Even the most careful person would stumble once in many years. If there was anything rigged or that sensitive he would have blown himself to pieces years ago.
This is just more security theater which all you so called experts can't see thru.
Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings..
You are sure its a lot safer? I'm so relieved.
What could possibly go wrong.
Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.
How much evidence as to sources of these materials will be destroyed in the burn down and inevitable explosion? (Yeah, I've seen the silly containment fence. Laughable!).
In fact one wonders if the destruction of evidence isn't part of the motivation here. After all, someone's ass is on the line for that crate of live military grenades, right? Some one sold that guy all this stuff. Was it the government?
Not after its all gone. No way to pin it on any agency then.
Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds.
Well said. Every single event used to justify the groping and scanning since 9/11 was thwarted by Joe Passenger.
And Joe is not required to read anyone the Miranda card, or produce reasonable proof that lighting one's shoes on fire in the window seat warrants a laptop to the head and a chokehold by five overweight middle age guys and a stewardess with a hand full of zip ties.
Worse than just the erosion mentioned is the trial balloon being floated about full body scanners in trains and mass transit.
Never mind that its not illegal to carry some of the forbidden object on mass transit and all these liberties would have to be abridged in order to be of any value.
But the government raises the issue more so we will stop bitching about airports than any real expectation of getting these devices installed.
Every shopping bag must be searched. Every pocket emptied simply because you take the train to work, and the bus to the supermarket?
Seriously. I *like* to know I'm running a specific release that is fixed for a while so that I know what I'm dealing with if I run into problems, and so that if it's working fine I can *stay* on that release for a while. I also prefer not to run a release that is on the bleeding edge.
"Rolling release" looks like a sure recipe for support/dependency hell.
I'm assuming there are some positive reasons for it. What are they?
Well actually, my take is that a rolling release is designed to prevent running bleeding edge and dependency hell. That is the whole theory behind it.
In theory it should be less disruptive to replace AND TEST and Distribute one package at a time, rather than the current "blow it all away and start over" every 6 to 18 months with a new cute animal name.
Of course the devil is in the details and the execution.
If they let package maintainers push their latest package into the rolling release as Greg Kroah-Hartman seemed to suggest it will be bleeding edge all over again.
What part of Main stream press do you not understand?
To be fair, the linked story only said they should nor link to these documents or post them. That seems fair enough, as anyone with a facebook page can't be trusted with secrets anyway.
It didn't say that they should not READ the documents.
Security clearances are about what you DO with information, not about how you come by it.
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic.
These are the bastards that should be losing their jobs, not for anything in the leaks, (nothing there that I can see except gossip), but rather for being so loose with data they seem to value so highly.
Well, not all versions of Outlook block images by default. The older versions showed them all by default. Further the options provided for selective blocking usually include Show All Images, with no warning at all. Its precisely the business hireling that selects show all, because they really don't give a rip.
Admittedly, the use of this is probably quite benign in most cases, intended to be used to pare down the mass marketing list, saving bandwidth, and customer aggravation.
However, it takes a fair amount of web log processing to actually put that plan into use, and I bet all but the largest companies do absolutely none of this.
And as you say, with most clients blocking images by default, the payback for this becomes slimmer and slimmer.
Watch any TV show and you can see it only takes a suggestion by the Star detective to have all the credit card records tracked in real time. And that DNA will be analyzed before they can get back with the records, not to mention all of the semen spewed all over the room, and the blood spatter found on the building across the street from the crime scene.
But even in that case, it wouldn't have to be a 1x1 image.
Any size image would do. The 1x1 bit is just to keep bandwidth down and allow the same image to be uses for every request, and to allow the insertion of the image to be done by the email engine without messing up the layout.
Most people still use the email client that came with their machine, which equates to some form of Windows / outlook stuff, which shows images by default.
A few percent have switched to Thunderbird or other clients that do not load images by default. But its far from the norm.
Gmail's web interface blocks images sometimes. Not so much from individuals or other gmail accounts, but most of the time from commercial accounts.
