This tracker is an entirely reasonable way of dealing with repeated extreme truancy.
However, when four absences are 'repeated extreme truancy', something is seriously wrong.
Especially as I know, from my time in school, that a good portion of the reasonable excuses do not count as 'excused'. Like just being sick without visiting the doctor. Someone gets a bad cold with a sinus headache so bad they can't function, they're not going to the doctor, no one can afford that. They'll just be out for two days.
In fact, when you think about, requiring a doctor's excuse is a little bit classist in the first place. Rich kids can afford to go to the doctor for almost anything, and get a nice excuse. Even pretending that all those excuses are entirely legitimate, that the rich kid really couldn't go to school, that doesn't change the fact that rich people will go to the doctor, and hence have excused absences instead of unexcused ones for their twisted ankle or stomach flu.
Likewise, kids only get excused absences for specific funerals, which is insane when you think about it. Sure, thanks to public outrage, if an immediate family member dies, you get a day out and a funeral day, or whatever...but what if your family is flying to Great Uncle Charlie's funeral across the country?
Four days is less than the personal leave days that companies have, and on top of that they end up getting used for sick days because a doctor didn't sign off on them, and on top of that children often have to deal with other stuff, like their parents being unable to get them to school or pay a babysitter to keep them at home when they go on trips.
I know that I repeatedly banged up against the eight days or so I got when a kid, and I NEVER, literally never, skipped school. I couldn't, my mother was a teacher in the same school system, and they'd call her.
Someone else mentioned this, but it's worth pointing out that in actual real life, large key AES encryption is not breakable. Period. It's not really up for debate. (And if it was up for debate, we've got a lot bigger problems than secure computers drives. Like actual radio transmissions.)
So you do not need an entire drive, you just need a tiny 32meg flash drive with the key on it. Cheap as dirt to have made.
I've actually suggested exactly this before for the NSA when we were talking about them destroying drives. They shouldn't do that. Instead, every computer should be set to boot up and take the key off a locked-in flash drive. Some sort of internal or locked USB enclosure. Or an SD card.
Then, when reusing or even selling the computer, you don't even need to wipe the computer. You just destroy the flash drive.
Um, if the attacked 'borrows' one disk, he can't figure anything out. If he borrows it a dozen time, sure...but how?
More importantly, what the hell are you talking about? Instead of borrowing the same thing a dozen times, why doesn't he just borrow both?
Reusing a one time pad is bad if, and only if, an attacker could see more than one output for it.
It's perfectly fine to keep reusing a one-time pad if the previously encrypted message did not, and could not have been, and could not be in the future, intercepted.
It only counts as 'reuse' if it's intercepted twice, not if it's used twice, especially when, like this, the old message overwrite the new.
A part of the system being slower does not automatically make the system slower. It depends on how fast the rest of the system is.
And all O(n) means is 'the process takes a linear amount of time'. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Merely copying the data from one place to another is O(n), and the drive does that at least twice.
Developers already choose what platforms to run their game on. It has nothing to do with Steam. It has solely to do with the size of the platform and the ease of the port.
I bet you can't find a single developer who decided to port their game to Mac because Steam is there. In fact, Valve itself didn't decided to port Half-life to Mac because Steam was there...it was the other way around, they decided to port Steam because they were already porting Half-life and other games on that engine.
No one has ever said 'Hey, a slightly better distribution channel, I'll spend money porting the game despite the fact I wasn't planning to originally.'. Sure, it might make it slightly more likely they'd plan that in the first place, 5% more likely or something, but the idea that it's the thing that's magically going to push Linux gaming over the edge is crazy.
The threats were against Aaron Barr, and separate from the booth vandalization.
And, here it is again.
The 'death threats' Aaron Burr got we via Facebook, which is not, you know, a very Anonymously forum. Some people may indeed be threatening his life....but it's not Anonymous.
Arron Burr, as part of his misinformation campaign, deliberately conflates the Facebook death threats with the Anonymous IRC channels, where they discussed harassing the booth and heckling the speakers, which is probably where the sign comes from. My God, heckling!
The news media refuses to cover this in any sane manner, and slashdot is going right along with it.
Just look at the headline itself. It implies that they're dropping out RSA because they were 'attacked' by Anonymous. Except the 'attack' there isn't the hack...it's apparently the damn piece of paper that Anonymous left. News flash: That ain't an 'attack'. It's not 'harassment'. It's barely a 'protest'.
Just keep playing into the narrative, slashdot. Go right along with the media, try to figure out some way that Anonymous is the real bad guy here.
Because stealing emails and protesting at a conference with signs? Totally worse than whatever the Bank of American is desperately trying to conceal and spin that Wikileaks is about to release, by going after journalists who are 'friends' of Wikileaks. And it's totally worse than the Chamber of Commerce's campaign to target progressive activists and their families.
Anonymous are often assholes, but in this instances they're gray hat hackers who broke in and stole evidence of two conspiracies and exposed an entire system of lawlessness, an entire group of companies that feels they can operate outside the law to 'silence' people with malicious lies and fraud.
And the goddamn 'Nerds for News' is just mindlessly repeating whatever the media says about them. These sort of people used to be our fucking heroes, or, at least, we used to pretend they were in movies.
We can argue about how much they 'really' are heroes, and if we want this level of vigilantism, but that's nowhere near what's going on here, where apparently they're one step away from terrorists attacking poor defenseless security companies who never hurt anyone a day in their life.
Dude, you are the one spreading rumors and gossip. You apparently consider anything labeled "leaked emails" as 100% accurate and truthful. No way could someone have altered or added anything as complicated as an email....
Jesus Christ, more morons.
Do you people not pay any attention to this story? Are slashdot readers really that poorly informed?
So your theory is that of all the involved people, HBGray, Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, Hunton & Williams, John Woods, all of them...
