I've heard my roommate mention that one of his teachers does the same thing. It seems to me, though, that such a scheme is easily exploited. Say three friends let an antisocial smart guy join their group, but have an agreement that they would divide the group points amoung themselves? They could even leave the smart guy with all the work and still get a good grade (133% * 70% = 93% = A). Just periodically complain to the teacher so the evaluation isn't a surprise (except for the guy getting screwed) and make sure there aren't any more group projects in that class. The opposite of this would be for an early group project where three of the group members give all 100 points to one person, then drop the course (under the agreement that the remaining three reenroll the next semester, add a new guy, and do the same for another member of that group).
Hmm... since connection speed can be slowed down at both the server and the ISP, couldn't a popular website do the same thing to BellSouth. Take Yahoo or Google for example. They could demand that BellSouth pay them a hefty monthly fee or they'll throttle any traffic to their IP space to 5 KB/s or perhaps add a 7500 ms delay. Such a slow speed (and an explaination from the website about the new two-tiered internet) would cause a LOT of customers to switch. (Why pay for high speed access if everything is throttled?) Websites obviously couldn't do this to every ISP, but they could certainly do it to any one of them. After all, since a lot of websites use ads to generate revenue, they probably couldn't afford to pay every ISP some fee. Of course, even if they did then their ads, being hosted on a different server, would either slow down their entire webpage (making paying the fee pointless), or simply not load before the user moves on.
So you are proposing that the internet should be policed as well or more so than real life? For one, that would either pull police off the streets, or incure massive expense in training people to police the internet.
Secondly, it's an international network. One country's laws end with their borders, but the internet does not. Trying to get every internet-capable nation on Earth to agree to a common set of laws and have them share the burden of monitoring is (and do so fairly), IMHO, next to impossible.
Third, it's the internet, you cannot physically use it to commit a violent crime. Computers are easily backed up and restored, and security patches are created fairly quickly, so crackers should be a nuisance, not a realy threat. If they are a real threat then the system they are a threat to shouldn't be on the internet (this is true whether their actions are illegal or not). As for DDOS attacks, they should be easy enough to stop by making a call to your ISP (if this kind of attack weren't illegal then the free market should favor any ISP that is able to quickly to stop one).
Back to the specific crime, if the company had a proper backup system in place then the actual data loss should have been minimal/non-existant and the account easily restored. Since a physical break in did NOT take place, no physical damage occured, and if proper backups had been kept then nothing would have been lost. I do agree that this guy's actions were immature, but I don't think it warranted the penalty. I just don't believe computer crimes merit much, if any, punishment because they don't directly cause any tangible damage.
If you move the "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" folders and the page file to other partitions then it might be possible to trim an XP install to under 2 GB. I do that on my XP installation (moving those folders is a pain, but possible), and it usually stays at about 3 GB used space. If you disable hibernation support and made sure no Windows Update files were there then you might be able to fit an XP install on a 16 Gb drive. If you started moving.dll files then you most certainly could. It'd be much easier to just use a 4 GB card though.
Perhaps direct site links could be replaced with links to a redirector page which blocks the GoogleBot. That should prevent people from improving their pagerank with Slashdot.
Due to the problems with circulation, couldn't you try emersion cooling with a liquid with a low boiling point (like acetone, although I doubt that it is friendly to circuit boards). That way you don't really need circulation, and the temperature of the liquid shouldn't exceed the boiling "point" (range). Just be sure to cool off the vapor at the top of the case fast enough that you don't run out of liquid. Of course, you'd need an airtight computer case and an easily obtainable, inexpensive liquid with a boiling point around the temperature you want to maintain, which is an electrical insulator, rather stable/unreactive, and a terrible solvent for the things you'd find in a computer. Is such a system practical, or is there some reason this wouldn't work?
What I find even more depressingly funny is that someone took him seriously enough to punish him for said comments. Don't school administrators have better things to do than search the internet for student blogs and read through them for material they find offensive/distasteful?
People using the word "literally" figuratively is my pet peeve. It's true that language evolves, but is anybody noticing a trend... Real-ly, true-ly, and ver-y (veritas) have essentially become meaningless. Perhaps people should learn what words mean before using them so that we don't have to keep inventing new words to replace the ones that people have ignorantly made meaningless.
