Woolsey said Snowden, who divulged classified [information] in 2013, is partly responsible for the terrorist attack in France last week that left at least 120 dead and hundreds injured
What is his alleged basis for concluding that the information that Snowden released in 2013 had anything more to do with those attacks than any other entirely random element, such as merely the invention of the smart phone? I'd be sincerely surprised if there really was a connection, but it's nonetheless a sincere question. Is there any even hypothetical reason to sincerely suspect that the info that Snowden released actually contributed to these attacks, or are people that allege such a connection just using Snowden as a convenient scapegoat (presumably because they didn't like what Snowden did)?
the point is that those that want access to the information cannot be trusted
Agreed, but even if they *COULD* be trusted (this is a hypothetical scenario here, I know, but hear me out)... it is still a bad idea, because if they are able to read your encrypted data, then so could somebody with less noble intentions. No matter how honest or trustworthy any governing body could ever be, they cannot prevent 100% of the bad guys from getting access to the exact same encryption defeating measures that the government might intend to use, so even if you give the government every benefit of the doubt about their intentions for how they would use these powers, you still wind up with catastrophic failure when somebody outside of the government, and over whom the government may have absolutely no control, gets access to the same data, and uses their ability to decrypt it for nefarious purposes, which may cause irreparable harm to completely innocent parties.
That's *EVEN IF* the government could be trusted to not abuse the power they would have. No further investigation into how trustworthy the government may or may not actually be is necessary to show how colossally stupid and dangerous the idea is.
They appear to be under the impression that the only reason one would have something to hide is because one has done something wrong.
Of course, nearly everyone has something to hide... and it is not because there is anything necessarily wrong. Does one wear clothes in public for example? Is there something wrong with their bodies that they feel they must do this, or do they do so simply because their bodies are private? Having something that you may feel is private or even something that you might feel somewhat embarrassed by if it were to be public does not mean that anything is amiss... it means you are human.
I'm not going to argue with that one, but oxidized silver doesn't conduct anywhere nearly as well.... Gold may not be quite as good at conduction at room temperature as silver, but the other tradeoffs make gold worthwhile, even though it costs much more.
It is different in what you say and repeat here again: if I'm overqualified, that is my "problem". Not the issue of the boss giving out the job. It has nothing to do with money at all. It is a question of tasks and skills. If the tasks are super simple and my skills exceed those task why should the boss pay me more?
He shouldn't, obviously... but that's what I'm saying... if somebody is overqualified, then the employer won't generally pay what the person is qualified for. This is entirely independent of whether or not they are paying fairly for the work the employer actually want done.
You have either more quallifications or more experience than the job actually requires.
Which is different from what I said how, exactly? It is always the case that either an employer is willing to pay what your qualifications deserve or they are not. Being overqualified for a position only means that the employer isn't willing to pay you as much as your qualifications might deserve. This is not necessarily the employer always being cheap, because the job that they have available might genuinely not require the full extent of qualifications that you have, but that still always reduces to not wanting to pay what your qualifications deserve. If they *were* going to pay you what your qualifications deserved, then you wouldn't really be overqualified at all, because your qualifications would merit what they are willing to pay you.
And how is pretending to follow a religion that they don't take seriously, but the government is still willing to make exceptions for supposed to make other religions, or the exceptions that the government makes for people who *DO* sincerely follow other religions look ridiculous, exactly?
You don't raise objection to pollution by trying to cause so much pollution yourself that other people have no choice but to see it for how harmful it is.
All that is happening is people who try to take this seriously end up making themselves look like idiots, because the government continually shows itself willing to make such exceptions.
I'm not disputing that... but the entire point that Bobby Henderson made in his open letter to the Kansas State school board where he introduced the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was to present a hypothetical scenario that nobody would have ever previously taken seriously... if he had instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster suggested some other recognized religion that happens to offer a so-called explanation for the origin of mankind, they may have simply agreed with his point, and seriously suggested giving that religion equal time in the discussion of the hypothesis of intelligent design. If one takes the absurd idea that Henderson was trying to use to argue against Intelligent Design so seriously as to suggest it be treated equally to religions that people *are* apparently taking seriously, then it completely undermines the entire reason he wrote the letter.
