I'd rather have a watch that loses a second a day with no way to set the time, because it is far more accurate as a tool to tell me what time it is at any given moment.
Don't trust em. Don't like the gov't. My tech support calls to Microsoft get turned over. Ridiculous.
America is on the downward slide now. They won't make 20 years. Too corrupt. They will be destroyed from within because of their own greedy politicians and corporations.
I don't think we'll go another 10 years without collapsing. Ironically, that will be the best thing that can happen to us, because a lot of chaff is going to get sifted out. People from all socio-economic and race groups are going to be affected, but by time it's over the ones that remain won't be addicted to the ever-larger government we have now..
So you are saying that we have law to punish people? That is screwed up. We have laws so that we can have a just and fair society.
No, he didn't say that. He said we have laws so that we can have a just and fair society, so if you decide to break them, we are going to punish you more than you feel is fair. That is how criminal justice works in reality.
When the govenment is acting unjustly and breaking the law
What secrets did Manning reveal of the government acting unjustly and breaking the law? Video of a military operation in a war zone that resulted in dead civilians that were running around with armed combatants? Diplomatic messages that show diplomats are less than honest when dealing with assholes they can't stand?
there is no consequences to them because they make it illegal to bring the information to the people and other branches of government so that something can be done. It is legitimate to break a unjust law, especially when the unjust law is created to protect those who would abuse their power. Therefor what Manning and now Snowden have done is beyond reproach.
Snowden at least showed the US government was spying on US citizens. I don't like how he has acted since he leaked that info, but have to admit his info is actually relevant to us civilians.
Manning showed that bad things happen in war zones, and diplomacy involves being diplomatic. I don't get the hero-worship over that.
If I go to work tomorrow for an organization whose job is killing people who are not in the organization, then I won't be surprised when I find evidence they did so. You might as well put on trial all governments everywhere if you don't think bad things should ever happen.
The next five people in his command and in charge of the secret information (computer system and network, in this case) should all be sitting right next to him, and getting the same punishment he is getting. The fact is they all dropped the ball in letting this information loose.
I would say they softened the definition a bit to fit it to popular usage of the term. Mirriam-Webster defines racism as:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [emphasis mine]
Racism, as is sexism, is based on one group feeling superior to another, not simply different. Most things people tag as racism are more precisely 'racial discrimination' and 'racial prejudice', including the examples in the above posts. It isn't racism to assume black people like rap music, just as it isn't racism to assume white people like country music. It isn't sexism to assume men like sports, or that women like chick movies. It is prejudice to assume any one person likes something based on some general category they are in. It is also prejudice to assume you will like or dislike someone based solely on that criteria. It still isn't racism.
Anyway, that's my definition of the term. I see I am in the minority about it. Thank you everyone for your input, and civility. It's rare to see more than three replies on/. without some insult being thrown around.
I thought the debatable part was "probable cause"? An unreasonable search is defined in the 4th amendment.
I don't think that is applicable to this situation. The fourth amendment states:
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
This 'stop and frisk' policy is not issueing any warrants at all. They are simply searching people who they deem to be suspicious, which has been declared to be reasonable, as long as it isn't (in planning or in practice) based on race or other protected category.
Again, the term 'reasonable' is not concrete; it is completely in the eyes of the government, with some input from the people.
No, it isn't. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism isn't the belief that a large number of members of a particular racial group in one country in the world has an over-proportionate chance of being a criminal.
Hint, even black girls get nervous when black men follow them at night. That isn't racism.
I'm not saying it is fair, or right, or reasonable. But I am saying it isn't racism.
You are correct, it is either constitutional or not, you can have no other options. In this case it is unconstitutional, however done in another way it can be constitutional. In other words racial profiling is unconstitutional, hence why this one is unconstitutional, however *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional,
Well, there's the rub. The fourth amendment seems very clear that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... against unreasonable searches and seizures....
The only debatable term there is "unreasonable". Unfortunately, the powers that be have decided that in New York City, 'stop and frisk' is reasonable. I've mentioned before on other boards that the amendment doesn't protect you against random searches, as long as the courts don't find it to be 'unreasonable'.
If this makes it to the Supreme Court, and they decide it is unreasonable on its face, then it will be over. But only then.
Percentages aren't people. If someone commits a crime and then says that to say they did it is racist - that's ridiculous.
Ridiculous, but happens all the time, with the full vociferous support of their community and leaders, both locally and nationally.
