Well... they might see your address or account number or whatever, but most password fields are masked with asterisks. The point is that the 'keylogger' is also a mouse-event logger. That, combined with screen shots timed with the mouse events like clicks defeats most of these "use the mouse instead of the keyboard" tricks.
It was a GREEN laser, which puts out a lot more power than your standard red keychain ornament. Technically, that is not true. Red laser pointer, green laser pointer, all the commonly sold models put out less than 5mw of energy. The green lasers LOOK stronger because the human eye is more sensitive to green. But it is the power level that causes damage, not how bright it looks. Else, infra-red lasers, being completely invisible to the human eye, would not be dangerous at all.
Part of the problem is that Laws have become so stict that it prevents exersizing justice. Is the action illegal... I doubt if it even should be "illegal" based on one assumption -- the laser was a typical sub 5 milliwatt laser pointer.
The helicopter was at 500 feet, so the distance from laser to cockpit was at least 500 ft, and probably more than 1000 considering the angle needed to enter the cockpit rather than bounce off the bottom of the helicopter.
Most of these 5mw lasers have pretty poor divergence - typically 1 milliradian or worse. For a SWAG, I would say that at 500ft, the beam would have diverged to at least 6 inches of diameter. 5mw spread over that much area isn't going to hurt anyone's eyes. It's probably no worse than an oncoming car with its brights on.
Now, if was really something more powerful, like a 100mw laser, I'd say the pilot might have a reasonable claim. Otherwise, its just more green-laser hysteria.
The article doesn't seem to cite any sources and is itself loaded with sensationalism and innuendo, for example getting all freaked about "assault rifles" which are hardly ever used by criminals, except in the movies. She even says that Paul "would likely interpret as unconstitutional" the WAY in which some laws were passed, and thus whatever his problem is with the WAY, not the necessarily the content, that makes him a gun nut.
He has also voted in favor of federal legislation restricting abortion. He's only in favor of "leaving it to the States" when it suites his purposes. I'm pro-murder. Yeah, that's what the religious freaks would like to call it, I don't mind indulging them.
But, puhlease give up the single-issue bullshit. The enemy of good is perfect. You will never find a candidate -- mainstream or fringe -- that perfectly represents every one of your hot button issues, whatever they may be.
For one thing - back in roe-v-wade days women had much fewer options. Nowadays we've got all kinds of cheap and effective birth control options that did not exist then. If the worst were to come about and elective abortions were outlawed nation-wide, it would not be anywhere near as big a deal as it was before. Women have much more freedom, and more importantly, ability to control their bodies today than they had before.
So, even if Ron Paul could single-handedly revoke roe-v-wade, that shouldn't be anywhere near enough to disqualify him - especially when compared to all the other choices. If Paul were to be elected, he'd end up like every other president -- mired in the politics of DC. But, if we are lucky, he might be able to change the course of the country back towards a more sensible direction. Given what a herculean effort that would be, there is almost no chance, even with a 2nd term, of him being able to take the country past sensible and too far off course in the other direction.
However, these people are now tracking people on the internet and monitoring communications themselves. How else does Wikileaks find out who is posting what, unless, they are monitoring traffic of people? Are you smoking crack? Do you think Wikileaks has the same surveillance capability as the US government?
The vast majority of these people do not care about privacy or whether the USA goes too far in the war on terror. Do you really fail to comprehend the difference between organized, systemic surveillance of the general population's private actions and the monitoring of public actions of public employees while performing their jobs?
I'm surprised she's willing to take this kind of risk, and I'm very surprised that Jones Day is aiding her. Lawyers are this country's ruling class. Pride goeth before the fall.
What, do you mean that free software is anti-capitalistic because it removes scarcity? No. I mean that ideas and information are inherently non-scarce.
More explicitly, are you suggesting that free software is communistic? No.
I'm sorry you can't understand it, but it's true. Lol. Proof by assertion. You kicked my ass! Scarcity is pretty much, by definition, a principle of capitalism because if a resource is not scarce, it can not be fully owned. Or are you going to claim that "ownership is not an ideal of capitalism" either?
