Comment Re:Question... (Score 1) 181
Most "common whores" would rather starve than to participate on evil of this magnitude.
Most "common whores" would rather starve than to participate on evil of this magnitude.
They do not. Mathematicians have had constant good job opportunities for the past century or so and funding of basic research always was adequate. Sure, you do not get rich that way, but the argument that they somehow have to take the devil's money in order to not starve is completely bogus and ignores reality completely.
If the devil payed you to successfully research a method to eliminate poverty would you do take his money?
Most certainly not. There is always a hidden agenda and the evil of the outcome will always trump the apparent good. As we are seeing currently with the NSA.
Work for the fascists, become a fascist yourself. There are times where you have to take a stand or become part of the forces of evil.
When the coming totalitarian, fascist regime is finally overthrown, mathematicians will be identified as a key group that helped to put them in power. Apparently, far too many of these people have no ethics at all and are willing to sell their honor and integrity for a steady meal-ticket.
Your link is broken. But that does fit your general presentation.
No, it does not even do that. It only weakens the signal.
It is not. A Faraday cage is great for shielding a static E field (for this, it is perfect if made form a perfect conductor or you wait infinitely long), but it does exactly nothing for shielding the B part. Hence a Faraday cage _weakens_ electromagnetic radiation, but it does not block it completely. What you need is proper EM-shielding, which can be accomplished with any conducting material, but effect is dependent on thickness.
It is fascinating though that you think a Faraday cage would give you 100% reliable protection, when it does no such thing. This exemplifies the real problem with IT security: Too many people that think they know what they are talking about, when in fact they have no clue.
And hence the proposed solution does work even less. You seem to have completely missed what I was talking about and that the UEL is completely irrelevant for my argument. "WTF" indeed.
But you know, UEL 100% nonsense. Wikipedia seems to have copied a rather obvious error. Looking it up, it turns out to be 80...82% and that explains why it is used in this fashion: It has an extremely wide working range as a fuel-air explosive.
I do stand corrected on the UEL though, even if that has zero impact on my point and your claim is just as wrong.
Yea, like the US had the first _electronic_ computer. This is just some verbal trickery to obscure the fact that the US is not a technology-leader at all...
Oh? Ever saw an ATM crash and display a BSOD? Quite often these are industrial PCs and they cannot take much more temperature as the CPUs are the limiting factor these days. And the mechanics have an even worse high-temperature behavior. It is not that things immediately stop to work, it is that every 10C halves the lifetime of components, and ATMs are _expensive_.
In Europe, there was a ruling that withdrawals at the Bank's own ATMs must be free, as the Bank is the one owing you money and cannot charge for paying you back.
The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.