I'd like to see a reliable budget explanation of how much is spent on modeling the degradation of the arsenal. Vs how much is spent the development of new weapons by modeling simulated tests on stored data from old tests, under the old weapons test ban treaties.
The programs I linked to are purely simulation. I expect their budgets are public info.
What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?
A revolution.
Nah, those don't work either. Sooner or later we always end up back at the same place. The only thing that will do it is an evolutionary change in the human race such that we aren't so easily ruled pack animals.
In reality you either trust your ground crews or you don't fly. They have to walk around with deadly weapons (tools) just to do their jobs. You could confiscate sharp objects at the metal detector then they would pick the same tools up from their tool box and keep going.
Which may or may not be true depending on if you consider bombs to be tools, but either way its irrelevant to the question of whether or not the same is required of people who may impersonate a pilot.
Ah, the overly-literal geek mind trying (and failing) to interpret the law again.
Ditto. Glider is operating under the direction of the user - the same exact user who sits down directly at the client. You might as well argue that the auto-repeat in the keyboard is is effectively accessing the servers because the firmware running on the keyboard's microcontroller talks to the client software.
Maybe someday we'll get smart and use the computers for only that kind of apps, like weather and climate modeling, and energy physics research that doesn't make bombs.
Those budgets are for modeling the degradation of current nuclear weapons under the START and now the New START treaties. They are specifically to avoid building new weapons - if we can model the degradation we can be confident that the current arsenal is intact and functional so does not need replacement.
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
"Now?"
That is the fundamental basis of political negotiation. It's either that or autocracy.
this is a big glaring loophole and requires that all the TSA agents should be strip searched by each other in full public view in the first place. Right?
(1) I'm fully on board with that.
(2) Practically that's not necessary, the TSA agents know each other quite well since they spend 8 hour shifts working together on a daily basis and no system trumps the accuracy of a person identifying someone they are already extremely familiar with. Pilots, on the other hand, are far less well known by TSA agents - little more than any other regular flier in the best case and in the common case probably much less so.
Or they could, like, with all those fancy biometric machines, simply verify the fingerprints and id-card of someone claiming to be a pilot.
You mean spend even more money buying expensive and less than accurate systems that can be spoofed with only a small effort? If you believe, as the TSA claims, that their current systems are effective why go out of the way to implement a set of special cases?
"Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client."
The same could be said of using ssh to connect to a server, it is no different in nature or content from what a human could send. Yet if you used the ssh connection and a client side script to cause the server to send lots of spam that would be improper use of the connection.
Wrong. A malicious script behind a ssh client is significantly different in nature and content. A regular human typing those same commands would be just as unauthorized as the script. But a human using the game client to generate the exact same commands as glider does would be considered authorized.
The game clients are authorized to access and interact with the servers, the bots are an unauthorized access mechanism to the game servers.
Except glider doesn't access the game servers. They access the game client - which then accesses the game servers. Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client.
The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?
That would only be true if they were searching the guy in the cockpit, but they aren't. They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal. The TSA agents have a tough enough time distinguishing between guns and sticks of deodorant. It is unwise to expect them to be able to accurately verify the identity of someone who claims to be a pilot.
It's part of their new NX 4.0 implementation - they have other forms of encryption likes AES and 3DES but Sneaky Reveal is their own proprietary encryption algorithm.
Re:Foul Bruce - Link to Actual Article
on
Recording the Police
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The link is to a stub article with no real content on Bruce's blog that just points to the real article:
I disagree. His commentary about how privacy for the powerful decreases overall liberty while privacy for the common man increase liberty is a very succinct and insightful analysis. It may even be more important than the narrow topic of stupid legal tricks regarding the recording of on-duty cops.
What I want to know is why are the people behind these sorts of things so freaking stupid?
Ever since the MAFIAA started taking actions against pirates the stories of innocents being scooped up in the process have been rampant. Is the MAFIAA so ensconced in power that they really just don't give a shit? Do they believe that such errors pose no threat to their own legitimacy? Or perhaps anyone knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between the clear-cut pirates and the bystanders just isn't sympathetic enough to the MAFIAA to work with them? Or maybe there are people within the ranks of the MAFIAA that disagree with the entire operation and deliberately set things up give their overlords a black eye?
I dunno what it is, but you'd think that after 10+ years of this kinda of shit they would have figured out how to do it right.
