NBVegita

mbj - multiplication by juxtaposition ooo - order of operation Can you find me a sample manual for these online...it seems like an oxymoron to have a calculator give you a protocol, that they state is wrong, yet they do it anyway. Most notably that it is actually MORE convenient to interpret 2(3) as 2 * 3 rather than (2 * 3). All I'm saying is the fact that no one can produce a published math document saying that mbj or implied mult doesn't take precedence in ooo, I'm hard pressed to say that people who interpret it that way are wrong.

No it doesn't. Note I said: Being that this has become a huge internet phenom with a lot of people on both sides, that means what I stated above is true, as a lot of people are interpreting it as I showed in case one. Simply put, some people have been taught that mbj takes priority over division and others have not. I've tried to find something other than "wiki answers" that says if mbj does or doesn't take priority and I can't. That doesn't mean that it does, but if someone is taught something mathematically that cannot be disproved, then how can you say they're wrong? The whole reason why there is a debate is that any sane mathematician would write it as either (6/2)*(1+2) or 6 / (2*(1+2)). Honestly if you can show a credible math publication that states mbj does not take priority in ooo, then I'll stop playing the devil's advocate.

The reason why people get the answer 1 is due to multiplication by juxtaposition. For example, If I were to write this statement: X = (1 + 2) X = 3 6 / 2x = A lot of people might interpret that as: 6 / 2(x) 6 / 2(3) 6 / 6 = 1 Others may not use mbj so you'd get: 6 / 2(x) 6 / 2(3) 3(3) = 9 Keep in mind that the notation is terrible, but I believe a lot of people, using the juxtaposition that is familiar with variables, will multiply what is juxtaposed before completing a further operation. Which is right? Well I can't find any evidence that conclusively states how mbj is treated in relation to ooo. Note that some calculators will state the answer is 1, while others will say it's 9. Ultimately it comes down to how the application was programmed as to if 6 / 2(1+2) is interpreted as 6 / 2 * (1+2) or 6 / (2 * (1 + 2)). Again the argument isn't if 6 / 2 * (1+2) = 9, it's if 6 / 2(1+2) == 6 / 2 * (1+2).

Honestly, if you want to "bring the 17th back" what you need is exactly what you need to make a new zone great, a core of players who spend hours playing 17th, even during low population times. When the 17th was starting up, Dire Wolf and I would sit in the zone, by ourselves sometimes, just killing each other and goofing around. I used to go into other zones and play with a few guys, get their attention and mention that I love the 17th, lets go there. Dire and I weren't the only ones (Cue Telson among others), who worked at this. It took a long time of playing when there was really no one there to play with, before we gained friends who liked to play with us in the 17th. If we just sat in spec, or didn't encourage others on ss to play the zone, we never would have had population. Basically I'm stating this because ASSS or no ASSS, new map, old map, no matter what the settings are, if you don't use the above model to get people to play the zone, it will never "revive". Heck even myself, I can't tell you how many times in the past 3 years I popped on to see if anyone was in the 17th and it was 2 people in spec and a bot. If someone was there, I would have gotten into a ship and shot at them, because they weren't I just logged off. If you get even a small group to play the 17th steadily, more will come.

I think I still have pern on a chat program somewhere, I'll have to look. Maybe even Netbios, Rifle and Telson too.

Keep in mind that you can only place half the blame on Assange. The other half of the blame is on the military personnel who leaked the documents in the first place. Without that personnel he would have nothing to publish.

You do realize that simply because you work for the government does not make you "immune" to anything. There is no such thing as a Government economy and a civilian economy. The economy is a living breathing entity encompassing the entire country. First the economic downturn was a combination of factors including individuals and corporations. Corporations offered situations that were impossible for the individual to sustain and the individual took it. Blame goes to both sides. Now, included with those individuals are your government employees. Every government employee who buys a house, a product, a car, invests money, ect ect, impacts the economy. That is just on the entry level, not including the military/governmental contracts and the like. Also how does joining the DoD make you immune to "civilian stupidity"? To be blunt, you're really just a civilian wearing a different hat as far as the majority of issues are concerned. Your economics are my economics. I respect all of our soldiers for what they do, but keep in mind that your salary is paid for by us "civilians". Without the money we make and the taxes we pay, you don't get paid what you're paid today. To think that when the rest of the world, not just country is struggling economically that you shouldn't be adversely affected is insane. You're going to fix the economy? Oh please do tell? You really have turned into a grumpy narcissist. Short of martial law, there is nothing the "military" types can do to fix the economy. The root of our economic issue is that people are afraid to spend/invest capital and companies are echoing that in turn. Such an issue requires time to recover. There is nothing that Obama or any other government entity can do to "miraculously" turn the economy around. Once investors regain confidence, the economy will recover. I guarantee that the next economic upturn has absolutely nothing to do with either the government or military. The reason why we have survived for this many years is because we are resilient. Yes we make mistakes. No we are not perfect, we are far from it. Yet we do adapt well. This is far from the worst this country has seen and it's far from the worst this country will see.

Grape Pie

Usually when I see activity in the forum I'll drop by.

