And yes, the FBI also has the right to be able to intercept both your phone calls and your emails if you are under suspicion. No, they can not block you from sending or receiving, but they can look if they have substantial evidence. And yes, there are laws to make sure that they aren't looking unless they have substantial reason to be looking.
So how come they get to look right now, without substantial reasons or a person being "under suspicion"? Pointing to an email that contains plans to blow up the white house does not constitute 'substantial reasons,' if there were no earlier mails about the plans. Nor could such an email be self justifying in a justified suspicion argument, since you had no right to see the mail in the first place.
So assuming the feds don't have some sort of concrete evidence that someone was going to commit a crime already, they have no business tapping the mail system in the first place.
I mean, isn't sniffing email messages intended for a recipient the same thing as tapping a phone line? The intent is to communicate something to one person only, right?
Different than if the feds got onto some war3z mailing list, and then started arresting ppl.
So how come the feds don't have to have a warrant to sniff the mail messages of hundreds of thousands (or millions?)
is a good place to start from for PGP. For OpenSSH, check out http://www.openssh.com/
And of course, OpenBSD has good crypto built into the kernel (as does Linux, although to a somewhat lesser extent, if I'm correct?) So consider just running one of these OSes and then reading the man pages.
I dunno. The thousands of eyes thing is really more of an ad and a slogan than the truth for any complicated project. As an example, see how many people really understand the Perl 5 core enough to fix bugs / add significant improvements.
Not I, that's for sure, and certainly not a decent number of people on p5p.
In that case, it might actually be better than the GPL, in the fact that CORBA and other related remote-use tricks which don't constitute distribution wouldn't hold water, right?
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.
I thought that the GPL essentially demanded this too, except that 'Original Contributor' is replaced with 'Anyone you distribute to'. Granted, if you never distribute, under the GPL you don't have to release source (if I'm correct), but this still seems relatively reasonable.
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.
So he shut out commercial distros from making money from selling CDs. But they can still provide support, and make money that way, right? Again, I don't see a huge problem here.
Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
How is this different than 'your modified versions must be distributed under the GPL also,' which if IIRC is one of the GPL's conditions?
To a point, I would assume. While it's true that it's just not possible to stop a synchnoized flood-DoS attack, well-secured *NIX boxes seem to be much more secure (but also much more dangerous if they/do/ get in) than well-secured Windows-Whatever boxes.
Small quibble: according to the creators of Plan 9, it isn't Unix-based, although it certainly takes ideas from Unix. They said that Plan 9 is what Unix would be, if they could do it all over again, having had the experience with Unix's wide-spread usage.
Yep. Amazing how easy it is to get good responses to even my (dumb) questions. The OpenBSD mailing lists are fairly high-traffic-volume for the number of members, IMHO, but the signal to noise ratio is very low.
This would certainly change if the number of users increased.
Yep. Patents themselves aren't a bad idea, but you're only supposed to be able to patent the specific implementation of an idea, or the specific way of doing something. It seems that RAMBUS has gotten away with conning an overgeneralized patent out of the Patent Office.
Saying that patent enforcement can be used in an anti-competitive manner is for the government to admit that the Patent Office is giving these companies a tool of monopoly, and exposes the Patent Office for the truly incompetent bunch of fools that they are (at least when it comes to technology patents).
Re:Systemised defects.. not on same rack
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
I _am_ in the US. I came here to receive a superior education. US education above the high school level is arguably the best in the world, and China's doesn't hold a candle. (I didn't assert in any of my arguments however, that Chinese education was better, either. I don't think we're quite at the point of arguing about services to the public like education yet.)
Point is, I'm not here as a political dissident, or somesuch. Nor as a refugee fleeing from the commies. But here as a student.
Re:You need some troll practice...
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
Well, this is where our views diverge, is all. Doesn't automatically make me an extremist, as it were.
I'm arguing that those who are in posession tend to sell. And that selling creates crime. (the fact that it is a crime aside, that is.) Either way, pushers peddle a product that is in high demand. But the demand for $$ in the drug market, and the inability of the far greater majority of drug users to come up with that money legitimately, creates crime in their illegal efforts to cough up the dough.
The argument is that people don't rob 7-11s for fun; they do it to get their drug and booze money. They do it when their welfare checks run out.
To use is their own problem, although I would argue that certain types of controlled substances also causes violence (not a difficult argument to make, I would think, with things like cocaine and PCP). But just by using, you create a demand. And with that demand, comes the pushers. Nor is the line between pusher and user necessarily always so clear cut. So the users are also at least partially responsible for other people's deaths and various related crimes, even assuming that they never pushed at all (which IMHO is highly unlikely.)
As for the cars: accidents happen. Are people responsible? Yeah. Is it an accident? Yes. Should we kill them? Well, maybe not.
