And you could turn the mic on and listen in on everything, or get access to all the accounts on the phone. Why you think the most interesting thing a compromised phone is good for is location tracking is between you and your stalking victims, but there are other uses for a compromised phone.
He has tweeted at a time he was scheduled to be in a Top Secret meeting. Either he's not attending his meetings, or he's tweeting during them. Either is gross negligence, so which gross negligence is it today?
But I am confused about why people care if the account is open.
They had the account for years. It has some personal or sensitive data in it. Yahoo keeps getting haked. So delete the account and keep your data safe (by losing it forever). Except you can't keep the data out of the hands of the hackers. By design.
Do you have a better idea now of why someone would want an account on an insecure provider more secure?
Gattaca had the degenerates and improved stock living in (relative) harmony, and no genocide needed. That Eugenicists can't consider any option other than genocide is what gave eugenics a bad name, not the Nazis, just one in a long line of unethical eugenicists.
Are you one of those people who insists we don't investigate rape because there are murderers who haven't been caught?
You are assuming a zero sum game when none exists. Embryo creation has no overlap with cancer research, yet re-sequencing of large complex mammals could end up curing cancer. Why do you not want cancer cured?
Would you feel better if they called it "Animal trials to cure human cancer!"? Because that's one of the (near-infinite) uses. But they have to get it working well first. And "animal trials" gets things firebombed by PETA, so "resurrecting extinct species" is the PR name.
In Europe, trains are not the "only option" because of lack of cars, but they are cheaper than cars, so people don't get cars. My grandparents took a train trip from IL to TX. The ticket cost more than flying. One (or more) was afraid of flying, and they didn't feel like driving, so train it was. Train vs fly is irrelevant. The train is supposed to take the cars off the road. That the pro-train people lied about the number of stolen plane trips is irrelevant to the train being anti-car, and unrelated to flight.
The anti-road groups don't even like trains. They just hate cars so much that they push trains to harm cars. That's all it's ever been about.
They will fly or drive. Did you read the studies? People drive. The high-speed train from Dallas to Houston that has been talked about forever won't work. It's slower than driving, and people prefer planes to trains. How is a 1 hour train slower than a 3 hour drive? The 1 hour to get to and from the train station, and the time at the train station(s), and you've lost all your time savings.
You are missing the "road vs non-road" subtext to all discussions on transportation. Every option is "road" or "non-road" and the two camps are religious organizations, not logical ones.
Gravity does the work getting water from CO. And they wouldn't need to pump it from CO, if they didn't hold it in CO and keep it out of the streams that flow to SoCal. SoCal ran out of water because those upstream took it. And the rain slowed, to restrict local capture.
You miss the point. The pro-train crowd doesn't care about trains, or airplanes. They are simply anti-car. Nothing more than that. Cars are a sign of elitism, where only the top 90% can own cars, and they encourage sprawl and inefficient use of resources. Cars are evil. Anything that makes car commutes harder is good.
The "real" solution will be PRT. The tracked PRT (Skytran being my favorite, at least based on the plans and marketing) will never work. By the time they are economically viable and have working systems installed handling commuting traffic, we'll have smart autonomous cars. PRT through road-use will be faster and cheaper than tracked systems, even if the tracked systems are technically superior.
But all of the PRT will be opposed by the "environmentalists", because they are not pro-environment, but anti-car, for social, not environmental reasons.
Yes. They learned that if they don't have their own CDN with great local peering already, Comcast will shut down their links and charge them money to get to their customers. After learning 3rd world extortion techniques in the US, they don't open shop anywhere until they've defended against those tactics.
A Google cache appliance isn't going to help with anything but browsing the web..
Which is most of what the users in an office do.
I'm not really sure The only way it makes sense with Netflix or most US industry to open up shop in India or China closing up shop in the US if they were opening shop to sell to Indians/Chinese.
Wal-Mart has large offices in China (I've been to one). And aren't big on selling to Chinese. Can you figure that one out?
It would not work for Netflix to stream to the US from China because there is too much latency the pipes between the two nations aren't fat enough to carry that massive load of traffic.
Latency is irrelevant to streaming. When you have the basic technical facts 100% wrong, it's hard to think any of your other opinions are any better constructed. I've streamed just fine over a 1.2s latency connection (double-hop satellite). Though, much "streaming" is a download with instant-delete and play-while-downloading, which doesn't work. But "dumber" streaming (that includes Netflix), literally streams. So latency will not harm video quality (but can lead to interruptions when the non-streaming CnC side-channel fails).
