There are no quotes. I didn't say you literally said that. I know you didn't literally say that. That was for illustrative purposes to show how rediculas your position is. Your position is literally, completely without merit - in this regard.
Obviously you don't trust them. I don't either. I don't know anyone who does. But that's not really germane to the topic at hand. Not one bit. Not in the least. Why? Because its *ALL* readily explained by network engineering best practices and well established network use trends. Period.
Now if you want to have a discussion where our distrust of ISPs is germane, let's do it. Until such time, please keep the irrational hyperbole out of the discussion. With the available facts, there is absolutely nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, which isn't readily explained by means of extremely normal and in fact, all but mandatory QoS for a network of their size.
Now as I originally stated, there may be some wild cards at play here, but there is absolutely nothing, not even a tiny whiff, to suggest that is the case.
The rest of your post is idiotic, trollish, and stupid.
For the last time, this has absolutely nothing to do with "truth." My facts have absolutely nothing to do with "trust". Period. It has everything to do with QoS and the fact they use it. Period.
Your response is emotionally charged. I've read those same articles you have. I understand the ISPs are not my best friend and they are out for themselves. They are a company after all. But none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Again, trust has nothing to do with it.
I didn't post it but I don't disagree with anything stated. It addresses your issues and explains why your presumptions are not the least bit reasonable. The anonymous post starts out, "Actually, P2P traffic should be served with the lowest priority possible."
But what I meant was your being naive if you really think ISP's are going to be fair or impartial about it.
Where does your line of thinking come into play with my comments? It doesn't. That's the point.
The break down of your logic is literally this:
Me) They have a managed network.
You) You're giving them too much credit. They don't have a network. You're being naive.
I explained the facts. You attempted to refute it with emotion. Meaning, "fair" or "impartial" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Period. End of discussion. The discussion starts and stops with them having a managed network with QoS. Anything else is hate mongering and hyperbole. Which is exactly why you got the response you got.
Right, but it has a very technical meaning to those who understand the technical merit and implications. You're simply attempting to ignore the technical merit and ride the political bullshit speak so as to attempt grasp at justification to support your obtuse line of reasoning.
Factually, politicians are obfuscating the technical merit in an effort confuse those, like you, who don't understand the technical details. In doing, they hope to come out on top from the confusion of the ignorant masses. Basically, your line of defense only benefits those who want to destroy Net Neutrality. Your ignorance is to the detriment of everyone. And when people take the time to address your ignorance you double down and cover your ears. This is why people think little of your opinion. Which by your own actions, more or less proves isn't worth listening too.
Nope. I'm offering well publicized facts. He's offering nothing but facts from his ass to counter ACTUAL FACTS. Your post is purely delusional trolling.
Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.
So you're saying that my theory of QoS is likely correct. HTTP has a higher QoS than BT - hardly surprising.
Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.
Agreed. Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.
While all true, I think you give the ISP's too much credit. If you really believe that tripe, I know this guy in Nigeria, he's a prince and he'd like to meet you.
So far, the only thing you've validated is you are unethical and have no idea how networking works, which makes us concluded you're unqualified to refute my statement.
Giving too much credit? Actually, statements like that make you look extremely stupid. As a matter of fact, every major ISP is going to have a QoS infrastructure in place. They may not all agree in exact service prioritization but its there. Furthermore, its an extremely reasonable assumption BT traffic has been given one of the lowest, if not the lowest QoS of any service. To then dumbly state, "too much credit" for something which factually exists plus extremely reasonable assumptions, is beyond idiotic.
Basically, your position is more stupid, and completely baseless, than the original rhetoric to which I commented. But hey, this is slashdot. Its popular to be an ignorant, hate mongering, douche, so you fit right in.
Suffice to say that such information could prove to be very useful for consumers and advocates of Net Neutrality.
What a stupid thing to say. It doesn't offer any insight as to why bandwidth may have gone off a cliff. Net Neutrality is not the same thing as responsible QoS! Get that through you heads!