... when someone can look at an idea whose sole purpose of existing was to illustrate how ludicrous it should be that intelligent design be taught in classrooms, and then start to actually take it seriously, like it is supposed to be a real religion.
In fact, taking the whole FSM idea seriously, and trying to espouse it as if it were a real religion completely undermines the point that Bobby Henderson was trying to make about teaching intelligent design in classrooms in the first place, using the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a vehicle to achieve his ends.
Wanting to make fun of other people's religions and laugh at them for being superstitious is one thing, and not wanting to have intelligent design taught in schools is fine, but then turning around and calling that whole idea a religion of its own that deserves to be taken seriously by society seems nothing less than self-defeating.
If anybody thinks manufacturers are going to take the intentional hard road in the design just so a tiny subset of their customers can go in and modify things, you're nuts.
Probably not manufactures in general, but is it really nuts to believe that some still might?
If they do it illegally, they will go to prison, unless other nations are willing to help Quebec separate. Such separation would be of no benefit to anyone else, so there is no reason to suppose such assistance may be forthcoming.
You are right.... ringleaders would just go to prison. This nearly happened in the 90's, when separatism reached a peak.
It is bizarre that you should think there is a greater likelihood of success that Quebec could secede from Canada illegally than through legal channels (which itself is so staggeringly unlikely to happen that I have no words at the moment to describe it).
Well yes, of course.... my point was that it was legal. You appeared to be suggesting that the whole point of secession was to get out of the constitution, and likened that to what Canada did with the UK in 1982.
Now, if Quebec goes and does something illegal and attempts to declare independent sovereignty without the other provinces approval, then for all intents and purposes, we would be talking about civil war. However, it's foregone conclusion that the separatists would lose any war they try to wage against the rest of Canada because there are simply not enough of them. There aren't even enough people in all of Quebec that actually want separation for it to succeed, how many people do you seriously think would be willing to go to war over it and possibly die, or at the very least face a mandatory life sentence in prison (the current Canadian penalty for high treason), where they would be entirely unable to enjoy the benefits of living in a free country, let alone their ideal of a separated Quebec. If anything is less likely than Quebec legally separating from Canada, that's probably a contender.
Just like Canada chose that the UK constitution stopped to apply in 1982. According to UK law, the UK parliament could still change the constitution of Canada.
Uh... no. The Canadian Constitution act of 1982 was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth herself, and as such was legally recognized by the UK.
I'm not saying Quebec could not even try to secede without unanimous agreement from other provinces. only that it cannot do so legally without such agreement, and actually attempting to do so would land the leaders of such a movement in prison, unless the separatists were literally wiling to wage war on Canada. A war they could not possibly win.
Even if Quebec actually got a majority provincial government in favour of secession, it will take much more than just a single provincial referendum for them to separate. It's a foregone conclusion that if the secession is to be legal, then *EVERY* province in Canada will have to unanimously agree to it, and even then it would probably require a 75 or 80% majority to be considered for each province. The odds of this happening of are so staggeringly unlikely, that I'd wager it is more probable we will achieve faster-than-light interstellar travel in our lifetime.
And that's not even considering that most people in Quebec don't actually want to secede in the first place.... and even so-called separatists in Quebec usually start backing down on the idea when they consider all of the additional obligations and responsibilities that would accompany it, the most prominent and obvious being that they would rightfully have to take Quebec's share of the federal debt, which a separated Quebec (which is not all of what is geographically Quebec right now, even) is unlikely to have a sufficient population to actually manage, causing the otherwise newly established nation to spiral rapidly into bankruptcy.
... is perpetuate the idea that women still need to somehow be treated differently than men, which is wholly counter-productive to the genuinely respectable goal of gender equality.
