Slashback: Passports, Microscopes, IQ Points

Slashback tonight with updates and clarifications on recent Slashdot stories (and story arcs), including a downright Operatic end to Jon S. von Tetzchner's cross-oceanic attempt (or was that just in fun?), the status of post-death email privacy, minimizing the dangers of RFID passports, and more - read on for the details.

Actually, it's taking tests that reduces IQ. The guys at Mind Hacks have dissected the widely reported story that 'email destroys the mind faster than marijuana' [Posted on Slashdot a few days ago -- T.] and found that it is more spin than science. The results show simply that people do worse at IQ tests when distracted, although Hewlett-Packard are not releasing details of the experiment, so others cannot even evaluate if the research is sound. The use of psychobabble for marketing marches on.

One day this will all be commemorated as ... an opera. GreyPoopon writes "It looks like Jon's attempt at swimming the Atlantic has ended in early failure. Taking the blame once again is is PR Manager, Eskil Sivertsen. The raft he was using was somehow punctured this morning, and Jon had to abondon his trek to perform a heroic rescue. Perhaps someone should take on the task of sending our downtrodden adventurer a cup of Mom's hot chocolate."

PCP theorem simplified, still way over my head. Stridar writes "Sanjeev Arora's proof of the PCP theorem was a great acheivement. This theorem, a reduction of NP to PCP, allowed for many striking results on the difficulty of finding approximate solutions to NP-Hard problems. However, his original proof is long and technical, focusing on the arithmetization of booelan formulas. It has long been an open problem to simplify this result. Now Irit Dinur , a mathematician at the Hebrew University, has given a purely combinatorial proof of the PCP theorem, in her exciting paper "The PCP Theorem by Gap Amplification" ."

I think several other things end at death, too. microbee writes "The Register reports that Yahoo has complied with a court order to give a dead soldier's email account to his parents. It's not clear to me from the news whether they got direct access to the actual mail box, or just hard copy of those emails. If the former, it's a bit funny to read "the family complain they have only got emails received by Justin, not those he wrote." People have to wonder whether their privacy ends at death."

Haven't they ever seen The Killing Fields? valdean writes "Following up on past Slashdot stories, Wired News reports that the State Department is now considering adding a password to the new RFID passports, in response to 'criticism from computer security professionals and civil libertarians.' According to the article, 'The data... would be locked and unavailable to any reader that doesn't know a secret key or password to unlock the data. To obtain the key, a passport officer would need to physically scan the machine-readable text that's printed on the passport page beneath the photo... The reader would then hash the data to create a unique key that could be used to authenticate the reader and unlock the data on the RFID chip.'"

Anything with LEDs in it makes me happy. HunterD writes "Apparently a company called DigitalBlue purchased the rights to the Intel Play series, which included the Intel QX3 microscope. Well, DigitalBlue has released an upgrade called the QX5 that features an Ultrabright LED, a better camera, and a number of other upgrades."

Comments

PCP Theorem

[BandwidthHog]

If, after checking your email while doing bonghits you can still count to one, proving theorems on PCP oughta do the trick.

Re:PCP Theorem

[juan2074]

I have a theory about PCP -- that shit fucks up your brain.

MJ?

[Ugodown]

I don't think that anyone says that marijuana destroys the brain besides the US governmnet, and these guys.

Re:MJ?

[Ugodown]

It's a consensus that no brain cells are killed from the ingestion of marijuana, it will impare learning, but what do you expect when you're stoned? After a period of time of not using it, IQ levels and intelligence goes right back to normal levels. The only emperical evidence of brain damage comes from an experiment with monkeys where they were administered with 200x the normal amount. Check this out: http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_08_1095.html it has sources

Re:MJ?

[Husgaard]

I give marijuana a few decades before it's legalized.

I wouldn't bet on it, even though I think it makes sense to legalize marijuana.

Think of the economics, and the number of people earning their income from the current prohibition:

• Prisons and prison personnel, who hold convicted marijuana consumers and dealers.
• Police and police officers, who investigate marijuana "crimes".
• Judges, court personnel and public procutors, who judge marijuana "criminals"
• Marijuana dealers, who can sell their marijuana at a higher price because of the prohibition.

All of these groups will strongly oppose legalization of marijuana, as it threathens their income.

Re:MJ?

[stanleypane]

The question is regarding long-term damage done to the brain. Not short-term. Read your own reports:

CONCLUSIONS: Heavy marijuana use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects even after a day of supervised abstinence from the drug. However, the question remains open as to whether this impairment is due to a residue of drug in the brain, a withdrawal effect from the drug, or a frank neurotoxic effect of the drug. from marijuana

I'd like to see a comparison done against alcohol, also. I am quite certain that marijuana pales in comparison to the detrimental effects brought on from alcohol abuse.

Bottom line, read all the reports you want, it'll never justify the criminalization currently assoicated with marijuana. Christ, half the OTC medications you can buy at the grocery store would do more harm to your brain than marijuana if used on a regular basis.

Re:MJ?

[stanleypane]

You have got to be joking, right? Lets start from the top:

- Prisons: Overcrowded as it is. Our local city lock-up in Baltimore doesn't even have the capacity to process possible *murder* suspects within the required 24 hours. Public defenders are getting people out of lockup EVERYDAY -- without charge -- because of this problem.

- Police: The last time a cop caught me with a joint, he told me to throw it out. The cops around here don't have the time to keep arresting kids for smoking pot. They have more serious problems to worry about.

- Judges: Don't know about your town, but in mine it may takes up to 6 months after being arrested before you even see a judge for a formal hearing. I don't think it is because of all the pot smokers.

- Marijuana dealers: I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll leave it alone.

That being said; I don't know if I think marijuana will be legalized in my lifetime, but I wouldn't be surprised if cops started treating it more and more like underaged drinking. Similar to, "OK, start dumpin 'em out, kid."

Re:MJ?

[flink]

You left out the biggest one: seized assets of drug dealers. When someone gets convicted, federal laws allow all their drug-related assets (cars, bank accounts, houses, bling, etc.) to go to the state. This is a huge revenue stream for local law enforcement agencies and is probably the single largest unspoken reason why you won't see legalization anytime soon.

Re:MJ?

[Metapsyborg]

libertarian and "legalise it to stop the criminal elements" arguments considered, it might well be better off legal... but it's hardly the pressing issue of our times. There are many other unfair and unjust laws and relations of power etc. that abound. That someone would care enough about MJ to make it their first political priority is evidence of how far they have fallen. It's lame, it steals a certain edge/quickness from your mind (much more than it's supposed "benefits" - do a philosophy course and tell me which one "expanded your mind" more).

On the whole it's fucking boring and I wish the middle class whingers would stop complaining in the face of the science that ANY type of smoking is bad for your lungs (I pity the fool who tries to dispute that, yes you can eat it), and that MJ is bad for your intelligence (there is evidence of this), bad for some people's mental health (there is evidence of this) and on the whole there are some convincing arguments that it's bad for society.

While I agree with some of the "facts" you state, I think you completely miss the point. From your arguments and the way you perceive the issue, it is apparent to me that you are a very pragmatic person: "it's bad for you, don't do it."

Just think about what you are throwing out when you say, "many stoners will testify that it lessens mental agility" or "On the whole it's fucking boring and I wish the middle class whingers would stop complaining in the face of the science." You relegate the entire realm of art, sprituality and philosophy (yes philosophy) to some substandard realm because it does not produce anything useful.

Have you considered that the lessening of "mental agility" is exactly the state that spiritual beings the world over attempt to capture - it's called a lucid state, and is the goal of many meditations, including yoga. I know for a fact that if you ask a monk in meditation what 485 X 391 is, they aren't going to spit out the answer instantaneously. Does that make them lesser entities? I don't think so, and I'm willing to wager that they far surpass our petty intellects in many profound ways.

What about all manner of art? Do you think that "mental agility" or even straight-up IQ have anything to do with that? I think you'll find that many artists, both contemporary and historical, have not had enormous IQs or were not even "mentally agile." Many artists are documented as having used drugs, especially in modern arts such as music.

Philosophy is a subject that does not require a genius IQ, it requires an expanisiveness of consciousness that can look at things from a very broad perspective. The true concepts of philosophy - realism (materialism) vs idealism vs dualism, teleology, morality - these things require, above all, a willingness to release yourself from the daily understanding of reality and look at human existance in a much more grandiose fashion.

Where you get the notion that wanting legalized weed is libertarian is beyond me. At this point the issue, ironically, transcends any political system. You could have legal weed in any governmental system, the only reason it's illegal in ours (usian) is because of social factors.