After 6pm, Internet traffic for most ISPs goes through the roof. With it, latency and available bandwidth are typically negatively affected. With a responsible QoS, which is still fully Net Neutral, its easily possible to explain services such at BT "falling off a cliff." After all, if you give it a low priority, which reasonably it should, other users may simply be driving it "off the cliff."
Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day, especially when he's likely to watch it later, or getting his next WoW update. Some things require an interactive level of performance - some others do not. BT, by definition, is a service which should receive a low priority in any QoS infrastructure.
Net Neutrality is about ensuring company X doesn't get premier service at the expense of its competition. Its not about ensuring reasonable QoS to ISP customers. Please stop conflating the two.
Now having said all that, there may be other things are work here, but there is nothing in the article which suggests there is anything controversial going on. As is, things are reasonably explainable with traditional usage trends and a reasonable desire to maintain a reasonable QoS to customers.
In the real world, Facebook has little value. It actually provides nothing other services didn't already provide. To then compare killing someone with the societal worth of updating a societally worthless service is rediculas.
Sure, Facebook may be important to you and others, but if its more important than the lives of people around you in the REAL world, then you and others like you are seriously fucked up and should probably be removed from the gene pool. If for no other reason, the death penalty should be brought back to all fifty states just to execute idiots who believe telling other idiots, "Mmmm...coffee", is worth another person's life.
You can't discount all conspiracy theories like that.
I didn't think I did. I was specifically referring to moon landing hoax and 9/11. For example, the officially acknowledged facts for the JFK assassination don't match the official story in the least. I'm not saying it must be a grand conspiracy but just the same, there is legitimate reason for pause there. Some conspiracies are real. But that need not mean that even the JFK assassination involves the mob and government insiders.
In the case of 9/11 on the other hand the facts and knowledge are hardly conclusive...
Actually they are. Only tiny, tiny elements of the official story create some ambiguity or a gray area, but otherwise the official story, not to mention physics and every computer physics simulation to date, all completely validate the official story; including debris and body placement inside the Pentagon. Meaning, some minor details might require revision but it never seems to be of a quality which effectively changes the official account such that it really matters. The proof there is overwhelming for anyone who cares to look. And ultimately that's the problem. Some people don't want to look because unconsciously they know it will throw their grand conspiracy out the window.
I don't believe in wild conspiracies, but I would like to know more facts and knowledge about this important historic event that shaped the world political landscape in the past decade.
I don't have a problem with such a position. But honestly, what facts have not been addressed? I've not heard a single Truther "fact" which hasn't already been addressed either directly by the official account or by unofficial accounts which still more or less meld well with the official account. Worse, the most popular Truther videos, which are widely regarded as the strongest evidence to support a massive new investigation are verifiably incorrect in almost every assertion it makes. So when the "strongest" counter argument is verifiably wrong, what exists to further the need for an additional, official, investigation?
And aside all that, the conspiracy required to support the 9/11 Truther's argument is mind numbing. Do you honestly believe 10,000 - 50,000 people of the general public could keep such a conspiracy quiet? Because that's the numbers the Truther's counter argument requires as projected by many experts and even reporters. Wikileaks and the press would be having a field day. As one reporter said, finding a massive conspiracy would be one of the greatest stories known to man. It would make my carrier for life. Unfortunately, even reporters have been completely unable to uncover a collection of facts which significantly deviate from the official story to any degree worth discussion.
As a side note, the Truthers who lead the cry for a new investigation all make a living (documentaries, books, and publicity) from keeping the Truther movement alive. So which conspiracy is most likely? A tiny conspiracy which is supported by the facts or a grand conspiracy which have absolutely no evidence? Exactly.
I forgot to add this to my other comment. Sorry for split posts.
As a side note, if you really want a good semi-moon landing related conspiracy, its semi-recently been released that the US space program was mothballed to allow the Russians first space access so as to allow for international precedence of the legality of space overflights. It was feared that if the US was the first to do it, the Russians would create a huge stink over it. Keep in mind, at the time, the US President was requesting unilateral overflights of nuclear facilities to mitigate a nuclear arms race. The Russians told the US to get bent. As a result, the US was looking and strategically planning on several alternate fronts. This one of such alternative. Of course there were political reasons too, which include the US' program really being a German program.
