Comment Re:If Trump can't see the climate change science.. (Score 3, Insightful) 51
"TDS" is simply the reflexive response when you can't defend him.
"TDS" is simply the reflexive response when you can't defend him.
And the tragic thing about this is that the possibility isn't really that far-fetched, and indeed is precisely the type of thing the climate deniers would do to thwart climate science.
Actual slavery involves forcing people to work, and your comparison depends largely on pretending you don't understand this.
My latest vaccine shots had the 6G upgrade, to take advantage of the higher-speed web access when the networks upgrade, but if they're selling those frequencies to high-power carriers, then I won't be able to walk into any area that handles AT&T or Verizon.
Seriously, this will totally wreck the 6G/WiFi6 specification, utterly ruin the planned 7G/WiFi7 update, and cause no end of problems to those already using WiFi6 equipment - basically, people with working gear may well find their hardware simply no longer operates, which is really NOT what no vendor or customer wants to hear. Vendors with existing gear will need to do a recall, which won't be popular, and the replacement products simply aren't going to do even a fraction as well as the customers were promised - which, again, won't go down well. And it won't be the politicians who get the blame, despite it being the politicians who are at fault.
The people who elected a 34-time felon who also instigated a violent mob into attempting to overturn the previous (lawful) election have some nerve lecturing anybody on "following the law".
Obtaining citizenship has never been a requirement of anyone living in the country. Their only obligation is maintaining legal status, whether that is on a temporary or permanent basis.
What a ridiculous comparison.
Spoon-fed by the algorithm. I looked over my dad's shoulder at some of the posts he was looking at and just shook my head.
Fark stopped being fun when some loon tried to get me fired.
It didn't work, by the way.
Same reasons that required Jimmy Carter to sell his peanut farm.
On exactly what the detector is capable of detecting. If they're looking, at any point, for radio waves, then I'd start there. Do the radio waves correspond to the absorption (and therefore emission) band for any molecule or chemical bond that is likely to arise in the ice?
This is so basic that I'm thinking that if this was remotely plausible, they'd have already thought of it. This is too junior to miss. Ergo, the detector isn't looking for radio waves (which seems the most likely, given it's a particle detector, not a radio telescope), or nothing obvious exists at that frequency (which is only a meaningful answer if, indeed, it is a radio telescope).
So, the question is, what precisely does the detector actually detect?
There was a survivor from the plane who described a loud bang before the plane crashed.
This places an absolute upper size on the alien battlefleet seeking to use Earth as a food source.
Trump's abandoned The Wall, as he found that the album doesn't mention Mexico even once, although he found the marching hammers very inspiring.
Back in the days of the Rainbow series, the Orange Book required that data that was marked as secure could not be transferred to any location or user who was (a) not authorised to access it or (b) did not have the security permissions regardless of any other authorisation. There was an additional protocol, though, listed in those manuals - I don't know if it was ever applied though - which stated that data could not be transferred to any device or any network that did not enforce the same security rules or was not authorised to access that data.
Regardless, in more modern times, these protocols were all abolished.
Had they not been, and had all protocols been put in place and enforced, then you could install all the unsecured connections and unsecured servers you liked, without limit. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference to actual security, because the full set of protocols would have required the system as a whole to not place sensitive data on such systems.
After the Clinton email server scandal, the Manning leaks, and the Snowden leaks, I'm astonished this wasn't done. I am dubious the Clinton scandal was actually anything like as bad as the claimants said, but it doesn't really matter. If these protocols were all in place, then it would be absolutely impossible for secure data to be transferred to unsecured devices, and absolutely impossible for secure data to be copied to machines that had no "need to know", regardless of any passwords obtained and any clearance obtained.
If people are using unsecured phones, unsecured protocols, unsecured satellite links, etc, it is not because we don't know how to enforce good policy, the documents on how to do this are old and could do with being updated but do in fact exist, as does the software that is capable of enforcing those rules. It is because a choice has been made, by some idiot or other, to consider the risks and consequences perfectly reasonable costs of doing business with companies like Microsoft, because companies like Microsoft simply aren't capable of producing systems that can achieve that kind of level of security and everyone knows it.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan