If it was indeed an honest mistake, I would hope if it goes to court the courts would rule in Amazon's favour - that it was unreasonable for Amazon to be forced to sell the stuff at $31.
_AND_ that the courts would also similarly find other unreasonable stuff unreasonable.
Such as in being fined lots of $$$$ just because you were copying music tracks from your CD to your computer.
Or being forced to comply to unreasonable terms in an EULA that you clicked through - everyone clicks through it.
Or teens being put on a sex offender list, just because they decided to send nude pics of themselves to each other, or erm engage in mutual consenting "child molestation" e.g. kiss each other[1].
For that matter I think even having a sex offender list is unreasonable - if it was why not have a violent criminal list then?
There are laws and all that. But as every programmer knows, there are always bugs and corner cases.
In summary, I hope that the courts and judges would have the integrity and sense to enforce and encourage _reasonable_ behaviour.
e.g. Court says: "by law Amazon should have sold you the stuff for $31, ok so we shall fine them $1", "if you keep coming here with stuff like this the court will find you to be behaving like an unreasonable asshole[2] and try to stop you...".
[1] I am not saying that teens should be doing all that, but the laws and punishments in some places are rather unreasonable.
[2] The court should probably tolerate people behaving like reasonable assholes, though not encourage such behaviour.
I have looked. Part of my looking is asking other people. I was assuming you would be a potentially useful source of information.
The refutations I found weren't very convincing, they usually say things about historical context. However, the way the Quran is written, whether a verse should only be used in historical context or not often is too debatable.
I'm looking for something one can easily use to show _Muslims_ that their _religion_ [1] says they're not supposed to kill apostates/unbelievers, especially given the Hadiths, and the other Quran verses which _muslims_ use to say that they _should_ kill.
It's fairly easy to show Buddhists that their religion says they're not supposed to kill unbelievers. It's not that difficult to do the same for Christians too.
[1] The religion itself and not some Islamic scholar's essay/teaching which does not even cite a single verse of the Quran or Hadith to back his claims.
As for those who do use verses, it's often really strange...
For example: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (and others) like to use the verse "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth".
But the full verse is: "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. "
The last I checked, most muslims do NOT regard themselves as Children of Israel. So why are clerics supposedly familiar with the Quran using such a verse to say that Muslims shouldn't be killing?
Is there no better verse in the Quran they can use to denounce killing and violence against nonbelievers? Or are they trying to send some other message to muslims?
There are plenty of other verses these supposed scholars use, but when I look at the verses and the context, they seem to say something quite different. Seems almost disingenuous of them to use those verses.
Some even try to use 4:75 (a shortened mangled version even), even when there's 4:76 right next to it which lends support to the camp that says disbelievers = fair game.
You put a URL everywhere, don't be surprised if someone visits it even just out of curiosity.
DDoS yourself.
Enjoy your 1000 requests per second, you practically asked for them (even if in theory you didn't).
I hope this makes the W3C people start thinking more about what happens in the real world and design their stuff better.
W3C: "But but but, This is not a hyperlink it's only a machine-readable way to say "this is HTML"'..."
How about using version numbers for _standard_ DTDs instead, and only have URIs for _custom_ DTDs (guess how many would use those in practice or be able to...)?.
The W3C likes to say stuff like "Browser makers must/should raise a security exception if XYZ goes wrong", that's all very nice in the "theory" world.
The real world doesn't work that way, so design stuff better please. Design stuff that breaks reasonably gracefully and safely.
"with stuff that can be taken out of context by extremists exactly the same way that extremists take stuff out of context from the quran."
I'm not talking about the out of context stuff, which "true believers" can easily refute.
I have read the Bible. I have also read a copy of the Quran with multiple translations.
The Quran is not as blood thirsty as the "popular" verses taken out of context will have some believe, but there are definitely calls for killing which are in context (4:88-90 - you will see the "exception clause" in 90 isn't that strong for keeping hypocrites alive.).
You could claim that that was only for the hypocrites of a particular time and place, but then such an argument could apply for all and none of the verses (well ok I exaggerate, but go read the Quran and see its history and you might see what I mean).
Most muslims are unable to understand the Quran because the use of translations is discouraged- strongly sometimes. Yusman Roy, a muslim preacher in Indonesia was convicted of blasphemy because he prayed in two different languages (Arabic and Indonesian) so that his fellow believers could understand what he was praying.
It becomes a bit like Scientology - where everything seems rosy on the outside, and once you actually "read the fine print" you either get killed for being an alleged Hypocrite or whatever else is "fair game", or you become a part of the problem.