By the way, alt-left communities do the same thing. The notion that we only want to block one side of things is fascism at its finest.
Yeah, the hippies sit there, doing nothing, dreaming about doing nothing, would like nothing more than stage an unarmed armed uprising to put down anyone in their way.
Nope, the labeling of the "other side" and working on your persecution complex, while you are in the most protected class, is the sign of fascism at its finest.
Google cache is in every country in the world. If you don't like the local performance, you can buy your own Google cache appliance. Bandwidth to China is not "low". You are asserting technical problems that don't exist to mask political problems. I currently work for a company with offices in China and India. Local Internet is not that bad.
Accents is an issue. Though, my biggest problem with foreign workers is they over-estimate their grasp of English. ESL is misunderstood. In India, they are coached that their "first language" is English, even if English is *never* spoken in the home. But the children grow up without native understanding of the language, and are told they are native, so they don't understand, but think they do. Makes it infuriating when an Indian argues with an American about a mis-communication.
Netflix in China is a regulatory issue preventing the service from being sold/used there. The bandwidth isn't the issue. Netflix enters every market with local servers, and as such, the streaming is fast, even in a place like China, if they ever find a way to operate there.
Some trolls were there to push a persona agenda. I remember two from a forum. Lloyd thought Chrysler made the best cars on the planet, and Earl Faubion was there to say "speed kills" every time someone mentioned having fun in a car. They were the town idiots. Triggered by people who would talk about "driving safely at 120 mph" or "Those killer Chryslers and their defective locks". They were considered trolls, because they obviously couldn't hold a logical and calm conversation, but they aren't in the more modern GNAA definition.
They are when you are talking about connectivity back to where the consumers are in the US.
How do you mean? I've worked for a variety of international companies, and connections to the consumers are always good. Yes, sometimes you have to use Google Drive, or One Drive, or some other cloud file service that's replicated around the world, but two people editing the same file at the same time on opposite sides of the world is trivial in India, China, and even Detroit.
When you don't insource the jobs, you outsource them. If you don't import the workers, the jobs will be sent out. Then the other workers will stay away, not paying US taxes, and keeping the "intelligence" they gain for themselves, to eventually overtake the US. If the work is going to Bob in Elbonia, it's better to import Bob for the job, than export the job to Elbonia and have Bob do it there.
That's exactly where I was headed. The difference between a 100 kW electric motor and a 10 kW electric motor, both putting out 10 kW is weight, not efficiency.
Though, the same can be said for gasoline engines, tuned well (though Diesel beat gasoline at that, it's the applications, not technology, that determined that). The internal resistance of swept area being 10x will add friction, but not enough to make the efficiency differences people assume. Throttling (wastes engine power/efficiency turning the engine into a poor air pump) can be "cured" in gasoline engines with direct injection and leaner burn. If one were to design a 100 kW gasoline engine that ran wide-open-throttle at 10 kW, then you should be "near" peak efficiency at 10 kW. I have no idea whether that would compromise 100kW operation. Perhaps an adkins cycle engine with forced induction that was tuned to a split peak could work. It would never work in an automotive application, where you don't have two peaks, but a smooth transition from low to high. But for an application where you need 100 kW to take off, and 10 kW to cruise, you can make an unusual design for a gasoline engine and design out most of the assumed problems. It's just that nobody has bothered to throw $1B at the problem to see what they could do.
I'm thinking that a 1l turbo optimized for 10 kW naturally aspirated, with an out-of-band turbo that's switched on and off (not unlike the old blowers that were free-wheel until engaged) with the turbo activation tuned for 100kW. Sure, that engine has never been built, but nobody has ever had a need.
Though the hardest part will be the variable compression engine. As the N/A use would be "best" with 14:1 or so, while the turbo may hit better numbers with a lower compression.
But electric solves all those problems with a known solution, so we'll likely not see the gasoline R&D, unless range drives development back to liquid fuel.
VTOL boost would be impractical. It violates too many aeronautic rules. How do you abort a take off if the drone boost fails? How do you land if the drone boost fails? How do you land where drones aren't available? We have that solution for fixed wing, JATO, and they are used more on Impalas than C130s. Because the risk in using them is so high, they are last resort only.
You over simplified to the point it was incorrect. That makes you wrong. Your argument has no merit. If you want to stop being wrong and looking like an argumentative idiot, spend more effort in being accurate. It wouldn't have taken any more words to have been more accurate.
You don't "run" BCM. Business Continuity Management is about calculating the costs and risks. It is done by the CFO and COO, not the CIO. The CIO (or grunts below) come up with a BCP to meet the BCM. DR is one option for a BCP to meet the BCM.
Yes, I read your words. They didn't make sense. Expand the acronym, and it's not even proper English. "An that is why you run Business Continuity Management (BCM) and recovery tests". You don't run BCM tests. You run BCP tests.
Or do you not know the difference between BCM and BCP, and are lecturing others for using the terms wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Rotary with a theoretical efficiency of a fixed wing. It does both. It has a propeller like a plane, in the tail. Wings on the side, and a top rotor for VTOL. The helicopter doesn't need that much lift for level flight, if you give it wings. It'd be interesting to have the helicopter go from "helicopter" mode to "auto gyro" mode then to "fixed wing" mode as you transition from rotor to level flight. The rotor can continue to turn, so long as the wingtips don't break the sound barrier (generally the self-destruct point), though that's just an engineering problem to solve.
My nearest municipal airstrip is 5 miles, then less than 50 to the international airport. Flying over all the traffic to make that trip would be great. The air taxi services in NYC are often quite busy. Manhattan to JFK/LGA is slow by car, and many executives take air taxi, which isn't much more than a ground taxi, but much faster. Get the air taxi price to the same as a ground taxi, and you'll have a stream of these things flying from Manhattan to the airports.
Home to work is unlikely, as most places "home" and "work" don't have legal landing spots. Having an Uber on either side makes the flying more trouble than it's worth. I would see these as a replacement for airport taxi services for business travelers, but not for much else.
Slashdot Mirror
And you could turn the mic on and listen in on everything, or get access to all the accounts on the phone. Why you think the most interesting thing a compromised phone is good for is location tracking is between you and your stalking victims, but there are other uses for a compromised phone.
He has tweeted at a time he was scheduled to be in a Top Secret meeting. Either he's not attending his meetings, or he's tweeting during them. Either is gross negligence, so which gross negligence is it today?
But I am confused about why people care if the account is open.
They had the account for years. It has some personal or sensitive data in it. Yahoo keeps getting haked. So delete the account and keep your data safe (by losing it forever). Except you can't keep the data out of the hands of the hackers. By design.
Do you have a better idea now of why someone would want an account on an insecure provider more secure?
70% are pirates. The other 30% are liars.
Gattaca had the degenerates and improved stock living in (relative) harmony, and no genocide needed. That Eugenicists can't consider any option other than genocide is what gave eugenics a bad name, not the Nazis, just one in a long line of unethical eugenicists.
Are you one of those people who insists we don't investigate rape because there are murderers who haven't been caught?
You are assuming a zero sum game when none exists. Embryo creation has no overlap with cancer research, yet re-sequencing of large complex mammals could end up curing cancer. Why do you not want cancer cured?
Would you feel better if they called it "Animal trials to cure human cancer!"? Because that's one of the (near-infinite) uses. But they have to get it working well first. And "animal trials" gets things firebombed by PETA, so "resurrecting extinct species" is the PR name.
In Europe, trains are not the "only option" because of lack of cars, but they are cheaper than cars, so people don't get cars. My grandparents took a train trip from IL to TX. The ticket cost more than flying. One (or more) was afraid of flying, and they didn't feel like driving, so train it was. Train vs fly is irrelevant. The train is supposed to take the cars off the road. That the pro-train people lied about the number of stolen plane trips is irrelevant to the train being anti-car, and unrelated to flight.
The anti-road groups don't even like trains. They just hate cars so much that they push trains to harm cars. That's all it's ever been about.
They will fly or drive. Did you read the studies? People drive. The high-speed train from Dallas to Houston that has been talked about forever won't work. It's slower than driving, and people prefer planes to trains. How is a 1 hour train slower than a 3 hour drive? The 1 hour to get to and from the train station, and the time at the train station(s), and you've lost all your time savings.