As for your own experiences with the drug, let me give you mine. I've smoked for many years, and I did explore other drugs - shrooms, acid, ecstasy, coke, crack, heroin, 2cb, liquid g, meth, K, and others. I've partied in heaven with 5,000 of my closest friends until the next morning, and I've been drunk and stoned for hours experiencing the deepest spiritual experiences listening to music by myself. Bad experiences? I've had one or two. And now, now I work in an office 40 hrs a week, I am responsible and fulfill my role in society while looking to possibilities for the future and reminiscing about the past. For me it's been a spiritual, beautiful experience that transcends mere words.

I'll leave you with the words of the father of pragmatism himself, william james:

Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips? And no, not having to replace worn out passports is does not take priority over privacy and security, most people don't use their passports more than a dozen times a year anyway, I use my debit card every day and the chip is fine, theres no excuse to use RFID.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can reduce the passport-stamping time from 1 minute per person to 15-30 seconds, that's a huge win, as it halves the amount of time you spend in line.

That will not happen. If they can reduce the passport-stamping time, they will also reduce the number of lines you can get your passport stamped in. It will still take just as long to get through the line.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips?

Several reasons:

• Increased security. The main reason for going to a chip of some sort is to both make the passports harder to forge and to add biometrics in order to better authenticate the holder. Biometric templates are often large, and they also need to be cryptographically signed by the issuer. That means that tens of kilobytes of data storage are required. Note that some magnetic and optical stripes could partially fulfill this requirement, but aren't as secure as a chip.
• Reliability/Durability. A contact-type chip is problematic for a passport because of the booklet form factor. Where do you put the contact plate? At the very least you'd have to make part of the booklet out of rigid plastic so that the contact plate would slot into the right place. Non-standard readers would have to be designed and built, also. Existing smart card readers expect a card form factor, obviously.
• Convenience. Contactless is quicker and easier to use. Not much, but enough to matter when you're trying to move large numbers of people through quickly. The immigration agent does not have to spend time putting the correct corner of the passport into the correct location in the correct way.
• Speed. Strange as it may seem, it's a fact that off-the-shelf RF technology achieves *much* higher data rates than contact smart card technology. Contact chips communicate at between 9.9bps and 115kbps, contactless chips talk at either 400kbps or 800kbps. In practice, contact chips rarely run at over 9.9kbps, which means that data moves at less then 1KBps. It's expected that many of these passports will store 20-40KB of data, so the high data rate will be important.

The first plan by the state dept. was terrible; they took absolutely no precautions to protect the passport holder's privacy. I wrote to them to complain. The latest announcement, however, shows that they have listened and fixed all of the problems.

They've made three changes to the plans:

1. The chip will not divulge any data without an appropriate cryptographic authentication. The key used to perform the authentication is derived from data printed inside the passport.
2. All communications with the chip will be encrypted using a session key so that no one can eavesdrop when the passport is being read.
3. The passport cover will incorporate RF shielding, so that when the passport is closed the chip cannot be activated. This is to prevent an attacker from being able to identify who is carrying a passport by scanning them, as well as a few more difficult attacks.

With these changes, there are no additional security risk as long as passport holders are careful to keep their passports closed when not being checked.

The other concern that will no doubt be raised by some slashdotters is whether or not someone who gets hold of your passport can get your biometric data. They can, but it doesn't do any good. The data stored is in the form of a pre-processed template, not an image. It's not possible to reconstruct the original fingerprint/iris/whatever image because the template construction process discards data. It is possible to construct a *different* image which will match when compared to the template, but the constructed image will not really look like the person's biometric.

That said, I think there are legitimate privacy arguments against the use of biometrics. The contactless smart card chip, however, poses no security risks to the passport holder, and offers improves security and convenience -- not for the holder, but for the government who issued the passport.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[dspacemonkey]

Doesn't
'The chip will not divulge any data without an appropriate cryptographic authentication. The key used to perform the authentication is derived from data printed inside the passport.'
completely bugger up
'Contactless is quicker and easier to use. Not much, but enough to matter when you're trying to move large numbers of people through quickly. The immigration agent does not have to spend time putting the correct corner of the passport into the correct location in the correct way.'?

You're going to have to open up the passport to find said key.

Mac Drivers!!!!eleven!!!1!!

