It's not clear to me FTA that he was "arrested" in the legal sense of being charged with a crime and getting Miranda rights read. I've been handcuffed and forced on the ground twice (wrong place, wrong time) but never actually charged with a criminal offense.
Some people, including perhaps this guy, react to police confrontations in a counter-productive way, and escalate a situation that could be defused.
In case you might find yourself in a situation where police aren't sure you're a good guy, print out and familiarize yourself with the ACLU "bust card".
And they don't even include car insurance, moving violations, accident repair, traffic school, or reupholstering to clean up spilled alcohol. That adds up too, believe me.
If you went and tried it, you'd see that what they call "metamoderation" today is not about the mods at all, but some buzz-up/buzz-down thing about the post.
When somebody mods a first post as "redundant", there's no longer a way to flag that mod as bullshit.
> to be modded redundant in the first post is of the utmost Mod stupidity. Once upon a time Slashdot had a system where we could moderate the moderations - "metamod" they called it. It'd be nice if that came back.
> to carefully regulate political speech in the times when it matters most, near an election. Hogwash. Its purpose was to "carefully regulate" campaign financing. Anybody can still say whatever they want, anybody can still advertise wherever they want if they don't withhold/obfuscate their identity.
Perhaps you could argue that the lack of anonymity will have a chilling effect on the two major political parties, Corporate America, and George Soros.
This reply is currently modded "+5, Informative", and it is very informative, and it's a good post, and it deserves this mod.
But it also illustrates exactly the practice I was complaining about. Rather than analyzing the report, we're presuming the report's sponsor skewed it to support its interests. That's probably true. Following the money is always a good idea. But logically-minded folk like us shouldn't stop at the fallacy of guilt (or accuracy) by association.
Too often we satisfy ourselves with respecting or discrediting the source. That's good politics, poor science. To actually disprove it, we really should find the errors in the report.
> "A respected American think-tank, Nemertes Research.." What does that mean, respected? By whom? Some IETF plenary council? Paris Hilton?
Is "respected" meant to imply the report is accurate? Why don't we judge reports on their own merits - soundness of methodology, reproducibility - rather than alleged reputations of the report's issuer?
"Ma na ma na" is one of those songs that just really stick in your head. It plays and re-plays, over and over again. Probably by the time this Warner stooge finished thinking about Lessig's presentation he had already listened to it in his head for at least 30 minutes. That's an unlicensed full-length (and then some) copy.
> we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
You only vote for somebody if they are loyal to their party? Because elected representatives following their conscience/opinion/interest subverts some fantasy you have that political parties offer some "extra layer of protection?" They've done quite the opposite - they've replaced the three branches of gov't the Constitution established with two branches - republicrats and republicrats.
Besides extra layers of protection, there are other things political parties have in common with diapers. I like the advice of Mark Twain - change them often.
And next election, please re-consider where elected representatives' loyalties should lie.
The framers left a framework that could be used to keep gov't in line. But many of us cede our brains to some other person or organization, and by not thinking for ourselves we waive our chance to lodge our opinion. And we lose.
>I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
Very focused accountants isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've taken some of these drugs myself - medical necessity. Couldn't focus on tasks worth a damn. Slept through high school, slept through college. I'd fall asleep at work, fall asleep while driving. Right now I've got a regimen that's working pretty good. If it were really good I would be doing something useful rather than goofing off on Slashdot, but the brain's working well enough that I tend to get my work done, just slower than I should be.
I feel like I'm performing the best I ever have. More ambitious about taking on projects, doing new things. I don't think I'm less creative for it, unless by creative they mean the dream-like half-conscious state I was in for twenty years.
But I've been doing all this by the book, under medical supervision. I don't think I'd be taking this stuff illegally for competitive reasons, like athletes do steroids - not sure if that makes me righteous or stupid.
The general idea of amping up brains seems like a positive to me, but I wouldn't be the guinea pig if I didn't have medical need.
> This is very interesting but no where near as exciting as finding another Earth like planet. Planet Gliese 581 e is an earth-like planet. It's just not in an earth-like orbit.
That's interesting. But it only indicates that IBM hired that level of people. Straight out of college I worked for a US defense subcontractor where maybe 4 out of 100 people had any technical competency that I could detect. Just like my experience didn't indicate the US defense department is incompetent, you shouldn't extrapolate the general competency of Brazil's technological base from your single data point.
> Brazil? What do you know of Brazilian techies? Ever worked with Brazilian engineers? Ever been to Brazil? I can assure you they are every bit as good as any Chinese, Russian, American, Indian, Brit, Czech, Japanese, or Pole I've worked with. Slashdotters may also be interested to know that Brazil has a very open-source, creative-commons sort of culture.