You believe that none of them have actually looked at the leaked emails, (at least, the cited ones that make them look bad) and the actual emails on their servers and compared them? Or if they did, they just remained silent about the fact the emails were forged?
Okay, I'm going to tell you the most important goddamn rule of a scandal, period, and you can look abased and crawl back to wherever you came from:
Rule #1 of scandals: You do not invent your own disputed parts of scandals.
If people involved in a scandal dispute part of an accusation, you can sit there and argue who is telling the true.
If they do not dispute something that makes them look bad, if they do not make a claim that something is untrue, you do not get to walk in and make that claim yourself in a discussion. If the thing was not true, they would have said that.
None of the companies involved around the edge, or HBGray itself, have asserted that a single email from the leak is forged. In fact, they are acting as if they are not forged. So we cannot argue if that's true or not. That is simply not even a possible argument to be having, you idiot.
The vandalism was obviously the sign.
If Anonymous actually was a real person, they could sue HBGary for slander with that statement. Vandalism is a crime. Laying a sign on a table is not that crime. You cannot accuse people of criminal actions they have committed. (Granted, they have committed crimes...but not that one.)
Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce believe the emails are true, and deny knowledge of any wrongdoing, and Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies believe the emails are true, and deny knowledge of any wrongdoing.
In fact, Palantir has thrown one of their own people under the bus with the excuse he was inexplicably working on this multimillion dollar project without supervision, which rather seems to imply his, and their, involvement was real.
HBGary has not even 'denied' them, although they've refused to state they're true, or comment at all.
Everyone already knows the emails are true, you fucking moron. Absolutely no one is denying them in any way, shape, or form., not even the parties involved.
Except you, you fucker, who has to come up with some reason that this is all a light and the heroic Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America couldn't do anything wrong.
it's always funny when morons show up during scandals and make excuses the people accused aren't making.
Yes, all those emails are made up, and none of the people involved in this made up email exchanges, after being asked by the press about them, thought 'Hey, wait a second, I didn't sent or receive any of those emails. This is all a fake! Maybe that should be my response. I could tell people that!'
...
'No, wait, instead I'll pretend it's all true, but that I didn't know what was going on. I'm sure that will make me look better than pointing out it's a fake, and I'm sure the forgers won't just make up new emails to better incriminate me. That's a better plan!'
No they didn't. Gimmicks in the tax code (roth IRA, capitol gains) and fears of Y2K, along with technological efficiencies spurred an increase in revenue at a time when increasing expenditures wasn't as necessary gave you that illusion. But make no mistake, it was not sustainable at all and the very next budget showed that.
I didn't say that it was 'sustainable', I have no idea why you hallucinated I said that. I didn't even say they did it.
I said they came close.
Your also off with the largest expansion of the federal government in decades. The democrats did not oppose that except when they thought it was politically advantageous to them. You cannot say they are against something when they sit by silently allowing it to happen
What about Medicare part D? What about Ronald Reagan's expansion of the government?
Do I really need to sit here and list all the ways that Republicans have made the government larger?
They are neither. And don't turn this into a democrat verses republican. It's not and never was.. If you are confused, I suggest you sort that out.. here is a hint though, liberal != democrat as well as conservative != republican. In case you don't understand that, here is some plain English, liberal or conservative does not equal democrat or republican.
What the hell are you talking about? He said he was a conservative, I suggested he'd probably be better off being a conservative Democrat, because the Republicans actually sucked more at following conservative ideals than Democrats. (Although I also pointed out that 'conservative' was almost meaningless at this point, so he probably just wants to explicitly state what he thinks as a prefix instead saying 'conservative'.)
I think it's you who doesn't understand that conservative != republican. conservative != republican is the entire point I'm trying to make.
I did no such thing. Stop confusing your misinformed idiocy with something I said.
Oh, i forgot you were one of the idiots who think that 'all parties are bad, so I'm going to stand over here and pretend I'm talking about something else'.
Why do you interject yourself into political debate if your solution is 'Call yourself a conservative, and vote for no one.'? Leave us alone, you nihilism.
And now it is obvious as my suggestion implied that you do see giving everyone a tax cut as giving handouts to the rich. So that argument failed from the start.
It's really funny how you claim I just make thing up, when you stated outright you were just guessing my belief, and then you have it 'confirmed' by, um, nothing at all. To repeat for people keeping track at home, I called the thing you brought up a 'tax cut', which is a pretty neutral description of it.
You can keep insisting that I think of it as a 'handout', but all I said, in respond to your first hallucination about me mentioning it, that it doesn't have any positive benefits. I didn't even technically say it was a bad thing, just that it was not a useful thing.
The general welfare does not mean anythign close to what you think it does. Furthermore, the entire argument of it meaning handouts to the poor is a recent argument in an attempt to change the entirte meaning of the constitution without an amendment.
I think you think you're arguing with some sort of classic liberal or something, but, you know what? I don't actually care what it was intended to mean. The Supreme Court agrees with me. Arguing about that is akin to arguing whether or not state have a constitutional right to secede from the Union.
You want to argue against constitutional violations, how about we start with the ones that deprive people of their rights? Like holding people without charges, or seizing property without trial, or a government that can
Anyone who calls themselves 'generally pro-life' is probably someone who is actually pro-choice.
Here's a pop quiz: How long should women got to jail for getting an abortion?
If you find the idea of that silly...yeah, you're not really pro-life. You're in the vast majority of the pro-choice people who want abortions to be legal but less common. You know, the vast majority of Democrats. (And Republicans, for that matter.)
As for pro-gun ownership, I point to the Democratic response to the recent political attempted assassination and shooting spree.
A perfect time to ban guns, right? A gun ban in the weeks after the shooting could easily be forced through Congress, no matter how poorly conceived.
