Depends on the debris you're talking about. If you're talking about "space station stuff raining down on people's heads", an uncontrolled deorbit might change the profile of the debris slightly, changing how much gets burnt up during reentry, but the mass involved doesn't change. And once it hits significant atmosphere, I would think that chaos would limit how much control you had over the orientation. Especially since you a) don't have steering surfaces, and b) won't have communication during critical times.
If you're talking about collisions with other orbiting objects (of whatever nature), wouldn't that debris already be in the "naturally decaying orbit" zone already, in order to suffer the collision in the first place? Which I would guess means that it'll come down as well.
> How hard is it to take the bulbs to your local Lowes or Home Depot?
If I bought my bulb at (local food superstore), why should I have to take the bulb to (local hardware store) for disposal? If I do not make use of said hardware store, why would I know about their CFL disposal program? To that end, why is CFL disposal not required of anyone who sells the bulbs? What is the environmental impact of making a special trip to dispose of a bulb?
> Gee, it sure is hard to find answers to questions. Sure is, if you don't even suspect there are answers out there, or don't think to ask the question. And why do you believe that everyone has your level of ability (to gain answers, to purchase, to travel)?
> And to everyone who insists on the anecdotal... Anecdotal check and mate. You could stand to improve (and correctly label) your sarcasm. Your phrasing doesn't lead one to believe your "account to be unreliable or hearsay", nor yet "an interesting story about a real incident", but to be wholly invented for rhetorical purposes. Therefore, not an anecdote. Sorry, but you'll have to take your move back and try again.
I'd like to see testimony from an airport worker about that conveyer belt, and information on how many bags with locks go through on a daily basis.
IE, were those locks planted after having been cut off? And if not, what are the odds that your lock was removed by "the conveyer belt" rather than TSA workers looking to score a little loot.
A part of the 5th amendment defense is against self-incrimination.
It is a distinct point of evidence that you have the passphrase to an encrypted (and incriminating) file. Your best course of action is to not affirm that you have a passphrase to that file.
This does create a paradox, but not quite the way you describe.
They don't initially know the password. So anything about the precise nature of the password is irrelevant to any argument about forcing you to reveal it.
It is only after the password is revealed that its incriminating nature becomes evident, putting the prosecution in the position of/having already forced self-incrimination/. That cat, having ex-filtrated the flexible storage device, would probably get called either a non sequitur (and thus non-incriminating by itself) or a voluntary confession.... what else could they claim?
Perhaps you missed the history behind some of these things on slashdot.
Achievements were an April Fools joke that got left in place.
Moderation has the utility of allowing filtering. And you can use elements like "friends", "tags", etc for further filtering, increasing/decreasing effective score - and thus what is displayed to you.
Don't like how people moderate? Suggest a better method. Don't like moderation as a concept? Ignore it.
Friend of a foe? er, what? I can't speak for others, but I barely use the "friend" or "foe" features of Slashdot at all.
Political articles get lots of comments and attention largely because there IS room for comment about them. Science articles? By definition, there aren't going to be a lot of people able to provide informed commentary on breaking science news. Would you rather more uninformed comments?
I would believe them more praiseworthy if they didn't persecute people attempting to hold the Chinese government accountable by its own laws. Complain about the government seizing your land and giving it to some developer? Start a lawsuit about shoddy construction standards on a local school (exposed by said school collapsing in an earthquake)?
Once you permit the government to make the decisions without question, the people that make up the government will do whatever they can get away with. Some might even think they are doing so in the national interest.
I've not used either the iPhone or the Blackberry, but isn't there some similarity between those two?
I admire your Slashdot Car Analogy, but an extension of it goes "well, how about sliding doors on both sides, then?" And you can bet your boots that that's patented too.
Giants, pfah. "I can see further because I stand on the crumbled ruins of my competitors."
Perhaps a better strategy is to corrupt an infected node and cause it to distribute a counter-agent, extending the corruption.
You only get one chance at that, though, as you still need to a) patch the initial vector of infection (if other than social engineering), and b) prevent your corrupted node from accepting any further alterations, allowing you to sunset the infection once all peers it communicates with have been identified. Fail to harden it against change and the network simply turns your node again.
If you're serious about your customers not being parts of a botnet, you're probably not terribly concerned when someone who has been repeatedly pwned and not taken steps to protect themselves becomes a "former" customer.
You've got *examples* of children being rigged with explosives. You could *demonstrate* how bulky - or stealthy - such rigs are/can be.
By having examples, you can counter baseless "sorry ma'am, I have to search your baby's rectum for explosives" search techniques.
Or contrarily, you can say "Sir, here is an example of how easy it is to hide sufficient plastic explosive to destroy the entire septic system of an airplane; *this* is why Rex here has to sniff your crotch."
