Oh, please. That's pure bullshit. Would you call it "panicking" if the people involved were middle-class? Because there have been lots of people involved in anti-aging research and most of them are nothing extraordinary, wealth-wise, by the standards of the US (especially by the standards of doctors in the US, though they weren't all doctors). Sounds more like jealousy on your part than panic on theirs. Some people spend their money on fancy cars and huge yachts. Some spend it on charity. Some spend on building a (continuously growing) commercial empire. Some spend it on politics. Some spend it on art collections. Some spend it on medical research. Really, it's not so different.
As for the hoarding of resources, I have no respect for those who accumulate resources for no better purposes than to accumulate. But if people who have lots of resources want to use them to extend lifespans, that's fantastic! Yes, initially it will be expensive. The first person to crack the problem will make a shitload of money, and probably be able to enjoy it for a very long time. But the costs will come down over time, and what was once a perk of the ultra-rich will eventually become a standard part of healthcare. Somebody has to get there first, though, and it's only logical to permit those who have lots of resources to commit those resources to the goal.
The "anybody who wants to prevent/stave off death is just 'scared shitless' " meme is one I've seen before from a wide range of sources, and I can't for the life of me understand how so many people can be so stupid. Fighting death is the logical thing to do, the *obvious* thing to do, whether you're rich or poor. Fighting death has given us life expectancies better than any other point in history. It has given us medical advances that seemed impossible just a few decades ago. It has improved quality of life across all ages. It has vastly reduced infant and childhood mortality.
It doesn't even seem to make sense as a religious objection. Biblical characters had vastly longer lifespans than we do - the concept of "Methuselah" as relating to longevity is fairly common, yet Methuselah's lifespan was merely the longest, rather than being exceptionally long compared to others of the same generation and lineage - and while some people are focused on ending death entirely (via things like brain uploading or cryopreservation with later revival), that doesn't apply to this project. It's not exclusive to the rich; rejuvenation and clinical immortality memes have been widespread in science fiction for decades, and most SF authors aren't exactly Scrooge McDuck. It is most common in the developed world (in many third-world nations, the fact that life expectancy can be higher is completely obvious, as their developed neighbors demonstrate) but certainly isn't exclusive to California.
The "found something you can't buy?" meme is also a stupid one. The vast majority of things people can imagine today - never mind things we'll be able to imagine in the future - are things you can't buy. People work constantly to bring new things to market. Prior to Tesla Motors, you couldn't buy a pure-electric car with a multi-hundred-mile range. Prior to Iridium, you couldn't buy a telephone usable anywhere in the world. Prior to the medical development of penicillin, you couldn't buy a cure for most bacterial infections. Prior to... you get the idea. Technology marches on. Today, you can't buy a life expectancy of 100, but that's no reason to avoid working on it!
Somebody on Twitter guessing your password isn't a breach of Twitter, it's a breach of your stupid password choice. If Twitter gets breached and *everybody's* password is exposed, then you'll get a message (by email, not post, obviously).
The most expensive part of the first stage (which itself is the most expensive part of the stack) is the rocket motors. You don't want those landing on *anything*, including a net. The legs are intended to keep the motors well off whatever surface you land on.
Also, the rockets are firing on descent (both for slowing and for maneuvering). There's a final braking burn right at landing. Any net that can survive this braking burn is probably tougher stuff than you want the rocket running into even at relatively miniscule speeds.
Columbia and most of the Apollo flights were manned. Calling safe return "just an internal goal" is not only moronic, it's flat-out wrong in the case of Apollo:
"this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
Second, you seem to be deeply confused (or trolling) about the difference between a space vehicle and a launch system. Dragon is a space ship, a "vehicle"; it carries stuff. The Dragon 2 (Crew Dragon) will carry people. It is, obviously, of critical importance to return them safely. Falcon 9 first stage isn't even an entire launch system, just the most expensive part of one (the first stage). A spent first stage is a like a (really expensive) spent bullet cartridge; sure, you save money on future shots if you collect it and re-use it, but the goal of any given shot is to fire the bullet and hit the target. Similarly, the goal of a Dragon/Falcon 9 launch is to put Dragon in orbit, and recover it safely.
In fairness, it's inaccurate to say that the CRS-5 mission is successful yet. Dragon hasn't even berthed with the ISS yet, much less returned safely to Earth. That doesn't seem to be your objection at all, though.
Yep. SpaceX has said that a full-capacity F9 launch probably won't have the fuel reserve for a propulsive landing (though it should still have the fuel for engine-out capability; the other rockets just burn longer although that does use a bit more fuel total). However, most rocket launches aren't maximum capacity. Frequently you run into volume rather than mass limits, or you need to place one thing into a precise orbit and there's nothing else you're putting in an even slightly-similar orbit. In those cases, assuming no engine failures or similar (which could also mean there's not enough fuel reserve for flyback and propulsive landing), the first stage still has several percent fuel left at separation, but relatively little mass; the second stage and payload are gone, as is the majority of the fuel.
Having a fetish is a disorder? That's... going to cover a really huge percentage of the human species. Maybe it doesn't count if you don't act on it, but it's still a preference (as in, "Disorders of sexual preference")...
My girlfriend has an Android phone, but uses iTunes because she has an iPod (actually a couple of them, a Shuffle and a Classic). Recently the Shuffle stopped synching with iTunes until she upgraded to the latest version. The latest version, which she derisively describes as "red iTunes" ("Why is it red now? Is that a feature? Was it too hard to figure out where everything was when it was blue, o they made it red so that after moving everything to a different place it would be easier to find again?") is the subject of a couple irate texts per week, including issues with playlist management and with finding features and UI elements that were inexplicably moved. My advice to her at this point is to just put her music on the phone...
The OS upgrade argument is valid on PCs, and also on Android, where you have an "anything goes!" policy with regards to API usage (to the extent that you can be said to have a policy at all). However, with iOS, it's a lot less forgivable. iOS apps - official ones from the App Store, at least - are required to restrict themselves to approved APIs for third-party use, and go though an approval process before being posted to the store. There's a lot less excuse for the OS to be backwards-incompatible when the walled garden means you have control over what each app is allowed to do.
As for the performance degradation, that was definitely true for a long time, especially in the 90s when PC hardware was improving at a phenomenal rate, but these days OS upgrades have been extremely consumer-focused. Every release of Windows since Vista has actually run *better* on the same hardware than its predecessor, for example; while Win7 technically has a higher "minimum requirements" than Vista (they bumped the min RAM from 512MB to 1GB), that's because people were complaining that Vista ran like shit on less than a gig (true) and the requirement should never have been set that low to begin with. Win7 uses less RAM than Vista did, though. Win8 uses less than Win7, and 8.1 less than 8. I haven't tried the Win10 pre-release but it probably uses, or will use, less RAM once again. I don't use Macs much, but other commenters have pointed out that the same "runs better on the same hardware" improvements applied to many of the early OS X versions... but no longer.
My motherboard (a bit over two years old, gamer-targeted) has the option to boot from USB floppy drive, but I don't believe it has actual headers for a floppy interface. I'm not sure it even has IDE, though. It apparently thinks that 12 SATA3 and 6 SATA2 connectors is enough... well, and a bunch of USB ports and headers, including USB3.
Did you check that the drive itself worked? I've seen the drives go bad from long-term disuse, though admittedly that was in an area where the humidity rarely drops below 90% and the ocean is a few feet away, so it was rather hostile to electronics. We used to need to open up the laptops' keyboards and clean all the contacts about every other month. Good luck trying to fix a modern laptop in a similar situation...
Yeah, I've been reading Schlock for years. Howard Taylor definitely puts more thought into the military applications of long-range teleportation than Star Trek writers ever seem to, but in his canon "Teraport Area Denial" systems were developed extremely quickly. In Star Trek, the state-of-the-art in (artificial) anti-transporter tech seems to be basically their deflector shields. Then again, they never had as strong a reason to try covering really significant chunks of real estate before.
The idea of a transporter that can safely put people (or anything else with about the same mass...) onto planets in other star systems is just too huge a break in the balance of power. It's literally an apocalyptic weapon; unless you can figure out how to put transporter-proof shields around every valuable target you've got (and remember here that a planet counts as a valuable target, if you can beam a big enough antimatter bomb much less some "red matter"). It's a modern stealth bomber when your enemies have nothing newer than steam engines. The Borg don't have anything that comes close to being as effective a weapon, and they have single ships capable of defeating fleets and time travel tech (First Contact).
