A homeowner looked out and saw a man lying face down on his driveway. Going out to check, he found that the man was unconscious, so he went back in and called 911. When the rescue crew moved the man, they found him clutching Kerry (and other Democratic) signs under his body. His car was parked nearby, and they found more stolen Democratic signs in it. He was removing them, not placing them.
Apparently he'd been removing signs in this neighborhood, and was going to cross the driveway when he tripped over a chain the homeowner had there for some unknown, but presumably logical reason. Since he was clutching the signs, he couldn't quickly get his arms out front to break his fall, so he hit his head and knocked himself out.
The police charged him with numerous petty crimes. His wife said, "He's never done anything like this, before."
Given that this is the good old US of A, I'm surprised he hasn't sued the homeowner for having that chain there.
There will be real sacrifices to use the "safe" Trusted MS OS, just like things broke when moving to XP SP2. The Trusted MS OS will have something on the order of 6 months of an awkward period. During that time, it *will* be safe from all of the evil Internet stuff, but it will be only marginally useful, because the applications won't be there, yet. By the time the applications are there, ingenious entrepreneurs will be there too, figuring out how to bypass the vaunted security. At the point where the security compromises begin, the Trust will be Gone.
I'm not just picking on Microsoft at not being able to deploy a "secure" OS. IMHO nobody can, there is no silver bullet for computing and network security. Repeat - no silver bullet. Even IF you had 100% perfect software, and I don't believe that's even practical, there's still human engineering. By the time you think you've ruled out human engineering, the OS is practically unusable, at least by Windows standards.
Take your house, for instance... Before going to bed, don't you check to make sure you didn't forget to lock the doors? Same when parking the car? Don't you notify a neighbor when you're about to leave on a trip, and take some other precautions? Security isn't a buy-once thing, it's a process, and purchasing is only part of it.
So in the long run, if Microsoft does try to field a Trusted OS, I'd expect it to fail within a year, unless they're able to FORCE everyone to adopt it. More likely than out-and-out failure would be a watering down, so it's *just* the next version of Windows, a little better than the last.
I wasn't being rational with my comment about Condorcet, but unfortunately I believe I was being realistic. Given the state of deterioration of separation of powers we have today, I wouldn't go bantying the name Montesquieu too hard, or that would be seen as even more incentive to pack the Supremes and tip the Senate further.
As for Condorcet vs IRV, I'd just like to see *some* sort of reform. If we could get *something* now and demonstrate that the sky doesn't fall, then maybe in a decade we could do better.
I was under the impression that the Constitution left it up to the states to determine how to vote - and that was part of the 2000 election mess, because Florida didn't do a very good job. In Vermont there has been noise about Instant Runoff, and some favorable studies. But AFAIK, nothing has really been done, and at the moment, I don't understand that. We have a very strong Progressive party and a not-insignificant Libertarian presence, so I would think that at least Democrats (and Progressives) would be in favor of Instant Runoff, and possibly the Republicans, as well.
Oh, as for Condorcet being better than Instant Runoff, here's my view. I believe I can explain Instant Runoff to someone on the street. I'm not sure about Condorcet. Nor does Condorcet have a 'friendly' name, especially for states that started selling 'Freedom Fries.' This may well be a case where 'better' and 'good enough' are enemies.
Re:What the hell is it?
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't rtfa, either. But a quick shot at google, and you'll find that, "The OQO computer is a full-featured pocketable Windows XP computer."
Since we're all talking about "it," it first made me wonder if it's a two-wheeled thingy to make walking obsolete. I actually saw someone using a Segway "in the wild" (as opposed to captivity - ie, demo) today on the way to work - outside on a sidewalk.
Woudn't the White House just as soon skip the third debate? But that would look bad. Aha, here are the Libertarians trying a court case - we can just let them spoil the whole thing, and we won't lose face.