Well I'm pretty sure that the very first step towards a totalitarian internet is to hand over regulatory control to the government.
(A) It's also the very first step down a lot of different paths. (B) We already took that first step down the specific path you are worried about when we developed a defacto national policy of granting local telco monopolies.
Is anyone supposed to get upset because a bunch of sites selling knock off products get shut down? It's funny how slashtards constantly say the government should go after the real "pirates" and yet when they do, as in the case you quoted, you still find something to bitch and moan about.
You are overloading the term "pirate" - selling knock-offs without identifying them as such is fraud, not "piracy" as the MAFIAA and most 'slashtards' use the term.
Then we have his dating profile from years back and it sounds a bit too much like the guy who just wants to get a woman pregnant.
Wow. That is one crazy conclusion. It didn't even come close to sounding like that.
It's a conspiracy by Assange to create more media attention and give him a way to release his Black Mail insurance file, and claim they were trying to silence him.
Ah, you are one of those who have made up his mind with no evidence. He didn't say a word about the insurance file until a week or two ago and even then he said it was in case the organization was shut down, not just himself being mistreated. After all, he turned himself in once the british police issued a warrant and the keys to the insurance file were still not published.
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
Its illegal to be a BNP member and hold certain jobs with the UK government and leaking that list exposed some lawbreakers in the government. I've got a problem with those laws, but at least they are public laws.
On the other hand, wikileaks leaked their own donors list. As far as I know its not illegal to donate to wikileaks, even if mastercard, visa, paypal and BoA say otherwise, so maybe you do have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see a reliable budget explanation of how much is spent on modeling the degradation of the arsenal. Vs how much is spent the development of new weapons by modeling simulated tests on stored data from old tests, under the old weapons test ban treaties.
The programs I linked to are purely simulation. I expect their budgets are public info.
What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?
A revolution.
Nah, those don't work either. Sooner or later we always end up back at the same place.
The only thing that will do it is an evolutionary change in the human race such that we aren't so easily ruled pack animals.
And the TSA never hires, promotes, demotes, or transfers personnel.
Seems pretty obvious that people new to the job site would be escorted in and introduced by a member of the group that everybody does know.
In reality you either trust your ground crews or you don't fly. They have to walk around with deadly weapons (tools) just to do their jobs. You could confiscate sharp objects at the metal detector then they would pick the same tools up from their tool box and keep going.
Which may or may not be true depending on if you consider bombs to be tools, but either way its irrelevant to the question of whether or not the same is required of people who may impersonate a pilot.
Ah, the overly-literal geek mind trying (and failing) to interpret the law again.
Ditto. Glider is operating under the direction of the user - the same exact user who sits down directly at the client. You might as well argue that the auto-repeat in the keyboard is is effectively accessing the servers because the firmware running on the keyboard's microcontroller talks to the client software.
Maybe someday we'll get smart and use the computers for only that kind of apps, like weather and climate modeling, and energy physics research that doesn't make bombs.
Those budgets are for modeling the degradation of current nuclear weapons under the START and now the New START treaties.
They are specifically to avoid building new weapons - if we can model the degradation we can be confident that the current arsenal is intact and functional so does not need replacement.
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
"Now?"
That is the fundamental basis of political negotiation. It's either that or autocracy.
Supercomputer Race. Unless supercomputers start blowing up or growing arms.
It's likely that the single largest driver of US government spending on supercomputers is for nukes.
Like the ones ground crews are already using?
Isn't that what one of the things the video exposed - the fact that the ground crews are yet another glaring hole in the security system?
this is a big glaring loophole and requires that all the TSA agents should be strip searched by each other in full public view in the first place. Right?
(1) I'm fully on board with that.
(2) Practically that's not necessary, the TSA agents know each other quite well since they spend 8 hour shifts working together on a daily basis and no system trumps the accuracy of a person identifying someone they are already extremely familiar with. Pilots, on the other hand, are far less well known by TSA agents - little more than any other regular flier in the best case and in the common case probably much less so.
Or they could, like, with all those fancy biometric machines, simply verify the fingerprints and id-card of someone claiming to be a pilot.
You mean spend even more money buying expensive and less than accurate systems that can be spoofed with only a small effort?