Well, at no point has any elected Democratic even vaguely suggested banning any sorts of guns at all. At most, they have suggested banning 30-bullet clips for handguns, which are essentially only used in mass-shootings of people. (No one needs 30 bullets in self-defense or to deter crime or to go hunting.) And they want to close the 'gun show' loophole, which is essentially basically just a way to get around criminal checks.
That shows how much Democrats want to ban guns...not at all. They could have marched in and demanded passage of all sorts of stuff, and probably had enough political pressure on the House to get it through. Instead, a half-hearted attempt was made to re-ban 30 round clips that isn't even gong to happen.
If you're scared that Democrats are pro-gun-control...well, you're very very outdated.
I should probably make this a form letter or something, as those two specific policies are what all 'conservatives' cite as a example of why they are 'really' Republicans...except that they're misdescribed their abortion stance as 'pro-life' when it's not, and they're paranoid about the Democrats trying to do something that Democrats haven't actually tried to do in quite some time, and don't care about at all on the national level.
Yes, the Republicans have been trashing the meaning of fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as it was intended before the neocons started contorting it.
If you think it's the 'neocons' that started misusing it, you're sadly mistaken. Reagan misused it also.
Well, at least people are just harassing them at public events where they show up to give speeches. No one's harassing HBGary's family and friends yet.
You know, like HBGary planned to do to Wikileak supporters, or Chamber of Commerce protesters.
What, can you not read the article either? It clearly says that HBGary pulled out of RSA because of the 'vandalism and threats', not because of the hack.
So the headline was referring to the 'vandalism and threats' as 'an attack', presuming it was just simplifying and ignore 'threats'.
Remember, folks, on slashdot, placing a sign on a table is an 'attack'.
Or maybe those 'IRC threats' that only HBGary, an organization with a business plan to sell lying services, knows about, are the 'attacks' slashdot is talking about.
Can we please cover this in some sort of fucking objective manner, and stop repeating everything HBGary says as the the truth when they are demonstrable, blatant liars who have been hired to slander Anonymous? They actually admit this. That is their actual job, to lie about Wikileaks, Anonymous, Glenn Greenwald, and who knows else.
Can we perhaps at least have them 'Claiming to be attacked by Anonymous' or something? I don't know what the fuck is going on here, but it is utterly insane that their statements can appear as actual fact in headlines here.
Having a sign put on your booth is not being 'attacked', you goddamn fucktards. Nor is it a 'threat'. I know the article claims that,but it's clearly insane nonsense.
What the fuck is wrong with you, CmdrTaco? Why are you repeating lies?
And what is wrong with the people who here repeat the 'vandalism' claim without actually look at what was done? Laying a poster on top of someone else's table is not even legally vandalism, and that's a crime with a pretty low bar.
Perhaps, you know, we shouldn't be repeating claims that HGBGray makes, an organization that has been demonstrated they will lie about people they are paid to lie about.
The democrats have never been "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government" in recent time unless there has been some political advantage to making the statement.
Um, yes, they have. The Democrats actually came pretty close to balancing the budget, and didn't, for example, preside over the largest expansion in the federal government in decades, the Department of Homeland Security.
You can argue they aren't very "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government", which is true, but they are, by any actual objective measurement, moreso than the Republicans. It's only in crazy stupid 'common knowledge' that the Republicans are somehow more those things.
I'm willing to bet that you are likely calling a tax cut that the rich enjoy also a handout.
In the exact same post you claim the Republicans are "fiscal conservative", you offhandedly mention the tax cut for income over $250,000 that Republicans forced, which cost $20 billion this year and can't conceivable have any positive benefit. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the Republican POV.
At least is does until there is an actual constitutional amendment giving the federal government the authority to deal with it.
Or until you learn what the fuck the 'general welfare' means.
I don't know how that could possibly be 'easier'. Just call yourself a Democrat and get it over with.
The word 'conservative' is almost utterly meaningless at this point in time, after a two decades of the Republicans shitting on it.
The mental associations of the term 'fiscal conservative' and 'limited Federal government' could only take so rank hypocrisy and blatant government handouts to the rich before blowing up. Around 2009, they devolved into the same association as 'blargal flargal', that is, none at all.
They are just mouth flapping at this point. It is utterly useless to actually include them in a description of yourself. I know you know what they mean, I know what you wished they meant, but they cannot actually be used to communicate anymore.
Within 10 years or so, the word 'conservative' itself will do the same thing. 'What are your political leanings?' 'Oh, I'm a blargal flargal who believes in flewber norf, but with a safety net.' Really, it's utter gibberish now....words can only be misused so much before they stop functioning as actual words.
Call yourself a 'balanced budget local solution Democrat' or something.
Indeed, and even without a Trinity, other Abramic religions do this somewhat, although not as much as Christianity.
Jews have all the angels, and the Adversary. (Which is not really the same as 'the devil', which is a rather random hacked-together-from-unrelated-verses idea in Christianity)
Although they at least have the fact that all those entities work for God. None of them actually have free will.
Muslims not only have all that, they also throw in the Djinn, which are, believe it or not, God's creation from a parallel universe, and do have free will. (Although it's pretty stupid to worship them or ask them for anything, as they are usually not helpful in any manner.)
Yes, except that Christian God only get three views, and apparently only one on earth at a time.
Actually, it's possible that only the Holy Spirit or Jesus can be here, and not 'God', there's some dispute over which the burning bush was Him or the Holy Spirit. Alternately, that could be yet _another_ avatar of Him, although one that everyone's forgotten about, and possibly doesn't exist anymore.
Either way, many Christians seem to forget that 'God' supposedly showed up here once, and think of Him much like Brahman, as an almost impersonal force.
Although, from what I understand (Not being a Hindu), Brahman sorta is the universe, where the Christian God is more seen as a force existing outside it. But neither of them can conceptually exist 'within' the universe....it would be like having a computer (Brahman) or the programmer (Christian God) show up inside a VR simulation as themselves instead of as a avatar.
