The absurdity of it is that this is, broadly speaking, a free country, and there is very little preventing someone from taking your life other than the fear of law enforcement.
See, thats one of the hazards of a free country, and the only way to chip away at such hazards is to increasingly implement a police state. So for every one of these worries you assuage, you give up more freedom.
THATS the absurdity of it-- are you not concerned that someone can legally own a gun, and could very easily take your life with it? Why then be concerned with the threat of someone flying a slow, delicate RC plane several thousand miles carrying a few pounds of something that might have a chance to mildly impact your life
[Blah, dems are doing a lot of unrelated but bad stuff, blah]
When someone goes from one story to We've got a country full of citizens who will gladly vote away their freedoms, their privacy, their financial well-being, and their health, for the chance of foisting their prejudices and religious scruples off on the rest of society.
then I think it is fair game to call bullocks on his claims by providing counter examples. 90% of the things currently being blamed on republicans, are either the result of the Clinton administration (the recession), or the current administration (anything directly instituted by the executive branch-- ICE seizures, TSA shenigans), or the recent heavily Dem-dominated congress.
Not that it will make any difference; once youve decided that your party is flawless and can do no wrong, no example to the contrary will be enough.
Parent wasnt talking about just one issue; he was trying to pin basically all of the world's ills on a single political party. Its not new, and its not unusual to see on slashdot, but it sure as heck isnt rational.
If you ever start thinking your political party is the answer to all of the world's ills, you know that youve really gone off the deep end.
We've got a country full of citizens who will gladly vote away their freedoms, their privacy, their financial well-being, and their health
Im sorry, but youre implying here that these things are caused by republicans.
But if memory serves, we have a Democrat in office, and he has been in office for 2 years now; and before the previous prez, we had another 8 years of dem. The TSA "privacy breaches" we are so worried about were instituded by a dem agency, in a dem department, under a dem executive; The financial crisis is largely attributed to fannie mae regulations passed under... a dem executive; and IIRC the much maligned antics of the RIAA are being reinforced by ICE (again, under a dem executive).
It boggles the mind that people on slashdot and the internet at large would blame republicans for anything and everything even if the party itself were to cease to exist. Its like some kind of bogeyman; I rather remember seeing someone remark 1.5 years ago-- when Dems controlled a full 2 branches of the gov't by an overwhelming amount-- that it was "the republican's fault" that Obama couldnt fulfill some promise or other (think it was closing gitmo). Never mind that republicans had no power to block anything at that point.
If you're stupid enough to ask Slashdotters for their legal opinion, you deserve any answer you get.
Im on a message board, trying to find out what other people think so as to better understand the opposition's mindset; the alternative is, I suppose, to ram my opinion down their throat, plug my ears, and declare myself the champion.
Sorry, but Im not a child anymore; I prefer discoursing like an adult.
I understand the commerce clause; but I guess my beef is that such an interpretation means that anything and everything could be considered a power of the fed, and I am then left wondering why such sweeping language was used in the 10th amendment if it had no purpose whatsoever...
Well, it isnt "paying for debts", "providing for common defense", and crying welfare on something like this would broaden the word so far as to make utterly worthless the 10th amendment. If all powers fall under "general welfare", what is reserved for the states?
I dont even understand why the Fed has authority to distribute money to the states to begin with. My understanding was that the authority to collect income tax was for the purpose of funding the government's constitutional roles. Paying for local roads does NOT fall under that as far as I can figure.
People will, in general, do whatever they can get away with. If your boss doesnt fire anyone for being late, more and more people will tend to come in late (if their workload / schedule permits, of course).
If popular opinion was for violation of the first amendment, or the fed for some other reason thought it could get away with curtailing it (which it actually does, precisely because the people permit certain (sometimes sane) restrictions of it), they would, and all the courts would back them up in it.
Part of the problem may be education; when I was in middle / high school, I barely knew the 10th amendment...it was basically "oh and that other amendment that noone cares about". All the attention was on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments as these crucial things which prevented tyranny.
Never mind that without checking the growth of the fed, it WILL eventually become a tyranny-- it may take centuries, but it is inevitable, and checking its growth is the only way to slow it.
