The First Amendment does not apply to classified information, and for good reason.
It absolutely does! The United States lacks a counterpart to the UK's Official Secrets Act, and what little we used to have in that direction was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Now binding yourself contractually not to reveal some things in agreement for being shown them is another question...
According to Mark Theissen in his book (not linking to it because I have no interest in shilling for a Bush administration official), there were a number of specific attacks that he lists that were averted because of information attained through waterboarding. He doesn't make the claim that the information might not have been attained through other means, but rather that it yielded the desired result, which would counter the GP's assertion.
I'm not going to vouch for this guy's credibility or anything, given the toxicity of the politics on this issue, but it's a starting point for finding out more and drawing your own conclusions.
I'm a little confused by how your post deserves mod points. You make a perfectly fair point, but you're contradicting the GP without actually refuting any of his points, which appear on their face to be legitimate differences (*other* than tax status) between most religions and most cults.
Care to comment on what you think the GP got wrong?
Ironically Slashdot demonstrated this for me when I tried to pull up their front page before coming into this story. I'm on a pretty snappy connection, and Slashdot is no slouch, but because my browser was waiting on ad.doubleclick.com I was stuck looking at the top banner and that was pretty much it.
If you have js code that loads ads it *must* come at the end of the page. I try to be good about keeping adblock off, but incidents of these things lead me to blocking a domain's ads.
If the vast majority of medical experts told you that you had a disease that was curable but only if you acted quickly wouldn't you do so?
Suppose one believes the full corpus of scientific literature on AGW. What do you do next? The IPCC report says that trends don't predict an extinction level event, but *do* constitute a certain amount of cost to global society. Do we have a model that says if we put Treaty X into effect as soon as possible we avert all that cost? Well how much of it CAN we avert? And how much does that affect the world around us? Will China comply? Do we lose even more of our manufacturing industry? Does it bite into GDP? Jobs?
It's not as black and white as "slam on the brakes". There's real costs and potentially real benefits that have to be weighed, and I don't see literature that realistically shows either is higher than the other (though I'm willing to be pointed to sources).
It works fine for any player that breaks CSS, like VLC. But for a licensed player you need the disc keys, which don't get ripped by dd. So burning to a DVD-R becomes a little pointless unless you decrypt it first.
As I understand it, there's a part of the disc that drives don't present with standard block-device access commands. A licensed program handshakes directly with the device to receive the keys stored in that area.
He's saying the conclusions follow logically from the data presented. That's worth something. If the data's bad, the conclusion's bad, GIGO.
The bit on timestamps just means "even if most of the data is bad, this component of the data is sufficient to support an important subset of the conclusions".
GP is humorous to parse, but it eventually *does* make sense.
What, who said that? That's silly. Not every file needs to have a Turing Complete set of expressiveness, in fact it's better when they don't. The less scope a document covers, the easier it is for code to interpret it. I'll match you with another quote: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." - A. Einstein.
Unless you have a program like mplayer or vlc you can't guarantee that a Matroska file is going to be playable on your system
I see the problem, but consider that it's also sort of a feature: your video player knows that it's a Matroska file, so it can determine the codec and tell you what you need to download, or autodownload it, so you can continue to use the same video player for a variety of types of Matroska files.
In terms of standardizing, there's no need to support all possible codecs, an HTML5 spec could in theory say "browsers must support Matroska+h264 and Matroska+theora files".
Automatic transmissions make people stupid. They train people on the idea that "gas means go" and "brake means stop" without giving them the tools (mental and mechanical) to deal with exceptional situations.
.And the only reason I can think of why someone would want the date sync'd or the game made non-working due to changed system date was because of some form of DRM.
You assume that the bug is related to a mechanism that stops you from playing a game, but it could be a hangup or a crash or weird behavior, which other posters ARE reporting. The leap to assuming DRM is related is premature (though not ruled out).
Except that over the time period since we've adopted automatic copyright, people have grown used to the right to not have their vacation pictures used by a corporate advertising department that sees them on Flickr. There's a lot of non-commercial works out there, ones that people would (rightly or wrongly) be upset to see misappropriated.
How about a 5-year grace period before requiring registration?
It's a shame there's not a better way to separate out the homebrew and piracy.
There is a way, it's what the PS3 did: provide limited access to the hardware out of the box. This way, Linux tinkerers and emulator/homebrew players get (mostly) what they want, and pirates get nothing. Surprise surprise, the one system that followed this approach is still unhacked because not nearly as many intelligent people have had the motivation to hack it.
The summary does a bad job of describing that this is part of the licensing terms for AACS output devices, i.e. Blu-ray players (worldwide). This does nothing to change what inputs/outputs will be available on TVs or DVD players, even from the same manufacturers.
From TFA:
2.2.2.1 Analog Sunset – 2010. With the exception of Existing Models, any Licensed Player manufactured after December 31, 2010 shall limit analog video outputs for Decrypted AACS Content to SD Interlace Modes [composite video, s-video, 480i component video and 576i video] only.
Sure I can be an armchair quarterback lawyer as well as anybody, But if my interpretations are more in line with the court than the guy who can say IAAL - despite following up with "but this is not legal advice" - then usually something is not right.
I think this is the crux of a lot of our frustration. There's what the law says on paper, and there's the history and the context of the legal system that we on Slashdot really don't know much about. It would be especially convenient to hear from the IAALs around here that, although a particular motion is *technically* strong, it relies on sets of principles that are unusual to encounter in the modern day, or buck against the typical logic a judge is used to having to apply.
Otherwise, we hear "the law clearly says this" and judge rules otherwise. In such a case, how are we supposed to come away with anything other than deepened cynicism?
Considering that the Firefox download itself isn't SSLed, what's to stop China from MITM'ing from the Great Firewall and replacing the *default* install with their own.
You're making the assumption that insurance isn't a competitive market (which is true sometimes but not generally). People view price and service as features when deciding on a policy. If one company can offer a lower price but a reputation for just as good service, they'll make more sales. And an insurance company is more able to undercut another when their costs are lower. Remember you're trying to maximize profit*sales, not just profit.
It takes an extraordinary person, one having both breadth and depth of experience as well as innate clarity of thought, to design even a moderately large system that's simple and sufficient, modular and extensible. Such people aren't to be found in anyone's junior staff. They don't have the experience.
Agreed in entirety! But design and architecture are one of the options I think of when I hear "beyond programming". I don't want the smart people languishing as code monkeys forever, their insights are lost there to all but themselves.
All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful
It's not a question of code being run, it's a question of attack surface. A properly-designed document format that does few things can be interpreted by simpler code, and thus is less likely to be exploitable for attacks. PDFs should be proof of this rule by now, given how much of a monstrosity both the spec and Adobe reader are at this point. See also javascript vulnerabilities in browsers.
You raise a good point, people *should* only be taxed on profits. But the current system for individual incomes is not entirely dissimilar in result, and it's a heck of a lot simpler. The income tax rate is a function of how much you make, and there's deductions for a few large ticket items (mortgage payments, children) in addition to catch-all "standard deduction" and the option of just itemizing everything. I think this system is vastly preferable to requiring a nation to keep their receipts for all their cost-of-living purchases.
It doesn't matter if the earth's climate is changing because of man or not.
Nonsense. It matters because it also affects how much a REDUCTION in man-made CO2 levels will affect the climate. The golden question that nobody is asking is "How much will the effects of reductions in man-made CO2 emissions be worth to us?", which requires the answers to both "How much will man-made CO2 reductions affect the climate?" AND "How much is reducing changes to the climate worth to us?" Until you can answer both, you won't know whether the benefit is greater than the cost. And since the policy choices on the table involve the US bearing a disproportionate amount of the global cost, it's downright game-theoretically stupid to do it unless we have to.
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about prior restraint. The Supreme Court has had a fairly consistent view against it, even specifically regarding claims of "national security".