I don't think they'll let the Libertarians in on the debate. I think they'll cite logistical reasons not to move the debate. I think they'll cite logistical and timing (not enough) reasons, as well. I think they'll just cancel the debate - or let's say, "fail to be able to negotiate specifics for a rescheduled, relocated third debate."
The debates have been at least in-part a matter of "Bush damage minimization," because public thinking-on-his-feet isn't his strong suite. Actually, there were statements up-front that the Bush campaign was going to try and define Kerry, just like the Clinton campaign defined Dole. At the very least, the debates give Kerry a chance to get up and speak for himself. Whether that damages him in your eyes or not, they are his words, and not the Bush campaign putting words in his mouth.
I don't think anyone expects to see a Bush slam-dunk out of *any* of these debates. I don't think they really put the courts or Libertarians up to this. But I don't think they mind the thought of having the third debate get cancelled, in the slightest.
I don't remember the endings of Snow Crash or Diamond Age as being that jarring, but the Cryptonomicon wrapup was a real jolt. After 900+ pages of consistent, engaging pacing, the plot was suddenly wrapped up and bowed in less than 100 pages, at breakneck pace. At about page 900 it looked like you really had 200-300 pages to go, instead of less than 100. Thinking back on it, the Diamond Age ending was a bit unsatisfying, but not as "rude" as Cryptonomicon.
Were you getting tired of writing it, or did the publisher tell you it was getting too long.
It's obvious, then. We all need to call the police and turn in our neighbors, parents, spouses, kids, etc for fast-forwarding commmercials. Heck, we should call the FBI when they get up to go to the bathroom during one.
>You are mixing your arguments you are crossing natural with man forced.
Yes, I was, and deliberately. IMHO the intersectionof the Legal community with the Medical community is where all of this stuff comes to rest, and both are partly to blame for the ensuing problems. Doctors want to exercise their craft to the fullest extent, and save/prolong life as much as possible. Sometimes that's possible, but not wise. Lawyers (aside from wanting their commission) want to nail down everything with precision in black and white, and that just doesn't correspond to the Universe.
Hence part (but only part) of the mess we have with medicine, today. Look for it to get worse, as we learn about new stones to look under.
Keep in mind that if human life begins at conception...
I keep hearing that low-dosage birth control pills work by preventing implantation into the lining of the utereus. In other words, spontaneous abortion. Does the low-dosage Pill need to be taken off the market? The old high-dosage Pill worked by suppressing ovulation, but had long-term side-effects. So is the answer no birth control pills - and would there be a corresponding rise in illegal abortions?
I've also heard in recent years that the number of spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs is higher than anyone would have ever guessed. (Learned through fertility/sexuality studies, etc.) Shall we try a woman when the egg fails to implant? It's a silly question, but it reflects a greater medical question - when do we quit trying to save a life?
IMHO, some of what you're really looking at is population density. The rights of my fist end just before they touch your nose. The further away you are, the more rights my fist have - and yours, for that matter. Pack us in tighter, and there just isn't that much space to swing my arms.
Conversely, pack people looser and you're put more on your own - if you don't do it, there's nobody for more miles to help you. Self-sufficiency takes on a greater value.
WhyOhWhyOhWhy do I have to pay for some silly certified engineer to come out and inspect my septic tank and leach lines? The contractor put them in perfectly fine, he's competent, etc, etc, etc.
I suspect that once upon a time, a dishonest contractor built a house on spec, and didn't bother to put in proper leach lines, maybe not even a septic tank. Maybe he dug a hole in the ground and filled it with a truckload of gravel, maybe not even that. Some years later, the contractor is retired in the Sun Belt, and the owner finds his septic system has failed, only to find that there is no septic system, and never was one. Any respectable septic system wouldn't have failed, but this one wasn't.
Regulation is response to abuse. Sometimes in appropriate, sometimes overdone, sometimes missing the point. Sometimes response to past abuse, or anticipate future abuse, but still it's response to abuse.
