1) We all realize that our Freedom has been taken away from us, that corporations increasingly own us through duress, obligations, incentives, and ignorance, and that we have a 30 million man march on Congress and demand through representation that they change the laws? We all get together in a massive enlightened uprising and forcefully (but peaceably) replace our leaders and change copyright laws, strengthen Anonymity and Privacy in the Constitution, etc., etc., etc.?
2) Let them pass all the laws they want, because they will be unenforceable. Until they outright make encryption illegal, or non-approved encryption illegal, there are engineering solutions to provide us with both Anonymity and Privacy. They can't prosecute you, if there is no Habeas Corpus.
Solving the inherent problem is impossible. It's like bitching that we could do A, if we could just get that damned Unified Theory of Everything. Yeah... I want a pony too.
The inherent problem is that neither you, or I, or the People's interests are represented anymore in our government. Regulation is a farce, free markets are a farce, the stock market is rigged, and we continue to get totally owned to the point where even our currency and country has been devalued by a company in our own country.
So if you think you can "vote" your way out of this and that intelligent discourse will make politicians see reason and start pushing legislation that will effect our best interests... I have bridge to sell you.
Part of the problem in the engineering solutions is that it requires participation. Not enough people have been effected yet to induce real change and participation. It will not be much longer before an alternate DNS is created outside of the US. It will fracture the Internet in two, because I don't imagine they will just copy the.com,.org, and.net domains over for free. I imagine they will give us the opportunity to transfer over to them for a fee, and that after a period of time we forfeit the rights to a domain name. To be honest, I really don't know how that will play out. Perhaps there will be some cooperation, and perhaps not.
That time is coming, and I can certainly say that I will have no problems spending thousands of dollars for a DNS system that is not controlled by Homeland Security and people that have no idea what they are doing, and whose strings are being pulled by corporate interests that have no respect for the judicial process at home or abroad.
It's great to have ideals, and I don't disagree with anything you have said, but pragmatically, idealism here is not going to work.
This is war. We are not the biggest players on the field. We don't have satellites, tanks, and F117's. When you are in such a position, your only option is Guerrilla Warfare.
So you may think we are "fiddling" around, but the truth is far from it. Their are multiple projects and thousands and thousands of people worldwide that they are thinking everyday of how to create a 2nd Internet that can be routed around on top of the 1st, while creating an inherently Anonymous and Private network for communications.
That IS the solution, because if you think you could do it with your wallet, then you are fighting the rest of the Sheeples, if you think you can do it by reasoning with a politician, then you don't understand politics, and if you think you can do it with ideals, than you are sadly naive.
The engineering solutions are the most pragmatic and effective solutions we will have.
For example, I have several VPS that is outside of the US entirely, user accounts on private tracker sites, and all of my activity is limited to SSL protected file transfers from several IP addresses. Inspect my activity all you want and you will find nothing linking back to me without a extreme buttload of effort. As for the private trackers? Shut one down, and two more appear. They are even WOR
Since I actually know a couple of 3rd party software developers for Autodesk with UIDS under 1,000... I remain highly skeptical of Autodesk's commitment towards any community.
From what I remember Autodesk "absorbed" a lot of people's hard work into their own software and said the developers legally had no recourse. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but from what I remember, one of my friends was making good money with their 3rd party software and then all of the sudden it was gone.
So if Autodesk totally screwed over its entire development community years back, what makes you think they have a real commitment towards supporting anybody but themselves?
There is a solution, but the biggest problem to tackle is SPAM.
DNS allows us to create about as many records and types as we want. There has always been talk for years about how we could eliminate traditional land lines by dialing host names.
Creating an open source platform that encrypts DNS SRV records, creates webs of trust, etc. is the easy part.
The hard part will be preventing unwanted communication from reaching you. That's the biggest reason why most people are using very large service providers like FaceBook, Google, Hotmail, etc.
Bigger players tend to have more sophistication and ability to reduce these SPAM attempts.
Imagine if all the telemarketers across the world had to do was to troll the DNS SRV records and fire off emails, instant messages, text messages, recorded messages, outbound IVR attempts, etc.
Until we figure out a way to really address this, while maintaining privacy and anonymity, we will still have to rely largely on these more dangerous solutions simply because they can do what we can't in our homes... having more signal than noise.
Jeez, even I get 4 or 5 calls and contact requests from India per week on Skype.
The best solution is a small $50 box that you literally plug into a wall, your TV, and is wireless. It has P2P social networking where you completely control all access, communication methods are disclosed for public anonymous requests, private communication requests can be assigned different priorities and pathways, and the whole thing integrates with a secure DNS. Video, Audio, and all forms of communications can be routed to wherever you answer. It can be on your TV, laptop, netbook, tablet, or smartphone, or the direct number to the hotel you are staying at.
All of this is possible, but keeping out unwanted communication would be non-trivial to say the least. Not to mention, your bandwidth at home is being used, so all of those attacks and SPAM eat into your ability to communicate and your wallet.
It's kind of nice to know that Google deals with all that crap for you. Personally, I operate VOIP and a mail server at my datacenter with a big fat pipe, but that does not mean I don't see 100K plus per week SPAM/Hacking attempts on the services I manage. Definitely don't want to deal with that on my residential connection.
Free speech so far has not been extended to include the idea that preventing you from having a "soap box" in cyberspace to "speak" to others is protected behavior. The judge is technically correct. Puerto Rico also has a different relationship than any other foreign country, because it is in a state of "flux". They are technically US citizens, but denied the full rights of a US citizen, and still have not resolved whether to become an independent country or the 51st state.
What does not make any sense either, is that idea that the US government can seize domains only works as long as the DNS falls entirely under their control... which it does.
So why are they limiting themselves to.com,.org,.us, etc?
The whole purpose was a corrupt bypass of judicial processes and a complete disregard for the sovereignty of other nations in order to promulgate and enforce the views of the copyright extremists in the US corporation/government complex.
For the judge to say, "just visit it at these foreign domains" is contradictory to those goals. I can't imagine the real corporate entities that are being "harmed" by the infringing distribution of their televised athletic sports are satisfied that *any* domain can still access the copyrighted content.
This is not a good example to argue about US control over domains, because the behavior is very strange and nonsensical from the US, the legal arguments are wrong because Puerto Rico is not a full foreign country or a full fledged state, and nobody is making legal arguments that the US does not, and should not, have unilateral control over DNS worldwide and is disregarding sovereignty, which also would not work for Puerto Rico either.
