For casual reading, e-books are fine but for technical materials I prefer hard copy that way there's no fear that the distributor won't change their TOS and I wind up losing a ton of C++ reference material or my favorite books on Roman History.
I actually have the opposite preference, though possibly for the same reason. For technical materials, I prefer electronic editions because they are trivially searchable, and because I know that their value will likely go to zero after a year or two when the next revision of the technology renders them obsolete. For things I might actually want to keep and read again years later (e.g. fiction), I prefer paper.
I'm not saying I agree with the initial premise (that abortion is a treatment) at all. I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that abortion can only be considered a treatment if murder is also considered a treatment, because that assertion requires you to strictly define abortion as being equivalent to murder, which is a definition that not everyone agrees with..
AFAIK, you can't readily test for deafness until the kid is born. Therefore, those either are or are not the same argument, depending solely on whether you consider abortion to be tantamount to murder or not.
"This is ordinary people intercepting... ordinary people". A nice,, bitter subversion of the "power to the people" concept ?
Not a subversion at all. Perhaps you're forgetting that congresspeople are ordinary people, as are judges.
"You wouldn't want us to leak to the press that affair you've been having, would you, Senator? Then I trust you'll do better at ensuring the NSA is not spying on your own citizens."
"You wouldn't want us to leak to the press that you took a bribe from the Monsanto corporation, would you? Then I trust you'll rule that we have standing to sue the federal government over the PRISM program."
And so on. Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but enough rights do make a left.
Sorry, that was poorly worded on my part. What I meant was that the concept was basically introduced during that period of time, and was not a commonly held Christian belief prior to that period.
Whether they are or not depends entirely on your perspective:
If your perspective is that the U.S. was legitimately fighting against a corrupt regime that attacked them, then they are war criminals who were jailed for illegal combat.
If your perspective is that the U.S. illegally invaded a sovereign nation and took its citizens captive, then they are at best militia POWs whose only crime was defending their homeland, whom the U.S. is no longer at war with, which means that the Geneva conventions demand that they be released immediately (and indeed, that many should have been released several years ago). Continuing to hold them past the cessation of primary hostilities makes them political prisoners.
So the question of whether they are or are not political prisoners hinges entirely upon whether the U.S. invasion was a legal action or not. Given that nobody is big enough to force a war crimes trial against the U.S., it is unlikely that the latter question will ever be fully resolved except by default, so there's really no way to say whether they are or are not political prisoners....
And a sizable percentage of UC's supporters would rather see Napolitano in prison than in charge of that institution. Perhaps the regents should have considered what this is going to do to their funding before they chose someone like Napolitano to run their institution.
The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries. It is not "much of the point of Christianity", but rather, a modern protestant interpretation. The point of Christianity was defined many, many centuries before that, and to claim that Catholicism—the church from which all Christian denominations were ultimately derived—is not Christian is the height of absurdity, not to mention arrogance.
Catholicism (note the spelling) is, in part, a belief that there is wisdom in the masses (lowercase, meaning the body of the church proper, not the celebration) that cannot be gleaned purely through individual contemplation. For this reason, we worship together as a community. This does not preclude the personal relationship that you speak of, but rather strengthens it.
Veneration is not worship. The difference is subtle but crucial. No Catholic sees the pope as a god. Heck, the last one (Benedict) was downright unpopular among many Catholics. To even suggest that Catholics "worship themselves" or worship the pope is an appallingly inaccurate statement, even by Slashdot standards.
Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt. It, like all organizations of that size, may never have been 100% free of corruption, but there's a big difference between pervasive corruption and a handful of rogue elements acting improperly. The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.
My interpretation of a statement like a "has a 51% belief" is "feels that it is more likely than not". In other words, you can read "if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time" as "if the NSA operative feels that it is more likely than not that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time". At that confidence level, pure speculation typically constitutes sufficient proof.
Exactly. The weak point is not between the server and the device. The weak point is between the device and the user. It is basically the security equivalent of the analog hole.
TLS is worthless unless both endpoints are trusted. For example, I could take a standard OS install and add a single trusted anchor cert to it. I could then install a man-in-the-middle server between that no-longer-trustworthy endpoint and your bank. When you make a request, you actually make it to my server. My server then relays the request, filling in the login credentials, and storing the cookies returned in response. When you walk away from that computer, I could walk up to the man-in-the-middle server, open a browser window tied to the same credential/cookie store, continue your session, and transfer your money into my bank account, or better yet, into a throwaway account from which I could then withdraw money from some hidden-away ATM while wearing a ski mask.