Regulation will set some sort of standards on airframe integrity, lower-stage disposal, and recovery systems. Those standards will do something to protect me from incompetent rocket scientists. Regulation may well establish proper culpability for when something falls on my house. Otherwise there may be some sort of legal loopholes - I don't know. Otherwise I hope the regulations make me much less likely to get fallen on. Fat lot of good the possiblity of suing them into oblivion is if I'm already dead.
Because you have a blind spot a mile thick. You don't trust the government, and I don't blame you. But the government has NO monopoly on STUPIDITY. I've seen rampant amounts of it in business, too. It's SO rampant that it isn't well-checked by evolution, also called bankruptcy. Plus add that business has this extra stupidity factor in there called blind greed, and some (most) businesses will engage in long-term stupidity in order to get a few bucks, now.
Today the Air Traffic Control system is responsible for making sure that two planes don't collide. I'd look at "debris clearance" as an extension of that model. I presume the FAA is in charge of ATC.
Can one sue the FAA if a mid-air or taxiway collision is caused by misdirection, as opposed to not following ATC directions?
As for "debris clearance," it could never have the "certainty" of ATC, since not all debris can be tracked. Any sort of liability would be tricky, and have to have limitations.
From what I've heard, the Shuttle SRBs generate some really *nasty* pollution. I suspect/hope that at some point there will be enough space travel to require legislating pollution levels. I don't think we're there, yet.
I'm sure that if there were such a deliberately exploding vehicle, and it were used for suicide, there's be *some* law on the books already to go after them. After all, it *is* rocket science, and don't you really need a PhD? In that case, it would be... Doctor assisted suicide, and the courts are already cracking on this one.
Actually, debris may become a significant concern, not even in terms of leaving any, but in terms of getting hit by it. We do so little launching now that it's not *that* onerous (I presume) to scan the database for each launch. Once commercial flights start, will the FAA offer the service of prescanning your flight path? Who will pay? How much will it cost? What if a launcher 'declines' to pay and get such a search? (Insurance?)
From what I could tell, there were 2 main concerns:
1: Uninvolved people on the ground shouldn't have to be any more concerned about debris raining down on them that they are, today. ie- they STAY uninvolved.
2: Those who want to go up are fully informed of the risks. The operators can't hide information about their operational or maintenance records in order to make a sale.
If initial regulations stick to those 2 points, I don't think its unreasonable, at all. For the forseeable future, I simply CAN'T fly on one, and I also DON'T want it falling on me, my loved ones, or my property. If I ever can afford to fly, I want to know the risks.
I'm trying to give Bush every benefit of the doubt. IMHO, he should have known something about what was going on before even beginning the photo-op, and should have excused himself before even starting. Even if he knew *nothing* until the infamous 7 minutee pause, it was a TERRIBLE breach IN HIS OFFICE that he didn't. Either he heard in a timely fashion, and did nothing, or he didn't hear in a timely fashion, and evidently put together a governing machine that was incapable or unwilling to notify him promptly. Either way, he IS the president. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that the administration turned its back on the Middle East and attempts of the Clinton administration to curb terrorism, on their first day in office. (Missile defense is SO effective against car and airplane bombs.)
Looking at it another way, I don't see this chip itself as untrustworthy, because its operation appears "sufficiently open." In that respect, perhaps it can be considered a piece of "good security" because it's secret is the key.
The real issue here is whether you want any hardware Trust at all in your computer, because once you've decided to allow it at all, this looks like a decent implementation. I can readily accept that Trust may be necessary in some contexts, such as DOD or DHS or other security-intensive roles. I can almost see it in media players, because it is *their* content.
The problem I see is when it quits being *my* computer and starts belonging to someone else. I can see delegating Trust to a media company temporarily, in order to use their content. But when it goes beyond that temporary and limited Trust, I get queasy, too. I suspect the *explicit and temporary* act of delegation is the key, and some sort of requirement to verify that it is both explicit and temporary. Otherwise it's not *my* computer, it's the media's computer that they've somehow conned me into financing.