And so, Van Braun's rocket project was literally halted and placed into storage more than a year before the Russians launched Sputnik. After all the brouhaha was all done and over with, Van Braun's rocket was removed from storage, placed on a pad, and successfully launched into orbit. This was, of course, after the Air Force's rocket program kept blowing left and right.
Basically, the only thing the conspiracy failed to account for was the public's reaction to the Russians being first to space.
So if you want a nice conspiracy story, the US could have beat the Russians into space by roughly a year if it were not for the need for international cat-n-mouse politics with the Russians.
There are now several books out on the topic. PBS's Nova did a nice documentary too.
And frankly, I find your painting all skeptics with the broad nutter-brush to be very, VERY unscientific.
Admittedly, I'm guilty of painting with a wide brush. But then again, I also presume people understand what we're really talking about here. There is a difference between ignorant people who just don't know the facts and have doubt. In contrast there are pathological nutters (extremely well documented and frequently associated with paranoia as well as other disorders) who insist it never happened despite being aware of the endless evidence which proves it did, all while completely invalidating their own "proof." Its the later to which everyone is really referring.
Its really pretty simple. If anyone has doubts about landing on the moon, or 9/11 for that matter, either you don't know the available facts or your roller skate has one wheel. The former can be easily remedied while the later means you're screwed.
This would end all tinfoil hat theories on whether Nasa actually went there.
Absolutely it would not.
Study after study after study all document the same result. These people have a pathological need to believe in grand conspiracies. Its literally part of their self identity. You can bury people in a mountain and facts, all of which invalidate their conspiracy, and in turn destroy any and all credibility of their conspiracy theory, and they will always insist everything has been faked. In turn, your evidence only further empowers their delusion of conspiracy; to wit you are presumed to be a player or a patsy.
You can't reason with stupid. Its true for moon landing conspiracy people then and as true today for 9/11 conspiracy people ("Truthers") today.
Basically, any time you find someone who believes either the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy, you literally have identified someone who has lost a couple of ball bearings. Because of that, facts and knowledge are not a replacement for lost ball bearings.
Also, the atmosphere is too thin for airplane-style flight
Not true. The problem is one of bulk of mass, not of flight. Several aircraft have already been specifically designed to fly in the this martian air which are capable also addressing the bulk/mass transportation issues.
In the next decade or two, its very likely you'll see pictures taken from a plane (UAV) flying on Mars. The real question is, if and when the vehicle will be able to hitch a ride.
An artist recorded that song once. Why the hell do we have to pay for it multiple times
Because otherwise, that one time you bought would have cost in the hundreds. Since we both know you're not willing to pay that either, we're back to you being a hypocrite.
Again, I'll be expecting your paycheck any day now.
Likely I'll just take your car and house too. After all, since I'm sure I won't like your terms of the sale, I'll be like you and just take it.
Odds are that you'll never be in a real fight, and if you ever are, those wrestling skills won't in the end help very much because real fighting and practice are quite different.
I dunno about that. I have a Judo background. I was punched in the nose. I then threw the person on the ground and quickly beat him into submission. I had a bloody nose and a black eye from the single punch he landed. He had a shattered hand (it flailed outward as he was thrown and landed on concrete) and a cracked rib.
Just playing around I've made people submit who easily had six inches and fifty pounds on me. Now keep in mind, I'm just a green belt and almost everything I used was learned as a white belt. You don't have to be a master to come out on top. The simple fact is, a little knowledge goes a long way. All too often, when people realize you not only plan to resist, but are capable of resisting, they will move on to easier prey.
You can have integrity and still do things other people think are unethical. Maybe an anarcho-communist pirates things because he thinks everything should be free. He is upholding his beliefs.
You're right about that. Many people used to consider slavery to be ethical. But that makes them a hypocrite. Tell you what, I'll allow you the privileged of working for me and I'll simply not pay you for your time. The day pirates stop accepting paychecks is the day they stop being hypocrites.