The First Amendment does not apply to classified information, and for good reason.
It absolutely does! The United States lacks a counterpart to the UK's Official Secrets Act, and what little we used to have in that direction was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Now binding yourself contractually not to reveal some things in agreement for being shown them is another question...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_secrets_act#Official_Secrets_Acts_in_other_countries
According to Mark Theissen in his book (not linking to it because I have no interest in shilling for a Bush administration official), there were a number of specific attacks that he lists that were averted because of information attained through waterboarding. He doesn't make the claim that the information might not have been attained through other means, but rather that it yielded the desired result, which would counter the GP's assertion.
I'm not going to vouch for this guy's credibility or anything, given the toxicity of the politics on this issue, but it's a starting point for finding out more and drawing your own conclusions.
I'm a little confused by how your post deserves mod points. You make a perfectly fair point, but you're contradicting the GP without actually refuting any of his points, which appear on their face to be legitimate differences (*other* than tax status) between most religions and most cults.
Care to comment on what you think the GP got wrong?
Ironically Slashdot demonstrated this for me when I tried to pull up their front page before coming into this story. I'm on a pretty snappy connection, and Slashdot is no slouch, but because my browser was waiting on ad.doubleclick.com I was stuck looking at the top banner and that was pretty much it.
If you have js code that loads ads it *must* come at the end of the page. I try to be good about keeping adblock off, but incidents of these things lead me to blocking a domain's ads.
If the vast majority of medical experts told you that you had a disease that was curable but only if you acted quickly wouldn't you do so?
Suppose one believes the full corpus of scientific literature on AGW. What do you do next? The IPCC report says that trends don't predict an extinction level event, but *do* constitute a certain amount of cost to global society. Do we have a model that says if we put Treaty X into effect as soon as possible we avert all that cost? Well how much of it CAN we avert? And how much does that affect the world around us? Will China comply? Do we lose even more of our manufacturing industry? Does it bite into GDP? Jobs?
It's not as black and white as "slam on the brakes". There's real costs and potentially real benefits that have to be weighed, and I don't see literature that realistically shows either is higher than the other (though I'm willing to be pointed to sources).
It works fine for any player that breaks CSS, like VLC. But for a licensed player you need the disc keys, which don't get ripped by dd. So burning to a DVD-R becomes a little pointless unless you decrypt it first.
As I understand it, there's a part of the disc that drives don't present with standard block-device access commands. A licensed program handshakes directly with the device to receive the keys stored in that area.
He's saying the conclusions follow logically from the data presented. That's worth something. If the data's bad, the conclusion's bad, GIGO.
The bit on timestamps just means "even if most of the data is bad, this component of the data is sufficient to support an important subset of the conclusions".
GP is humorous to parse, but it eventually *does* make sense.
What, who said that? That's silly. Not every file needs to have a Turing Complete set of expressiveness, in fact it's better when they don't. The less scope a document covers, the easier it is for code to interpret it. I'll match you with another quote: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." - A. Einstein.
Unless you have a program like mplayer or vlc you can't guarantee that a Matroska file is going to be playable on your system
I see the problem, but consider that it's also sort of a feature: your video player knows that it's a Matroska file, so it can determine the codec and tell you what you need to download, or autodownload it, so you can continue to use the same video player for a variety of types of Matroska files.
In terms of standardizing, there's no need to support all possible codecs, an HTML5 spec could in theory say "browsers must support Matroska+h264 and Matroska+theora files".
Automatic transmissions make people stupid. They train people on the idea that "gas means go" and "brake means stop" without giving them the tools (mental and mechanical) to deal with exceptional situations.
It's a reasonable statement on its face, yes, but you don't judge scientific works by their conclusions.
.And the only reason I can think of why someone would want the date sync'd or the game made non-working due to changed system date was because of some form of DRM.
You assume that the bug is related to a mechanism that stops you from playing a game, but it could be a hangup or a crash or weird behavior, which other posters ARE reporting. The leap to assuming DRM is related is premature (though not ruled out).
