And here I thought it was because they are more attracted to each other than they are to other types of compounds, ie water strongly hydrogen bonds to itself, squeezing out any hydrophobic molecules, while long hydrophobic chains stack strongly, squeezing out anything that doesn't stack strongly.
A gulag slave can decide whatever he wants, but is physically restrained. A person might not know that a lightening bolt is about to strike them. Does that mean they aren't free? If he isn't free, then who is oppressing him? The sky?
Nope, you can walk away from one sided contracts under common law. Further, involuntary slavery is not allowed in a free society. If you agree to be a slave and sign a contract, then decide you want to be free, you can walk away. If there was some payment at the end of some term of VOLUNTARY servitude, you might lose that, but you can' always walk away from any contract. Try again.
Ayoob and "Police State" are your super"heroes". You would rather allow someone to be beaten to death in a back alley than simply ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE to go help them. You are a crook, sir, and you don't deserve the peace you have in the Western world.
Uh-huh, so you think there is no such thing as freedom, then? There is no method by which anyone, or any group of people can get all "relevant" information. Further, the fact that your "axiom" includes such vague language means that it is not an axiom. You have to define "relevant", or there can be no freedom (supposedly).
Further, opinions aren't the same as freedoms. A gulag slave can have all the opinions they want, but it doesn't change the fact that their right to self ownership has been severely violated, and that any objective person would recognize that that person is not free.
Freedom doesn't mean "anything goes". Freedom means recognition of the fact that a person owns their own body, and that a person is entitled to exclusive use of his own property. All freedoms stem from those two axioms, and all tyrannies stem from the violation of those two axioms.
Incorrect. Aromatic stacking forces make bulk (ie very thick sheets) graphene incredibly strong. It is nothing like graphite, which is composed mostly of amorphous carbon and is full of irregularities.
If you actually read my comments you would see that I understand that. I never said ANYTHING about taking direct control of the drones in this way. I SAID they could use the totally unencrypted digital video stream to transmit malicious code to the RECEIVERS of the video stream, ie the workstation from which the drone is being controlled. With a good enough understanding of that console, which can be gained from keyloggers and other probes, they could figure out how to take control of the drones themselves.
Says the guy who can't tell the difference between the numbers "4" and "5". Were you just going to make empty insults to the moderators, or actually issue some form of rebuttal?
Because A, the up and down streams don't use the same channel, and B, you can't tell anything about how the controls work from the video feed. Install a keylogger while monitoring the movements on the drone, however...
Thus the need to set up a gradient of some sort to prevent back-flow (ie a diode), which was mentioned very generally in the article. I can't be any more specific than that, because I don't know the chemistry of the treatment or the physics of the interaction between the photon and the p-orbital.
What are you talking about? This is the first sentence: Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.
I said "combat", not "slaughter". Try using these against China or even Iran, and you will quickly see how vulnerable they are. America's hubris from it's last few wars against peasant armies will lead to massive combat losses as soon as they go up against a smart or resourceful enemy.
The point is that if they could intercept the video stream, they could transmit a fake one with malicious code embedded, which goes to the control system where the pilot is (NOT TO THE DRONE). If they can intercept the video stream, then they can spoof it. That is the point. All it takes is a sophisticated ally.
And what is this nonsense about not being able to "hack" something one way? There are countless exploits that can be loaded into a poorly protected system just from receipt of data. I can't count the number of times I have read about some stupid thing or another where windows systems are owned by a.jpg or.pdf with malicious code. Once the system is rooted, they can send all the data they want over the internet, or via radio transmission (ie via the same channel they use to control the drones).
No, it isn't. The FDIC (a government corporation) charges ALL banks the same amount for depositor insurance, regardless of the risk profiles of each bank. This is a feature of communist systems. The deposit insurance for credit unions is similar, but credit union charters do a better job of preventing excess risk (that won't last, though).
If you want a free market in banking (a noble goal), you must first privatize and demonopolize deposit insurance, and end the Federal Reserve (which artificially sets interest rates--rates which should be set by the supply and demand of deposits and debtors).
Patents and regulations are not features of the free market. Claiming that they are is like saying that cleanliness leads to becoming dirty, therefore we should never clean and somehow that will prevent us from becoming dirty.
Slashdot Mirror
Which one is the one initiating aggression upon people on the street?
It's not that hard, unless you are just really, REALLY stupid.
And here I thought it was because they are more attracted to each other than they are to other types of compounds, ie water strongly hydrogen bonds to itself, squeezing out any hydrophobic molecules, while long hydrophobic chains stack strongly, squeezing out anything that doesn't stack strongly.