HB Gary as an organization is incompetent. When computer/network security is your business and you get hacked no matter how clever the hack is its a FAIL on your part. In this case while not exactly crude Anonymous ow3n4g3 of their site was not the most sophisticated crack ever seen either. HB Gary blew it big time
This clearly indicates you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Say it with me so you can understand. There is no such thing as a completely secure system which is turned on and connected to the internet. Period. Unless you have proof he vetted every single line of code and then stated in absolute terms the code is invulnerable, you're delusional at best. Besides, no matter how secure the code base, social engineering always looms. Anyone and everyone who has any security credibility knows this - which says a lot about you.
To attempt to paint a horribly distorted view of reality over what the rest of the readership here is extremely disingenuous. Please stop it.
Anonymous is NOT a mega-cult of brainless people waiting in line to sacrifice themselves on the alter of your delusion. Period. These attacks exist because Anonymous feels, well, anonymous. When high profile participants are arrested and no longer anonymous, as has always happened in the past with these types of attacks, the rest disappear into the background. So please, stop presenting the world your altruistic delusion as fact. Aside from your delusion, there is absolutely nothing on which to base your fantasy.
Most TCP stacks have fairly complex algorithms to avoid, manage, and recover from congestion. Furthermore, with technologies such as sliding windows, TCP allows for rather good scaling once you leave the single switch. This in turn means iSCSI can better scale and intermix with other traffic without catastrophic issue. Even better, loss of frames results in increased latency rather than loss of data.
So while iSCSI is in fact a fatter, heavier stack, that's also why there are dedicated boards to offload work from the host CPU. Even still, with plentiful and powerful CPUs available these days, even host CPU socket stack implementations are frequently not an issue as I/O is all too often still the bottleneck.
FCoE is an expensive technology which was looking for a solution, which iSCSI largely and cheaply, had already solved.
Why is a factually supported opinion post troll? Why is it so hard for moderators to do such a simple job. Damn the IQ has gone to shit over the last few years here. Holy shit what a stupid moderator.
If only the moderator could be permanently labeled the idiot he is and prevented from ever moderating again. For the fucking stupid moderator who moderated the above post, read a fucking paper once in a blue moon and you'll see what I said is FACTUALLY ACCURATE. And since you're so fucking stupid I'll point out, moderation does not mean "I disagree." Disagree has absolutely nothing to do with moderation. If it does, you're doing it wrong and likely a fucking idiot like this guy.
If you can't do such a simple fucking job, don't do it at all.
Real reasons to dislike.NET are few and far between
Not true in the least. Such an opinion is hinting at your own bias. Realistically,.net is not portable and outside a subject of the Microsoft economy.
Now if you want to rephrase with such a caveat, I certainly won't disagree. But once you're looking at developers who prefer not to be forced to develop only on and only for Windows, there really doesn't exist a reason to like.net at all.
And before we go astray, while interesting, Mono is not a replacement for.net and it in of itself has its own shortcomings which make it unattractive for many, if not most non-windows developers.
Its a quote from a documentary. When asked why people might kill others in a war zone, that's his statement which is completely unfounded other that him asserting his own personal opinion and rational. Her presumes that people no can make the distinction between video games and reality and therefore, killing people is fun - such as one might do in a video game. While he's attempting to project this world view onto others, one is forced to understand its his own view given that his assertion that its more or less, the only possible explanation.
While I don't have anything I can point you at, the psychology behind soldiers in a war zone is fairly well understood at this point and his explanation is not only completely refuted but is completely unfounded. Which in turn is why it hints at projection of his own world view, which is exactly that, "Killing people is fun." Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find any mental health care professional who, at the very least, will support this rational is a sign of some type of serious mental health issue.
So even if you're not willing to take my word for it, serious think about what it is he's saying given the context provided in the documentary. If you have any psychology background, you'll quickly see he's got some issues and is very much projecting them.
Slashdot Mirror
Now your just putting words in my mouth.
*facepalm*
There are no quotes. I didn't say you literally said that. I know you didn't literally say that. That was for illustrative purposes to show how rediculas your position is. Your position is literally, completely without merit - in this regard.