The lens flares were excessive but were not by any means the major problems with the movies. I actually thought the 2009 film was pretty well done too, for all that the "sci-fi authors have no sense of scale" thing was taken to an absurd level even by Star Trek standards.
Into Darkness contained so much shit I really can't forgive it for the excessive suck, though. The idea of a transporter that can put a few hundred pounds of mass safely on the surface of a planet in another star system, for example, is an absurdly overpowered superweapon along the lines of a modern nuclear missile submarine during WW1. That was far from the only problem with Into Darkness, but it was more than enough. Nothing else in the show makes sense once you have something like that. Then again, with extremely rare exceptions, Star Trek has never appreciated the military prowess of the transporter.
The episode is "Fortunate Son", season 1 episode 10. Directed by LeVar Burton (who has apparently directed a lot of Trek since his days on TNG). http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik...
Of the handful of Enterprise episodes I've seen (most, unfortunately, from season 1), it was one of the better ones. I'm told the show got better in later seasons but I have never seen anything from later than mid-season-2. It's not *all* dross, though.
That was a (reallllllly stupid) bug in Debian/Ubuntu, then. Making it that easy for an attacker to interfere with the update process in a way that leaves no sign of the interference is just plain moronic. Simply blocking the outbound request - about all an attacker can do when it's over TLS - would have been detectable as "hey, where's my update server go?" Allowing the attacker to manipulate the update list - I hope to hell they couldn't manipulate the actual updates, for example to supply outdated DEBs instead of ones that fix bugs - is nothing less than a security vulnerability in the OS. Maybe not a critical one (unless the update packages aren't sent securely) but still a vuln, and a terrible idea.
Yes, your ISP shouldn't be intercepting your HTTP requests. But your OS should *never* be using plaintext HTTP for anything remotely serious.
A good point indeed. I'd be more worried about somebody in top physical condition and well-trained in any offensive martial art than about the average person with a box cutter. Yes, technically the blade can do more damage, but the trained fighter is still going to be a lot harder to stop.
Similarly, I'd be more worried about somebody with a short-barreled semi-automatic pistol than somebody with an AK-47 or a.50 sniper rifle. The rifles have way more firepower and probably more magazine capacity, sure, but they're also unwieldy as hell in the confines of an airplane, and the whole "walk very close behind somebody with your weapon muzzle just behind their heart, telling them what to do" deception is really hard to pull off when your weapon is three feet long.
Of course, the TSA is not, and never has been, focused on what an intelligent person would be worried about. It's merely the natural symbiote of the fearmongering politicians: make the populace terrified, and then show yourself to be doing something about it! The fact that it lets you divert lots of tax dollars to your buddies who make fancy scanning machines is the cherry on top...
Not only does it let you lock the gun, but there is no way in hell any airport or airline is going to let themselves be "the one who lost a passenger's gun", because that means some criminal somewhere just got their hands on a firearm that they were responsible for transporting safely. If you want your luggage to arrive safely, a starter pistol or flare gun or similar are probably among the best insurance options you can buy.
Just because.NET APIs call down to Win32 APIs, which call down to NT APIs, doesn't mean that they aren't all different APIs. Same for the POSIX APIs (which, like Win32, chain to native NT APIs). The POSIX ones always specify OBJ_CASE_INSENSITIVE, the Win32 ones do if you specify FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS, and I don't even know if.NET supports enforcing case-sensitivity... but they are still separate APIs. Nobody in their right mind writes user-mode software against the native NT API unless they absolutely have to, and not only because it's prone to occasionally changing in non-backward-compatible ways.
So does Windows, though you may confuse the Win32 API if you use it. NTFS is case-preserving and the native APIs are case-sensitive. Win32 functions can use FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS to require case-sensitivity, and Interix (Microsoft's POSIX-on-NT environment that runs in the Subsystem for Unix Applications or SUA) does so by default. I don't know of any way to make Win32 case-sensitive by default without doing some kind of crazy hooking of the relevant APIs or installing a filter driver to enforce it.
Actually, Microsoft themselves has an API for accessing NTFS drives in a case-sensitive manner, and I'm not talking about the native NT API or even the FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS Win32 file API flag. All versions of NT from 3.1 (the first) to 6.2 (Win8; it was removed from 8.1) have support for a POSIX operating environment - basically a full Unix-like OS running atop the NT kernel - and for proper Unix-like-ness it is case sensitive.
