Don't feel bad. Curiously, the author of the page he links to argues against what the GPP is claiming (Did you read it?). Whereas the GPP claims that that page says Meucci used his invention to "speak" with his wife it merely states he set up a "rudimentary communications link" to her bedroom. A telegraph would fit that bill as well so the GPP should really come up with something a little stronger.
Yep it's a crazy idea, but there's this bit in the back of my mind that says it's hard to fight a war against people you know.
There is a rich history of civil wars and such of people killing others who they knew much better than you would by IMing through some craptacular automatic translator. Probably 99% of past wars have involved countries attacking well-understood neighboring countries. Nevermind the fact that we aren't even actually at war with the Iraqis.
Trust me the government is interested in this beyond just scaring people. The DoD, the national labs, the EPA, etc, are all spending money figuring out where this stuff would go, how it would interact with surfaces, and how to clean it up.
The public wouldn't worry about it? Bullshit. How many people do you think would show up to work if told that their office building was contaminated with radioactive (OMFG! Radiation!) dust?
Again the idea would not be to kill people but cause panic and economic harm. If done in a major metropolitan area the cleanup costs and economic losses could easily go into the hundreds of millions or more.
I've got a magic rock that wards off tiger attacks. No really! You don't see any tigers around do you?
While it is true that the lack of attacks does not prove the measures have been effective, it also makes it a little difficult to say they are completely useless as well. While I don't think any imminent attacks have been thwarted, it seems like there have been a few cases of "cells" being broken up that maybe, sorta would have tried to do something in the indefinite future.
Why would they bother bringing it through a port at all? Drug smugglers and human traffickers have already developed efficient methods for getting goods into the country. There is no way that Osama, having finally gotten his hands on a nuke, is going to put it on a cargo ship and cross his fingers.
You can shoot someone with a gun in the thigh and they won't die.
You have been watching too many movies. Hit a major artery and they will be dead before the paramedics get there.
The idea that getting a piece of plutonium and spreading it out over the 4,000 square mile area covered by a city would kill thousands is laughable and has been debunked a number of times - it'd just spread much too thinly to do any damage.
Ah, but good luck convincing the general public of that. The idea would not be to kill thousands of people but to make that large area unusable. A dirty bomb would not kill many people outright but it might not be a good idea to live in the affected area without some clean-up. The effort involved to do a proper clean-up is tremendous.
The real problem wasn't that the kid had to wear a helmet, but that he was too self conscious to ride his bike 3 blocks with the helmet. No shit. I would have told him to put his fucking helmet on or walk.
How do they propose to enforce this. I would bet damn near 100% of data breaches are self reported by the losing party. If you are suddenly going to face criminal charges I bet it will be a damn rare case where thefts actually get reported. And how will they prove that unencrypted data was present on the now missing laptop anyway?
"I admit my laptop was stolen last night, but...I...uh had just wiped the hard drive to downgrade to XP. Yeah, that's it."
Parent is very insightful. Also, make sure your old items are recycled, which will at least partially offset the need to mine or pump new materials from the ground. Recycled in what sense though? If you sell your gas guzzler to someone else in favor of a more efficient model you aren't really reducing pollution at all. Would it be better to just send it directly to the scrapyard?
I actually think that is the best because I hang up after two seconds and don't have to worry about any ill-informed pangs of conscience over being rude.
He might pick the locks to kill you, making him happy to accept your imaginary charge of burglary if he's caught.
Thus proving the OPs point - you decided the crime before knowing what the crime was. You're right, it would be more correct to call it breaking and entering. The point remains that just because he has a legitimate day job as a security consultant does not automatically make his actions into a "free consultation".
Emphasis mine. So what is he? If he's a hacker, the raid is just desserts. If he's a security consultant, and he's exposed this flaw, he's being persecuted. Frankly, I don't know what he really is, but it seems like the press is schizophrenic on this issue. It just goes to show that when it comes to technology, the mainstream press is a bit low on clarity and high on sensationalism.
If a locksmith breaks into your home by picking your locks, he is still a burglar.
>>> "Unless you can provide data in a method that is deemed "un-crackable", I doubt it would be allowed."
Sure people would be suspicious but the burden of proof lies with those that have to show your evidence is not valid, surely - presumption of innocence and all. Either they show you fabricated the evidence (and are thus due an even longer stretch in prison) or they don't and your evidence stands. Indeed if your evidence doesn't balance with that of the police then there's something for the jurors to weigh against you. Indeed the evidence would likely be admissible but the prosecution could raise doubts about its validity with the jury. Using unverifiable logs would be about as useful and convincing as a Polaroid of your speedometer that you claimed was coincidentally taken at the time of the infraction.
You are right. Nobody should spend any time at all considering the consequences and possible responses to anything more serious than the last pandemic.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the second part of his post, why would you even bother responding to the first? He is obviously an idiot.
