I was not even arguing about what is or isn't that militia. I was just saying that amendment does have a bit that says "Well regulated militia", and it didn't seem very well regulated to me.
But if it is really a well regulated militia then hey that's good.
Hey if you all believe the US has a well regulated militia and all those guns are helping keep it that way then fine, read no further.
Cars may kill more than guns but apparently[1] in the USA there are very very many people who might find it hard to have enough food to eat, a place to stay and a job to pay for it all, if you take away their car. So they put up with the car accident statistics just like those grazing animals keep eating grass in front of lions and putting up with the "eaten by lion" statistics.
And I bet these number far more than those who would have been killed or injured if they didn't have a gun.
In contrast if you take away the guns, how many more people would die or suffer? I doubt there would be such a great increase in deaths, injuries or increase in monetary/property losses[2].
After all: 1) most muggers don't want to kill you. Many may still want to hurt you though (bloody sadists!). 2) The amount of cash I'd lose is nothing really much compared to what the leaders of my country have taken from me and misspent. Heck it's even hard to figure out whether to be more worried about the cops or the noncop crooks.
As for those who really want your life, they could just shoot you first, then you would be dead. You only have a chance from the incompetent or those who want to talk about it first or show off (just like those James Bond villains;) ).
What makes gun owners think that people like themselves are so safe from people like themselves? Or that the unarmed are so safe from them and their guns? But apparently the average car driver also thinks he/she is safer and more responsible than the average driver so...
[1] Some post about it regularly on slashdot, esp when EVs, cycling and other transportation/energy topics come up. [2] How much money do robbers steal per year? Compared to the amount employees steal from their companies? Compared to the bailouts?
Lots of people seem to leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.
Being well regulated would make things rather inconvenient, even though it might actually help better in maintaining the security of a Free State.
Types of Firearm deaths - 1993 : Type Number Suicide 18,940 Firearm homicide 18,571 Handgun homicide 13,980 Justifiable homicide 251 Accidental 1,521 Undetermined 563 Total 39,595
I know there's the deterrent factor, but if someone knows you are carrying a gun, that someone might just kill you first, instead of holding you up and thus increase the "firearm/handgun homicide" stats.
Anyway, it doesn't look very well regulated to me.
Lastly, just because it's the Second Amendment doesn't make it infallible. Hey it's an _amendment_ after all, which in itself also proves that the Constitution isn't infallible either. If it's not serving the country well, amend it again. The US people should stop worshipping their Constitution (and their leaders should actually respect it more;) ).
WEP despite being "Wired Equivalent Privacy" was nowhere near that. And if you check, WPA2 Personal is nowhere near that either when it comes to guest usage (which I claim makes up a significant proportion of WiFi usage) .
The fact that an attacker can be safely somewhere else makes it a whole different ballgame, if the IEEE bunch didn't realize that then that is just more evidence that they screwed up.
Users are responsible for their security. But as a provider, you may wish to do your best for them within your ability to provide a decent amount of privacy and security.
You can do that with wired ethernet. You can't with WiFi.
It is far easier to sniff someone else's WiFi traffic than it is to sniff someone else's traffic from an ethernet port.
AND it is still much easier to make it even harder for guest users to snoop on other wired ethernet connections with various switch vendors (e.g. cisco, huawei) port security features. The use of these features do not require the guests or users to do anything except just plug in as normal.
WiFi on the other hand is crap. It's either easy but unencrypted and completely insecure, or difficult for the users- they have to go get some credentials from the provider (cafe, conference organizer, hotel etc).
And if the credentials are a preshared key (WPA Personal or WPA2 Personal), it's not really secure against the other users. Because WPA2 Personal is broken in that if the PSK is known, you can decrypt other people's stuff as long as you can see the 4 way handshake, which is sniffable.
So use WPA2 Enterprise? That involves users and passwords. How do you get those to the guest user's _machine_ (remember you can get it to the guest user, but they often fail at getting it to their machine;) ).
Now if Microsoft, OSX, Desktop Linux, provide an easy option to use "anonymous:anonymous" in this scenario and somehow verify the base station's credentials, then things will be much better.
Lastly, regarding your suggestion "you should use end-to-end encryption". I have this to say: you should visit the real world more often and actually pay better attention. Only recently gmail started using encryption for everything. As for google searches, if I try https I get redirected to http.
You ever do google searches when connected on a WiFi connection? As I pointed out only the "user must jump through many hoops" wifi is secure, the best you get at most places is WPA2 Personal which is not secure against attackers, so they can _easily_ pwn you when you do a google search.
