Are you all fucking morons?????????? The Gonverment CAN and DOES have the ability to break ANY encyrption out there in a matter of seconds or at worst minutes! 128-bit is a joke... remember the study the French did... for only $2 million they were able to design a box that could break 128-bit DES in minutes. That undoubtably gaurantees that our Government has something equally if not a hundred times more powerful.
1) DES is only 56-bit encryption, not 128-bit.
2) If the government has a machine a hundred times more powerful than one that can break 128-bit encryption in minutes, then they can break 135-bit encryption in minutes. It's exponentially more difficult. People using, say, 4096-bit keys in PGP are going to be safe for a long time to come.
If you re-read my message, I said suppose my e-mail is to a friend elsewhere in Europe - that is Europe-Europe communications. Please pay attention!
My mistake, but I still don't think there's any expectation of European law applying if the message leaves the US, even in transit.
If you think I am naive, you are mistaken. I have been involved in datacomms in the UK for 15 years.
I'm sorry, that was partly because I misread your message regarding the Australia thing.
Also, for your information, governments tend to take a DIM view on other governments snooping on their citizens.
I didn't say that no government would care about this spying by the US; indeed, many have complained. Rather, I said that yours and mine (US and UK) don't care. This is the case because our countries have been in a joint spying venture since 1952. I'm not aware of the UK government complaining to the US about spying, or vice versa. See ECHELON Watch for more information on what I'm talking about.
Now, if the FBI 'accidentally' snoop my message to (say) someone in Australia, what happens? A US agency has (illegally?) snooped on email between two non-US citizens, both located outside the USA. Surely that's a matter for governmental concern (US and otherwise).
Newsflash: Governments spy on each other's citizens, and neither the US government nor your government would care if you complained to them about it. Also, the FBI, which tends to handle domestic law enforcement, need not "accidentally" intercept your communication, as it's public knowledge that, in the US, there is No Such Agency that intentionally monitors foreign communications.
Suppose my mail is to a friend elsewhere in Europe, this would surely contravene European privacy laws. Where does the legislation end? Is it purely a case of where (all) the intermediate servers are, or on the end points of the communication?
If you're relying on European privacy laws to protect your communications with Australia as they travel through who knows what other countries, then you're going to be disappointed. That's as bad as American tourists who travel to Singapore and are surprised to find that the harsher criminal law applies to them.
Please understand that I don't condone indiscriminate spying (or Singapore's criminal law, for that matter), but I'm amazed by the naivete.
o If ebay can block a single user, can any webmaster place de facto bans on individuals or groups of individuals? Can I create a "for whites" only web page? Can I say this page is for athiests [sic] only, all others are forbidden to load it? Can I appeal to the government to have only beautiful women load my pages by my decree?
I doubt he's being forbidden from loading eBay's pages. More likely, he's being forbidden from creating an account, and, in the process, falsely claiming that he has never been suspended or terminated from eBay.
Also, I find it amazing that you consider this a slippery slope to racism. Imagine if, in any physical private business, a customer was kicked out for swearing and disturbing the other customers, and you said, "Oh no! If this business can kick out a single customer, can any business kick out arbitrary groups of people? Can I create a business restricted to serving whites, or atheists, or beautiful women?" People would think you were being a paranoid nut.
Perhaps you can fill in the gaps between banning profane, disruptive people and banning blacks, that makes this a slippery slope to racism.
If you really want a real democracy, then I say vote for Republicans like I do. They support a small central government, which do not regulate your "evil" corporations as strongly as Democrats do on a federal level. They support local government power and control more than federal control.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have shown any ability to restrict the power of the federal government to any significant degree.
The freedoms that we don't have are freedoms that the people of the United States gave up by electing the wrong people into office. . . . If you live in a state or county that is more liberal or more conserative than average, then they should live under their own set of rules (and see what results) instead of attempting to impose those ideas on the entire frikkin country.
