I think you've misunderstood me. It's not my intention to say we should give up our civil rights. I was pointing out that I see debate arguements being formed that I see as flawed.
I agree crypto is not a weapon. And, as it turns out, there is no public evidence that crypto was used in the execution of the attack.
As for my use of the phrase "need to know", I should have been more specific. When you are presented with a search warrent, the police have the right to search your home, computer, phone records, and anything covered by the warrent. Now, if you don't like that, that's a seperate can of worms from the crypto issue. That's a civil rights issue. I was not attempting to examine the morality of search warrents.
Many of the guns=crypto arguments I am reading here have one fatal flaw:
Most people understand they do not have the right to point a gun at a cop or a federal officer. So why would those same people think they have they right to use crypto when the feds have a need to know?
Don't get the wrong idea. I don't like the idea of having my personal data searched without a search warent. But you need better logic than bastardizing the gun ownership argument.
Clearly, the majors have found the secret to making an uncopyable CD: Make it something that nobody would want to copy. That's funny (and true). Wish I had mod points right now.
I think what needs to happen when we go after Osama Bin Laden is we need to fill a bunch of bombers up with wreckage from the World Trade Center and drop it on his ass.
Bin Laden tried once before to bomb the WTC. He obviously is very intested it seeing the World Trade Center up close. We should oblige him.
After all, we dropped Saddam's limo on Bagdad.
Timely Words
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
It has been pointed out that the trial of one of Bin Lauden's men was to begin tomorrow in NYC. This trial would represent a the "more satisfying and peaceful solution" you speak of, Halftrack. And guess what? The thugs who did this only understand the language of violence.
When the US finds who did this, a graphic and public example needs to be set for all those who would choose to follow .
So, as an American to you I will say it's alot easier to preach peace when it's not your country.
As someone who works for an e-commerce company I am irritated when I see what appears to be half-assed security on high profile websites. When a site run by a company like Microsoft is hacked, it becomes more difficult to convice my clients they can conduct business with us in confidence.
I make my living because people visit our website and conduct online transactions. I know how much thought goes into security issues for our site. If we were to be hacked, it would reflect negatively the site and all other aspects of our business, as well as fail to serve the trust of our users.
Microsoft does not appear to share these same concerns. Time and again they have a cavalier attitude towards very public attacks on their websites. Hotmail was hacked, so what, someone read your email. It was just porn, right? If Code Red turns IIS into a zombie it's your fault you didn't patch your server.
Microsoft has not solved the security concerns that have plagued IIS, but that won't stop them from pushing forward with.net. If there were a massive hole found in this new web platform, I fear it what fallout may ultimately come of it. At some point the damage to the online economy will push lawmakers into imposing regulations. These regulations will become huge hurdles for the publishers of OSs, software, and websites.
I have always felt that if there is one entity I trust less with my computer than MS it is the US Government. There is nothing worse than a cogressman or senator who doesn't understand computers making laws that effect them.
This may be an example of some junior attorney attempting to justify his or her retainer to Comedy Central. I'm sure CC has a small army of lawyers for defending IP concerns. But as Adobe learned recently, your overzealous laywers sometime can get you in public relation deep shit. Comedy Central may not even be aware of this exchange.
Do you consider AtheOS to be born as a curiousity? Or do you consider Linux, BSD, and other growing OSs to be flawed in some fundemental way that only a fresh start could fix? If the latter, what are the biggest strikes against these OSs and how do you plan to overcome them? And what do you think other *nix need to do to match your goals?
Here, let me help you get your head out of your ass.
I hadn't even read the article and I could tell the front page story was sarcasm. I even suspected they were quoting from the article I was about to read (and did, unlike you). Put the whole thing in context - a story about Microsoft people putting words in the mouths of other people, and here's Slashdot delivering the MS-party line. You don't get it. You must be new here.
I would like to close by saying if the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation. Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.
Whose lawyers? Suits about what? WTF _are_ you talking about?
Whose lawyers? First in line would be attorneys for the patent holder. If the lawsuit against Microsoft is successful (and so far it has been in the plantif's favor) those same lawyers will start digging for gold elsewhere.
Suits about what? Patent infringment. Read the fscking article. MS supposedly is dropping plug-in functions because somebody else owns the technology. Do you not get it, or are you just a troll? It doesn't matter that Microbrew has other motives, once a legal precident is set that plug-in technology belongs to Eolas, such a legal victory will signal the begining of hunting season.
Hmm, probably none.
MS Windows runs on 90% of the computers on home user's desktops. Mac OS runs on roughly 6%, with IE being the dominant web browser on that platform. You cut 96% of anybody's custommer base and there is a very real likelyhood they will go out of business. Investors will not keep money in a company that takes such a loss.
1) If IE stops supporting external plug ins, how many plug-in publishers will go out of business?
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's.NET.
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
Part of what makes the idea of a sealed box repulsive to me is I think it represents a common attitude from big software and hardware makers - that nothing of real value is ever invented outside of the California tech sector.
Such an attitude is compleatly dismissive of the Open Source software movement.
By making closed architechure the norm for home users we can shut alternative Operating Systems out of the market. I'm sure Microsoft has no motivation to act here. *cough*
So in the future, you will have to go to google's cached copy of Jim Ellis. Remember not to run any binary attachments Jim may have without screening with a virus scanner.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I wish the feds would do something to stop the pop up adds that interupt my TV shows every 10 minutes. I hate those.
I think you've misunderstood me. It's not my intention to say we should give up our civil rights. I was pointing out that I see debate arguements being formed that I see as flawed.
I agree crypto is not a weapon. And, as it turns out, there is no public evidence that crypto was used in the execution of the attack.
As for my use of the phrase "need to know", I should have been more specific. When you are presented with a search warrent, the police have the right to search your home, computer, phone records, and anything covered by the warrent. Now, if you don't like that, that's a seperate can of worms from the crypto issue. That's a civil rights issue. I was not attempting to examine the morality of search warrents.
Many of the guns=crypto arguments I am reading here have one fatal flaw:
Most people understand they do not have the right to point a gun at a cop or a federal officer. So why would those same people think they have they right to use crypto when the feds have a need to know?
Don't get the wrong idea. I don't like the idea of having my personal data searched without a search warent. But you need better logic than bastardizing the gun ownership argument.
Clearly, the majors have found the secret to making an uncopyable CD: Make it something that nobody would want to copy.
That's funny (and true). Wish I had mod points right now.
Dear Microsoft,
I don't use frontpage.
Fuck You.
I think what needs to happen when we go after Osama Bin Laden is we need to fill a bunch of bombers up with wreckage from the World Trade Center and drop it on his ass.
Bin Laden tried once before to bomb the WTC. He obviously is very intested it seeing the World Trade Center up close. We should oblige him.
After all, we dropped Saddam's limo on Bagdad.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
It has been pointed out that the trial of one of Bin Lauden's men was to begin tomorrow in NYC. This trial would represent a the "more satisfying and peaceful solution" you speak of, Halftrack. And guess what? The thugs who did this only understand the language of violence.
When the US finds who did this, a graphic and public example needs to be set for all those who would choose to follow .
So, as an American to you I will say it's alot easier to preach peace when it's not your country.
As someone who works for an e-commerce company I am irritated when I see what appears to be half-assed security on high profile websites. When a site run by a company like Microsoft is hacked, it becomes more difficult to convice my clients they can conduct business with us in confidence.
I make my living because people visit our website and conduct online transactions. I know how much thought goes into security issues for our site. If we were to be hacked, it would reflect negatively the site and all other aspects of our business, as well as fail to serve the trust of our users.