On the other hand, should the guy with a BAC 4 times above the legal limit, and smoking a joint, that just plowed into a van full of children, should he die? IMO, yes. Not every one would agree, but I think that if you're stupid enough to drink, and smoke up, and drive, and then you kill someone (or someones), then you should die for it.
After all, they made a conscious choice to make themselves an extremely high risk group for accidents. It's no different then going out at night with an axe and rolling dice to figure out which home you should storm into to hack some heads off.
Dealerships: obviously not. Are cars used for legit purposes? Yes. Are the people on the streets using crack and weed for legit purposes? I think not. That pretty much wraps that one up, I'd think.
Re:Systemised defects.. not on same rack
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
That's possibly the most stupid question I've ever heard of. You've either not read my original post and the one that I just wrote... or you have some reading comprehension problems.
Re:You need some troll practice...
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
Do you really know that? Face it.. you don't know what's happening over in China.. no one dose.
Whoopsie. I come from China.
Darn, there goes that point, eh?
Re:You need some troll practice...
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
Neither of you have proven that my views are incoherent. And calling me a fascist does nothing, because you haven't proven that I should respect you either, which means your evaluations of my identity are worthless. At this point, it's you two that are starting to sound like trolls.
Am I incoherent because I argued that execution of criminals cuts down on crime and deaths of innocents? Or am I fascist/stalinist because I advocate a systematic 'self-help' system that gives the homeless jobs and allows them to work and feed themselves? (as opposed to boozing all day, that is).
Roughly half of the US still supports capital punishment for murderers. Are they fascists too? Why should we draw the line at the crime of murder? Especially when drug dealers and drug traffiking leads to deaths of all sorts?
I've said enough. Neither of you have come up with any coherent arguments yet. I hate to say it, but at this point, either put up, or shut up.
China doesn't imprision the homeless. The governmet provides housing and A JOB.
And killing drug dealers a hell of a lot more humanitarian than letting them cause killings of innocents by peddeling(sp?) their wares.
Re:Systemised defects.. not on same rack
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
Shrug. Okay. That's your choice. Not everyone agrees with you, is all I'm asserting.
Re:You need some troll practice...
on
Linux And Beijing
·
· Score: 1
Believe it or not, it wasn't meant as a troll, although I would be happy to debate by by private mail anyone who has coherent and different views.
And the crack bit --> I really don't care less about the grammatical nitpickers. They don't bother me. My general point isn't that crack doesn't kill in China, but that crack isn't at all readily available in china (execution for posession seems an effective deterrent), and thus it can't readily kill. That's all.
Ya know, it's kinda hard to shoot people when you don't have a gun. As it were, guns are banned in China --> not as banned in sales, but 'extremely controlled' in manufacture. (all those damn hong-kong action flicks aside.)
Same thing with drugs. Does Singapore have a drug problem? Sure they do. But is it nearly as bad as here? No. Because, IIRC, if they find you carrying >= 1/10 of a gram of cocaine / heroine, you get your head blown off. Does this deter drug dealers? I would hope so. The policy is similar in China.
It's obvious that crime will happen anywhere. Same with poverty. (Duh!) And that the government can't completely stamp them out. But to critize the Chinese government for torture and imprisonment of political dissenters without realizing that the Chinese government far surpasses the US government in some important humanitarian areas (like the ones mentioned above) is quite unfair.
The whole thing isn't cut and dried, obviously. Is the US more liberal and humanitarian in the area of free speech and expression? Sure. Is it necessarily more humanitarian in its protection of the safety and well-being of the average citizen? Maybe not.
I don't need to defend China to please the commies -- I live in the US. But I would like to just point out that to label the Chinese government as barbaric while implicitly trumpeting the humantarian nature of the US government, as the original poster that I responeded to did, is unfair.
You miss the fact that the US does plenty of inhumane things that noone ever talks about. We allow the existence of hobos on the streets instead of taking them in (as in government mandated, not Red Cross stuff). Husbands are allowed to beat their wives with impunity while the police turn a blind eye. Children are neglected and tortured in their own homes while the overworked social workers look on helplessly.
We name this things 'domestic violence' and call these people names like 'emotionally challenged,' or 'economically challenged.'
How fair is it for people to OD from a wee bit too much crack? Does this happen in China? How fair is it for children to starve, and to be shot down by the cops while robbing a 7-11 because their deadbeat dad left their crack-addicated mother and the 17 kids to go get some other piece of ass? Does _this_ happen in China?
I believe that the answer is, um, NO. There are tradeoffs to living in every country. Torture of citizens sanctioned by the Chinese government? If you say so. Tortures that the government simply turns a blind eye to, in the US, the land of opportunity and the 'free'? Maybe.
