Comment "Carried as luggage..." (Score 2) 37
Yeah. Right. Like the fucking TSA is going to let you aboard an airplane with THAT.
They'll have a new toy in the back room.
Yeah. Right. Like the fucking TSA is going to let you aboard an airplane with THAT.
They'll have a new toy in the back room.
It's interesting they are now saying "information that was only retained for a period of five years."
Five years is about as long as some of that stuff has been in place. Which means basically, on their own, none of it has been deleted ever.
Also, this "five years" thing just popped up. I am sure it would have been discussed at length. So it's new, made up information.
And also probably a gigantic, colossal, and obvious LIE.
So THIS now means "don't sue us or we'll go even MORE tyrannical on your ass".
Elections have consequences folks.
Returning 127.0.53.53 makes a lot of sense if you put up an ad-farm parking page on it to make a bunch of fake money with ad impressions.
Double bonus points when the "service" gets sold to a bottom feeder who's ad-network gets infected, ending up trying to spread viruses with fake "you are infected!" pop up windows.
Sr-90 has a half life of 28 some years.
While a few year delay won't do that much, there is significantly less of the stuff than there was.
That also means, that even given exposure and biological uptake, beta radiation exposure levels don't happen very fast. There's a burst at the end when it turns to Y-90 and then Zr-90 a stable element.
A lot of what we know about Sr-90 effect on mammals on this came from studying milk-tooth levels in children in the US and Russia during the 50's and 60's.
Given that wasn't a disaster, but something to be "concerned about"... then the Fukushima plant spills are in the "concerned about" category as well. Don't swim in the stuff, and avoid foods that would be exposed. Somehow people can't tell the difference between a nuclear weapon going off under their ass and a bit of radiation here and there.
NSA contacted them and said "Don't do that, we already did, all you are doing is stirring up negative controversy with that talk."
"Here's the URL and the credentials, have fun!
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Sensibility seems to get lost when the submitter's question is rephrased in the following way: Is there a device that can selectively deactivate cameras of one's choosing? If not, can someone here invent such a method and tell me the solution?
However, imagining some of the possibilities, one would seem to be a paradise for the authorities — something they assuredly would feel to be very sensible.
Soooo... the CIA / NSA / military industrial complex are now crowd sourcing stuff out to Slashdot?
This is a good example of where you need a fast-cycling firearm with decent capacity. Either of the AR / AK platforms would work, as well as a variety of (much more expensive) newer styles. Heck, even a Mini-14.
A shotgun will take care of one guy well enough, but if it's four, you are in deep shit real fast with only 8 or so rounds in a slow loading plaftorm.
No, it's unreasonable for a 16 year old to have a job.
A 16 year old should be in school, they should not be working at all. A college student should not be working more than 10 hours a week, if at all. Oh, and "saving for college" with tuition where it is today is just plain stupid. You come out behind if you try.
The minimum wage should be set to a level that someone working 40 hours a week should be well above the poverty level for a family of three. They shouldn't be competing for work with high school students.
And yes, if someone wants to make a career of a full time minimum wage position, they should be able to have a reasonable income.
Start it at $15/hour. Index it to inflation.
Nonsense. The product of a job for a 16 year old individual is not simply money.
Having a job in food service has a huge impact on the social norms the person has as an adult.
Having a physical job (say, loading trucks) has a huge impact on how active the person is as an adult.
Working with people who are stuck there in their 40's (after 5 DUIs and jail time for cocaine possession) has a huge impact on "gee, better not do that myself"
Those things people learn at that age makes them better, and results in actual "living wages" as a productive person in society. Instead of a highly-paid skag or drag on society. If you want a good society, you lead people into doing good things, not just give them good things.
The idea that everybody deserves a living wage for doing no personal development, no effort, no commitment (at least, learning to, not saying they have to be stupid loyal) to a job is foolish. You are creating another dependent, not another producer.
You sir, are an outright communist. There's no question anymore. Which is fine I guess, the problem is you are SO STUPID you think that it's going to work even in the face of real, big, dire, and far reaching consequences for what you want.