But some Christians do think of him as an actual entity that could be walking around doing stuff.
I suspect that most people who claim to be on the political right(1) can't stand Beck. The guy is making acrostics to prove his point, for Pete's sake. Acrostics!
That is not the way that sane people behave. Sane people do not see secret messages in the name of ACORN or whatever he's decided to yammer about today.
1) Of course, about a third of people who claim to be on the political right aren't actually on the political right, either. The vast majority of people think they are more conservative than they actually are, with a good portion of 'moderates' and even many 'conservatives', when quizzed on actual policy, end up to the left of Democrats on 90% of the issues.
Nope, I was just pointing out that parents might have legit claim that past the age 13 or so, most children are at least moderately unobserved at some point in time. They go to the mall in groups, they visit friends, etc. Parents cannot, and, for the sake of the child actually turning into an adult, actually observe their children literally 24/7.
And hence parents have a legit complaint that, I dunno, gas stations were giving out free samples of cigarettes to their kids. Or selling porn, or, yes, violent video games, or tattoos.
The problem is we've already recognized this as society, and hence don't let children buy certain classes of things.
It's entirely reasonable to point out _new_ things that belong in that group. Video games, for example, are one of the newest, getting put in that group about a decade ago. In another decade it will be something else. If parents are complaining about that, fine.
If parents are complaining about things we already restrict from children without their permission, well, my solution is to get them to sign a piece of paper stating that such a thing is damaging to their children, and then threaten to take their kids away for the crime of corrupting a minor after we point out they bought it themselves, warning label and at all.
I wish people would start mentioning that as an alternative, pointing out 'Well, you think this game is so bad and harmful to children, and yet you yourselves bought it, so the rather obvious solution is to remove the children from the damaging influence...namely, you. You seem incapable of understanding the danger in the world, and have probably also purchased your child a table saw also. You are not a fit parent, by your own definition of 'harm'.'
Then the rest of the adults, the entire society that has made things somewhat more inconvenient for ourselves at the insistence of retarded parents who then refuse to actually understand the system we made for them and just wander around buying kids violent video games and porn and probably cocaine and hookers and shotguns (who knows WTF they're thinking?) too, will finally get some peace.
Meanwhile, I have no problems with people who actually understand that kids are not as weak as we seem to assume for some reason, and, frankly, if I had a kid, I'd be buying them M rated games at 14 or 15 unless the entire premise of the game was somehow horrible.
The problem is that a lot of us use I to quote, and they are supposedly still supported, they're right there in the Allowed HTML list. A decade of comments are on this site quoted with the I tag.
And now no one can understand them.
It's all well and good for individual users to fix the problem on their computer, but that doesn't solve the problem for 99.99999% of the users, who probably don't even understand why people seem to have started refusing to mark quoted comments in any manner.
I'd be happy if I could just disable the stupid background updaters.
File Hippo's updater does fine.
Here's a fun question: Why are they background processes? Windows does have a scheduler, so it would be trivially easy to, you know, actually schedule the updates.
Or just update on startup.
But, no, the application has to run something in the background. It's goddamn absurd.
Oh, if you're talking about the state trooper, I have since learned that he was in a car with an 'automated' system that switches into gear by push-button...so apparently, the controller won't let him shift while moving.
Like I said, it's absurd they allow such cars on the road. They mandate rear-view windows, but not an obvious emergency cut off.
My comment that 'anyone caught in a runaway car' still stands for all cars with actual engine cut offs, but this guy had both the normal ways of cutting off the car removed from him. (And he was, in fact, in a rental.)
As for cutting off the engine in a normal car, it's all fine. The steering lock of a car is base on if it's in park or not, not whether or not the engine is running.
And you won't be steering 'with some difficulty'. Power steering works off the vacuum of the engine, and that keeps being created as long as the engine is being turned (Which is a while, when you're using it to stop the car.), and on top of that the vacuum doesn't go away until 'used' by steering. Same with power brakes.
Basically, as long as you (And your engine) are moving at a reasonable speed, you'll have vacuum-assisted steering and brakes. Once you're almost stopped, they'll go away, but, then again, you don't need them at that point. (Actually, you probably don't need them before that point, stopping without them is not that hard. It's the different between the 'light tap' we have to give brakes down, and 'hold down'.)
My mother lives down a rather long sloped hill, at the end of the dead end, so often when I visit her I sometimes cut my engine at the top and coast all the way, about a quarter mile...and I have power braking at the end to stop.
I actually recommend that people find an abandoned parking lot, in the rain, and figure out exactly what their car does in weird circumstances. Skid, hydroplane, attempt to stop the car with the engine off, cut the engine off and back on and see if it restarts (Mine does, apparently many don't.), etc. (Just don't try shifting it into reverse while moving forward. Odds are what that does in your car is grind the transmission and then slam you into the steering wheel.)
Um, I don't know why you suddenly decided to disagree with me, but I was, in fact, agreeing with you.
There's plenty of parenting stuff parents are required to do, and one of them is the duty to not buy damn M rated games and then bitch that the games are, in fact, for adults.
That is perhaps the ultimate in parental irresponsibility, doing something that the society, thanks parental incompetence at raising their children, actually has managed to do for them...and then they go and work around it.
It is the parent's job to decide when their child is ready for that stuff. The entire society banded together to actually give them that option by baring kids from purchasing entire categories of stuff.
And we still have fucking stupid media telling us how 'damaging' it is for kids to have access to things they only have access to via adults.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
This tracker is an entirely reasonable way of dealing with repeated extreme truancy.
However, when four absences are 'repeated extreme truancy', something is seriously wrong.
Especially as I know, from my time in school, that a good portion of the reasonable excuses do not count as 'excused'. Like just being sick without visiting the doctor. Someone gets a bad cold with a sinus headache so bad they can't function, they're not going to the doctor, no one can afford that. They'll just be out for two days.
