If that happened to me, I'd ask for the Cyrillic keyboard. Making excuses for why English answers are poor fails when you ask a question in the supposed native language.
Turing also didn't say anything about crippling the test by making it a child who doesn't speak fluent English.
Ask him what his native language is. Ask him to count to 10 in it. All you have to do if it's a test is figure out edge cases the script writer didn't think of.
I got here late, but TFA is a lie. Stating the obvious (voice and HTTP are not "equal" to the client nor provider), doesn't make an official Cisco stance against Net Neutrality. In fact, most Net Neutrality proposals (every one I've seen officially submitted in Congress), would have allowed for such action. No Net Neutrality has yet prevented reasonable traffic grooming. It's designed to prevent Comcast from running a VoIP service with premium QoS and deliberately lowering the QoS of all other competing services. To keep all competing services at the same level is "neutral".
Net Neutrality is not "traffic neutral" It's "provider neutral" at least so far in every bill I've read. And that's the best way. Why force every packet to be the same when we know they are inherently not?
So you know that the IP scheme will be NAT'd from behind the residential device, despite the statements in TFA indicating otherwise? They will have AAA on the Xfinity users to make sure they are Comcast subscribers, and thus will be tracking the separately from the "inside" users at the address.
I never lied, and your link doesn't say what you assert. I'm not wrong. A cop thinking a jackass is too stupid to own a gun isn't a national conspiracy to disarm everyone through a national registry. A lie is an intentional untruth. Unless you can prove I had pre-knowledge of the untruth, then you are lying, not me. And it isn't an untruth, so pre-knowledge of it would be difficult.
Wait, you keep asserting the physical-world problem is trivial to solve, but that flies in the face of the evidence.
I've seen ATM repairmen with a large key ring they checked against the ATM before opening it. But you asserted that there's one key for all ATMs. I can't prove it wrong, but it didn't agree with my previous observations. What evidence do you have that all ATMs open with a single key?
You have no evidence that it'd be "hard" to solve. You just assert, without proof, your opinion as fact.
Since every ATM transaction is authenticated, why don't they have a card with PIN for every maintenance man, and then you'd have a unique physical key, and the only "authentication" would be the type already used? Simple, cheap, and much more effective than what you assert they do now.
Yes, Cisco routers come with the password "cisco" as the default. But you can change that to a more complex password, locked up tight, and set them up to do administration passwords through external AAA, and fail back to local, or even fail back to nothing (if you don't get the right AAA server, you have to reset the device to get in).
Hilarious how most networking equipment is more "secure" than ATMs.
So, NOT every gun in the US has paperwork for it somewhere,
Yeah the 0.0001% that were home made aren't tracked. But even if the forms from #1 aren't stored centrally, the NICS check used to help generate those forms is. And #2 and #3 can't make people owners of new guns. So that leaves #1 and #4, with #4 rounding to zero, and #1 leaving a central database of "owners".
What good do records and serialization do when most guns used in crimes are stolen to start with?
That's why most places where guns are "common" but not a right have responsibilities of ownership. If I allow my car to be stolen recklessly, I can be held liable for its theft. But there's no allowance for that with guns. Outside the US, it's common that guns be held in secured facilities when not in use (and yes, that can be in your home). But the US still allows gun racks in trucks, where one rock can net you 2 shotguns and a rifle.
Despite what you learned by watching CSI, the answer is a resounding, "Not a whole hell of a lot."
They simplify, but if any gun with my name against it is used in a crime, they'd come to me and ask how I disposed of it (probably implying I'd be held responsible if I can't justify the disposal). "I gave that one to a friend" or "Sold at a gun show in 1998" should be sufficient. Let them CSI the gun show and facial recog me and whoever. But yes, despite your delusions, they will go to the last "registered owner" and try to track the gun from there.
So there is a record of every FFL sale, yet you agree with me like a gigantic ass. Every gun in the US has a record. It may not be up do date, but there is a record of sale for every gun. Would you disagree with that? Or agree again in the most disagreeable way again?
I don't care. It's trivial to solve, but obviously the banks don't care. Since they are the one footing the bill, it's their right to lose millions to fraud they could have prevented.
At least they are all on XP now. No more of that OS/2.
Nobody has previously done anything with registration in the manner you describe. The disarm acts have all been broad, and they don't focus as much on those on lists. You could just hand it to your neighbor, and be done with it. So they go door to door disarming everyone. The nice thing about the almost-ban places is that suicides are lower (because the most sure-fire method is not available) and one of your worries about gun theft is small. Because you can't get a fun without demonstrating a safe, secure place to store it (in a safe). So invasions for gun thefts are lower when they know the guns are secured, and you have to fight with people to get them to do things before you can steal their guns.
There is a registration of every gun buyer in the US already, so I don't understand your objection anyway.