One of the crowning achievements of TSA security theater is that they come up with rules that they refuse to justify.
> It is not happening here. Has not happened here.
As I overheard the other day regarding a Fire Swamp, "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." Or as my investment advisor would put it, "past performance is never a guarantee of future returns."
The key is for the threats you are warding against to be realistic. I'm sure you've read up on Schneier's opinions on the whole subject. He being more informed than me, I will leave it at that.
Torn between modding you up and asking a question. Question won.
Is it possible to use a pattern of "request for particular inaccessible page" or "repeated requests for (any) non-existant page by a given IP" as a trigger for tar-pitting or other retaliation/prevention methods?
If so, can you point to any tutorials on such? It probably wouldn't prevent a botnet attack, but there might be SOME use to it.
FTFA: "Secondhand game sales were not a factor in this development decision, so we hope that all our consumers will be able to enjoy the entirety of the survival-action experiences that the game does offer."
Translated: We don't make money from second hand sales, so we don't give a fsck about them, and didn't develop with them in mind.
I looked for, but did not immediately find, references to children (or women) serving as bomb carriers (or proxy bombers) in Vietnam, though I recall hearing of such specifically in the Israel conflict (women wired with remote-detonated vests).
Did they find who/where cashed (and endorsed) the check? Or find the owner of the paypal account with $100,000? (what, you can't have a paypal account frozen?) Or find the owner of the account they asked for the funds to be transferred to?... I imagine $100k is more than western union allows to be wired to someone.
I realize there are difficulties involved with each of these, but we're not asking the police to find out who cleaned out your household savings account or who stole your 10 year old car. Presumably this would be high enough profile to actually get someone's attention.
I could be wrong, of course. They could have asked for a bag of unmarked $100 bills be placed in a locker at the bus depot... No, wait. That was a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you lost me at Minecraft. /em is busy creating pixelated mice and a supercomputer using Minecraft blocks.
Depends on the debris you're talking about. If you're talking about "space station stuff raining down on people's heads", an uncontrolled deorbit might change the profile of the debris slightly, changing how much gets burnt up during reentry, but the mass involved doesn't change. And once it hits significant atmosphere, I would think that chaos would limit how much control you had over the orientation. Especially since you a) don't have steering surfaces, and b) won't have communication during critical times.
If you're talking about collisions with other orbiting objects (of whatever nature), wouldn't that debris already be in the "naturally decaying orbit" zone already, in order to suffer the collision in the first place? Which I would guess means that it'll come down as well.
> Three? That's far more children than your average slashdot poster could produce.
FTFY
It's been done.
> How hard is it to take the bulbs to your local Lowes or Home Depot?
If I bought my bulb at (local food superstore), why should I have to take the bulb to (local hardware store) for disposal? If I do not make use of said hardware store, why would I know about their CFL disposal program? To that end, why is CFL disposal not required of anyone who sells the bulbs? What is the environmental impact of making a special trip to dispose of a bulb?
> Gee, it sure is hard to find answers to questions.
Sure is, if you don't even suspect there are answers out there, or don't think to ask the question. And why do you believe that everyone has your level of ability (to gain answers, to purchase, to travel)?
> And to everyone who insists on the anecdotal... Anecdotal check and mate.
You could stand to improve (and correctly label) your sarcasm. Your phrasing doesn't lead one to believe your "account to be unreliable or hearsay", nor yet "an interesting story about a real incident", but to be wholly invented for rhetorical purposes. Therefore, not an anecdote. Sorry, but you'll have to take your move back and try again.
A chair's powers mainly involve "keeping an ass from hitting the ground".
Somehow that almost seems appropriate.
I'd like to see testimony from an airport worker about that conveyer belt, and information on how many bags with locks go through on a daily basis.
IE, were those locks planted after having been cut off? And if not, what are the odds that your lock was removed by "the conveyer belt" rather than TSA workers looking to score a little loot.
Reminds me of the Dr Who T-shirt:
Staredown between the Weeping Angels and The Silence.
http://firelilycosplay.deviantart.com/journal/40648649/
The first one to blink loses.
A part of the 5th amendment defense is against self-incrimination.
It is a distinct point of evidence that you have the passphrase to an encrypted (and incriminating) file. Your best course of action is to not affirm that you have a passphrase to that file.
This does create a paradox, but not quite the way you describe.
They don't initially know the password. So anything about the precise nature of the password is irrelevant to any argument about forcing you to reveal it.
It is only after the password is revealed that its incriminating nature becomes evident, putting the prosecution in the position of /having already forced self-incrimination/. That cat, having ex-filtrated the flexible storage device, would probably get called either a non sequitur (and thus non-incriminating by itself) or a voluntary confession. ... what else could they claim?
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/327/
Perhaps you missed the history behind some of these things on slashdot.