A gulag slave can decide whatever he wants, but is physically restrained. A person might not know that a lightening bolt is about to strike them. Does that mean they aren't free? If he isn't free, then who is oppressing him? The sky?
Nope, you can walk away from one sided contracts under common law. Further, involuntary slavery is not allowed in a free society. If you agree to be a slave and sign a contract, then decide you want to be free, you can walk away. If there was some payment at the end of some term of VOLUNTARY servitude, you might lose that, but you can' always walk away from any contract. Try again.
Ayoob and "Police State" are your super"heroes". You would rather allow someone to be beaten to death in a back alley than simply ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE to go help them. You are a crook, sir, and you don't deserve the peace you have in the Western world.
If the system is set up poorly, social pressures will cause 99+% of people to turn evil, even if they are good.
For a real life example, one need look no further than the Stanford Prison Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Look no further than the arch-villian, "The Bernank".
More like a low class henchman.
I would say we need these guys a lot more than we need thugs assaulting each other or random people in the streets.
If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all.
Uh-huh, so you think there is no such thing as freedom, then? There is no method by which anyone, or any group of people can get all "relevant" information. Further, the fact that your "axiom" includes such vague language means that it is not an axiom. You have to define "relevant", or there can be no freedom (supposedly).
Further, opinions aren't the same as freedoms. A gulag slave can have all the opinions they want, but it doesn't change the fact that their right to self ownership has been severely violated, and that any objective person would recognize that that person is not free.
I know, movie vending machines are SO 4 months ago.
Freedom doesn't mean "anything goes". Freedom means recognition of the fact that a person owns their own body, and that a person is entitled to exclusive use of his own property. All freedoms stem from those two axioms, and all tyrannies stem from the violation of those two axioms.
Incorrect. Aromatic stacking forces make bulk (ie very thick sheets) graphene incredibly strong. It is nothing like graphite, which is composed mostly of amorphous carbon and is full of irregularities.
Yeah, how dare people produce things that people want for pay!
Yes, that is better, but it is still no excuse for lack of encryption.
If you actually read my comments you would see that I understand that. I never said ANYTHING about taking direct control of the drones in this way. I SAID they could use the totally unencrypted digital video stream to transmit malicious code to the RECEIVERS of the video stream, ie the workstation from which the drone is being controlled. With a good enough understanding of that console, which can be gained from keyloggers and other probes, they could figure out how to take control of the drones themselves.
Says the guy who can't tell the difference between the numbers "4" and "5". Were you just going to make empty insults to the moderators, or actually issue some form of rebuttal?
Because A, the up and down streams don't use the same channel, and B, you can't tell anything about how the controls work from the video feed. Install a keylogger while monitoring the movements on the drone, however...
Uh-huh, so you are claiming these drones broadcast an ANALOG signal, now?
Perhaps you should spend some more time in kindergarden before talking with the grown ups?
Only if you are fucking retarded.
Thus the need to set up a gradient of some sort to prevent back-flow (ie a diode), which was mentioned very generally in the article. I can't be any more specific than that, because I don't know the chemistry of the treatment or the physics of the interaction between the photon and the p-orbital.
What are you talking about? This is the first sentence: Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.
How did that prove any of what I said wrong?
Or are you just an idiot?
I said "combat", not "slaughter". Try using these against China or even Iran, and you will quickly see how vulnerable they are. America's hubris from it's last few wars against peasant armies will lead to massive combat losses as soon as they go up against a smart or resourceful enemy.
The point is that if they could intercept the video stream, they could transmit a fake one with malicious code embedded, which goes to the control system where the pilot is (NOT TO THE DRONE). If they can intercept the video stream, then they can spoof it. That is the point. All it takes is a sophisticated ally.
.jpg or .pdf with malicious code. Once the system is rooted, they can send all the data they want over the internet, or via radio transmission (ie via the same channel they use to control the drones).
And what is this nonsense about not being able to "hack" something one way? There are countless exploits that can be loaded into a poorly protected system just from receipt of data. I can't count the number of times I have read about some stupid thing or another where windows systems are owned by a
No, it isn't. The FDIC (a government corporation) charges ALL banks the same amount for depositor insurance, regardless of the risk profiles of each bank. This is a feature of communist systems. The deposit insurance for credit unions is similar, but credit union charters do a better job of preventing excess risk (that won't last, though).
If you want a free market in banking (a noble goal), you must first privatize and demonopolize deposit insurance, and end the Federal Reserve (which artificially sets interest rates--rates which should be set by the supply and demand of deposits and debtors).
Patents and regulations are not features of the free market. Claiming that they are is like saying that cleanliness leads to becoming dirty, therefore we should never clean and somehow that will prevent us from becoming dirty.