Yeah, when you call ahead, and the background check indicates 10 previous arrests for terrorism, and your most recent credit card transaction was at Bomb-Mart, and you aren't an American citizen, I think the response would have been different.
Why are you so emotional about it? "Dodgy"? Says who? Oh, none of the reports, just your lies to insult him and us. "Crowds"? What crowds? Random people walking on streets he wasn't near, just over? His "stunt" would have been legal over Atlanta, which is as crowded as the area he flew over. There was no great risk. Note, you don't complain about his high speed craft, as it was slow, but the "rotors". Why do you hate helicopters? Should they all be banned from urban areas? If not, you are a lying hypocrite.
And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.
A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.
The standard interception craft couldn't do anything. They can't follow him. They would only be of use to shoot him down, and would likely have to manually engage with guns (with great risk to the surroundings) because the gryo is too small and slow (and likely low) to do much else with.
Maybe they could have sent up a helicopter, but the standard response is jets, who can't go slow enough or work closely enough to give an effective response.
That's SCADA or any of a large number of remote-access monitoring systems (many running over IP).
IoT is not over the Internet. It's always (for those I've seen selling it) a private network of things. NoT. And that's what you should think of it. When they start pushing for actual open connections to the things (everyone has 1M IPv6 addresses at their house, and every door knob, appliance and widget in the house has a unique static IP that the owner (or anyone else) can connect to), then it'll be an Internet of things.
Right now, it's a closed network of things. What you describe is "remote monitoring". Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen IoT used when describing batched video downloads over closed WiFi from fleet vehicles to a private server that's not connected to the Internet in any way. IoT, like "cloud" has no useful definition or meaning.
That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.
Oh, you must live in a different USA than me. I go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... and read 501(c)3, and the first line starts:
Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, [...]
Looks to me that religion is explicitly given a tax break under 501(c)3. Please show me your 501(c)3 which doesn't mention religion.
There is absolutely no constitutional way to make churches pay taxes without also requiring the Sierra Club to pay taxes.
Drop the religious exemption from 501, and done. Sierra Club meets the definition for other reasons.
And I have mod points. I was tempted to mod you troll. Anyone who posts wrong facts disproven in under 10 seconds with a simple google search is a troll. But hopefully once you are proven wrong, someone else will do it for me.
FB is broken. The low timeout, stateful HTTP that isn't, embedded content and such wouldn't work. But it doesn't work for many on Earth. The mobile site should work better, but I've not worked with that on a caching system. The Internet would be usable. Even if all the sites don't rock it.
And who cares what NASA thinks, if the trip is privately funded, or co-funded in a way that allows some private access?
It's as "strong" as 6 random, typeable characters.
That's still better than most passwords.
Your dictionary attack will only work if you are 100% correct about your guess. If you don't know the length of the number, then your attack will fail.
An unguessable personal word worked well for me for 20 years online, until places started checking them unencrypted against dictionaries. Yes, Calypso443521 contains a word that could exist in a dictionary, but is unguessable. Nobody would guess that it has any meaning, and with a personal number on the end, it wouldn't fall to any dictionary attack. But would be banned by many places I have passwords now. Like Scunthorpe is banned from most user names and some passwords because it contains a "banned" word, despite not actually containing the word, just the letters in order. It's not like it's #1_cunt_buster, which is what they are trying to ban.
So yeah, most of the rules are silly, for both usernames and passwords. Though for username, most places are falling back to email address.
I liked when my bank stopped using SSN for username and switched to last name. Now, someone trying to hack my account personally will have no trouble guessing my username.
I've had my first day include complaining to the head of HR that the HR documents on passwords were wrong. The rules were at least one upper, at least one lower, at least one number, and no shorter than 8. However, the password policy described by my peers was "pick a 6-letter word, start with a cap, and put 00 at the end. When you increment it for the 30 day expiration, you can last past the 1-year no reuse policy." The funny thing was, I followed the policy and came up with one that used special characters. Not accepted. And one that used an 8-character word. Not accepted (the password must be exactly 8 chars, and can't include special characters, despite the rules not directing such). The head of HR gave me the same rules as everyone else. So nobody in the company uses a secure password, and the rules on the password are mis-documented. Chairs00. Shh, don't tell anyone.
So, roughly 30 years alone time, no ill effects (as far as the reports go). That's about right. The requirement for a person to see hundreds every day is a lie invented by extroverts that consider happily alone people to be insane.
You proxy on both ends, it'll take 1ms to establish a TCP conection, and 1000 seconds to get a ping response. Tunnel UDP in the middle. You are assuming that because you don't know the answer, the answer is impossible. There are hundreds of off-the-shelf commercial devices that can do that today. It's a know, and solved problem.
Isolation from humans is different than a prison isolation from everything. On the trip they'll have movies on USB and laptops, messages to send home and get from home. Completely unlike any prison experience.
Depending on who you ask, most prison inmates are already insane, so studies into them may not have generalizability. Also, solitary denies them light, toys, tech, and other things. Not just human contact. In fact, they still get human contact. Depending on location, "solitary" also includes one hour a day outside, as it's otherwise considered cruel. The guards handing off food aren't mutes.
There's a guy who unintentionally got stuck somewhere and didn't see anyone for 70+ days, no ill mental effects. He's not the only one with a simlar story. I remember reading a case from a magazine (pre-Internet, and I'm not finding it, but that one kept popping up), where someone lasted months. At the end, he went a little crazy, but he also hadn't eaten for months, so they attribute the craziness to the lack of eating, not the lack of human companionship.
People don't have to have constant contact with others. It shouldn't be hard to select those from the ample numbers of applicants. When I retire, not having to deal with people on a regular basis will be at the top of the benefit list. I'll just need to get the groceries delivered. With orders to leave them on the doorstep.
When the two planets are on opposite sides of the sun (which is what, a period of less than a week happening less than once a year?), a third point will have to be used to "go around", reducing bandwidth and adding to latency, but it's still better than nothing.
I've seen most of the plans indicate a relay sent to Earth's L4 or L5 so that even when on the opposite side of the sun, communications would be uninterpreted, though the delay would be at its peak.
There's no way they can charge you with a new offense AT YOUR TRIAL and then prosecute you for it immediately like that.
When some jackass on the Internet disagrees with reality, I'll go with reality. For a traffic ticket, if you show up, they will generally always let you plea "no lo contendre" and get a fine without conviction. So it won't show up on your record, you don't have to tell your insurance company. Paying the fine is cheaper than fighting.
or it could be that he felt you were a legitimate danger to yourself and to the public and wanted to send you that message.
Of course, he didn't bother to issue a ticket for "careless/reckless" driving. Those usually require a stricter standard for a conviction. If he thought I was a legitimate threat, he should have charged me with it, rather than making up lies to harass someone innocent of the crimes accused.
Slashdot Mirror
You do it at a loss, but you still get some power recovery. It boosts efficiency, but never past 100%.
Are you sure it doesn't meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... criteria?
No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license
Supposed to? Does he or doesn't he need one, and if he does need one, does he or doesn't he have it?
Don't know? Then shut up and learn something before opening your mouth.
Yeah, when you call ahead, and the background check indicates 10 previous arrests for terrorism, and your most recent credit card transaction was at Bomb-Mart, and you aren't an American citizen, I think the response would have been different.
Why are you so emotional about it? "Dodgy"? Says who? Oh, none of the reports, just your lies to insult him and us. "Crowds"? What crowds? Random people walking on streets he wasn't near, just over? His "stunt" would have been legal over Atlanta, which is as crowded as the area he flew over. There was no great risk. Note, you don't complain about his high speed craft, as it was slow, but the "rotors". Why do you hate helicopters? Should they all be banned from urban areas? If not, you are a lying hypocrite.
And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.
A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.
The standard interception craft couldn't do anything. They can't follow him. They would only be of use to shoot him down, and would likely have to manually engage with guns (with great risk to the surroundings) because the gryo is too small and slow (and likely low) to do much else with.
Maybe they could have sent up a helicopter, but the standard response is jets, who can't go slow enough or work closely enough to give an effective response.
I quoted law that directly proves you wrong. You say "nuh uh." You win, at least in your own mind.
That's SCADA or any of a large number of remote-access monitoring systems (many running over IP).
IoT is not over the Internet. It's always (for those I've seen selling it) a private network of things. NoT. And that's what you should think of it. When they start pushing for actual open connections to the things (everyone has 1M IPv6 addresses at their house, and every door knob, appliance and widget in the house has a unique static IP that the owner (or anyone else) can connect to), then it'll be an Internet of things.
Right now, it's a closed network of things. What you describe is "remote monitoring". Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen IoT used when describing batched video downloads over closed WiFi from fleet vehicles to a private server that's not connected to the Internet in any way. IoT, like "cloud" has no useful definition or meaning.
That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.
Oh, you must live in a different USA than me. I go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... and read 501(c)3, and the first line starts:
Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, [...]
Looks to me that religion is explicitly given a tax break under 501(c)3. Please show me your 501(c)3 which doesn't mention religion.
There is absolutely no constitutional way to make churches pay taxes without also requiring the Sierra Club to pay taxes.
Drop the religious exemption from 501, and done. Sierra Club meets the definition for other reasons.
And I have mod points. I was tempted to mod you troll. Anyone who posts wrong facts disproven in under 10 seconds with a simple google search is a troll. But hopefully once you are proven wrong, someone else will do it for me.