In fact, when you think about, requiring a doctor's excuse is a little bit classist in the first place. Rich kids can afford to go to the doctor for almost anything, and get a nice excuse. Even pretending that all those excuses are entirely legitimate, that the rich kid really couldn't go to school, that doesn't change the fact that rich people will go to the doctor, and hence have excused absences instead of unexcused ones for their twisted ankle or stomach flu.
Likewise, kids only get excused absences for specific funerals, which is insane when you think about it. Sure, thanks to public outrage, if an immediate family member dies, you get a day out and a funeral day, or whatever...but what if your family is flying to Great Uncle Charlie's funeral across the country?
Four days is less than the personal leave days that companies have, and on top of that they end up getting used for sick days because a doctor didn't sign off on them, and on top of that children often have to deal with other stuff, like their parents being unable to get them to school or pay a babysitter to keep them at home when they go on trips.
I know that I repeatedly banged up against the eight days or so I got when a kid, and I NEVER, literally never, skipped school. I couldn't, my mother was a teacher in the same school system, and they'd call her.
Someone else mentioned this, but it's worth pointing out that in actual real life, large key AES encryption is not breakable. Period. It's not really up for debate. (And if it was up for debate, we've got a lot bigger problems than secure computers drives. Like actual radio transmissions.)
So you do not need an entire drive, you just need a tiny 32meg flash drive with the key on it. Cheap as dirt to have made.
I've actually suggested exactly this before for the NSA when we were talking about them destroying drives. They shouldn't do that. Instead, every computer should be set to boot up and take the key off a locked-in flash drive. Some sort of internal or locked USB enclosure. Or an SD card.
Then, when reusing or even selling the computer, you don't even need to wipe the computer. You just destroy the flash drive.
Um, if the attacked 'borrows' one disk, he can't figure anything out. If he borrows it a dozen time, sure...but how?
More importantly, what the hell are you talking about? Instead of borrowing the same thing a dozen times, why doesn't he just borrow both?
Reusing a one time pad is bad if, and only if, an attacker could see more than one output for it.
It's perfectly fine to keep reusing a one-time pad if the previously encrypted message did not, and could not have been, and could not be in the future, intercepted.
It only counts as 'reuse' if it's intercepted twice, not if it's used twice, especially when, like this, the old message overwrite the new.
A part of the system being slower does not automatically make the system slower. It depends on how fast the rest of the system is.
And all O(n) means is 'the process takes a linear amount of time'. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Merely copying the data from one place to another is O(n), and the drive does that at least twice.
Developers already choose what platforms to run their game on. It has nothing to do with Steam. It has solely to do with the size of the platform and the ease of the port.
I bet you can't find a single developer who decided to port their game to Mac because Steam is there. In fact, Valve itself didn't decided to port Half-life to Mac because Steam was there...it was the other way around, they decided to port Steam because they were already porting Half-life and other games on that engine.
No one has ever said 'Hey, a slightly better distribution channel, I'll spend money porting the game despite the fact I wasn't planning to originally.'. Sure, it might make it slightly more likely they'd plan that in the first place, 5% more likely or something, but the idea that it's the thing that's magically going to push Linux gaming over the edge is crazy.
I am utterly baffled by people who think porting Steam to Linux would be even slightly useful.
Steam is not a game. Valve porting it will not make any Steam game run on Linux.
Why on earth would Valve port Steam so that Linux users might purchase the $300 total worth of games that actually run on Linux that they sell?
The threats were against Aaron Barr, and separate from the booth vandalization.
And, here it is again.
The 'death threats' Aaron Burr got we via Facebook, which is not, you know, a very Anonymously forum. Some people may indeed be threatening his life....but it's not Anonymous.
Arron Burr, as part of his misinformation campaign, deliberately conflates the Facebook death threats with the Anonymous IRC channels, where they discussed harassing the booth and heckling the speakers, which is probably where the sign comes from. My God, heckling!
The news media refuses to cover this in any sane manner, and slashdot is going right along with it.
Just look at the headline itself. It implies that they're dropping out RSA because they were 'attacked' by Anonymous. Except the 'attack' there isn't the hack...it's apparently the damn piece of paper that Anonymous left. News flash: That ain't an 'attack'. It's not 'harassment'. It's barely a 'protest'.
Just keep playing into the narrative, slashdot. Go right along with the media, try to figure out some way that Anonymous is the real bad guy here.
Because stealing emails and protesting at a conference with signs? Totally worse than whatever the Bank of American is desperately trying to conceal and spin that Wikileaks is about to release, by going after journalists who are 'friends' of Wikileaks. And it's totally worse than the Chamber of Commerce's campaign to target progressive activists and their families.
Anonymous are often assholes, but in this instances they're gray hat hackers who broke in and stole evidence of two conspiracies and exposed an entire system of lawlessness, an entire group of companies that feels they can operate outside the law to 'silence' people with malicious lies and fraud.
And the goddamn 'Nerds for News' is just mindlessly repeating whatever the media says about them. These sort of people used to be our fucking heroes, or, at least, we used to pretend they were in movies.
We can argue about how much they 'really' are heroes, and if we want this level of vigilantism, but that's nowhere near what's going on here, where apparently they're one step away from terrorists attacking poor defenseless security companies who never hurt anyone a day in their life.
Dude, you are the one spreading rumors and gossip. You apparently consider anything labeled "leaked emails" as 100% accurate and truthful. No way could someone have altered or added anything as complicated as an email....
Jesus Christ, more morons.
Do you people not pay any attention to this story? Are slashdot readers really that poorly informed?
So your theory is that of all the involved people, HBGray, Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, Hunton & Williams, John Woods, all of them...
