>That new policy is what protects us in the sky now, not any of the bullshit security theater
There is no such policy.
Its just the common man, tired of being sheep, taking action.
When all it was about was money, nobody really cared. Now since your only expected outcome is death there is no reason to sit there with your hands folded.
Returning to pre 9/11 screening where you could have walked on board with a bag full of hand grenades is not an option.
Hand grenades always work. Trying to surreptitiously inject liquid A into liquid B under a blanket, or light your shoe on with a lighter is still a lot harder to pull off than rolling one down the isle.
Call it theater if you will. Point out every single lapse, real or imagined. Doesn't matter. Its not any one thing. Its the totality of all the parts, and the last part is that guy sitting behind you who just happens to notice you sweating.
Forgetting what is in your pocket is not the same as knowing what is in your pocket, and knowing that you expect to be meeting your 27 virgins.
By all means lets fill post after post with hair brained schemes that no one has tried and insist our systems are useless because you might be able to sneak a toy onboard an airplane.
If you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that no one is looking for the toy. They are watching the boy worrying about someone detecting the toy.
The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.
He actually had very little new to say, and nothing we haven't seen before. No new ideas, just the same old regurgitation of leftist dogma. Act like sheep and pray no one will slaughter you.
Yeah, there are things that are done to excess, and other things not done well.
But waiting till a single incident almost happens to scream "failure" while ignoring the fact that no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001, and then claiming simultaneously that the lull was do to nobody wanting to attack, and that our protection efforts are useless, seems hardly convincing. Especially when followed up with suggestions that we change our foreign policy to appease those who "don't want to attack".
Of course this is but the latest anti-freeze that is found in nature.
Having spent some time on Alaskan Glaciers I frequently saw ice worms, especially on cold rainy days that washed snow cover away. These things live their entire life at zero C, or within 3 or 4 degrees thereof.
Locals win a lot of bets with tourists, who simply don't believe them.
On the contrary. I found something of interest just about anywhere I zoomed in. Odd to see so many American flags in a German city. The rotting roofs of abandoned buildings. The man taking a leak under the bridge, the high percentage of missing hub caps, the bomber of replicated people appearing multiple times, (proving the shots were taken from left to right), the time difference on the clocks.
Due to the way these images are created, they don't work at all for even moderately dynamic views, they're always full of artifacts from the light change, they usually look quite dull when zoomed out and the interesting bits are lost in a vast desert of pointless detail.
Pointless detail?
Detail was precisely the point of the image.
Further, simply because you have no immediate use for this detail does not mean its pointless and certainly not a desert. Its all still there when you zoom back in.
The detail on the facade of a building does not cease to exist just because you get in your car and drive a mile away.
This is an attempt to record that. To have the naked eye view and the telescopic view in one set of images.
The practical applications of this seem rich, if we can just get past our little self centered world view that suggests just because you can not experience every level of detail simultaneously, that, therefore none of it is warranted.
But the girl riding her bike on the bridge has gained a twin, and a couple cars in the parking lot seem to have lost their rear ends.
Serial imaging leads to anomalies. Simultaneous imaging would be more impressive. I'm not as concerned that there are multiple sensors involved as I am that the same sensor was used serially and with enough of an interval that a person could plod along on a bike for 200 feet.
Still, David Pogue is sure to arrive on site soon and tell us we should do this with a 3 megapixel camera and just be quiet about all this gigapixel tom foolery.
Look, he hasn't been in jail long enough to take the whole Jail-house Lawyer course yet. Its just a first-year noob mistake.
Give him a few years of study in the prison library, and he won't be making these fresh-meat mistakes. I'm sure he will have a lot more experience "behind" him in a couple years.
Decision making requires intelligence. It requires the ability to choose or not choose.
Dogs can choose. They can decide to bark or wag.
Grass can not choose. It blows in the wind. It can not "decide" to lay down and avoid being blown.
Chemicals swirled in a beaker can not Decide to combine or not combine, to react, or remain inert. It can not decide which molecules will combine with another chemical and which ones will not.
Bacteria can not choose. They are sacks of chemicals and micro-structures that react or don't react based on the molecules near them. There is no intelligence there.
Software is encapsulated human knowledge and decision making.
Bacteria have no such knowledge, no way to make decisions, and no intelligence to support them, unless of course you adhere to a certain religious view, in which case why would anyone be surprised at the bacteria's survival "strategy".
You not only attempted to change the meaning of the thread from a strategic subversion of embedded technology to simple economic piracy. Simple piracy is not cyberwarfare, its not even a precursor of cyberwarfare.