The article puts the term in quotes, but a Google search of the term just points back to the article in question. Do you think that might be a clue? Go and google on any real 'racist epithet' and you'll find thousands of hits - but the one you are worked up about? One hit to the article and one hit to slashdot. If absolutely no one else has used the phrase, then it hardly qualifies as an epithet - a descriptive word or phrase that has become a fixed formula.
Here's a stereotype for you - I would have expected anyone with a hawaiian username, especially one as obscure as the wild boar Kamapua`a, to be a lot more thick-skinned.
It's almost certainly standard RedHat. They are probably running HP's ServiceGuard product on top of RedHat to insure automagic failover and the like.
Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not quite. The ideals of capitalism are infinite profit, infinite growth, and maximum self-interest. Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you get that bullshit? The "ideals" of capitalism? Just what is that supposed to mean anyway?
If anything, the principles of capitalism were described by Adam Smith in An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations where he observed that people do act in their own self-interest -- not that they SHOULD, merely that it is inescapable that they DO -- regardless of what rules society may try to impose, and thus instead of fighting human nature, we should harness it to make the best out of a bad situation.
Smith was pretty certain that labor and property were both scarce resources and thus the way to get the most benefit for SOCIETY was to let them be privately controlled. He never once made claims to 'infinite profit' or 'infinite growth' - in fact just the opposite where he noted that:
This produce, how great soever, can never be infinite, but must have certain limits.
and
The mercantile capital of Great Britain, though very great, yet not being infinite,...
And some dimwit moderated my post as troll. Get a clue.
Re:So they moved from UNIX to Linux
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Capitalism is the propagation of private ownership. Private ownership... of scarce goods. Without scarcity, there can be no capitalism.
Seems to me that the term eye-candy, while often used in a disparaging fashion, should refer to a certain kewl aesthetic, rather than literal candy of the M&M variety. Almond Joy's got nuts. Mounds don't.
What I found more interesting is that apparently the Register doesn't like Wikipedia because they refer to it as "whackypedia", It's the Inquirer, not the Register. The Inquirer was formed after the founder of the Register left/was-forced-out.
The Inq has a real stick up their ass about wikipedia. But they do have some justification for it, articles about the Inquirer have been subject to some rather arbitrary edits by prolific wikipedia editors over the years. As a result, they seem to have taken the tactic of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and every article they publish about wikipedia is guaranteed to be scare-mongering.
However, what the Inq does have going for it is that they never ever sign NDAs and that they wear their biases on their sleeve. With that info, it isn't too hard for a reader to decide which articles they publish are total bullshit and which ones have real merit. And that's a lot more than can be said for sites like Tom's Hardware, Anandtech and their ilk.
Was the customer ever rude or mean to an ISP employee? Sounds like revenge... On and on you could go. Excellent, a new reason to bite the head off of the customer service reps!
"what happens after the sale is over and the seller has moved on". An ebay store isn't really any different from any other "store" - anyone can choose to stop carrying a product line.
Have you used these? Sorry, but nope. I use dvd thinkpaks myself. I just cut-n-pasted the description "4-in-1..." from the linked comp-usa page into the ebay search box.
I think they're greedy, self-serving individuals who want the State to stay out of their pockets. Lol, and the current system is better how? How can you look at the depth of corruption in our current system and write that with a straight face? At the very least, libertarianism makes it harder for the greedy, self-serving individuals to leverage government to fill their pockets.
You focus on one big bugaboo, that probably required something beyond pure libertarianism in order to correct. Now that the problem is corrected with no similar problems on the horizon, much less in sight, you claim that libertarianism can't work -- completely ignoring the multitude of problems that arose as side-effects of the original break from libertarianism.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll wash my hands after partaking in one of Slashdot's redmeat xenophobe stories. Call me when you all have something positive to post about Russians or Chinese for a change: Until then, the usual Anglosphere "coverage" of the other major powers is best taken with a large grain of salt. Right - because slashdot would never have a story about rigged elections in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
The helicopter was at 500 feet, so the distance from laser to cockpit was at least 500 ft, and probably more than 1000 considering the angle needed to enter the cockpit rather than bounce off the bottom of the helicopter.