If this was Brazil or Spain, we could be all over this. It's Puerto Rico. Half the citizenship and twice the bullshit.
This is all well and good, but there are other things to consider here.
Let's say I have 2 million pounds of quantum frozen food and liquids (can't go bad - kind of like that movie that reconstituted it with a laser). There are no associated costs of storage, since I store it in a Bag of Holding I picked up from the Quickie Mart.
To eat everyday... I drive down to the really really really fucked up side of town where I can food and water. Some people are nice there.... but quite a bit of them don't like me. I am either tolerated, abused, and rarely treated well. Even the ones that treat me well find fault with my character. Additionally, there are a significant number of people that want to travel to my side of town and kill me and others. Furthermore, there is even more significant number of people that won't go as far as killing me, but will sympathize, protect, or support those that will kill me and others.
Looking forward into the future I can see that their food and water will run out and that I won't need to travel there, or pay others to do so. I will be perfectly fine because I have been sitting on those resources for so long.
However, for decades, I have been giving the people that want to kill me the resources to do so, and the reasons for wanting them to do so.
That does not sound very forward thinking to me. It sounds dangerous and ill advised. Let's also add that I am big fat ass and that I consume 4 times what I need to consume, and that if I just wanted to do so in the past few decades I could have reduced my food consumption by minimum 50%.
How about a different situation?
Let's say I can get a widget made on my side of town for $10. The widget will be made professionally, to rigorous standards, and that health and safety for people and the environment is carefully considered and monitored. On that other side of town I can get it made for $3 without any real standards, and all of the ill effects from production are Not.In.My.Back.Yard.
At some point though, it will spill over and start affecting me, but NOT TODAY.
Also, dangerous, shortsighted and ill advised. Especially, when it causes some people on my side of town to be less fortunate than they could be because I am not purchasing it from them. They make less money, and as a whole, we all start losing our skills and knowledge on how to make the widgets in the first place.
So on my side of town... there are some people that are doing very well. They have figured it out and know exactly how to get into the "bad" neighborhoods and, some may say, exploit them so that we can live better than them in the meantime. However, most of us on the "good" side of town do just okay. We get by. A very few get to live like kings and queens.
So although it is great that we have all these resources on our side of town, and it really is pretty damn good (and maybe convenient) that we found more rare resources, it might be a better idea to consider the whole picture.
We have not been doing that since day one, and are some pretty shortsighted and greedy people on our side of town aren't we?
Why take the extra effort today when we can just push the consequences of our actions out till tomorrow?
When those "bad" neighborhoods are so fucked up they can't be available to us either, I seriously question if we will still have the skills and knowledge to make a difference anyways.
Purely hypothetical, but let's say the rest of the "neighborhoods" either died, or mutually agreed, to lock us out. Just how quickly could we actually get back up to speed processing our own resources and creating our own goods and services again? Maybe... there might be a delay.... and that delay.. would be quite stressful. Just possibly.
That's a common science fiction/fantasy theme (and so far as I know, nothing more) and not at all what they're talking about.
I read the summary again, and you're right. They are specifically redefining the multiverse and then proposing a test. However, the multiverse is not a common science fiction/fantasy theme. It is used in science fiction, but first appeared in "religion". It's quite old. Although it started more philosophically, in recent times it did change its name to the many-worlds theory and is also known as the quantum multiverse theory.
Most people just say multiverse and don't add the quantum.
So I am speaking of science here and the mainstream definition does not include "bubbles".
I was not arguing semantics though, but the definition of the word, and once again, I did not notice they redefined it. So I get your point.
Also, there was no mention of universes splitting; I can only assume you got that from that choice-based multiple universe theory you thought they were talking about.
No, there is specifically mention of it *not* splitting. After reading the summary again they just say "alternate" and propose nothing that causes "alternate" universes to appear.
Yes, from my understanding of the many-worlds theory and my misreading of the summary, it would have to be universes splitting and pushing away from each other.
In any case, a lot of people will get confused with their use of the word multiverse since it really is commonly thought to be referencing quantum multiverse theory or many-worlds theory ( other posts indicate that), and if you assume that is what they mean, then it is fundamentally impossible.
Security is maintained if you turn the car on... but what about malicious activity?
Can you imagine a prankster turning on a big lot of cars at the same time? Run for a couple of hours and it will be quite a bit of gas wasted.
So completely separate to me means that there is no way to manipulate the engine and drive control systems, either to turn it on, kill the engine, alter programming, change destination, etc.
I was also considering malicious activity, including kill switches.
If you are proposing something to cause the engine to start, and not the capability to turn off, then yeah that can be done without any fear of theft.
Also, it is worth pointing out that is just complete utter fucking bullshit.
$300 for a DVD?
Considering how much they were paid, it is not beyond reason to receive free DVD updates in the mail. If you paid $3000 to get the NAV system in the first place, I am pretty sure that about $50 bucks of that will easily cover replacements for the life time of the vehicle.
Charging you is just another way for them to gouge money out of you. It's also a strong incentive to pirate the crap out of it or install a system that does get wireless updates and traffic updates. If it was constantly updated, anonymous, and $10 a month and directed me around accidents and traffic, that would be worth it.
What happens when it is 9 billion degrees outside and I want my shiny iPhone BMW application to turn on my car and start the air conditioning?
Having the engine and drive systems completely separate is a great idea, but one that fundamentally precludes features that will actually sell the technology.
Unless you create an A/C system that can work independently from the car itself, you still have the same problem.
You mean it will be no different than any other "security initiative". Meaning, that of course they want it to be as hack "proof" as possible, but allow law enforcement to have access at will.
I don't care how much you polish up that turd, how much lipstick on the pig, etc., you will never convince me that access by law enforcement cannot be misused and commandeered by either military forces in time of war, or criminals in search of profit.
The only security initiative worth discussing that is actually valuable to society is one in which ONLY the owner is granted access. Everything is encrypted, private, and anonymous. If the owner dies, then just recycle the parts and replace the control systems.
Of course, that kind of security does not support the supremacy of the state and enable a fascist government to operate. After all, I don't think we will ever convince them either that their monitoring and control of us is not for our own good and allows society to be stable.
In the meantime, we will continue to have insecure, ill-advised, and broken systems that make up the very foundation of our society that a special few have nearly complete control over through applied knowledge. Examples being, Sony getting owned, RSA getting owned, Wikileaks and the US, etc.
