The ability to secretly break DH or AES would be such a huge weapon that they wouldn't use it unless the stakes were high enough to risk losing the advantage if their capability were detected. Somehow, I think your connections to your servers aren't that important.
If anyone has the capability, it's the NSA. They could use it routinely without anyone else knowing, they're good enough at keeping secrets that no one would know until long after it mattered. These are the people who discovered differential cryptanalysis and didn't let the cat out of the bag until 20 some odd years later when academia discovered it.
It's not about the seeing. It's about the number of key presses from the left edge of my screen.
If I arrow to the right four times, then I'm four levels deep. One...Two...Three...Four I prefer that to One...Two...Three...ONE...One...Two...Three...TWO...One...Two...Three...THREE...One...Two...Three...FOUR
So, for all those tab fans, what is it about tabs that you find useful?
When you find yourself debugging an If inside of a For inside of a While inside of an Else, I find it easier to visualize which level in I'm at by the number of tabs.
The government has no incentive to make you aware of every credit/deduction that you qualify for. The competition between tax service/software vendors means that such "oversights" are less likely.
It IS a conflict of interest for the Government to be involved in the preparation of tax returns. I don't know about you, but I don't want people with guns and the authority to use them to be the ones who tell me how much I am supposed to pay in taxes or how much I overpaid and they're giving back to me.
Of course not. Libraries don't need permission because they already have permission. It's even explicitly given in section 109 of the US Copyright code (look at the many other replies for a link).
USC Title 17 Section 109a doesn't in any way address the ability of a library to loan an object. The right to do what you will with your own property is rooted in common law. Libraries, and individuals for that matter, have had the right to lend their property since before the US code was written. How can a law grant you a right that you already have?
Let me reword it for you: "A person usually doesn't have permission from the author to make digital copies available. On the other hand, Libraries are permitted to loan books."
OK. This I completely agree with.
My using the "permission" instead of "permitted" in my original post, does not change the argument.
I'd argue that it doesn't change your intent, but it certainly changed the meaning of the sentence.
Yes, it was an escalation. It's all about my perspective on the psychology of aggression. When a dog growls at you, prepare to kick it. If a man pulls a knife, pull a gun. Counter attack puts the aggressor on the defensive. No disrespect towards your mother was intended, however had I responded with a simple "Fucktard" or something of the like, there'd still be acrimony between us in this discussion.
It may not be fair for me to hold Obama personally responsible for everything that everyone in his cabinet has ever said, if it were Pat Buchannan under Bush they other side would be bringing up things he said 25 years previously.
Hillary has expressed the desire to have government vetting of the information that was allowed to be posted online. Now we have the Regulatory Czar wanting to infiltrate groups that dissent. Cass's notoriously controversial ideas lead me to believe that he especially shouldn't be given any authority over that medium that could be abused.
So when the administration says things like "We don't want the Fairness Doctrine.", we all know what they really mean. They will push for regulations that they won't call the "Fairness Doctrine", they'll dress it up in whatever terms they feel will best frame their case but push for it, they will.
I did trust Bush and I didn't want his administration to have warrantless wiretap authority against American citizens. I was and am opposed to waterboarding and other forms of torture. Even when it was my side doing it.
As for McVeigh, I'm a bit of an OKC conspiracy theorist. I believe that there is some evidence, not necessarily proof but evidence, that his circles of travel had been infiltrated by the federal government and he managed to pull off the caper before they nabbed him.
I don't even have a problem with the active advocation of violence. I draw the line at attempting to carry it out.
I think that propaganda can serve a legitimate purpose and even the greater good. For example, the US used a lot of propaganda to keep its citizens and allies from coming under the control of the USSR. In the end, Stalin massacred tens of millions of his own people. While the US was clearly not without the taint of corruption, they were certainly less evil than the Soviets. That said, I believe that it requires extra scrutiny but it can serve good.
I am far right of center. Mr. Farrah of WND can't decide if he wants the operation to be noble opposition or lunatic fringe.
I want to know if the people appointed to positions of power in my government want to euthanize the infirmed or elderly, but they keep that stupid birther story going.
So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest. Very brave of them!
