I asked "what was the major cause of the U.S. Civil War?"
Dunno what kind of answer you were expecting - this kind of question you can argue until the cows come home. It could be anything from socioeconomics, state's rights arguments, clash of cultures, butthead political leaders, foreign provocateurs - there was enough crap going on back then so that you can find a decent argument for just about any cause of the Civil War.
Yeah, that will make a lot companies/independent coders want to release code. Imagine not releasing code until you are positive there are no exploits or holes in your code.
Actually, that would just make the software companies force their customers to sign _real_ contracts with enforceable liability disclaimers instead of the faux-contract EULAs that they are currently using. This would probably have drastic effects on the sale of off-the-shelf software, plus a lot of the big customers would probably insist on (and purchase) maintenance contracts and/or liability insurance (which would drive up the cost of the software even more).
1) Escape velocity is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. That applies to unpowered vehicles - not a vehicle under constant power such as this one.
Well, not exactly - since this is an air-breathing engine, escape velocity would become relevant when the engine can no longer suck in enough air to keep operating.
Did you ask her to install a program? How about install an external device? or even GIMP?
Have you tried to do this with a super-non-techie under Windows (except for the GIMP thing, of course)? You get the same results, whether you're using Windows or not.
Especially if your relatives are like mine & figure that if the installation program gives them the option to change the "destination directory" name, whatever that is, then they should use the same name for all of their "programs" so they'll be able to find it easier later on...
Compassion doesnt win war. In fact, emotion doesnt win wars. You'd make a terrible war strategist even if you'd make a good person.
I don't agree with you in this situation. Even assuming that you can call the U.S. fight with terrorists a "war" (a term which is being used more for propaganda purposes for any real definition), fighting against terrorism is (almost by definition) a _psychological_ war.
Unlike a full-on war between nations, terrorists are well aware that they do not have the manpower to, and do not expect that they will be able to, personally destroy their enemy's society. Instead, by sowing enough fear, frustration & chaos in the society, they are hoping that their enemy will destroy themselves.
Similarly, when the enemy strikes back in frustration and without regard for the innocent civilians who have the terrorists hiding in their midst, then the enemy is just creating a ready source of recruits for the terrorists. The terrorists can blame every stray bullet or bomb, and every innocent body, on the enemy - and as long as this kind of conflict continues, the terrorists will have a never-ending source of volunteers whose hatred will only grow over time.
On the flip side, if you can convince that civilian population that you _are_ compassionate, and that you're doing your best to help them, and you're really only interested in stopping these vicious terrorist thugs, then you will greatly reduce the pool of terrorist-candidates - plus, you have a large population of volunteer informers who desperately want to keep the terrorists from destroying the civilian's own security.
In a psychological "war", compassion is an _extremely_ powerful "weapon" - you just have to apply it to the right targets. Lest you accuse me of being all lovey-dovey with anyone, I have very little "compassion" for the people who are actively taking part in terrorist activities - I just think that using a shotgun approach would be counterproductive in accomplishing the goal of stopping them. Your "emotionless", or anger-based, approach to war will result in never-ending cycles of retribution (e.g., Israelies/Palestinians).
Frankly, I believe that someone with your short-sightedness would be much less suited to dealing with a "war" against terrorists than someone like myself who actually gives a damn about the innocent people. Unfortunately, people with your attitude seem to be charge of the U.S. at the moment.
Of course, if this was all a troll by "Adolph_Hitler", then all I can say is: "Oops, I bit!".
I've only read about it on various news services, but there's tons of articles about it accessible via Google (search for Britain & RIP). Most of them are quite scathing in their commentary - I'm sure you can compile quite a list of discussion points. Make sure you cross-reference things so that you don't accidentally repeat any false information.
I'd just like to see them wipe the computer after spreading.
Nah, just write a few random bytes in random positions to random files every second or so (including the registry, of course). Make sure you clean up the access times of the files so it doesn't look like they got changed.
With any luck, a lot of the files will be corrupted before the system goes down irretrievably, and if the users _were_ competent enough to be doing backups, then all of the corrupted data will have been backed up too (it should be hard for them to figure out how far back the corruption goes).