Achievements were an April Fools joke that got left in place.
Moderation has the utility of allowing filtering. And you can use elements like "friends", "tags", etc for further filtering, increasing/decreasing effective score - and thus what is displayed to you.
Don't like how people moderate? Suggest a better method. Don't like moderation as a concept? Ignore it.
Friend of a foe? er, what? I can't speak for others, but I barely use the "friend" or "foe" features of Slashdot at all.
Political articles get lots of comments and attention largely because there IS room for comment about them. Science articles? By definition, there aren't going to be a lot of people able to provide informed commentary on breaking science news. Would you rather more uninformed comments?
I would believe them more praiseworthy if they didn't persecute people attempting to hold the Chinese government accountable by its own laws. Complain about the government seizing your land and giving it to some developer? Start a lawsuit about shoddy construction standards on a local school (exposed by said school collapsing in an earthquake)?
Once you permit the government to make the decisions without question, the people that make up the government will do whatever they can get away with. Some might even think they are doing so in the national interest.
I've not used either the iPhone or the Blackberry, but isn't there some similarity between those two?
I admire your Slashdot Car Analogy, but an extension of it goes "well, how about sliding doors on both sides, then?" And you can bet your boots that that's patented too.
Giants, pfah. "I can see further because I stand on the crumbled ruins of my competitors."
Perhaps a better strategy is to corrupt an infected node and cause it to distribute a counter-agent, extending the corruption.
You only get one chance at that, though, as you still need to a) patch the initial vector of infection (if other than social engineering), and b) prevent your corrupted node from accepting any further alterations, allowing you to sunset the infection once all peers it communicates with have been identified. Fail to harden it against change and the network simply turns your node again.
If you're serious about your customers not being parts of a botnet, you're probably not terribly concerned when someone who has been repeatedly pwned and not taken steps to protect themselves becomes a "former" customer.
> So what?
You've got *examples* of children being rigged with explosives. You could *demonstrate* how bulky - or stealthy - such rigs are/can be.
By having examples, you can counter baseless "sorry ma'am, I have to search your baby's rectum for explosives" search techniques.
Or contrarily, you can say "Sir, here is an example of how easy it is to hide sufficient plastic explosive to destroy the entire septic system of an airplane; *this* is why Rex here has to sniff your crotch."
One of the crowning achievements of TSA security theater is that they come up with rules that they refuse to justify.
> It is not happening here. Has not happened here.
As I overheard the other day regarding a Fire Swamp, "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." Or as my investment advisor would put it, "past performance is never a guarantee of future returns."
The key is for the threats you are warding against to be realistic. I'm sure you've read up on Schneier's opinions on the whole subject. He being more informed than me, I will leave it at that.
Torn between modding you up and asking a question. Question won.
Is it possible to use a pattern of "request for particular inaccessible page" or "repeated requests for (any) non-existant page by a given IP" as a trigger for tar-pitting or other retaliation/prevention methods?
If so, can you point to any tutorials on such? It probably wouldn't prevent a botnet attack, but there might be SOME use to it.
FTFA: "Secondhand game sales were not a factor in this development decision, so we hope that all our consumers will be able to enjoy the entirety of the survival-action experiences that the game does offer."
Translated: We don't make money from second hand sales, so we don't give a fsck about them, and didn't develop with them in mind.
> I suggest exclusively using palm vein scanners
The movie Demolition Man the fault in biometric keys in three words:
"Welcome, Warden Smithers."
carrying packages with bombs in them in Afghanistan
Child soldiers in Sri Lanka, in Iraq, and in Israel/Palestine.
I looked for, but did not immediately find, references to children (or women) serving as bomb carriers (or proxy bombers) in Vietnam, though I recall hearing of such specifically in the Israel conflict (women wired with remote-detonated vests).
CZ: Jag ser vad du gjorde dÃr.
So maybe he will have to migrate to Linux exclusively?
Windows Remote Desktop Connection would apply to the "remote access" provision.
And... do you expect the state to assign him a probation officer - or hire an expert - who can determine that he's violating terms of his parole?
So what happened...
Did they find who/where cashed (and endorsed) the check? ... I imagine $100k is more than western union allows to be wired to someone.
Or find the owner of the paypal account with $100,000? (what, you can't have a paypal account frozen?)
Or find the owner of the account they asked for the funds to be transferred to?
I realize there are difficulties involved with each of these, but we're not asking the police to find out who cleaned out your household savings account or who stole your 10 year old car. Presumably this would be high enough profile to actually get someone's attention.
I could be wrong, of course. They could have asked for a bag of unmarked $100 bills be placed in a locker at the bus depot... No, wait. That was a movie.
> I'm trying to avoid putting a computer on every flat surface in the house
Ah, so you do use windows?