Obviously you don't trust them. I don't either. I don't know anyone who does. But that's not really germane to the topic at hand. Not one bit. Not in the least. Why? Because its *ALL* readily explained by network engineering best practices and well established network use trends. Period.
Now if you want to have a discussion where our distrust of ISPs is germane, let's do it. Until such time, please keep the irrational hyperbole out of the discussion. With the available facts, there is absolutely nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, which isn't readily explained by means of extremely normal and in fact, all but mandatory QoS for a network of their size.
Now as I originally stated, there may be some wild cards at play here, but there is absolutely nothing, not even a tiny whiff, to suggest that is the case.
The rest of your post is idiotic, trollish, and stupid.
For the last time, this has absolutely nothing to do with "truth." My facts have absolutely nothing to do with "trust". Period. It has everything to do with QoS and the fact they use it. Period.
Your response is emotionally charged. I've read those same articles you have. I understand the ISPs are not my best friend and they are out for themselves. They are a company after all. But none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Again, trust has nothing to do with it.
I didn't post it but I don't disagree with anything stated. It addresses your issues and explains why your presumptions are not the least bit reasonable. The anonymous post starts out, "Actually, P2P traffic should be served with the lowest priority possible."
But what I meant was your being naive if you really think ISP's are going to be fair or impartial about it.
Where does your line of thinking come into play with my comments? It doesn't. That's the point.
The break down of your logic is literally this:
Me) They have a managed network.
You) You're giving them too much credit. They don't have a network. You're being naive.
I explained the facts. You attempted to refute it with emotion. Meaning, "fair" or "impartial" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Period. End of discussion. The discussion starts and stops with them having a managed network with QoS. Anything else is hate mongering and hyperbole. Which is exactly why you got the response you got.
Net Neutrality is a common term, not a technical
Right, but it has a very technical meaning to those who understand the technical merit and implications. You're simply attempting to ignore the technical merit and ride the political bullshit speak so as to attempt grasp at justification to support your obtuse line of reasoning.
Factually, politicians are obfuscating the technical merit in an effort confuse those, like you, who don't understand the technical details. In doing, they hope to come out on top from the confusion of the ignorant masses. Basically, your line of defense only benefits those who want to destroy Net Neutrality. Your ignorance is to the detriment of everyone. And when people take the time to address your ignorance you double down and cover your ears. This is why people think little of your opinion. Which by your own actions, more or less proves isn't worth listening too.
Nope. I'm offering well publicized facts. He's offering nothing but facts from his ass to counter ACTUAL FACTS. Your post is purely delusional trolling.
Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.
So you're saying that my theory of QoS is likely correct. HTTP has a higher QoS than BT - hardly surprising.
Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.
Agreed. Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.
While all true, I think you give the ISP's too much credit. If you really believe that tripe, I know this guy in Nigeria, he's a prince and he'd like to meet you.
So far, the only thing you've validated is you are unethical and have no idea how networking works, which makes us concluded you're unqualified to refute my statement.
Giving too much credit? Actually, statements like that make you look extremely stupid. As a matter of fact, every major ISP is going to have a QoS infrastructure in place. They may not all agree in exact service prioritization but its there. Furthermore, its an extremely reasonable assumption BT traffic has been given one of the lowest, if not the lowest QoS of any service. To then dumbly state, "too much credit" for something which factually exists plus extremely reasonable assumptions, is beyond idiotic.
Basically, your position is more stupid, and completely baseless, than the original rhetoric to which I commented. But hey, this is slashdot. Its popular to be an ignorant, hate mongering, douche, so you fit right in.
Suffice to say that such information could prove to be very useful for consumers and advocates of Net Neutrality.
What a stupid thing to say. It doesn't offer any insight as to why bandwidth may have gone off a cliff. Net Neutrality is not the same thing as responsible QoS! Get that through you heads!
After 6pm, Internet traffic for most ISPs goes through the roof. With it, latency and available bandwidth are typically negatively affected. With a responsible QoS, which is still fully Net Neutral, its easily possible to explain services such at BT "falling off a cliff." After all, if you give it a low priority, which reasonably it should, other users may simply be driving it "off the cliff."
Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day, especially when he's likely to watch it later, or getting his next WoW update. Some things require an interactive level of performance - some others do not. BT, by definition, is a service which should receive a low priority in any QoS infrastructure.
Net Neutrality is about ensuring company X doesn't get premier service at the expense of its competition. Its not about ensuring reasonable QoS to ISP customers. Please stop conflating the two.
Now having said all that, there may be other things are work here, but there is nothing in the article which suggests there is anything controversial going on. As is, things are reasonably explainable with traditional usage trends and a reasonable desire to maintain a reasonable QoS to customers.
Whooosh!
In the real world, Facebook has little value. It actually provides nothing other services didn't already provide. To then compare killing someone with the societal worth of updating a societally worthless service is rediculas.
Sure, Facebook may be important to you and others, but if its more important than the lives of people around you in the REAL world, then you and others like you are seriously fucked up and should probably be removed from the gene pool. If for no other reason, the death penalty should be brought back to all fifty states just to execute idiots who believe telling other idiots, "Mmmm...coffee", is worth another person's life.
You can't discount all conspiracy theories like that.
I didn't think I did. I was specifically referring to moon landing hoax and 9/11. For example, the officially acknowledged facts for the JFK assassination don't match the official story in the least. I'm not saying it must be a grand conspiracy but just the same, there is legitimate reason for pause there. Some conspiracies are real. But that need not mean that even the JFK assassination involves the mob and government insiders.
In the case of 9/11 on the other hand the facts and knowledge are hardly conclusive...
Actually they are. Only tiny, tiny elements of the official story create some ambiguity or a gray area, but otherwise the official story, not to mention physics and every computer physics simulation to date, all completely validate the official story; including debris and body placement inside the Pentagon. Meaning, some minor details might require revision but it never seems to be of a quality which effectively changes the official account such that it really matters. The proof there is overwhelming for anyone who cares to look. And ultimately that's the problem. Some people don't want to look because unconsciously they know it will throw their grand conspiracy out the window.
I don't believe in wild conspiracies, but I would like to know more facts and knowledge about this important historic event that shaped the world political landscape in the past decade.
I don't have a problem with such a position. But honestly, what facts have not been addressed? I've not heard a single Truther "fact" which hasn't already been addressed either directly by the official account or by unofficial accounts which still more or less meld well with the official account. Worse, the most popular Truther videos, which are widely regarded as the strongest evidence to support a massive new investigation are verifiably incorrect in almost every assertion it makes. So when the "strongest" counter argument is verifiably wrong, what exists to further the need for an additional, official, investigation?
And aside all that, the conspiracy required to support the 9/11 Truther's argument is mind numbing. Do you honestly believe 10,000 - 50,000 people of the general public could keep such a conspiracy quiet? Because that's the numbers the Truther's counter argument requires as projected by many experts and even reporters. Wikileaks and the press would be having a field day. As one reporter said, finding a massive conspiracy would be one of the greatest stories known to man. It would make my carrier for life. Unfortunately, even reporters have been completely unable to uncover a collection of facts which significantly deviate from the official story to any degree worth discussion.
As a side note, the Truthers who lead the cry for a new investigation all make a living (documentaries, books, and publicity) from keeping the Truther movement alive. So which conspiracy is most likely? A tiny conspiracy which is supported by the facts or a grand conspiracy which have absolutely no evidence? Exactly.
I forgot to add this to my other comment. Sorry for split posts.
As a side note, if you really want a good semi-moon landing related conspiracy, its semi-recently been released that the US space program was mothballed to allow the Russians first space access so as to allow for international precedence of the legality of space overflights. It was feared that if the US was the first to do it, the Russians would create a huge stink over it. Keep in mind, at the time, the US President was requesting unilateral overflights of nuclear facilities to mitigate a nuclear arms race. The Russians told the US to get bent. As a result, the US was looking and strategically planning on several alternate fronts. This one of such alternative. Of course there were political reasons too, which include the US' program really being a German program.