They're both also hypocrites. Rush went to rehab for addiction to prescription drugs but made fun of Ted Kennedy's alcohol addiction. Michael Moore made millions of dollars in a capitalist society by making and releasing a movie the denounced capitalism.
The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource, but not for privately held resources like websites.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't appropriate anywhere. But, I'll play along. Radio stations are privately owned but they use public airwaves so the government has a right to demand certain types of mandatory programming. Websites are privately owned but they use public networks for transmission of their data, so the government has a right to demand certain types of mandatory content and the right to forbid others.
Think of all of those people who were never qualified to become a cop or some type of covert agent. They can sign up for Infragard and live out their fantasies.
Another difference that I've noticed is that they changes accounts far more frequently than I do. I have had the same email address for 10 years. My young friends are constantly changing the email addresses and IM names.
That's kind of the point. You can't eschew everything that goes along with joining a religious group and then want to be treated like you're a religious group.
The more code you write, the more important it is to comment for your own use. Have you ever come across some code that you wrote 3-5 years earlier and said "Why did I do that like that when doing it like this would be so much more efficient/better?" I have. Have you ever started to rewrite your code with the thought that you can do it so much better now? I have. Have you ever spend three hours rewriting your code only to figure out that there was a reason why you did it the other way in the first place? I have. That's why I comment my code. Not necessarily for the guy who has to maintain it next, I do it for me.
It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.
Well, clearly since Bing is doing it, yahoo can't claim that they can't. They've just shown that they can make at least a minimally successful attempt. Your "plausible deniability" isn't looking so plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to secretly break DH or AES would be such a huge weapon that they wouldn't use it unless the stakes were high enough to risk losing the advantage if their capability were detected. Somehow, I think your connections to your servers aren't that important.
If anyone has the capability, it's the NSA. They could use it routinely without anyone else knowing, they're good enough at keeping secrets that no one would know until long after it mattered. These are the people who discovered differential cryptanalysis and didn't let the cat out of the bag until 20 some odd years later when academia discovered it.
LK
Do you understand that I don't rely on the government to save me. That's why they shouldn't be preparing my taxes.
Next time, read more of the thread before you open your mouth and make yourself look like a moron.
LK
You sir, apparently missed the point of that statement.
LK
It's not about the seeing. It's about the number of key presses from the left edge of my screen.
If I arrow to the right four times, then I'm four levels deep.
One...Two...Three...Four
I prefer that to
One...Two...Three...ONE...One...Two...Three...TWO...One...Two...Three...THREE...One...Two...Three...FOUR
LK
By forcing all your tabs to be spaces, anyone else viewing the code will be forced to view / edit it in your indentation.
I think that's precisely the point. They've decided what the optimal indentation is and they're going to force everyone else to see it their way.
LK
So, for all those tab fans, what is it about tabs that you find useful?
When you find yourself debugging an If inside of a For inside of a While inside of an Else, I find it easier to visualize which level in I'm at by the number of tabs.
LK
The government has no incentive to make you aware of every credit/deduction that you qualify for. The competition between tax service/software vendors means that such "oversights" are less likely.
LK
It IS a conflict of interest for the Government to be involved in the preparation of tax returns. I don't know about you, but I don't want people with guns and the authority to use them to be the ones who tell me how much I am supposed to pay in taxes or how much I overpaid and they're giving back to me.
LK
Of course not. Libraries don't need permission because they already have permission. It's even explicitly given in section 109 of the US Copyright code (look at the many other replies for a link).
USC Title 17 Section 109a doesn't in any way address the ability of a library to loan an object. The right to do what you will with your own property is rooted in common law. Libraries, and individuals for that matter, have had the right to lend their property since before the US code was written. How can a law grant you a right that you already have?
Let me reword it for you: "A person usually doesn't have permission from the author to make digital copies available. On the other hand, Libraries are permitted to loan books."
OK. This I completely agree with.
My using the "permission" instead of "permitted" in my original post, does not change the argument.
I'd argue that it doesn't change your intent, but it certainly changed the meaning of the sentence.
LK
Since when is a phonorecord a book? Besides, lending something doesn't mean that you've disposed of it.
The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books
No, libraries don't need permission to lend books. No one needs permission to lend their own property.