[BandwidthHog]

This page linked from the blog entry has Mac OS X downloads ($12 shareware) for both the original Intel scope and the new QX5. I have neither, so can't test it, but it's suddenly an appealing way to blow a hundred bucks!

They list the capabilities thusly:

miXscope QX5 is a Mac OS X application written specifically for the USB QX5 Computer Microscope. The software allows you to capture images, create time-lapse movies, add a text comment, add a time stamp, add an image overlay, make a measurement, apply realtime frame averaging, or add a special effect.

Of course, I just spotted the fact that Digital Blue are also the fine folks who brought us the American Idol Digital Camcorder, so that does temper my enthusiasm for handing them cash just a wee bit. But still...

The PCP Theorem

[cpeikert]

The PCP theorem is a beautiful piece of computer science and mathematics. What's it good for? Well, for starters:

• One can use it to show that not only are some problems very hard to get exact answers to, they are very hard to even get approximate answers to! In the most extreme case, it's hard to tell whether a graph has an enormous clique (taking up almost all the vertices), or just a very small one.
• PCPs can be used to build very low-communication zero-knowledge proofs. So you can prove a mathematical statement to someone, using much less communication than it takes to even write down that statement, and giving her no idea why the statement is true, even though she will be absolutely convinced that it really is true!
• PCPs can also be used to write down a (long) proof of a mathematical theorem, so that to check the theorem only requires you to look in a few random places. If the theorem is false, you'll detect it, otherwise you'll be convinced that it's true. It's as if there was a huge book of mathematics, and you opened to a random page, read a few characters, and said, "yep, it's definitely all true."

In short: amazing!

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Nitish]

Well, you don't need to feel bad about not understanding the PCP theorem. It's a difficult concept to grasp. For example, you could be an extremely intelligent and motivated high school student who can't "get it" even if you try, because you just haven't studied all the pre-requisite material you need. Though perhaps you can't go to the PCP theorem from where you are now, you might be able to understand it once you have all the background knowledge.

The original poster described the PCP theorem well, but it might not make a lot of sense to people who haven't studied algorithms or complexity theory. This might help:
A lot of problems people want to solve in practice are "optimization" problems. That is, given a problem, we want to find the optimum (minimum or maximum, as the case may be) solution. For example, if you have to travel to several cities, you might want to know the cost of the cheapest tour that visits all of them. Or you might want to know what the most efficient way of scheduling jobs on a machine is. These (and several other) problems, are what we call NP-Hard. That has a technical meaning, but in short, it takes a *really* long time (far more than is practical) to compute the best solutions for these problems. And so if you wanted a solution, instead of spending forever to find the best tour, you might settle for a tour that cost only 1% more, if you could find it quickly. Algorithms which do this are called approximation algorithms; they don't always find the best solution, but they approximate it - the solution they find is nearly as good... perhaps just a little more expensive or less inefficient.

Approximation algorithms are useful because people are often satisfied with solutions that are "good enough", even if not perfect. So for a hard problem, it's worth spending time trying to find a good approximate solution.

Enter the PCP theorem! You can use it to show that some problems can't even be approximately solved in a reasonable amount of time, and that's what the original poster was talking about.

Besides this, the theorem is important and loved because not only is it useful, it's non-obvious and beautiful

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Pseudonym]

It gets worse than patents...

When Adi Shamir (the "S" of "RSA") discovered zero-knowledge proof systems, the US millitary tried to suppress all of his work on it, including all copies of the journal in which he published. Needless to say, the mathematical establishment was unhappy with this. They relented only when they realised that they couldn't do it to an Israeli citizen.

Re:The Passport Password

[BandwidthHog]

Time to buy a farraday cage for your passport...

Gives new meaning to the old expression "Keep it under your [tinfoil] hat."

Story Arcs?

[ari_j]

Yeah, there have been a few legitimate arcs, I guess. But when you show the same episode every Saturday for a month, it's called "reruns," not an "arc." ;-D

I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Ciderx]

...after my death.

If you knew you were going to die soon, I'd have a sent mail list which would be great and populated with loads of fake emails that said things like:

"Look, Adriana. I don't care how many other Victoria's Secrets models you're going to bring, I'm NOT going to sleep with you. And, BTW, what you suggested is (a) a waste of whipped cream and (b) isn't that a rather large vegetable for something like that?"

and, of course

"Oh, I figured out how to cure cancer and the key to world peace. I'll email you in a few days with the details..."