You believe that none of them have actually looked at the leaked emails, (at least, the cited ones that make them look bad) and the actual emails on their servers and compared them? Or if they did, they just remained silent about the fact the emails were forged?
Okay, I'm going to tell you the most important goddamn rule of a scandal, period, and you can look abased and crawl back to wherever you came from:
Rule #1 of scandals: You do not invent your own disputed parts of scandals.
If people involved in a scandal dispute part of an accusation, you can sit there and argue who is telling the true.
If they do not dispute something that makes them look bad, if they do not make a claim that something is untrue, you do not get to walk in and make that claim yourself in a discussion. If the thing was not true, they would have said that.
None of the companies involved around the edge, or HBGray itself, have asserted that a single email from the leak is forged. In fact, they are acting as if they are not forged. So we cannot argue if that's true or not. That is simply not even a possible argument to be having, you idiot.
The vandalism was obviously the sign.
If Anonymous actually was a real person, they could sue HBGary for slander with that statement. Vandalism is a crime. Laying a sign on a table is not that crime. You cannot accuse people of criminal actions they have committed. (Granted, they have committed crimes...but not that one.)
Hey, look, an ignorant idiot.
Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce believe the emails are true, and deny knowledge of any wrongdoing, and Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies believe the emails are true, and deny knowledge of any wrongdoing.
In fact, Palantir has thrown one of their own people under the bus with the excuse he was inexplicably working on this multimillion dollar project without supervision, which rather seems to imply his, and their, involvement was real.
HBGary has not even 'denied' them, although they've refused to state they're true, or comment at all.
Everyone already knows the emails are true, you fucking moron. Absolutely no one is denying them in any way, shape, or form., not even the parties involved.
Except you, you fucker, who has to come up with some reason that this is all a light and the heroic Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America couldn't do anything wrong.
it's always funny when morons show up during scandals and make excuses the people accused aren't making.
Yes, all those emails are made up, and none of the people involved in this made up email exchanges, after being asked by the press about them, thought 'Hey, wait a second, I didn't sent or receive any of those emails. This is all a fake! Maybe that should be my response. I could tell people that!'
'No, wait, instead I'll pretend it's all true, but that I didn't know what was going on. I'm sure that will make me look better than pointing out it's a fake, and I'm sure the forgers won't just make up new emails to better incriminate me. That's a better plan!'
No they didn't. Gimmicks in the tax code (roth IRA, capitol gains) and fears of Y2K, along with technological efficiencies spurred an increase in revenue at a time when increasing expenditures wasn't as necessary gave you that illusion. But make no mistake, it was not sustainable at all and the very next budget showed that.
I didn't say that it was 'sustainable', I have no idea why you hallucinated I said that. I didn't even say they did it.
I said they came close.
Your also off with the largest expansion of the federal government in decades. The democrats did not oppose that except when they thought it was politically advantageous to them. You cannot say they are against something when they sit by silently allowing it to happen
What about Medicare part D? What about Ronald Reagan's expansion of the government?
Do I really need to sit here and list all the ways that Republicans have made the government larger?
They are neither. And don't turn this into a democrat verses republican. It's not and never was.. If you are confused, I suggest you sort that out.. here is a hint though, liberal != democrat as well as conservative != republican. In case you don't understand that, here is some plain English, liberal or conservative does not equal democrat or republican.
What the hell are you talking about? He said he was a conservative, I suggested he'd probably be better off being a conservative Democrat, because the Republicans actually sucked more at following conservative ideals than Democrats. (Although I also pointed out that 'conservative' was almost meaningless at this point, so he probably just wants to explicitly state what he thinks as a prefix instead saying 'conservative'.)
I think it's you who doesn't understand that conservative != republican. conservative != republican is the entire point I'm trying to make.
I did no such thing. Stop confusing your misinformed idiocy with something I said.
Oh, i forgot you were one of the idiots who think that 'all parties are bad, so I'm going to stand over here and pretend I'm talking about something else'.
Why do you interject yourself into political debate if your solution is 'Call yourself a conservative, and vote for no one.'? Leave us alone, you nihilism.
And now it is obvious as my suggestion implied that you do see giving everyone a tax cut as giving handouts to the rich. So that argument failed from the start.
It's really funny how you claim I just make thing up, when you stated outright you were just guessing my belief, and then you have it 'confirmed' by, um, nothing at all. To repeat for people keeping track at home, I called the thing you brought up a 'tax cut', which is a pretty neutral description of it.
You can keep insisting that I think of it as a 'handout', but all I said, in respond to your first hallucination about me mentioning it, that it doesn't have any positive benefits. I didn't even technically say it was a bad thing, just that it was not a useful thing.
The general welfare does not mean anythign close to what you think it does. Furthermore, the entire argument of it meaning handouts to the poor is a recent argument in an attempt to change the entirte meaning of the constitution without an amendment.
I think you think you're arguing with some sort of classic liberal or something, but, you know what? I don't actually care what it was intended to mean. The Supreme Court agrees with me. Arguing about that is akin to arguing whether or not state have a constitutional right to secede from the Union.
You want to argue against constitutional violations, how about we start with the ones that deprive people of their rights? Like holding people without charges, or seizing property without trial, or a government that can
Anyone who calls themselves 'generally pro-life' is probably someone who is actually pro-choice.
Here's a pop quiz: How long should women got to jail for getting an abortion?
If you find the idea of that silly...yeah, you're not really pro-life. You're in the vast majority of the pro-choice people who want abortions to be legal but less common. You know, the vast majority of Democrats. (And Republicans, for that matter.)
As for pro-gun ownership, I point to the Democratic response to the recent political attempted assassination and shooting spree.
A perfect time to ban guns, right? A gun ban in the weeks after the shooting could easily be forced through Congress, no matter how poorly conceived.
