The smallest possible nuclear weapon is about two feet by three feet, and weighs nearly 200 pounds. Considerably larger than a suitcase. And a weapon of that size, when detonated, would be basically indistinguishable from a truck bomb. There's no practical use for such a weapon in a terrorist attack. It's too small to conceal without a vehicle to carry it around in, and if you have a vehicle you can get a bigger bang with a conventional explosive.
Practically speaking, a nuclear weapon that would be of use to a terrorist would be about six feet long and would weigh half a ton. Think Ryder truck, not suitcase.
Because noone's ever thought of packing a suitcase with high explosive and plutonium to make a dirty bomb - never happen!
I was just pointing out that there are many other ways to attack the US.
You may have been trying to do that, but you were not successful.
Like slamming planes into buildings! noone will think of that! 9-11 was just a conspiracy so that iraq could be invaded!
The point is that the Defense System can be circumvented.
No, the point is that in practical terms it cannot be. You talk about things like changing the acceleration of gravity or magically manufacturing additional missiles as if they were practical objections. They're not.
Nope. Cannot be circumvented. Like detonating a lpg container ship in port. or, say, launching an icbm when it's *raining* over the missile defense launch area.
At what point will this system work? How many presidents are going to say "we will have a missile defense system" and then have the rest of us watch as you guys burn through cash like there's no tomorrow to have the system not work before you give up?
Probably the same things, but on a lesser scale than the DEA and FBI and local and state police departments have been doing to prevent the importation and distribution of cocaine and heroin and maijuana into the united states of america, and, hey, that's all been a fucking fantastic success, no?
Another comparison could be made to the strict border controls that ensure that noone enters the united states illegally - any stories you hear about "illegal aliens" working and living in the us must just be fictious nonsense spread by those that seek to undermine public order, right?
well, no. bandwidth in this context is the time taken for it to be sent from origin A to destination B. origin being time taken to write the dvds, get them to the plane, load, flight time, unloading, haulage to destination, then read.
Why should a customer have to go the trouble of burning cds and making sure they work just to fix something that they should have got the cds for anyway?
It's bad when the political party in power uses the intelligence services of the public illegally in order to strengthen their power base. Did you not see the "not supposed to spy on conversations involving australians " and the "calls between the captain and the maritime union of australia "?
quote "sucky countries (China, Saudi Arabia, Australia) could get past national firewalls". uhuh.
That's news to me - i've never been firewalled off anything (well, there was that time that *my* firewall wouldn't let me access anything, but that's my fault).
Australia doesn't have a national firewall. Thank you for playing, please try again.
I'm going to reply to just the points in which i think you are wrong.
>3: Getting said device anywhere near the U.S. is >also doggedly difficult. It's what the Coast >Guard does for a living, and building a delivery >vehicle like an ICBM also follows the five rules >laid out here.
Hmm. The coast guard (plus a whole lotta other 3 letter agencies are also supposed to block other things, like drugs.
>4: Assuming they manage the above three >problems, most crude nuclear devices fail to >detonate, which means it's very likely they'll >blow their tug out of the water with the >explosive trigger, but the reaction will fizzle.
>5: Assuming functionality, the atomic reaction >at one foot above sea level will do >significantly less damage than most people >assume. It's going to cause a huge incident, but >not the end of the island (or the city) that >most people assume.
It doesn't *need* to cause alot of damage, or even successfully blow up. In a least case scenario, you have an area that is covered with fissionable material in an urban setting, and a worst case scenario (for a small yeild weapon) you now have a few less less city blocks, along with a much larger amount of fissionable material. Either way, your goal (as terrorists) of scaring the crap out of people has been achieved. There is no way that you're going to keep a small nuclear explosion quiet in the face of the media. Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
As somebody who pays for their net usage, i'd love this feature. Of course, i'd love proper searching for articles by time and date, but i've already sent the email requesting that feature a few times, and i'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The smallest possible nuclear weapon is about two feet by three feet, and weighs nearly 200 pounds. Considerably larger than a suitcase. And a weapon of that size, when detonated, would be basically indistinguishable from a truck bomb. There's no practical use for such a weapon in a terrorist attack. It's too small to conceal without a vehicle to carry it around in, and if you have a vehicle you can get a bigger bang with a conventional explosive.
Practically speaking, a nuclear weapon that would be of use to a terrorist would be about six feet long and would weigh half a ton. Think Ryder truck, not suitcase.
Because noone's ever thought of packing a suitcase with high explosive and plutonium to make a dirty bomb - never happen!
I was just pointing out that there are many other ways to attack the US.
