Tor makes detailed observation impossible. That makes the Army suspicious. Meanwhile, some Navy official likes the idea, so they approve. It's not unreasonable or unusual for different sections to not trust each other or even know of each other's actions. This is the government, after all. Never attribute to malice...
Meh. I've done government-sponsored work, too. It's usually not even a case of the left hand not knowing what the right's doing. It's the left hand not knowing what the left hand did five minutes ago. One part of the Navy knowing something has no bearing on any other part, and especially not the Army.
Have you tried? You can call, send an email, send a physical letter, or visit in person. If that's too involved for you, you can vote. Those are all input, with varying levels of effect.
If I'm going to write a book on US foreign policy, I'd rather not do it on Slashdot.
I do actually face a personal threat, living near a nuclear power plant. That's immaterial.
What we've lost is the security, not necessarily the safety. They are different concepts. We may effectively be safe. Being locked in a small cage with a decent food supply is safe. Being secure is another matter. Being in a small cage means being subject to all sorts of external threats outside your control. In 2001 we saw that any foreign agency wanting to do us harm could do so without much in the way to stop them. After grounding all flights we were safe, but we had no security. From a more Slashdot-specific perspective, it's like discovering your main server's been rooted for a few months. It's pretty easy to be safe from very similar attacks, but what other holes might exist?
I'm not saying that terrorism is our biggest problem, or that we're always going about it in the right way. I'm saying that attacking any politician for not fixing all your problems is asinine, and every problem should be viewed from a comprehensive perspective. I'm saying that democracy has worked pretty well so far and, given enough time, it will work well here.
That's why I said "mostly". It's a very distilled view of the issues, but it's a fair way to make a general statement. Politicians are humans, and they have their complexities. Take a look at recent issues, like the Arizona immigration law. It's supported by a simple majority (58%, apparently). Not great, but worth consideration. Also worth reconsideration after a while.
Of course the public can be convinced of a lot of things. Having a few people who "know things" make decisions is not a democracy, though. Democracy must follow the will of the people, in the hopes that it's eventually right.
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
Then why were we almost completely unaware of the various operations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others? Regarding Al-Qaeda, we knew they were planning many things, but had so much incorrect information that the important intelligence was overlooked. Perhaps the problem was that we were too aware. Regardless, a lot of old information cannot be relied upon. Everything we know must be verified again.
Why will this eventually be worked out, and not... completely forgotten about?
Once again, this is the job for the activists. I hope there are activists working until every single detainee has been released or had a full trial. Yes it's optimistic, but also grounded in firsthand experience with activist groups. They're far overloaded, but also the most dedicated groups I've ever seen. Though not blind, I do have faith that the vast majority of cases will be handled. I simply hold no naive belief that things will be fixed quickly. I do not believe much will be forgotten about, simply because of the magnitude of the problems. A lot of mistakes have been made in the past 9 years, and there are a lot of people working to correct them. Case details are being recorded like never before. I doubt it's really even possible to entirely forget any current cases. There will be enormous delays, but in the grand scheme of things, everything will work out in the end.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds
They're not always (or even usually) opposed, and I didn't intend to imply that. Rather, I was thinking of the Ben Franklin quote about giving up essential liberty for temporary security, which refers only to cases where they are opposed. When we can have both, let us of course take what we can get. When we cannot, we must be sure that the only liberties we sacrifice are ones that we really don't need, like the ability to walk up and have a friendly conversation with the pilot.
To this end, convincing politicians of what's unacceptable goes back to the comment I made regarding activists. When the time comes to fight the next ridiculous liquids-on-airplanes rule, activists will be the ones to do it.
Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public. Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without interference? The right to carry any potential weapon you want anywhere you want?
Given that Mr. Appelbaum was released, probably with a verbal apology and thanks for his time, it seems he and his technology were determined to not be a threat.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
Now, we're faced with a situation remarkably similar to Vietnam. If we leave, we've utterly ruined a nation and a culture. If we stay, we at least have a chance to help rebuild once things settle down.
As I said earlier, if you don't like something speak up. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to express your opinions in public channels. Go for it. We the People of the United States voted for those "assholes" who are running things. If you want a government that supports non-interventionism, go vote for it. Convince enough people that it's the right policy, and we'll get the chance to see how it works.
