I would think it would have to be more like a Mole, or bunker-busting nuke, than an eel, to get through the 10 kilometres of Ice that is above the ocean!
34 posts • joined 11 Jul 2014
"Buying sex involves paying someone to pretend to like you."
No it doesnt. It involves paying someone having sex with you. Many people would pay extra for someone to pretend *not* to like you.
"Its safer not use prostitutes."
At the moment, Yes... because it is illegal and unregulated...
In that article it mentions -
"....Last month, Cox and Jong-Il Kim, also of Wisconsin, compared the functions of the RecA protein...."
Clearly there is more going on here, when the former North Korean head of state has been resurrected to research the minutiae of radiation-resistant micro biology.
Tinfoil hats on stand by.
If the bar to being an engineer is the successful operation of a projector, then that means that half of the sales and HR team here are in-fact bone-fide, highly qualified, engineers. Whereas most of the people with Engineering degrees are here on false pretences.
Be right back.. Gone to get security!
There ought to be laws, similar to what you see on food packaging, that list the ingredients of your laptop / device. I for one don't eat anything with Aspartame in it, and would love to be able to make the same choice about my laptops.
I have no idea what variety of spyware came bundled onto my cheap touchscreen Acer (bought in US), but I have had to abandon it because it was clearly riddled with something that is underlining words in html pages and putting ads in. I need to find a shop somewhere that can do a clean install - with linux this time and not windows surface!
Thats enough for... 1.5 TRILLION chicken nuggets! (if you buy the 20 piece boxes and don't get a Coke).
Now, I suggest we get the FBI to look into this mess, which we could bribe at a rate of say 117,000 nuggets per employee, per day? OK, true, nearly all of them would die pretty soon... eating at a steady rate of 4875 nuggets per hour, this would kill the average employee in 90 seconds from salt poisoning (that is if they could keep scoffing the 1.3 nuggets per second required to do so)... but.. but... Such a waste...
$500 Bn/annum = ~ 1.3440 chicken nuggets per FBI employee per second.
"The only time he comes off as knowledgable, is when he has a script to read from. Cameron or Milliband could buy similar consultants."
I disagree. There is an aspect of that involved for sure. But I can easily find examples of Obama (and many other democrats/republicans too btw) talking about technology unscripted which show they have a decent understanding of it. Whereas I doubt I could find a single example (even scripted ones) where Cameron or Miliband have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to tech.
The UK is a backward, cave-dwelling, retarded, stick and stone wielding nation where it's government are concerned.
"...a sample of adults willing to describe their sexual fantasies"
Presumably the results are skewed by sample selection, and towards what people perceive as being a normal fantasy.
I would wager that if you asked the survey in a rectal Cricetine cadaver appreciation society, you would still get the same results -- ie that some fantasies are so 'rare' that most owners won't even describe them!
Someone please correct me where I'm wrong, but from reading that paper it appears to be...
3. The hacker intercepts the request / or server handshake response, causing the connection to drop.
4. After a few dropped connections, the browser, in an attempt to connect at any cost, starts downgrading the protocol it's using until it ends up on SSL3.0 - which is really old and buggy.
6. The hacker intercepts each of the browser's requests, and modifies one of the (already encrypted) bytes in a certain position (called the oracle block padding byte).
7. From the server's response (failed or success) the hacker is able to judge whether their modified byte was actually part of the plaintext request before it was encrypted.
8. Because the encrypted data is essentially random, only 1 out of every 256 attempts will get the correct byte, so for each character the hacker has to intercept up to 256 requests.
It sounds like a pain in the ass, but I can certainly see how a few bits of code will make short work of it.
If the list includes the word "bollock" and the regex match excludes all words containing the term, there is no need to include the word "bollocks", since it is excluded by default. Same for all variations of "f*ck", and "clit".
The list also appears to taken from an American script, because of the spelling of words such as "pedo".
Come on Virgin, get yourself some proper developers! - or, pass this on to your webdev agency.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"The fact that they can validate the individual characters means that they hold the password in a way which is not oneway hashed"
Not necessarily. They could store all combinations of 3 chars of your password pre-hashed.
Which on a 12 digit password is.... 12! / (3! (12 - 3)!) ....only 220 hashes!
"He believes that this all came from a single explosion!"
Not did any scientist, ever, claim or believe that the Big Bang was an explosion. That is just what people who watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity believe.
<sarc>And as for Hawking radiation, yeah sure, any common or garden peasant could think of that, so whats all the hype about?</sarc>
Maybe we revere him because he is an internationally famous, lucasian professor of mathematics, and self-made multimillionaire author, who is also a paraplegic?
Ok, so then lets say there's 10 kilotons of plastic floating in the ocean. Great. The figure used to be zero. What will the figure be in 50 years? Do you care? I do.
We are not winning when someone can prove that we have only f-cked something up 50% instead of 500% (or whatever). Stop treating it like a victory. That is not a win, and a reason to continue f-cking things up by refusing to acknowledge it!
(*) I presume you will now calculate the exact percentage figure, and entirely miss the point again.
Yay. Blinkers on. Let's get cancer!
Your attitude is all wrong, and you miss the point. Every. Single. Time.
So, lets assume that your strange conclusion of that article is correct, and 99% of all the plastic we know is being dumped in the ocean, has infact magically disappeared (not what the article says at all, but anyways..) ....
...that still leaves 1% of... millions of tons.
It is clear that you couldn't care less. Or, if you dispute that figure then why even link to the article at all?
Let's assume for the moment that all the climate change deniers are right. Ok, forget about climate issues. Next.
So, what about all the... heavy metals in the ocean? depletion of nutrients in the soil? drilling? fracking? destruction of rain forests and habitats? species? cancerous levels of smog in asia? poisonous rivers in india? huge plastic rubbish island floating in the ocean? etc, etc...
You are using your scepticism about climate change to completely ignore the myriads of other (completely obvious) data about how the world is being frcked up by people, And almost using that position to endorse all sorts of completely idiotic and destructive policies.
It's not just about the climate change.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021