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[antifoidulus]

What about the people you exchanged email with? Email is not like a journal, there are at least 2 parties involved and the privacy of those people is equally as important of the privacy of the soldier. My solution would be that if the people with whom the deceased communicated with should decide whether or not they want to forward the email on to the parents.

isn't that kinda pointless?

[oneishy]

So, if it has to read "machine readable data" from in the passport before it can "unlock" the data on the rfid chip, what is the point?

Why not just read the machine readable data like they do now and skip all the security / privacy implications of RFID tags that might be secure now, and might be insecure tomorrow.

I guess I don't get what the advantage of RFID is.

[Future Man 3000]

I thought the point was to be able to "read" the card without having to dig it out. But if you have to dig it out to read a key, the technology doesn't buy you anything.

It would help if they explained what the advantages of using RFID in cards would be -- i.e., what do they expect to do with it. I think it'd be helpful to make sure you pass through various checkpoints instead of loitering or sneaking around them, but is it possible if you have to authenticate access to the card?

Truly Operatic end?

[serutan]

Pretty obvious that this is a joke. I'm surprised nobody has commented on it yet. Check out the guy in the dinky raft, supposedly the support vessel. Classic.

"A local farmer spotted the drama from his kitchen window and took surprisingly sharp photos with a remarkably powerful telescopic lens."

And all the while he was milking a goat! Remarkable indeed!

Re:Privacy at death?

[GloomE]

Others with whom you've corresponded may do tho'.

Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[darkonc]

If you're physically scanning the passport, you no longer have any of the advantages of RFID over, say, magstripe or 2D barcodes.

In the meantime, You can still confirm someone's identity uniquely by the transmissions of their passport -- Who they are needs to be determined separately, but you don't need to decode an RFID to use it for tracking. -- it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[evanh23]

well, my first thought would be that if you are only thinking about using the passport at ONE workstation/checkpoint, you are absolutely correct. However, if you scan the barcode with the key for decryption at the first checkpoint and use a secure network (to transmit the decryption key to other nodes on the network), then the RFID can be read anywhere on this network.

Think about scanning your passport when you check in at the airport, then not having to show ID to get through the metal detector or at customs. There could be good value there.

OTOH, if you are only scanning the passport at the metal detector, then yes, it seems like quite a waste.

You really have to analyze a solution in relation its problem before you can make any judgement as to its utility.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[darkonc]

You don't have to send anything other than a hash on the raw data and/or the decoded data itself. The data in the RFID tag (encrypted or not) is it's own identifier. If all I want to do is track where you are, I don't even need to be able to decode the data. If I need the decoded data off of the card, I get it on the first read.

In any case, even if you give the chip adequate protection to prevent at-distance reading, then all of the advantages of the tag (vs smart-chip) go away -- but you still have the risk that (sophisticated) criminals will find ways to do distance readings... especially with changes in technology.

The problem with distance readings is multiple:

• If I know who you are, and I can scan your passport, that data will now identify you (reverse replay attack -- no need to decode).
• If cards of a given country have recognizable features, I may be able to identify someone carrying (say) a US passport.
• People with passports, generally, are likely to be 'juicy' (foreign) targets. Responding to a scan means you're carying a passport.
• There are various 'social engineering' methods to obtain the pasword. Obtaining the RFID data and the password can be done at completely unrelated times and location. Depepending on what's on them, this could be very useful for identity theft.
• Some crooks will simply obtain/trade libraries of password data, and use that in dictionary attacks against a similar bank of encrypted RFID data. (script kiddie approach)

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[swillden]

If you're physically scanning the passport, you no longer have any of the advantages of RFID over, say, magstripe or 2D barcodes.

Yes, you do, actually. Two major advantages. The first is that the chip can authenticate itself cryptographically, making forgery vastly more difficult. The second is data volumes. You could hold enough data on a magnetic stripe (though it would have to be both much larger and far more dense -- and correspondingly less reliable -- than a credit card stripe) but you'd have a hard time getting a 2D barcode that stores 40KB of data. Also, the 2D barcode can't be updated without reprinting, whereas the chip can have data added at any time, including dynamic data, like electronic passport stamps.

A magnetic stripe almost does the job, but is less secure. A 2D barcode is simply inadequate.

Operatic end

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm truly shocked at the depravity of Jon's acts, this was clearly a huge scam. Truly shocked.