Our only security is in numbers, but that won't matter when they connect up the new digital grid and a 16 year old pissed of Iranian or Chinese hacker takes the power down on the entire East Coast because the sysadmin was an underpaid idiot that spent all of his time searching for young teenage porn.
I don't think you listened to what he said, and your snarky and denigrating remarks are not constructive to a really interesting conversation we could all be having. This is most certainly not an issue of semantics.
The multiverse theory, as I have always understood it, posits that for every possible "choice", universes are created to express each on the possibilities, or "choices". This could be purely causality, or could be free will. Who really knows.
However, and this is not semantics, a universe is generally defined as " the totality of everything that exists".
If we use that definition, then he is correct about this being nonsense because then every newly created universe is in fact splitting into two universes. Quasi-Mitosis on a grand scale if you will. If this is true, then we have been expanding at an exponential rate since the beginning of the universe itself, and all of these "bubbles" are in fact, part of a single universe.
If there is a center bubble universe, it must split into two. So do all the other bubbles simply get pushed out of the way at speeds clearly above the speed of light itself? Think about it. In the space of a "choice", countless "bubble" universes must move to make way for the two "bubbles" that just got created.
It really is nonsense.
The multiverse theory, as I have always understood it, states that new universes get created. This strongly implies, by the definition of the words, that no interaction is possible between universes naturally. If we can travel from one universe to another universe, it won't be through conventional space travel, wormholes, or space folding, since the two universes are not actually connected.
I am more willing to accept the possibility that there are multiple, if not infinite, big bangs going on in the universe. What we understand to be the universe is really just a cohesive collection of galaxies and spaces between them that may, or may not, be in a constant state of expansion and contraction. Perhaps a "universe" expands without stopping and eventually the energy and matter of that collection of galaxies collides with another collection. Quite similar to how galaxies are colliding with each other now.
Who could ever really know?
I just know that roman_mir has a pretty damn good point, and I would hardly call it pedantic and solely based on semantics. There is some logical reasoning behind it, and if we are going to keep language and terms consistent in science, then this whole idea is nonsense on the face of it.
I agree, but it is strange and stressful times right now. In the light of recent events, an investigation was at least warranted. At least a check in person on the guy, or some further questioning about what he was doing geek to geek.
The SWAT team was way overkill for this if the only evidence they had was his questions to the SRA.
It does remind me of what is seemingly an attack on chemistry itself in many countries. People that have a love for chemistry and have their own labs, no different than car enthusiasts, are increasingly being treated as threats to society, where they are most certainly not.
That being said, in this case, I would have rather been on the side of caution and took a deeper look at the guy, I just would not have done it with full tactical gear and weapons.
it is hardly unreasonable to take the precautionary step of assuming that he's manage to produce a bunch of toxic and radioactive dust.
Given the recent events in Norway, I could see how the Swedish Radiation Authority thought it was a bit weird (let's face it.. it is) and contacted the police. If you thought of radioactive dust, I am sure the SRA thought of it and the cops thought he could disperse it in a populated area. Quite nasty.
He got raided because it is not ordinary to build a nuclear reactor in one's house. The level of force may be up for debate, but their interest is quite reasonable.
All things considered, there are cheaper and safer ways to generate your own electricity than nuclear reactors. I'd leave that stuff for large scale implementations or purchasing a complete and contained unit ready to go.
You completely missed my point. It's not about bragging rights, or which is more efficient.
The fact is that BOTH the Prius and the Polo Bluemotion are significantly more efficient in fossil fuel use. This leads to:
1) A decreased dependency on Oil. 2) Proof that these technologies work and that we have the opportunity to learn from them as they are in use everyday. 3) What I also did not mention, was that the Prius, also produces less pollution. I assume the Polo Bluemotion does the same?
If it accomplishes less pollution and a reduced energy consumption, then it is green by definition. Arguing that B is better than A, and therefore A should lose its status as green is just a little bit silly.
They are both green and can be marketed as such.
Marketing the Flex Fuel as green is wholly retarded and disingenuous, and the only people behind it are those that stand to profit by it.
I think you mean that marketing has polluted the word so thoroughly that it is hard to take it seriously. In a way it has been gang raped and never truly recovered.
However, the intended meaning of "green" to scientists and intellectuals (I guess) is that the technology results in a net loss of expended energy somewhere. It may be generating energy, or just being more efficient at an unclean process, therefore making it "green" because it is not as bad as the alternative.
Calling Flex Fuel "green" when it requires so much corn to help make it that the environmental impact, resources, and energy required to produce it that it is marginally better (or not better at all depending on who you talk to) is an example of taking "green" and tarnishing it.
The Prius is definitely green because, although it still uses fossil fuels, it is generally 100% increase in fuel efficiency over existing models. That is still green.
Personally, "recycling" the energy used from radio waves is a pretty damn good idea. I would take it a step further and create a drywall product that incorporates it and pushes the power back into the house in the form of air cycling, purification, subtle lighting, etc. I don't know how much could be harvested, but there is quite a bit of radio waves hitting me even now. My wireless N, my neighbors wireless, satellite signals, FM, AM, military, garage door openers, cell phones, etc. Be pretty neat to have cheap wireless access points installed in each room, and every room absorbing the radio waves that are not used. Obviously, some rooms would not have the special drywall so they could receive wireless from an joining room.
This is absolutely green. I know it is the first time I have heard of even recycling radio wave energy.
Of course, the FCC mandates to you may not interfere with the signal, but I think it would be a dubious argument to say that you cannot prevent signals from penetrating your own house.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the browsers mentioned are all of equal quality, and each can be used for every browser application, but each is slightly better than others for some specific application. It would follow that for any specific application, one has a choice of using the default browser, or installing some other browser; let's assume that knowing which browser is better for a specific application is an indication of intelligence, and the more obscure the browser, the more intelligence is indicated by the knowledge that the obscure browser is better for a specific application. The effects would be moderated by the assumption that the default browser is better for a specific application.
That is not true though.
All browsers are certainly not of equal quality. Not by a long shot. Chrome is by the far the best right now, however:
Internet Explorer is pretty good for enterprise implementations because of its tight integration with security and policies. Also, most of the time when a specific browser is better at something, that comes down to rendering a document and client/server communication. The recent stuff, when programmed correctly, works cross-browser fairly well. The ones that don't, are by and large, Internet Explorer. They either require an Active X component, or have some limitations due to a.NET or.ASP requirement. I would not know really, just what I experience as a user. As a developer I would never ever touch IE or its technologies with a 10 foot pole, but that is because I would choose open standards and open source, not a direct attack on IE itself.
Firefox sucks balls. It's like the hottest 19 year old Hollywood hottie in the movies that burns holes through the screen going from 11 to super-fucked-up-uggo in 10 years. We all have examples like that right? Firefox used to be better than IE, only because it *was* better. Even the latest pales in comparison to Chrome, and well, even IE9. I sincerely doubt that Firefox would be better for any specific application over Chrome or Opera.
Opera is pretty decent. It's different and I like how the interface can be switched up. I don't like it as much as Chrome though, and that is mainly about daily usability and satisfaction with the speed and interface.
Safari *sounds* like it would be good, but it is marginally better than Firefox. I have seen Safari render stuff so retarded it honestly makes you question if Apple is pulling a Microsoft IE6. You would think Apple would make stuff that just "works" like some of their other products, but they fall short on this one. Once again, I cannot possibly imagine any website best displayed in Safari. Apple may have screwed the pooch, so far, but they are working with standards, something IE has only recently figured out.
Chrome keeps getting better. Initially, it was that each tab was its own process. However, in the current versions I am able to routinely crash the whole thing. Totally unresponsive. Killing the chrome processes one by one does nothing... until I kill the right one, which causes all other chrome processes to crash. So it is the main that crashes, not the spawned processes, but the spawned processes are still unresponsive. Still, if anything, Chrome is better right now because of speed. That is the edge that Chrome really has and the interface... that IE9 and Firefox are all knocking off.
If you truly look at this from a specific application standpoint it only makes a difference when Microsoft proprietary tech is required.
The whole study is flawed. I know of plenty of companies that are still forced to use IE6 because of legacy platforms. Also, I know plenty of pretty smart people that prefer IE. They just like the interface more and the look of it. Not to mention the programmers that develop specific applications that require IE. They tend to use it, because they are debugging in it all day long.
Well they won't be here for long. If you read all the articles about Foxconn and suicide, I give it about a month before one of the robots blows his brain out with a.45.
Unlesssss....... they take a cue from Skynet and add the "cannot self-terminate" rule...... but.... AHAHA!
They could kill each other in a death pact. Nothing says they can't terminate each other.
1) It involves a web site. So, although clearly debatable and a tenuous connection at best, it involves the web'o'tubes and that is like tech and shit. 2) It involves a web site that managed to get funding in some vague way that is hinted at. 3) Said funding involves some guys that are actually famousish, if that's a word. Since those guys are related to tech and they invested in a company that is web based and involves tech and shit, it only reinforces how relevant this is. 4) Something at the web site, or related to it, went like totally fucking fubar. Like DoD getting hacked, All porn everywhere being deleted, and puppies being beaten to death. 5) Despite #4, the tech support is lauded by the victim like they gently took his virginity and he has only pure love for them.
Slashdot.... you always surprise me. Some of the stuff you put in Idle is questionable at best... but this in the tech section. Really?:)
Well to give an analogy this like a major magazine or Opera talking with a celebrity for a whole hour about their hang nail or something.
Well I don't think the "Private" in VPN means privacy. I think it simply refers to the bridging of two private network address ranges.
I never said I thought you could do VPN in clear text. I never imagined anyone would want to to do so since you are usually bridging over a public network and private network traffic is usually sensitive enough to warrant some privacy. Since it is just encapsulation with some encryption and authentication, I did not see why you could not drop the encryption part. The encapsulated packets will be in clear text, but the mechanism would still work, and as you pointed out, there are different methods to bridge networks anyways.
Of course I am aware that you could use high end equipment and linux boxes to bridge networks without encryption just fine. I was just pointing out that the vast majority of the people and businesses this would affect would lack the sophistication to do so.
Since I have worked on the low end boxes for years, and some higher end stuff, I can tell you they don't allow AH-only tunnels.
I am not surprised that open source IPSec implementations could do it, and I mentioned that they probably could, but not everybody is going to shell out $500-$600 bucks to create their own routers for both sides.
If the majority of the hardware does not support it, then making the rule is not very wise. You mention IPv6 too, which is still not largely supported by the majority of routers our there right now.
Not everybody has the expertise to do it either, and relies on the wizards to get things set up. That's why we have those wireless one-button set up routines on the low end boxes because setting up wireless might as well have been brain surgery for some customers.
I would be willing to bet that not a single wizard exists to set one up AH-only.
First off, I would just like to say.... Slashdot will you fix your crappy ass shit in Chrome!!! Dear sweet tiny baby jesus....
Secondly, Cisco is some high end equipment. I have worked with Sonicwalls and some others and I just checked a couple different models and they don't allow encrpytionless tunnels.
Never touched a Cisco yet, but since VPN is used by business quite a bit, I think you have a point if it allows it. Of course, the other business considerations of a VPN tunnel that does not make the data private is a whole other matter.
I would expect a key escrow system to be proposed instead of outright banning.
I think that really depends on the firmware and software. Most developers assume you are going to use encryption so that option 'none' does not appear anywhere.
Personally, I have never seen a VPN set up that allowed to specify no encryption in the proposals. Maybe you could do it with open source and set up an encryptionless tunnel.
Technically you are probably correct, but pragmatically, I don't think it matters.
Banning VPN's? Sure they encrypt traffic, but they also serve a very useful purpose. They bridge networks.
Sounds like the people that set up MPLS (The ISPs) in Pakistan are out looking at expensive toys they are going to buy. Only corps will be able to afford to bridge networks now because those will be the only state sanctioned bridges.
I agree with you. However, you notice I put it out there as 2nd hand information I received from a well respected cardiologist, then made specific disclaimers, and asked for a discussion where others (possibly cardiologists) added their own experience or an actual number backed by a study.
All I know is that this doctor said 99% of all his surgical patients smoked. That's it. You may be right that there were many other factors, and that smokers may also be predisposed towards other unhealthy behaviors that also increase the risk of heart disease.
I never claimed it as truth, just wanted to put it out there and have a discussion about it, intelligently I hoped.
So far I have one post calling bullshit and another post with the classic Correlation is not causation. Or in other words, Slashdot:)
Slashdot Mirror
Which one will be more effective?