Don't feel bad. Curiously, the author of the page he links to argues against what the GPP is claiming (Did you read it?). Whereas the GPP claims that that page says Meucci used his invention to "speak" with his wife it merely states he set up a "rudimentary communications link" to her bedroom. A telegraph would fit that bill as well so the GPP should really come up with something a little stronger.
Yeah, it would never occur to me either to send a meeting invite to anyone outside of my organization.
Yahoo is not inserting the ads on its own. They are giving the publisher of the PDF the option to insert ads to generate revenue.
If yahoo wan't ad's in PDF's, so be it... all the more reason for me to stick with google.
It is up to the publishers whether they want the ads or not. If ads start showing up for you in PDFs blame the publisher of the PDF not Yahoo.
There is a third option: ongoing. Feel free to keep slapping away though.
Yep it's a crazy idea, but there's this bit in the back of my mind that says it's hard to fight a war against people you know.
There is a rich history of civil wars and such of people killing others who they knew much better than you would by IMing through some craptacular automatic translator. Probably 99% of past wars have involved countries attacking well-understood neighboring countries. Nevermind the fact that we aren't even actually at war with the Iraqis.
Trust me the government is interested in this beyond just scaring people. The DoD, the national labs, the EPA, etc, are all spending money figuring out where this stuff would go, how it would interact with surfaces, and how to clean it up.
The public wouldn't worry about it? Bullshit. How many people do you think would show up to work if told that their office building was contaminated with radioactive (OMFG! Radiation!) dust?
Again the idea would not be to kill people but cause panic and economic harm. If done in a major metropolitan area the cleanup costs and economic losses could easily go into the hundreds of millions or more.
While it is true that the lack of attacks does not prove the measures have been effective, it also makes it a little difficult to say they are completely useless as well. While I don't think any imminent attacks have been thwarted, it seems like there have been a few cases of "cells" being broken up that maybe, sorta would have tried to do something in the indefinite future.
Why would they bother bringing it through a port at all? Drug smugglers and human traffickers have already developed efficient methods for getting goods into the country. There is no way that Osama, having finally gotten his hands on a nuke, is going to put it on a cargo ship and cross his fingers.
You can shoot someone with a gun in the thigh and they won't die.
You have been watching too many movies. Hit a major artery and they will be dead before the paramedics get there.
The idea that getting a piece of plutonium and spreading it out over the 4,000 square mile area covered by a city would kill thousands is laughable and has been debunked a number of times - it'd just spread much too thinly to do any damage.
Ah, but good luck convincing the general public of that. The idea would not be to kill thousands of people but to make that large area unusable. A dirty bomb would not kill many people outright but it might not be a good idea to live in the affected area without some clean-up. The effort involved to do a proper clean-up is tremendous.
"I admit my laptop was stolen last night, but...I...uh had just wiped the hard drive to downgrade to XP. Yeah, that's it."
Recycled in what sense though? If you sell your gas guzzler to someone else in favor of a more efficient model you aren't really reducing pollution at all. Would it be better to just send it directly to the scrapyard?
OK, perhaps it is not a question of whether they need them or not, but what the hell are they doing with them?
I actually think that is the best because I hang up after two seconds and don't have to worry about any ill-informed pangs of conscience over being rude.
The locksmith example was a poor choice. The OP however tried to make it sound like if he couldn't be a "security consultant" and yet also a "hacker".
He might pick the locks to kill you, making him happy to accept your imaginary charge of burglary if he's caught.
Thus proving the OPs point - you decided the crime before knowing what the crime was. You're right, it would be more correct to call it breaking and entering. The point remains that just because he has a legitimate day job as a security consultant does not automatically make his actions into a "free consultation".
Emphasis mine. So what is he? If he's a hacker, the raid is just desserts. If he's a security consultant, and he's exposed this flaw, he's being persecuted. Frankly, I don't know what he really is, but it seems like the press is schizophrenic on this issue. It just goes to show that when it comes to technology, the mainstream press is a bit low on clarity and high on sensationalism.
If a locksmith breaks into your home by picking your locks, he is still a burglar.Woo-hoo!
Sure people would be suspicious but the burden of proof lies with those that have to show your evidence is not valid, surely - presumption of innocence and all. Either they show you fabricated the evidence (and are thus due an even longer stretch in prison) or they don't and your evidence stands. Indeed if your evidence doesn't balance with that of the police then there's something for the jurors to weigh against you.
Indeed the evidence would likely be admissible but the prosecution could raise doubts about its validity with the jury. Using unverifiable logs would be about as useful and convincing as a Polaroid of your speedometer that you claimed was coincidentally taken at the time of the infraction.
You are right. Nobody should spend any time at all considering the consequences and possible responses to anything more serious than the last pandemic.