I know youre not defending the commerce clause, but I cant imagine even a supporter of this idea would try to pull THAT; under that justification "commerce clause" quite literally applies to everything. I know its pulled out to justify a lot of things, but "that road connects to another road" is so incredibly weak... after all, sidewalks go over gas lines which are connected to national gas companies, but the fed would have an awfully hard time convincing people that THAT falls under "commerce clause".
The guy at the table next to you in a cyber cafe is essentially on a hub or switch with you if you are using unencrypted or shared keys-- he can see all of your traffic, and you can see all of his. He doesnt have to suppress the original packets, and I believe (though have not tried) that you could quite easily perform the wireless equivalent to arp poisoning-- wifi macs are more easily spoofed/changed than wired, and he could quite easily forge deauth commands and set up a clone "evil" wifi AP and wait for you to reauth to it.
Regardless, it doesnt matter if you suppress the original traffic (like in the hub scenario). AFAIK, as long as you reply with the right headers, and your reply gets there first, your traffic will be seen as legitimate. This is in fact how the DNS flaws of a while back worked-- an attacker would perform a DNS request to his local DNS server, and then bombard it with forged DNS replies, until one of its forged packets hit the right sequence number. The local DNS server would then accept its traffic as being legitimate, and cache the reply.
IIRC, TCP/IP doesnt really have any mechanism for protecting you from such an attack. The sender has no way of verifying the identity of its destination, so anyone who sees the traffic can reply to it, and as long as it isnt stopped by routers or IDS (detecting spoofed ips, or replying with the wrong subnet from the wrong router), the original sender has no way to determine where that traffic came from. Thats pretty much why we have SSL certs signed by a central authority....
I dont, and I wouldnt be described as being "on the left" by any stretch of the imagination. Truthfully, however, I dont think privacy is worth quite the value people on slashdot tend to give it, either-- theres no "right to privacy" in the sense that people defend here.
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
Cain and abel already works and makes it trivially easy to arp poison, as does ettercap. There are already point-and-click WEP and WPA (dictionary) crackers out there. And regardless, firesheep doesnt screw with SSL cracking, it looks for unencrypted login cookies.
With SSL/TLS, with a self-signed certificate, the attacker has to be in a position to tamper with the packets
No, he just has to be in a position to snoop the traffic and forge replies, and then convince the end user that his certificate is just as valid as the legitimate destination.
Guess what, if you can see the HTTP traffic, youre probably 90% of the way there.
The only way HTTP is vulnerable is if you can sniff the traffic. THe only ways you can sniff the traffic are 1) Be physically in the middle of the traffic (you have control of a proxy, or a router, between user and server. 2) Be on the same switch (or hub) as one of the endpoints, and use ARP poisoning to intercept all traffic to one of the endpoints (logically in the middle of traffic). 3) Have a managed port with a mirror port.
In the first 2 scenarios-- which are by far and away more likely than a hacker getting access to a mirror port on your network-- you have a MITM scenario. HTTPS is USELESS if it doesnt guard against MITMs unless your "protected against" list consists of mirror ports, and "hackers" who dont know how to use Cain and Abel (and im not actually sure you couldnt MITM on a mirror port, either). 90% of the time you can sniff traffic, you can intercept it and spoof a response from the end server.
I made an argument based in logic, and your response was not to refute me with examples of my error, but simply to call my opinions "malformed", "dangerous", and "pseudoscientific" (I didnt actually use scientific examples, I used logical reasoning...)
Is this what passes for discourse on slashdot these days, baseless attacks that have no rhetorical value whatsoever?
Sir, this is slashdot; you are not permitted to have an opinion about Google that does not include at least one conspiracy and/or world domination plot.
Please hand in your membership card, you are no longer welcome here.
Transubstantiation is an example of the tradition that was rejected. If you reject the Pope/Church authority, there is no authoritative (read: scriptural) basis for believing in transubstantiation.
and one thing I've learned is that religious identity is a lot more nuanced and complex than one might imagine.
Several have argued that LDS folks should be classified as christian using similar arguments. The problem is, THEY dont define the term, its founders do, and the founders of christianity had several criteria. The Roman Catholic church makes its criteria plain, and I rather suspect that if you expressed to a bishop your conviction that the RCC had no authority, they would encourage you to leave the church.