With a public terminal, you cannot trust the endpoint, because you have no idea what sorts of modifications the owner of that endpoint might have made. It might be secure, but it might be no more secure than a postcard hand-delivered by the biggest gossip in town. I would not personally trust someone else's computer/public terminal, because I have no idea what that person might have done to it, in much the same way that the entertainment industry cannot trust DRM to be secure when presented by an arbitrary device, because they cannot be sure what you might have done to compromise it.
Put another way, if Alice could secretly be Eve, you have no security model.
This making it even more bizarre that this bot would pretend to be above Spain's legal age of consent. What am I missing?
Everything about this story is wrong:
The notion that being attracted to a 14-year-old girl (almost invariably post-pubescent) qualifies as pedophilia is completely absurd. There is not a straight adult male alive who, when faced with a sufficiently attractive and mature-looking 14-year-old, would not find her attractive. Thus, some degree of attraction to teenagers is normal male behavior. Mind you, most adults have the good sense not to jump in bed with them, but that doesn't mean the attraction isn't there. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding himself/herself.
A bot (or a LEO) seeking out people and enticing them in the hopes that one of them will say "Okay, she's hot and worth the risk of jail" is a legally dubious action and is completely contrary to the stated goal of protecting kids. I'd wager that 99.999% of the people entrapped by such a bot would never go near any true kids (defined as pre-pubescent), period, because there is zero correlation between being attracted to teens and being attracted to kids. And most of those folks would not go out of their way to hit on a 14-year-old IRL, either. Given that most 14-year-old girls do not make it a point to trick adult males into having sex with them, this means that those adult males are doing something that they almost certainly (statistically) would not otherwise have done were it not for law enforcement involvement, which meets the strictest definition of entrapment as far as I can tell. But creating such a bot in a country when the act they're trolling for isn't even illegal? Priceless.
I mean, this whole concept borders on the same level of s**t-for-brains stupid as those people who troll boards trying to stir people up to become terrorists and then put them in jail under the premise that if law enforcement could get them into that state, so could real terrorists. But the thing is, unless those real terrorists had a high probability of doing so, you're really just putting people in jail for being gullible, not for actually harboring any terrorist tendencies.
At this point, our world is rapidly verging on jailing people for thoughtcrime—crimethink, if you will. Are we really to the point where the goal is to lock up everyone who isn't of above-average intelligence with near-godlike self control? Is that actually supposed to make our kids safer in some bizarro universe? Could someone please explain to me why the people who came up with this bot should not be jailed themselves as an example to others who would abuse their power?
Everybody has been saying this for years, but even though it has been theoretically possible for decades, it hasn't happened, and for good reason. Two good reasons, as a matter of fact: security and cost.
Security: The reality is that such a computing world could never have any real security to speak of. If you do not have physical control of the device, you cannot know whether that web page it is showing is actually the login page for your email provider or a false front that logs into your email provider with your credentials, passes the data through to the screen, and waits for you to walk away so it can forward the contents of your inbox to Croatia. At a fundamental level, such systems cannot be secure for precisely the same reason that Internet cafes cannot be secure, for the precise reason that no software can ever truly make a virus-compromised computer secure (unless that software is in the form of boot media, and perhaps not even then), etc.
Cost: It is much cheaper to give everyone a laptop than to put a tablet everywhere someone might want to use one, even within someone's own home. Explode that cost by orders of magnitude to cover cars and buses, walls of businesses, street corner walk signs.... You get the picture.
Even if it does, who says he was actually logging into his email account rather than a server that merely passes on the credentials and remains logged in after he leaves? I mean, sure, they might not have his password, but they can probably change it.:-)
Actually, unless they've removed the functionality in their divergence from SPDY, the browser does have the ability to cancel individual items, I think, though that might be limited only to items specifically requested by the browser, in which case that's a rather silly and arbitrary flaw in the protocol.
I've seen thermal analysis done - the best that could be done would be 2 A15s running full tilt, with the other two software-modulated to run under 50% load after a few minutes, which would keep the chip at max temperature.