If the "true believer" muslims can indeed convincingly use the Quran in context to refute the claims by the "extremists" then that would be a good thing for the rest of the muslims who don't really know what is going on (and a good thing for the rest of us too).
Right now they just keep repeating "Islam is a religion of peace", and sometimes (rarely) quote some verses backing their position, but they do not refute the verses being used/abused by the extremists.
You can apply that same rule to Christianity if you can find verses in that the Bible that say Christians should be doing that.
Whereas the calls for killing are pretty clear in the Quran. e.g. 4:88-90
[4:88] YUSUFALI: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. SHAKIR: What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[4:89] YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4:90] YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). PICKTHAL: Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you be cause their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and off er you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them. SHAKIR: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah h as not given you a way against them.
As you can see while there are exception clauses, the "design" of Islam makes the probability of _strong_ followers to do a lot more killing than the "design" of Christianity.
After all the muslims doing all that killing and violence seem to be very sure they are AND more importantly many of them (and their religious leaders) seem to be able to provide verses in the Quran/Koran (and Sunnah) to justify their actions. Verses used in ways that are not unreasonable stretches of interpretation.
Are you able to show to _them_ _reasonably_ that they are wrong according to their religion? It is a waste of time for "muslims" to try to convince nonmuslims, better off convincing other muslims.
I have not seen Buddhists who kill people being able to justify their actions by their religion. Pretty easy to say "according to your religion you are doing something wrong", and they have no _reasonable_ justification.
I have not seen any of the alleged Christians who bombed the abortion clinics provide verses in the Bible justifying their action. Nor would they be able to.
With Islam, it seems a very large number of muslims can believe that their violent actions are justified AND in accordance with Islam AND sometimes even _called_for_ or _required_.
There were many in my country (a muslim country) who cheered the 9/11 attacks.
Microsoft Office 2007 is far far more different from Microsoft Office 2003 than Open Office is. And AFAIK there is no Classic mode.
I couldn't even figure out how to get the version number/patch level of Excel 2007 in the short time I allocated for that task (I wasn't going to be the end user of 2007, so I gave up caring and downloaded and installed all the service whether or not it was needed - turns out it was needed- fixed the stupid Excel 2007 "65535=100000" bug). For most apps it used to be Help, About... And the Help menu item normally is the rightmost item.
They changed things so much with Office 2007 for very little gain IMO. If I'm in charge of a big corp I would not switch to either Office 2007 or Vista - you pay the retraining for very little benefit, most of the benefit goes to Microsoft and the MAFIAA. The stupid bugs in it also don't give me very much confidence.
Submarine? Why would you need a submarine to cut a cable?
I am not a terrorist but all you need is a decent boat and an anchor (or "crappy trawling net").
Drag the anchor across the general area a few times till Ahmed calls and says the connection just got really crappy (it takes a while for the routers to use a different route and converge).
Go figure out what sort of "anchor" you need for best effect.
Here's what it takes for it to be a real part of Ubuntu:
On a default install, EVERYONE should get a truecrypt container file that's of a fair size (maybe relative to the HDD size with a max limit, and min limit - unless the drive is really too small then it's not installed), with a random password.
Now truecrypt becomes far far more useful to everyone, because everyone now has plausible deniability.
All that marketing bullshit about hidden partition vs dummy partition is stupid, if the default install doesn't come with container files, and you create some, that bumps you up the list of "people to waterboard" or "ask nicely for all their passphrases".
Whereas if the default install came with encrypted container files, they can't harass every ubuntu user.
Naturally it has to be done in a way so that: 1) The container file access times and modified times aren't changed. 2) The container file(s) or their contents are never backed up automatically by the system or indexed etc. Otherwise the risk of people finding out that you are using crypto goes up - they just have to get hold of your backups and do some comparisons and then your quality of life goes down. 3) Using the container file is easy.
If people want to backup the container or files from the container, they must really use their brains otherwise they might have problems later on...
(I submitted this suggestion to ubuntu some time ago, not sure if they will do it - Ubuntu might get banned in some countries, or at least the default edition with crypto might get banned).
As far as I know there are encryption systems where you can run the program on an unencrypted partition of the usb drive in order to be able to mount the encrypted bits.
BUT would you want a computer that you don't have full control over, to have full access to: 0) your passphrase 1) the entire contents of your encrypted disk that's now decrypted after the mounting.
1) Eliminate the domain tasting and kiting crap (which is ICANN's fault) and typosquatting becomes less profitable. You should NOT be able to register a domain name, use it but keep getting refunds. 2) Where does all that money come from? Who is paying for all those ads? 3) Get people to spell better;)
Maybe those disclaimers are legally binding in your country.