1) We all realize that our Freedom has been taken away from us, that corporations increasingly own us through duress, obligations, incentives, and ignorance, and that we have a 30 million man march on Congress and demand through representation that they change the laws? We all get together in a massive enlightened uprising and forcefully (but peaceably) replace our leaders and change copyright laws, strengthen Anonymity and Privacy in the Constitution, etc., etc., etc.?
2) Let them pass all the laws they want, because they will be unenforceable. Until they outright make encryption illegal, or non-approved encryption illegal, there are engineering solutions to provide us with both Anonymity and Privacy. They can't prosecute you, if there is no Habeas Corpus.
Solving the inherent problem is impossible. It's like bitching that we could do A, if we could just get that damned Unified Theory of Everything. Yeah... I want a pony too.
The inherent problem is that neither you, or I, or the People's interests are represented anymore in our government. Regulation is a farce, free markets are a farce, the stock market is rigged, and we continue to get totally owned to the point where even our currency and country has been devalued by a company in our own country.
So if you think you can "vote" your way out of this and that intelligent discourse will make politicians see reason and start pushing legislation that will effect our best interests... I have bridge to sell you.
Part of the problem in the engineering solutions is that it requires participation. Not enough people have been effected yet to induce real change and participation. It will not be much longer before an alternate DNS is created outside of the US. It will fracture the Internet in two, because I don't imagine they will just copy the .com, .org, and .net domains over for free. I imagine they will give us the opportunity to transfer over to them for a fee, and that after a period of time we forfeit the rights to a domain name. To be honest, I really don't know how that will play out. Perhaps there will be some cooperation, and perhaps not.
That time is coming, and I can certainly say that I will have no problems spending thousands of dollars for a DNS system that is not controlled by Homeland Security and people that have no idea what they are doing, and whose strings are being pulled by corporate interests that have no respect for the judicial process at home or abroad.
It's great to have ideals, and I don't disagree with anything you have said, but pragmatically, idealism here is not going to work.
This is war. We are not the biggest players on the field. We don't have satellites, tanks, and F117's. When you are in such a position, your only option is Guerrilla Warfare.
So you may think we are "fiddling" around, but the truth is far from it. Their are multiple projects and thousands and thousands of people worldwide that they are thinking everyday of how to create a 2nd Internet that can be routed around on top of the 1st, while creating an inherently Anonymous and Private network for communications.
That IS the solution, because if you think you could do it with your wallet, then you are fighting the rest of the Sheeples, if you think you can do it by reasoning with a politician, then you don't understand politics, and if you think you can do it with ideals, than you are sadly naive.
The engineering solutions are the most pragmatic and effective solutions we will have.
For example, I have several VPS that is outside of the US entirely, user accounts on private tracker sites, and all of my activity is limited to SSL protected file transfers from several IP addresses. Inspect my activity all you want and you will find nothing linking back to me without a extreme buttload of effort. As for the private trackers? Shut one down, and two more appear. They are even WOR
Since I actually know a couple of 3rd party software developers for Autodesk with UIDS under 1,000... I remain highly skeptical of Autodesk's commitment towards any community.
From what I remember Autodesk "absorbed" a lot of people's hard work into their own software and said the developers legally had no recourse. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but from what I remember, one of my friends was making good money with their 3rd party software and then all of the sudden it was gone.
So if Autodesk totally screwed over its entire development community years back, what makes you think they have a real commitment towards supporting anybody but themselves?
Ahhh, but Grasshopper, sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.
There is a solution, but the biggest problem to tackle is SPAM.
DNS allows us to create about as many records and types as we want. There has always been talk for years about how we could eliminate traditional land lines by dialing host names.
Creating an open source platform that encrypts DNS SRV records, creates webs of trust, etc. is the easy part.
The hard part will be preventing unwanted communication from reaching you. That's the biggest reason why most people are using very large service providers like FaceBook, Google, Hotmail, etc.
Bigger players tend to have more sophistication and ability to reduce these SPAM attempts.
Imagine if all the telemarketers across the world had to do was to troll the DNS SRV records and fire off emails, instant messages, text messages, recorded messages, outbound IVR attempts, etc.
Until we figure out a way to really address this, while maintaining privacy and anonymity, we will still have to rely largely on these more dangerous solutions simply because they can do what we can't in our homes... having more signal than noise.
Jeez, even I get 4 or 5 calls and contact requests from India per week on Skype.
The best solution is a small $50 box that you literally plug into a wall, your TV, and is wireless. It has P2P social networking where you completely control all access, communication methods are disclosed for public anonymous requests, private communication requests can be assigned different priorities and pathways, and the whole thing integrates with a secure DNS. Video, Audio, and all forms of communications can be routed to wherever you answer. It can be on your TV, laptop, netbook, tablet, or smartphone, or the direct number to the hotel you are staying at.
All of this is possible, but keeping out unwanted communication would be non-trivial to say the least. Not to mention, your bandwidth at home is being used, so all of those attacks and SPAM eat into your ability to communicate and your wallet.
It's kind of nice to know that Google deals with all that crap for you. Personally, I operate VOIP and a mail server at my datacenter with a big fat pipe, but that does not mean I don't see 100K plus per week SPAM/Hacking attempts on the services I manage. Definitely don't want to deal with that on my residential connection.
It does not make any sense though.
Free speech so far has not been extended to include the idea that preventing you from having a "soap box" in cyberspace to "speak" to others is protected behavior. The judge is technically correct. Puerto Rico also has a different relationship than any other foreign country, because it is in a state of "flux". They are technically US citizens, but denied the full rights of a US citizen, and still have not resolved whether to become an independent country or the 51st state.
What does not make any sense either, is that idea that the US government can seize domains only works as long as the DNS falls entirely under their control... which it does.
So why are they limiting themselves to .com, .org, .us, etc?
The whole purpose was a corrupt bypass of judicial processes and a complete disregard for the sovereignty of other nations in order to promulgate and enforce the views of the copyright extremists in the US corporation/government complex.
For the judge to say, "just visit it at these foreign domains" is contradictory to those goals. I can't imagine the real corporate entities that are being "harmed" by the infringing distribution of their televised athletic sports are satisfied that *any* domain can still access the copyrighted content.
This is not a good example to argue about US control over domains, because the behavior is very strange and nonsensical from the US, the legal arguments are wrong because Puerto Rico is not a full foreign country or a full fledged state, and nobody is making legal arguments that the US does not, and should not, have unilateral control over DNS worldwide and is disregarding sovereignty, which also would not work for Puerto Rico either.