The practice of emailing (or posting on a newsgroup) embarrassing or sensitive documents to the generic public would also help a lot.
After an infection like that, your user will definitely take anti-virus procedures seriously.
They'd have to balance that out against "The feds can listen to anything I say? Especially that super-secret project that would get the entire board arrested, deported, and executed, maybe not even in that order?"
Not a problem when the company is controlling the connections to the fed's "sooper-sekret" spying equipment. The feds will hear only what the execs want them to hear.
War between Europe and USA would end in stalemate.
Actually, I don't even think it would get that far. If the US public thought that a President was seriously proposing attacking Europe (as a whole entity), about half the military & most of the general population would be like: "WTF?!" Impeachment & conviction probably wouldn't take more than a month, possibly delayed by a psychiatric evaluation.
Those corporations are corrupt to the core, and it strikes me that wiretaps being made more easy might have negative effects on their bottom line and on the bottoms of the executives (once they get sent to "federal pound you in the ass prison").
Actually, I'm thinking that some of those executives are thinking: "I can listen to anything any of the employees are saying, especially that bastard down the hall who is trying to get my job? Cool!"
I think that part of the controversy in the UK was that "I forgot the passphrase" is not a legitimate excuse, and that they can keep you in jail until you "remember" the passphrase.
Some activists tried to use this by sending an encrypted message describing some crime to a VIP in the UK government, and trying to point out that the VIP should be arrested until he coughed up the passphrase (which he didn't know, of course). They were pretty much ignored - not surprisingly, badly-written laws don't get enforced on VIPs, only non-VIPs who piss off law enforcement.
They're just asking you do to your part for your country. If you don't like it feel free to renounce your citizenship and try and find one elsewhere. There's no need to deliberately sabotage your country's defence force.
This goes both ways. When I figure "my" country is looking out for _me_ (not me in particular, but people in my "class"), then I'll reciprocate. If I figure "my" country is actually looking after arrogant rich bastards who have arranged for everyone else to do the dying for them, then I'll be focused on getting my ass out of the so-called "defense force" alive, by _any_ means possible.
Abortion clinics are killing babies, no matter what way you look at it your taking two lives and making one.
While I have no problem with the other stuff in your comment, I strongly disagree with _this_ viewpoint. Up until the fetus has coherent brain function, an abortion is just a removal of extra flesh - not any more immoral than removing a tumor or any other parasitic growth. Any other viewpoint is, almost by definition, ideological in nature, and should be treated as such in a rational-based, secular society.
This security scheme would be very weak. Someone can record you while you say 'friend' and later use the recording to log on.
Maybe you can use the public key-like "challenge-response" setup - where the security tells you some random stuff to say, you repeat it and the security analyzes your voiceprint to figure out if the right person is saying it. (Of course, if the security accidentally gives you a tongue-twister, maybe the way you screw up the words is also part of your "voiceprint"...)
It's the part where just about everyone in the military gets access to a gun at some point or other, regardless of their mental capacities, which disturbs me...
My coworkers did the same thing - they called it "Navy" coffee (one of them used to serve on an aircraft carrier). Use double-to-triple the suggested amount of coffee grounds, let reduce for 4-5 hours before serving. Drink straight.
Man, I was drinking 4-shot espressos at the time and thought I could drink this stuff, but made me feel like it was ripping my insides out (perhaps because the 4-5 hour cooking time made the coffee oils go rancid). I was wondering whether I could use it to stain some unfinished furniture that I was working on at the time, but wasn't sure that I wanted something that smelled like rancid coffee.
The problem is the scale. A 10m Robot is much more prone to broken arms or legs then a 2m human. An 1cm insect can fall down over 1m without any brocken legs. Try a 200m fall with a 2m human...
Also a human has a protection in form of flesh that softens the impact on the ground.