You will see a yellow bar at the top of the message that offers two choices:
Display images below - Always display images from whatever@domain.com
See this page for Google's Gmail help on this issue. The default is to no show any images till you ask for them.
So even those using web interfaces need not be tracked if they don't want to be.
Once again, this practice seems aimed at Outlook users, where (correct me If I'm wrong) images are ON by default.
If you have to run Windows, the Microsoft Security Essentials package is excellent. I haven't had the urge to uninstall it yet (unlike Avast and AVG), and it doesn't noticeably slow your system.
The major slow down most of these dumb scanners cause is because the scan on each read access. Some (like AVIRA) can be set to scan only on write. In a controlled environment this often yields the best performance.
When combined with a total system scan and a scan on any inserted media you can be reasonably safe with only scan on write. The problem is one of discipline, and remembering to always scan inserted media.
Of course it also requires that ALL accessible storage have some scanning software, because when you forgo scan on read, any network drive poses a security risk.
The argument for scan on read vs scan on write has been going on for years. Currently I fall into the latter camp, because I control every computer to which I can map drives, but in a corporate world this may not be the case.
So be careful with any option that does NOT impose some overhead. It may not be as secure as you believe.
There is no bond. Its a new individual. Its all in your head. The animal won't know or care. One thing you can be assured of is that it will have a different personality (anamality?). You will probably be disillusioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there are grenades. These cook off in a fire.
One detonation around all those other plastics and its all going to go up.
You watch and see.
The guy lived in the house for YEARS!!!
What part of that don't you understand?
Even the most careful person would stumble once in many years. If there was anything rigged or that sensitive he would have blown himself to pieces years ago.
This is just more security theater which all you so called experts can't see thru.
Bomb squad is an all volunteer job.
The guy was living there for years. It can't be all that unstable.
Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings. .
You are sure its a lot safer? I'm so relieved.
What could possibly go wrong.
Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.
How much evidence as to sources of these materials will be destroyed in the burn down and inevitable explosion?
(Yeah, I've seen the silly containment fence. Laughable!).
In fact one wonders if the destruction of evidence isn't part of the motivation here. After all, someone's ass is on the line for that crate of live military grenades, right? Some one sold that guy all this stuff. Was it the government?
Not after its all gone. No way to pin it on any agency then.
Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds.
Well said. Every single event used to justify the groping and scanning since 9/11 was thwarted by Joe Passenger.
And Joe is not required to read anyone the Miranda card, or produce reasonable proof that lighting one's shoes on fire in the window seat warrants a laptop to the head and a chokehold by five overweight middle age guys and a stewardess with a hand full of zip ties.
Worse than just the erosion mentioned is the trial balloon being floated about full body scanners in trains and mass transit.
Never mind that its not illegal to carry some of the forbidden object on mass transit and all these liberties would have to be abridged in order to be of any value.
But the government raises the issue more so we will stop bitching about airports than any real expectation of getting these devices installed.
Every shopping bag must be searched. Every pocket emptied simply because you take the train to work, and the bus to the supermarket?
Seriously. I *like* to know I'm running a specific release that is fixed for a while so that I know what I'm dealing with if I run into problems, and so that if it's working fine I can *stay* on that release for a while. I also prefer not to run a release that is on the bleeding edge.
"Rolling release" looks like a sure recipe for support/dependency hell.
I'm assuming there are some positive reasons for it. What are they?
Well actually, my take is that a rolling release is designed to prevent running bleeding edge and dependency hell. That is the whole theory behind it.
In theory it should be less disruptive to replace AND TEST and Distribute one package at a time, rather than the current "blow it all away and start over" every 6 to 18 months with a new cute animal name.
Of course the devil is in the details and the execution.
If they let package maintainers push their latest package into the rolling release as Greg Kroah-Hartman seemed to suggest it will be bleeding edge all over again.
Are ye Daft mon?
It virtually guarantees you the job!
What part of Main stream press do you not understand?