One side aspect where Trust intersects with Open Source... Sufficient information should be published for me to build the application and public key, to see that it matches the key of the distributed binary. In other words, if the source can be inspected and Trusted by the community, (meaning others better qualified than me) then I guess I can Trust the program, too.
But I'll have to agree, closed source software becomes a crap-shoot.
Ah yes, the "Bush Doctrine" that allows preemptive action when we deem it necessary. The other Real Problem with the Bush Doctrine is that it doesn't just apply to us. First off, "The US is Right and anyone else who doesn't agree with us is Wrong," just won't fly with the rest of the world. I don't believe that the US would grant that any other single country in the world can define "Right," so I don't believe any other country will confer that right on us.
Taking the first step of unilateralism will force us to do more of it, in the future. So either ANY country can apply the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps any country with enough weapons. Allowing the Bush Doctrine to stand is a Danger to all, because it's going to be even harder to prevent from proliferating than nuclear weapons.
One can think first of China or Russia deploying troops based on the Bush Doctrine, but there's something far more insidious. Think about Rawanda, Congo, and the like, all feeling that pre-emptive strikes are in their best interest, and the US has given the idea the green light to do so. For us to disapprove then puts us more squarely into the role of World Police. I doubt we'd have much luck motivating other nations to take action against an "innappropriate Bush Doctrine action," especially once they figure out to call it by that name. So either we have to get in there and police, or we have to let it just happen, essentially giving it our tacit approval.
I was left with the impression that the chip had a flash store on it, and you could put your keys there. The only key you didn't know was the one used to secure the store, itself.
Slashdot Mirror
name for the Mimivirus - Slashdotter
A homeowner looked out and saw a man lying face down on his driveway. Going out to check, he found that the man was unconscious, so he went back in and called 911. When the rescue crew moved the man, they found him clutching Kerry (and other Democratic) signs under his body. His car was parked nearby, and they found more stolen Democratic signs in it. He was removing them, not placing them.
Apparently he'd been removing signs in this neighborhood, and was going to cross the driveway when he tripped over a chain the homeowner had there for some unknown, but presumably logical reason. Since he was clutching the signs, he couldn't quickly get his arms out front to break his fall, so he hit his head and knocked himself out.
The police charged him with numerous petty crimes. His wife said, "He's never done anything like this, before."
Given that this is the good old US of A, I'm surprised he hasn't sued the homeowner for having that chain there.
So is a convention of commercial authors a...
rimshot please...
Oh, why even bother with the punchline. You can see it coming a mile away.
But it won't, and the effects will be real.
There will be real sacrifices to use the "safe" Trusted MS OS, just like things broke when moving to XP SP2. The Trusted MS OS will have something on the order of 6 months of an awkward period. During that time, it *will* be safe from all of the evil Internet stuff, but it will be only marginally useful, because the applications won't be there, yet. By the time the applications are there, ingenious entrepreneurs will be there too, figuring out how to bypass the vaunted security. At the point where the security compromises begin, the Trust will be Gone.
I'm not just picking on Microsoft at not being able to deploy a "secure" OS. IMHO nobody can, there is no silver bullet for computing and network security. Repeat - no silver bullet. Even IF you had 100% perfect software, and I don't believe that's even practical, there's still human engineering. By the time you think you've ruled out human engineering, the OS is practically unusable, at least by Windows standards.
Take your house, for instance... Before going to bed, don't you check to make sure you didn't forget to lock the doors? Same when parking the car? Don't you notify a neighbor when you're about to leave on a trip, and take some other precautions? Security isn't a buy-once thing, it's a process, and purchasing is only part of it.
So in the long run, if Microsoft does try to field a Trusted OS, I'd expect it to fail within a year, unless they're able to FORCE everyone to adopt it. More likely than out-and-out failure would be a watering down, so it's *just* the next version of Windows, a little better than the last.