To pwn you when you're on a wired ethernet connection would involve them having to do more work - like social engineering, physically breaking stuff. They can't just sip a cafe latte nearby or even just plonk a "box" somewhere and walk away.
I dunno what the rest are using, but even Notepad++ allows you to view stuff side by side, it's not as cool as bubbles, but you can clone the current view. I believe Kate (KDE) allows it too.
As for running out of screen space when you have lots of windows, I wrote a program (for W2K/XP/win7) to allow people to quickly bind hotkeys to windows. So for example, alt+1 = window #1, alt+2 = window #2 and so on. I haven't done a KDE/Gnome version yet tho.
I'm biased but I prefer it to what Windows 7 does (winkey+<number> is by application and not by window).
To me the recent bunch of GUI designers (whether Linux or Windows) don't seem to be designing GUIs that can _also_ make life easier for experienced users. They're all designing flashy stuff to attract "noob users" (see 10GUI for an example of a fancy flashy but _slow_ GUI- switching from one window to another is slower than alt-tab;) ). I have nothing against making life easier for new/naive users, but at least provide stuff to help experienced users.
Another example: The "Windows Classic" start menu (Win95 till Win2K default) allowed me to quickly create a folder named "1 Explore" in it, and set up shortcuts in that folder named "1 Explore Desktop", "2 Explore My Documents" etc, so that pressing winkey followed by 1, 1 would "Explore" the Desktop. And winkey, 1, C would Explore the C drive. And you could have winkey, 4 would launch the command prompt, ssh etc.
You can no longer do that with Windows 7. There's that search thingy when you press winkey, but that's slower than what I had before.
In case people don't get it, with the current WiFi standards you cannot have an easy way for a Cafe/Hotel/Conference to provide encrypted wireless connections to guests in a way where they cannot snoop on each other's connections. if you use preshared key users can decrypt each other's traffic. If you use username and password, it's far more inconvenient for the user and the service provider.
> I just remember it suddenly pulling left in to the median and then there was a crowd of people around the car as the firemen pried open the drivers door. > Didn't give up my geeky ways and stop playing D&D or being nervous around women or nothing.
> because in this day and age: Name recognition means all.
Yeah especailly when many bloggers and slashdotters couldn't read well enough to tell the difference in names. IPEX, D&H, NewEgg they look all the same right?:)
I also found it slightly amusing to read the posts which said that people in NewEgg should have noticed the fakes because of the typos...
Spelling and grammar errors are so common nowadays, and more and more people seem to take offense when someone points out the errors.
Yeah, why are we worrying so much about bank robbers. They're small potatoes. As long as they don't kill or hurt anyone how much $$$ can they take? Laughable amounts for the jail time and risk.
Multiply such trades across thousands of stocks a day, and the profits are substantial. High-frequency traders generated about $21 billion in profits last year, the Tabb Group, a research firm, estimates.
"But we're moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys, and everyone else. People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal. Otherwise, the markets lose their integrity."
The smart ones _legally_ transfer money from the stupid to the smart (e.g. themselves).
In case people haven't noticed, inflation/printing/creating money is also another way of transferring money. Value is being transferred from the holders of the money, to the entities printing/creating the money. It's like a tax.
> > I think the real security money now is in automated (or proven) software verification and model checking. > > Why bother testing for security errors when you can prove they don't exist?" > Yeah, we were laughing about this in my college CS classes 20 years ago. So the drunken party's back again, eh?
Yeah, why bother testing his slashdot post for errors if he can prove (via "post verification and checking") that his post on Slashdot was exactly what he wanted to post?
Software verification has its uses, but it is not as useful as some people think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
> That's somewhat close to the rate of intersex conditions in mammals, including humans.
Yeah, there are chimeras:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
Wonder how well it does against pranksters :).
IMO, if things are getting better fast enough, then whatever is/was being done is working OK.
I was not even arguing about what is or isn't that militia. I was just saying that amendment does have a bit that says "Well regulated militia", and it didn't seem very well regulated to me.
But if it is really a well regulated militia then hey that's good.
Hey if you all believe the US has a well regulated militia and all those guns are helping keep it that way then fine, read no further.
;) ).
Cars may kill more than guns but apparently[1] in the USA there are very very many people who might find it hard to have enough food to eat, a place to stay and a job to pay for it all, if you take away their car. So they put up with the car accident statistics just like those grazing animals keep eating grass in front of lions and putting up with the "eaten by lion" statistics.
And I bet these number far more than those who would have been killed or injured if they didn't have a gun.
In contrast if you take away the guns, how many more people would die or suffer? I doubt there would be such a great increase in deaths, injuries or increase in monetary/property losses[2].