We don't need a flawless answer to know "what's going on". Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall. The USSR was trying to surpass our technology. Soviet spies were coming to the US through various channels, but often with detectable ties. The middle east was dealing with its own problems, and its own issues with the Soviets, too. Korea was so screwed up from war that they weren't much of a threat. Between Russia and us, the nukes kept everyone else pretty quiet.
We need to get that simple level of understanding again. Some parts are clear already:
Forged travel documents are easily available everywhere.
The middle east is polarized around loving us or hating us.
There are lots of leftover munitions in the middle east. Leaving now leaves them in the hands of the polarized factions.
North Korea is run by a child with deadly toys.
What's not clear (to my knowledge) is how the various factions are operating, where they're located, or what will appease everyone enough to stop fighting. This isn't the oppose-us-and-disappear world of 1984. It's a plea for understanding, backed up by enforcement.
We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid.
Like what, exactly? The right to state your opinion without being imprisoned for it? Sure, you might be investigated, just like you would if you walked down the street shouting "I killed five children!" but you won't face anything too serious. Certainly nothing like the forced suicide you'd meet after insulting the North Korean government.
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
To regain our security, we must start investigating again. As I said originally, it falls to the various activists and watchdog groups to voice concerns over the cost. Consider what good ol' Ben Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I am not suggesting we give up essential liberty. I suggest we be a bit more accommodating of the agencies trying to secure our country. When things get out of hand, let the activists complain. I'll consider the issue and sign a petition if I agree. In the mean time, I will simply wait.
The guy works on a system that effectively cripples the government's ability to observe and investigate. Related to a smaller crime, it'd be called "obstruction of justice". Once you start talking about terrorism and acts of war, it's called "treason". That sounds like suspicion to me.
Nonsense. They MUST have some kind of backdoor, totally uprooting the comprehensive security scheme he has in place! All those laser beams, automatic turrets, and asymmetric cyphers are useless now, all because of Verizon! It's all their fault!
</sarcasm>
How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information? In an interview, you can tell when someone's lying. There's facial cues, hesitation, tone of voice, etc. which are all lost in a written response. A phone call wouldn't be as bad, but that means having to track down the guy's personal phone number, which is not really affordable on a wide scale.
Then there's the issue of identity. Even if a phone call or email could be established, how can anyone be sure that the answers are actually coming from the person they intended to contact? It's cheaper and easier to simply meet the person at the border, have a conversation, and be done with it. With the amount of complaints about government spending, I'm still glad they'll take the cheap route.
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
They can't be overtly racist and get away with it.
They can't really expect support for any anti-gay legislation.
Anything supporting the oil industry has to also support more environmentally-friendly technology.
Anything that has the appearance of improving security, or at the very least improving our awareness, is expected to be done.
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
One where you expect to travel between sovereign states after doing something that might put one of them at risk. In perspective, 3 hours is 1/8th of one day. That's 1/2920 of a year. Or one part out of 233,600 in an 80-year lifespan. In exchange for that bit of time, the government agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) can get a bit more insight into Tor and how it actually affects American security.
Does Tor see many clients from Afghanistan?
What countries have exit nodes that are government-run, and probably likely to be monitored?
In a general sense, is this even something we should be worried about?
Personally, I think such a trade is acceptable. If I were to make a magic system that did something the government saw as a threat, I'd rather spend a few hours talking to the government and explaining things than make life harder for the folks I trust with the safety of myself and my neighbors.
Well of course you wouldn't leave without them, Mr. Human-Cyborg.
That said, I agree fully. There are certain people in this world who, given a problem and some small versatile components, can fashion a solution. I don't mean simply the ones titled "engineer"; it's more of a personality trait. Duct tape, jumper cables, a good pocketknife, plastic sheeting, and a skein of rope can solve most everyday problems, and many that aren't so everyday.
For a while, I carried a small coil of Romex 3-conductor wire in my trunk. I don't know how it got there, but when a screw fell out of my car door's latch 150 miles from home, it was nice to have materials to make a makeshift replacement. Just 2 inches of one of the conductor, folded in half, and threaded into the hole. The plastic insulation held as threads, and I had a working screw.