Hint: nothing happens if you lick a red hot stove burner element if your tongue is wet enough. Try it!
Nukes still have a role as big bunker busters, ship killers / sub, and deterrent.
That last one is the only one that requires big nukes. The best deterrent isn't "we will defeat you" it's "we will wipe you out".
For that, you need city-killer nukes to kill the "civilian" population.
*in quotes, because the line is blurred now.
Is not be messing with the price all the time.
Somehow, mysteriously, the price changes slightly every month and it's always up.
Once the promotions are gone, it creeps up a bit every month. (The promotion ending for '1 year sign up price" is a big jump.)
Eventually, people start looking at the bill trying to figure out how to reduce it. That act, is what kills them. You don't want people thinking about the bill, you want them to just pay it.
I'll be dropping the TV / Movie portion of my cable in a month or two (summer means outside, and moving to a single abode again). But I wouldn't if it wasn't $45 a month more than it was when I moved in.
The problem with that approach is that a lot of those internet criminals are actually just immature teenagers - all they really need is a slap on the wrist to scare them straight and a good talking-to by their parents. Throwing them in jail is a good way to make sure they turn into real career criminals - if you can't get employment in legitimate work, what other choice is there? It's the same problem with heavy sentences for drug possession.
Almost every decent computer security expert dabbled in black-hating a little when they were learning, if only to prove to themselves what they could do or for the fun of adventuring into forbidden places. I used to port-scan for open netbios shares back in the win9x era - found a lot of people who had their entire C: drive open to the world. I left text files on their desktops warning them about the open access.
Ok, public caning in the town square. One lash for each gigabit of wasted bandwidth, plus $100 fine for each of the same.
The issue isn't what GP posted but rather moderators using their points to express agreement/disagreement with a particular point of view.
I'm trying to understand what's so "insightful" about the comment to be worthy of the points. Did the comment really contribute something to the conversation that allows all of us, or even any of us, to have a deeper insight into the overall problem.
I try, when I get points, to focus "insightful" points on posts that made me re-think the discussion or understand the problem at a deeper level regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the poster's perspective. It becomes frustrating to have to throw away moderator points on "overrated" because other people are using their moderator points to vote up a posting that supports their point of view but adds nothing to the greater conversation.
Nonsense.
The first post did nothing to foster any discussion.
The first post did nothing to back up the claim that it's all politicians with corporations in their back pockets.
The first post didn't solve the problem all of these discussions have which is explain why "no rules" is better than "some rules." It seems to me like "no rules" means a company is free to do what it wants, including tiered pricing. And, "some rules" will inevitably ALSO provide some company, if not the same ones, ability to do tiered pricing and influence things to make more money.
There is NOTHING but opinion on this issue yet. And the first post, didn't even explain his own opinion properly.
What he/she/it DID do was sling a blanket ad hominem attack out of the gate, before even knowing what anybody else was going to post.
That, my AC Friendo, is trolling or flamebait.
I loathe to say this but, HTTPS Everywhere is security theater. It makes your browser have a green icon where it otherwise might not but, that green icon is just an illusion of security. Considering recent revelations about the NSA, I would assume all SSL certificates are compromised. Like, literally, all of them. If the trust chain has been compromised by one party (the NSA), I would assume it compromised by all parties.
While this is true, chances are SLL Certificates still work well enough to keep the other nerd at the coffee shop from stealing your WoW forum account credentials.
No single person, ever, anywhere, has been able to single handedly defend themselves from the government of the place they reside. If the Government wants the account, they'll get it through twisting laws and sending the cops, not by snooping on it.
SSL protects against run of the mill crime. And, it does that well.
The technique is called cloaking. You basically check if a page request is coming from Googlebot or not to decide what to return (or redirect). See: https://support.google.com/web...
The services you mentioned have different rules, of course.
Some of those tools use the browser identifier to decide to let them in or not.
Something that in some browsers, can be modified by the end user....
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