You are missing the "road vs non-road" subtext to all discussions on transportation. Every option is "road" or "non-road" and the two camps are religious organizations, not logical ones.
Gravity does the work getting water from CO. And they wouldn't need to pump it from CO, if they didn't hold it in CO and keep it out of the streams that flow to SoCal. SoCal ran out of water because those upstream took it. And the rain slowed, to restrict local capture.
What does safety have to do with "dirty"?
And the dam was built for flood control, not power, the power was just added later, because they could.
You miss the point. The pro-train crowd doesn't care about trains, or airplanes. They are simply anti-car. Nothing more than that. Cars are a sign of elitism, where only the top 90% can own cars, and they encourage sprawl and inefficient use of resources. Cars are evil. Anything that makes car commutes harder is good.
The "real" solution will be PRT. The tracked PRT (Skytran being my favorite, at least based on the plans and marketing) will never work. By the time they are economically viable and have working systems installed handling commuting traffic, we'll have smart autonomous cars. PRT through road-use will be faster and cheaper than tracked systems, even if the tracked systems are technically superior.
But all of the PRT will be opposed by the "environmentalists", because they are not pro-environment, but anti-car, for social, not environmental reasons.
Because nobody uses Rankine, except when pointing out it exists.
No kidding, they do that because they have to.
Yes. They learned that if they don't have their own CDN with great local peering already, Comcast will shut down their links and charge them money to get to their customers. After learning 3rd world extortion techniques in the US, they don't open shop anywhere until they've defended against those tactics.
A Google cache appliance isn't going to help with anything but browsing the web..
Which is most of what the users in an office do.
I'm not really sure The only way it makes sense with Netflix or most US industry to open up shop in India or China closing up shop in the US if they were opening shop to sell to Indians/Chinese.
Wal-Mart has large offices in China (I've been to one). And aren't big on selling to Chinese. Can you figure that one out?
It would not work for Netflix to stream to the US from China because there is too much latency the pipes between the two nations aren't fat enough to carry that massive load of traffic.
Latency is irrelevant to streaming. When you have the basic technical facts 100% wrong, it's hard to think any of your other opinions are any better constructed. I've streamed just fine over a 1.2s latency connection (double-hop satellite). Though, much "streaming" is a download with instant-delete and play-while-downloading, which doesn't work. But "dumber" streaming (that includes Netflix), literally streams. So latency will not harm video quality (but can lead to interruptions when the non-streaming CnC side-channel fails).
By the way, alt-left communities do the same thing. The notion that we only want to block one side of things is fascism at its finest.
Yeah, the hippies sit there, doing nothing, dreaming about doing nothing, would like nothing more than stage an unarmed armed uprising to put down anyone in their way.
Nope, the labeling of the "other side" and working on your persecution complex, while you are in the most protected class, is the sign of fascism at its finest.
Google cache is in every country in the world. If you don't like the local performance, you can buy your own Google cache appliance. Bandwidth to China is not "low". You are asserting technical problems that don't exist to mask political problems. I currently work for a company with offices in China and India. Local Internet is not that bad.
Accents is an issue. Though, my biggest problem with foreign workers is they over-estimate their grasp of English. ESL is misunderstood. In India, they are coached that their "first language" is English, even if English is *never* spoken in the home. But the children grow up without native understanding of the language, and are told they are native, so they don't understand, but think they do. Makes it infuriating when an Indian argues with an American about a mis-communication.
Netflix in China is a regulatory issue preventing the service from being sold/used there. The bandwidth isn't the issue. Netflix enters every market with local servers, and as such, the streaming is fast, even in a place like China, if they ever find a way to operate there.
For whatever reason trolls like to troll trolls, so bad advice is shouted down pretty quickly.
Some trolls were there to push a persona agenda. I remember two from a forum. Lloyd thought Chrysler made the best cars on the planet, and Earl Faubion was there to say "speed kills" every time someone mentioned having fun in a car. They were the town idiots. Triggered by people who would talk about "driving safely at 120 mph" or "Those killer Chryslers and their defective locks". They were considered trolls, because they obviously couldn't hold a logical and calm conversation, but they aren't in the more modern GNAA definition.
They are when you are talking about connectivity back to where the consumers are in the US.
How do you mean? I've worked for a variety of international companies, and connections to the consumers are always good. Yes, sometimes you have to use Google Drive, or One Drive, or some other cloud file service that's replicated around the world, but two people editing the same file at the same time on opposite sides of the world is trivial in India, China, and even Detroit.
