Zombie movies are not about zombies.
They are about human behaviour when the constraints of civilization have been removed. Zombies are just the easy explanation why civilization collapsed (and stays collapsed).
Ideally, that is to show insights into society and the roles within it and how various types of people fit into those.
Initially, yes.
But after a couple of years I don't think there would be that much of a difference.
As long as all the on-line commercial entities in that country were okay with never having any US business. Otherwise the NSA (and others) can demand access to their data in exchange for access to our markets.
And that isn't even considering the old spy standby of either getting one of your spies hired by them or offering one of their employees money to get you access.
The problems are not technological. They are human nature.
The real question is whether you install all the apps on all the servers OR whether you assign specific servers to specific apps.
After that, QoS can help but we're rapidly getting to the point where every app vendor wants their app to have priority. It's fine with VoIP
I'm serious. I've had to support video apps running over Citrix and it completely changes the methodology of what can be cached where to provide decent performance. Is it because people don't understand multicasting?
And more to the "why do people do things the hard way" theme of TFA, why did Bennett Haselton decide to go Burning Man?
The "why" of why you go will also determine the "how" of how you do things there.
There is a HUGE gap between the people who go and construct their art and participate in the gift culture and those who go so that they can say "yeah, I went to Burning Man".
But maybe he should also admit (at least to himself) that he's a horrible piece of shit that hates free speech.
Read a bit of his website. That is not going to happen. Here's a chunk of it.
I decide to include a screencap of the pterodactyl in the source code of Inmanâ(TM)s webpage and its weird, coded-in threat to "ptero you a new asshole." That sort of defines weird, hidden aggression, and has overtones of conjuration and magic that are rather sinister.
Pay particular attention to that last sentence. And he put that up on his own web page. He thinks that that is reasonable.
It's still going on. From TFA:
I never thought that people would say things about me that they did.
Mean people say mean things about him.
If you'd like to see a picture of Carreon's criticsâ"including an Ars Technica writerâ"spewing fecal matter out of their mouths, that too can be accommodated.
But that's okay because
My goal is to help people to realize that youâ(TM)re not the only person who gets rapeutated.
Rapeutated. Heh heh heh. Get it?
I bet that he'll be digging that hole for years to come. Just not as expensively as before. Yet.
... and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed? Y/N
Will I have to wait for a replacement? Y/N
Y-Y - I'm keeping this thing in the original packaging.
Y-N - I'm still keeping this thing in the original packaging.
N-Y - I'm keeping this thing until I absolutely need it.
N-N - ROBOWARS! Grab a beer and bet on which one will win. I've already requisitioned the replacement parts.
This is a SECURITY firm, not a backroom russian exploits dealer,
...
Bullshit.
From TFA:
VUPEN is one of a handful of companies that sell software exploits and vulnerability details.
Just because they're French instead of Russian does not change the fact that they're selling exploits.
The US has had a lot of trouble figuring out how to detoxify its stockpile safely.
The problem is that the chemical weapons breakdown into hazardous chemicals. And those hazardous chemicals have to be safely disposed of.
So instead of killing you because it is a nerve agent it will give you cancer and birth defects.
But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act".
Seconded.
I understand the concept in a battle between nations. It takes a lot of chemical agent to kill someone (dispersed through the air). But it does not take much to cause life-long problems. Like blindness or breathing issues or nerve damage. So using them on an enemy nation means that that nation will take longer to recover from the war. Their former troops will not be able to return to their pre-war jobs.
Now you can apply that same reasoning to insurgents in this case. But it is only their own future that they're wrecking. And they were on course to do that any way. Killing 100,000 is okay but killing 1,000 is unacceptable.
In the case of chemical weapons, months after an attack someone a few villages away can drink the water from their local well, contract a horrible disease and die.
I think you're talking about bio weapons.
Most chemical weapons degrade quickly. Even the "persistent" ones.
Being able to tell the difference between human beings and ghetto trash (of any race and income level) is a vital skill.
Rather it is an example of "confirmation bias".
You can tell the false negatives - the people you thought were "good" turn out to be "bad".
But you have no way to verify the false positives - the people you thought were "bad" are really "good". So you do not believe there were false positives.
The result being that the number of "bad" category characteristics keeps increasing. But each one has a clear example that you can cite. Therefore, it is completely rational. And anyone who does not agree is being irrational (opposing that which is rational).
If all the neighborhoods where green people live.. have a higher crime rate and higher risk of $badthing, am I being racist against green people? I don't think so.
The first point is that racists seldom believe that they're being racist. Because that would be irrational and they all have very rational (to them) reasons for believing whatever they believe.
The second point is that you would be basing your opinion upon a visual characteristic when the real reason might be something you cannot see. Such as economics. Bad neighborhoods have low property values. So poor people live in bad neighborhoods. Not because they're bad people but because that is what they can afford.
Maybe when I'm in the good side of town, I see a green person and I greet them normally.
Maybe. But if you're aware that you're greeting him "normally" then you're probably a racist.
When I see an old Chinese woman walking her poodle on the street I treat her the same as I would any other person who was not
Old?
Chinese?
Female?
Poodle-orientated?
Seems it would've been smarter if we had played dumb and covertly made preparations to thwart any such attacks.
Even if the message was authentic and there was a reason to release that information WHY is this going through the WSJ instead of from The White House?
The next question is WHO will call for the prosecution of the journalist at the WSJ who published this.
And WHO will call for the investigation and prosecution of who leaked that information.
how is it that common standards make so much sense for html, programming languages, engineering but not for human communication?
I know this one!
It's because everyone has been talking for as long as they can remember and they confuse that with communication.
After that it becomes a question of what they want to communicate versus what communication you expect to receive. Ever met a manager who talks during the entire meeting even though nothing he is saying applies to the subject of the meeting?
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