If this was Brazil or Spain, we could be all over this. It's Puerto Rico. Half the citizenship and twice the bullshit.
This is all well and good, but there are other things to consider here.
Let's say I have 2 million pounds of quantum frozen food and liquids (can't go bad - kind of like that movie that reconstituted it with a laser). There are no associated costs of storage, since I store it in a Bag of Holding I picked up from the Quickie Mart.
To eat everyday... I drive down to the really really really fucked up side of town where I can food and water. Some people are nice there.... but quite a bit of them don't like me. I am either tolerated, abused, and rarely treated well. Even the ones that treat me well find fault with my character. Additionally, there are a significant number of people that want to travel to my side of town and kill me and others. Furthermore, there is even more significant number of people that won't go as far as killing me, but will sympathize, protect, or support those that will kill me and others.
Looking forward into the future I can see that their food and water will run out and that I won't need to travel there, or pay others to do so. I will be perfectly fine because I have been sitting on those resources for so long.
However, for decades, I have been giving the people that want to kill me the resources to do so, and the reasons for wanting them to do so.
That does not sound very forward thinking to me. It sounds dangerous and ill advised. Let's also add that I am big fat ass and that I consume 4 times what I need to consume, and that if I just wanted to do so in the past few decades I could have reduced my food consumption by minimum 50%.
How about a different situation?
Let's say I can get a widget made on my side of town for $10. The widget will be made professionally, to rigorous standards, and that health and safety for people and the environment is carefully considered and monitored. On that other side of town I can get it made for $3 without any real standards, and all of the ill effects from production are Not.In.My.Back.Yard.
At some point though, it will spill over and start affecting me, but NOT TODAY.
Also, dangerous, shortsighted and ill advised. Especially, when it causes some people on my side of town to be less fortunate than they could be because I am not purchasing it from them. They make less money, and as a whole, we all start losing our skills and knowledge on how to make the widgets in the first place.
So on my side of town... there are some people that are doing very well. They have figured it out and know exactly how to get into the "bad" neighborhoods and, some may say, exploit them so that we can live better than them in the meantime. However, most of us on the "good" side of town do just okay. We get by. A very few get to live like kings and queens.
So although it is great that we have all these resources on our side of town, and it really is pretty damn good (and maybe convenient) that we found more rare resources, it might be a better idea to consider the whole picture.
We have not been doing that since day one, and are some pretty shortsighted and greedy people on our side of town aren't we?
Why take the extra effort today when we can just push the consequences of our actions out till tomorrow?
When those "bad" neighborhoods are so fucked up they can't be available to us either, I seriously question if we will still have the skills and knowledge to make a difference anyways.
Purely hypothetical, but let's say the rest of the "neighborhoods" either died, or mutually agreed, to lock us out. Just how quickly could we actually get back up to speed processing our own resources and creating our own goods and services again? Maybe... there might be a delay.... and that delay.. would be quite stressful. Just possibly.
That's a common science fiction/fantasy theme (and so far as I know, nothing more) and not at all what they're talking about.
I read the summary again, and you're right. They are specifically redefining the multiverse and then proposing a test. However, the multiverse is not a common science fiction/fantasy theme. It is used in science fiction, but first appeared in "religion". It's quite old. Although it started more philosophically, in recent times it did change its name to the many-worlds theory and is also known as the quantum multiverse theory.
Most people just say multiverse and don't add the quantum.
So I am speaking of science here and the mainstream definition does not include "bubbles".
I was not arguing semantics though, but the definition of the word, and once again, I did not notice they redefined it. So I get your point.
Also, there was no mention of universes splitting; I can only assume you got that from that choice-based multiple universe theory you thought they were talking about.
No, there is specifically mention of it *not* splitting. After reading the summary again they just say "alternate" and propose nothing that causes "alternate" universes to appear.
Yes, from my understanding of the many-worlds theory and my misreading of the summary, it would have to be universes splitting and pushing away from each other.
In any case, a lot of people will get confused with their use of the word multiverse since it really is commonly thought to be referencing quantum multiverse theory or many-worlds theory ( other posts indicate that), and if you assume that is what they mean, then it is fundamentally impossible.
You missed half my point.
Security is maintained if you turn the car on... but what about malicious activity?
Can you imagine a prankster turning on a big lot of cars at the same time? Run for a couple of hours and it will be quite a bit of gas wasted.
So completely separate to me means that there is no way to manipulate the engine and drive control systems, either to turn it on, kill the engine, alter programming, change destination, etc.
I was also considering malicious activity, including kill switches.
If you are proposing something to cause the engine to start, and not the capability to turn off, then yeah that can be done without any fear of theft.
Also, it is worth pointing out that is just complete utter fucking bullshit.
$300 for a DVD?
Considering how much they were paid, it is not beyond reason to receive free DVD updates in the mail. If you paid $3000 to get the NAV system in the first place, I am pretty sure that about $50 bucks of that will easily cover replacements for the life time of the vehicle.
Charging you is just another way for them to gouge money out of you. It's also a strong incentive to pirate the crap out of it or install a system that does get wireless updates and traffic updates. If it was constantly updated, anonymous, and $10 a month and directed me around accidents and traffic, that would be worth it.
Otherwise, they know where they can shove it.
What happens when it is 9 billion degrees outside and I want my shiny iPhone BMW application to turn on my car and start the air conditioning?
Having the engine and drive systems completely separate is a great idea, but one that fundamentally precludes features that will actually sell the technology.
Unless you create an A/C system that can work independently from the car itself, you still have the same problem.
You mean it will be no different than any other "security initiative". Meaning, that of course they want it to be as hack "proof" as possible, but allow law enforcement to have access at will.
I don't care how much you polish up that turd, how much lipstick on the pig, etc., you will never convince me that access by law enforcement cannot be misused and commandeered by either military forces in time of war, or criminals in search of profit.
The only security initiative worth discussing that is actually valuable to society is one in which ONLY the owner is granted access. Everything is encrypted, private, and anonymous. If the owner dies, then just recycle the parts and replace the control systems.
Of course, that kind of security does not support the supremacy of the state and enable a fascist government to operate. After all, I don't think we will ever convince them either that their monitoring and control of us is not for our own good and allows society to be stable.
In the meantime, we will continue to have insecure, ill-advised, and broken systems that make up the very foundation of our society that a special few have nearly complete control over through applied knowledge. Examples being, Sony getting owned, RSA getting owned, Wikileaks and the US, etc.