Mind you, Win32 programs do tend to get confused by it all. For example, CMD's "dir" command will list both "test.txt" and "TEST.TXT" in the same directory, and even correctly note if they have different sizes or datestamps. However, the "type" command (print file contents) on *either* name (or some other-cased version of the name) will instead print the contents of one of the files - doesn't matter what you type, the OS will pick - and it will print it twice (once for each copy of the file with that name).
I've been using the Interix (name of the Unix-like operating environment that runs in the NT POSIX subsystem, as reported by the uname command) build of git for years now. I should probably stop - the repo my package manager used has died, and I haven't bothered to set up a different package manager yet so my packages are outdated - but I am, humorously enough, not vulnerable to this particular attack even with that outdated version.
I was just about to say... this is a preview. I wouldn't expect pre-release versions of the new feature to be rolled out across all platforms. We can hope that it will happen once the feature leaves beta, though.
And no navy and airforce large enough to protect it as they make their way across the pacific.
I'm imagining an attack sub commander shooting his tubes empty blowing away converted fishing boats loaded down with soldiers and then wondering what the hell to do about the rest of them. On the other hand, we have torp bombers as well, and those can just go back to bas to re-arm. As you say, it's not like North Korea has the air force or navy to protect them against a carrier group.
But yeah, South Korea is in a shitty situation. Strong economy, high-tech society, powerful allies... and within bombardment range of enough heavy artillery to basically reduce their capitol city if NK decides to let all their crazy out.
A lot of people don't even realize that web browsers have the ability to generate key-pairs of which only the public portion is ever sent to a CA or anybody else. It's actually a fairly sane system. If you need to export the private key (for example, to copy it from your PC to your phone, or to back it up) then you have to do so through the web browser or through whatever keystore it uses (Windows, for example, has a built in one you can access through certmgr.msc, though Mozilla products use their own store instead of the system-wide one).
Preflight is only required for non-standard verbs or non-standard headers. If you're just requesting data (rather than trying to take some action on the server), preflight is not used.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. That's pure bullshit. Would you call it "panicking" if the people involved were middle-class? Because there have been lots of people involved in anti-aging research and most of them are nothing extraordinary, wealth-wise, by the standards of the US (especially by the standards of doctors in the US, though they weren't all doctors). Sounds more like jealousy on your part than panic on theirs. Some people spend their money on fancy cars and huge yachts. Some spend it on charity. Some spend on building a (continuously growing) commercial empire. Some spend it on politics. Some spend it on art collections. Some spend it on medical research. Really, it's not so different.
As for the hoarding of resources, I have no respect for those who accumulate resources for no better purposes than to accumulate. But if people who have lots of resources want to use them to extend lifespans, that's fantastic! Yes, initially it will be expensive. The first person to crack the problem will make a shitload of money, and probably be able to enjoy it for a very long time. But the costs will come down over time, and what was once a perk of the ultra-rich will eventually become a standard part of healthcare. Somebody has to get there first, though, and it's only logical to permit those who have lots of resources to commit those resources to the goal.
The "anybody who wants to prevent/stave off death is just 'scared shitless' " meme is one I've seen before from a wide range of sources, and I can't for the life of me understand how so many people can be so stupid. Fighting death is the logical thing to do, the *obvious* thing to do, whether you're rich or poor. Fighting death has given us life expectancies better than any other point in history. It has given us medical advances that seemed impossible just a few decades ago. It has improved quality of life across all ages. It has vastly reduced infant and childhood mortality.
It doesn't even seem to make sense as a religious objection. Biblical characters had vastly longer lifespans than we do - the concept of "Methuselah" as relating to longevity is fairly common, yet Methuselah's lifespan was merely the longest, rather than being exceptionally long compared to others of the same generation and lineage - and while some people are focused on ending death entirely (via things like brain uploading or cryopreservation with later revival), that doesn't apply to this project. It's not exclusive to the rich; rejuvenation and clinical immortality memes have been widespread in science fiction for decades, and most SF authors aren't exactly Scrooge McDuck. It is most common in the developed world (in many third-world nations, the fact that life expectancy can be higher is completely obvious, as their developed neighbors demonstrate) but certainly isn't exclusive to California.