Sounds silly to me:).
- Notice: The information contained in this message is intended for everyone. If you have received this message you MUST either pay the sender USD100 as soon as possible or donate USD100 to the EFF. You must also forward this message to at least two other people.
I've proposed a similar idea (expiry) some time back, the difference being:
The Constitution should be renewed every 50 years (grace renewal period 25 years) - then you can have a fancy ceremony with fireworks etc on the renewal date (that is if the country is still around and still thinks the laws in the Constitution are a good idea;) ).
For the other laws- the longer the laws are to last, the more legislators have to be around to make them law or renew them.
The "reading aloud" is an interesting idea and I guess it helps slow down the "rubber stamping", I believe the Jews/Israelites in the old days used to read the law out aloud on special occasions.
If it becomes such a huge burden to renew the laws then maybe there are too many laws and they are a burden to the citizens.
Main problem I see is we might really still need quite a lot of laws, so finding a good balance might be tricky.
Slashdot Mirror
Quote: 'The browser can present to me a list of script functions and fragments, each with a "allow", "deny", or "remap" option.'
Did someone's aunt or uncle solve the halting problem recently?
How can you expect users to reliably and _correctly_ make piecemeal decisions on what can or cannot be done?
Have templates of sandboxes. Deny the unsafe/unnecessary actions by default.
I've submitted a feature request to ubuntu and suse on this. I think I've even suggested it to apple.
If it was indeed an honest mistake, I would hope if it goes to court the courts would rule in Amazon's favour - that it was unreasonable for Amazon to be forced to sell the stuff at $31.
_AND_ that the courts would also similarly find other unreasonable stuff unreasonable.
Such as in being fined lots of $$$$ just because you were copying music tracks from your CD to your computer.
Or being forced to comply to unreasonable terms in an EULA that you clicked through - everyone clicks through it.
Or teens being put on a sex offender list, just because they decided to send nude pics of themselves to each other, or erm engage in mutual consenting "child molestation" e.g. kiss each other[1].
For that matter I think even having a sex offender list is unreasonable - if it was why not have a violent criminal list then?
There are laws and all that. But as every programmer knows, there are always bugs and corner cases.
In summary, I hope that the courts and judges would have the integrity and sense to enforce and encourage _reasonable_ behaviour.
e.g. Court says: "by law Amazon should have sold you the stuff for $31, ok so we shall fine them $1", "if you keep coming here with stuff like this the court will find you to be behaving like an unreasonable asshole[2] and try to stop you...".
[1] I am not saying that teens should be doing all that, but the laws and punishments in some places are rather unreasonable.
[2] The court should probably tolerate people behaving like reasonable assholes, though not encourage such behaviour.
I don't want steganography.
What I really want is this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440
When _everybody_ has an encrypted partition in their default install, that's plausible deniability.
Thanks!
I have looked. Part of my looking is asking other people. I was assuming you would be a potentially useful source of information.
The refutations I found weren't very convincing, they usually say things about historical context. However, the way the Quran is written, whether a verse should only be used in historical context or not often is too debatable.
I'm looking for something one can easily use to show _Muslims_ that their _religion_ [1] says they're not supposed to kill apostates/unbelievers, especially given the Hadiths, and the other Quran verses which _muslims_ use to say that they _should_ kill.
It's fairly easy to show Buddhists that their religion says they're not supposed to kill unbelievers. It's not that difficult to do the same for Christians too.
[1] The religion itself and not some Islamic scholar's essay/teaching which does not even cite a single verse of the Quran or Hadith to back his claims.
As for those who do use verses, it's often really strange...
For example: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (and others) like to use the verse "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth".
But the full verse is:
"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. "
See: http://islamawakened.org/Quran/5/32/default.htm
The last I checked, most muslims do NOT regard themselves as Children of Israel. So why are clerics supposedly familiar with the Quran using such a verse to say that Muslims shouldn't be killing?
Is there no better verse in the Quran they can use to denounce killing and violence against nonbelievers? Or are they trying to send some other message to muslims?
There are plenty of other verses these supposed scholars use, but when I look at the verses and the context, they seem to say something quite different. Seems almost disingenuous of them to use those verses.
Some even try to use 4:75 (a shortened mangled version even), even when there's 4:76 right next to it which lends support to the camp that says disbelievers = fair game.
Citations please. Seriously.
Is this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544502
Enough to convince muslims from killing an apostate?
For you it may be just some slashdot debate.
But I personally know a few people where it might one day be a matter of life and death (if not already).
So if you have links to far more convincing refutations I would be glad to know of them.
Yep they were distributing a hosts file around. But half of the Internet stuff wasn't built yet, so that's understandable.