If you are going to get on you high-horse and preach about the moderation system at least have the courage to keep the discussion focused. These drive by link dumps of non germane slashdot postings do not prove your point (if you had one) and do not prove the contention of the thread-lead.
Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it.
Citation needed.
I don't doubt this is possible, but a network component manufacturer having product built in China is probably able to tell if the unit is not to spec.
China uses commodity chips, (some of which is also manufactured in China) but the finished product has to run the home manufacturer's software.
The assumption that the engineers that designed it couldn't tell if the the design has been altered and back doors inserted seems a bit of a hyperventilation to me.
Lacking feature? You put that in the same sentence as fvwm?
Are you serious, or just trolling?
And Sawfish? I would have thought all 18 users of sawfish abandoned it 5 years ago, but I see they just had a new release.
If you have extremely limited physical memory or a very old processor fvwm might be an option, but you really can't claim it has more features than any of the popular windows managers out there today.
You're of course welcome to use it. My main point being that if you insist on using a bare bones windows manager then for gods sake stop using Windows 7 as your reference standard.
Well, more to the point, why should privacy exist on wikipedia, especially when the page topic is another person.
Its not wikileaks after all.
How can reliability of information be achieved without accountability?
Yes, I fully understand the theory that crowd sourcing will eventually get it right, but when there is no crowd involved, and there are simply a couple of individuals talking trash there can be no expectation that the content will ever be believable.
Slashdot Mirror
>That new policy is what protects us in the sky now, not any of the bullshit security theater
There is no such policy.
Its just the common man, tired of being sheep, taking action.
When all it was about was money, nobody really cared. Now since your only expected outcome is death there is no reason to sit there with your hands folded.
Returning to pre 9/11 screening where you could have walked on board with a bag full of hand grenades is not an option.
Hand grenades always work. Trying to surreptitiously inject liquid A into liquid B under a blanket, or light your shoe on with a lighter is still a lot harder to pull off than rolling one down the isle.
Call it theater if you will. Point out every single lapse, real or imagined. Doesn't matter. Its not any one thing. Its the totality of all the parts, and the last part is that guy sitting behind you who just happens to notice you sweating.
Forgetting what is in your pocket is not the same as knowing what is in your pocket, and knowing that you expect to be meeting your 27 virgins.
Yes, yes, yes.
By all means lets fill post after post with hair brained schemes that no one has tried and insist our systems are useless because you might be able to sneak a toy onboard an airplane.
If you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that no one is looking for the toy. They are watching the boy worrying about someone detecting the toy.
The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.
Why were you hoping that?
He actually had very little new to say, and nothing we haven't seen before. No new ideas, just the same old regurgitation of leftist dogma. Act like sheep and pray no one will slaughter you.
Yeah, there are things that are done to excess, and other things not done well.
But waiting till a single incident almost happens to scream "failure" while ignoring the fact that no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001, and then claiming simultaneously that the lull was do to nobody wanting to attack, and that our protection efforts are useless, seems hardly convincing. Especially when followed up with suggestions that we change our foreign policy to appease those who "don't want to attack".
Of course this is but the latest anti-freeze that is found in nature.
Having spent some time on Alaskan Glaciers I frequently saw ice worms, especially on cold rainy days that washed snow cover away. These things live their entire life at zero C, or within 3 or 4 degrees thereof.
Locals win a lot of bets with tourists, who simply don't believe them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesenchytraeus_solifugus
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF19/1918.html
There is no leg room in the drivers side.
There is windshield obstruction illegal in most states.
The power requirements would probably exceed engine capacity.
So, question: Can it actually be driven, or is it a joke, sort of a flea-market grave yard for broken gear?
On the contrary. I found something of interest just about anywhere I zoomed in. Odd to see so many American flags in a German city. The rotting roofs of abandoned buildings. The man taking a leak under the bridge, the high percentage of missing hub caps, the bomber of replicated people appearing multiple times, (proving the shots were taken from left to right), the time difference on the clocks.
Who appointed you the arbiture of what is art?
Due to the way these images are created, they don't work at all for even moderately dynamic views, they're always full of artifacts from the light change, they usually look quite dull when zoomed out and the interesting bits are lost in a vast desert of pointless detail.
Pointless detail?
Detail was precisely the point of the image.
Further, simply because you have no immediate use for this detail does not mean its pointless and certainly not a desert. Its all still there when you zoom back in.
The detail on the facade of a building does not cease to exist just because you get in your car and drive a mile away.
This is an attempt to record that. To have the naked eye view and the telescopic view in one set of images.