Please don't judge other countries, until you are satisfied that the one that you live in (which seems to be the US) is truly better.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, the FBI also has the right to be able to intercept both your phone calls and your emails if you are under suspicion. No, they can not block you from sending or receiving, but they can look if they have substantial evidence. And yes, there are laws to make sure that they aren't looking unless they have substantial reason to be looking.
So how come they get to look right now, without substantial reasons or a person being "under suspicion"? Pointing to an email that contains plans to blow up the white house does not constitute 'substantial reasons,' if there were no earlier mails about the plans. Nor could such an email be self justifying in a justified suspicion argument, since you had no right to see the mail in the first place.
So assuming the feds don't have some sort of concrete evidence that someone was going to commit a crime already, they have no business tapping the mail system in the first place.
That's what I'm wondering about: warrants.
I mean, isn't sniffing email messages intended for a recipient the same thing as tapping a phone line? The intent is to communicate something to one person only, right?
Different than if the feds got onto some war3z mailing list, and then started arresting ppl.
So how come the feds don't have to have a warrant to sniff the mail messages of hundreds of thousands (or millions?)
http://start.at/these.urls.first/
is a good place to start from for PGP. For OpenSSH, check out http://www.openssh.com/
And of course, OpenBSD has good crypto built into the kernel (as does Linux, although to a somewhat lesser extent, if I'm correct?) So consider just running one of these OSes and then reading the man pages.
I mean, isn't it really a good thing(tm), since it's indirectly pushing hard for strong crypto's acceptance to stop this stupidity?
I was under the impression that open source projects like Mozilla are filling this niche?
I dunno. The thousands of eyes thing is really more of an ad and a slogan than the truth for any complicated project. As an example, see how many people really understand the Perl 5 core enough to fix bugs / add significant improvements.
Not I, that's for sure, and certainly not a decent number of people on p5p.
In that case, it might actually be better than the GPL, in the fact that CORBA and other related remote-use tricks which don't constitute distribution wouldn't hold water, right?
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.
... and so on?
I thought that the GPL essentially demanded this too, except that 'Original Contributor' is replaced with 'Anyone you distribute to'. Granted, if you never distribute, under the GPL you don't have to release source (if I'm correct), but this still seems relatively reasonable.
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.
So he shut out commercial distros from making money from selling CDs. But they can still provide support, and make money that way, right? Again, I don't see a huge problem here.
Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
How is this different than 'your modified versions must be distributed under the GPL also,' which if IIRC is one of the GPL's conditions?
To a point, I would assume. While it's true that it's just not possible to stop a synchnoized flood-DoS attack, well-secured *NIX boxes seem to be much more secure (but also much more dangerous if they /do/ get in) than well-secured Windows-Whatever boxes.
Advocacy: And may I just take this moment to say: "OpenBSD: Like a Rock."
Small quibble: according to the creators of Plan 9, it isn't Unix-based, although it certainly takes ideas from Unix. They said that Plan 9 is what Unix would be, if they could do it all over again, having had the experience with Unix's wide-spread usage.
Yep. Amazing how easy it is to get good responses to even my (dumb) questions. The OpenBSD mailing lists are fairly high-traffic-volume for the number of members, IMHO, but the signal to noise ratio is very low.
This would certainly change if the number of users increased.
CPUID and similar utilities. But you have to be saavy enough to know to use them!
Yep. Patents themselves aren't a bad idea, but you're only supposed to be able to patent the specific implementation of an idea, or the specific way of doing something. It seems that RAMBUS has gotten away with conning an overgeneralized patent out of the Patent Office.
Saying that patent enforcement can be used in an anti-competitive manner is for the government to admit that the Patent Office is giving these companies a tool of monopoly, and exposes the Patent Office for the truly incompetent bunch of fools that they are (at least when it comes to technology patents).
I _am_ in the US. I came here to receive a superior education. US education above the high school level is arguably the best in the world, and China's doesn't hold a candle. (I didn't assert in any of my arguments however, that Chinese education was better, either. I don't think we're quite at the point of arguing about services to the public like education yet.)
Point is, I'm not here as a political dissident, or somesuch. Nor as a refugee fleeing from the commies. But here as a student.
Well, this is where our views diverge, is all. Doesn't automatically make me an extremist, as it were.
I'm arguing that those who are in posession tend to sell. And that selling creates crime. (the fact that it is a crime aside, that is.) Either way, pushers peddle a product that is in high demand. But the demand for $$ in the drug market, and the inability of the far greater majority of drug users to come up with that money legitimately, creates crime in their illegal efforts to cough up the dough.
The argument is that people don't rob 7-11s for fun; they do it to get their drug and booze money. They do it when their welfare checks run out.
To use is their own problem, although I would argue that certain types of controlled substances also causes violence (not a difficult argument to make, I would think, with things like cocaine and PCP). But just by using, you create a demand. And with that demand, comes the pushers. Nor is the line between pusher and user necessarily always so clear cut. So the users are also at least partially responsible for other people's deaths and various related crimes, even assuming that they never pushed at all (which IMHO is highly unlikely.)
