. Between cellular and internet connections most geeks pay well north of $100 per month to these companies. Its time we had our say.
Yup, it worked fine for me too.
However, someone at Slashdot needs to take a look at the mess their RSS feed. Its pretty unusable in aggregatos like Google Reader and a few others.
Copy Paste in Chrome was fixed by the last Chrome update, which happened silently, as do all chrome updates.
Those of us using the Chrome Beta haven't had this problem for some time now. It had nothing to do with SlashDot.
If you can identify the top jet in this image http://twitpic.com/3lw29q
you can get a pretty good size comparison.
The old bit about radar cross sections is meaningless without the some reference to the aspect. (Coming, going, side on, bottom view, etc). As posted above, f-117 are not all that hard to spot with old school long wave radars.
What did they use to keep that body viewable after this long?
The British and Australians have been tracking F117 flights for a long time, out to 150 miles away. Even during Desert Storm.
Yugoslav air defences tracked F-117s with old Russian radars operating on long wavelengths. Long-wave radars present a serious threat to stealth aircraft like the F-117, and there is a lot of that old junk on the market.
I can't believe you waded into a thread about how the Chinese obtained technology from a SHOT DOWN F-117 to remind us just how stealth they are.
The 117 is old hat, and was never all that stealthy.
The new Chinese J20 fighter reported recently is based on features found on much later US and Russian designs, and bears little resemblance to the F117.
Technology stolen would probably include anti-radar coatings and perhaps engine and avionics.
The J20 is simply too big to be very stealthy.
Not really good enough.
MS doesn't know that you didn't activate it and never intend to, all they know is that you didn't activate it YET.
The license is still bought and paid for and can be activated any time you wish.
What is needed is an option to have it shipped with NO Os installed, or a permanent deactivation of that serial number followed by a check from Microsoft.
Most people would be very unhappy with the pittance they get back, because MS will at best give you an OEM price back not a retail price. The OEMs pay Microsoft a tiny fraction of what you pay for windows when.
Not germane.
Apple builds the computer and the OS.
Microsoft does not build computers.
A computer is not a car. Analogy Fail.
A computer is not made by Microsoft.
https won't protect from a keylogging javascript being attached to the login page by an ISP.
It would protect if there was no http login page. You have to get the javascript installed before you launch https because you can't get it installed later.
With most browsers, simply having the http page remap to the https page leaves the keylogger free to continue to run. But if you start your session with https you are reasonably safe from key loggers done in javascript.
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
Well its certainly your right to withhold the page until the ads are downloaded (even until they are displayed if you want a high rate of instant exits).
But this isn't a war you can win in the long run. Browsers or plugins will always find a way to defeat your ads, and the harder you try to push them into your reader's faces the less successful you will be.
Whether it the tools simply skip downloading your ads or downloads the ads in the background, people are not going to watch intrusive ads.
The "Skip this welcome page" ad sites have found their bandwidth utilization up, and their customer click-exits growing faster than their content delivery.
Not many people block Google Ads, because they are usually topical and un-intrusive. But any method to insure I read your ads is bound to fail.
Either that or have LDC video screens in the cocpit as backup.
But cockpits are complex enough already and retro fit would be extremely expensive.
Automated Landing Systems might make more sense, since these would be also be useful in other situations. Fully automated landings are permitted in Europe, but I don't think they are in the US.
In most cases no serious damage is done, and the worst case todate has been the need for a go around. That may not last forever.
Actually the penalty for that is less than a beating.
It is charged as interfering with a flight crew and does not carry much of a penalty.
Catching the culprits is difficult, unless someone happens to see who did it, its just not likely to happen. By the time you mobilize resources they just put it in their pocket and walk away.
If i had known so many people were going to say it I wouldn't have said anything.
Hey, somebody was sure to state it, and getting it in up front wards off all the redundant posters (hopefully).
Perhaps not on Slashdot, but definitely in the general population the majority of people are so far away from understanding this fact that they may have already posted the same thing and we simply won't see if for a X number of posts or several life times.
I don't think the group that buys $300 raw denim jeans really intersects with the "mom's basement" group
Or with the groups "has girlfriend" or "wants girlfriend".