If it isn't Windows-centric it seems like it's Linux-centric. I'm sure a lot more people use NTLDR than Lilo and Grub put together. Then there's the dozens of other boot managers with nifty features that it seems like nobody knows about. Here's a list of a thirty. Ranish's boot manager & BootIT NG both allow more than 4 primary partitions for example (they rewrite the partition table before booting) and XosL & BootIT NG both have partition managers built-in. Lots of boot managers have features like changing the default OS based on time, or requiring a password to boot a certain OS.
You should definately switch ISPs, but if not try BitComet. IIRC it has a feature to get around that. It also better if you can't recieve incoming connections or have other restrictions like that.
A nuke can be used for only one thing - cause destruction. The only positive use it might have is to threaten the other person with destruction. It has been created with the specific purpose and intent of causing mass destruction, and nothing else.
Umm... nuclear weapons are certainly not made to be used, they're made as a threat. If they were actually intended to be used then why would anyone make more than a couple dozen? Why would they be left just sitting in silos? Sure, a nuke can cause destruction, but that's not its point. The point is mutually assured destruction, which prevents wars. The best weapon is one that you don't have to use, or only need to use once at most. Compare the World Wars to the Cold War. I'd say that nuclear weapons certainly did a good thing by preventing the latter from turning out like the former.
BitComet started being banned for this a while ago until the author eventually added an option to disable DHT on certain downloads. Kinda silly to ban it though, because it's one of the best clients, and several of its features are next to essential for firewalled users (but it requires that other people run BitComet). For these two reasons (especially out of consideration for firewalled users), I don't object to people circumventing such a ban. In fact, it can be done by telling BitComet to use a proxy server for tracker connections. Install something like the Proxomitron and add a filter that changed the BitComet user agent line to Azureus's or another client's. Then set BitComet to use that proxy and that's it. I don't really see why private trackers try banning BitComet since such a ban is easily bypassed and if people want to leech then they can used a hacked client anyway (and banning a popular client provides them incentive to).
Any spyware that is covert enough that an advance user doesn't notice it probably isn't that much of a problem. Afterall, if it doesn't do anything then why would someone go through the trouble of making it? Automated scans, from what I've seen, don't pick up everything. I've got a friend who's computer is obviously infected with spyware on a massive level, but updated versions of AdAware and Spybot S&D both come up with nothing. Noticing new processes running or supicious behavior is far more effective IMHO. I used to be paranoid, but after I realized that my security software never picked up anything I realized that the performance hit was as bad as having a constant spyware infection. (Even one security program is probably a worse performance than a low level spyware infection.) As for attachments, what kind of job do you do where you need to run random executable attachments from random people? I would argue that it's even more reckless to trust automated, default allow, tools to function as any level of protection. IMHO they should only be used to audit your current security measures, i.e. if they ever detect something then you need to improve your security measures. Kinda like, in biology, how every life form has a non-specific immune system, but only vertebrates (AFAIK) have a specific one.
Orwellian would be if the car GPS system constantly reported your speed and location to the police for monitoring purposes. For instance, with a few modifications it could report everything but not enforce anything. I.e. you speed, it doesn't stop you, but the police will either send you a ticket by mail or send a unit to arrest you. This measure at least respects the driver's privacy (which I am in favor of, but don't think is a fundamental right) and it doesn't even punish you for breaking the speed limit, it just tries to get you to slow down. If speeding really is a problem (which some people obviously think it is given the invention of this device) then this is probably one of the most efficient and least harmful ways to fix it.
Most of the rational behind why it's a bad idea that I've seen so far is because there are in fact a few situations where speeding for a short period of time is necessary. Well, that seems more like a minor oversight than an actual flaw with the device. If the increase in pressure were gradual, or perhaps only when you sped for more than, say, 20 seconds, wouldn't that make most counter-arguements moot? Notice that it doesn't actually prevent you from speeding, it just makes it more difficult. So in the unlikely event of an unpredicted disaster you could still speed all you want as you make your escape. (Of course, I doubt such things happen often in real life since enough people would wreak going that fast that the roads would probably become obstructed.) I mean, I understand that most people prefer going faster than the speed limit, but at least be honest about it. Don't dismiss the technology unless it's fundamentally flawed. My point is that if you do something illegal then you don't really have a right to complain if the authorites take measures to make it harder for you to do so.