I agree with you there. If the government would like to try and grandstand stating that it's illegal to read the confidential documents leaked, well that is just insane, but insane or not, before someone would fight it, they would have gotten all of the info you mentioned above. The whole deal in general gives me an uneasy feeling.

I do have to say, I'm not surprised. Removing and or distributing confidential military or government documents is illegal. Not to say I think it's right to subpoena all users who subscribe to it, but I'm not surprised that the U.S. government is going to start motions for legal action against wiki-leaks and it's constituents. Honestly the only way I see them getting out of legal action is to relocate within a country that will not extradite them to the countries they are leaking documents of.

I agree that right now we don't know is Assange is or is not a rapist, but just the concept that he might be will skew the public opinion. As in anything political, it's unfortunate, but personal behavior dictates believability. I could be the best lawyer in the world, but no one (as in the general public) is going to believe what I say if I'm also say...a pedophile. Wiki-leaks was nothing until earlier this year. Yes it was noted by some news outlets and even received some awards, but as far as public opinion, they didn't exist. I mean honestly, if at this time last year I had quoted wiki-leaks in a debate on this forum I would have been ridiculed, which does say a lot concerning the range and diversity of news and articles read by those who frequent this forum. It really wasn't until governments (not just the U.S. government) came out denouncing wiki-leaks in middle to late 2010 that the wiki-leaks gained large scale credibility. Personally I think site's like wiki-leaks are going to come and go. The problem is that when you focus on trying to air out the dirty laundry of governments when they don't want it aired, you're going to get yourself into trouble. Now nothing they've leaked is really "critical" at any level, but if they keep digging and depending on the governments they dig into, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these people end up in some "unfortunate" accidents, or magically become international terrorists.

I think there has to be a "front man". This is how I see it, it's hard for any group to anonymously post "leaked" confidential files, while staying completely anonymous because as a whole, most people won't believe them. Just look at these forums. If you and I are debating a subject back and forth and I cite a anonymous source that claims to have valid "leaked" secret confidential documents, you'd wonder what drugs I've been taking. Now I'm not stating that a person must be a "front man" but you need a way to add credibility to your . As soon as this is attempted, there will be people who will do many things, both legal and illegal to tarnish your image. If you lose credibility it really defeats your groups purpose for divulging such information in the first place, as if people do not believe you are credible, they don't believe your information is credible either. Even just using wiki-leaks as a reference, it would be incredibly easy to forge "leaked" documents to say anything you want them to. Just look at the history of politics all over the world, it's easier to invalidate your opponent than it is to validate yourself

I'm not saying by any means it will stop the leaks. All I'm saying is that every front man that comes out ahead of these organizations will be brought down by the same method of their fame. Also note that we have a testy public, an organization fronted by a rapist (possibly) has a lot less credibility than one which isn't. It doesn't mean the information is any less accurate, but people are less likely to believe it. Either way, more security will happen, more documents leaked, more people championing it, more people's skeleton's become uncovered, repeat.

That is pretty accurate. As a company we're performing at exactly the same margins as before the "economic downfall", but the company still used it as an excuse to not give as many/as high of raises. Although I received good raises, there were others in my department that did not. One big reason for that is public perception, the last thing they want to hear is that the utility company is giving X bonuses and raises while asking for higher rates. Blocks...I'll just say that I work for a large utility in both the U.S. and UK. What helps me ensure my bonus/raise potential is that I run a critical piece of the U.S. business, I'm in charge of the meter reading interface for 10 million U.S. customers. Basically without what my department does, the meter readings can't be read or sent to billing. I'm sure more entry level positions don't entertain the same compensation. So I guess it really is a matter perception, as a whole the company is being more frugal concerning compensation, yet I am yet to feel that.

I guess I'm the only lucky one. I work for a large utility in the U.S. and we have not been hit by the economy at all. We are publicly downplaying our success, more so lack of decline, but I've received raises of 4.4% and 4.2% each of my last two years with a 12-15% bonus (each year) to boot. But to be fair, we are immune to virtually all economic behaviors. So when the economy is bustling we still only get 2-4% raises and the same bonuses.

He cares enough to have his lawyers initiate a formal investigation into the matter. Jail would help stop what he's doing. Yes others will continue, but there aren't many people who would be in the position to gain and distribute confidential information that would not be under legal scrutiny if the same was done to them.