If you support states' rights, why are you going off like this on a post extolling McWilliams. He wanted to use medical marijuana, as legalized by his state, California. It was federal authorities who prosecuted him nonetheless. It should fall to the states to prohibit or allow narcotics as the voters see fit. The federal government should only have jurisdiction if narcotics are transported between states. Why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol on the national level?
Check out the definition of violence according to these groups. Pay close attention to the 2nd point:
We are against violence. We acknowledge the need for self-defense when confronted with the incredible amounts of violence carried out against us by the institutions that oppress. By violence we do not include property damage or swearing, but do include comments or behavior that is sexist, ageist, homophobic, racist, classist or otherwise oppressive. If engaging in property damage and/or self defense we will strive to take the necessary measures to avoid causing intentional harm to others.
These people believe the destruction of property belonging to others (IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO... since only greedy capitalists would own something anyways) is a perfectly acceptable means of furthering their own views.
What I think is interesting about this definition is that if McDonald's were to, for example, have the homes of all the members of this coalition bulldozed while they weren't home, that wouldn't count as oppression. I realize there's a distinction between a home and a business, but that definition doesn't give one.
Yeah you're right, Rosa Parks should be ashamed of herself. What your missing is that there are unjust laws and when government doesn't listen to the needs of the community people take illegal methods to change their society. You can pick a decent law and make a strawman argument out of it, but I don't know who you're trying to convince.
Speaking of strawman arguments, the post you replied to only spoke against destruction of property, so Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience is not relevant. Non-destructive civil disobedience is much more likely to garner public sympathy. If he'd organized hundreds of people to sit around the McDonald's and block access, he would still get attention, demonstrate that many people support his cause, and he could not possibly be compared to a common vandal, as he is now.
I can't help but wonder: why does Jose depend so greatly on importing his cheese to the US? Why not sell it in his own back-yard?
Oh, I see, America is the only people he can sell it to. His fellow Frenchmen don't want it: they already have plenty of other people making cheese of equal or better quality in their country. Other countries don't want it: who else but America would pay incredibly high prices for otherwise ordinary cheese with a French name.
The US has a lot of people in it. It's a huge market. Presumably there were enough people making fine cheese to supply the demand. If the demand in the US decreases due to a tariff, there will be a smaller market for producers of fine cheese and many of them will have trouble. It doesn't mean that fellow Frenchmen and countries other than the US don't want this cheese because there's something wrong with it, it means that they already have enough, because they had enough before the US instituted the tariff.
It doesn't work with French farmers attacking random American businesses.
Yeah, I have no clue why attacking McDonald's is necessary in the fight against American cheese manufacturers. That seems kind of dumb.
So that's the whole central issue : do you consider food production to be a "batch" job, or a fine art ? If it's a batch, then you're right and it can be industrialised. Which is the idea that the US, by virtue of McDonalds, GMing, hormones, etc, is propagating. But some people, especially outside the US, think food production is a craft, and should survive the same way other medieval crafts that matter still persist.
It will survive if said people care enough to buy handmade food, and to pay more for it. If less people want handmade food, producers of it will hit rough times. Not all of them will go out of business, because there will always be some people willing to pay for handmade food, but many will go out of business. That's just the way the world works.
The DMCA makes you responsible to remove something that you are specifically informed of, such as when Metallica gave Napster a list of 300,000 specific users.
This is completely different from the injunction RIAA is seeking, in which they want Napster's entire service shut down, despite the fact that they haven't even been able to provide a list of all songs to which they claim potential copyright violations.
This would be like going to an ISP providing web hosting and saying, "There are a lot of files on your servers that violate copyright, could you shut down your web server?", rather than giving them a list of files to remove.
That argument doesn't work in the particular case of Caddilac. A large part of the reason people buy Caddilacs is to demonstrate to others that the can afford to spend money. They demonstrate that better by buying a new car every few years than by holding onto the same car until the engine dies.