But if the virus modifies itself everytime it infects a computer then the signature generated by the honeypots would merely protect against the version of the virus they recieved (i.e. only one of possibly millions of variants). Additionally, if they were uninfectable and kept recieving varied copies of the virus the updating system could effectivly cause a DOS attack by sending so many updates (both bandwidth consumption as the updates are spreaded and harddrive space in storing so many signatures). A slightly better solution would be to monitor traffic and immunize specifically against anything unusual. For example, updated firewalls might block any packet on port 80 that contains "POST http:///exploit HTTP/1.".
I go to the University of Louisville where they've been ready to do a face transplant for some time. From what I remember from the few times my Medical Ethics teacher mentioned it, it's not quite that simple. First of all, current plasic surgery and whatever else can only take a person so far, they still look unusual. So much of how we define who we are comes from our appearance that there's going to be a psychological impact either way. However, if it's your original face that changes then it'd be easier to accept than having some stranger's face. Basically, your (?) face looks very different after the surgery, so that's a lot to adjust to all at once (not to mention people might not recognize you even if they'd seen you immediately before the surgery). Compare that with plastic surgery, which often requires dozens of treatments in extreme cases, so the change is more gradual. There's also the donor's family to consider. My guess is that most people aren't comfortable with the thought that their loved one's face is going to be removed after they die. That also would mean a closed casket funeral, and other such difficulties. There's also the issue of if the recipient happened to enounter someone who knew the donor. They'd look different due to the underlying bone structure and what not, but they'd still look about half like the donor. So recognition might be possible. There's also the issue of if the psychological benefit of having a more normal looking face is worth the risks of the transplant. If the donor must be alive or very recently dead then that brings up even more issues.
If this became wide spread then it wouldn't be hard to guess how teenagers would respond... louder and louder car stereos, which would result in more of these devices being use and so on and so forth. So there goes any sembalance of peace and quite in populated areas.
Seriously though, if some business that I had to walk by implemented this I would go rather far out of my way just to avoid it. Turning on old TVs is bad enough, but a continuous, loud, high pitched, intentionally annoying sound? Since I'm probably not alone in that regard I can only imagine the impact on the surrounding businesses. No more cheap teenage labor, and no more customers under thirty. If I had no choice but to walk by these devices then I'd probably result to vandalism.
Well, if you owned e.com then you could sell/give out subdomains like www.websit.e.com or www.googl.e.com for less than the normal cost of a domain name.
Don't forget about BeOS. AFAIK it'll run on a Pentium with 16 MB of RAM although Firefox probably wouldn't work. On slightly better hardware you can even watch fullscreen XviD video. The best thing is that BeOS's GUI is freakishly fast. On my machine (3 GHz P4) it's at least twice as fast as Linux or Windows, so I'd bet the difference would be even more apparent on older machines.
My guess is that Google wants to intice as many people as possible to switch from Microsoft Office as possible. A lot of people still have dial-up, and others don't like to wait for an 80 MB download to finish even with broadband. A smaller download would be more accessible to the home users Google is presumably targeting.
Ok, I'm a college student who likes to take my (rather large) laptop home for the weekends. Other than that, I essentially don't move my computer. Therefore, portability isn't that much of an issue (11 lbs, fits in a backpack), whereas having a large screen for movies, writing papers, etc. is a definate benefit. That's not even taking into account the improved hardware that comes with a heavier/bigger laptop.
Wait a second, you actually thought you could jump on a raptor and live? Perhaps it MIGHT be possible (if they weren't extinct) with an actual velociraptor (3 feet tall), but not with the ones in Jurassic Pack (Utahraptors I believe). First of all, I don't see where you're getting that they couldn't turn their heads more than 80 degrees, it looks to me more like 180 degrees. The tail is used as a counter-balance, so it's very flexable and heavy, perfect for a whip. In the movie one of them jumped on a T-Rex, so it could easily buck a person off if it needed to (I suspect mounting one would be about as hard as mounting a tiger). They're obviously much faster than a human and much stronger (can you tear a piece of flesh off a dinosaur)? Combined with a tougher bone structure I HIGHLY doubt any human could snap ones neck. The only way I'd think you could kill one without a weapon would be to suffocate it. But that's only if you could find a way to get that close and hold on to it for a couple minutes without getting clawed to death. Plus there's the whole thing about a wild animal that is used to fighting to survive, and the average human that is at a fraction of their potential strength and hasn't ever killed anything to eat. And, there were two in that scene of the movie anyway, so...