And so, Van Braun's rocket project was literally halted and placed into storage more than a year before the Russians launched Sputnik. After all the brouhaha was all done and over with, Van Braun's rocket was removed from storage, placed on a pad, and successfully launched into orbit. This was, of course, after the Air Force's rocket program kept blowing left and right.
Basically, the only thing the conspiracy failed to account for was the public's reaction to the Russians being first to space.
So if you want a nice conspiracy story, the US could have beat the Russians into space by roughly a year if it were not for the need for international cat-n-mouse politics with the Russians.
There are now several books out on the topic. PBS's Nova did a nice documentary too.
And frankly, I find your painting all skeptics with the broad nutter-brush to be very, VERY unscientific.
Admittedly, I'm guilty of painting with a wide brush. But then again, I also presume people understand what we're really talking about here. There is a difference between ignorant people who just don't know the facts and have doubt. In contrast there are pathological nutters (extremely well documented and frequently associated with paranoia as well as other disorders) who insist it never happened despite being aware of the endless evidence which proves it did, all while completely invalidating their own "proof." Its the later to which everyone is really referring.
Its really pretty simple. If anyone has doubts about landing on the moon, or 9/11 for that matter, either you don't know the available facts or your roller skate has one wheel. The former can be easily remedied while the later means you're screwed.
This would end all tinfoil hat theories on whether Nasa actually went there.
Absolutely it would not.
Study after study after study all document the same result. These people have a pathological need to believe in grand conspiracies. Its literally part of their self identity. You can bury people in a mountain and facts, all of which invalidate their conspiracy, and in turn destroy any and all credibility of their conspiracy theory, and they will always insist everything has been faked. In turn, your evidence only further empowers their delusion of conspiracy; to wit you are presumed to be a player or a patsy.
You can't reason with stupid. Its true for moon landing conspiracy people then and as true today for 9/11 conspiracy people ("Truthers") today.
Basically, any time you find someone who believes either the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy, you literally have identified someone who has lost a couple of ball bearings. Because of that, facts and knowledge are not a replacement for lost ball bearings.
Also, the atmosphere is too thin for airplane-style flight
Not true. The problem is one of bulk of mass, not of flight. Several aircraft have already been specifically designed to fly in the this martian air which are capable also addressing the bulk/mass transportation issues.
In the next decade or two, its very likely you'll see pictures taken from a plane (UAV) flying on Mars. The real question is, if and when the vehicle will be able to hitch a ride.
An artist recorded that song once. Why the hell do we have to pay for it multiple times
Because otherwise, that one time you bought would have cost in the hundreds. Since we both know you're not willing to pay that either, we're back to you being a hypocrite.
Again, I'll be expecting your paycheck any day now.
Likely I'll just take your car and house too. After all, since I'm sure I won't like your terms of the sale, I'll be like you and just take it.
Odds are that you'll never be in a real fight, and if you ever are, those wrestling skills won't in the end help very much because real fighting and practice are quite different.
I dunno about that. I have a Judo background. I was punched in the nose. I then threw the person on the ground and quickly beat him into submission. I had a bloody nose and a black eye from the single punch he landed. He had a shattered hand (it flailed outward as he was thrown and landed on concrete) and a cracked rib.
Just playing around I've made people submit who easily had six inches and fifty pounds on me. Now keep in mind, I'm just a green belt and almost everything I used was learned as a white belt. You don't have to be a master to come out on top. The simple fact is, a little knowledge goes a long way. All too often, when people realize you not only plan to resist, but are capable of resisting, they will move on to easier prey.
You can have integrity and still do things other people think are unethical. Maybe an anarcho-communist pirates things because he thinks everything should be free. He is upholding his beliefs.
You're right about that. Many people used to consider slavery to be ethical. But that makes them a hypocrite. Tell you what, I'll allow you the privileged of working for me and I'll simply not pay you for your time. The day pirates stop accepting paychecks is the day they stop being hypocrites.