Our only security is in numbers, but that won't matter when they connect up the new digital grid and a 16 year old pissed of Iranian or Chinese hacker takes the power down on the entire East Coast because the sysadmin was an underpaid idiot that spent all of his time searching for young teenage porn.
I don't think you listened to what he said, and your snarky and denigrating remarks are not constructive to a really interesting conversation we could all be having. This is most certainly not an issue of semantics.
The multiverse theory, as I have always understood it, posits that for every possible "choice", universes are created to express each on the possibilities, or "choices". This could be purely causality, or could be free will. Who really knows.
However, and this is not semantics, a universe is generally defined as " the totality of everything that exists".
If we use that definition, then he is correct about this being nonsense because then every newly created universe is in fact splitting into two universes. Quasi-Mitosis on a grand scale if you will. If this is true, then we have been expanding at an exponential rate since the beginning of the universe itself, and all of these "bubbles" are in fact, part of a single universe.
If there is a center bubble universe, it must split into two. So do all the other bubbles simply get pushed out of the way at speeds clearly above the speed of light itself? Think about it. In the space of a "choice", countless "bubble" universes must move to make way for the two "bubbles" that just got created.
It really is nonsense.
The multiverse theory, as I have always understood it, states that new universes get created. This strongly implies, by the definition of the words, that no interaction is possible between universes naturally . If we can travel from one universe to another universe, it won't be through conventional space travel, wormholes, or space folding, since the two universes are not actually connected.
I am more willing to accept the possibility that there are multiple, if not infinite, big bangs going on in the universe. What we understand to be the universe is really just a cohesive collection of galaxies and spaces between them that may, or may not, be in a constant state of expansion and contraction. Perhaps a "universe" expands without stopping and eventually the energy and matter of that collection of galaxies collides with another collection. Quite similar to how galaxies are colliding with each other now.
Who could ever really know?
I just know that roman_mir has a pretty damn good point, and I would hardly call it pedantic and solely based on semantics. There is some logical reasoning behind it, and if we are going to keep language and terms consistent in science, then this whole idea is nonsense on the face of it.
I agree, but it is strange and stressful times right now. In the light of recent events, an investigation was at least warranted. At least a check in person on the guy, or some further questioning about what he was doing geek to geek.
The SWAT team was way overkill for this if the only evidence they had was his questions to the SRA.
It does remind me of what is seemingly an attack on chemistry itself in many countries. People that have a love for chemistry and have their own labs, no different than car enthusiasts, are increasingly being treated as threats to society, where they are most certainly not.
That being said, in this case, I would have rather been on the side of caution and took a deeper look at the guy, I just would not have done it with full tactical gear and weapons.
it is hardly unreasonable to take the precautionary step of assuming that he's manage to produce a bunch of toxic and radioactive dust.
Given the recent events in Norway, I could see how the Swedish Radiation Authority thought it was a bit weird (let's face it.. it is) and contacted the police. If you thought of radioactive dust, I am sure the SRA thought of it and the cops thought he could disperse it in a populated area. Quite nasty.
He got raided because it is not ordinary to build a nuclear reactor in one's house. The level of force may be up for debate, but their interest is quite reasonable.
All things considered, there are cheaper and safer ways to generate your own electricity than nuclear reactors. I'd leave that stuff for large scale implementations or purchasing a complete and contained unit ready to go.
You completely missed my point. It's not about bragging rights, or which is more efficient.
The fact is that BOTH the Prius and the Polo Bluemotion are significantly more efficient in fossil fuel use. This leads to:
1) A decreased dependency on Oil.
2) Proof that these technologies work and that we have the opportunity to learn from them as they are in use everyday.
3) What I also did not mention, was that the Prius, also produces less pollution. I assume the Polo Bluemotion does the same?
If it accomplishes less pollution and a reduced energy consumption, then it is green by definition. Arguing that B is better than A, and therefore A should lose its status as green is just a little bit silly.
They are both green and can be marketed as such.
Marketing the Flex Fuel as green is wholly retarded and disingenuous, and the only people behind it are those that stand to profit by it.
I think you mean that marketing has polluted the word so thoroughly that it is hard to take it seriously. In a way it has been gang raped and never truly recovered.
However, the intended meaning of "green" to scientists and intellectuals (I guess) is that the technology results in a net loss of expended energy somewhere. It may be generating energy, or just being more efficient at an unclean process, therefore making it "green" because it is not as bad as the alternative.
Calling Flex Fuel "green" when it requires so much corn to help make it that the environmental impact, resources, and energy required to produce it that it is marginally better (or not better at all depending on who you talk to) is an example of taking "green" and tarnishing it.
The Prius is definitely green because, although it still uses fossil fuels, it is generally 100% increase in fuel efficiency over existing models. That is still green.
Personally, "recycling" the energy used from radio waves is a pretty damn good idea. I would take it a step further and create a drywall product that incorporates it and pushes the power back into the house in the form of air cycling, purification, subtle lighting, etc. I don't know how much could be harvested, but there is quite a bit of radio waves hitting me even now. My wireless N, my neighbors wireless, satellite signals, FM, AM, military, garage door openers, cell phones, etc. Be pretty neat to have cheap wireless access points installed in each room, and every room absorbing the radio waves that are not used. Obviously, some rooms would not have the special drywall so they could receive wireless from an joining room.
This is absolutely green. I know it is the first time I have heard of even recycling radio wave energy.
Of course, the FCC mandates to you may not interfere with the signal, but I think it would be a dubious argument to say that you cannot prevent signals from penetrating your own house.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the browsers mentioned are all of equal quality, and each can be used for every browser application, but each is slightly better than others for some specific application. It would follow that for any specific application, one has a choice of using the default browser, or installing some other browser; let's assume that knowing which browser is better for a specific application is an indication of intelligence, and the more obscure the browser, the more intelligence is indicated by the knowledge that the obscure browser is better for a specific application. The effects would be moderated by the assumption that the default browser is better for a specific application.
That is not true though.
All browsers are certainly not of equal quality. Not by a long shot. Chrome is by the far the best right now, however:
Internet Explorer is pretty good for enterprise implementations because of its tight integration with security and policies. Also, most of the time when a specific browser is better at something, that comes down to rendering a document and client/server communication. The recent stuff, when programmed correctly, works cross-browser fairly well. The ones that don't, are by and large, Internet Explorer. They either require an Active X component, or have some limitations due to a .NET or .ASP requirement. I would not know really, just what I experience as a user. As a developer I would never ever touch IE or its technologies with a 10 foot pole, but that is because I would choose open standards and open source, not a direct attack on IE itself.