Couldn't that be solved by adding Peltier junctions to cool the cores (albeit at a cost in battery life)?
No citation needed. AFAIK, there are no known vectors for exploiting an uncaught exception, with two exceptions:
If the exception itself causes some secret information to be leaked to a log file somewhere. This does not apply because the content being played is owned by the computer's owner, who also owns the log files.
If the exception causes some component to get freed and you end up with a use-after-free situation (or it causes some process to die and some other process fails to handle that death in a safe manner). Presumably VLC is designed to handle codecs going away, but if not, then that is the exploitable vulnerability, not the exception itself.
A patched version of nc. In OS X, the nc command has a server mode in which connecting clients are accepted automatically, and it then routes incoming data to stdout and transmits any data that it reads from stdin (IIRC). I connected nc's stdin and stdout to named pipes so that the shell script could close and reopen nc's stdin, and patched nc so that if the remote host closed the connection early, it would read until the next EOF and discard the data, preventing the next connection from getting the remaining data from the previous one.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually have the opposite preference, though possibly for the same reason. For technical materials, I prefer electronic editions because they are trivially searchable, and because I know that their value will likely go to zero after a year or two when the next revision of the technology renders them obsolete. For things I might actually want to keep and read again years later (e.g. fiction), I prefer paper.
I'm not saying I agree with the initial premise (that abortion is a treatment) at all. I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that abortion can only be considered a treatment if murder is also considered a treatment, because that assertion requires you to strictly define abortion as being equivalent to murder, which is a definition that not everyone agrees with..
AFAIK, you can't readily test for deafness until the kid is born. Therefore, those either are or are not the same argument, depending solely on whether you consider abortion to be tantamount to murder or not.
Not a subversion at all. Perhaps you're forgetting that congresspeople are ordinary people, as are judges.
"You wouldn't want us to leak to the press that affair you've been having, would you, Senator? Then I trust you'll do better at ensuring the NSA is not spying on your own citizens."
"You wouldn't want us to leak to the press that you took a bribe from the Monsanto corporation, would you? Then I trust you'll rule that we have standing to sue the federal government over the PRISM program."
And so on. Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but enough rights do make a left.
Sorry, that was poorly worded on my part. What I meant was that the concept was basically introduced during that period of time, and was not a commonly held Christian belief prior to that period.
Whether they are or not depends entirely on your perspective:
So the question of whether they are or are not political prisoners hinges entirely upon whether the U.S. invasion was a legal action or not. Given that nobody is big enough to force a war crimes trial against the U.S., it is unlikely that the latter question will ever be fully resolved except by default, so there's really no way to say whether they are or are not political prisoners....
And a sizable percentage of UC's supporters would rather see Napolitano in prison than in charge of that institution. Perhaps the regents should have considered what this is going to do to their funding before they chose someone like Napolitano to run their institution.
Almost completely untrue at every level.
The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries. It is not "much of the point of Christianity", but rather, a modern protestant interpretation. The point of Christianity was defined many, many centuries before that, and to claim that Catholicism—the church from which all Christian denominations were ultimately derived—is not Christian is the height of absurdity, not to mention arrogance.
Catholicism (note the spelling) is, in part, a belief that there is wisdom in the masses (lowercase, meaning the body of the church proper, not the celebration) that cannot be gleaned purely through individual contemplation. For this reason, we worship together as a community. This does not preclude the personal relationship that you speak of, but rather strengthens it.
Veneration is not worship. The difference is subtle but crucial. No Catholic sees the pope as a god. Heck, the last one (Benedict) was downright unpopular among many Catholics. To even suggest that Catholics "worship themselves" or worship the pope is an appallingly inaccurate statement, even by Slashdot standards.
Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt. It, like all organizations of that size, may never have been 100% free of corruption, but there's a big difference between pervasive corruption and a handful of rogue elements acting improperly. The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.
Umm... I thought that was the way government jobs usually work....
You left out a few steps in your proof. Starting from what I said:
Hey, why does that stick figure have three le... ewww.
My interpretation of a statement like a "has a 51% belief" is "feels that it is more likely than not". In other words, you can read "if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time" as "if the NSA operative feels that it is more likely than not that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time". At that confidence level, pure speculation typically constitutes sufficient proof.