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard my roommate mention that one of his teachers does the same thing. It seems to me, though, that such a scheme is easily exploited. Say three friends let an antisocial smart guy join their group, but have an agreement that they would divide the group points amoung themselves? They could even leave the smart guy with all the work and still get a good grade (133% * 70% = 93% = A). Just periodically complain to the teacher so the evaluation isn't a surprise (except for the guy getting screwed) and make sure there aren't any more group projects in that class. The opposite of this would be for an early group project where three of the group members give all 100 points to one person, then drop the course (under the agreement that the remaining three reenroll the next semester, add a new guy, and do the same for another member of that group).
Hmm... since connection speed can be slowed down at both the server and the ISP, couldn't a popular website do the same thing to BellSouth. Take Yahoo or Google for example. They could demand that BellSouth pay them a hefty monthly fee or they'll throttle any traffic to their IP space to 5 KB/s or perhaps add a 7500 ms delay. Such a slow speed (and an explaination from the website about the new two-tiered internet) would cause a LOT of customers to switch. (Why pay for high speed access if everything is throttled?) Websites obviously couldn't do this to every ISP, but they could certainly do it to any one of them. After all, since a lot of websites use ads to generate revenue, they probably couldn't afford to pay every ISP some fee. Of course, even if they did then their ads, being hosted on a different server, would either slow down their entire webpage (making paying the fee pointless), or simply not load before the user moves on.
So you are proposing that the internet should be policed as well or more so than real life? For one, that would either pull police off the streets, or incure massive expense in training people to police the internet.
Secondly, it's an international network. One country's laws end with their borders, but the internet does not. Trying to get every internet-capable nation on Earth to agree to a common set of laws and have them share the burden of monitoring is (and do so fairly), IMHO, next to impossible.
Third, it's the internet, you cannot physically use it to commit a violent crime. Computers are easily backed up and restored, and security patches are created fairly quickly, so crackers should be a nuisance, not a realy threat. If they are a real threat then the system they are a threat to shouldn't be on the internet (this is true whether their actions are illegal or not). As for DDOS attacks, they should be easy enough to stop by making a call to your ISP (if this kind of attack weren't illegal then the free market should favor any ISP that is able to quickly to stop one).
Back to the specific crime, if the company had a proper backup system in place then the actual data loss should have been minimal/non-existant and the account easily restored. Since a physical break in did NOT take place, no physical damage occured, and if proper backups had been kept then nothing would have been lost. I do agree that this guy's actions were immature, but I don't think it warranted the penalty. I just don't believe computer crimes merit much, if any, punishment because they don't directly cause any tangible damage.
If you move the "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" folders and the page file to other partitions then it might be possible to trim an XP install to under 2 GB. I do that on my XP installation (moving those folders is a pain, but possible), and it usually stays at about 3 GB used space. If you disable hibernation support and made sure no Windows Update files were there then you might be able to fit an XP install on a 16 Gb drive. If you started moving .dll files then you most certainly could. It'd be much easier to just use a 4 GB card though.
Perhaps direct site links could be replaced with links to a redirector page which blocks the GoogleBot. That should prevent people from improving their pagerank with Slashdot.
Due to the problems with circulation, couldn't you try emersion cooling with a liquid with a low boiling point (like acetone, although I doubt that it is friendly to circuit boards). That way you don't really need circulation, and the temperature of the liquid shouldn't exceed the boiling "point" (range). Just be sure to cool off the vapor at the top of the case fast enough that you don't run out of liquid. Of course, you'd need an airtight computer case and an easily obtainable, inexpensive liquid with a boiling point around the temperature you want to maintain, which is an electrical insulator, rather stable/unreactive, and a terrible solvent for the things you'd find in a computer. Is such a system practical, or is there some reason this wouldn't work?
What I find even more depressingly funny is that someone took him seriously enough to punish him for said comments. Don't school administrators have better things to do than search the internet for student blogs and read through them for material they find offensive/distasteful?
People using the word "literally" figuratively is my pet peeve. It's true that language evolves, but is anybody noticing a trend... Real-ly, true-ly, and ver-y (veritas) have essentially become meaningless. Perhaps people should learn what words mean before using them so that we don't have to keep inventing new words to replace the ones that people have ignorantly made meaningless.