The "found something you can't buy?" meme is also a stupid one. The vast majority of things people can imagine today - never mind things we'll be able to imagine in the future - are things you can't buy. People work constantly to bring new things to market. Prior to Tesla Motors, you couldn't buy a pure-electric car with a multi-hundred-mile range. Prior to Iridium, you couldn't buy a telephone usable anywhere in the world. Prior to the medical development of penicillin, you couldn't buy a cure for most bacterial infections. Prior to... you get the idea. Technology marches on. Today, you can't buy a life expectancy of 100, but that's no reason to avoid working on it!
Somebody on Twitter guessing your password isn't a breach of Twitter, it's a breach of your stupid password choice. If Twitter gets breached and *everybody's* password is exposed, then you'll get a message (by email, not post, obviously).
The most expensive part of the first stage (which itself is the most expensive part of the stack) is the rocket motors. You don't want those landing on *anything*, including a net. The legs are intended to keep the motors well off whatever surface you land on.
Also, the rockets are firing on descent (both for slowing and for maneuvering). There's a final braking burn right at landing. Any net that can survive this braking burn is probably tougher stuff than you want the rocket running into even at relatively miniscule speeds.
Wow, you're a special kind of dense, aren't you?
Columbia and most of the Apollo flights were manned. Calling safe return "just an internal goal" is not only moronic, it's flat-out wrong in the case of Apollo:
JFK (emphasis mine), 25 May 1961, http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/...
Second, you seem to be deeply confused (or trolling) about the difference between a space vehicle and a launch system. Dragon is a space ship, a "vehicle"; it carries stuff. The Dragon 2 (Crew Dragon) will carry people. It is, obviously, of critical importance to return them safely. Falcon 9 first stage isn't even an entire launch system, just the most expensive part of one (the first stage). A spent first stage is a like a (really expensive) spent bullet cartridge; sure, you save money on future shots if you collect it and re-use it, but the goal of any given shot is to fire the bullet and hit the target. Similarly, the goal of a Dragon/Falcon 9 launch is to put Dragon in orbit, and recover it safely.
In fairness, it's inaccurate to say that the CRS-5 mission is successful yet. Dragon hasn't even berthed with the ISS yet, much less returned safely to Earth. That doesn't seem to be your objection at all, though.
Yep. SpaceX has said that a full-capacity F9 launch probably won't have the fuel reserve for a propulsive landing (though it should still have the fuel for engine-out capability; the other rockets just burn longer although that does use a bit more fuel total). However, most rocket launches aren't maximum capacity. Frequently you run into volume rather than mass limits, or you need to place one thing into a precise orbit and there's nothing else you're putting in an even slightly-similar orbit. In those cases, assuming no engine failures or similar (which could also mean there's not enough fuel reserve for flyback and propulsive landing), the first stage still has several percent fuel left at separation, but relatively little mass; the second stage and payload are gone, as is the majority of the fuel.
Having a fetish is a disorder? That's... going to cover a really huge percentage of the human species. Maybe it doesn't count if you don't act on it, but it's still a preference (as in, "Disorders of sexual preference")...
My girlfriend has an Android phone, but uses iTunes because she has an iPod (actually a couple of them, a Shuffle and a Classic). Recently the Shuffle stopped synching with iTunes until she upgraded to the latest version. The latest version, which she derisively describes as "red iTunes" ("Why is it red now? Is that a feature? Was it too hard to figure out where everything was when it was blue, o they made it red so that after moving everything to a different place it would be easier to find again?") is the subject of a couple irate texts per week, including issues with playlist management and with finding features and UI elements that were inexplicably moved. My advice to her at this point is to just put her music on the phone...
The OS upgrade argument is valid on PCs, and also on Android, where you have an "anything goes!" policy with regards to API usage (to the extent that you can be said to have a policy at all). However, with iOS, it's a lot less forgivable. iOS apps - official ones from the App Store, at least - are required to restrict themselves to approved APIs for third-party use, and go though an approval process before being posted to the store. There's a lot less excuse for the OS to be backwards-incompatible when the walled garden means you have control over what each app is allowed to do.