Perhaps the answer is that people don't want it enough to pay for it, and were paying for it before without knowing it because of the bundling of the phone price with the phone service.
I'm sure that in most cases, the incremental cost of making the product higher quality would be more than offset by the additional lifetime of the product. If people were paying for quality construction it without knowing, they were probably paying less per unit time than nowadays. Higher quality products are often less expensive in the long run, but consumers tend to go just by sticker price.
Theoretically, capitalism should result in the creation of the most cost-efficient possible product for both the manufacturer and the consumer. However, capitalism fails to take into account the fact that consumers are, on average, not rational.
Lack of variation in the soundscape (like silence or white noise) frequently causes the ringing to increase in volume, often becoming intrusive or painful.
So how does making the computer silent help, if it causes the ringing to increase in volume? The computer's either going to produce silence or white noise, if both of those are a problem, what difference does it make?
I caught the smiley at the end, but still, what NASA does is far from advertising. Putting their logos on shuttles (and pretty much everything they send up) is more public relations. They are trying use this to increase public awareness of their existence; without public awareness and support, NASA would cease to exist. Corporations, on the other hand, are trying to push their image just to sell their product to consumers and draw an even bigger profit.
OK...let me see if I've got this straight.
When NASA puts logos on stuff, it's "public relations" designed to increase public awareness of NASA, so that they get money from the public indirectly through taxes and continue to exist, and that's GOOD.
When a corporation puts logos on stuff, it's "advertising" designed to push public awareness of their image, so that they get money from the public by selling their product to consumers in exchange for profits, enabling them to continue to exist, and that's BAD.
I'm so glad you pointed out that clear dichotomy between "public relations" and "advertising".
Re:Explain to stupid: Why faster?
on
Linux BIOS
·
· Score: 1
Why would LinuxBios be faster than a normal one? It seems that the memory check seems to take most of the time on my machines... I'd assume there's some setup that Windows uses that Linux doesn't that could be scrapped, but I don't know any specifics.
You've got it backwards. The point isn't to reduce the BIOS boot time, the point is to reduce the kernel boot time by incorporating the kernel into the BIOS.
The nuclear power industry, ever mindful of its profits, naturally tries to be oblivious to all this.
That doesn't make any sense. If the overall net electricity generated is zero, they can't make a profit, period. Why would a state of denial help them generate profits?
"H. Export controls: except for export to canada for use in canada by canadian citizens, the program may not be exported outside of the united states or to any foreign entity or "foreign person" as defined by the u.s. government regulations, including without limitation anyone who is not a citizen, national or lawful permanent resident of the united states. By using the program, you are warranting that you are not a "foreign person" or under the control of a "foreign person""
Well, in all due fairness to Corel, I'm sure they're only including this section because of stupid encryption export laws. It's not Corel's fault that such laws exist.
If the WIndowsOS is only worth $17, then what's BeOS worth?
It doesn't matter how much each share is worth, because each company has a different total number of shares. What you want to compare is market capitalization. For example, using the $17 figure:
Hm..they say "135 feet long and 22 ft high" of which i have no idea what is, then goes on to add "could have weighed up to 150 tons." Didn't they just change measuring system there? Shouldn't they measure it in pounds or something *G
There are both US and metric tons. I assume that they were using US.
For people in countries that use a sane measurement system: 135 ft = 41.1 m 22 ft = 6.7 m 150 US tons = 136000 kg = 136 metric tons
About the whole increase in gravity thing, isn't it theorized that the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter used to be a planet? If there used to be a planet there wouldn't gravity have been greater on earth?
No. The effect would be imperceptible, and that's being generous.
I've just assumed that the gravity guy is a kook. If the problems your theory creates are much, much worse than the problems it solves, that could be a sign that you're grasping at straws.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you all fucking morons?????????? The Gonverment CAN and DOES have the ability to break ANY encyrption out there in a matter of seconds or at worst minutes! 128-bit is a joke... remember the study the French did... for only $2 million they were able to design a box that could break 128-bit DES in minutes. That undoubtably gaurantees that our Government has something equally if not a hundred times more powerful.
