No, they don't. They use them occasionally to supplement other types of training, mostly because they're logistically easier and significantly cheaper. A "small arms trainer" isn't a video game so much as real weapons outfitted with CO2 blowback mechanisms and the ability to practice scenarios without needing a large training area and blank or live ammunition.
in part, to break down the natural tendency not to shoot another human.
Again, no. Soldiers practice shooting at each other all the time, with blanks, MILES gear, and simunition. It's silly to suggest that shooting pixels on a screen is somehow instrumental to desensitising shooters.
I obviously can't speak to what you did or didn't see, but I also saw G20 riots in my own city, I saw the lead-up to it, I saw how they escalated, and I saw the usual conspiracy theorists making the exact same allegations. It's bullshit. Maybe your city was different but I doubt it.
As for this bit:
This first escalation was very clearly provoked. Both the location and the behaviour of the police point to that. If you know the street, you know that there is only one spot on it where demonstrators would be boxed in from all sides, and that is exactly where they stopped them.
Stopping a mob at a strategic location is not escalation, it's sound tactics. The security forces knew the rhetoric of the assembled groups, had seen them launch into violence and destruction on numerous other occasions, and expected it to happen again. When you know that violence is almost certainly going to break out you take proactive measures to limit the amount of damage which can be done as well as the amount of risk it will place your personnel in. If you expect to have to fight, you don't let the enemy pick the location.
Had the police started beating the shit out of them unprovoked that would be a different story.
The entire economical debates in politics of the past decade are running in circles around a tiny area of the total field of discourse. Unless you are a strict neo-liberalist, your views on wealth distribution, social justice and fair economic systems are not only not represented in politics anymore, nobody is even close enough to them to be an acceptable compromise.
That leaves only the street.
Judging by your response you're German, so your economic policies/politics are already far more "socialist" than a country like the USA. The issue here isn't that, as you suggest, only "strict neo-liberal" views get any time in politics; the issue here is that the protestors are a conglomeration of fringe groups ranging from anarchists to Marxists to hard-line communists. These groups have always had a share of the marketplace of ideas, and a disproportionate representation on university campuses, but in grand scheme of things their policies - those which were coherent enough to debate - have never been persuasive. That's why "the street" has always been their default venue for change; because they have shitty ideas which no thoughtful person has much interest in applying.
Of course, they've had greater success in politics in other places. Like warm, sunny Venezuela. Those "successes" have just made them all the more irrelevant in first world nations. Cautionary tales to be avoided rather than political goals worth considering.
The G20 riots specifically were stupid, counter-productive and very, very predictable. So much so that I'm with the conspiracy theorists that the riots were not only expected but provoked (actions in the days before) and maybe even "helped along" by agent provocateurs.
Right. Protests and riots erupt nearly every time the G20 meets, in whichever country, almost always spearheaded by hard-line communists and anarchists who publicly advocate revolutions, and whose ideological bedmates have implemented bloody revolutions in other nations. So, of course, the most likely explanation is that the various governments of these western nations are all cooperating to secretly stage false-flag violence. Rather than, say, that irrational groups espousing violent rhetoric are behaving in violent and irrational ways.
It's so obvious!
So under the media image of Hamburg burning, there was a lot of effort to have an actual impact. It just didn't get much screen time.
I'm sure that they did mean to have some "actual impact", but their message about what kind of impact they want to have is so muddled that it's essentially useless. And the bits which are relatively clear are just scary.
You could say that the neo-nazis in Charlottesville wanted to have a "real impact" too, but that's not something to cheer them on for.
Sure, we have a strong history of luddites successfully stopping technology via vandalism. It's worked at least... what... zero times?
They should take a page from the history of the anti-nuclear movement and just tie up self driving cars in decades of lawsuits and ever increasing regulatory requirements. That seems to work a lot better.
It's rarely the poor who are out there protesting these things. The people at the G20 and "occupy Wall Street" protests may have looked homeless, but the vast majority were quite well off. It's not about actual impact, it's about ideology, and spoiled overgrown children looking for a cause.
Good since you are pretty much incorrect. Secure boot just require secure boot enable boot device and os like windows pe or a number of linux distros for example
Yeah, I tried that. Couldn't get the Linux iso to boot until I finally went into the windows settings and told it to allow it. And yes, the iso was secure boot enabled.
But I definitely don't have a comprehensive understanding of how secure boot is supposed to work, which is why I added that disclaimer.
If you can plug in a USB key, there's a much easier way to access the PC. Just install Kon-boot on the USB drive first, plug it in, and boot the PC.
Doesn't work if the device is encrypted. Doesn't work if BIOS doesn't allow booting from USB. Probably won't work on most modern devices which have secure boot enabled by default.
A little pedantic I see. "at" was not intended to mean a crash course. It was meant to indicate it would visit Mars proximity, something it will no longer do because they missed.
I'm not psychic, so I can't possibly know what you intended to indicate. If someone says "I'm being shot at" I assume he means that an assailant is intending to hit him with a bullet. I don't assume that he means some random individual is firing a bullet towards his general vicinity, but intending to miss.
This doesn't shock me in the least because 90% of brute force attempts on my tiny VPS that hosts my blog come from Chinese IP addresses.
That doesn't mean much. Back in the early 2000's... someone I know used to have a botnet of tens of thousands of computers, 90% of which were in China. I'm not sure what the situation is these days, but back then Chinese boxes were by far the easiest to "hack", so they were a popular choice. Any scans or attacks being done by this individual would have appeared to be coming from his Chinese botnet, despite the fact that he himself resided in a western nation.
tl;dr the fact that you're seeing attacks from one specific country doesn't mean they're being carried out by citizens of that country.
The attacker can get these machines to do exactly what he wants, exactly when he wants it to happen.
No, the attacker can get these machines to do one specific thing he wants, exactly when he wants it to happen. If that's your definition of a botnet then every HTTP server is part of a botnet, since I can get any of them to send me a webpage whenever I want one.
They're Chinese companies. They don't do creative designs, they just copy whatever trends they see.
That's a pretty absurd generalisation. While there are plenty of Chinese companies which just copy the most popular models, there are also many which innovate and serve less popular markets. If we are speaking about phones specifically, US manufacturers/companies seem to have completely given up on creating ruggedized phones with large battery capacity, in favour of ever slimmer and more fragile models. Whereas several Chinese companies have recently come out with modern phones featuring a sturdy design and 6,000+ mAh batteries.
The next time I need to replace my phone I won't be looking for trendy western models; nobody outside of China makes the kinds of phones which appeal to me.
I want my phone to be a phone, and my computer to be my computer.
Then you don't want a smartphone. You want one of those old Nokia phones that does nothing but make calls and send messages. You certainly don't want an iPhone.
They can always get you for something. A cop I know was telling me about this guy who apparently got fed up with his wife (the driver) screaming at him about something, so he jumped out of a moving vehicle. Hurt himself pretty good, they had to get an ambulance. You would think there would be nothing they could ticket him with.
You would be wrong.
As the guy is being loaded onto a stretcher, the cop hands him a ticket for failing to wear a seatbelt.
That's an idiotic argument if I ever saw one, but hey, it's you so what's to expect.
Here are the facts: It doesn't matter if it's once a year, twice per decade or three every century or whatever measure you care to apply. ONCE is too many.
No, THAT is an idiotic argument. If you are talking about any type of accident and find yourself saying "once is too many", you need to stop, because you're being an idiot.
It's kind of amusing how so many people think the left own the mainstream media, and others believe just as fervently that it's the right.
It's pretty obvious that the large media outlets tend to be run by people who are left of center. Even just taking population statistics into account, most of them are based out of large cities, and large cities contain populations which are more left-leaning than the nation as a whole. Ergo, unless the outlet is intentionally looking to hire conservatives (fox news), or unless some other factor results in conservatives disproportionally getting those jobs, the networks are going to end up being managed and staffed by people who are further left than the national average.
News networks also tend to hire people who have some type of university education (usually in "soft" fields) which, again, is going to select for left-leaning people.
Those who think the media is "controlled by the right" are so far on the fringes of the left wing that, to them, even Bill Clinton looks like a right-wing white supremacist. It's a similar situation with those on the far-right who think the media is some communist plot to take over America. In reality most of the large outlets end up being slightly left of centre.
Train wrecks and fuel spills and similar human carelessness are why we can't ship the fuel to be reprocessed.
Neither of those things on an issue. Look up "nuclear cask train" on YouTube and enjoy the video. Then go read up on the technology.
Pure callousness on the part of the nuclear industry is why we can't ship the fuel to be reprocessed.
So informative. Much wow.
The nuclear industry lied their asses off about how safe and inexpensive nuclear power would be but in reality, with actual humans running the show it was not safe and it was not inexpensive.
It's every bit as safe as they said it would be, and it's relatively inexpensive even with all the insane regulations and battles which have to be fought every time you want to build a new reactor in a modern nation. If we were serious about building a large number of new plants we could knock the costs way down. China is building them like it's going out of style, and their costs are far, far lower.