Don't you remember Die Hard? 1988, the LAPD has a tank. Everyone wanted one after that. The War on Drugs funded lots of military gear for the police. Some confiscated or from confiscated proceeds, other from direct federal grants.
Lots of military gear out there, and for a long time.
I had a friend looking for a car. I go with friends often to buy cars. I'm considered an "expert". He wanted a family car, so we took a look at the Taurus. The 95 to 99. With the seat back all the way and upright, I'd hit my knees on the steering column getting in and out. And my head rubbed the roof. I'm not unusually sized. I did bump the key with my knee, but it was years ago, so I don't recall whether that was just in/out, or driving. Seat all the way back. It hit my knee on the key in a Ford. It didn't go back any farther. The Toyota MR2 is about the only car I've been in that I couldn't drive with the seat all the way back. I'm 5'10".
So then, what's the problem? All ATMs have a single physical token, so why not have all ATMs have a single logical token? If a single logical key is not sufficient, then a single physical key wouldn't be sufficient. They are simply broken by design. At least it's not my money. If you hack the ATM to take $10,000 the bank has a loss. If you hack an account to steal $100 from the same ATM, the bank steals it from the account holder.
The US government's actions have not been consistent with their statements. They wanted Snowden out of Russia, but revoked his travel papers, making that increasingly difficult. The US lied about the content of what Snowden was revealing. The US government has been caught in numerous lies. What proof do you have that the proven liar is telling the truth this time?
But the US state department revoked his passport preventing him from leaving the airport in Russia after sitting in the international lobby for weeks unable to leave, Russia gave him a one year grant of asylum.
Lack of a passport wouldn't stop him from traveling. Just like Russia granted him travel papers to go from the international lobby into Russia proper, any other country could have done the same, but the US made it clear there was nowhere he could go. They did the equivalent of grounding Air Force One to search it for Snowden. Had that happened to the US done by Ecuador, it would have been considered an act of war. But the US violates international law with impunity.
There doesn't look to be any direct flights from Hong Kong to South America (they land in Australia, Mexico, or the USA). So he had to fly west to avoid a US controlled destination.
Slashdot Mirror
http://i.stack.imgur.com/PKkDf...
I couldn't find the source for that data, but it does look like 50-75% is more accurate than 95%.
And the waves in water would sink this type of hovercraft.
The point is to fool them fairly. There is a difference.
If that happened to me, I'd ask for the Cyrillic keyboard. Making excuses for why English answers are poor fails when you ask a question in the supposed native language.
Google is "smart"? What is smart?
Because to deal with most customers you need to be stupid.
No. To deal with you, one must be stupid. They are the only ones that speak your language.
Turing also didn't say anything about crippling the test by making it a child who doesn't speak fluent English.
Ask him what his native language is. Ask him to count to 10 in it. All you have to do if it's a test is figure out edge cases the script writer didn't think of.
I got here late, but TFA is a lie. Stating the obvious (voice and HTTP are not "equal" to the client nor provider), doesn't make an official Cisco stance against Net Neutrality. In fact, most Net Neutrality proposals (every one I've seen officially submitted in Congress), would have allowed for such action. No Net Neutrality has yet prevented reasonable traffic grooming. It's designed to prevent Comcast from running a VoIP service with premium QoS and deliberately lowering the QoS of all other competing services. To keep all competing services at the same level is "neutral".
Net Neutrality is not "traffic neutral" It's "provider neutral" at least so far in every bill I've read. And that's the best way. Why force every packet to be the same when we know they are inherently not?
So you know that the IP scheme will be NAT'd from behind the residential device, despite the statements in TFA indicating otherwise? They will have AAA on the Xfinity users to make sure they are Comcast subscribers, and thus will be tracking the separately from the "inside" users at the address.
I never lied, and your link doesn't say what you assert. I'm not wrong. A cop thinking a jackass is too stupid to own a gun isn't a national conspiracy to disarm everyone through a national registry. A lie is an intentional untruth. Unless you can prove I had pre-knowledge of the untruth, then you are lying, not me. And it isn't an untruth, so pre-knowledge of it would be difficult.
Wait, you keep asserting the physical-world problem is trivial to solve, but that flies in the face of the evidence.
I've seen ATM repairmen with a large key ring they checked against the ATM before opening it. But you asserted that there's one key for all ATMs. I can't prove it wrong, but it didn't agree with my previous observations. What evidence do you have that all ATMs open with a single key?
You have no evidence that it'd be "hard" to solve. You just assert, without proof, your opinion as fact.
Since every ATM transaction is authenticated, why don't they have a card with PIN for every maintenance man, and then you'd have a unique physical key, and the only "authentication" would be the type already used? Simple, cheap, and much more effective than what you assert they do now.
Yes, Cisco routers come with the password "cisco" as the default. But you can change that to a more complex password, locked up tight, and set them up to do administration passwords through external AAA, and fail back to local, or even fail back to nothing (if you don't get the right AAA server, you have to reset the device to get in).