;).
The W3C should have stood on the shoulders of giants rather than dug holes for themselves
The W3C can use Akamai for this actually without changing the current scheme - so it's actually not that bad a design.
But who's going to pay for it?
You put a URL everywhere, don't be surprised if someone visits it even just out of curiosity.
DDoS yourself.
Enjoy your 1000 requests per second, you practically asked for them (even if in theory you didn't).
I hope this makes the W3C people start thinking more about what happens in the real world and design their stuff better.
W3C: "But but but, This is not a hyperlink it's only a machine-readable way to say "this is HTML"'..."
How about using version numbers for _standard_ DTDs instead, and only have URIs for _custom_ DTDs (guess how many would use those in practice or be able to...)?.
The W3C likes to say stuff like "Browser makers must/should raise a security exception if XYZ goes wrong", that's all very nice in the "theory" world.
The real world doesn't work that way, so design stuff better please. Design stuff that breaks reasonably gracefully and safely.
"with stuff that can be taken out of context by extremists exactly the same way that extremists take stuff out of context from the quran."
I'm not talking about the out of context stuff, which "true believers" can easily refute.
I have read the Bible. I have also read a copy of the Quran with multiple translations.
The Quran is not as blood thirsty as the "popular" verses taken out of context will have some believe, but there are definitely calls for killing which are in context (4:88-90 - you will see the "exception clause" in 90 isn't that strong for keeping hypocrites alive.).
You could claim that that was only for the hypocrites of a particular time and place, but then such an argument could apply for all and none of the verses (well ok I exaggerate, but go read the Quran and see its history and you might see what I mean).
Most muslims are unable to understand the Quran because the use of translations is discouraged- strongly sometimes. Yusman Roy, a muslim preacher in Indonesia was convicted of blasphemy because he prayed in two different languages (Arabic and Indonesian) so that his fellow believers could understand what he was praying.
It becomes a bit like Scientology - where everything seems rosy on the outside, and once you actually "read the fine print" you either get killed for being an alleged Hypocrite or whatever else is "fair game", or you become a part of the problem.
If the "true believer" muslims can indeed convincingly use the Quran in context to refute the claims by the "extremists" then that would be a good thing for the rest of the muslims who don't really know what is going on (and a good thing for the rest of us too).
Right now they just keep repeating "Islam is a religion of peace", and sometimes (rarely) quote some verses backing their position, but they do not refute the verses being used/abused by the extremists.
You can apply that same rule to Christianity if you can find verses in that the Bible that say Christians should be doing that.
Whereas the calls for killing are pretty clear in the Quran. e.g.
4:88-90
[4:88]
YUSUFALI: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road.
SHAKIR: What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[4:89]
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not
friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not
from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4:90]
YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
PICKTHAL: Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you be
cause their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and off
er you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.
SHAKIR: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking
from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah h
as not given you a way against them.
As you can see while there are exception clauses, the "design" of Islam makes the probability of _strong_ followers to do a lot more killing than the "design" of Christianity.
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"
Just because someone is worthy of death does not mean you are allowed to be the one to kill them.
After all most Christians believe they were (are?) worthy of death too.
Show me the verses in the Bible that say a _Christian_ (not Jew) is supposed to kill somebody.
But how sure are you that you are a muslim?
After all the muslims doing all that killing and violence seem to be very sure they are AND more importantly many of them (and their religious leaders) seem to be able to provide verses in the Quran/Koran (and Sunnah) to justify their actions. Verses used in ways that are not unreasonable stretches of interpretation.
Are you able to show to _them_ _reasonably_ that they are wrong according to their religion? It is a waste of time for "muslims" to try to convince nonmuslims, better off convincing other muslims.
I have not seen Buddhists who kill people being able to justify their actions by their religion. Pretty easy to say "according to your religion you are doing something wrong", and they have no _reasonable_ justification.
I have not seen any of the alleged Christians who bombed the abortion clinics provide verses in the Bible justifying their action. Nor would they be able to.
With Islam, it seems a very large number of muslims can believe that their violent actions are justified AND in accordance with Islam AND sometimes even _called_for_ or _required_.
There were many in my country (a muslim country) who cheered the 9/11 attacks.
Maybe the "muslims" that didn't are apostates?
Vista is almost as different from XP as KDE is.
Microsoft Office 2007 is far far more different from Microsoft Office 2003 than Open Office is. And AFAIK there is no Classic mode.