To be fair, the linked story only said they should nor link to these documents or post them. That seems fair enough, as anyone with a facebook page can't be trusted with secrets anyway.
It didn't say that they should not READ the documents.
Security clearances are about what you DO with information, not about how you come by it.
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic.
These are the bastards that should be losing their jobs, not for anything in the leaks, (nothing there that I can see except gossip), but rather for being so loose with data they seem to value so highly.
The surprising part is that Verizon employees found this. They can't find my cell phone half the time, but they got time to find Microsoft bugs?
Your knowledge is severely out-of-date.
So is my outlook.
Well, not all versions of Outlook block images by default. The older versions showed them all by default. Further the options provided for selective blocking usually include Show All Images, with no warning at all.
Its precisely the business hireling that selects show all, because they really don't give a rip.
Admittedly, the use of this is probably quite benign in most cases, intended to be used to pare down the mass marketing list, saving bandwidth, and customer aggravation.
However, it takes a fair amount of web log processing to actually put that plan into use, and I bet all but the largest companies do absolutely none of this.
And as you say, with most clients blocking images by default, the payback for this becomes slimmer and slimmer.
What's all this talk about Agents and Feds?
Watch any TV show and you can see it only takes a suggestion by the Star detective to have all the credit card records tracked in real time. And that DNA will be analyzed before they can get back with the records, not to mention all of the semen spewed all over the room, and the blood spatter found on the building across the street from the crime scene.
But even in that case, it wouldn't have to be a 1x1 image.
Any size image would do. The 1x1 bit is just to keep bandwidth down and allow the same image to be uses for every request, and to allow the insertion of the image to be done by the email engine without messing up the layout.
They you were under the wrong assumptions.
Most people still use the email client that came with their machine, which equates to some form of Windows / outlook stuff, which shows images by default.
A few percent have switched to Thunderbird or other clients that do not load images by default. But its far from the norm.
Gmail's web interface blocks images sometimes. Not so much from individuals or other gmail accounts, but most of the time from commercial accounts.
You will see a yellow bar at the top of the message that offers two choices:
Display images below - Always display images from whatever@domain.com
See this page for Google's Gmail help on this issue. The default is to no show any images till you ask for them.
So even those using web interfaces need not be tracked if they don't want to be.
Once again, this practice seems aimed at Outlook users, where (correct me If I'm wrong) images are ON by default.
Did Tony Rosario get indited for video taping without permission and without a warrant? Though not.
Let this be a lesson: Never let the customer watch.
If you have to run Windows, the Microsoft Security Essentials package is excellent. I haven't had the urge to uninstall it yet (unlike Avast and AVG), and it doesn't noticeably slow your system.
The major slow down most of these dumb scanners cause is because the scan on each read access. Some (like AVIRA) can be set to scan only on write. In a controlled environment this often yields the best performance.
When combined with a total system scan and a scan on any inserted media you can be reasonably safe with only scan on write. The problem is one of discipline, and remembering to always scan inserted media.
Of course it also requires that ALL accessible storage have some scanning software, because when you forgo scan on read, any network drive poses a security risk.
The argument for scan on read vs scan on write has been going on for years. Currently I fall into the latter camp, because I control every computer to which I can map drives, but in a corporate world this may not be the case.
So be careful with any option that does NOT impose some overhead. It may not be as secure as you believe.
Except all bets are off when comparing earth's solar system to the system around a red dwarf.
One word: Twins.
QED.
You can never go home again.
There is no bond. Its a new individual. Its all in your head. The animal won't know or care.
One thing you can be assured of is that it will have a different personality (anamality?). You will probably be disillusioned.
Read and learn: http://hubpages.com/hub/3D-Without-Glasses-3D-Technology
Watch and learn: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:teBbrhsb9skJ:www.pcworld.com/article/190937/3d_imageswithout_glasses.html+3d+without+glasses+panel+system&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Now who looks the fool?
I read the patent.
I didn't guess wrong.
I suggest you read the patent again and filter out the baffel-gab.