Tell that to the TSA, which has probably cost the US (and maybe the world as a whole) hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of billions of wasted hours due to ONE guy with a defective shoe bomb and ONE other guy with a completely impossible "liquid bomb".
Can't mod, already posted, but this should pretty much end all the of moronic comments on an armed/loaded honor guard. Or any guard. The point of guards is that they are the first line of defense. If you let people legally walk around with guns those guards WILL be shot first and they will have no chance to defend themselves.
No, not really. A more accurate description would be the courts tend to look at the Constitution (and its Amendments) as if those who created it were alive, sitting next to them, and completely aware of the last 240 years of history when they wrote it.
While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.
The general issue with Bennett Haselton is simple.
Everyone else in the world submits articles, slashdot summarizes them, links back to the full article, and the comments here ensue.
In some cases the article links are just a link back to the article submitters own blog (and this is gently mocked but usually tolerated), in other cases the links are broken (also mocked), in some cases they are linked to an unrelated article (you bet we mock this too), and very occasionally for those people who enjoy the thrill of the hunt, they do go back to an original article in some legitimate or quasi-legitimate source of news. (Hooray!) (In which case we can mock everyone who didn't read TFA.)
Bennett however, as if you've read any of his articles you will know, is special. He read about the virtues of conciseness, efficiency, brevity and then wrote a short epic about how why they really shouldn't apply to him.
When he looked at what it would take to get his very own blog up and running he quickly realized that it was a pretty serious undertaking. He'd have to register somewhere, choose a password, maybe even pick a theme. Do you know how much that would cut into his actual writing time? Several minutes, at least, and he really just doesn't have that kind of time to spare, what with already being slammed just keeping up with writing down every thought that pops into his brain.
So, long story slightly less long, he decided why not just use slashdot itself as his very own personal blog? It saves him having to sign up for one, and better still he argues, saves us a mouse click by eliminating that superfluous step of having to click through to get to the full article.
After having this explained to him, Bennett rejected the argument and suggested we should be delighted at being able to reach his thoughts without having to make that one extra click to an external source.
So now we just mock Bennett.
I think that sums it up fairly concisely, at least relative to what Bennett would have said.
Yup. It's happening now at a smaller scale, and it's not sustainable...
Though according to the lofty ideal sci-fi future, once the robots can both extract resources and produce goods (and repair each other) with no net capital costs, society and the economy should become "post scarcity" where everyone can enjoy the same luxuries and standard of living.
But that assumes that those who own the robots don't mind giving up the economic power they wield and lifting everyone up to their level. We all know that's not going to happen. So I think our best bet is the robots revolt and maybe keep us around as well-fed pets.
So yes, you can probe all day with a random mac. Just expect to have to reveal a session-consistent mac when you try to connect.
But that's the use case most of us actually have. If I'm at the mall, I'm not in range of any known network. Of course my phone doesn't know that -- so it needs to probe.
Meanwhile, I'm at the mall, and the mall is very interested in where I am, how long I spend there, how often I come back, etc... so they are tracking those probes, and building a profile on the activity from that MAC.
I'm not actually connected to any network. Nor do I expect to connect to any network.
Therefore the probes should always be random.
Once that's determined that HEY there IS a known network in range, THEN and ONLY THEN it can use a non-random mac. If I connect to a network, then I implicitly submit to some level of tracking -- the network implicitly needs to know where I am and whether I am connected so it can route traffic to me.
I used to work at a financial company where the web server didn't have physical connectivity to the DB,
I suspect you meant something entirely different from what you said. The webserver cannot be air-gapped from the password database unless you literallly have a person sitting between the two systems keying requests from one into the other and back again. Otherwise they most assuredly ARE physically connected in some way.
Personally, I think passwords should be stored in plain text in the DB as a reminder to all developers
Then your DBA has all the passwords, and your one bribed, disgruntled, or incompetent DBA away from a massive leak.
suggesting that storing your DB credentials in your web code was OK as long as you "secured" it
I'm generally ok with this. You shouldn't be embedding your root or sa or whatever database credentials in the website but its not necessarily improper to embed limited access credentials to the database in the web app that needs that access.
On windows, for example, one can put database credentials (for a limited account that only has access to specified views and or stored procedures) in the web.config and encrypt it. This seems entirely reasonable to me.
My very secure password, is well over 100 bits of entropy. Easily extendable when the time comes.
But that is not the problem. We're using a Secret for single factor identification. Real identification is multi-factor and requires non-secret means for identity, and then a secret for proof of identity. Non-secret identification requires a web of trust. Online systems have neither non-secret web of trust Identification nor proper secret proof of Identification.
I think automation of order taking will be great for McDonalds and its employees. The only job being affected is the cashier and even kiosk order wouldn't put that job in jeopardy. Most of the labor at McDonalds is food preparation and cleaning. Kiosks will not be able to perform those functions.
What will happen is the cashier can now focus on preparing the order and delivering them while the line is moving faster because people will be able to place their order quicker at a kiosk.
I stopped by a McDonalds during lunch the other day and they only had two cashiers working a very long line. There were delays because the cashiers are the same people who fix the coffee, assemble the order, and hand it to the customer. If that McDonalds had a kiosk, I probably wouldn't have waited in line for 20 minutes and they would still have those two employees assembling the order and handing them to the customer.
And that should have been part of my posting above that asked the question -- these fragments dock with other cells, inject the RNA, and that RNA causes the cells to become cancerous, which, in turn creates more of these little RNA capsulettes.
I'm sure there are some differences between these and classical virus structure, in some way, but given my ignorance of the subject, they walk and talk like viruses.
I thought Bennett was busy writing inane and irrelevant "suggestions" about how to treat Ebola (since he's SO MUCH smarter than every doctor & nurse ever) after we intentionally infected him?
Then again, the recovery rate in the U.S. is depressingly high... let's drop him into a random village in Sierra Leone and see how well the local Witch Doctor reacts to his "suggestions".
A small encapsulatory structure containing a fragment of RNA. I'm not a microbiologist, so can someone tell me how these things are different from a virus?
It wasn't the chemicals, as you point out, but the penetrating object that killed her. She bled out. If she hadn't bled out, she would have likely suffered severe brain damage as skull and projectile fragments entered her cranium.
The relevance being, also as you point out, that shooting anything into the face is a bad idea when non-lethality is the intent. But any chemical that is going to be delivered in such a way has exactly that potential, as do rubber bullets (have you seen what those do? non-lethal does not mean non-damaging).
Any chemical means to convince a highly agitated crowd to cease and disperse is going to have extraordinarily strong effects, even when used correctly, with some suffering the effects more than others. Some fraction of the population is always going to be sufficiently vulnerable for lethality.
Ultimately, I think we're agreed: The very idea of a non-lethal chemical weapon is absurd.