And after 30 years, even the concrete the reactors are built from becomes tons of radioactive waste making disposal much harder than they used to think.
Low level radiation of no concern to anyone. Bury it in the ground and leave it alone.
I agree that in theory we could do it safely. But only in theory. We know from experience now that it's not safe.
I agree that in theory you could be correct. But only in theory. We know from decades of experience that it's very safe.
They weren't aiming at Mars; they would have never gotten authorisation to actually launch a car at a planet which it could potentially contaminate. The planned orbit was always going to avoid Mars. However they DID overshoot their target aphelion so the roadster will end up going further out into the solar system than intended.
The concept you fail to understand is "limits". We have them. Claiming that the progress we have experienced in the past 100 (or 300) years will scale for the next 100 is speculation.
It is speculation based on past progression and likely projection, whereas your suggestion - that we are going to hit a limit in 300 years or less - is speculation based on nothing other than your own pessimism/cynicism.
Economic and technological development are both increasing rather than decreasing; exponentially increasing in the case of technology. If you have a good reason for positing that the trend of the last 1,000 years will suddenly reverse I am certainly willing to listen, but you don't get to just lecture me about speculation and limits when your supposed limit is itself pure speculation.
Absurd speculation like yours is precisely why many fools have predicted the end of Moore's law in the coming years. In their case they, arguably, have a much better case than you; they can point to actual physical laws which place a hard limit on how small we can make existing transistor circuits. I suspect that in the vacuum-tube era there were many such naysayers predicting an end to computer improvemens due to energy, heat, and size limits inherent in THAT technology. What they've always failed to account for in the past is the development of new, entirely different approaches to solving the same problem. If history shows anything it's that naysayers like you are always wrong. You may eventually, in many thousands of years, become right... but it will be by sheer accident, and only a fool would bet on you in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, the Army uses video games extensively
No, they don't. They use them occasionally to supplement other types of training, mostly because they're logistically easier and significantly cheaper. A "small arms trainer" isn't a video game so much as real weapons outfitted with CO2 blowback mechanisms and the ability to practice scenarios without needing a large training area and blank or live ammunition.
in part, to break down the natural tendency not to shoot another human.
Again, no. Soldiers practice shooting at each other all the time, with blanks, MILES gear, and simunition. It's silly to suggest that shooting pixels on a screen is somehow instrumental to desensitising shooters.
"Fairly ordinary" ie. "Middle class" ie. "Not poor"
Apparently one woman got attacked over them, and this goof thinks that's why google pulled them.
I obviously can't speak to what you did or didn't see, but I also saw G20 riots in my own city, I saw the lead-up to it, I saw how they escalated, and I saw the usual conspiracy theorists making the exact same allegations. It's bullshit. Maybe your city was different but I doubt it.
As for this bit:
This first escalation was very clearly provoked. Both the location and the behaviour of the police point to that. If you know the street, you know that there is only one spot on it where demonstrators would be boxed in from all sides, and that is exactly where they stopped them.
Stopping a mob at a strategic location is not escalation, it's sound tactics. The security forces knew the rhetoric of the assembled groups, had seen them launch into violence and destruction on numerous other occasions, and expected it to happen again. When you know that violence is almost certainly going to break out you take proactive measures to limit the amount of damage which can be done as well as the amount of risk it will place your personnel in. If you expect to have to fight, you don't let the enemy pick the location.
Had the police started beating the shit out of them unprovoked that would be a different story.
The entire economical debates in politics of the past decade are running in circles around a tiny area of the total field of discourse. Unless you are a strict neo-liberalist, your views on wealth distribution, social justice and fair economic systems are not only not represented in politics anymore, nobody is even close enough to them to be an acceptable compromise.
That leaves only the street.
Judging by your response you're German, so your economic policies/politics are already far more "socialist" than a country like the USA. The issue here isn't that, as you suggest, only "strict neo-liberal" views get any time in politics; the issue here is that the protestors are a conglomeration of fringe groups ranging from anarchists to Marxists to hard-line communists. These groups have always had a share of the marketplace of ideas, and a disproportionate representation on university campuses, but in grand scheme of things their policies - those which were coherent enough to debate - have never been persuasive. That's why "the street" has always been their default venue for change; because they have shitty ideas which no thoughtful person has much interest in applying.
Of course, they've had greater success in politics in other places. Like warm, sunny Venezuela. Those "successes" have just made them all the more irrelevant in first world nations. Cautionary tales to be avoided rather than political goals worth considering.