People using such arguments generally either dont understand the full situation (or have been given bad information), or are attempting to make unorthodoxy look orthodox.
They know they may disagree with the Pope.
The formal dividing line between protestant and Roman Catholic is over whether the Pope and Church have doctrinal authority.
He does however have a point that in the last 3 years chrome went from a brand new, buggy, crashy browser to what is generally regarded as the measuring stick for speed. Its gone from no extension support to support that rivals firefox's (auto-update, GPO deployment, permissions ala andriod). It already has process seperation, plugin separation, and extension process separation. And it appears to have set the standard for browser UI for many of the major browsers. It really is quite impressive how quickly it has matured. Even more impressive is that they now fully support the thing for Active Directory deployments, with both an MSI installer and GPO templates for fully configuring and locking down chrome (including the ability to turn off tracking).
Firefox is great, and I like to use it still; but they HAVE taken some 8 years and STILL no official MSIs, or AD templates. Since chrome fits my needs so well, and Internet Explorer no longer SO awful that i feel obligated to offer a replacement to users, it doesnt seem quite as attractive as it used to be.
Perhaps moving to this new model will help them speed up development and incremental release of features; shipping a lot of versions does mean that you get your product out quicker, and so long as QA is maintained, that can be a good thing. Chrome's model has meant that when they were at version 3, and folks said "but what about extensions", they could have version 4 out with extensions in 3 months; and when folks said "what about adblock functionality", they could add that very quickly.
Disagreement, misconception, disaproval... NONE of these things are bigotry, and you simply make yourself look ignorant declaring that they are. You think that the church is incorrect in its statements; wonderful. You also dont like their stance; thats great. Guess what, thats what we call bigotry.
When the church goes around inciting hate towards homosexuals-- and not just in a "but they think im wrong!" way-- then possibly you can break out "bigot" as a description.
Slashdot Mirror
The absurdity of it is that this is, broadly speaking, a free country, and there is very little preventing someone from taking your life other than the fear of law enforcement.
See, thats one of the hazards of a free country, and the only way to chip away at such hazards is to increasingly implement a police state. So for every one of these worries you assuage, you give up more freedom.
THATS the absurdity of it-- are you not concerned that someone can legally own a gun, and could very easily take your life with it? Why then be concerned with the threat of someone flying a slow, delicate RC plane several thousand miles carrying a few pounds of something that might have a chance to mildly impact your life
Ill just leave this here: http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/
Now we just need to get it onto major news networks, and possibly sanity will be restored.
[Blah, dems are doing a lot of unrelated but bad stuff, blah]
When someone goes from one story to
We've got a country full of citizens who will gladly vote away their freedoms, their privacy, their financial well-being, and their health, for the chance of foisting their prejudices and religious scruples off on the rest of society.
then I think it is fair game to call bullocks on his claims by providing counter examples. 90% of the things currently being blamed on republicans, are either the result of the Clinton administration (the recession), or the current administration (anything directly instituted by the executive branch-- ICE seizures, TSA shenigans), or the recent heavily Dem-dominated congress.
Not that it will make any difference; once youve decided that your party is flawless and can do no wrong, no example to the contrary will be enough.
Parent wasnt talking about just one issue; he was trying to pin basically all of the world's ills on a single political party. Its not new, and its not unusual to see on slashdot, but it sure as heck isnt rational.
If you ever start thinking your political party is the answer to all of the world's ills, you know that youve really gone off the deep end.
If they had to learn a new system, why stick with Windows?
Because however obnoxious the Windows tax is, its not a full 100% of the cost of the hardware?
We've got a country full of citizens who will gladly vote away their freedoms, their privacy, their financial well-being, and their health
Im sorry, but youre implying here that these things are caused by republicans.
But if memory serves, we have a Democrat in office, and he has been in office for 2 years now; and before the previous prez, we had another 8 years of dem. The TSA "privacy breaches" we are so worried about were instituded by a dem agency, in a dem department, under a dem executive; The financial crisis is largely attributed to fannie mae regulations passed under... a dem executive; and IIRC the much maligned antics of the RIAA are being reinforced by ICE (again, under a dem executive).
It boggles the mind that people on slashdot and the internet at large would blame republicans for anything and everything even if the party itself were to cease to exist. Its like some kind of bogeyman; I rather remember seeing someone remark 1.5 years ago-- when Dems controlled a full 2 branches of the gov't by an overwhelming amount-- that it was "the republican's fault" that Obama couldnt fulfill some promise or other (think it was closing gitmo). Never mind that republicans had no power to block anything at that point.
If you're stupid enough to ask Slashdotters for their legal opinion, you deserve any answer you get.
Im on a message board, trying to find out what other people think so as to better understand the opposition's mindset; the alternative is, I suppose, to ram my opinion down their throat, plug my ears, and declare myself the champion.
Sorry, but Im not a child anymore; I prefer discoursing like an adult.
I understand the commerce clause; but I guess my beef is that such an interpretation means that anything and everything could be considered a power of the fed, and I am then left wondering why such sweeping language was used in the 10th amendment if it had no purpose whatsoever...
Well, it isnt "paying for debts", "providing for common defense", and crying welfare on something like this would broaden the word so far as to make utterly worthless the 10th amendment. If all powers fall under "general welfare", what is reserved for the states?
I dont even understand why the Fed has authority to distribute money to the states to begin with. My understanding was that the authority to collect income tax was for the purpose of funding the government's constitutional roles. Paying for local roads does NOT fall under that as far as I can figure.
People will, in general, do whatever they can get away with. If your boss doesnt fire anyone for being late, more and more people will tend to come in late (if their workload / schedule permits, of course).
If popular opinion was for violation of the first amendment, or the fed for some other reason thought it could get away with curtailing it (which it actually does, precisely because the people permit certain (sometimes sane) restrictions of it), they would, and all the courts would back them up in it.
Part of the problem may be education; when I was in middle / high school, I barely knew the 10th amendment...it was basically "oh and that other amendment that noone cares about". All the attention was on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments as these crucial things which prevented tyranny.
Never mind that without checking the growth of the fed, it WILL eventually become a tyranny-- it may take centuries, but it is inevitable, and checking its growth is the only way to slow it.
I know youre not defending the commerce clause, but I cant imagine even a supporter of this idea would try to pull THAT; under that justification "commerce clause" quite literally applies to everything. I know its pulled out to justify a lot of things, but "that road connects to another road" is so incredibly weak... after all, sidewalks go over gas lines which are connected to national gas companies, but the fed would have an awfully hard time convincing people that THAT falls under "commerce clause".
The guy at the table next to you in a cyber cafe is essentially on a hub or switch with you if you are using unencrypted or shared keys-- he can see all of your traffic, and you can see all of his. He doesnt have to suppress the original packets, and I believe (though have not tried) that you could quite easily perform the wireless equivalent to arp poisoning-- wifi macs are more easily spoofed/changed than wired, and he could quite easily forge deauth commands and set up a clone "evil" wifi AP and wait for you to reauth to it.
Regardless, it doesnt matter if you suppress the original traffic (like in the hub scenario). AFAIK, as long as you reply with the right headers, and your reply gets there first, your traffic will be seen as legitimate. This is in fact how the DNS flaws of a while back worked-- an attacker would perform a DNS request to his local DNS server, and then bombard it with forged DNS replies, until one of its forged packets hit the right sequence number. The local DNS server would then accept its traffic as being legitimate, and cache the reply.
IIRC, TCP/IP doesnt really have any mechanism for protecting you from such an attack. The sender has no way of verifying the identity of its destination, so anyone who sees the traffic can reply to it, and as long as it isnt stopped by routers or IDS (detecting spoofed ips, or replying with the wrong subnet from the wrong router), the original sender has no way to determine where that traffic came from. Thats pretty much why we have SSL certs signed by a central authority....
the right likes trading privacy for security
I dont, and I wouldnt be described as being "on the left" by any stretch of the imagination. Truthfully, however, I dont think privacy is worth quite the value people on slashdot tend to give it, either-- theres no "right to privacy" in the sense that people defend here.