If we want women to be treated as equals in society then people had bloody well better just start treating them as equals... That means that we need to stop fucking focusing on things like disparity in genders in particular fields where there is no technical reason that such disparity should exist. If it does still exist when society is simply treating men and women the same anyways, then who the fuck cares? Stop worrying about stuff that shouldn't matter in the first place and just treat every human being you encounter with the dignity and respect they deserve. Nobody can ask for more than that.
The iPhone can be set to erase all data after ten failed attempts. Since it can't be attacked in an offline mode, that means that the attackers have a one in a thousand chance of guessing correctly, given a random four-digit passcode. That's pretty good odds.
If they have the physical phone, you're screwed. They could make a virtual duplicate of it, and attempt to find the password inside of the VM
Slashdot Mirror
What is his alleged basis for concluding that the information that Snowden released in 2013 had anything more to do with those attacks than any other entirely random element, such as merely the invention of the smart phone? I'd be sincerely surprised if there really was a connection, but it's nonetheless a sincere question. Is there any even hypothetical reason to sincerely suspect that the info that Snowden released actually contributed to these attacks, or are people that allege such a connection just using Snowden as a convenient scapegoat (presumably because they didn't like what Snowden did)?
There are some horrors which, once seen, cannot be erased from your brain. Trust me, you do not want me to go first... or ever, for that matter.
Agreed, but even if they *COULD* be trusted (this is a hypothetical scenario here, I know, but hear me out)... it is still a bad idea, because if they are able to read your encrypted data, then so could somebody with less noble intentions. No matter how honest or trustworthy any governing body could ever be, they cannot prevent 100% of the bad guys from getting access to the exact same encryption defeating measures that the government might intend to use, so even if you give the government every benefit of the doubt about their intentions for how they would use these powers, you still wind up with catastrophic failure when somebody outside of the government, and over whom the government may have absolutely no control, gets access to the same data, and uses their ability to decrypt it for nefarious purposes, which may cause irreparable harm to completely innocent parties.
That's *EVEN IF* the government could be trusted to not abuse the power they would have. No further investigation into how trustworthy the government may or may not actually be is necessary to show how colossally stupid and dangerous the idea is.
They appear to be under the impression that the only reason one would have something to hide is because one has done something wrong.
Of course, nearly everyone has something to hide... and it is not because there is anything necessarily wrong. Does one wear clothes in public for example? Is there something wrong with their bodies that they feel they must do this, or do they do so simply because their bodies are private? Having something that you may feel is private or even something that you might feel somewhat embarrassed by if it were to be public does not mean that anything is amiss... it means you are human.
Thirdly, what serious developer is still using fewer than 16gigabytes of RAM as we approach the end of 2015? (insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here).
I'm not going to argue with that one, but oxidized silver doesn't conduct anywhere nearly as well.... Gold may not be quite as good at conduction at room temperature as silver, but the other tradeoffs make gold worthwhile, even though it costs much more.
Silver oxidizes far more easily than Gold does. It also isn't anywhere nearly as ductile.
He shouldn't, obviously... but that's what I'm saying... if somebody is overqualified, then the employer won't generally pay what the person is qualified for. This is entirely independent of whether or not they are paying fairly for the work the employer actually want done.
Which is different from what I said how, exactly? It is always the case that either an employer is willing to pay what your qualifications deserve or they are not. Being overqualified for a position only means that the employer isn't willing to pay you as much as your qualifications might deserve. This is not necessarily the employer always being cheap, because the job that they have available might genuinely not require the full extent of qualifications that you have, but that still always reduces to not wanting to pay what your qualifications deserve. If they *were* going to pay you what your qualifications deserved, then you wouldn't really be overqualified at all, because your qualifications would merit what they are willing to pay you.
And how is pretending to follow a religion that they don't take seriously, but the government is still willing to make exceptions for supposed to make other religions, or the exceptions that the government makes for people who *DO* sincerely follow other religions look ridiculous, exactly?
No.
Overqualified typically means ones technical training and qualifications would rightfully be deserving of higher pay than the employer wants to spend.
You don't raise objection to pollution by trying to cause so much pollution yourself that other people have no choice but to see it for how harmful it is.
Except, as you can see... it's not working.