If you believe, as the TSA claims, that their current systems are effective why go out of the way to implement a set of special cases?
"Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client."
The same could be said of using ssh to connect to a server, it is no different in nature or content from what a human could send.
Yet if you used the ssh connection and a client side script to cause the server to send lots of spam that would be improper use of the connection.
Wrong. A malicious script behind a ssh client is significantly different in nature and content. A regular human typing those same commands would be just as unauthorized as the script. But a human using the game client to generate the exact same commands as glider does would be considered authorized.
The game clients are authorized to access and interact with the servers, the bots are an unauthorized access mechanism to the game servers.
Except glider doesn't access the game servers.
They access the game client - which then accesses the game servers.
Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client.
I'm looking at the destination, not the journey. :)
AKA "The Ends Justifies the Means."
Meanwhile this particular end has nothing to do with what the DMCA "was made for" or "the original spirit of the act."
The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?
That would only be true if they were searching the guy in the cockpit, but they aren't. They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal. The TSA agents have a tough enough time distinguishing between guns and sticks of deodorant. It is unwise to expect them to be able to accurately verify the identity of someone who claims to be a pilot.
Yet another example of that old saying:
Question authority and Authority will question you!
It would appear they've achieved the impossible.
It's part of their new NX 4.0 implementation - they have other forms of encryption likes AES and 3DES but Sneaky Reveal is their own proprietary encryption algorithm.
The link is to a stub article with no real content on Bruce's blog that just points to the real article:
I disagree. His commentary about how privacy for the powerful decreases overall liberty while privacy for the common man increase liberty is a very succinct and insightful analysis. It may even be more important than the narrow topic of stupid legal tricks regarding the recording of on-duty cops.
What I want to know is why are the people behind these sorts of things so freaking stupid?
Ever since the MAFIAA started taking actions against pirates the stories of innocents being scooped up in the process have been rampant. Is the MAFIAA so ensconced in power that they really just don't give a shit? Do they believe that such errors pose no threat to their own legitimacy? Or perhaps anyone knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between the clear-cut pirates and the bystanders just isn't sympathetic enough to the MAFIAA to work with them? Or maybe there are people within the ranks of the MAFIAA that disagree with the entire operation and deliberately set things up give their overlords a black eye?
I dunno what it is, but you'd think that after 10+ years of this kinda of shit they would have figured out how to do it right.
So instead of all the drama about what laws are actually in effect today, let's work with the internet we have and not screw with it.
Where were you in 2005 when the SCOTUS decided Brand X in favor of screwing with the internet we had then?
Well I'm pretty sure that the very first step towards a totalitarian internet is to hand over regulatory control to the government.
(A) It's also the very first step down a lot of different paths.
(B) We already took that first step down the specific path you are worried about when we developed a defacto national policy of granting local telco monopolies.
Lol, you haven't really thought through your argument then. If you didn't mean copyright pirates then you are basically arguing about nothing.
Is anyone supposed to get upset because a bunch of sites selling knock off products get shut down? It's funny how slashtards constantly say the government should go after the real "pirates" and yet when they do, as in the case you quoted, you still find something to bitch and moan about.
You are overloading the term "pirate" - selling knock-offs without identifying them as such is fraud, not "piracy" as the MAFIAA and most 'slashtards' use the term.
Then we have his dating profile from years back and it sounds a bit too much like the guy who just wants to get a woman pregnant.
Wow. That is one crazy conclusion. It didn't even come close to sounding like that.
It's a conspiracy by Assange to create more media attention and give him a way to release his Black Mail insurance file, and claim they were trying to silence him.
Ah, you are one of those who have made up his mind with no evidence.
He didn't say a word about the insurance file until a week or two ago and even then he said it was in case the organization was shut down, not just himself being mistreated. After all, he turned himself in once the british police issued a warrant and the keys to the insurance file were still not published.
Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.
Its illegal to be a BNP member and hold certain jobs with the UK government and leaking that list exposed some lawbreakers in the government.
I've got a problem with those laws, but at least they are public laws.
On the other hand, wikileaks leaked their own donors list. As far as I know its not illegal to donate to wikileaks, even if mastercard, visa, paypal and BoA say otherwise, so maybe you do have a point.
Or more directly here in case anyone was wondering if the dailyheil had twisted it.
Thanks though, I hadn't kept up with the recent statements.