I couldn't even figure out how to get the version number/patch level of Excel 2007 in the short time I allocated for that task (I wasn't going to be the end user of 2007, so I gave up caring and downloaded and installed all the service whether or not it was needed - turns out it was needed- fixed the stupid Excel 2007 "65535=100000" bug). For most apps it used to be Help, About... And the Help menu item normally is the rightmost item.
They changed things so much with Office 2007 for very little gain IMO. If I'm in charge of a big corp I would not switch to either Office 2007 or Vista - you pay the retraining for very little benefit, most of the benefit goes to Microsoft and the MAFIAA. The stupid bugs in it also don't give me very much confidence.
Submarine? Why would you need a submarine to cut a cable?
I am not a terrorist but all you need is a decent boat and an anchor (or "crappy trawling net").
Drag the anchor across the general area a few times till Ahmed calls and says the connection just got really crappy (it takes a while for the routers to use a different route and converge).
Go figure out what sort of "anchor" you need for best effect.
Mod parent down - fake/squat link.
It's not part of Ubuntu in a useful way.
Here's what it takes for it to be a real part of Ubuntu:
On a default install, EVERYONE should get a truecrypt container file that's of a fair size (maybe relative to the HDD size with a max limit, and min limit - unless the drive is really too small then it's not installed), with a random password.
Now truecrypt becomes far far more useful to everyone, because everyone now has plausible deniability.
All that marketing bullshit about hidden partition vs dummy partition is stupid, if the default install doesn't come with container files, and you create some, that bumps you up the list of "people to waterboard" or "ask nicely for all their passphrases".
Whereas if the default install came with encrypted container files, they can't harass every ubuntu user.
Naturally it has to be done in a way so that:
1) The container file access times and modified times aren't changed.
2) The container file(s) or their contents are never backed up automatically by the system or indexed etc. Otherwise the risk of people finding out that you are using crypto goes up - they just have to get hold of your backups and do some comparisons and then your quality of life goes down.
3) Using the container file is easy.
If people want to backup the container or files from the container, they must really use their brains otherwise they might have problems later on...
(I submitted this suggestion to ubuntu some time ago, not sure if they will do it - Ubuntu might get banned in some countries, or at least the default edition with crypto might get banned).
Anyway enough for now - bedtime...
As far as I know there are encryption systems where you can run the program on an unencrypted partition of the usb drive in order to be able to mount the encrypted bits.
BUT would you want a computer that you don't have full control over, to have full access to:
0) your passphrase
1) the entire contents of your encrypted disk that's now decrypted after the mounting.
Think about that seriously.
Slashdot is allegedly a nerdy site.
The obsessive perfectionist trait is probably good for programmers, engineers, scientists and other nerdy areas.
But there are plenty of sloppy people around producing sloppy work.
"bus station is where the bus stops, a train station is where the train stops"
So workstation = where work stops?
But how about a playstation then?
"Desktop -> Workstation -> Server"
:).
Don't think that has been true for the past number of years - they're different breeds now.
Servers nowadays don't have much video - really low end video.
Whereas workstations have much better video cards, if only to be able to display stuff from the render farm at high enough resolution.
And desktops are the cheap and nasty stuff where 1 in 10 (or 7) are dead on arrival
"my wife has a sewing machine where the computer control for advanced functions is a GBC"
:) ).
That's cool! What happens if you press "Up Down Up Down Left Right Left Right AB AB" on the GBC (not your wife
1) Eliminate the domain tasting and kiting crap (which is ICANN's fault) and typosquatting becomes less profitable. You should NOT be able to register a domain name, use it but keep getting refunds. ;)
2) Where does all that money come from? Who is paying for all those ads?
3) Get people to spell better
Maybe those disclaimers are legally binding in your country.
:).
Sounds silly to me
-
Notice: The information contained in this message is intended for everyone. If you have received this message you MUST either pay the sender USD100 as soon as possible or donate USD100 to the EFF. You must also forward this message to at least two other people.
Of course it's not legally binding (except in countries with corrupt courts).
If they are binding then spammers would be attaching really funky sigs.
I've proposed a similar idea (expiry) some time back, the difference being:
;) ).
The Constitution should be renewed every 50 years (grace renewal period 25 years) - then you can have a fancy ceremony with fireworks etc on the renewal date (that is if the country is still around and still thinks the laws in the Constitution are a good idea
For the other laws- the longer the laws are to last, the more legislators have to be around to make them law or renew them.
The "reading aloud" is an interesting idea and I guess it helps slow down the "rubber stamping", I believe the Jews/Israelites in the old days used to read the law out aloud on special occasions.
If it becomes such a huge burden to renew the laws then maybe there are too many laws and they are a burden to the citizens.
Main problem I see is we might really still need quite a lot of laws, so finding a good balance might be tricky.