> And not an organized military either. Pirates. It's likely that the recently reported Chinese cracks of US military systems were freelance.
> Bacteria are not technically classified as animals Biological/Scientific definitions are often trumped by political/legal definitions.
Witness California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defines a word, or the Supreme Court decision SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. that made every corporation a "person".
> the amount of data you need to upload for the query is equal to the total amount stored
That's not how I read it. But the approach still sounds useless:
If Alice wants to search for the word W, she can tell Bob (the
server) the word W and the ki corresponding to each location I in
which W may occur
What's the use of encrypting the data if you're going to send keywords in cleartext to a party you're trying to hide the data from?
> Traditional keys fall squarely into the non-secret category, Why is that? Is the cut of my house key publicly available? Do my regular activities leave copies of it around town? Can someone call me on the phone and send a few clicks at my ear and deduce my key's pattern? Seems to me that a traditional key, like a password, is private; a secret that is just as secure as I keep it.
> Secrets aren't the only way to do security. That's true. You could arm some of your best friends and sit them in front of each door of your house with instructions to only let you in. But if you're leaving guard duty to passive gadgets or non-sentient sensory-challenged electrical circuits, granting access based on publicly obtainable inputs is a bad idea.
If "clean coal" is not an oxymoron, I can't imagine what is. But given the sad fact that coal powers the world, and that change comes incrementally, some R&D on the subject seems like a good thing.
I'll go on the record as a supporter of clean coal, if it ever comes into being. And cold fusion, too. I'd even support perpetual motion.
> Biometrics are useless as identification since, as we have seen, they are easily spoofed. You're exactly missing the point - any self-respecting system must expect fraudulent impersonation.
We can all present ourselves to Slashdot as Cmdr Taco, but come password time most of us would be thwarted. If the password went away in favor of a fingerprint (or earprint), as soon as somebody lifts it and posts it, we can all be Cmdr Taco. Until he changes his fingerprints.
But if his fingerprints were just a substitute nickname/login id, even after they are posted online we'd still have to crack the secret to convince the system we're the real enchilada.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not clear to me FTA that he was "arrested" in the legal sense of being charged with a crime and getting Miranda rights read. I've been handcuffed and forced on the ground twice (wrong place, wrong time) but never actually charged with a criminal offense.
Some people, including perhaps this guy, react to police confrontations in a counter-productive way, and escalate a situation that could be defused.
In case you might find yourself in a situation where police aren't sure you're a good guy, print out and familiarize yourself with the ACLU "bust card".
And never talk to the police.
"Even Apple is designing its own chips these days."
Unlike Oracle, I think Apple is traditionally a hardware company.
I wish them the best carrying on the Sun baton.
And they don't even include car insurance, moving violations, accident repair, traffic school, or reupholstering to clean up spilled alcohol. That adds up too, believe me.
If you went and tried it, you'd see that what they call "metamoderation" today is not about the mods at all, but some buzz-up/buzz-down thing about the post.
When somebody mods a first post as "redundant", there's no longer a way to flag that mod as bullshit.
> to be modded redundant in the first post is of the utmost Mod stupidity.
Once upon a time Slashdot had a system where we could moderate the moderations - "metamod" they called it. It'd be nice if that came back.
> to carefully regulate political speech in the times when it matters most, near an election.
Hogwash. Its purpose was to "carefully regulate" campaign financing. Anybody can still say whatever they want, anybody can still advertise wherever they want if they don't withhold/obfuscate their identity.
Perhaps you could argue that the lack of anonymity will have a chilling effect on the two major political parties, Corporate America, and George Soros.
This reply is currently modded "+5, Informative", and it is very informative, and it's a good post, and it deserves this mod.
But it also illustrates exactly the practice I was complaining about. Rather than analyzing the report, we're presuming the report's sponsor skewed it to support its interests. That's probably true. Following the money is always a good idea. But logically-minded folk like us shouldn't stop at the fallacy of guilt (or accuracy) by association.
Too often we satisfy ourselves with respecting or discrediting the source. That's good politics, poor science. To actually disprove it, we really should find the errors in the report.
> "A respected American think-tank, Nemertes Research.."
What does that mean, respected? By whom? Some IETF plenary council? Paris Hilton?
Is "respected" meant to imply the report is accurate? Why don't we judge reports on their own merits - soundness of methodology, reproducibility - rather than alleged reputations of the report's issuer?
"Ma na ma na" is one of those songs that just really stick in your head. It plays and re-plays, over and over again. Probably by the time this Warner stooge finished thinking about Lessig's presentation he had already listened to it in his head for at least 30 minutes. That's an unlicensed full-length (and then some) copy.