As for the performance degradation, that was definitely true for a long time, especially in the 90s when PC hardware was improving at a phenomenal rate, but these days OS upgrades have been extremely consumer-focused. Every release of Windows since Vista has actually run *better* on the same hardware than its predecessor, for example; while Win7 technically has a higher "minimum requirements" than Vista (they bumped the min RAM from 512MB to 1GB), that's because people were complaining that Vista ran like shit on less than a gig (true) and the requirement should never have been set that low to begin with. Win7 uses less RAM than Vista did, though. Win8 uses less than Win7, and 8.1 less than 8. I haven't tried the Win10 pre-release but it probably uses, or will use, less RAM once again. I don't use Macs much, but other commenters have pointed out that the same "runs better on the same hardware" improvements applied to many of the early OS X versions... but no longer.
My motherboard (a bit over two years old, gamer-targeted) has the option to boot from USB floppy drive, but I don't believe it has actual headers for a floppy interface. I'm not sure it even has IDE, though. It apparently thinks that 12 SATA3 and 6 SATA2 connectors is enough... well, and a bunch of USB ports and headers, including USB3.
Did you check that the drive itself worked? I've seen the drives go bad from long-term disuse, though admittedly that was in an area where the humidity rarely drops below 90% and the ocean is a few feet away, so it was rather hostile to electronics. We used to need to open up the laptops' keyboards and clean all the contacts about every other month. Good luck trying to fix a modern laptop in a similar situation...
Yeah, I've been reading Schlock for years. Howard Taylor definitely puts more thought into the military applications of long-range teleportation than Star Trek writers ever seem to, but in his canon "Teraport Area Denial" systems were developed extremely quickly. In Star Trek, the state-of-the-art in (artificial) anti-transporter tech seems to be basically their deflector shields. Then again, they never had as strong a reason to try covering really significant chunks of real estate before.
The idea of a transporter that can safely put people (or anything else with about the same mass...) onto planets in other star systems is just too huge a break in the balance of power. It's literally an apocalyptic weapon; unless you can figure out how to put transporter-proof shields around every valuable target you've got (and remember here that a planet counts as a valuable target, if you can beam a big enough antimatter bomb much less some "red matter"). It's a modern stealth bomber when your enemies have nothing newer than steam engines. The Borg don't have anything that comes close to being as effective a weapon, and they have single ships capable of defeating fleets and time travel tech (First Contact).
The lens flares were excessive but were not by any means the major problems with the movies. I actually thought the 2009 film was pretty well done too, for all that the "sci-fi authors have no sense of scale" thing was taken to an absurd level even by Star Trek standards.
Into Darkness contained so much shit I really can't forgive it for the excessive suck, though. The idea of a transporter that can put a few hundred pounds of mass safely on the surface of a planet in another star system, for example, is an absurdly overpowered superweapon along the lines of a modern nuclear missile submarine during WW1. That was far from the only problem with Into Darkness, but it was more than enough. Nothing else in the show makes sense once you have something like that. Then again, with extremely rare exceptions, Star Trek has never appreciated the military prowess of the transporter.
The episode is "Fortunate Son", season 1 episode 10. Directed by LeVar Burton (who has apparently directed a lot of Trek since his days on TNG). http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik...
Of the handful of Enterprise episodes I've seen (most, unfortunately, from season 1), it was one of the better ones. I'm told the show got better in later seasons but I have never seen anything from later than mid-season-2. It's not *all* dross, though.
That was a (reallllllly stupid) bug in Debian/Ubuntu, then. Making it that easy for an attacker to interfere with the update process in a way that leaves no sign of the interference is just plain moronic. Simply blocking the outbound request - about all an attacker can do when it's over TLS - would have been detectable as "hey, where's my update server go?" Allowing the attacker to manipulate the update list - I hope to hell they couldn't manipulate the actual updates, for example to supply outdated DEBs instead of ones that fix bugs - is nothing less than a security vulnerability in the OS. Maybe not a critical one (unless the update packages aren't sent securely) but still a vuln, and a terrible idea.
Yes, your ISP shouldn't be intercepting your HTTP requests. But your OS should *never* be using plaintext HTTP for anything remotely serious.
A good point indeed. I'd be more worried about somebody in top physical condition and well-trained in any offensive martial art than about the average person with a box cutter. Yes, technically the blade can do more damage, but the trained fighter is still going to be a lot harder to stop.