Well, at no point has any elected Democratic even vaguely suggested banning any sorts of guns at all. At most, they have suggested banning 30-bullet clips for handguns, which are essentially only used in mass-shootings of people. (No one needs 30 bullets in self-defense or to deter crime or to go hunting.) And they want to close the 'gun show' loophole, which is essentially basically just a way to get around criminal checks.
That shows how much Democrats want to ban guns...not at all. They could have marched in and demanded passage of all sorts of stuff, and probably had enough political pressure on the House to get it through. Instead, a half-hearted attempt was made to re-ban 30 round clips that isn't even gong to happen.
If you're scared that Democrats are pro-gun-control...well, you're very very outdated.
I should probably make this a form letter or something, as those two specific policies are what all 'conservatives' cite as a example of why they are 'really' Republicans...except that they're misdescribed their abortion stance as 'pro-life' when it's not, and they're paranoid about the Democrats trying to do something that Democrats haven't actually tried to do in quite some time, and don't care about at all on the national level.
Yes, the Republicans have been trashing the meaning of fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as it was intended before the neocons started contorting it.
If you think it's the 'neocons' that started misusing it, you're sadly mistaken. Reagan misused it also.
Oh noes! Not harassment of HBGary!
Well, at least people are just harassing them at public events where they show up to give speeches. No one's harassing HBGary's family and friends yet.
You know, like HBGary planned to do to Wikileak supporters, or Chamber of Commerce protesters.
What, can you not read the article either? It clearly says that HBGary pulled out of RSA because of the 'vandalism and threats', not because of the hack.
So the headline was referring to the 'vandalism and threats' as 'an attack', presuming it was just simplifying and ignore 'threats'.
Remember, folks, on slashdot, placing a sign on a table is an 'attack'.
Or maybe those 'IRC threats' that only HBGary, an organization with a business plan to sell lying services, knows about, are the 'attacks' slashdot is talking about.
Can we please cover this in some sort of fucking objective manner, and stop repeating everything HBGary says as the the truth when they are demonstrable, blatant liars who have been hired to slander Anonymous? They actually admit this. That is their actual job, to lie about Wikileaks, Anonymous, Glenn Greenwald, and who knows else.
Can we perhaps at least have them 'Claiming to be attacked by Anonymous' or something? I don't know what the fuck is going on here, but it is utterly insane that their statements can appear as actual fact in headlines here.
...is wrong with editors here?
Having a sign put on your booth is not being 'attacked', you goddamn fucktards. Nor is it a 'threat'. I know the article claims that,but it's clearly insane nonsense.
What the fuck is wrong with you, CmdrTaco? Why are you repeating lies?
And what is wrong with the people who here repeat the 'vandalism' claim without actually look at what was done? Laying a poster on top of someone else's table is not even legally vandalism, and that's a crime with a pretty low bar.
Perhaps, you know, we shouldn't be repeating claims that HGBGray makes, an organization that has been demonstrated they will lie about people they are paid to lie about.
Dude, they put a paper sign on a table at HBGary's booth saying that they were there. That's it. That is not even legally vandalism.
Only in HBGary's deluded universe is this a 'death threat'.
Meanwhile, HBGray actually planned a campaign of harassment against friends and family of the people it was trying to 'take down'.
The democrats have never been "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government" in recent time unless there has been some political advantage to making the statement.
Um, yes, they have. The Democrats actually came pretty close to balancing the budget, and didn't, for example, preside over the largest expansion in the federal government in decades, the Department of Homeland Security.
You can argue they aren't very "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government", which is true, but they are, by any actual objective measurement, moreso than the Republicans. It's only in crazy stupid 'common knowledge' that the Republicans are somehow more those things.
I'm willing to bet that you are likely calling a tax cut that the rich enjoy also a handout.
In the exact same post you claim the Republicans are "fiscal conservative", you offhandedly mention the tax cut for income over $250,000 that Republicans forced, which cost $20 billion this year and can't conceivable have any positive benefit. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the Republican POV.
At least is does until there is an actual constitutional amendment giving the federal government the authority to deal with it.
Or until you learn what the fuck the 'general welfare' means.
I don't know how that could possibly be 'easier'. Just call yourself a Democrat and get it over with.
The word 'conservative' is almost utterly meaningless at this point in time, after a two decades of the Republicans shitting on it.
The mental associations of the term 'fiscal conservative' and 'limited Federal government' could only take so rank hypocrisy and blatant government handouts to the rich before blowing up. Around 2009, they devolved into the same association as 'blargal flargal', that is, none at all.
They are just mouth flapping at this point. It is utterly useless to actually include them in a description of yourself. I know you know what they mean, I know what you wished they meant, but they cannot actually be used to communicate anymore.
Within 10 years or so, the word 'conservative' itself will do the same thing. 'What are your political leanings?' 'Oh, I'm a blargal flargal who believes in flewber norf, but with a safety net.' Really, it's utter gibberish now....words can only be misused so much before they stop functioning as actual words.
Call yourself a 'balanced budget local solution Democrat' or something.
Indeed, and even without a Trinity, other Abramic religions do this somewhat, although not as much as Christianity.
Jews have all the angels, and the Adversary. (Which is not really the same as 'the devil', which is a rather random hacked-together-from-unrelated-verses idea in Christianity)
Although they at least have the fact that all those entities work for God. None of them actually have free will.
Muslims not only have all that, they also throw in the Djinn, which are, believe it or not, God's creation from a parallel universe, and do have free will. (Although it's pretty stupid to worship them or ask them for anything, as they are usually not helpful in any manner.)
Yes, except that Christian God only get three views, and apparently only one on earth at a time.
Actually, it's possible that only the Holy Spirit or Jesus can be here, and not 'God', there's some dispute over which the burning bush was Him or the Holy Spirit. Alternately, that could be yet _another_ avatar of Him, although one that everyone's forgotten about, and possibly doesn't exist anymore.