1) DES is only 56-bit encryption, not 128-bit.
2) If the government has a machine a hundred times more powerful than one that can break 128-bit encryption in minutes, then they can break 135-bit encryption in minutes. It's exponentially more difficult. People using, say, 4096-bit keys in PGP are going to be safe for a long time to come.
If you re-read my message, I said suppose my e-mail is to a friend elsewhere in Europe - that is Europe-Europe communications. Please pay attention!
My mistake, but I still don't think there's any expectation of European law applying if the message leaves the US, even in transit.
If you think I am naive, you are mistaken. I have been involved in datacomms in the UK for 15 years.
I'm sorry, that was partly because I misread your message regarding the Australia thing.
Also, for your information, governments tend to take a DIM view on other governments snooping on their citizens.
I didn't say that no government would care about this spying by the US; indeed, many have complained. Rather, I said that yours and mine (US and UK) don't care. This is the case because our countries have been in a joint spying venture since 1952. I'm not aware of the UK government complaining to the US about spying, or vice versa. See ECHELON Watch for more information on what I'm talking about.
Now, if the FBI 'accidentally' snoop my message to (say) someone in Australia, what happens? A US agency has (illegally?) snooped on email between two non-US citizens, both located outside the USA. Surely that's a matter for governmental concern (US and otherwise).
Newsflash: Governments spy on each other's citizens, and neither the US government nor your government would care if you complained to them about it. Also, the FBI, which tends to handle domestic law enforcement, need not "accidentally" intercept your communication, as it's public knowledge that, in the US, there is No Such Agency that intentionally monitors foreign communications.
Suppose my mail is to a friend elsewhere in Europe, this would surely contravene European privacy laws. Where does the legislation end? Is it purely a case of where (all) the intermediate servers are, or on the end points of the communication?
If you're relying on European privacy laws to protect your communications with Australia as they travel through who knows what other countries, then you're going to be disappointed. That's as bad as American tourists who travel to Singapore and are surprised to find that the harsher criminal law applies to them.
Please understand that I don't condone indiscriminate spying (or Singapore's criminal law, for that matter), but I'm amazed by the naivete.
o If ebay can block a single user, can any webmaster place de facto bans on individuals or groups of individuals? Can I create a "for whites" only web page? Can I say this page is for athiests [sic] only, all others are forbidden to load it? Can I appeal to the government to have only beautiful women load my pages by my decree?
I doubt he's being forbidden from loading eBay's pages. More likely, he's being forbidden from creating an account, and, in the process, falsely claiming that he has never been suspended or terminated from eBay.
Also, I find it amazing that you consider this a slippery slope to racism. Imagine if, in any physical private business, a customer was kicked out for swearing and disturbing the other customers, and you said, "Oh no! If this business can kick out a single customer, can any business kick out arbitrary groups of people? Can I create a business restricted to serving whites, or atheists, or beautiful women?" People would think you were being a paranoid nut.
Perhaps you can fill in the gaps between banning profane, disruptive people and banning blacks, that makes this a slippery slope to racism.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
If you really want a real democracy, then I say vote for Republicans like I do. They support a small central government, which do not regulate your "evil" corporations as strongly as Democrats do on a federal level. They support local government power and control more than federal control.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have shown any ability to restrict the power of the federal government to any significant degree.
The freedoms that we don't have are freedoms that the people of the United States gave up by electing the wrong people into office. . . . If you live in a state or county that is more liberal or more conserative than average, then they should live under their own set of rules (and see what results) instead of attempting to impose those ideas on the entire frikkin country.
If you support states' rights, why are you going off like this on a post extolling McWilliams. He wanted to use medical marijuana, as legalized by his state, California. It was federal authorities who prosecuted him nonetheless. It should fall to the states to prohibit or allow narcotics as the voters see fit. The federal government should only have jurisdiction if narcotics are transported between states. Why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol on the national level?