You may have been trying to do that, but you were not successful.
Like slamming planes into buildings! noone will think of that! 9-11 was just a conspiracy so that iraq could be invaded!
The point is that the Defense System can be circumvented.
No, the point is that in practical terms it cannot be. You talk about things like changing the acceleration of gravity or magically manufacturing additional missiles as if they were practical objections. They're not.
Nope. Cannot be circumvented. Like detonating a lpg container ship in port. or, say, launching an icbm when it's *raining* over the missile defense launch area.
At what point will this system work? How many presidents are going to say "we will have a missile defense system" and then have the rest of us watch as you guys burn through cash like there's no tomorrow to have the system not work before you give up?
Probably the same things, but on a lesser scale than the DEA and FBI and local and state police departments have been doing to prevent the importation and distribution of cocaine and heroin and maijuana into the united states of america, and, hey, that's all been a fucking fantastic success, no?
Another comparison could be made to the strict border controls that ensure that noone enters the united states illegally - any stories you hear about "illegal aliens" working and living in the us must just be fictious nonsense spread by those that seek to undermine public order, right?
Just when every office worker in the education department gets in and loads up their email?
Dunno, only a guess. what do the traceroutes say?
or a pipe upstream is seriously saturated.
uhuh. which is why microsoft is opening up the source code to windows to said countries (like china).
backdoors don't work too well if the target can see them.
well, no. bandwidth in this context is the time taken for it to be sent from origin A to destination B. origin being time taken to write the dvds, get them to the plane, load, flight time, unloading, haulage to destination, then read.
Doesn't make much sense otherwise.
it's operational information - if the crims know that the cops are looking for larry, they can tell larry to stay low.
if all the cops get a map marked with "this where we're gonna raid", then, well, that's not stuff you want out in the general community.
I don't think joel has been on irc for a long, long time.
What about the latest round of gfx cards (say, those that are directx9 compliant) that run pixel shaders?
Pixel shaders being tiny programs?
There are no walmarts in .au.
*bzzzzt* Thankyou for playing. Please come again.
Please don't spank that server too hard - i know the person involved (friend of a friend) and they only have a 6 gig limit for the month.
.. in the original story. course, i'm sure the editor read the link 'n all. *cough*
I explicitly authorised google when i installed the google toolbar. I don't have XP, yet i wouldn't authorise it if i did have it. Big difference.
duh!
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/mac68k/
'nuff said
The other guy - lower slashdot id#. ... what - you think we're gonna think about this???
Why should a customer have to go the trouble of burning cds and making sure they work just to fix something that they should have got the cds for anyway?
True, but you have to start somewhere. You take the low hanging fruit first, then work your way up to the hard stuff.
It's bad when the political party in power uses the intelligence services of the public illegally in order to strengthen their power base. Did you not see the "not supposed to spy on conversations involving australians " and the "calls between the captain and the maritime union of australia "?
quote "sucky countries (China, Saudi Arabia, Australia) could get past national firewalls". uhuh.
That's news to me - i've never been firewalled off anything (well, there was that time that *my* firewall wouldn't let me access anything, but that's my fault).
Australia doesn't have a national firewall. Thank you for playing, please try again.
The Atari ST is Dying
I'm going to reply to just the points in which i think you are wrong.
>3: Getting said device anywhere near the U.S. is >also doggedly difficult. It's what the Coast >Guard does for a living, and building a delivery >vehicle like an ICBM also follows the five rules >laid out here.
Hmm. The coast guard (plus a whole lotta other 3 letter agencies are also supposed to block other things, like drugs.
>4: Assuming they manage the above three >problems, most crude nuclear devices fail to >detonate, which means it's very likely they'll >blow their tug out of the water with the >explosive trigger, but the reaction will fizzle.
>5: Assuming functionality, the atomic reaction >at one foot above sea level will do >significantly less damage than most people >assume. It's going to cause a huge incident, but >not the end of the island (or the city) that >most people assume.
It doesn't *need* to cause alot of damage, or even successfully blow up. In a least case scenario, you have an area that is covered with fissionable material in an urban setting, and a worst case scenario (for a small yeild weapon) you now have a few less less city blocks, along with a much larger amount of fissionable material. Either way, your goal (as terrorists) of scaring the crap out of people has been achieved. There is no way that you're going to keep a small nuclear explosion quiet in the face of the media.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
Direct link to movies at NASA website Enjoy!
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
As somebody who pays for their net usage, i'd love this feature. Of course, i'd love proper searching for articles by time and date, but i've already sent the email requesting that feature a few times, and i'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department