Having proof that an event happened does not mean you were or were not breaking the law. That determination can only be made in one of three ways:
You sign the little form admitting you broke the law.
You go through the whole court process, and the court determines whether you broke the law.
The court decides that the incident doesn't matter enough to actually go through the process, and drops the charge.
For simplicity, let's assume that the camera can photograph the whole intersection, your face, and the light, in one photograph. The photograph is proof that you were in the intersection when the light was red. It also can serve as proof that there was an officer directing you through. It could also serve as proof that the light was malfunctioning.
The photograph cannot lie. The photograph also cannot interpret the law. Only a court can do that.
It's the same physician-assisted suicide argument that cropped up so many years ago. The only difference is that this guy's going for a "noble hero" approach instead of a "suffering patient".
If there's an officer directing traffic, than it's very likely that the incident will be "rejected by the reviewing officer". If the timing/aiming of the camera is wrong, then it's similar to the use of a speed gun. During the legal process, you have a right to a full and complete trial. You have the right to ask for the camera to be inspected, and maintenance logs reviewed (though the court may decide not to grant your request).
The photograph is proof that your car was in a certain position at a certain time. If you want to fight that, go for it. If you want to avoid legal fees, read a few dozen law books and represent yourself.
Technically, you can't run C anywhere. You can run machine instructions that are translated from assembly that was compiled from C, but not C directly.
If your game's back-end (physics and AI) is written in any 100% Pure JVM language, a Java front-end (input, graphics, and sound) for this game can be created. But the only way to share the back-end between Java front-ends and.NET front-ends appears to be J#, or COM or JNI, through one of many supported forms of integration, or use the good old IPC systems the past 40 years have given us.
It seems.NET is the limiting factor here. Perhaps it'd be better just to get rid of it. This is 2010. There's no good reason to be locked into a language (or platform) anymore. As programmers, we should be thinking about creating the future. We should not be concerned with the ridiculous artificial limitations corporations impose on us. With XNA, Microsoft is giving you a small sandbox, for which they'll charge $99 whenever you try to build something interesting in it. To them, you're not an innovator. You're not a developer. You're a source of income.
How do we know, for a fact, what's classified, other than what someone finds worth the risk to leak? How do we know, for a fact, what relation it may have to other classified information?
Let's take a look at a not-so-hypothetical situation. A soldier in Afghanistan takes a picture of a unique-looking building, and releases it to the world with a caption stating that it's north of where he's stationed. What are the odds that someone malicious might recognize that building, and now know the location of the post? The probability is unacceptably high, considering that lives are at stake.
Most classification is done based on what MIGHT be revealed by the material, not just what the material outright says. Our enemies (all of them... take your pick) are not idiots. They have access to the same Internet. They can correlate various sources to extract information.
In the cases of criminal malfeasance, what else might be at stake? If a unit kills an innocent bystander in a town and that town's name is revealed, how long do you think it will be before an enemy's recruiter shows up looking to turn an angry public into an army? How much more death will that lead to in the long run?
It might sound callous, but I think a few dozen unjust casualties are more acceptable than a few thousand. I also think that a decade or two after the fact, everything should be declassified.
So from a different perspective, Microsoft had to kill off Java to get anyone to use XNA, and this is supposed to be evidence of XNA's superiority?
...But I digress...
I don't think you quite got my point. Let's try a few more examples:
Which version of XNA can run on a toaster?
Which of Boeing's 7x7 series airplanes works best underwater?
Which brand of cream cheese is most effective for use as a boat anchor?
As should be painfully obvious by now, placing arbitrary restrictions on a comparison makes the comparison meaningless. Your original statement was that comparisons are null if the target systems aren't equal. Limiting the discussion to a single case where you know the comparison is flawed makes the comparison useless.
Instead, let's simply compare where the two technologies can be used. Java can be targeted for many systems. XNA can run on four. For any randomly-selected non-PC target platform, it seems the chance of Java working is significantly higher than XNA (or anything else, for that matter).
A more equally-weighted comparison is Java vs..NET. Both are based on publicly-available specifications, and both offer similar functionality. I'd argue that neither is any better than the other in theory, though in practice Java has better support.