Firefox sucks balls. It's like the hottest 19 year old Hollywood hottie in the movies that burns holes through the screen going from 11 to super-fucked-up-uggo in 10 years. We all have examples like that right? Firefox used to be better than IE, only because it *was* better. Even the latest pales in comparison to Chrome, and well, even IE9. I sincerely doubt that Firefox would be better for any specific application over Chrome or Opera.
Opera is pretty decent. It's different and I like how the interface can be switched up. I don't like it as much as Chrome though, and that is mainly about daily usability and satisfaction with the speed and interface.
Safari *sounds* like it would be good, but it is marginally better than Firefox. I have seen Safari render stuff so retarded it honestly makes you question if Apple is pulling a Microsoft IE6. You would think Apple would make stuff that just "works" like some of their other products, but they fall short on this one. Once again, I cannot possibly imagine any website best displayed in Safari. Apple may have screwed the pooch, so far, but they are working with standards, something IE has only recently figured out.
Chrome keeps getting better. Initially, it was that each tab was its own process. However, in the current versions I am able to routinely crash the whole thing. Totally unresponsive. Killing the chrome processes one by one does nothing... until I kill the right one, which causes all other chrome processes to crash. So it is the main that crashes, not the spawned processes, but the spawned processes are still unresponsive. Still, if anything, Chrome is better right now because of speed. That is the edge that Chrome really has and the interface... that IE9 and Firefox are all knocking off.
If you truly look at this from a specific application standpoint it only makes a difference when Microsoft proprietary tech is required.
The whole study is flawed. I know of plenty of companies that are still forced to use IE6 because of legacy platforms. Also, I know plenty of pretty smart people that prefer IE. They just like the interface more and the look of it. Not to mention the programmers that develop specific applications that require IE. They tend to use it, because they are debugging in it all day long.
Granted, it's funny, and a nice b
Well they won't be here for long. If you read all the articles about Foxconn and suicide, I give it about a month before one of the robots blows his brain out with a .45.
Unlesssss....... they take a cue from Skynet and add the "cannot self-terminate" rule...... but.... AHAHA!
They could kill each other in a death pact. Nothing says they can't terminate each other.
Robot turnover rate will be high. You watch.
and this is interesting to Slashdot because?
Apparently for several bizarre reasons:
1) It involves a web site. So, although clearly debatable and a tenuous connection at best, it involves the web'o'tubes and that is like tech and shit.
2) It involves a web site that managed to get funding in some vague way that is hinted at.
3) Said funding involves some guys that are actually famousish, if that's a word. Since those guys are related to tech and they invested in a company that is web based and involves tech and shit, it only reinforces how relevant this is.
4) Something at the web site, or related to it, went like totally fucking fubar. Like DoD getting hacked, All porn everywhere being deleted, and puppies being beaten to death.
5) Despite #4, the tech support is lauded by the victim like they gently took his virginity and he has only pure love for them.
Slashdot.... you always surprise me. Some of the stuff you put in Idle is questionable at best... but this in the tech section. Really? :)
Well to give an analogy this like a major magazine or Opera talking with a celebrity for a whole hour about their hang nail or something.
Well I don't think the "Private" in VPN means privacy. I think it simply refers to the bridging of two private network address ranges.
I never said I thought you could do VPN in clear text. I never imagined anyone would want to to do so since you are usually bridging over a public network and private network traffic is usually sensitive enough to warrant some privacy. Since it is just encapsulation with some encryption and authentication, I did not see why you could not drop the encryption part. The encapsulated packets will be in clear text, but the mechanism would still work, and as you pointed out, there are different methods to bridge networks anyways.
Of course I am aware that you could use high end equipment and linux boxes to bridge networks without encryption just fine. I was just pointing out that the vast majority of the people and businesses this would affect would lack the sophistication to do so.
Since I have worked on the low end boxes for years, and some higher end stuff, I can tell you they don't allow AH-only tunnels.
I am not surprised that open source IPSec implementations could do it, and I mentioned that they probably could, but not everybody is going to shell out $500-$600 bucks to create their own routers for both sides.
If the majority of the hardware does not support it, then making the rule is not very wise. You mention IPv6 too, which is still not largely supported by the majority of routers our there right now.
Not everybody has the expertise to do it either, and relies on the wizards to get things set up. That's why we have those wireless one-button set up routines on the low end boxes because setting up wireless might as well have been brain surgery for some customers.
I would be willing to bet that not a single wizard exists to set one up AH-only.
First off, I would just like to say.... Slashdot will you fix your crappy ass shit in Chrome!!! Dear sweet tiny baby jesus....
Secondly, Cisco is some high end equipment. I have worked with Sonicwalls and some others and I just checked a couple different models and they don't allow encrpytionless tunnels.
Never touched a Cisco yet, but since VPN is used by business quite a bit, I think you have a point if it allows it. Of course, the other business considerations of a VPN tunnel that does not make the data private is a whole other matter.
I would expect a key escrow system to be proposed instead of outright banning.
I think that really depends on the firmware and software. Most developers assume you are going to use encryption so that option 'none' does not appear anywhere.
Personally, I have never seen a VPN set up that allowed to specify no encryption in the proposals. Maybe you could do it with open source and set up an encryptionless tunnel.
Technically you are probably correct, but pragmatically, I don't think it matters.
This is just stupid. For many reasons.
Banning VPN's? Sure they encrypt traffic, but they also serve a very useful purpose. They bridge networks.
Sounds like the people that set up MPLS (The ISPs) in Pakistan are out looking at expensive toys they are going to buy. Only corps will be able to afford to bridge networks now because those will be the only state sanctioned bridges.
lol
I agree with you. However, you notice I put it out there as 2nd hand information I received from a well respected cardiologist, then made specific disclaimers, and asked for a discussion where others (possibly cardiologists) added their own experience or an actual number backed by a study.
All I know is that this doctor said 99% of all his surgical patients smoked. That's it. You may be right that there were many other factors, and that smokers may also be predisposed towards other unhealthy behaviors that also increase the risk of heart disease.
I never claimed it as truth, just wanted to put it out there and have a discussion about it, intelligently I hoped.
So far I have one post calling bullshit and another post with the classic Correlation is not causation. Or in other words, Slashdot :)