LK
Yes, it was an escalation. It's all about my perspective on the psychology of aggression. When a dog growls at you, prepare to kick it. If a man pulls a knife, pull a gun. Counter attack puts the aggressor on the defensive. No disrespect towards your mother was intended, however had I responded with a simple "Fucktard" or something of the like, there'd still be acrimony between us in this discussion.
It may not be fair for me to hold Obama personally responsible for everything that everyone in his cabinet has ever said, if it were Pat Buchannan under Bush they other side would be bringing up things he said 25 years previously.
Hillary has expressed the desire to have government vetting of the information that was allowed to be posted online. Now we have the Regulatory Czar wanting to infiltrate groups that dissent. Cass's notoriously controversial ideas lead me to believe that he especially shouldn't be given any authority over that medium that could be abused.
So when the administration says things like "We don't want the Fairness Doctrine.", we all know what they really mean. They will push for regulations that they won't call the "Fairness Doctrine", they'll dress it up in whatever terms they feel will best frame their case but push for it, they will.
I did trust Bush and I didn't want his administration to have warrantless wiretap authority against American citizens. I was and am opposed to waterboarding and other forms of torture. Even when it was my side doing it.
As for McVeigh, I'm a bit of an OKC conspiracy theorist. I believe that there is some evidence, not necessarily proof but evidence, that his circles of travel had been infiltrated by the federal government and he managed to pull off the caper before they nabbed him.
I don't even have a problem with the active advocation of violence. I draw the line at attempting to carry it out.
I think that propaganda can serve a legitimate purpose and even the greater good. For example, the US used a lot of propaganda to keep its citizens and allies from coming under the control of the USSR. In the end, Stalin massacred tens of millions of his own people. While the US was clearly not without the taint of corruption, they were certainly less evil than the Soviets. That said, I believe that it requires extra scrutiny but it can serve good.
LK
Even if that were true, it's not a license to be an asshole.
LK
I am far right of center. Mr. Farrah of WND can't decide if he wants the operation to be noble opposition or lunatic fringe.
I want to know if the people appointed to positions of power in my government want to euthanize the infirmed or elderly, but they keep that stupid birther story going.
LK
Have you ever heard of a little thing called dialup?
PSTN... A combination of public and privately owned networks.
Go fuck your mother.
LK
So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest. Very brave of them!
They're both also hypocrites. Rush went to rehab for addiction to prescription drugs but made fun of Ted Kennedy's alcohol addiction. Michael Moore made millions of dollars in a capitalist society by making and releasing a movie the denounced capitalism.
LK
The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource, but not for privately held resources like websites.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't appropriate anywhere. But, I'll play along. Radio stations are privately owned but they use public airwaves so the government has a right to demand certain types of mandatory programming. Websites are privately owned but they use public networks for transmission of their data, so the government has a right to demand certain types of mandatory content and the right to forbid others.
LK
Think of all of those people who were never qualified to become a cop or some type of covert agent. They can sign up for Infragard and live out their fantasies.
LK
I was no longer interested in paying money to be a part of the Apple crusade.
LK
Another difference that I've noticed is that they changes accounts far more frequently than I do. I have had the same email address for 10 years. My young friends are constantly changing the email addresses and IM names.
LK
This is precisely why I'm no longer a Mac enthusiast.
LK
That's kind of the point. You can't eschew everything that goes along with joining a religious group and then want to be treated like you're a religious group.
LK
If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion
Except, of course, that it's not. Atheism is ATHEISM, not ATHEISM. There's a huge difference.
LK
The more code you write, the more important it is to comment for your own use. Have you ever come across some code that you wrote 3-5 years earlier and said "Why did I do that like that when doing it like this would be so much more efficient/better?" I have. Have you ever started to rewrite your code with the thought that you can do it so much better now? I have. Have you ever spend three hours rewriting your code only to figure out that there was a reason why you did it the other way in the first place? I have. That's why I comment my code. Not necessarily for the guy who has to maintain it next, I do it for me.
LK
It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.
Well, clearly since Bing is doing it, yahoo can't claim that they can't. They've just shown that they can make at least a minimally successful attempt. Your "plausible deniability" isn't looking so plausible.
LK