FB is broken. The low timeout, stateful HTTP that isn't, embedded content and such wouldn't work. But it doesn't work for many on Earth. The mobile site should work better, but I've not worked with that on a caching system. The Internet would be usable. Even if all the sites don't rock it.
And who cares what NASA thinks, if the trip is privately funded, or co-funded in a way that allows some private access?
It's as "strong" as 6 random, typeable characters.
That's still better than most passwords.
Your dictionary attack will only work if you are 100% correct about your guess. If you don't know the length of the number, then your attack will fail.
An unguessable personal word worked well for me for 20 years online, until places started checking them unencrypted against dictionaries. Yes, Calypso443521 contains a word that could exist in a dictionary, but is unguessable. Nobody would guess that it has any meaning, and with a personal number on the end, it wouldn't fall to any dictionary attack. But would be banned by many places I have passwords now. Like Scunthorpe is banned from most user names and some passwords because it contains a "banned" word, despite not actually containing the word, just the letters in order. It's not like it's #1_cunt_buster, which is what they are trying to ban.
So yeah, most of the rules are silly, for both usernames and passwords. Though for username, most places are falling back to email address.
I liked when my bank stopped using SSN for username and switched to last name. Now, someone trying to hack my account personally will have no trouble guessing my username.
I've had my first day include complaining to the head of HR that the HR documents on passwords were wrong. The rules were at least one upper, at least one lower, at least one number, and no shorter than 8. However, the password policy described by my peers was "pick a 6-letter word, start with a cap, and put 00 at the end. When you increment it for the 30 day expiration, you can last past the 1-year no reuse policy." The funny thing was, I followed the policy and came up with one that used special characters. Not accepted. And one that used an 8-character word. Not accepted (the password must be exactly 8 chars, and can't include special characters, despite the rules not directing such). The head of HR gave me the same rules as everyone else. So nobody in the company uses a secure password, and the rules on the password are mis-documented. Chairs00. Shh, don't tell anyone.
So, roughly 30 years alone time, no ill effects (as far as the reports go). That's about right. The requirement for a person to see hundreds every day is a lie invented by extroverts that consider happily alone people to be insane.
Yes, and despite many ambitions about ocean habitats, nobody has ever made one.
Every depiction I've seen of it indicates blue. How could all the experts have gotten it wrong all these years?
Colonization will never happen. We can't grow a human population on Mars. There is no food, and not enough air.
You proxy on both ends, it'll take 1ms to establish a TCP conection, and 1000 seconds to get a ping response. Tunnel UDP in the middle. You are assuming that because you don't know the answer, the answer is impossible. There are hundreds of off-the-shelf commercial devices that can do that today. It's a know, and solved problem.
Isolation from humans is different than a prison isolation from everything. On the trip they'll have movies on USB and laptops, messages to send home and get from home. Completely unlike any prison experience.
Depending on who you ask, most prison inmates are already insane, so studies into them may not have generalizability. Also, solitary denies them light, toys, tech, and other things. Not just human contact. In fact, they still get human contact. Depending on location, "solitary" also includes one hour a day outside, as it's otherwise considered cruel. The guards handing off food aren't mutes.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011...
There's a guy who unintentionally got stuck somewhere and didn't see anyone for 70+ days, no ill mental effects. He's not the only one with a simlar story. I remember reading a case from a magazine (pre-Internet, and I'm not finding it, but that one kept popping up), where someone lasted months. At the end, he went a little crazy, but he also hadn't eaten for months, so they attribute the craziness to the lack of eating, not the lack of human companionship.
People don't have to have constant contact with others. It shouldn't be hard to select those from the ample numbers of applicants. When I retire, not having to deal with people on a regular basis will be at the top of the benefit list. I'll just need to get the groceries delivered. With orders to leave them on the doorstep.
When the two planets are on opposite sides of the sun (which is what, a period of less than a week happening less than once a year?), a third point will have to be used to "go around", reducing bandwidth and adding to latency, but it's still better than nothing.
I've seen most of the plans indicate a relay sent to Earth's L4 or L5 so that even when on the opposite side of the sun, communications would be uninterpreted, though the delay would be at its peak.
There's no way they can charge you with a new offense AT YOUR TRIAL and then prosecute you for it immediately like that.
When some jackass on the Internet disagrees with reality, I'll go with reality. For a traffic ticket, if you show up, they will generally always let you plea "no lo contendre" and get a fine without conviction. So it won't show up on your record, you don't have to tell your insurance company. Paying the fine is cheaper than fighting.
or it could be that he felt you were a legitimate danger to yourself and to the public and wanted to send you that message.
Of course, he didn't bother to issue a ticket for "careless/reckless" driving. Those usually require a stricter standard for a conviction. If he thought I was a legitimate threat, he should have charged me with it, rather than making up lies to harass someone innocent of the crimes accused.
Taking from the wealth extractors and giving to the wealth generators.