Microsoft does not appear to share these same concerns. Time and again they have a cavalier attitude towards very public attacks on their websites. Hotmail was hacked, so what, someone read your email. It was just porn, right? If Code Red turns IIS into a zombie it's your fault you didn't patch your server.
Microsoft has not solved the security concerns that have plagued IIS, but that won't stop them from pushing forward with .net. If there were a massive hole found in this new web platform, I fear it what fallout may ultimately come of it. At some point the damage to the online economy will push lawmakers into imposing regulations. These regulations will become huge hurdles for the publishers of OSs, software, and websites.
I have always felt that if there is one entity I trust less with my computer than MS it is the US Government. There is nothing worse than a cogressman or senator who doesn't understand computers making laws that effect them.
This may be an example of some junior attorney attempting to justify his or her retainer to Comedy Central. I'm sure CC has a small army of lawyers for defending IP concerns. But as Adobe learned recently, your overzealous laywers sometime can get you in public relation deep shit. Comedy Central may not even be aware of this exchange.
If I don't know what the clock speed is on my chip, how am I expected to set the jumpers on my motherboard?
My compile keeps hanging on NSABackdoor.h
Watch the hard-drive wars heat up on PVRs and smile at what that means for your time-shifting habits.
...also watch copyright content control features go into you hard drive and feel your stomach turn as the MPAA and RIAA reach into your computer.
....if only I could get my X-windows profile to load in .8 seconds. Ahhh...
You can create new stem call lines, they just don't qualify for federal funds. They need to be privately financed by the biotech sector.
Do you consider AtheOS to be born as a curiousity? Or do you consider Linux, BSD, and other growing OSs to be flawed in some fundemental way that only a fresh start could fix? If the latter, what are the biggest strikes against these OSs and how do you plan to overcome them? And what do you think other *nix need to do to match your goals?
Here, let me help you get your head out of your ass.
I hadn't even read the article and I could tell the front page story was sarcasm. I even suspected they were quoting from the article I was about to read (and did, unlike you). Put the whole thing in context - a story about Microsoft people putting words in the mouths of other people, and here's Slashdot delivering the MS-party line. You don't get it. You must be new here.
I would like to close by saying if the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation. Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.
Whose lawyers? First in line would be attorneys for the patent holder. If the lawsuit against Microsoft is successful (and so far it has been in the plantif's favor) those same lawyers will start digging for gold elsewhere.
Suits about what? Patent infringment. Read the fscking article. MS supposedly is dropping plug-in functions because somebody else owns the technology. Do you not get it, or are you just a troll? It doesn't matter that Microbrew has other motives, once a legal precident is set that plug-in technology belongs to Eolas, such a legal victory will signal the begining of hunting season.
Hmm, probably none. MS Windows runs on 90% of the computers on home user's desktops. Mac OS runs on roughly 6%, with IE being the dominant web browser on that platform. You cut 96% of anybody's custommer base and there is a very real likelyhood they will go out of business. Investors will not keep money in a company that takes such a loss.
So, WTF are you talking about, AC?
1) If IE stops supporting external plug ins, how many plug-in publishers will go out of business?
.NET.
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
To take pictures of the Earth.
...*sniff*
*sniff* that's so.... Oprah
Al Gore could have downloaded openuniverse and saved us alot of money.
The link is on the frontpage(tm) of Slashdot! How could it not get the crap kicked out of it???
Part of what makes the idea of a sealed box repulsive to me is I think it represents a common attitude from big software and hardware makers - that nothing of real value is ever invented outside of the California tech sector.
Such an attitude is compleatly dismissive of the Open Source software movement.
By making closed architechure the norm for home users we can shut alternative Operating Systems out of the market. I'm sure Microsoft has no motivation to act here. *cough*
If you take away the word programmable, it's just a terminal.
So in the future, you will have to go to google's cached copy of Jim Ellis. Remember not to run any binary attachments Jim may have without screening with a virus scanner.
It's Opennap and mIRC for me now.