After all:
1) most muggers don't want to kill you. Many may still want to hurt you though (bloody sadists!).
2) The amount of cash I'd lose is nothing really much compared to what the leaders of my country have taken from me and misspent. Heck it's even hard to figure out whether to be more worried about the cops or the noncop crooks.
As for those who really want your life, they could just shoot you first, then you would be dead. You only have a chance from the incompetent or those who want to talk about it first or show off (just like those James Bond villains
What makes gun owners think that people like themselves are so safe from people like themselves? Or that the unarmed are so safe from them and their guns? But apparently the average car driver also thinks he/she is safer and more responsible than the average driver so...
[1] Some post about it regularly on slashdot, esp when EVs, cycling and other transportation/energy topics come up.
[2] How much money do robbers steal per year? Compared to the amount employees steal from their companies? Compared to the bailouts?
It doesn't work very well for high or low values. Or for 101.
FWIW, slightly more than USD1116 per annum will show something closer to the rank he's talking about than < USD1000 per annum
I have a question: how much strength does it require to fire that gun?
Can a 3 year old do it in the manner the mother described?
Lots of people seem to leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.
;) ).
Being well regulated would make things rather inconvenient, even though it might actually help better in maintaining the security of a Free State.
Types of Firearm deaths - 1993 :
Type Number
Suicide 18,940
Firearm homicide 18,571
Handgun homicide 13,980
Justifiable homicide 251
Accidental 1,521
Undetermined 563
Total 39,595
I know there's the deterrent factor, but if someone knows you are carrying a gun, that someone might just kill you first, instead of holding you up and thus increase the "firearm/handgun homicide" stats.
Anyway, it doesn't look very well regulated to me.
Lastly, just because it's the Second Amendment doesn't make it infallible. Hey it's an _amendment_ after all, which in itself also proves that the Constitution isn't infallible either. If it's not serving the country well, amend it again. The US people should stop worshipping their Constitution (and their leaders should actually respect it more
Since you're talking about breeding etc. I believe the relationship was stepfather and stepchild. Not father and child.
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1578784&cid=31437480
WEP despite being "Wired Equivalent Privacy" was nowhere near that. And if you check, WPA2 Personal is nowhere near that either when it comes to guest usage (which I claim makes up a significant proportion of WiFi usage) .
The fact that an attacker can be safely somewhere else makes it a whole different ballgame, if the IEEE bunch didn't realize that then that is just more evidence that they screwed up.
Users are responsible for their security. But as a provider, you may wish to do your best for them within your ability to provide a decent amount of privacy and security.
You can do that with wired ethernet. You can't with WiFi.
It is far easier to sniff someone else's WiFi traffic than it is to sniff someone else's traffic from an ethernet port.
AND it is still much easier to make it even harder for guest users to snoop on other wired ethernet connections with various switch vendors (e.g. cisco, huawei) port security features. The use of these features do not require the guests or users to do anything except just plug in as normal.
WiFi on the other hand is crap. It's either easy but unencrypted and completely insecure, or difficult for the users- they have to go get some credentials from the provider (cafe, conference organizer, hotel etc).
And if the credentials are a preshared key (WPA Personal or WPA2 Personal), it's not really secure against the other users. Because WPA2 Personal is broken in that if the PSK is known, you can decrypt other people's stuff as long as you can see the 4 way handshake, which is sniffable.
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3667586
So use WPA2 Enterprise? That involves users and passwords. How do you get those to the guest user's _machine_ (remember you can get it to the guest user, but they often fail at getting it to their machine ;) ).
Now if Microsoft, OSX, Desktop Linux, provide an easy option to use "anonymous:anonymous" in this scenario and somehow verify the base station's credentials, then things will be much better.
Lastly, regarding your suggestion "you should use end-to-end encryption". I have this to say: you should visit the real world more often and actually pay better attention. Only recently gmail started using encryption for everything. As for google searches, if I try https I get redirected to http.
You ever do google searches when connected on a WiFi connection? As I pointed out only the "user must jump through many hoops" wifi is secure, the best you get at most places is WPA2 Personal which is not secure against attackers, so they can _easily_ pwn you when you do a google search.
To pwn you when you're on a wired ethernet connection would involve them having to do more work - like social engineering, physically breaking stuff. They can't just sip a cafe latte nearby or even just plonk a "box" somewhere and walk away.
I dunno what the rest are using, but even Notepad++ allows you to view stuff side by side, it's not as cool as bubbles, but you can clone the current view. I believe Kate (KDE) allows it too.
;) ). I have nothing against making life easier for new/naive users, but at least provide stuff to help experienced users.