I wasn't being rational with my comment about Condorcet, but unfortunately I believe I was being realistic. Given the state of deterioration of separation of powers we have today, I wouldn't go bantying the name Montesquieu too hard, or that would be seen as even more incentive to pack the Supremes and tip the Senate further.
As for Condorcet vs IRV, I'd just like to see *some* sort of reform. If we could get *something* now and demonstrate that the sky doesn't fall, then maybe in a decade we could do better.
I was under the impression that the Constitution left it up to the states to determine how to vote - and that was part of the 2000 election mess, because Florida didn't do a very good job. In Vermont there has been noise about Instant Runoff, and some favorable studies. But AFAIK, nothing has really been done, and at the moment, I don't understand that. We have a very strong Progressive party and a not-insignificant Libertarian presence, so I would think that at least Democrats (and Progressives) would be in favor of Instant Runoff, and possibly the Republicans, as well.
Oh, as for Condorcet being better than Instant Runoff, here's my view. I believe I can explain Instant Runoff to someone on the street. I'm not sure about Condorcet. Nor does Condorcet have a 'friendly' name, especially for states that started selling 'Freedom Fries.' This may well be a case where 'better' and 'good enough' are enemies.
I can't rtfa, either. But a quick shot at google, and you'll find that, "The OQO computer is a full-featured pocketable Windows XP computer."
Since we're all talking about "it," it first made me wonder if it's a two-wheeled thingy to make walking obsolete. I actually saw someone using a Segway "in the wild" (as opposed to captivity - ie, demo) today on the way to work - outside on a sidewalk.
Gee, I'm voting for that guy, too.
Don your tin-foil propeller hats, everyone...
Woudn't the White House just as soon skip the third debate? But that would look bad. Aha, here are the Libertarians trying a court case - we can just let them spoil the whole thing, and we won't lose face.
I don't think they'll let the Libertarians in on the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical reasons not to move the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical and timing (not enough) reasons, as well.
I think they'll just cancel the debate - or let's say, "fail to be able to negotiate specifics for a rescheduled, relocated third debate."
The debates have been at least in-part a matter of "Bush damage minimization," because public thinking-on-his-feet isn't his strong suite. Actually, there were statements up-front that the Bush campaign was going to try and define Kerry, just like the Clinton campaign defined Dole. At the very least, the debates give Kerry a chance to get up and speak for himself. Whether that damages him in your eyes or not, they are his words, and not the Bush campaign putting words in his mouth.
I don't think anyone expects to see a Bush slam-dunk out of *any* of these debates. I don't think they really put the courts or Libertarians up to this. But I don't think they mind the thought of having the third debate get cancelled, in the slightest.
I don't remember the endings of Snow Crash or Diamond Age as being that jarring, but the Cryptonomicon wrapup was a real jolt. After 900+ pages of consistent, engaging pacing, the plot was suddenly wrapped up and bowed in less than 100 pages, at breakneck pace. At about page 900 it looked like you really had 200-300 pages to go, instead of less than 100. Thinking back on it, the Diamond Age ending was a bit unsatisfying, but not as "rude" as Cryptonomicon.
Were you getting tired of writing it, or did the publisher tell you it was getting too long.
It's obvious, then. We all need to call the police and turn in our neighbors, parents, spouses, kids, etc for fast-forwarding commmercials. Heck, we should call the FBI when they get up to go to the bathroom during one.
DEMAND full enforcement of this law!
Then watch the outrage - or the laughter.
>You are mixing your arguments you are crossing natural with man forced.
Yes, I was, and deliberately. IMHO the intersectionof the Legal community with the Medical community is where all of this stuff comes to rest, and both are partly to blame for the ensuing problems. Doctors want to exercise their craft to the fullest extent, and save/prolong life as much as possible. Sometimes that's possible, but not wise. Lawyers (aside from wanting their commission) want to nail down everything with precision in black and white, and that just doesn't correspond to the Universe.