As for the cars: accidents happen. Are people responsible? Yeah. Is it an accident? Yes. Should we kill them? Well, maybe not.
On the other hand, should the guy with a BAC 4 times above the legal limit, and smoking a joint, that just plowed into a van full of children, should he die? IMO, yes. Not every one would agree, but I think that if you're stupid enough to drink, and smoke up, and drive, and then you kill someone (or someones), then you should die for it.
After all, they made a conscious choice to make themselves an extremely high risk group for accidents. It's no different then going out at night with an axe and rolling dice to figure out which home you should storm into to hack some heads off.
Dealerships: obviously not. Are cars used for legit purposes? Yes. Are the people on the streets using crack and weed for legit purposes? I think not. That pretty much wraps that one up, I'd think.
That's possibly the most stupid question I've ever heard of. You've either not read my original post and the one that I just wrote ... or you have some reading comprehension problems.
Do you really know that? Face it.. you don't know what's happening over in China.. no one dose.
Whoopsie. I come from China.
Darn, there goes that point, eh?
Neither of you have proven that my views are incoherent. And calling me a fascist does nothing, because you haven't proven that I should respect you either, which means your evaluations of my identity are worthless. At this point, it's you two that are starting to sound like trolls.
Am I incoherent because I argued that execution of criminals cuts down on crime and deaths of innocents? Or am I fascist/stalinist because I advocate a systematic 'self-help' system that gives the homeless jobs and allows them to work and feed themselves? (as opposed to boozing all day, that is).
Roughly half of the US still supports capital punishment for murderers. Are they fascists too? Why should we draw the line at the crime of murder? Especially when drug dealers and drug traffiking leads to deaths of all sorts?
I've said enough. Neither of you have come up with any coherent arguments yet. I hate to say it, but at this point, either put up, or shut up.
China doesn't imprision the homeless. The governmet provides housing and A JOB.
And killing drug dealers a hell of a lot more humanitarian than letting them cause killings of innocents by peddeling(sp?) their wares.
Shrug. Okay. That's your choice. Not everyone agrees with you, is all I'm asserting.
Believe it or not, it wasn't meant as a troll, although I would be happy to debate by by private mail anyone who has coherent and different views.
And the crack bit --> I really don't care less about the grammatical nitpickers. They don't bother me. My general point isn't that crack doesn't kill in China, but that crack isn't at all readily available in china (execution for posession seems an effective deterrent), and thus it can't readily kill. That's all.
Ya know, it's kinda hard to shoot people when you don't have a gun. As it were, guns are banned in China --> not as banned in sales, but 'extremely controlled' in manufacture. (all those damn hong-kong action flicks aside.)
Same thing with drugs. Does Singapore have a drug problem? Sure they do. But is it nearly as bad as here? No. Because, IIRC, if they find you carrying >= 1/10 of a gram of cocaine / heroine, you get your head blown off. Does this deter drug dealers? I would hope so. The policy is similar in China.
It's obvious that crime will happen anywhere. Same with poverty. (Duh!) And that the government can't completely stamp them out. But to critize the Chinese government for torture and imprisonment of political dissenters without realizing that the Chinese government far surpasses the US government in some important humanitarian areas (like the ones mentioned above) is quite unfair.
The whole thing isn't cut and dried, obviously. Is the US more liberal and humanitarian in the area of free speech and expression? Sure. Is it necessarily more humanitarian in its protection of the safety and well-being of the average citizen? Maybe not.
I don't need to defend China to please the commies -- I live in the US. But I would like to just point out that to label the Chinese government as barbaric while implicitly trumpeting the humantarian nature of the US government, as the original poster that I responeded to did, is unfair.
You miss the fact that the US does plenty of inhumane things that noone ever talks about. We allow the existence of hobos on the streets instead of taking them in (as in government mandated, not Red Cross stuff). Husbands are allowed to beat their wives with impunity while the police turn a blind eye. Children are neglected and tortured in their own homes while the overworked social workers look on helplessly.
We name this things 'domestic violence' and call these people names like 'emotionally challenged,' or 'economically challenged.'
How fair is it for people to OD from a wee bit too much crack? Does this happen in China? How fair is it for children to starve, and to be shot down by the cops while robbing a 7-11 because their deadbeat dad left their crack-addicated mother and the 17 kids to go get some other piece of ass? Does _this_ happen in China?
I believe that the answer is, um, NO. There are tradeoffs to living in every country. Torture of citizens sanctioned by the Chinese government? If you say so. Tortures that the government simply turns a blind eye to, in the US, the land of opportunity and the 'free'? Maybe.
Please don't judge other countries, until you are satisfied that the one that you live in (which seems to be the US) is truly better.