The G20 riots specifically were stupid, counter-productive and very, very predictable. So much so that I'm with the conspiracy theorists that the riots were not only expected but provoked (actions in the days before) and maybe even "helped along" by agent provocateurs.
Right. Protests and riots erupt nearly every time the G20 meets, in whichever country, almost always spearheaded by hard-line communists and anarchists who publicly advocate revolutions, and whose ideological bedmates have implemented bloody revolutions in other nations. So, of course, the most likely explanation is that the various governments of these western nations are all cooperating to secretly stage false-flag violence. Rather than, say, that irrational groups espousing violent rhetoric are behaving in violent and irrational ways.
It's so obvious!
So under the media image of Hamburg burning, there was a lot of effort to have an actual impact. It just didn't get much screen time.
I'm sure that they did mean to have some "actual impact", but their message about what kind of impact they want to have is so muddled that it's essentially useless. And the bits which are relatively clear are just scary.
You could say that the neo-nazis in Charlottesville wanted to have a "real impact" too, but that's not something to cheer them on for.
You obviously haven't watched Demolition Man.
Sure, we have a strong history of luddites successfully stopping technology via vandalism. It's worked at least ... what ... zero times?
They should take a page from the history of the anti-nuclear movement and just tie up self driving cars in decades of lawsuits and ever increasing regulatory requirements. That seems to work a lot better.
It's rarely the poor who are out there protesting these things. The people at the G20 and "occupy Wall Street" protests may have looked homeless, but the vast majority were quite well off. It's not about actual impact, it's about ideology, and spoiled overgrown children looking for a cause.
Good since you are pretty much incorrect. Secure boot just require secure boot enable boot device and os like windows pe or a number of linux distros for example
Yeah, I tried that. Couldn't get the Linux iso to boot until I finally went into the windows settings and told it to allow it. And yes, the iso was secure boot enabled.
But I definitely don't have a comprehensive understanding of how secure boot is supposed to work, which is why I added that disclaimer.
Heat guns work on pretty much every adhesive, including solder.
The good news is, I got the cover off. The bad news is, there's a bunch of little chippy things rattling around.
If you can plug in a USB key, there's a much easier way to access the PC. Just install Kon-boot on the USB drive first, plug it in, and boot the PC.
Doesn't work if the device is encrypted. Doesn't work if BIOS doesn't allow booting from USB. Probably won't work on most modern devices which have secure boot enabled by default.
(Don't quote me on the last one)
A little pedantic I see. "at" was not intended to mean a crash course. It was meant to indicate it would visit Mars proximity, something it will no longer do because they missed.
I'm not psychic, so I can't possibly know what you intended to indicate. If someone says "I'm being shot at" I assume he means that an assailant is intending to hit him with a bullet. I don't assume that he means some random individual is firing a bullet towards his general vicinity, but intending to miss.
This doesn't shock me in the least because 90% of brute force attempts on my tiny VPS that hosts my blog come from Chinese IP addresses.
That doesn't mean much. Back in the early 2000's ... someone I know used to have a botnet of tens of thousands of computers, 90% of which were in China. I'm not sure what the situation is these days, but back then Chinese boxes were by far the easiest to "hack", so they were a popular choice. Any scans or attacks being done by this individual would have appeared to be coming from his Chinese botnet, despite the fact that he himself resided in a western nation.
tl;dr the fact that you're seeing attacks from one specific country doesn't mean they're being carried out by citizens of that country.
The attacker can get these machines to do exactly what he wants, exactly when he wants it to happen.
No, the attacker can get these machines to do one specific thing he wants, exactly when he wants it to happen. If that's your definition of a botnet then every HTTP server is part of a botnet, since I can get any of them to send me a webpage whenever I want one.
Whaddya have against âoesmart quotesâ?
They're stupid.
They're Chinese companies. They don't do creative designs, they just copy whatever trends they see.
That's a pretty absurd generalisation. While there are plenty of Chinese companies which just copy the most popular models, there are also many which innovate and serve less popular markets. If we are speaking about phones specifically, US manufacturers/companies seem to have completely given up on creating ruggedized phones with large battery capacity, in favour of ever slimmer and more fragile models. Whereas several Chinese companies have recently come out with modern phones featuring a sturdy design and 6,000+ mAh batteries.
The next time I need to replace my phone I won't be looking for trendy western models; nobody outside of China makes the kinds of phones which appeal to me.
Which is exactly why I *go* with Apple.
I want my phone to be a phone, and my computer to be my computer.