That's why we aren't outsourcing to Kenya. But doesn't apply to China, or India, where the major cities are no worse than Detroit.
When you don't insource the jobs, you outsource them. If you don't import the workers, the jobs will be sent out. Then the other workers will stay away, not paying US taxes, and keeping the "intelligence" they gain for themselves, to eventually overtake the US.
If the work is going to Bob in Elbonia, it's better to import Bob for the job, than export the job to Elbonia and have Bob do it there.
That's exactly where I was headed. The difference between a 100 kW electric motor and a 10 kW electric motor, both putting out 10 kW is weight, not efficiency.
Though, the same can be said for gasoline engines, tuned well (though Diesel beat gasoline at that, it's the applications, not technology, that determined that). The internal resistance of swept area being 10x will add friction, but not enough to make the efficiency differences people assume. Throttling (wastes engine power/efficiency turning the engine into a poor air pump) can be "cured" in gasoline engines with direct injection and leaner burn. If one were to design a 100 kW gasoline engine that ran wide-open-throttle at 10 kW, then you should be "near" peak efficiency at 10 kW. I have no idea whether that would compromise 100kW operation. Perhaps an adkins cycle engine with forced induction that was tuned to a split peak could work. It would never work in an automotive application, where you don't have two peaks, but a smooth transition from low to high. But for an application where you need 100 kW to take off, and 10 kW to cruise, you can make an unusual design for a gasoline engine and design out most of the assumed problems. It's just that nobody has bothered to throw $1B at the problem to see what they could do.
I'm thinking that a 1l turbo optimized for 10 kW naturally aspirated, with an out-of-band turbo that's switched on and off (not unlike the old blowers that were free-wheel until engaged) with the turbo activation tuned for 100kW. Sure, that engine has never been built, but nobody has ever had a need.
Though the hardest part will be the variable compression engine. As the N/A use would be "best" with 14:1 or so, while the turbo may hit better numbers with a lower compression.
But electric solves all those problems with a known solution, so we'll likely not see the gasoline R&D, unless range drives development back to liquid fuel.
VTOL boost would be impractical. It violates too many aeronautic rules. How do you abort a take off if the drone boost fails? How do you land if the drone boost fails? How do you land where drones aren't available? We have that solution for fixed wing, JATO, and they are used more on Impalas than C130s. Because the risk in using them is so high, they are last resort only.
You over simplified to the point it was incorrect. That makes you wrong. Your argument has no merit. If you want to stop being wrong and looking like an argumentative idiot, spend more effort in being accurate. It wouldn't have taken any more words to have been more accurate.
You don't "run" BCM. Business Continuity Management is about calculating the costs and risks. It is done by the CFO and COO, not the CIO. The CIO (or grunts below) come up with a BCP to meet the BCM. DR is one option for a BCP to meet the BCM.
Yes, I read your words. They didn't make sense. Expand the acronym, and it's not even proper English. "An that is why you run Business Continuity Management (BCM) and recovery tests". You don't run BCM tests. You run BCP tests.
Or do you not know the difference between BCM and BCP, and are lecturing others for using the terms wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Rotary with a theoretical efficiency of a fixed wing. It does both. It has a propeller like a plane, in the tail. Wings on the side, and a top rotor for VTOL. The helicopter doesn't need that much lift for level flight, if you give it wings. It'd be interesting to have the helicopter go from "helicopter" mode to "auto gyro" mode then to "fixed wing" mode as you transition from rotor to level flight. The rotor can continue to turn, so long as the wingtips don't break the sound barrier (generally the self-destruct point), though that's just an engineering problem to solve.
My nearest municipal airstrip is 5 miles, then less than 50 to the international airport. Flying over all the traffic to make that trip would be great. The air taxi services in NYC are often quite busy. Manhattan to JFK/LGA is slow by car, and many executives take air taxi, which isn't much more than a ground taxi, but much faster. Get the air taxi price to the same as a ground taxi, and you'll have a stream of these things flying from Manhattan to the airports.
Home to work is unlikely, as most places "home" and "work" don't have legal landing spots. Having an Uber on either side makes the flying more trouble than it's worth. I would see these as a replacement for airport taxi services for business travelers, but not for much else.