Exactly. The weak point is not between the server and the device. The weak point is between the device and the user. It is basically the security equivalent of the analog hole.
TLS is worthless unless both endpoints are trusted. For example, I could take a standard OS install and add a single trusted anchor cert to it. I could then install a man-in-the-middle server between that no-longer-trustworthy endpoint and your bank. When you make a request, you actually make it to my server. My server then relays the request, filling in the login credentials, and storing the cookies returned in response. When you walk away from that computer, I could walk up to the man-in-the-middle server, open a browser window tied to the same credential/cookie store, continue your session, and transfer your money into my bank account, or better yet, into a throwaway account from which I could then withdraw money from some hidden-away ATM while wearing a ski mask.
With a public terminal, you cannot trust the endpoint, because you have no idea what sorts of modifications the owner of that endpoint might have made. It might be secure, but it might be no more secure than a postcard hand-delivered by the biggest gossip in town. I would not personally trust someone else's computer/public terminal, because I have no idea what that person might have done to it, in much the same way that the entertainment industry cannot trust DRM to be secure when presented by an arbitrary device, because they cannot be sure what you might have done to compromise it.
Put another way, if Alice could secretly be Eve, you have no security model.
This making it even more bizarre that this bot would pretend to be above Spain's legal age of consent. What am I missing?
Everything about this story is wrong:
I mean, this whole concept borders on the same level of s**t-for-brains stupid as those people who troll boards trying to stir people up to become terrorists and then put them in jail under the premise that if law enforcement could get them into that state, so could real terrorists. But the thing is, unless those real terrorists had a high probability of doing so, you're really just putting people in jail for being gullible, not for actually harboring any terrorist tendencies.
At this point, our world is rapidly verging on jailing people for thoughtcrime—crimethink, if you will. Are we really to the point where the goal is to lock up everyone who isn't of above-average intelligence with near-godlike self control? Is that actually supposed to make our kids safer in some bizarro universe? Could someone please explain to me why the people who came up with this bot should not be jailed themselves as an example to others who would abuse their power?
Everybody has been saying this for years, but even though it has been theoretically possible for decades, it hasn't happened, and for good reason. Two good reasons, as a matter of fact: security and cost.
Security: The reality is that such a computing world could never have any real security to speak of. If you do not have physical control of the device, you cannot know whether that web page it is showing is actually the login page for your email provider or a false front that logs into your email provider with your credentials, passes the data through to the screen, and waits for you to walk away so it can forward the contents of your inbox to Croatia. At a fundamental level, such systems cannot be secure for precisely the same reason that Internet cafes cannot be secure, for the precise reason that no software can ever truly make a virus-compromised computer secure (unless that software is in the form of boot media, and perhaps not even then), etc.
Cost: It is much cheaper to give everyone a laptop than to put a tablet everywhere someone might want to use one, even within someone's own home. Explode that cost by orders of magnitude to cover cars and buses, walls of businesses, street corner walk signs.... You get the picture.
Even if it does, who says he was actually logging into his email account rather than a server that merely passes on the credentials and remains logged in after he leaves? I mean, sure, they might not have his password, but they can probably change it. :-)
With that said, the exception is not the security hole; the integer overflow is.
If that's what's happening, then yes, that sort of bug is almost always exploitable.
Actually, unless they've removed the functionality in their divergence from SPDY, the browser does have the ability to cancel individual items, I think, though that might be limited only to items specifically requested by the browser, in which case that's a rather silly and arbitrary flaw in the protocol.
Couldn't that be solved by adding Peltier junctions to cool the cores (albeit at a cost in battery life)?
No citation needed. AFAIK, there are no known vectors for exploiting an uncaught exception, with two exceptions:
I think the Congresspeople who proposed it should have to be the first to staff it.
(What do you mean there's no oxygen?)
And the eighteen people who now have your email password are very happy, too.
A patched version of nc. In OS X, the nc command has a server mode in which connecting clients are accepted automatically, and it then routes incoming data to stdout and transmits any data that it reads from stdin (IIRC). I connected nc's stdin and stdout to named pipes so that the shell script could close and reopen nc's stdin, and patched nc so that if the remote host closed the connection early, it would read until the next EOF and discard the data, preventing the next connection from getting the remaining data from the previous one.
Fun stuff.
From what I've seen? Barely. :-D