Then you don't want a smartphone. You want one of those old Nokia phones that does nothing but make calls and send messages. You certainly don't want an iPhone.
They can always get you for something. A cop I know was telling me about this guy who apparently got fed up with his wife (the driver) screaming at him about something, so he jumped out of a moving vehicle. Hurt himself pretty good, they had to get an ambulance. You would think there would be nothing they could ticket him with.
You would be wrong.
As the guy is being loaded onto a stretcher, the cop hands him a ticket for failing to wear a seatbelt.
That's an idiotic argument if I ever saw one, but hey, it's you so what's to expect.
Here are the facts: It doesn't matter if it's once a year, twice per decade or three every century or whatever measure you care to apply. ONCE is too many.
No, THAT is an idiotic argument. If you are talking about any type of accident and find yourself saying "once is too many", you need to stop, because you're being an idiot.
It's kind of amusing how so many people think the left own the mainstream media, and others believe just as fervently that it's the right.
It's pretty obvious that the large media outlets tend to be run by people who are left of center. Even just taking population statistics into account, most of them are based out of large cities, and large cities contain populations which are more left-leaning than the nation as a whole. Ergo, unless the outlet is intentionally looking to hire conservatives (fox news), or unless some other factor results in conservatives disproportionally getting those jobs, the networks are going to end up being managed and staffed by people who are further left than the national average.
News networks also tend to hire people who have some type of university education (usually in "soft" fields) which, again, is going to select for left-leaning people.
Those who think the media is "controlled by the right" are so far on the fringes of the left wing that, to them, even Bill Clinton looks like a right-wing white supremacist. It's a similar situation with those on the far-right who think the media is some communist plot to take over America. In reality most of the large outlets end up being slightly left of centre.
Nah, man, we're not letting you anywhere near the controls.
Train wrecks and fuel spills and similar human carelessness are why we can't ship the fuel to be reprocessed.
Neither of those things on an issue. Look up "nuclear cask train" on YouTube and enjoy the video. Then go read up on the technology.
Pure callousness on the part of the nuclear industry is why we can't ship the fuel to be reprocessed.
So informative. Much wow.
The nuclear industry lied their asses off about how safe and inexpensive nuclear power would be but in reality, with actual humans running the show it was not safe and it was not inexpensive.
It's every bit as safe as they said it would be, and it's relatively inexpensive even with all the insane regulations and battles which have to be fought every time you want to build a new reactor in a modern nation. If we were serious about building a large number of new plants we could knock the costs way down. China is building them like it's going out of style, and their costs are far, far lower.
And after 30 years, even the concrete the reactors are built from becomes tons of radioactive waste making disposal much harder than they used to think.
Low level radiation of no concern to anyone. Bury it in the ground and leave it alone.
I agree that in theory we could do it safely. But only in theory. We know from experience now that it's not safe.
I agree that in theory you could be correct. But only in theory. We know from decades of experience that it's very safe.
They weren't aiming at Mars; they would have never gotten authorisation to actually launch a car at a planet which it could potentially contaminate. The planned orbit was always going to avoid Mars. However they DID overshoot their target aphelion so the roadster will end up going further out into the solar system than intended.
The concept you fail to understand is "limits". We have them. Claiming that the progress we have experienced in the past 100 (or 300) years will scale for the next 100 is speculation.
It is speculation based on past progression and likely projection, whereas your suggestion - that we are going to hit a limit in 300 years or less - is speculation based on nothing other than your own pessimism/cynicism.
Economic and technological development are both increasing rather than decreasing; exponentially increasing in the case of technology. If you have a good reason for positing that the trend of the last 1,000 years will suddenly reverse I am certainly willing to listen, but you don't get to just lecture me about speculation and limits when your supposed limit is itself pure speculation.
Absurd speculation like yours is precisely why many fools have predicted the end of Moore's law in the coming years. In their case they, arguably, have a much better case than you; they can point to actual physical laws which place a hard limit on how small we can make existing transistor circuits. I suspect that in the vacuum-tube era there were many such naysayers predicting an end to computer improvemens due to energy, heat, and size limits inherent in THAT technology. What they've always failed to account for in the past is the development of new, entirely different approaches to solving the same problem. If history shows anything it's that naysayers like you are always wrong. You may eventually, in many thousands of years, become right ... but it will be by sheer accident, and only a fool would bet on you in the meantime.
Problems with this:
1) We're talking about Mexico. There would be no politicians left.
2) Who then gets rid of the army?
The armed citizens exercising their second amendment ri ...
Never mind.
Maybe the cartels?