I would imagine that, up to a certain point, these disadvantages could be dealt with through proper engineering. Such machines would probably look really stocky (thick limbs & torso) to be able to hold the machinery & have the same relative sturdiness as a smaller equivalent organism. Material science gives us structural strength & armor protection which far exceeds the strength of almost any organic creature - this kind of technology can be used to provide some of that structural resilience that a mech would require. I'm sure that a fully-functional mech would also have lots of dynamic features involved in its structure (kind of how muscles provide both power & shock-absorbing abilities, and bones have a certain amount of flexibility).
Also, the mechs might not need to be 10m high - they might be only as big as the tanks that they are competing with (are tanks 10m long?).
A steel robot would be permanently deformed, if it land on a pointy stone
At the scale you're talking about, most stones would be crushed into powder (at least no longer be so pointy) if a mech of those sizes fell on them. Also, the type of armor used would probably not be steel - it would more likely be at least as good as the stuff used on modern tanks. Plus, there would probably be some kind of shock-dispersal mechanism inside the skin. Besides, a well-designed mech isn't going to have any more problems with a dent or two than a human has with a scrape or a bruise - so what if it looks ugly.
The tanks could try to minimize the terrain advantage by using air support. 1 robot against 4 tanks and 2 predator-drones. If the robot trys to flee into the mountains, where the tanks could not follow, the drones could still reach it.
The problem with this reasoning, is that any form of external support that the tanks can use, the mechs can also use. In fact, if I were a mech commander, I would ask air support to send in a bunch of "crater-making" bombs so that my mechs could scramble through and around the craters, using them for cover and waiting until the tanks were struggling over them (or around them), then pop out & flip them over. Also, in such an engagement, you wouldn't try and flip the tanks over first - you'd disable (bend) the main gun on each tank - then you could flip them over at leisure (when the only effective weapon that the tank has is to try and run over you).
Also, if the mechs can move fast enough in short spurts, I'd say that it would be easier for our air support to shoot the tanks than it would be for the enemy air support to shoot wildly-dodging, jumping & hiding humanoid figures.
The main disadvantages I see with mechs are: 1) cost & complexity, and 2) long-range travel. So far, I haven't seen a convincing argument that a properly-designed mech would have a big disadvantage on most battlefields over a tank - especially if the mech has a "big gun" like the tank which they can point and use with the ease of a handgun or rifle.
Government consulting ENERGY experts to formulate ENERGY policies? What a ludicrous idea!
Sorry, what part of Kenneth Lay is an energy "expert"? If the administration were interested in meeting experts, they would've called in the engineers & the financial analysts. Instead, they called in people who were interested in how the right legislation could "MAKE MONEY FAST".
an act which is very likely forbidden by company policy and the NDA I no doubt signed
I don't believe that company policy or NDAs trumps the law - in fact, in some cases someone who knows that a company is doing something illegal can be considered an accomplice by the law if they _don't_ report it (i.e., somebody else reports it & the quiet chap gets implicated in the knowledge of the activity).
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno what kind of answer you were expecting - this kind of question you can argue until the cows come home. It could be anything from socioeconomics, state's rights arguments, clash of cultures, butthead political leaders, foreign provocateurs - there was enough crap going on back then so that you can find a decent argument for just about any cause of the Civil War.
Actually, that would just make the software companies force their customers to sign _real_ contracts with enforceable liability disclaimers instead of the faux-contract EULAs that they are currently using. This would probably have drastic effects on the sale of off-the-shelf software, plus a lot of the big customers would probably insist on (and purchase) maintenance contracts and/or liability insurance (which would drive up the cost of the software even more).
Well, not exactly - since this is an air-breathing engine, escape velocity would become relevant when the engine can no longer suck in enough air to keep operating.
By that standard, the two-stroke in my self-propelled lawnmower is a "sublight" engine.
Have you tried to do this with a super-non-techie under Windows (except for the GIMP thing, of course)? You get the same results, whether you're using Windows or not.
Especially if your relatives are like mine & figure that if the installation program gives them the option to change the "destination directory" name, whatever that is, then they should use the same name for all of their "programs" so they'll be able to find it easier later on...
How in the world did you get on a spamming list for very large towels!?
