Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48043135) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

For those of the same ideology, you'll hear stuff about blaming "the government", "the bureaucracy" / agency in question, or the individual announcing the policy - Holder in the case.

Yes, but Obama as the head of the executive branch is Holder's boss, and picked the guy out for the job. This is why it's a cop-out to avoid blaming Obama for his henchmen's actions, just like it was a cop-out to avoid blaming Bush for the actions of Ashcroft and friends.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48043117) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

But since you mention it, I have seen homes with big, thick bars over the windows that the fireman's ax wouldn't be able to cut through. It would take the jaws-of-life to pry them off.

I haven't seen those many times, but you're right, there are houses like that. Good luck breaking through those easily.

Still, even with a 1" throw, I can install a metal door and a metal frame bolted to my metal stud walls, all legally. No way they are just kicking that door down.

Actually, it's still easy to break down that door. The Achilles' Heel you're missing is the hinges. But first, are your metal stud walls the typical commercial steel studs? Those things are paper thin and easily bent; they're only meant for holding up drywall, not for any great strength. What's important is what the door framing is made of. Commercial-grade doors have heavy steel frames, and those would indeed be hard to bust through (regardless of what your wall is made of). However, again, the weak point is the hinges. You can get door-breaching rounds for a shotgun and shoot out the hinges with them. Or you can break down the door with a battering ram, by concentrating on the hinges side rather than the deadbolt side. The deadbolt is a thick, 1" long piece of steel, usually going into an anchor plate or pocket held in with some very long screws. The hinges, OTOH, are usually held in with some very short screws.

>Also, just to be precise, I believe the 1" limit depends on the jurisdiction - my state limits deadbolts to 1" but your mileage may vary.

I don't think I've seen any longer. It's very unlikely a big lock company like Kwikset or Schlage would bother making different-length deadbolts for sale in different states; it's much easier just to manufacture to the lowest common denominator. It's just like cars; once California makes something a mandate, all the automakers just adopt that for all cars sold nationwide.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042767) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

for example deadbolts are legally limited to 1" in throw length so that they can be broken by emergency personnel if necessary, say when a fire occurs.

Wow, that seems like a ridiculous law. No one really needs to break through the front door of a house. If it's a true emergency, you can always break a window. I haven't seen a house yet that didn't have easily-broken windows. A fireman's axe should have no problem breaking through a window and quickly removing any dangerous shards.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042307) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but cancer cells are just as much a part of your body as any of your other cells. However, if the rest of your body doesn't utilize its immune system cells to seek out and kill these cancer cells (which I guarantee you probably have a few of in your body somewhere as I write this), then you'll grow a malignant tumor and without serious foreign intervention (medical treatment) you'll die.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 2, Interesting) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042253) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out.

What's really funny is how all the tofu-eating liberals will defend Obamacare to the death even though it's a right-wing corporatist scheme.

Obama is a case study in how to take the troublesome younger leftist activist types in society and turn them into ardent defenders of crony capitalism.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042197) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

Also, SCREW YOU Obama Administation, for your big fat 'Fuck You' to the American public and their civil rights and constitutional rights.

Also, SCREW YOU to the liberal morons who voted for Obama, insisting that he'd be completely different from Bush, and then have come out in droves to defend Obama's policies which mirror Bush's.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042183) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

the problem really comes down to this: NOBODY trusts the US gov'ment to actually hang on to that crap. It's just too easy to exploit.

Sure they do. The liberals would happily trust Obama and Holder with their encryption keys. And the Republicans would happily trust the Bush administration with their keys. The two groups just don't just the opposite administration.

I mean really, where do you see liberals bitching and demonstrating against Obama and his policies? They were happy to do so back in the Bush days, but now that their savior is doing it, they're just fine with this stuff.

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 1) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042157) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

I've seen news reports that call simple street vandalism and muggings "domestic terrorism".

To be fair, is it really inaccurate to call them that (at least the muggings, not the vandalism)? Were the mugging victims not scared for their lives? Just about any violent crime could be called "terrorism".

Comment: Re:Update to Godwin's law? (Score 2) 420

by Grishnakh (#48042127) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

The whole "safety, safety, safety" bit has gotten so ridiculous and I am endlessly surprised by the fact that a majority of people haven't cried "bullshit" on it.

If Obama were a Republican, you would be hearing a much bigger outcry (esp. in tech circles) about this bullshit. However, since he's a Democrat and he's the "savior", the liberals refuse to criticize him and will just back everything he does, even when it's exactly the same as what Bush did, or worse.

Comment: Re:now aren't you glad, Obama voters?? (Score 1) 420

by Tablizer (#48041529) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

I agree that Mr. O flunks civil liberties as much as Bush (and probably Mitt), but there are other categories to consider besides civil liberties. I wish there were federal issue votes on the ballot for this kind of thing, similar to some States' "propositions". That way we don't have to lump bunches of different issues into:

Please select one:
[_] Jerk A
[_] Jerk B

Security

Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics 420

Posted by samzenpus
from the let-us-in dept.
mi writes Attorney General Eric Holder called it is "worrisome" that tech companies are providing default encryption on consumer electronics, adding that locking authorities out of being able to access the contents of devices puts children at risk. “It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,” Holder said at a conference on child sexual abuse, according to a text of his prepared remarks. “When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child and to stop those that abuse children. It is worrisome to see companies thwarting our ability to do so.”

Comment: Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (Score 1) 446

by khasim (#48027291) Attached to: The Physics of Space Battles

The assumption here is that the exhaust is in the form of a gas.

Okay.

Once it passes through the constriction of the rocket nozzle, it expands (the effect is to turn thermal random motion of the particles of the exhaust into directed velocity).

Explain how "it expands" does not equate to expanding beyond the boundary of the shielding.

After leaving the bell, there are no more restrictions to expansion of the gas aside from the small amount of matter in space.

Again, explain how "it expands" does not equate to expanding beyond the boundary of the shielding.

And how it cools to background radiation levels BEFORE "it expands" hits the shield boundary.

Because THAT is the issue you've been skipping.

And again, so what?

Because "stealth" probably does not include "dying of old age 200 years before getting out of your own back yard".

Then use physics to make that argument not assertions that I brought up Voyager.

I already have. But you keep skipping over it. I just did it again at the beginning of this post.

Here it is again:
PHYSICS says that the exhaust will expand. Eventually the exhaust cloud will be larger than the area covered by the "shield". At which time the exhaust will be visible.

You claim that the exhaust will cool to the same level as the background radiation before that. Yet you do not explain HOW it will cool that much.

You keep confusing "cool" with "background radiation". Going from 3,000 K to 2,000 K is "cooling". But 2,000 K is not the same as "background radiation".

Stealth isn't perfect. It would be relatively hard against large, sensitive detectors.

Then it is not "stealth".

You are not "invisible" if you depend upon the enemy being blind.

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...