If however someone assumes that a person is probably a criminal because of the color of their skin, that's racism.
Sorry, but no it isn't.
Do you not see the difference? Imagine spending your entire life being hassled by cops because people who look like you are statistically more likely to commit crimes.
But then mr. "I Am New Here" comes and completely mixes the two, tells that public key *encryption* can't work for security, and gives argument for that based on *digital signing*.
Hi there, MrYak. I mis-read your post earlier and thought you were talking about using your own private key to encrypt messages within gmail/yahoo/etc. Basically, I thought you had mixed the two, and responded to that.
Specifically, your line:
You see plain text on the screen, but what actually goes into the "textarea" of the form is encrypted.
led me to think you were encrypting the text area with your own private key as you type.
No, not new to it. Read my other response above. I just don't have to use them, and haven't given it much thought for a couple decades, since the mid-90s. The message I responded to didn't seem to be using the public/private key correctly, which is why i posted. My second paragraph laid out the proper method, based on 20 year old memories of this stuff. If I mis-read DrYak's post, then I apologize for muddying the waters. But from the other responses above, the water isn't crystal clear to begin with.
That would be what a sane person would call a Surface Pro 2, and a Surface RT 2 or 2013/2014 type thing. Given microsofts recent efforts to name things don't be surprised if it ends up being Surface Pro One, and Surface RT Compatible or some other stupid confusing assbackwards name just to make life hard for everyone.
The Microsoft Surface 2.0 High Speed will replace the Surface 1.1 Full Speed.
The scary thing about reading the article is the comments section. It's like YouTube users talking about computers. Makes Slashdot look like a fucking academic symposium.
No, Slashdot will never look like an academic symposium about fucking.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the Progressive Caucus.
Obama and Hillary are the Progressive Caucus. What have they done? Expanded the government which enables all the abuses.
Well, according to Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, the only hope is to elect ultra conservative Republicans like Rand Paul.
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4989
It's right twice a day, but is never accurate.
I'd rather have a watch that loses a second a day with no way to set the time, because it is far more accurate as a tool to tell me what time it is at any given moment.
You racist commie. :P
Mmmm... Railroad flares... mmmmdrool.
Personally, I just don't go to America anymore.
Don't trust em. Don't like the gov't. My tech support calls to Microsoft get turned over. Ridiculous.
America is on the downward slide now. They won't make 20 years. Too corrupt. They will be destroyed from within because of their own greedy politicians and corporations.
I don't think we'll go another 10 years without collapsing. Ironically, that will be the best thing that can happen to us, because a lot of chaff is going to get sifted out. People from all socio-economic and race groups are going to be affected, but by time it's over the ones that remain won't be addicted to the ever-larger government we have now..
That was my first thought as well when I read the headline.
So you are saying that we have law to punish people? That is screwed up. We have laws so that we can have a just and fair society.
No, he didn't say that. He said we have laws so that we can have a just and fair society, so if you decide to break them, we are going to punish you more than you feel is fair. That is how criminal justice works in reality.
When the govenment is acting unjustly and breaking the law
What secrets did Manning reveal of the government acting unjustly and breaking the law?
Video of a military operation in a war zone that resulted in dead civilians that were running around with armed combatants?
Diplomatic messages that show diplomats are less than honest when dealing with assholes they can't stand?
there is no consequences to them because they make it illegal to bring the information to the people and other branches of government so that something can be done. It is legitimate to break a unjust law, especially when the unjust law is created to protect those who would abuse their power. Therefor what Manning and now Snowden have done is beyond reproach.
Snowden at least showed the US government was spying on US citizens. I don't like how he has acted since he leaked that info, but have to admit his info is actually relevant to us civilians.
Manning showed that bad things happen in war zones, and diplomacy involves being diplomatic. I don't get the hero-worship over that.
If I go to work tomorrow for an organization whose job is killing people who are not in the organization, then I won't be surprised when I find evidence they did so. You might as well put on trial all governments everywhere if you don't think bad things should ever happen.
The next five people in his command and in charge of the secret information (computer system and network, in this case) should all be sitting right next to him, and getting the same punishment he is getting. The fact is they all dropped the ball in letting this information loose.