All that is happening is people who try to take this seriously end up making themselves look like idiots, because the government continually shows itself willing to make such exceptions.
I'm not disputing that... but the entire point that Bobby Henderson made in his open letter to the Kansas State school board where he introduced the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was to present a hypothetical scenario that nobody would have ever previously taken seriously... if he had instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster suggested some other recognized religion that happens to offer a so-called explanation for the origin of mankind, they may have simply agreed with his point, and seriously suggested giving that religion equal time in the discussion of the hypothesis of intelligent design. If one takes the absurd idea that Henderson was trying to use to argue against Intelligent Design so seriously as to suggest it be treated equally to religions that people *are* apparently taking seriously, then it completely undermines the entire reason he wrote the letter.
In fact, taking the whole FSM idea seriously, and trying to espouse it as if it were a real religion completely undermines the point that Bobby Henderson was trying to make about teaching intelligent design in classrooms in the first place, using the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a vehicle to achieve his ends.
Wanting to make fun of other people's religions and laugh at them for being superstitious is one thing, and not wanting to have intelligent design taught in schools is fine, but then turning around and calling that whole idea a religion of its own that deserves to be taken seriously by society seems nothing less than self-defeating.
Probably not manufactures in general, but is it really nuts to believe that some still might?
If they do it illegally, they will go to prison, unless other nations are willing to help Quebec separate. Such separation would be of no benefit to anyone else, so there is no reason to suppose such assistance may be forthcoming.
You are right.... ringleaders would just go to prison. This nearly happened in the 90's, when separatism reached a peak.
It is bizarre that you should think there is a greater likelihood of success that Quebec could secede from Canada illegally than through legal channels (which itself is so staggeringly unlikely to happen that I have no words at the moment to describe it).
Well yes, of course.... my point was that it was legal. You appeared to be suggesting that the whole point of secession was to get out of the constitution, and likened that to what Canada did with the UK in 1982.
Now, if Quebec goes and does something illegal and attempts to declare independent sovereignty without the other provinces approval, then for all intents and purposes, we would be talking about civil war. However, it's foregone conclusion that the separatists would lose any war they try to wage against the rest of Canada because there are simply not enough of them. There aren't even enough people in all of Quebec that actually want separation for it to succeed, how many people do you seriously think would be willing to go to war over it and possibly die, or at the very least face a mandatory life sentence in prison (the current Canadian penalty for high treason), where they would be entirely unable to enjoy the benefits of living in a free country, let alone their ideal of a separated Quebec. If anything is less likely than Quebec legally separating from Canada, that's probably a contender.
Uh... no. The Canadian Constitution act of 1982 was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth herself, and as such was legally recognized by the UK.
Perhaps you failed to notice my caveat...
I'm not saying Quebec could not even try to secede without unanimous agreement from other provinces. only that it cannot do so legally without such agreement, and actually attempting to do so would land the leaders of such a movement in prison, unless the separatists were literally wiling to wage war on Canada. A war they could not possibly win.
Which, by the way, still would not be legal.
And that's not even considering that most people in Quebec don't actually want to secede in the first place.... and even so-called separatists in Quebec usually start backing down on the idea when they consider all of the additional obligations and responsibilities that would accompany it, the most prominent and obvious being that they would rightfully have to take Quebec's share of the federal debt, which a separated Quebec (which is not all of what is geographically Quebec right now, even) is unlikely to have a sufficient population to actually manage, causing the otherwise newly established nation to spiral rapidly into bankruptcy.
If we want women to be treated as equals in society then people had bloody well better just start treating them as equals... That means that we need to stop fucking focusing on things like disparity in genders in particular fields where there is no technical reason that such disparity should exist. If it does still exist when society is simply treating men and women the same anyways, then who the fuck cares? Stop worrying about stuff that shouldn't matter in the first place and just treat every human being you encounter with the dignity and respect they deserve. Nobody can ask for more than that.
If they have the physical phone, you're screwed. They could make a virtual duplicate of it, and attempt to find the password inside of the VM
I think we can probably agree that having physical access to where important data is stored trumps root.