"crap chute"? ...I meant "crap shoot"!
I don't agree with you in this situation. Even assuming that you can call the U.S. fight with terrorists a "war" (a term which is being used more for propaganda purposes for any real definition), fighting against terrorism is (almost by definition) a _psychological_ war.
Unlike a full-on war between nations, terrorists are well aware that they do not have the manpower to, and do not expect that they will be able to, personally destroy their enemy's society. Instead, by sowing enough fear, frustration & chaos in the society, they are hoping that their enemy will destroy themselves.
Similarly, when the enemy strikes back in frustration and without regard for the innocent civilians who have the terrorists hiding in their midst, then the enemy is just creating a ready source of recruits for the terrorists. The terrorists can blame every stray bullet or bomb, and every innocent body, on the enemy - and as long as this kind of conflict continues, the terrorists will have a never-ending source of volunteers whose hatred will only grow over time.
On the flip side, if you can convince that civilian population that you _are_ compassionate, and that you're doing your best to help them, and you're really only interested in stopping these vicious terrorist thugs, then you will greatly reduce the pool of terrorist-candidates - plus, you have a large population of volunteer informers who desperately want to keep the terrorists from destroying the civilian's own security.
In a psychological "war", compassion is an _extremely_ powerful "weapon" - you just have to apply it to the right targets. Lest you accuse me of being all lovey-dovey with anyone, I have very little "compassion" for the people who are actively taking part in terrorist activities - I just think that using a shotgun approach would be counterproductive in accomplishing the goal of stopping them. Your "emotionless", or anger-based, approach to war will result in never-ending cycles of retribution (e.g., Israelies/Palestinians).
Frankly, I believe that someone with your short-sightedness would be much less suited to dealing with a "war" against terrorists than someone like myself who actually gives a damn about the innocent people. Unfortunately, people with your attitude seem to be charge of the U.S. at the moment.
Of course, if this was all a troll by "Adolph_Hitler", then all I can say is: "Oops, I bit!".
I've only read about it on various news services, but there's tons of articles about it accessible via Google (search for Britain & RIP). Most of them are quite scathing in their commentary - I'm sure you can compile quite a list of discussion points. Make sure you cross-reference things so that you don't accidentally repeat any false information.
I didn't see the jar of Vaseline in my package! :(
Nah, just write a few random bytes in random positions to random files every second or so (including the registry, of course). Make sure you clean up the access times of the files so it doesn't look like they got changed.
With any luck, a lot of the files will be corrupted before the system goes down irretrievably, and if the users _were_ competent enough to be doing backups, then all of the corrupted data will have been backed up too (it should be hard for them to figure out how far back the corruption goes).
The practice of emailing (or posting on a newsgroup) embarrassing or sensitive documents to the generic public would also help a lot.
After an infection like that, your user will definitely take anti-virus procedures seriously.
Not a problem when the company is controlling the connections to the fed's "sooper-sekret" spying equipment. The feds will hear only what the execs want them to hear.
Uh...compassion?
Actually, I don't even think it would get that far. If the US public thought that a President was seriously proposing attacking Europe (as a whole entity), about half the military & most of the general population would be like: "WTF?!" Impeachment & conviction probably wouldn't take more than a month, possibly delayed by a psychiatric evaluation.
Actually, I'm thinking that some of those executives are thinking: "I can listen to anything any of the employees are saying, especially that bastard down the hall who is trying to get my job? Cool!"
I think that part of the controversy in the UK was that "I forgot the passphrase" is not a legitimate excuse, and that they can keep you in jail until you "remember" the passphrase.
Some activists tried to use this by sending an encrypted message describing some crime to a VIP in the UK government, and trying to point out that the VIP should be arrested until he coughed up the passphrase (which he didn't know, of course). They were pretty much ignored - not surprisingly, badly-written laws don't get enforced on VIPs, only non-VIPs who piss off law enforcement.
Whoa, when did Orrin Hatch join the Democratic party?
This goes both ways. When I figure "my" country is looking out for _me_ (not me in particular, but people in my "class"), then I'll reciprocate. If I figure "my" country is actually looking after arrogant rich bastards who have arranged for everyone else to do the dying for them, then I'll be focused on getting my ass out of the so-called "defense force" alive, by _any_ means possible.
While I have no problem with the other stuff in your comment, I strongly disagree with _this_ viewpoint. Up until the fetus has coherent brain function, an abortion is just a removal of extra flesh - not any more immoral than removing a tumor or any other parasitic growth. Any other viewpoint is, almost by definition, ideological in nature, and should be treated as such in a rational-based, secular society.
Maybe you can use the public key-like "challenge-response" setup - where the security tells you some random stuff to say, you repeat it and the security analyzes your voiceprint to figure out if the right person is saying it. (Of course, if the security accidentally gives you a tongue-twister, maybe the way you screw up the words is also part of your "voiceprint"...)
It's the part where just about everyone in the military gets access to a gun at some point or other, regardless of their mental capacities, which disturbs me...
My coworkers did the same thing - they called it "Navy" coffee (one of them used to serve on an aircraft carrier). Use double-to-triple the suggested amount of coffee grounds, let reduce for 4-5 hours before serving. Drink straight.
Man, I was drinking 4-shot espressos at the time and thought I could drink this stuff, but made me feel like it was ripping my insides out (perhaps because the 4-5 hour cooking time made the coffee oils go rancid). I was wondering whether I could use it to stain some unfinished furniture that I was working on at the time, but wasn't sure that I wanted something that smelled like rancid coffee.
I would imagine that, up to a certain point, these disadvantages could be dealt with through proper engineering. Such machines would probably look really stocky (thick limbs & torso) to be able to hold the machinery & have the same relative sturdiness as a smaller equivalent organism. Material science gives us structural strength & armor protection which far exceeds the strength of almost any organic creature - this kind of technology can be used to provide some of that structural resilience that a mech would require. I'm sure that a fully-functional mech would also have lots of dynamic features involved in its structure (kind of how muscles provide both power & shock-absorbing abilities, and bones have a certain amount of flexibility).
Also, the mechs might not need to be 10m high - they might be only as big as the tanks that they are competing with (are tanks 10m long?).
At the scale you're talking about, most stones would be crushed into powder (at least no longer be so pointy) if a mech of those sizes fell on them. Also, the type of armor used would probably not be steel - it would more likely be at least as good as the stuff used on modern tanks. Plus, there would probably be some kind of shock-dispersal mechanism inside the skin. Besides, a well-designed mech isn't going to have any more problems with a dent or two than a human has with a scrape or a bruise - so what if it looks ugly.
The problem with this reasoning, is that any form of external support that the tanks can use, the mechs can also use. In fact, if I were a mech commander, I would ask air support to send in a bunch of "crater-making" bombs so that my mechs could scramble through and around the craters, using them for cover and waiting until the tanks were struggling over them (or around them), then pop out & flip them over. Also, in such an engagement, you wouldn't try and flip the tanks over first - you'd disable (bend) the main gun on each tank - then you could flip them over at leisure (when the only effective weapon that the tank has is to try and run over you).
Also, if the mechs can move fast enough in short spurts, I'd say that it would be easier for our air support to shoot the tanks than it would be for the enemy air support to shoot wildly-dodging, jumping & hiding humanoid figures.
The main disadvantages I see with mechs are: 1) cost & complexity, and 2) long-range travel. So far, I haven't seen a convincing argument that a properly-designed mech would have a big disadvantage on most battlefields over a tank - especially if the mech has a "big gun" like the tank which they can point and use with the ease of a handgun or rifle.
Sorry, what part of Kenneth Lay is an energy "expert"? If the administration were interested in meeting experts, they would've called in the engineers & the financial analysts. Instead, they called in people who were interested in how the right legislation could "MAKE MONEY FAST".
I don't believe that company policy or NDAs trumps the law - in fact, in some cases someone who knows that a company is doing something illegal can be considered an accomplice by the law if they _don't_ report it (i.e., somebody else reports it & the quiet chap gets implicated in the knowledge of the activity).