If it isn't Windows-centric it seems like it's Linux-centric. I'm sure a lot more people use NTLDR than Lilo and Grub put together. Then there's the dozens of other boot managers with nifty features that it seems like nobody knows about. Here's a list of a thirty. Ranish's boot manager & BootIT NG both allow more than 4 primary partitions for example (they rewrite the partition table before booting) and XosL & BootIT NG both have partition managers built-in. Lots of boot managers have features like changing the default OS based on time, or requiring a password to boot a certain OS.
You should definately switch ISPs, but if not try BitComet. IIRC it has a feature to get around that. It also better if you can't recieve incoming connections or have other restrictions like that.
A nuke can be used for only one thing - cause destruction. The only positive use it might have is to threaten the other person with destruction. It has been created with the specific purpose and intent of causing mass destruction, and nothing else.
Umm... nuclear weapons are certainly not made to be used, they're made as a threat. If they were actually intended to be used then why would anyone make more than a couple dozen? Why would they be left just sitting in silos? Sure, a nuke can cause destruction, but that's not its point. The point is mutually assured destruction, which prevents wars. The best weapon is one that you don't have to use, or only need to use once at most. Compare the World Wars to the Cold War. I'd say that nuclear weapons certainly did a good thing by preventing the latter from turning out like the former.
BitComet started being banned for this a while ago until the author eventually added an option to disable DHT on certain downloads. Kinda silly to ban it though, because it's one of the best clients, and several of its features are next to essential for firewalled users (but it requires that other people run BitComet). For these two reasons (especially out of consideration for firewalled users), I don't object to people circumventing such a ban. In fact, it can be done by telling BitComet to use a proxy server for tracker connections. Install something like the Proxomitron and add a filter that changed the BitComet user agent line to Azureus's or another client's. Then set BitComet to use that proxy and that's it. I don't really see why private trackers try banning BitComet since such a ban is easily bypassed and if people want to leech then they can used a hacked client anyway (and banning a popular client provides them incentive to).
Any spyware that is covert enough that an advance user doesn't notice it probably isn't that much of a problem. Afterall, if it doesn't do anything then why would someone go through the trouble of making it? Automated scans, from what I've seen, don't pick up everything. I've got a friend who's computer is obviously infected with spyware on a massive level, but updated versions of AdAware and Spybot S&D both come up with nothing. Noticing new processes running or supicious behavior is far more effective IMHO. I used to be paranoid, but after I realized that my security software never picked up anything I realized that the performance hit was as bad as having a constant spyware infection. (Even one security program is probably a worse performance than a low level spyware infection.) As for attachments, what kind of job do you do where you need to run random executable attachments from random people? I would argue that it's even more reckless to trust automated, default allow, tools to function as any level of protection. IMHO they should only be used to audit your current security measures, i.e. if they ever detect something then you need to improve your security measures. Kinda like, in biology, how every life form has a non-specific immune system, but only vertebrates (AFAIK) have a specific one.
Orwellian would be if the car GPS system constantly reported your speed and location to the police for monitoring purposes. For instance, with a few modifications it could report everything but not enforce anything. I.e. you speed, it doesn't stop you, but the police will either send you a ticket by mail or send a unit to arrest you. This measure at least respects the driver's privacy (which I am in favor of, but don't think is a fundamental right) and it doesn't even punish you for breaking the speed limit, it just tries to get you to slow down. If speeding really is a problem (which some people obviously think it is given the invention of this device) then this is probably one of the most efficient and least harmful ways to fix it.
Most of the rational behind why it's a bad idea that I've seen so far is because there are in fact a few situations where speeding for a short period of time is necessary. Well, that seems more like a minor oversight than an actual flaw with the device. If the increase in pressure were gradual, or perhaps only when you sped for more than, say, 20 seconds, wouldn't that make most counter-arguements moot? Notice that it doesn't actually prevent you from speeding, it just makes it more difficult. So in the unlikely event of an unpredicted disaster you could still speed all you want as you make your escape. (Of course, I doubt such things happen often in real life since enough people would wreak going that fast that the roads would probably become obstructed.) I mean, I understand that most people prefer going faster than the speed limit, but at least be honest about it. Don't dismiss the technology unless it's fundamentally flawed. My point is that if you do something illegal then you don't really have a right to complain if the authorites take measures to make it harder for you to do so.