Maybe, but sit ins violate property rights, namely the right to not have tresspassers. The OP was directly addressing property rights.
I stand corrected about the OP, but I would still prefer the sit-in over damaging property.
Check out the definition of violence according to these groups. Pay close attention to the 2nd point:
We are against violence. We acknowledge the need for self-defense when confronted with the incredible amounts of violence carried out against us by the institutions that oppress. By violence we do not include property damage or swearing, but do include comments or behavior that is sexist, ageist, homophobic, racist, classist or otherwise oppressive. If engaging in property damage and/or self defense we will strive to take the necessary measures to avoid causing intentional harm to others.
These people believe the destruction of property belonging to others (IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO... since only greedy capitalists would own something anyways) is a perfectly acceptable means of furthering their own views.
What I think is interesting about this definition is that if McDonald's were to, for example, have the homes of all the members of this coalition bulldozed while they weren't home, that wouldn't count as oppression. I realize there's a distinction between a home and a business, but that definition doesn't give one.
Yeah you're right, Rosa Parks should be ashamed of herself. What your missing is that there are unjust laws and when government doesn't listen to the needs of the community people take illegal methods to change their society. You can pick a decent law and make a strawman argument out of it, but I don't know who you're trying to convince.
Speaking of strawman arguments, the post you replied to only spoke against destruction of property, so Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience is not relevant. Non-destructive civil disobedience is much more likely to garner public sympathy. If he'd organized hundreds of people to sit around the McDonald's and block access, he would still get attention, demonstrate that many people support his cause, and he could not possibly be compared to a common vandal, as he is now.
Because you don't like their food. Why eat food you don't like?
I can't help but wonder: why does Jose depend so greatly on importing his cheese to the US? Why not sell it in his own back-yard?
Oh, I see, America is the only people he can sell it to. His fellow Frenchmen don't want it: they already have plenty of other people making cheese of equal or better quality in their country. Other countries don't want it: who else but America would pay incredibly high prices for otherwise ordinary cheese with a French name.
The US has a lot of people in it. It's a huge market. Presumably there were enough people making fine cheese to supply the demand. If the demand in the US decreases due to a tariff, there will be a smaller market for producers of fine cheese and many of them will have trouble. It doesn't mean that fellow Frenchmen and countries other than the US don't want this cheese because there's something wrong with it, it means that they already have enough, because they had enough before the US instituted the tariff.
It doesn't work with French farmers attacking random American businesses.
Yeah, I have no clue why attacking McDonald's is necessary in the fight against American cheese manufacturers. That seems kind of dumb.
So that's the whole central issue : do you consider food production to be a "batch" job, or a fine art ? If it's a batch, then you're right and it can be industrialised. Which is the idea that the US, by virtue of McDonalds, GMing, hormones, etc, is propagating. But some people, especially outside the US, think food production is a craft, and should survive the same way other medieval crafts that matter still persist.
It will survive if said people care enough to buy handmade food, and to pay more for it. If less people want handmade food, producers of it will hit rough times. Not all of them will go out of business, because there will always be some people willing to pay for handmade food, but many will go out of business. That's just the way the world works.
The DMCA makes you responsible to remove something that you are specifically informed of, such as when Metallica gave Napster a list of 300,000 specific users.
This is completely different from the injunction RIAA is seeking, in which they want Napster's entire service shut down, despite the fact that they haven't even been able to provide a list of all songs to which they claim potential copyright violations.
This would be like going to an ISP providing web hosting and saying, "There are a lot of files on your servers that violate copyright, could you shut down your web server?", rather than giving them a list of files to remove.
Please don't feed the trolls :)
That argument doesn't work in the particular case of Caddilac. A large part of the reason people buy Caddilacs is to demonstrate to others that the can afford to spend money. They demonstrate that better by buying a new car every few years than by holding onto the same car until the engine dies.