I would say they softened the definition a bit to fit it to popular usage of the term. Mirriam-Webster defines racism as:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [emphasis mine]
Racism, as is sexism, is based on one group feeling superior to another, not simply different. Most things people tag as racism are more precisely 'racial discrimination' and 'racial prejudice', including the examples in the above posts. It isn't racism to assume black people like rap music, just as it isn't racism to assume white people like country music. It isn't sexism to assume men like sports, or that women like chick movies. It is prejudice to assume any one person likes something based on some general category they are in. It is also prejudice to assume you will like or dislike someone based solely on that criteria. It still isn't racism.
Anyway, that's my definition of the term. I see I am in the minority about it. Thank you everyone for your input, and civility. It's rare to see more than three replies on /. without some insult being thrown around.
Good night.
The only debatable term there is "unreasonable".
I thought the debatable part was "probable cause"? An unreasonable search is defined in the 4th amendment.
I don't think that is applicable to this situation. The fourth amendment states:
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
This 'stop and frisk' policy is not issueing any warrants at all. They are simply searching people who they deem to be suspicious, which has been declared to be reasonable, as long as it isn't (in planning or in practice) based on race or other protected category.
Again, the term 'reasonable' is not concrete; it is completely in the eyes of the government, with some input from the people.
No, it isn't. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism isn't the belief that a large number of members of a particular racial group in one country in the world has an over-proportionate chance of being a criminal.
Hint, even black girls get nervous when black men follow them at night. That isn't racism.
I'm not saying it is fair, or right, or reasonable. But I am saying it isn't racism.
oh, hi
You are correct, it is either constitutional or not, you can have no other options. In this case it is unconstitutional, however done in another way it can be constitutional. In other words racial profiling is unconstitutional, hence why this one is unconstitutional, however *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional,
Well, there's the rub. The fourth amendment seems very clear that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ... against unreasonable searches and seizures....
The only debatable term there is "unreasonable". Unfortunately, the powers that be have decided that in New York City, 'stop and frisk' is reasonable. I've mentioned before on other boards that the amendment doesn't protect you against random searches, as long as the courts don't find it to be 'unreasonable'.
If this makes it to the Supreme Court, and they decide it is unreasonable on its face, then it will be over. But only then.
RANDAAAAAAAALL!
Percentages aren't people. If someone commits a crime and then says that to say they did it is racist - that's ridiculous.
Ridiculous, but happens all the time, with the full vociferous support of their community and leaders, both locally and nationally.
If however someone assumes that a person is probably a criminal because of the color of their skin, that's racism.
Sorry, but no it isn't.
Do you not see the difference? Imagine spending your entire life being hassled by cops because people who look like you are statistically more likely to commit crimes.
Early converts to soil.
Actually, reading the Wikipedia article you refer to, you are both wrong.
Damn you Randall! Must you poke your nose in everywhere?
But then mr. "I Am New Here" comes and completely mixes the two, tells that public key *encryption* can't work for security, and gives argument for that based on *digital signing*.
Hi there, MrYak. I mis-read your post earlier and thought you were talking about using your own private key to encrypt messages within gmail/yahoo/etc. Basically, I thought you had mixed the two, and responded to that.
Specifically, your line:
You see plain text on the screen, but what actually goes into the "textarea" of the form is encrypted.
led me to think you were encrypting the text area with your own private key as you type.
I apologize for getting it wrong.
No, not new to it. Read my other response above. I just don't have to use them, and haven't given it much thought for a couple decades, since the mid-90s. The message I responded to didn't seem to be using the public/private key correctly, which is why i posted. My second paragraph laid out the proper method, based on 20 year old memories of this stuff. If I mis-read DrYak's post, then I apologize for muddying the waters. But from the other responses above, the water isn't crystal clear to begin with.
That would be what a sane person would call a Surface Pro 2, and a Surface RT 2 or 2013/2014 type thing. Given microsofts recent efforts to name things don't be surprised if it ends up being Surface Pro One, and Surface RT Compatible or some other stupid confusing assbackwards name just to make life hard for everyone.
The Microsoft Surface 2.0 High Speed will replace the Surface 1.1 Full Speed.
That won't be confusing at all.
.
^hand^
Teacherrr, I don't understAaannnd.
(Memories of the annoying dumb blond girl in high school trig class.)
The summary's pretty accurate (for once).
The scary thing about reading the article is the comments section. It's like YouTube users talking about computers. Makes Slashdot look like a fucking academic symposium.
No, Slashdot will never look like an academic symposium about fucking.