Setting up the services to take uploads, insert files to VMs, set permissions, distribute, and maintain updates can be done, but it's like building a car from lawnmower parts. It'll work, right up to the point where something breaks. OpenStack appears to be a set of tools all designed to work with each other and do things right, without any re-purposing. It's like buying a pre-assembled car from a dealership.
Slashdot Mirror
Tor makes detailed observation impossible. That makes the Army suspicious. Meanwhile, some Navy official likes the idea, so they approve. It's not unreasonable or unusual for different sections to not trust each other or even know of each other's actions. This is the government, after all. Never attribute to malice...
Meh. I've done government-sponsored work, too. It's usually not even a case of the left hand not knowing what the right's doing. It's the left hand not knowing what the left hand did five minutes ago. One part of the Navy knowing something has no bearing on any other part, and especially not the Army.
AAA would take an hour to reach me, just to bring a screw. I was on my way in five minutes, for free.
Have you tried? You can call, send an email, send a physical letter, or visit in person. If that's too involved for you, you can vote. Those are all input, with varying levels of effect.
If I'm going to write a book on US foreign policy, I'd rather not do it on Slashdot.
I do actually face a personal threat, living near a nuclear power plant. That's immaterial.
What we've lost is the security, not necessarily the safety. They are different concepts. We may effectively be safe. Being locked in a small cage with a decent food supply is safe. Being secure is another matter. Being in a small cage means being subject to all sorts of external threats outside your control. In 2001 we saw that any foreign agency wanting to do us harm could do so without much in the way to stop them. After grounding all flights we were safe, but we had no security. From a more Slashdot-specific perspective, it's like discovering your main server's been rooted for a few months. It's pretty easy to be safe from very similar attacks, but what other holes might exist?
I'm not saying that terrorism is our biggest problem, or that we're always going about it in the right way. I'm saying that attacking any politician for not fixing all your problems is asinine, and every problem should be viewed from a comprehensive perspective. I'm saying that democracy has worked pretty well so far and, given enough time, it will work well here.
A completely false way to frame the situation.
That's why I said "mostly". It's a very distilled view of the issues, but it's a fair way to make a general statement. Politicians are humans, and they have their complexities. Take a look at recent issues, like the Arizona immigration law. It's supported by a simple majority (58%, apparently). Not great, but worth consideration. Also worth reconsideration after a while.
Of course the public can be convinced of a lot of things. Having a few people who "know things" make decisions is not a democracy, though. Democracy must follow the will of the people, in the hopes that it's eventually right.
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
Then why were we almost completely unaware of the various operations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others? Regarding Al-Qaeda, we knew they were planning many things, but had so much incorrect information that the important intelligence was overlooked. Perhaps the problem was that we were too aware. Regardless, a lot of old information cannot be relied upon. Everything we know must be verified again.
Why will this eventually be worked out, and not... completely forgotten about?
Once again, this is the job for the activists. I hope there are activists working until every single detainee has been released or had a full trial. Yes it's optimistic, but also grounded in firsthand experience with activist groups. They're far overloaded, but also the most dedicated groups I've ever seen. Though not blind, I do have faith that the vast majority of cases will be handled. I simply hold no naive belief that things will be fixed quickly. I do not believe much will be forgotten about, simply because of the magnitude of the problems. A lot of mistakes have been made in the past 9 years, and there are a lot of people working to correct them. Case details are being recorded like never before. I doubt it's really even possible to entirely forget any current cases. There will be enormous delays, but in the grand scheme of things, everything will work out in the end.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds
They're not always (or even usually) opposed, and I didn't intend to imply that. Rather, I was thinking of the Ben Franklin quote about giving up essential liberty for temporary security, which refers only to cases where they are opposed. When we can have both, let us of course take what we can get. When we cannot, we must be sure that the only liberties we sacrifice are ones that we really don't need, like the ability to walk up and have a friendly conversation with the pilot.
To this end, convincing politicians of what's unacceptable goes back to the comment I made regarding activists. When the time comes to fight the next ridiculous liquids-on-airplanes rule, activists will be the ones to do it.
Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public. Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without interference? The right to carry any potential weapon you want anywhere you want?
Given that Mr. Appelbaum was released, probably with a verbal apology and thanks for his time, it seems he and his technology were determined to not be a threat.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
Now, we're faced with a situation remarkably similar to Vietnam. If we leave, we've utterly ruined a nation and a culture. If we stay, we at least have a chance to help rebuild once things settle down.