Hence part (but only part) of the mess we have with medicine, today. Look for it to get worse, as we learn about new stones to look under.
Keep in mind that if human life begins at conception...
I keep hearing that low-dosage birth control pills work by preventing implantation into the lining of the utereus. In other words, spontaneous abortion. Does the low-dosage Pill need to be taken off the market? The old high-dosage Pill worked by suppressing ovulation, but had long-term side-effects. So is the answer no birth control pills - and would there be a corresponding rise in illegal abortions?
I've also heard in recent years that the number of spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs is higher than anyone would have ever guessed. (Learned through fertility/sexuality studies, etc.) Shall we try a woman when the egg fails to implant? It's a silly question, but it reflects a greater medical question - when do we quit trying to save a life?
IMHO, some of what you're really looking at is population density. The rights of my fist end just before they touch your nose. The further away you are, the more rights my fist have - and yours, for that matter. Pack us in tighter, and there just isn't that much space to swing my arms.
Conversely, pack people looser and you're put more on your own - if you don't do it, there's nobody for more miles to help you. Self-sufficiency takes on a greater value.
My favorite example is the septic inspector.
WhyOhWhyOhWhy do I have to pay for some silly certified engineer to come out and inspect my septic tank and leach lines? The contractor put them in perfectly fine, he's competent, etc, etc, etc.
I suspect that once upon a time, a dishonest contractor built a house on spec, and didn't bother to put in proper leach lines, maybe not even a septic tank. Maybe he dug a hole in the ground and filled it with a truckload of gravel, maybe not even that. Some years later, the contractor is retired in the Sun Belt, and the owner finds his septic system has failed, only to find that there is no septic system, and never was one. Any respectable septic system wouldn't have failed, but this one wasn't.
Regulation is response to abuse. Sometimes in appropriate, sometimes overdone, sometimes missing the point. Sometimes response to past abuse, or anticipate future abuse, but still it's response to abuse.
Regulation will set some sort of standards on airframe integrity, lower-stage disposal, and recovery systems. Those standards will do something to protect me from incompetent rocket scientists. Regulation may well establish proper culpability for when something falls on my house. Otherwise there may be some sort of legal loopholes - I don't know. Otherwise I hope the regulations make me much less likely to get fallen on. Fat lot of good the possiblity of suing them into oblivion is if I'm already dead.
Because you have a blind spot a mile thick.
You don't trust the government, and I don't blame you.
But the government has NO monopoly on STUPIDITY. I've seen rampant amounts of it in business, too. It's SO rampant that it isn't well-checked by evolution, also called bankruptcy.
Plus add that business has this extra stupidity factor in there called blind greed, and some (most) businesses will engage in long-term stupidity in order to get a few bucks, now.
Today the Air Traffic Control system is responsible for making sure that two planes don't collide. I'd look at "debris clearance" as an extension of that model. I presume the FAA is in charge of ATC.
Can one sue the FAA if a mid-air or taxiway collision is caused by misdirection, as opposed to not following ATC directions?
As for "debris clearance," it could never have the "certainty" of ATC, since not all debris can be tracked. Any sort of liability would be tricky, and have to have limitations.
From what I've heard, the Shuttle SRBs generate some really *nasty* pollution. I suspect/hope that at some point there will be enough space travel to require legislating pollution levels. I don't think we're there, yet.
I'm sure that if there were such a deliberately exploding vehicle, and it were used for suicide, there's be *some* law on the books already to go after them. After all, it *is* rocket science, and don't you really need a PhD? In that case, it would be... Doctor assisted suicide, and the courts are already cracking on this one.
Won't argue with either point.
Actually, debris may become a significant concern, not even in terms of leaving any, but in terms of getting hit by it. We do so little launching now that it's not *that* onerous (I presume) to scan the database for each launch.
Once commercial flights start, will the FAA offer the service of prescanning your flight path?
Who will pay?
How much will it cost?
What if a launcher 'declines' to pay and get such a search? (Insurance?)