Hilarious how most networking equipment is more "secure" than ATMs.
So, NOT every gun in the US has paperwork for it somewhere,
Yeah the 0.0001% that were home made aren't tracked. But even if the forms from #1 aren't stored centrally, the NICS check used to help generate those forms is. And #2 and #3 can't make people owners of new guns. So that leaves #1 and #4, with #4 rounding to zero, and #1 leaving a central database of "owners".
What good do records and serialization do when most guns used in crimes are stolen to start with?
That's why most places where guns are "common" but not a right have responsibilities of ownership. If I allow my car to be stolen recklessly, I can be held liable for its theft. But there's no allowance for that with guns. Outside the US, it's common that guns be held in secured facilities when not in use (and yes, that can be in your home). But the US still allows gun racks in trucks, where one rock can net you 2 shotguns and a rifle.
Despite what you learned by watching CSI, the answer is a resounding, "Not a whole hell of a lot."
They simplify, but if any gun with my name against it is used in a crime, they'd come to me and ask how I disposed of it (probably implying I'd be held responsible if I can't justify the disposal). "I gave that one to a friend" or "Sold at a gun show in 1998" should be sufficient. Let them CSI the gun show and facial recog me and whoever. But yes, despite your delusions, they will go to the last "registered owner" and try to track the gun from there.
Yeah, so? I've amended it. I have the flu and was imprecise. "There is a registration of every (new) gun buyer in the US already,"
So there is a record of every FFL sale, yet you agree with me like a gigantic ass. Every gun in the US has a record. It may not be up do date, but there is a record of sale for every gun. Would you disagree with that? Or agree again in the most disagreeable way again?
I don't care. It's trivial to solve, but obviously the banks don't care. Since they are the one footing the bill, it's their right to lose millions to fraud they could have prevented.
At least they are all on XP now. No more of that OS/2.
They have had those things for 50 years, stabilizing dishes on ships. No reason someone couldn't put that in a car.
Nobody has previously done anything with registration in the manner you describe. The disarm acts have all been broad, and they don't focus as much on those on lists. You could just hand it to your neighbor, and be done with it. So they go door to door disarming everyone. The nice thing about the almost-ban places is that suicides are lower (because the most sure-fire method is not available) and one of your worries about gun theft is small. Because you can't get a fun without demonstrating a safe, secure place to store it (in a safe). So invasions for gun thefts are lower when they know the guns are secured, and you have to fight with people to get them to do things before you can steal their guns.
There is a registration of every gun buyer in the US already, so I don't understand your objection anyway.
Don't you remember Die Hard? 1988, the LAPD has a tank. Everyone wanted one after that. The War on Drugs funded lots of military gear for the police. Some confiscated or from confiscated proceeds, other from direct federal grants.
Lots of military gear out there, and for a long time.
And lead has gone down. Why do you believe in lead in guns, but not lead in paint and soil?
I had a friend looking for a car. I go with friends often to buy cars. I'm considered an "expert". He wanted a family car, so we took a look at the Taurus. The 95 to 99. With the seat back all the way and upright, I'd hit my knees on the steering column getting in and out. And my head rubbed the roof. I'm not unusually sized. I did bump the key with my knee, but it was years ago, so I don't recall whether that was just in/out, or driving. Seat all the way back. It hit my knee on the key in a Ford. It didn't go back any farther. The Toyota MR2 is about the only car I've been in that I couldn't drive with the seat all the way back. I'm 5'10".
So then, what's the problem? All ATMs have a single physical token, so why not have all ATMs have a single logical token? If a single logical key is not sufficient, then a single physical key wouldn't be sufficient. They are simply broken by design. At least it's not my money. If you hack the ATM to take $10,000 the bank has a loss. If you hack an account to steal $100 from the same ATM, the bank steals it from the account holder.
No, you carefully worded your words to say nothing while attacking others. What, do you work for the government? You sound like you should.
The US government's actions have not been consistent with their statements. They wanted Snowden out of Russia, but revoked his travel papers, making that increasingly difficult. The US lied about the content of what Snowden was revealing. The US government has been caught in numerous lies. What proof do you have that the proven liar is telling the truth this time?
But the US state department revoked his passport preventing him from leaving the airport in Russia after sitting in the international lobby for weeks unable to leave, Russia gave him a one year grant of asylum.
Lack of a passport wouldn't stop him from traveling. Just like Russia granted him travel papers to go from the international lobby into Russia proper, any other country could have done the same, but the US made it clear there was nowhere he could go. They did the equivalent of grounding Air Force One to search it for Snowden. Had that happened to the US done by Ecuador, it would have been considered an act of war. But the US violates international law with impunity.
There doesn't look to be any direct flights from Hong Kong to South America (they land in Australia, Mexico, or the USA). So he had to fly west to avoid a US controlled destination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...