Comment Re:More like almost nine years from now! (Score 1) 550
Thanks for that. Now, what's your mother's maiden name?
Thanks for that. Now, what's your mother's maiden name?
Don't worry, it'll come down in price:
The helmet runs for about $600,000,
Yup, I can see production really ramping up for the F-35. Like most things in life, it's possibly to build something to do everything, just don't be upset when it does everything badly.
They register domains similar enough to the company and often related (support-raytheon for example) so that even people that look for questionable URLs can be fooled.
This is also made harder with the use of CDNs nowadays. A while ago our office started receiving large numbers of "InterFax" notification with a download link. I don't know what a proper InterFax notification looks like, but as you said, they did look professional, and in some cases the URL didn't look too dissimilar to some CDN URLs we've used.
I tend to visit web pages used in phishing attacks for a couple of reasons. First, I like to input useless data. Second, I like to rate what sort of job the scammers did in cloning he web site - I always feel a little let down when I see dead links, as they didn't make the effort to duplicate all the pages linked to by the cloned login page. Seriously guys, put some effort into your scams - the work ethic of the criminal world is really dropping.
They're probably the same people who signed off the switches I bought. The same switches that conveniently changed into a hub* after a couple of months. Maybe they expected them to be rebooted constantly.
* Entries weren't being added to the ARP table, probably because of a timestamp overflow.
Why wouldn't they:
... the second has been defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
It's clearly the obvious way to define time.
The application for "MH17" was filed on the European Trade Mark and Design Network website, while details for the "MH370" application was found on the Justia Trademarks site.
The scope of the application is also wide ranging:
From conferences, exhibitions and competitions; to education and instruction, and entertainment services (namely, the provision of continuing programmes, segments, movies, and shows delivered by television, radio, satellite and the Internet).
Clearly, this is cynical way of attempting to collect (I hesitate to use the word "earn") money from the reporting of Malaysian Airlines two disasters, however, does this actually have any merit? Seeing as the MH17 trademark application has been filed in Europe — the region from where most of the victims came from, it seems highly unlikely, but past experience tells us that we can't make any assumptions.
I'm a little disappointed that they even ask about filtering - obviously it's something they've been forced to do, which is shit because having to have the ability to filter connections adds to their costs.
I might log onto IRC and ask if they can provide what percentage of customers actually ask for a filtered connection.
I suggest blocking religious websites by default
Well, the stories the tell are loaded with sex and violence, and sometimes they even mix the two together - somebody should tell the Tories & Daily Mail readers, I bet they'd be furious.
You can do it online, but it's much more satisfying calling them up and asking them to turn on porn on your mobile phone contract. Added points if you put on a creepy voice when doing so.
Same with a colleague - BMW run a premium rate line to check the specification and service history - and he uses his mobile to do so - it's a business expense. He received a call from Vodafone asking if he knew he was calling a lot of premium rate numbers. His answer? "Oh yes, I like calling those numbers". He's also brilliant when answering cold callers:
* Hello, I'm calling from [company] are you a homeowner?
* Are you calling me a homo - how dare you...
Just use a decent ISP - at the risk of sounding like a shill/employee/investor - Andrews & Arnold are pretty good, plus they provide native IPv6.
Thanks for that - found it and added it to my favourites.
They don't know everything - they just know whether you prefer Burger King or McDonalds, and that you lied to your friends about how pretty your girlfriend is.
I don't often bump a comment, in fact I never have - please tell me why I shouldn't "place too much faith in FlightRadar24"? Explain what to look out for so that I can use an educated opinion as to whether the data is valid or not.
Not educating me just means that I will continue to use the data as given as you've not supported your opinion.
How so? Are the points often grossly inaccurate (out by 10s of km), are the timestamps invalid, do they simply make up data? If you can tell me why the data shouldn't be relied upon (or at least believed), I'm willing to listen.
The reason I'm pushing FlightRadar24 is because the data is there. I also am "trusting" that their data is real because they show gaps in the data as opposed to filling estimated positions in the track between known points. This means that people are less likely to jump to conclusions because they don't realise they're looking at an estimated great circle track.
I've seen no kinks in the tracks to imply that the data is jumping around, or that the points are collected out of order. What I've read about ADS-B gives me no reason to think that the positions and data shouldn't be accurate - otherwise Australia, the US and EU wouldn't be requiring it for some aircraft.
So we're left with the receiving stations - is it possible that amateur receivers are pushing corrupt data to the website, though from what I've read:
ADS-B messages (transmitted every sec without interrogation, with (plane symbol) or without (ball symbol) position, Mode-S downlink format=17) are encoded together with an unambigious 24-bit CRC checksum and would be discarded by a proper decoder if that checksum is false
so receivers shouldn't be doing that.
So, as far as I can tell, we're left with purposely corrupted data, which I'd like to think wouldn't happen, or if it did would be picked up by users.
Bit late, but to put in my 2p worth:
It's the scene of an "accident", not a crime.
They're not mutually exclusive - if I run somebody over while drink driving, it was an accident - I didn't mean to do it - but it was still a crime.
Would the US or Britain permit an external power (e.g. Ukraine) to investigate any of their territories?
The Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) helped take part in the Asiana 214 investigation
350 Palestinians deliberately killed in the past 4 days
While distressing, it's [to be blunt] irrelevant. Just because other terrible things are going on in the world, doesn't mean that we can't discuss the handling of this accident.
The United States and England lost all credibility the second they (predictably) mounted their co-ordinated propaganda campaigns.
Actually, I kind of agree with this - the speed at which Ukraine, the US and the western media jumped at blaming Russia may have been a mistake - it could have been better to keep calm until the facts were in. It's quite possible that the Pro-Russian rebels would have provided better access. However It's also quite possible that - with no criticism - that the rebels would have been even less willing to provide access to the site. Blocking access to investigators was an appalling act.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein