My experience with enlisted men is different, however it is probably safe to say that neither of us know what most go in for. In fact a decent percentage go in because they feel they have no other option (see inner city minorities) and want to get out of the life they are in.
Regardless, may DO go in out of sense of duty and honor, any many of the ones I know who went in for that reason no longer feel that way. Ask almost anyone who was in Iraq, moral absolutely SUCKS these days.
(1) The draft could easily be reactivated. Given the shortage of troops we have to send to Iraq now (which is the reason they are being held there way longer than there were told they would be), if war were to break out with N Korea, you can bet the draft would be back on in a heartbeat.
(2) Many people choose to go into the military with the lofty idea of serving one's country in the form of protecting said country. Not being sent to act as the world's policeman while the UN is their typical ineffective and corrupt selves and have the rest of the world hate them. That is quite demoralizing and I know quite a few people in the military who are taking their first chance to get out solely because of this.
Of course now people know better, and realize that joining the military doesn't mean WWII-esque honor. It means getting blown up by a car bomb by the same people you were sent to help, only they hate you as much as the people you were sent to protect them from. The spike in enlistment that happened after 9.11 is plumeting down and for good reason.
Finkployd
Re:Wow, the BBC is really.... uninformed.
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
The BBC has been consistently uninformed lately, quite disappointing. NPR had excellent coverage of this yesterday and was quite fair and balanced.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
do you have any concept of what a modern military would do to a bunch of guys with guns?
Depends on what they want to do. A mass revolt inside the US would take on a whole different dynamic than an invasion of a forign country.
Obviously the military is better armed but do you think for a second they want to kill off the population and destroy the infrastructure of their own country? And who is to say that the military even would? If something were to happen that enough people wanted to revolt then it stands to reason that some in the military would possibly be of like mind.
Even in a foreign country, guerilla warfare usually wins out assuming it has a critical mass of people. It tends to be more flexible and adaptable. Vietnam was a prime example of this.
So could the US stop a rebellion with its own supply of WMD? yes. Would they try? I doubt it. It seems silly to destroy what you are trying to protect.
Down boy! Just because you can respond to every attempt to be humorous with an overly-earnest attempt to create a "teachable moment" doesn't mean you have to.
That is ONLY the case if the weapon in question is fully automatic or select fire, NOT semi auto (which the all AR-15's and the vast majority of AKs are).
My wording is right on, I legally bought a $250 SAR-1 (Romanian AK variant) at a gun show a few years back (and sold it for $400 the next year). Only the standard instant check done over that phone by the dealer was required.
You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?
Important law? My friend. the assualt weapons law has to be the least important law on the books. It does nothing of substance. It has been a complete and total failure.
Are you under the impression that the assualt weapon ban actually had any effect at all on weapons such as these? It didn't. AK-47s are cheap and legal to purchase, 30 round clips for them go for about $8. What did the assualt weapons ban do? Nothing, it was a totally ineffective, useless law that made no difference.
Are you implying that it will happen because of the lift? Because anyone can go buy a $300 AK-47 or $800 AR-15 today. 30 round clips go for about $8. What changes when the assualt weapons ban lifts? Maybe they might have a bayonet on them or something?
Prosperity I'll give you, but what on earth did Clinton have to do with that? Are you one of those people who thinks the president has even moderate influence over the economy? If so why did Clinton cause it to tank before he even left office?
Peace? Well we weren't in a bloody war with Iraq true. But we did bomb the hell out of random countries and lose quite a few men in failed "peacekeeping operations", many of which did not have UN support.
We also passed that great DMCA law and tried like hell to destroy the US technology industry with the Clipper Chip (which frightens me even more than the Patroit Act, at least citizens have the ability to get around some of that).
So yeah, Bush sucks, we agree there. But come on, Clinton wasn't some hero president who saved the country. He fucked it up just as much as they all do. His primary redeeming quality is at least he had fun doing it.
Let's see, they provide wireless, they don't want "joe idiot student" putting up rogue access points that interfere with theirs. I don't see the problem here.
This has nothing to do with being unable to deal with changes in technology, they seem right on top of that. This has to do with there being effectivly 3 channels you can use with 802.11bg.
Funny I know a lot of people who voted for Bush and a lot of people who voted for Gore in the last election who feel the same this time around. I know I do. I'm sorry I just cannot delude myself into thinking that either is really going to be any better than the other. Let's face it, so far the campaign has been as follows:
Kerry: "I was a war hero" Bush: "well, maybe you weren't but I am an anti-terrorism hero now, and I oppose gay marriage" Kerry: "I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but I can say that I would do things mighty differently with the economy and the iraq war" Bush: "like what?" Kerry: "errr.....I won't say until I'm elected"
How do you figure? Was the RIAA authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher when demanding that he remove usher.mp3? That is literally what they are claiming.
Don't forget universities too. We average around 4 million emails a day, and there are a LOT of universities.