Similarly, I'd be more worried about somebody with a short-barreled semi-automatic pistol than somebody with an AK-47 or a .50 sniper rifle. The rifles have way more firepower and probably more magazine capacity, sure, but they're also unwieldy as hell in the confines of an airplane, and the whole "walk very close behind somebody with your weapon muzzle just behind their heart, telling them what to do" deception is really hard to pull off when your weapon is three feet long.
Of course, the TSA is not, and never has been, focused on what an intelligent person would be worried about. It's merely the natural symbiote of the fearmongering politicians: make the populace terrified, and then show yourself to be doing something about it! The fact that it lets you divert lots of tax dollars to your buddies who make fancy scanning machines is the cherry on top...
Not only does it let you lock the gun, but there is no way in hell any airport or airline is going to let themselves be "the one who lost a passenger's gun", because that means some criminal somewhere just got their hands on a firearm that they were responsible for transporting safely. If you want your luggage to arrive safely, a starter pistol or flare gun or similar are probably among the best insurance options you can buy.
Just because .NET APIs call down to Win32 APIs, which call down to NT APIs, doesn't mean that they aren't all different APIs. Same for the POSIX APIs (which, like Win32, chain to native NT APIs). The POSIX ones always specify OBJ_CASE_INSENSITIVE, the Win32 ones do if you specify FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS, and I don't even know if .NET supports enforcing case-sensitivity... but they are still separate APIs. Nobody in their right mind writes user-mode software against the native NT API unless they absolutely have to, and not only because it's prone to occasionally changing in non-backward-compatible ways.
So does Windows, though you may confuse the Win32 API if you use it. NTFS is case-preserving and the native APIs are case-sensitive. Win32 functions can use FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS to require case-sensitivity, and Interix (Microsoft's POSIX-on-NT environment that runs in the Subsystem for Unix Applications or SUA) does so by default. I don't know of any way to make Win32 case-sensitive by default without doing some kind of crazy hooking of the relevant APIs or installing a filter driver to enforce it.
Actually, Microsoft themselves has an API for accessing NTFS drives in a case-sensitive manner, and I'm not talking about the native NT API or even the FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS Win32 file API flag. All versions of NT from 3.1 (the first) to 6.2 (Win8; it was removed from 8.1) have support for a POSIX operating environment - basically a full Unix-like OS running atop the NT kernel - and for proper Unix-like-ness it is case sensitive.
Mind you, Win32 programs do tend to get confused by it all. For example, CMD's "dir" command will list both "test.txt" and "TEST.TXT" in the same directory, and even correctly note if they have different sizes or datestamps. However, the "type" command (print file contents) on *either* name (or some other-cased version of the name) will instead print the contents of one of the files - doesn't matter what you type, the OS will pick - and it will print it twice (once for each copy of the file with that name).
I've been using the Interix (name of the Unix-like operating environment that runs in the NT POSIX subsystem, as reported by the uname command) build of git for years now. I should probably stop - the repo my package manager used has died, and I haven't bothered to set up a different package manager yet so my packages are outdated - but I am, humorously enough, not vulnerable to this particular attack even with that outdated version.
I was just about to say... this is a preview. I wouldn't expect pre-release versions of the new feature to be rolled out across all platforms. We can hope that it will happen once the feature leaves beta, though.
I'm imagining an attack sub commander shooting his tubes empty blowing away converted fishing boats loaded down with soldiers and then wondering what the hell to do about the rest of them. On the other hand, we have torp bombers as well, and those can just go back to bas to re-arm. As you say, it's not like North Korea has the air force or navy to protect them against a carrier group.
But yeah, South Korea is in a shitty situation. Strong economy, high-tech society, powerful allies... and within bombardment range of enough heavy artillery to basically reduce their capitol city if NK decides to let all their crazy out.
Well said. More info, for the curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
A lot of people don't even realize that web browsers have the ability to generate key-pairs of which only the public portion is ever sent to a CA or anybody else. It's actually a fairly sane system. If you need to export the private key (for example, to copy it from your PC to your phone, or to back it up) then you have to do so through the web browser or through whatever keystore it uses (Windows, for example, has a built in one you can access through certmgr.msc, though Mozilla products use their own store instead of the system-wide one).
Preflight is only required for non-standard verbs or non-standard headers. If you're just requesting data (rather than trying to take some action on the server), preflight is not used.