Most of these 5mw lasers have pretty poor divergence - typically 1 milliradian or worse. For a SWAG, I would say that at 500ft, the beam would have diverged to at least 6 inches of diameter. 5mw spread over that much area isn't going to hurt anyone's eyes. It's probably no worse than an oncoming car with its brights on.
Now, if was really something more powerful, like a 100mw laser, I'd say the pilot might have a reasonable claim. Otherwise, its just more green-laser hysteria.
The article doesn't seem to cite any sources and is itself loaded with sensationalism and innuendo, for example getting all freaked about "assault rifles" which are hardly ever used by criminals, except in the movies. She even says that Paul "would likely interpret as unconstitutional" the WAY in which some laws were passed, and thus whatever his problem is with the WAY, not the necessarily the content, that makes him a gun nut.
But, puhlease give up the single-issue bullshit. The enemy of good is perfect. You will never find a candidate -- mainstream or fringe -- that perfectly represents every one of your hot button issues, whatever they may be.
For one thing - back in roe-v-wade days women had much fewer options. Nowadays we've got all kinds of cheap and effective birth control options that did not exist then. If the worst were to come about and elective abortions were outlawed nation-wide, it would not be anywhere near as big a deal as it was before. Women have much more freedom, and more importantly, ability to control their bodies today than they had before.
So, even if Ron Paul could single-handedly revoke roe-v-wade, that shouldn't be anywhere near enough to disqualify him - especially when compared to all the other choices. If Paul were to be elected, he'd end up like every other president -- mired in the politics of DC. But, if we are lucky, he might be able to change the course of the country back towards a more sensible direction. Given what a herculean effort that would be, there is almost no chance, even with a 2nd term, of him being able to take the country past sensible and too far off course in the other direction.
Do you think Wikileaks has the same surveillance capability as the US government? The vast majority of these people do not care about privacy or whether the USA goes too far in the war on terror. Do you really fail to comprehend the difference between organized, systemic surveillance of the general population's private actions and the monitoring of public actions of public employees while performing their jobs?
Pride goeth before the fall.
Here's a stereotype for you - I would have expected anyone with a hawaiian username, especially one as obscure as the wild boar Kamapua`a, to be a lot more thick-skinned.
It's almost certainly standard RedHat.
They are probably running HP's ServiceGuard product on top of RedHat to insure automagic failover and the like.
If anything, the principles of capitalism were described by Adam Smith in An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations where he observed that people do act in their own self-interest -- not that they SHOULD, merely that it is inescapable that they DO -- regardless of what rules society may try to impose, and thus instead of fighting human nature, we should harness it to make the best out of a bad situation.
Smith was pretty certain that labor and property were both scarce resources and thus the way to get the most benefit for SOCIETY was to let them be privately controlled. He never once made claims to 'infinite profit' or 'infinite growth' - in fact just the opposite where he noted that:
This produce, how great soever, can never be infinite, but must have certain limits.
and
The mercantile capital of Great Britain, though very great, yet not being infinite,
And some dimwit moderated my post as troll. Get a clue.
Without scarcity, there can be no capitalism.
Mounds don't.
The Inq has a real stick up their ass about wikipedia. But they do have some justification for it, articles about the Inquirer have been subject to some rather arbitrary edits by prolific wikipedia editors over the years. As a result, they seem to have taken the tactic of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and every article they publish about wikipedia is guaranteed to be scare-mongering.
However, what the Inq does have going for it is that they never ever sign NDAs and that they wear their biases on their sleeve. With that info, it isn't too hard for a reader to decide which articles they publish are total bullshit and which ones have real merit. And that's a lot more than can be said for sites like Tom's Hardware, Anandtech and their ilk.
Baby with the bathwater.
You focus on one big bugaboo, that probably required something beyond pure libertarianism in order to correct. Now that the problem is corrected with no similar problems on the horizon, much less in sight, you claim that libertarianism can't work -- completely ignoring the multitude of problems that arose as side-effects of the original break from libertarianism.
Vote 911! for 911! Giuliani 911! and 911! get 911! both 911! options!
4-in-1 CD Cases - much cheaper than Compusa price:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250186956554