HB Gary as an organization is incompetent. When computer/network security is your business and you get hacked no matter how clever the hack is its a FAIL on your part. In this case while not exactly crude Anonymous ow3n4g3 of their site was not the most sophisticated crack ever seen either. HB Gary blew it big time
This clearly indicates you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Say it with me so you can understand. There is no such thing as a completely secure system which is turned on and connected to the internet. Period. Unless you have proof he vetted every single line of code and then stated in absolute terms the code is invulnerable, you're delusional at best. Besides, no matter how secure the code base, social engineering always looms. Anyone and everyone who has any security credibility knows this - which says a lot about you.
To attempt to paint a horribly distorted view of reality over what the rest of the readership here is extremely disingenuous. Please stop it.
Anonymous is NOT a mega-cult of brainless people waiting in line to sacrifice themselves on the alter of your delusion. Period. These attacks exist because Anonymous feels, well, anonymous. When high profile participants are arrested and no longer anonymous, as has always happened in the past with these types of attacks, the rest disappear into the background. So please, stop presenting the world your altruistic delusion as fact. Aside from your delusion, there is absolutely nothing on which to base your fantasy.
This is really the truth.
Most TCP stacks have fairly complex algorithms to avoid, manage, and recover from congestion. Furthermore, with technologies such as sliding windows, TCP allows for rather good scaling once you leave the single switch. This in turn means iSCSI can better scale and intermix with other traffic without catastrophic issue. Even better, loss of frames results in increased latency rather than loss of data.
So while iSCSI is in fact a fatter, heavier stack, that's also why there are dedicated boards to offload work from the host CPU. Even still, with plentiful and powerful CPUs available these days, even host CPU socket stack implementations are frequently not an issue as I/O is all too often still the bottleneck.
FCoE is an expensive technology which was looking for a solution, which iSCSI largely and cheaply, had already solved.
Unless its on medicare and then they'll charge $420.65 for it.
Why is a factually supported opinion post troll? Why is it so hard for moderators to do such a simple job. Damn the IQ has gone to shit over the last few years here. Holy shit what a stupid moderator.
If only the moderator could be permanently labeled the idiot he is and prevented from ever moderating again. For the fucking stupid moderator who moderated the above post, read a fucking paper once in a blue moon and you'll see what I said is FACTUALLY ACCURATE. And since you're so fucking stupid I'll point out, moderation does not mean "I disagree." Disagree has absolutely nothing to do with moderation. If it does, you're doing it wrong and likely a fucking idiot like this guy.
If you can't do such a simple fucking job, don't do it at all.
Real reasons to dislike .NET are few and far between
Not true in the least. Such an opinion is hinting at your own bias. Realistically, .net is not portable and outside a subject of the Microsoft economy.
Now if you want to rephrase with such a caveat, I certainly won't disagree. But once you're looking at developers who prefer not to be forced to develop only on and only for Windows, there really doesn't exist a reason to like .net at all.
And before we go astray, while interesting, Mono is not a replacement for .net and it in of itself has its own shortcomings which make it unattractive for many, if not most non-windows developers.
Its a quote from a documentary. When asked why people might kill others in a war zone, that's his statement which is completely unfounded other that him asserting his own personal opinion and rational. Her presumes that people no can make the distinction between video games and reality and therefore, killing people is fun - such as one might do in a video game. While he's attempting to project this world view onto others, one is forced to understand its his own view given that his assertion that its more or less, the only possible explanation.
IIRC, he says it in an interview roughly half way into the documentary.
While I don't have anything I can point you at, the psychology behind soldiers in a war zone is fairly well understood at this point and his explanation is not only completely refuted but is completely unfounded. Which in turn is why it hints at projection of his own world view, which is exactly that, "Killing people is fun." Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find any mental health care professional who, at the very least, will support this rational is a sign of some type of serious mental health issue.
So even if you're not willing to take my word for it, serious think about what it is he's saying given the context provided in the documentary. If you have any psychology background, you'll quickly see he's got some issues and is very much projecting them.
Wikileaks generates revenue and prestige (which directly fuels Assanage's ego) by leaking secrets. Someone else leaking "their" secrets means Wikileaks suffers.
"Killing people is fun." - Julian Assanage