I urge all downloaders to demand a refund ... err... no, I urge you all to return your copy of the downloaded browser to Opera (by e-mail, of course).

Re:I guess I don't get what the advantage of RFID

[87C751]

I thought the point was to be able to "read" the card without having to dig it out. But if you have to dig it out to read a key, the technology doesn't buy you anything.

Depends on who's buying. An unencrypted RFID passport is a wide-open invitation to identity theft. If encrypted, it merely serves as a beacon ID'ing you as American (or, as they say in some countries, a "target").

The Mind Hacks analysis

[wka]

Sine it does not seem to be posted above, here is a link to the Mind Hacks analysis of the IQ study.

My Resume #2

[eander315]

Dear Opera,

I recently applied for the soon-to-be opened positions of CEO and PR Manager at your company. My sole qualification of actually being alive has been nullified, apparently, due to the failure of Mr Sivertsen's raft within swimming distance of the Norwegian coast. In light of that event, I would like to revise my previous job request to include "raft support technician" or "sr. wetsuit admin", as these positions are now apparently available.

Thank you again for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[fafalone]

And just what kind of learning are you referring to? Sophiscated symbolic learning, inferential learning, and overall conceptual learning are very different from dry fact learning, and there is a *vast* difference between below average (95) and gifted (130) in their ability to do higher learning. This is generally at the very highest levels of skill; IQ is more a measure of potential mental capability. There's some overlap with harder work on something leading to more skills than high IQ and slacking, but when pushed to the limits the 130 IQ can go much farther than the 95 IQ. Also consider that a person with a 130 IQ is 2 full standard deviations above the mean, with their mental ability in the top 97th percentile of the population, if you're claiming someone in the 37th percentile has the same ability to learn... I'd be highly suspect of your coursework in psychology.
35 points is a HUGE difference. Now, a few points all within one standard deviation is a small difference. But a few points between scores both more than 3 standard deviations is also a huge difference. I really get tired of people thinking IQ tests are jokes, there's extensive research into it, tons and tons of science going into making each professional test. IQ is a very scientifically sound concept, if you doubt this you need to study psychology some more (as in, college courses, not mainstream therapy-only junk).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Linux QX3 drivers

[jonsmirl]

The CPiA webcam driver supports the QX3 on Linux.
CPiA webcam driver for Linux
Just turn on CONFIG_VIDEO_CPIA=m when you build your kernel. You can even use /proc to turn the microscope lights on and off.

CPiA is not made any more. Maybe the QX5 uses a similar webcam chip.

Old slashdot story about the QX3

Physically Scan

[jeffkjo1]

To obtain the key, a passport officer would need to physically scan the machine-readable text that's printed on the passport page beneath the photo

Ok, at this point, they're already scanning the passport, why not just put all the information on the magnetic strip, rather than waste money on an additional RFID chip?

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[Chris Snook]

Mean is 100. 15 points per standard deviation. There's a huge difference between 130 and 95.

Email after death

[Sloppy]

This isn't as much of a privacy invasion as you might think, since even when you were alive, you knew that the email was getting transmitted over a public network where lots of people had an opportunity to see it.

Unless your email is encrypted. If you care about privacy, make sure everyone has your pgp key and uses it.

It is up to users to protect email privacy, not ISPs and not mailbox hosts.

It's the drug companies, silly

[periol]

The lobbying done by alchohol, oil and forestry groups is where most of the US's info about the plant comes from.

I don't understand why people forget the biggest culprit in this debate, and the party that has most to lose from the legalization of marijuana: drug companies. Marijuana is superior to most of the pain-killing and/or anti-depressant drugs available, without the crippling side effects that accompany commercial drugs.

Also, don't forget that Marijuana is a MAJOR cash crop. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone. At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.

A mental scene I didn't need

[CommandLineGuy]

Quoth Opera's PR page "It was cold and wet and horrible and I was really, really scared," says Eskil Sivertsen, Opera's PR Manager who operated the raft. "The night had been crisp and starlit, and we had fallen asleep in the raft to the gentle movement of the waves. In the morning, I gave Jon two chocolate bars and some of those mini carrots he likes so much before he..." Is there something going on between Silvertsen and von Tetzchner? I'm half expecting some sort of talk about them laying on their beds, feet kicking in the air, as they talk on their princess phones to each other while listening to NSync.