Any idea how well the Ford Escape is selling?
Theoretically, at least Ford *is* in on a piece of the action.
Oops, this is /.
From what I could tell, there were 2 main concerns:
1: Uninvolved people on the ground shouldn't have to be any more concerned about debris raining down on them that they are, today. ie- they STAY uninvolved.
2: Those who want to go up are fully informed of the risks. The operators can't hide information about their operational or maintenance records in order to make a sale.
If initial regulations stick to those 2 points, I don't think its unreasonable, at all. For the forseeable future, I simply CAN'T fly on one, and I also DON'T want it falling on me, my loved ones, or my property. If I ever can afford to fly, I want to know the risks.
You mean the Dark Star with the smart bombs?
I'd get it.
People in the University theater thought I looked like Doolittle.
But there's some sort of joke going begging here, and the punch line is, "where the Sun don't shine."
I'm trying to give Bush every benefit of the doubt. IMHO, he should have known something about what was going on before even beginning the photo-op, and should have excused himself before even starting. Even if he knew *nothing* until the infamous 7 minutee pause, it was a TERRIBLE breach IN HIS OFFICE that he didn't. Either he heard in a timely fashion, and did nothing, or he didn't hear in a timely fashion, and evidently put together a governing machine that was incapable or unwilling to notify him promptly. Either way, he IS the president. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that the administration turned its back on the Middle East and attempts of the Clinton administration to curb terrorism, on their first day in office. (Missile defense is SO effective against car and airplane bombs.)
Thank you for the information.
Looking at it another way, I don't see this chip itself as untrustworthy, because its operation appears "sufficiently open." In that respect, perhaps it can be considered a piece of "good security" because it's secret is the key.
The real issue here is whether you want any hardware Trust at all in your computer, because once you've decided to allow it at all, this looks like a decent implementation. I can readily accept that Trust may be necessary in some contexts, such as DOD or DHS or other security-intensive roles. I can almost see it in media players, because it is *their* content.
The problem I see is when it quits being *my* computer and starts belonging to someone else. I can see delegating Trust to a media company temporarily, in order to use their content. But when it goes beyond that temporary and limited Trust, I get queasy, too. I suspect the *explicit and temporary* act of delegation is the key, and some sort of requirement to verify that it is both explicit and temporary. Otherwise it's not *my* computer, it's the media's computer that they've somehow conned me into financing.
One side aspect where Trust intersects with Open Source... Sufficient information should be published for me to build the application and public key, to see that it matches the key of the distributed binary. In other words, if the source can be inspected and Trusted by the community, (meaning others better qualified than me) then I guess I can Trust the program, too.
But I'll have to agree, closed source software becomes a crap-shoot.
Ah yes, the "Bush Doctrine" that allows preemptive action when we deem it necessary. The other Real Problem with the Bush Doctrine is that it doesn't just apply to us. First off, "The US is Right and anyone else who doesn't agree with us is Wrong," just won't fly with the rest of the world. I don't believe that the US would grant that any other single country in the world can define "Right," so I don't believe any other country will confer that right on us.
Taking the first step of unilateralism will force us to do more of it, in the future.
So either ANY country can apply the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps any country with enough weapons.
Allowing the Bush Doctrine to stand is a Danger to all, because it's going to be even harder to prevent from proliferating than nuclear weapons.
One can think first of China or Russia deploying troops based on the Bush Doctrine, but there's something far more insidious. Think about Rawanda, Congo, and the like, all feeling that pre-emptive strikes are in their best interest, and the US has given the idea the green light to do so. For us to disapprove then puts us more squarely into the role of World Police. I doubt we'd have much luck motivating other nations to take action against an "innappropriate Bush Doctrine action," especially once they figure out to call it by that name. So either we have to get in there and police, or we have to let it just happen, essentially giving it our tacit approval.
I was left with the impression that the chip had a flash store on it, and you could put your keys there. The only key you didn't know was the one used to secure the store, itself.