Few (if any) of the larger ones run Exchange because it simply does not scale that large (without dumping an insane amount of hardware and administration at it). Sendmail and postfix reign supreme in this setting.
That's not how it works my friend. Your data was secure, let me explain.
Your browser downloaded the website with the form on it over a clear channel, and displayed it in your browser. So far no problem.
Then you entered your personal data into the form on the website, which so far only exists in your computer's memory, none of that data was ever sent over the network until you pressed submit.
Once you pressed submit, your browser opened a secure connection to the url you posted and sent the data from the form to it. Never in this transaction was your data sent over the network in the clear.
Granted this is still a confusing move on Apple's part. The convention is usually to encrypt both the url with the form AND the url it is being submitted to. The first step is totally unnecessary from a security perspective, but it reassures people who think it is only safe to enter data if they see "https" on the form url.
Not just one time pads, pretty much any symmetric key system is safe if P == NP. Greanted you still have a serious key distribution problem (although kerberos still works nicely), since that is all we really use PK encryption for these days anyway (well, and encrypting hashes for signatures).
I also kinda fail to see how if someone figures out P=NP that will give them the ability to factor primes any easier. Anyone want to explain that to little old me? (yes, I know what P=NP means, I want to know how it will suddenly be used in practice)
Few people know that Ashcroft was once a crusader for personal freedom and privacy and took a stance against the Clipper Chip. Oh course, NOW he is a total fucktard who wipes various parts of his body with the bill of rights, I guess prolonged exposure to government does that to people.
Incidently most of the geeks I know (myself included) who voted for Bush did so because at the time he appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Al "Mr Clipper Chip" Gore certainly was no friend of the technology industry or anyone interested in privacy while he was VP.
Of course now we know that there are no lesser of two evils. Kerry and Bush will both screw over the country hard. Let's face it, nobody likes either of these two failures. They just hate the other guy enough to pretend to like one of them. It is a sad say in the US when these two are the best options we have.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience with enlisted men is different, however it is probably safe to say that neither of us know what most go in for. In fact a decent percentage go in because they feel they have no other option (see inner city minorities) and want to get out of the life they are in.
Regardless, may DO go in out of sense of duty and honor, any many of the ones I know who went in for that reason no longer feel that way. Ask almost anyone who was in Iraq, moral absolutely SUCKS these days.
Finkployd
Two points.
(1) The draft could easily be reactivated. Given the shortage of troops we have to send to Iraq now (which is the reason they are being held there way longer than there were told they would be), if war were to break out with N Korea, you can bet the draft would be back on in a heartbeat.
(2) Many people choose to go into the military with the lofty idea of serving one's country in the form of protecting said country. Not being sent to act as the world's policeman while the UN is their typical ineffective and corrupt selves and have the rest of the world hate them. That is quite demoralizing and I know quite a few people in the military who are taking their first chance to get out solely because of this.
Of course now people know better, and realize that joining the military doesn't mean WWII-esque honor. It means getting blown up by a car bomb by the same people you were sent to help, only they hate you as much as the people you were sent to protect them from. The spike in enlistment that happened after 9.11 is plumeting down and for good reason.
Finkployd
The BBC has been consistently uninformed lately, quite disappointing. NPR had excellent coverage of this yesterday and was quite fair and balanced.
do you have any concept of what a modern military would do to a bunch of guys with guns?
Depends on what they want to do. A mass revolt inside the US would take on a whole different dynamic than an invasion of a forign country.
Obviously the military is better armed but do you think for a second they want to kill off the population and destroy the infrastructure of their own country? And who is to say that the military even would? If something were to happen that enough people wanted to revolt then it stands to reason that some in the military would possibly be of like mind.
Even in a foreign country, guerilla warfare usually wins out assuming it has a critical mass of people. It tends to be more flexible and adaptable. Vietnam was a prime example of this.
So could the US stop a rebellion with its own supply of WMD? yes. Would they try? I doubt it. It seems silly to destroy what you are trying to protect.
Finkployd
Down boy! Just because you can respond to every attempt to be humorous with an overly-earnest attempt to create a "teachable moment" doesn't mean you have to.
MUST....EDUCATE.....SLASHDOTTERS.........
Wrong Wrong Wrong.
That is ONLY the case if the weapon in question is fully automatic or select fire, NOT semi auto (which the all AR-15's and the vast majority of AKs are).
My wording is right on, I legally bought a $250 SAR-1 (Romanian AK variant) at a gun show a few years back (and sold it for $400 the next year). Only the standard instant check done over that phone by the dealer was required.
Finkployd
Clip is easier to type in a hurry :P
You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?
Important law? My friend. the assualt weapons law has to be the least important law on the books. It does nothing of substance. It has been a complete and total failure.
Finkployd
Are you under the impression that the assualt weapon ban actually had any effect at all on weapons such as these? It didn't. AK-47s are cheap and legal to purchase, 30 round clips for them go for about $8. What did the assualt weapons ban do? Nothing, it was a totally ineffective, useless law that made no difference.
Finkployd
Are you implying that it will happen because of the lift? Because anyone can go buy a $300 AK-47 or $800 AR-15 today. 30 round clips go for about $8. What changes when the assualt weapons ban lifts? Maybe they might have a bayonet on them or something?
Finkployd
The frequencies overlap. There is only 5MHz difference between wireless channels, yet each channel uses a 30MHz spread.
In the US (where channels 1-11 are available) The best you can do it use 1, 6, and 11. Adding any other channels will cause interference.
It is explained pretty well here
Finkployd
Prosperity I'll give you, but what on earth did Clinton have to do with that? Are you one of those people who thinks the president has even moderate influence over the economy? If so why did Clinton cause it to tank before he even left office?
Peace? Well we weren't in a bloody war with Iraq true. But we did bomb the hell out of random countries and lose quite a few men in failed "peacekeeping operations", many of which did not have UN support.
We also passed that great DMCA law and tried like hell to destroy the US technology industry with the Clipper Chip (which frightens me even more than the Patroit Act, at least citizens have the ability to get around some of that).
So yeah, Bush sucks, we agree there. But come on, Clinton wasn't some hero president who saved the country. He fucked it up just as much as they all do. His primary redeeming quality is at least he had fun doing it.
Finkployd
Let's see, they provide wireless, they don't want "joe idiot student" putting up rogue access points that interfere with theirs. I don't see the problem here.
This has nothing to do with being unable to deal with changes in technology, they seem right on top of that. This has to do with there being effectivly 3 channels you can use with 802.11bg.
Finkployd
This is no different than Perot and the Bush vs Clinton election. Clinton would have easily lost had it not been for him.
Funny I know a lot of people who voted for Bush and a lot of people who voted for Gore in the last election who feel the same this time around. I know I do. I'm sorry I just cannot delude myself into thinking that either is really going to be any better than the other. Let's face it, so far the campaign has been as follows:
Kerry: "I was a war hero"
Bush: "well, maybe you weren't but I am an anti-terrorism hero now, and I oppose gay marriage"
Kerry: "I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but I can say that I would do things mighty differently with the economy and the iraq war"
Bush: "like what?"
Kerry: "errr.....I won't say until I'm elected"
And so on. Real inspiring.
Slashdot just ran a story to the effect of "SOAP exists" complete with brand "new acronyms" that are several years old.
Finkployd
How do you figure? Was the RIAA authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher when demanding that he remove usher.mp3? That is literally what they are claiming.
Don't forget universities too. We average around 4 million emails a day, and there are a LOT of universities.
Few (if any) of the larger ones run Exchange because it simply does not scale that large (without dumping an insane amount of hardware and administration at it). Sendmail and postfix reign supreme in this setting.
Finkployd
That's not how it works my friend.
Your data was secure, let me explain.
Your browser downloaded the website with the form on it over a clear channel, and displayed it in your browser. So far no problem.
Then you entered your personal data into the form on the website, which so far only exists in your computer's memory, none of that data was ever sent over the network until you pressed submit.
Once you pressed submit, your browser opened a secure connection to the url you posted and sent the data from the form to it. Never in this transaction was your data sent over the network in the clear.
Granted this is still a confusing move on Apple's part. The convention is usually to encrypt both the url with the form AND the url it is being submitted to. The first step is totally unnecessary from a security perspective, but it reassures people who think it is only safe to enter data if they see "https" on the form url.
AAC is actually an open standard (not sure how open, but open)
The DRM that iTMS uses with AAC is exclusively Apple's.
Finkployd
Wanted: GMail invitation. Thanks, anyone!
Incidently, are you still after this? I have like 6
Email me if you want one.
Finkployd
Not just one time pads, pretty much any symmetric key system is safe if P == NP. Greanted you still have a serious key distribution problem (although kerberos still works nicely), since that is all we really use PK encryption for these days anyway (well, and encrypting hashes for signatures).
I also kinda fail to see how if someone figures out P=NP that will give them the ability to factor primes any easier. Anyone want to explain that to little old me? (yes, I know what P=NP means, I want to know how it will suddenly be used in practice)
Finkployd
Few people know that Ashcroft was once a crusader for personal freedom and privacy and took a stance against the Clipper Chip. Oh course, NOW he is a total fucktard who wipes various parts of his body with the bill of rights, I guess prolonged exposure to government does that to people.
Incidently most of the geeks I know (myself included) who voted for Bush did so because at the time he appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Al "Mr Clipper Chip" Gore certainly was no friend of the technology industry or anyone interested in privacy while he was VP.
Of course now we know that there are no lesser of two evils. Kerry and Bush will both screw over the country hard. Let's face it, nobody likes either of these two failures. They just hate the other guy enough to pretend to like one of them. It is a sad say in the US when these two are the best options we have.
Finkployd
It won't hurt symetric key cyphers, just public key which are based on P != NP