Except that over the time period since we've adopted automatic copyright, people have grown used to the right to not have their vacation pictures used by a corporate advertising department that sees them on Flickr. There's a lot of non-commercial works out there, ones that people would (rightly or wrongly) be upset to see misappropriated.
How about a 5-year grace period before requiring registration?
It's a shame there's not a better way to separate out the homebrew and piracy.
There is a way, it's what the PS3 did: provide limited access to the hardware out of the box. This way, Linux tinkerers and emulator/homebrew players get (mostly) what they want, and pirates get nothing. Surprise surprise, the one system that followed this approach is still unhacked because not nearly as many intelligent people have had the motivation to hack it.
From TFA:
2.2.2.1 Analog Sunset – 2010. With the exception of Existing Models, any Licensed Player manufactured after December 31, 2010 shall limit analog video outputs for Decrypted AACS Content to SD Interlace Modes [composite video, s-video, 480i component video and 576i video] only.
Sure I can be an armchair quarterback lawyer as well as anybody, But if my interpretations are more in line with the court than the guy who can say IAAL - despite following up with "but this is not legal advice" - then usually something is not right.
I think this is the crux of a lot of our frustration. There's what the law says on paper, and there's the history and the context of the legal system that we on Slashdot really don't know much about. It would be especially convenient to hear from the IAALs around here that, although a particular motion is *technically* strong, it relies on sets of principles that are unusual to encounter in the modern day, or buck against the typical logic a judge is used to having to apply.
Otherwise, we hear "the law clearly says this" and judge rules otherwise. In such a case, how are we supposed to come away with anything other than deepened cynicism?
Plenty, but I know what you meant, 95% is even better! Sort of how Honda and Ferrari are both profitable, but I'd much rather own Honda.
Considering that the Firefox download itself isn't SSLed, what's to stop China from MITM'ing from the Great Firewall and replacing the *default* install with their own.
You're making the assumption that insurance isn't a competitive market (which is true sometimes but not generally). People view price and service as features when deciding on a policy. If one company can offer a lower price but a reputation for just as good service, they'll make more sales. And an insurance company is more able to undercut another when their costs are lower. Remember you're trying to maximize profit*sales, not just profit.
It takes an extraordinary person, one having both breadth and depth of experience as well as innate clarity of thought, to design even a moderately large system that's simple and sufficient, modular and extensible. Such people aren't to be found in anyone's junior staff. They don't have the experience.
Agreed in entirety! But design and architecture are one of the options I think of when I hear "beyond programming". I don't want the smart people languishing as code monkeys forever, their insights are lost there to all but themselves.
All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful
It's not a question of code being run, it's a question of attack surface. A properly-designed document format that does few things can be interpreted by simpler code, and thus is less likely to be exploitable for attacks. PDFs should be proof of this rule by now, given how much of a monstrosity both the spec and Adobe reader are at this point. See also javascript vulnerabilities in browsers.
You raise a good point, people *should* only be taxed on profits. But the current system for individual incomes is not entirely dissimilar in result, and it's a heck of a lot simpler. The income tax rate is a function of how much you make, and there's deductions for a few large ticket items (mortgage payments, children) in addition to catch-all "standard deduction" and the option of just itemizing everything. I think this system is vastly preferable to requiring a nation to keep their receipts for all their cost-of-living purchases.
It doesn't matter if the earth's climate is changing because of man or not.
Nonsense. It matters because it also affects how much a REDUCTION in man-made CO2 levels will affect the climate. The golden question that nobody is asking is "How much will the effects of reductions in man-made CO2 emissions be worth to us?", which requires the answers to both "How much will man-made CO2 reductions affect the climate?" AND "How much is reducing changes to the climate worth to us?" Until you can answer both, you won't know whether the benefit is greater than the cost. And since the policy choices on the table involve the US bearing a disproportionate amount of the global cost, it's downright game-theoretically stupid to do it unless we have to.