As I said earlier, if you don't like something speak up. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to express your opinions in public channels. Go for it. We the People of the United States voted for those "assholes" who are running things. If you want a government that supports non-interventionism, go vote for it. Convince enough people that it's the right policy, and we'll get the chance to see how it works.
We don't need a flawless answer to know "what's going on". Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall. The USSR was trying to surpass our technology. Soviet spies were coming to the US through various channels, but often with detectable ties. The middle east was dealing with its own problems, and its own issues with the Soviets, too. Korea was so screwed up from war that they weren't much of a threat. Between Russia and us, the nukes kept everyone else pretty quiet.
We need to get that simple level of understanding again. Some parts are clear already:
What's not clear (to my knowledge) is how the various factions are operating, where they're located, or what will appease everyone enough to stop fighting. This isn't the oppose-us-and-disappear world of 1984. It's a plea for understanding, backed up by enforcement.
We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid.
Like what, exactly? The right to state your opinion without being imprisoned for it? Sure, you might be investigated, just like you would if you walked down the street shouting "I killed five children!" but you won't face anything too serious. Certainly nothing like the forced suicide you'd meet after insulting the North Korean government.
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
To regain our security, we must start investigating again. As I said originally, it falls to the various activists and watchdog groups to voice concerns over the cost. Consider what good ol' Ben Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I am not suggesting we give up essential liberty. I suggest we be a bit more accommodating of the agencies trying to secure our country. When things get out of hand, let the activists complain. I'll consider the issue and sign a petition if I agree. In the mean time, I will simply wait.
The guy works on a system that effectively cripples the government's ability to observe and investigate. Related to a smaller crime, it'd be called "obstruction of justice". Once you start talking about terrorism and acts of war, it's called "treason". That sounds like suspicion to me.
Nonsense. They MUST have some kind of backdoor, totally uprooting the comprehensive security scheme he has in place! All those laser beams, automatic turrets, and asymmetric cyphers are useless now, all because of Verizon! It's all their fault! </sarcasm>
How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information? In an interview, you can tell when someone's lying. There's facial cues, hesitation, tone of voice, etc. which are all lost in a written response. A phone call wouldn't be as bad, but that means having to track down the guy's personal phone number, which is not really affordable on a wide scale.
Then there's the issue of identity. Even if a phone call or email could be established, how can anyone be sure that the answers are actually coming from the person they intended to contact? It's cheaper and easier to simply meet the person at the border, have a conversation, and be done with it. With the amount of complaints about government spending, I'm still glad they'll take the cheap route.
And since then, how much input has the military had, especially in regards to the current operating network?
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
One where you expect to travel between sovereign states after doing something that might put one of them at risk. In perspective, 3 hours is 1/8th of one day. That's 1/2920 of a year. Or one part out of 233,600 in an 80-year lifespan. In exchange for that bit of time, the government agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) can get a bit more insight into Tor and how it actually affects American security.
Does Tor see many clients from Afghanistan?
What countries have exit nodes that are government-run, and probably likely to be monitored?
In a general sense, is this even something we should be worried about?
Personally, I think such a trade is acceptable. If I were to make a magic system that did something the government saw as a threat, I'd rather spend a few hours talking to the government and explaining things than make life harder for the folks I trust with the safety of myself and my neighbors.
Well of course you wouldn't leave without them, Mr. Human-Cyborg.
That said, I agree fully. There are certain people in this world who, given a problem and some small versatile components, can fashion a solution. I don't mean simply the ones titled "engineer"; it's more of a personality trait. Duct tape, jumper cables, a good pocketknife, plastic sheeting, and a skein of rope can solve most everyday problems, and many that aren't so everyday.
For a while, I carried a small coil of Romex 3-conductor wire in my trunk. I don't know how it got there, but when a screw fell out of my car door's latch 150 miles from home, it was nice to have materials to make a makeshift replacement. Just 2 inches of one of the conductor, folded in half, and threaded into the hole. The plastic insulation held as threads, and I had a working screw.
The photograph is proof, period.