Either way, many Christians seem to forget that 'God' supposedly showed up here once, and think of Him much like Brahman, as an almost impersonal force.
Although, from what I understand (Not being a Hindu), Brahman sorta is the universe, where the Christian God is more seen as a force existing outside it. But neither of them can conceptually exist 'within' the universe....it would be like having a computer (Brahman) or the programmer (Christian God) show up inside a VR simulation as themselves instead of as a avatar.
But some Christians do think of him as an actual entity that could be walking around doing stuff.
I suspect that most people who claim to be on the political right(1) can't stand Beck. The guy is making acrostics to prove his point, for Pete's sake. Acrostics!
That is not the way that sane people behave. Sane people do not see secret messages in the name of ACORN or whatever he's decided to yammer about today.
1) Of course, about a third of people who claim to be on the political right aren't actually on the political right, either. The vast majority of people think they are more conservative than they actually are, with a good portion of 'moderates' and even many 'conservatives', when quizzed on actual policy, end up to the left of Democrats on 90% of the issues.
Nope, I was just pointing out that parents might have legit claim that past the age 13 or so, most children are at least moderately unobserved at some point in time. They go to the mall in groups, they visit friends, etc. Parents cannot, and, for the sake of the child actually turning into an adult, actually observe their children literally 24/7.
And hence parents have a legit complaint that, I dunno, gas stations were giving out free samples of cigarettes to their kids. Or selling porn, or, yes, violent video games, or tattoos.
The problem is we've already recognized this as society, and hence don't let children buy certain classes of things.
It's entirely reasonable to point out _new_ things that belong in that group. Video games, for example, are one of the newest, getting put in that group about a decade ago. In another decade it will be something else. If parents are complaining about that, fine.
If parents are complaining about things we already restrict from children without their permission, well, my solution is to get them to sign a piece of paper stating that such a thing is damaging to their children, and then threaten to take their kids away for the crime of corrupting a minor after we point out they bought it themselves, warning label and at all.
I wish people would start mentioning that as an alternative, pointing out 'Well, you think this game is so bad and harmful to children, and yet you yourselves bought it, so the rather obvious solution is to remove the children from the damaging influence...namely, you. You seem incapable of understanding the danger in the world, and have probably also purchased your child a table saw also. You are not a fit parent, by your own definition of 'harm'.'
Then the rest of the adults, the entire society that has made things somewhat more inconvenient for ourselves at the insistence of retarded parents who then refuse to actually understand the system we made for them and just wander around buying kids violent video games and porn and probably cocaine and hookers and shotguns (who knows WTF they're thinking?) too, will finally get some peace.
Meanwhile, I have no problems with people who actually understand that kids are not as weak as we seem to assume for some reason, and, frankly, if I had a kid, I'd be buying them M rated games at 14 or 15 unless the entire premise of the game was somehow horrible.
The problem is that a lot of us use I to quote, and they are supposedly still supported, they're right there in the Allowed HTML list. A decade of comments are on this site quoted with the I tag.
And now no one can understand them.
It's all well and good for individual users to fix the problem on their computer, but that doesn't solve the problem for 99.99999% of the users, who probably don't even understand why people seem to have started refusing to mark quoted comments in any manner.
I'd be happy if I could just disable the stupid background updaters.
File Hippo's updater does fine.
Here's a fun question: Why are they background processes? Windows does have a scheduler, so it would be trivially easy to, you know, actually schedule the updates.
Or just update on startup.
But, no, the application has to run something in the background. It's goddamn absurd.
Oh, if you're talking about the state trooper, I have since learned that he was in a car with an 'automated' system that switches into gear by push-button...so apparently, the controller won't let him shift while moving.
Like I said, it's absurd they allow such cars on the road. They mandate rear-view windows, but not an obvious emergency cut off.
My comment that 'anyone caught in a runaway car' still stands for all cars with actual engine cut offs, but this guy had both the normal ways of cutting off the car removed from him. (And he was, in fact, in a rental.)
As for cutting off the engine in a normal car, it's all fine. The steering lock of a car is base on if it's in park or not, not whether or not the engine is running.
And you won't be steering 'with some difficulty'. Power steering works off the vacuum of the engine, and that keeps being created as long as the engine is being turned (Which is a while, when you're using it to stop the car.), and on top of that the vacuum doesn't go away until 'used' by steering. Same with power brakes.
Basically, as long as you (And your engine) are moving at a reasonable speed, you'll have vacuum-assisted steering and brakes. Once you're almost stopped, they'll go away, but, then again, you don't need them at that point. (Actually, you probably don't need them before that point, stopping without them is not that hard. It's the different between the 'light tap' we have to give brakes down, and 'hold down'.)
My mother lives down a rather long sloped hill, at the end of the dead end, so often when I visit her I sometimes cut my engine at the top and coast all the way, about a quarter mile...and I have power braking at the end to stop.
I actually recommend that people find an abandoned parking lot, in the rain, and figure out exactly what their car does in weird circumstances. Skid, hydroplane, attempt to stop the car with the engine off, cut the engine off and back on and see if it restarts (Mine does, apparently many don't.), etc. (Just don't try shifting it into reverse while moving forward. Odds are what that does in your car is grind the transmission and then slam you into the steering wheel.)
Um, I don't know why you suddenly decided to disagree with me, but I was, in fact, agreeing with you.
There's plenty of parenting stuff parents are required to do, and one of them is the duty to not buy damn M rated games and then bitch that the games are, in fact, for adults.
That is perhaps the ultimate in parental irresponsibility, doing something that the society, thanks parental incompetence at raising their children, actually has managed to do for them...and then they go and work around it.
It is the parent's job to decide when their child is ready for that stuff. The entire society banded together to actually give them that option by baring kids from purchasing entire categories of stuff.
And we still have fucking stupid media telling us how 'damaging' it is for kids to have access to things they only have access to via adults.