But if the virus modifies itself everytime it infects a computer then the signature generated by the honeypots would merely protect against the version of the virus they recieved (i.e. only one of possibly millions of variants). Additionally, if they were uninfectable and kept recieving varied copies of the virus the updating system could effectivly cause a DOS attack by sending so many updates (both bandwidth consumption as the updates are spreaded and harddrive space in storing so many signatures). A slightly better solution would be to monitor traffic and immunize specifically against anything unusual. For example, updated firewalls might block any packet on port 80 that contains "POST http:///exploit HTTP/1.".
I go to the University of Louisville where they've been ready to do a face transplant for some time. From what I remember from the few times my Medical Ethics teacher mentioned it, it's not quite that simple. First of all, current plasic surgery and whatever else can only take a person so far, they still look unusual. So much of how we define who we are comes from our appearance that there's going to be a psychological impact either way. However, if it's your original face that changes then it'd be easier to accept than having some stranger's face. Basically, your (?) face looks very different after the surgery, so that's a lot to adjust to all at once (not to mention people might not recognize you even if they'd seen you immediately before the surgery). Compare that with plastic surgery, which often requires dozens of treatments in extreme cases, so the change is more gradual. There's also the donor's family to consider. My guess is that most people aren't comfortable with the thought that their loved one's face is going to be removed after they die. That also would mean a closed casket funeral, and other such difficulties. There's also the issue of if the recipient happened to enounter someone who knew the donor. They'd look different due to the underlying bone structure and what not, but they'd still look about half like the donor. So recognition might be possible. There's also the issue of if the psychological benefit of having a more normal looking face is worth the risks of the transplant. If the donor must be alive or very recently dead then that brings up even more issues.
If this became wide spread then it wouldn't be hard to guess how teenagers would respond... louder and louder car stereos, which would result in more of these devices being use and so on and so forth. So there goes any sembalance of peace and quite in populated areas. Seriously though, if some business that I had to walk by implemented this I would go rather far out of my way just to avoid it. Turning on old TVs is bad enough, but a continuous, loud, high pitched, intentionally annoying sound? Since I'm probably not alone in that regard I can only imagine the impact on the surrounding businesses. No more cheap teenage labor, and no more customers under thirty. If I had no choice but to walk by these devices then I'd probably result to vandalism.
Well, if you owned e.com then you could sell/give out subdomains like www.websit.e.com or www.googl.e.com for less than the normal cost of a domain name.
Personally I use PhOS (based on Dano).
Don't forget about BeOS. AFAIK it'll run on a Pentium with 16 MB of RAM although Firefox probably wouldn't work. On slightly better hardware you can even watch fullscreen XviD video. The best thing is that BeOS's GUI is freakishly fast. On my machine (3 GHz P4) it's at least twice as fast as Linux or Windows, so I'd bet the difference would be even more apparent on older machines.
Wouldn't that make them unqualified to legally advise on technical matters?
My guess is that Google wants to intice as many people as possible to switch from Microsoft Office as possible. A lot of people still have dial-up, and others don't like to wait for an 80 MB download to finish even with broadband. A smaller download would be more accessible to the home users Google is presumably targeting.
Ok, I'm a college student who likes to take my (rather large) laptop home for the weekends. Other than that, I essentially don't move my computer. Therefore, portability isn't that much of an issue (11 lbs, fits in a backpack), whereas having a large screen for movies, writing papers, etc. is a definate benefit. That's not even taking into account the improved hardware that comes with a heavier/bigger laptop.
Wait a second, you actually thought you could jump on a raptor and live? Perhaps it MIGHT be possible (if they weren't extinct) with an actual velociraptor (3 feet tall), but not with the ones in Jurassic Pack (Utahraptors I believe). First of all, I don't see where you're getting that they couldn't turn their heads more than 80 degrees, it looks to me more like 180 degrees. The tail is used as a counter-balance, so it's very flexable and heavy, perfect for a whip. In the movie one of them jumped on a T-Rex, so it could easily buck a person off if it needed to (I suspect mounting one would be about as hard as mounting a tiger). They're obviously much faster than a human and much stronger (can you tear a piece of flesh off a dinosaur)? Combined with a tougher bone structure I HIGHLY doubt any human could snap ones neck. The only way I'd think you could kill one without a weapon would be to suffocate it. But that's only if you could find a way to get that close and hold on to it for a couple minutes without getting clawed to death. Plus there's the whole thing about a wild animal that is used to fighting to survive, and the average human that is at a fraction of their potential strength and hasn't ever killed anything to eat. And, there were two in that scene of the movie anyway, so...