Having proof that an event happened does not mean you were or were not breaking the law. That determination can only be made in one of three ways:
For simplicity, let's assume that the camera can photograph the whole intersection, your face, and the light, in one photograph. The photograph is proof that you were in the intersection when the light was red. It also can serve as proof that there was an officer directing you through. It could also serve as proof that the light was malfunctioning.
The photograph cannot lie. The photograph also cannot interpret the law. Only a court can do that.
It's the same physician-assisted suicide argument that cropped up so many years ago. The only difference is that this guy's going for a "noble hero" approach instead of a "suffering patient".
If there's an officer directing traffic, than it's very likely that the incident will be "rejected by the reviewing officer". If the timing/aiming of the camera is wrong, then it's similar to the use of a speed gun. During the legal process, you have a right to a full and complete trial. You have the right to ask for the camera to be inspected, and maintenance logs reviewed (though the court may decide not to grant your request).
The photograph is proof that your car was in a certain position at a certain time. If you want to fight that, go for it. If you want to avoid legal fees, read a few dozen law books and represent yourself.
Technically, you can't run C anywhere. You can run machine instructions that are translated from assembly that was compiled from C, but not C directly.
Now Brainfuck, on the other hand...
Same facts, different story:
If your game's back-end (physics and AI) is written in any 100% Pure JVM language, a Java front-end (input, graphics, and sound) for this game can be created. But the only way to share the back-end between Java front-ends and .NET front-ends appears to be J#, or COM or JNI, through one of many supported forms of integration, or use the good old IPC systems the past 40 years have given us.
It seems .NET is the limiting factor here. Perhaps it'd be better just to get rid of it. This is 2010. There's no good reason to be locked into a language (or platform) anymore. As programmers, we should be thinking about creating the future. We should not be concerned with the ridiculous artificial limitations corporations impose on us. With XNA, Microsoft is giving you a small sandbox, for which they'll charge $99 whenever you try to build something interesting in it. To them, you're not an innovator. You're not a developer. You're a source of income.
How do we know, for a fact, what's classified, other than what someone finds worth the risk to leak? How do we know, for a fact, what relation it may have to other classified information?
Let's take a look at a not-so-hypothetical situation. A soldier in Afghanistan takes a picture of a unique-looking building, and releases it to the world with a caption stating that it's north of where he's stationed. What are the odds that someone malicious might recognize that building, and now know the location of the post? The probability is unacceptably high, considering that lives are at stake.
Most classification is done based on what MIGHT be revealed by the material, not just what the material outright says. Our enemies (all of them... take your pick) are not idiots. They have access to the same Internet. They can correlate various sources to extract information.
In the cases of criminal malfeasance, what else might be at stake? If a unit kills an innocent bystander in a town and that town's name is revealed, how long do you think it will be before an enemy's recruiter shows up looking to turn an angry public into an army? How much more death will that lead to in the long run?
It might sound callous, but I think a few dozen unjust casualties are more acceptable than a few thousand. I also think that a decade or two after the fact, everything should be declassified.
So from a different perspective, Microsoft had to kill off Java to get anyone to use XNA, and this is supposed to be evidence of XNA's superiority?
...But I digress...
I don't think you quite got my point. Let's try a few more examples:
As should be painfully obvious by now, placing arbitrary restrictions on a comparison makes the comparison meaningless. Your original statement was that comparisons are null if the target systems aren't equal. Limiting the discussion to a single case where you know the comparison is flawed makes the comparison useless.
Instead, let's simply compare where the two technologies can be used. Java can be targeted for many systems. XNA can run on four. For any randomly-selected non-PC target platform, it seems the chance of Java working is significantly higher than XNA (or anything else, for that matter).
A more equally-weighted comparison is Java vs. .NET. Both are based on publicly-available specifications, and both offer similar functionality. I'd argue that neither is any better than the other in theory, though in practice Java has better support.
PropJavelin, for the HYDRA.
Which XNA version lets the public program for the Wii or Playstation?
To use the famous car analogy:
Setting up the services to take uploads, insert files to VMs, set permissions, distribute, and maintain updates can be done, but it's like building a car from lawnmower parts. It'll work, right up to the point where something breaks. OpenStack appears to be a set of tools all designed to work with each other and do things right, without any re-purposing. It's like buying a pre-assembled car from a dealership.