> we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
You only vote for somebody if they are loyal to their party? Because elected representatives following their conscience/opinion/interest subverts some fantasy you have that political parties offer some "extra layer of protection?" They've done quite the opposite - they've replaced the three branches of gov't the Constitution established with two branches - republicrats and republicrats.
Besides extra layers of protection, there are other things political parties have in common with diapers. I like the advice of Mark Twain - change them often.
And next election, please re-consider where elected representatives' loyalties should lie.
Mod parent up.
The framers left a framework that could be used to keep gov't in line. But many of us cede our brains to some other person or organization, and by not thinking for ourselves we waive our chance to lodge our opinion. And we lose.
>I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
Very focused accountants isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've taken some of these drugs myself - medical necessity. Couldn't focus on tasks worth a damn. Slept through high school, slept through college. I'd fall asleep at work, fall asleep while driving. Right now I've got a regimen that's working pretty good. If it were really good I would be doing something useful rather than goofing off on Slashdot, but the brain's working well enough that I tend to get my work done, just slower than I should be.
I feel like I'm performing the best I ever have. More ambitious about taking on projects, doing new things. I don't think I'm less creative for it, unless by creative they mean the dream-like half-conscious state I was in for twenty years.
But I've been doing all this by the book, under medical supervision. I don't think I'd be taking this stuff illegally for competitive reasons, like athletes do steroids - not sure if that makes me righteous or stupid.
The general idea of amping up brains seems like a positive to me, but I wouldn't be the guinea pig if I didn't have medical need.
I think he's saying his -1 Offtopic armed with a +4 underrated weapon can beat up your +3 Troll. Me, I think it's an even match.
Unless of course his Offtopic also has a +2 bias calculator.
> 10 pence per page for those out of print
I'm not sure "out of print" is the right terminology here.
Lawrence Lessig
> This is very interesting but no where near as exciting as finding another Earth like planet.
Planet Gliese 581 e is an earth-like planet. It's just not in an earth-like orbit.
That's interesting. But it only indicates that IBM hired that level of people. Straight out of college I worked for a US defense subcontractor where maybe 4 out of 100 people had any technical competency that I could detect. Just like my experience didn't indicate the US defense department is incompetent, you shouldn't extrapolate the general competency of Brazil's technological base from your single data point.
> Brazil?
What do you know of Brazilian techies? Ever worked with Brazilian engineers? Ever been to Brazil? I can assure you they are every bit as good as any Chinese, Russian, American, Indian, Brit, Czech, Japanese, or Pole I've worked with. Slashdotters may also be interested to know that Brazil has a very open-source, creative-commons sort of culture.
> And not an organized military either. Pirates.
It's likely that the recently reported Chinese cracks of US military systems were freelance.
> Bacteria are not technically classified as animals
Biological/Scientific definitions are often trumped by political/legal definitions.
Witness California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defines a word, or the Supreme Court decision SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. that made every corporation a "person".
You think LoozyAnnians will follow a Louisiana bill?
That's not how I read it. But the approach still sounds useless:
If Alice wants to search for the word W, she can tell Bob (the server) the word W and the ki corresponding to each location I in which W may occur
What's the use of encrypting the data if you're going to send keywords in cleartext to a party you're trying to hide the data from?
> Traditional keys fall squarely into the non-secret category,
Why is that? Is the cut of my house key publicly available? Do my regular activities leave copies of it around town? Can someone call me on the phone and send a few clicks at my ear and deduce my key's pattern? Seems to me that a traditional key, like a password, is private; a secret that is just as secure as I keep it.
> Secrets aren't the only way to do security.
That's true. You could arm some of your best friends and sit them in front of each door of your house with instructions to only let you in. But if you're leaving guard duty to passive gadgets or non-sentient sensory-challenged electrical circuits, granting access based on publicly obtainable inputs is a bad idea.
> good for multifactor authentication. It just makes it that much harder.
We call that "security through incovenience." Using non-secret information as a secret adds hassle, not security.
If "clean coal" is not an oxymoron, I can't imagine what is. But given the sad fact that coal powers the world, and that change comes incrementally, some R&D on the subject seems like a good thing.
I'll go on the record as a supporter of clean coal, if it ever comes into being. And cold fusion, too. I'd even support perpetual motion.
> Biometrics are useless as identification since, as we have seen, they are easily spoofed.
You're exactly missing the point - any self-respecting system must expect fraudulent impersonation.
We can all present ourselves to Slashdot as Cmdr Taco, but come password time most of us would be thwarted. If the password went away in favor of a fingerprint (or earprint), as soon as somebody lifts it and posts it, we can all be Cmdr Taco. Until he changes his fingerprints.
But if his fingerprints were just a substitute nickname/login id, even after they are posted online we'd still have to crack the secret to convince the system we're the real enchilada.