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
Cain and abel already works and makes it trivially easy to arp poison, as does ettercap. There are already point-and-click WEP and WPA (dictionary) crackers out there. And regardless, firesheep doesnt screw with SSL cracking, it looks for unencrypted login cookies.
With SSL/TLS, with a self-signed certificate, the attacker has to be in a position to tamper with the packets
No, he just has to be in a position to snoop the traffic and forge replies, and then convince the end user that his certificate is just as valid as the legitimate destination.
Guess what, if you can see the HTTP traffic, youre probably 90% of the way there.
The only way HTTP is vulnerable is if you can sniff the traffic. THe only ways you can sniff the traffic are
1) Be physically in the middle of the traffic (you have control of a proxy, or a router, between user and server.
2) Be on the same switch (or hub) as one of the endpoints, and use ARP poisoning to intercept all traffic to one of the endpoints (logically in the middle of traffic).
3) Have a managed port with a mirror port.
In the first 2 scenarios-- which are by far and away more likely than a hacker getting access to a mirror port on your network-- you have a MITM scenario. HTTPS is USELESS if it doesnt guard against MITMs unless your "protected against" list consists of mirror ports, and "hackers" who dont know how to use Cain and Abel (and im not actually sure you couldnt MITM on a mirror port, either). 90% of the time you can sniff traffic, you can intercept it and spoof a response from the end server.
I made an argument based in logic, and your response was not to refute me with examples of my error, but simply to call my opinions "malformed", "dangerous", and "pseudoscientific" (I didnt actually use scientific examples, I used logical reasoning...)
Is this what passes for discourse on slashdot these days, baseless attacks that have no rhetorical value whatsoever?
Sir, this is slashdot; you are not permitted to have an opinion about Google that does not include at least one conspiracy and/or world domination plot.
Please hand in your membership card, you are no longer welcome here.
Transubstantiation is an example of the tradition that was rejected. If you reject the Pope/Church authority, there is no authoritative (read: scriptural) basis for believing in transubstantiation.
and one thing I've learned is that religious identity is a lot more nuanced and complex than one might imagine.
Several have argued that LDS folks should be classified as christian using similar arguments. The problem is, THEY dont define the term, its founders do, and the founders of christianity had several criteria. The Roman Catholic church makes its criteria plain, and I rather suspect that if you expressed to a bishop your conviction that the RCC had no authority, they would encourage you to leave the church.
People using such arguments generally either dont understand the full situation (or have been given bad information), or are attempting to make unorthodoxy look orthodox.
They know they may disagree with the Pope.
The formal dividing line between protestant and Roman Catholic is over whether the Pope and Church have doctrinal authority.
He does however have a point that in the last 3 years chrome went from a brand new, buggy, crashy browser to what is generally regarded as the measuring stick for speed. Its gone from no extension support to support that rivals firefox's (auto-update, GPO deployment, permissions ala andriod). It already has process seperation, plugin separation, and extension process separation. And it appears to have set the standard for browser UI for many of the major browsers. It really is quite impressive how quickly it has matured. Even more impressive is that they now fully support the thing for Active Directory deployments, with both an MSI installer and GPO templates for fully configuring and locking down chrome (including the ability to turn off tracking).
Firefox is great, and I like to use it still; but they HAVE taken some 8 years and STILL no official MSIs, or AD templates. Since chrome fits my needs so well, and Internet Explorer no longer SO awful that i feel obligated to offer a replacement to users, it doesnt seem quite as attractive as it used to be.
Perhaps moving to this new model will help them speed up development and incremental release of features; shipping a lot of versions does mean that you get your product out quicker, and so long as QA is maintained, that can be a good thing. Chrome's model has meant that when they were at version 3, and folks said "but what about extensions", they could have version 4 out with extensions in 3 months; and when folks said "what about adblock functionality", they could add that very quickly.
thats what we call bigotry.
Should be "thats not what we call bigotry"
Disagreement, misconception, disaproval...
NONE of these things are bigotry, and you simply make yourself look ignorant declaring that they are. You think that the church is incorrect in its statements; wonderful. You also dont like their stance; thats great. Guess what, thats what we call bigotry.
When the church goes around inciting hate towards homosexuals-- and not just in a "but they think im wrong!" way-- then possibly you can break out "bigot" as a description.