I do have to say I find it to be utter irony that his confidential police report was "leaked" to the public. Something about that just makes me smile

First the paper is written in complete theory. In her entire paper she uses assumptions based on system architecture, transformers, transistors ect ect ect. Again, also assumptions are made on the precaution, monitoring and fail safe's in such a system. Her paper is focused on the physics of a possibility, yes a theory, not a probability. Is it physically possible? Yes, under the right circumstances a cascading failure could occur, I've never argued that it couldn't, yet it would be NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen via an internet attack. The blackout of 03 had absolutely nothing to do with a cyber attack and is unlikely to ever occur again. Technology has improved a lot since 2003. In 2003, AMR was a concept, now AMI is a reality. How could it have damaged substations!? If I told you I hacked into the transit authority and installed a malicious software that could damage the system, you'd ask me "how can you damage the system?" In fact I don't care if you don't believe me (as you don't know me from the next guy), but it is utterly ludicrous to take a paper thin article, with no details, citations, evidence, ect. and present it to be accurate. Of course I do suppose our society is based on that nowadays, you don't need FACTS to form an opinion. What is the one point of failure? In fact I dare you to name a single point of failure. How can you even argue a point of failure on a system you know nothing about? lol ludicrous? I'm getting upset because the government wants to interfere further in the security and operation of private and publicly owned companies and I'm ludicrous for that? The hardest part of the utility industry is dealing with government energy agencies FERC, NERC, NYSIO, LIPA, ect. Since when has the DHS ever been bound by the law? In fact haven't there been dozens of topics/posts in topics agonizing over things the DHS does, or tries to do that they "should not be" doing? This entire argument is going no where. I really don't feel I need to continue arguing the architecture points of a system where the only counter argument is a news article with no facts, evidence or citations contained in it. Hell if I can say something is true without providing any supporting evidence, I think I'm in the wrong profession. I've said my peace. Reason for Edit: Forum being wacky

No, as someone intimately involved with the infrastructure of a utility system and power grid, I won't just leave it. Please elaborate on what exactly you believe could be done. The article states that some "Current and former national security officials" say that certain things may be done, yet there is no evidence of anyone actually being able to do what they claim. I'm coming from first hand knowledge of at least one utility system. As I've stated before, this is not Die Hard 4. It is physically impossible to take down the power grid with the internet. You could not even significantly impact a power grid with the internet. That is what I've been arguing in the first place. So if the security at one bank is compromised, security at all banks needs to become redundant? Being they didn't name the "grid" <-- wrong terminology anyway, that was compromised, it could have been run by a small municipality or company. They didn't outline what safety procedures were in place or how strong the security was. To make the blanket statement above is pretty naive. Ironically, legally the U.S. government cannot have monitoring abilities over the systems in a non government owned utility. See the post above about small utilities/government run. I'd be curious as to just how they found those attacks. The whole article wreaks of propaganda, they don't cite any sources or details, use inaccurate terminology, don't define finite threats or impacts and doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutinizing. The problem is that being 99% of people know nothing not only concerning utilities, but the power grids construction, redundancy, application ect ect ect., which allows articles like that to actually make an impact on the general populace.

What is you idea of compromised? If I were to hack into a Social Security administration computer that had no impact on client information, what was really compromised? A non-critical network containing no private information? As I stated before, even with a full AMI, anything and everything that could be done remotely, can be overwritten manually. The only chance your "compromised grid" would have an impact on the actual power flow is if someone hacked into the grid and were not monitored doing dozen of things (with out getting too technical) which are monitored out of your arse. So yes, if your system is infiltrated and you do not monitor your system, then yes, you have a risk. In reality, it would not happen. To tell you the absolute truth, you could do more damage by hiring a crew to break into a substation than you could do via anything over the internet and at that, the damage would be minimal. Simply the fact that the "kill switch" was originally in the bill shows that arguing against it is NOT a moot point. It could have very easily been left in the bill. I don't get where you're going with your whole "security within a network alone is a bad idea", nor where your "common sense" applies. Please elaborate. Also please elaborate into what critical and catastrophic flaws are in the system, or simply what damage you think could be done that would involve further government oversight at any level.

Oh the US electrical grid has been hacked? You do realize that there is no single nation wide "grid" that is run and managed centrally? Yes, a utility may have been hacked, or more so part of their infrastructure, but working for the second largest utility in America, we were not compromised at all. All of this hoopla is over the fact that AMI (Smart metering) will allow the AMI network to become more vulnerable. Even at that, most utilities will not be converted to fully functioning AMI for another 15-20 years. As with anything, there will be risks and security designed to minimize those risks. The core components of the electrical grid will always be protected at a root level. Even at a full AMI, everything could be underwritten manually, in which there are always people located in very close proximity with the proper training. Any core facility will have enhanced AMI metering allowing them to further manipulate there security and accessibility. If a "Kill switch" was ever to be needed, it should be the individual utilities killing their own systems, the people like me, trained to know the impact of every load and signal on my system, not the government who screws up just about everything they try to do. Even at that, the AMI network is only a network of access and control of a manual network. If you were an AMI customer and I were to cut AMI network communications to your meter, you'd still have power. If I were to cut the entire AMI communication network (IE your kill switch), you'd all still have power, just like you have power today with no AMI network. Please don't take Die Hard 4 very seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/medvedev.iran.russia/index.html?hpt=T2 Hmm...anyone else think either hell is freezing over, or there might be something more sinister than nuclear energy going on in Iran, most notably when Russia, who has been against sanctions from the beginning, is now saying they may be necessary? Your opinions?

Just for a perspective, if this were done 3 years ago under Bush, EVERYONE would notice and EVERYONE would care.

Working for a Utility there is no reason why the government should have a kill switch concerning anything with a utility.