As for running out of screen space when you have lots of windows, I wrote a program (for W2K/XP/win7) to allow people to quickly bind hotkeys to windows. So for example, alt+1 = window #1, alt+2 = window #2 and so on. I haven't done a KDE/Gnome version yet tho.
I'm biased but I prefer it to what Windows 7 does (winkey+<number> is by application and not by window).
To me the recent bunch of GUI designers (whether Linux or Windows) don't seem to be designing GUIs that can _also_ make life easier for experienced users. They're all designing flashy stuff to attract "noob users" (see 10GUI for an example of a fancy flashy but _slow_ GUI- switching from one window to another is slower than alt-tab
Another example: The "Windows Classic" start menu (Win95 till Win2K default) allowed me to quickly create a folder named "1 Explore" in it, and set up shortcuts in that folder named "1 Explore Desktop", "2 Explore My Documents" etc, so that pressing winkey followed by 1, 1 would "Explore" the Desktop. And winkey, 1, C would Explore the C drive. And you could have winkey, 4 would launch the command prompt, ssh etc.
You can no longer do that with Windows 7. There's that search thingy when you press winkey, but that's slower than what I had before.
In case people don't get it, with the current WiFi standards you cannot have an easy way for a Cafe/Hotel/Conference to provide encrypted wireless connections to guests in a way where they cannot snoop on each other's connections. if you use preshared key users can decrypt each other's traffic. If you use username and password, it's far more inconvenient for the user and the service provider.
Ethernet was fine, but they sure screwed up with WiFi. Broken crypto etc.
It's still messed up - you can't have easy encrypted anonymous WiFi the way you can have easy encrypted https connections.
> I just remember it suddenly pulling left in to the median and then there was a crowd of people around the car as the firemen pried open the drivers door.
;).
> Didn't give up my geeky ways and stop playing D&D or being nervous around women or nothing.
That's what your new self thinks
> Clearly these guys are saying, specifically, the tongue can detect fat.
Do they? There are lots of other surface areas in the mouth.
Anyway it could be that humans can smell the fatty acids even "through" the milk.
> It essentially says to never never never never park there and isn't a quadruple negative a positive?
Yeah right.
Just like a double positive is always positive.
> > NetApp sued sun over patents ZFS arguably violated
> what I meant was "argued by NetApp".
Are you looking for the word "allegedly"?
> because in this day and age: Name recognition means all.
:)
Yeah especailly when many bloggers and slashdotters couldn't read well enough to tell the difference in names. IPEX, D&H, NewEgg they look all the same right?
I also found it slightly amusing to read the posts which said that people in NewEgg should have noticed the fakes because of the typos...
Spelling and grammar errors are so common nowadays, and more and more people seem to take offense when someone points out the errors.
Yeah, why are we worrying so much about bank robbers. They're small potatoes. As long as they don't kill or hurt anyone how much $$$ can they take? Laughable amounts for the jail time and risk.
In contrast:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html
Quotes:
Multiply such trades across thousands of stocks a day, and the profits are substantial. High-frequency traders generated about $21 billion in profits last year, the Tabb Group, a research firm, estimates.
"But we're moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys, and everyone else. People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal. Otherwise, the markets lose their integrity."
See also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBcmqwTV9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g
OK it's comedy, but so is the real world situation in a way (except more tragic).
The stupid ones?
The smart ones _legally_ transfer money from the stupid to the smart (e.g. themselves).
In case people haven't noticed, inflation/printing/creating money is also another way of transferring money. Value is being transferred from the holders of the money, to the entities printing/creating the money. It's like a tax.
> why do people hack bank accounts?
Because they're too stupid to be investment bankers, or their conscience would bother them...
But it is an immigration bill.
:)
Your new country is just coming to you, instead of you going to it.
The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave left you long ago..
Been a long journey but you're almost completely in the new country already.
> > I think the real security money now is in automated (or proven) software verification and model checking.
> > Why bother testing for security errors when you can prove they don't exist?"
> Yeah, we were laughing about this in my college CS classes 20 years ago. So the drunken party's back again, eh?
Yeah, why bother testing his slashdot post for errors if he can prove (via "post verification and checking") that his post on Slashdot was exactly what he wanted to post?
Software verification has its uses, but it is not as useful as some people think it is.
> Of course, make sure you have a safe word when playing so you can stop.
:p.
;)
Sounds simple to me:
red = stop right now
yellow = not feeling comfy with things
green = go!
But I'm one of those Slashdot virgins with no SO, so what would I know
p.s. this might actually be a steganographic message, or maybe just a noise message to foil traffic analysis.