The practical applications of this seem rich, if we can just get past our little self centered world view that suggests just because you can not experience every level of detail simultaneously, that, therefore none of it is warranted.
The Stitch job is pretty good.
But the girl riding her bike on the bridge has gained a twin, and a couple cars in the parking lot seem to have lost their rear ends.
Serial imaging leads to anomalies. Simultaneous imaging would be more impressive. I'm not as concerned that there are multiple sensors involved as I am that the same sensor was used serially and with enough of an interval that a person could plod along on a bike for 200 feet.
Still its pretty impressive.
David Pogue? Is that you?
Google Earth is not a uniform resolution.
Still, David Pogue is sure to arrive on site soon and tell us we should do this with a 3 megapixel camera and just be quiet about all this gigapixel tom foolery.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E1DD113FF93BA35751C0A9619C8B63
Urban Legend.
For the most part, it just does not happen.
Look, he hasn't been in jail long enough to take the whole Jail-house Lawyer course yet. Its just a first-year noob mistake.
Give him a few years of study in the prison library, and he won't be making these fresh-meat mistakes. I'm sure he will have a lot more experience "behind" him in a couple years.
Exactly my point.
The bacteria had no choice. The chemicals decided for it. They have no mechanism that can choose.
Decision making requires intelligence. It requires the ability to choose or not choose.
Dogs can choose. They can decide to bark or wag.
Grass can not choose. It blows in the wind. It can not "decide" to lay down and avoid being blown.
Chemicals swirled in a beaker can not Decide to combine or not combine, to react, or remain inert. It can not decide which molecules will combine with another chemical and which ones will not.
Bacteria can not choose. They are sacks of chemicals and micro-structures that react or don't react based on the molecules near them. There is no intelligence there.
There is no "decision" being made. Period.
Software is an even WORSE comparison.
Software is encapsulated human knowledge and decision making.
Bacteria have no such knowledge, no way to make decisions, and no intelligence to support them, unless of course you adhere to a certain religious view, in which case why would anyone be surprised at the bacteria's survival "strategy".
I didn't say they were inherently trustworthy. Again stop putting your words in my mouth.
I said counterfeit products are not cyber warfare. That is the topic of this story after all.
If the FBI or the ARMY security relies on knowing who manufactured and item, then they are not doing their job.
Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...
I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.
One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.
Bogus does not mean back-doored.
You not only attempted to change the meaning of the thread from a strategic subversion of embedded technology to simple economic piracy. Simple piracy is not cyberwarfare, its not even a precursor of cyberwarfare.
If you are going to get on you high-horse and preach about the moderation system at least have the courage to keep the discussion focused. These drive by link dumps of non germane slashdot postings do not prove your point (if you had one) and do not prove the contention of the thread-lead.
Given your quoting meltdown, I think its fairly certain you should blame yourself for lack of control.
Either that or the Chinese have a wicked sense of humor....
Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it.
Citation needed.
I don't doubt this is possible, but a network component manufacturer having product built in China is probably able to tell if the unit is not to spec.
China uses commodity chips, (some of which is also manufactured in China) but the finished product has to run the home manufacturer's software.
The assumption that the engineers that designed it couldn't tell if the the design has been altered and back doors inserted seems a bit of a hyperventilation to me.
Lacking feature? You put that in the same sentence as fvwm?
Are you serious, or just trolling?
And Sawfish? I would have thought all 18 users of sawfish abandoned it 5 years ago, but I see they just had a new release.
If you have extremely limited physical memory or a very old processor fvwm might be an option, but you really can't claim it has more features than any of the popular windows managers out there today.
You're of course welcome to use it. My main point being that if you insist on using a bare bones windows manager then for gods sake stop using Windows 7 as your reference standard.
Did everybody miss the line in TFA where he said:
Still stuck on FVWM?
Windows 3.1 had pretty miserable multi screen support too. That's why everyone dumped it like a leaking baby diaper.
Ubuntu, and KDE both handle multiple monitors very well.
Why would the OP mention Windows 7 in the same post where he whines about FVWM?
Level playing field much?
Tryptophan, isn't that the sleep inducing post Thanksgiving Feast drug of the ritual Turkey meal?
What's methionine found in? Don't tell me, pumpkin Pie...
Well, more to the point, why should privacy exist on wikipedia, especially when the page topic is another person.
Its not wikileaks after all.
How can reliability of information be achieved without accountability?
Yes, I fully understand the theory that crowd sourcing will eventually get it right, but when there is no crowd involved, and there are simply a couple of individuals talking trash there can be no expectation that the content will ever be believable.