Perhaps the answer is that people don't want it enough to pay for it, and were paying for it before without knowing it because of the bundling of the phone price with the phone service.
I'm sure that in most cases, the incremental cost of making the product higher quality would be more than offset by the additional lifetime of the product. If people were paying for quality construction it without knowing, they were probably paying less per unit time than nowadays. Higher quality products are often less expensive in the long run, but consumers tend to go just by sticker price.
Theoretically, capitalism should result in the creation of the most cost-efficient possible product for both the manufacturer and the consumer. However, capitalism fails to take into account the fact that consumers are, on average, not rational.
Lack of variation in the soundscape (like silence or white noise) frequently causes the ringing to increase in volume, often becoming intrusive or painful.
So how does making the computer silent help, if it causes the ringing to increase in volume? The computer's either going to produce silence or white noise, if both of those are a problem, what difference does it make?
You're reading the thread incorrectly. You apparently didn't read the actual parent post of the post you replied to, because it had a score of 0.
I caught the smiley at the end, but still, what NASA does is far from advertising. Putting their logos on shuttles (and pretty much everything they send up) is more public relations. They are trying use this to increase public awareness of their existence; without public awareness and support, NASA would cease to exist. Corporations, on the other hand, are trying to push their image just to sell their product to consumers and draw an even bigger profit.
OK...let me see if I've got this straight.
When NASA puts logos on stuff, it's "public relations" designed to increase public awareness of NASA, so that they get money from the public indirectly through taxes and continue to exist, and that's GOOD.
When a corporation puts logos on stuff, it's "advertising" designed to push public awareness of their image, so that they get money from the public by selling their product to consumers in exchange for profits, enabling them to continue to exist, and that's BAD.
I'm so glad you pointed out that clear dichotomy between "public relations" and "advertising".
Why would LinuxBios be faster than a normal one? It seems that the memory check seems to take most of the time on my machines... I'd assume there's some setup that Windows uses that Linux doesn't that could be scrapped, but I don't know any specifics.
You've got it backwards. The point isn't to reduce the BIOS boot time, the point is to reduce the kernel boot time by incorporating the kernel into the BIOS.
The nuclear power industry, ever mindful of its profits, naturally tries to be oblivious to all this.
That doesn't make any sense. If the overall net electricity generated is zero, they can't make a profit, period. Why would a state of denial help them generate profits?
"H. Export controls: except for export to canada for use in canada by canadian citizens, the program may not be exported outside of the united states or to any foreign entity or "foreign person" as defined by the u.s. government regulations, including without limitation anyone who is not a citizen, national or lawful permanent resident of the united states. By using the program, you are warranting that you are not a "foreign person" or under the control of a "foreign person""
Well, in all due fairness to Corel, I'm sure they're only including this section because of stupid encryption export laws. It's not Corel's fault that such laws exist.
If the WIndowsOS is only worth $17, then what's BeOS worth?
It doesn't matter how much each share is worth, because each company has a different total number of shares. What you want to compare is market capitalization. For example, using the $17 figure:
Windows: $90 billion
RHAT: $25 billion
BeOS: $0.3 billion
Hm..they say "135 feet long and 22 ft high" of which i have no idea what is, then goes on to add "could have weighed up to 150 tons." Didn't they just change measuring system there? Shouldn't they measure it in pounds or something *G
There are both US and metric tons. I assume that they were using US.
For people in countries that use a sane measurement system:
135 ft = 41.1 m
22 ft = 6.7 m
150 US tons = 136000 kg = 136 metric tons
About the whole increase in gravity thing, isn't it theorized that the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter used to be a planet? If there used to be a planet there wouldn't gravity have been greater on earth?
No. The effect would be imperceptible, and that's being generous.
I've just assumed that the gravity guy is a kook. If the problems your theory creates are much, much worse than the problems it solves, that could be a sign that you're grasping at straws.