Sorry -- the whole socialization issue is really just a smoke-screen that people like to throw up when they can't come up with a better reason to keep kids away from all the bad influences in public schools. I don't want my children socialized in a state-run breeding ground for liberalism, and I don't think I'm the only one. That doesn't mean that my kids (when I have them) will ever be "locked in a closet," or kept from having friends, participating in activities outside the home, etc. There are many activities availble to a parent who home schools -- in fact, most areas now have groups where people organize soccer teams, track teams, chess clubs, etc, of home schooled children.
There may be people who isolate their children, but that's the exception, not the norm. I was home-schooled, and I learned to interact with people just fine. I started college when I was 13, and I fit in with the freshman without any problems. In fact, they would frequently come to me for help with the math and computer programming stuff that they couldn't do. They didn't have the critical thinking skills to handle complicated problems, I did. As a result, I got along with just about everyone. Had I gone to a public school, or to a high-school, I would have probably been ostracized for being a geek, but I managed to completely avoid having to deal with it by bypassing the immature high-school crowd. And if you want proof that I can "socialize" and deal with people, I've been a supervisor in the Navy for the last 5 years, and I've always received outstanding marks for leadership and teamwork -- even from some of the most difficult people I've ever had to work for.
On the minus side, home-schooling isn't perfect. I am currently trying to get admitted to a College in the Hampton Roads area, and found out that they will not accept me. Even though I have 117 credit hours (transferable -- I've got more than that), most of it on the dean's list -- they will not accept me into their undergraduate program because I do not have a high-school diploma from a "state accredited" school. It's a slap in the face to the whole home-school movement, and an insult to me and my education, but I have no choice but to go out and take the GED so I can get my Bachelor's degree.
Without a well defined entity to declare war upon, there should be no war declared. War is a drastic and extreme measure to be reserved for a threat to our nation's sovereign existance.
Good point -- but I have to disagree in this instance. I think the reason that we didn't declare war on the country of Afghanistan is primarily that we didn't have any beef with the regular people there. Their government had been taken over by terrorists, and I think we did the right thing by singling out terrorism as the target of our military actions instead of saying we were declaring war on a specific country. I know it's a semantic difference, but I think it's an important one in this case. We had no intention of taking over their country -- simply overthrowing a regime that was owned and controlled by a known terrorist.
You are correct, however that terrorism is poorly defined. I would not be surprised if congress moves at some time in the near future to correct this, as we have a de-facto declaration of war against a non-entity right now.
Not quite correct... I run SOFII (using Winex), Quake III (native binaries courtesy of Loki, I think), Unreal Tournament(same), and several others... Go to transgaming.com for a complete list -- it's already quite long and growing all the time.
Winex is a GREAT project -- it's not perfect yet, but they've really done a good job. And you just can't beat 15 bucks to go windows free!
I haven't booted into windows in so long I'm probably going to delete my windows partition -- I've just got to make sure UT 2003 is supported under Winex...:)
So does Cox.net... Not that I particularly care, I listen to DigitallyImported... But it sets a bad precedent, silently redirecting web sites is kind of like sticking someone in prison incommunicado so no one can hear what they have to say...
I don't agree with the patriot act either. It was an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to a horrible situation. Unfortunately, that's how people are -- politicians have to stroke the "sheep" to ensure that they keep getting re-elected. I suspect that many of the politicians don't agree with the bill -- they simply don't have the moral integrity to stand up to their collegues. If you don't like it, vote them out -- and make sure they know why they won't be getting your vote in November.
I just don't agree with the whole comparing our president to hitler -- at least if we don't like our elected officials we have some recourse provided by our Constitution. I don't think the germans had much of a chance once hitler took power.
Good point -- maybe it is wrong. The question is: Who determines if it's wrong? By whose standards is it wrong? We can disagree with our elected officials all we want -- sometimes we need to step back and look at things from their perspective.
There has to be a balance between liberty and safety -- I don't want to live in a society where anyone can do anything they want. Anarchy never works because people aren't basically good.
And just so you know, I don't consider our current system infallible. I have some measure of faith in the people we elected -- if I didn't, it would be time for me to find a new country to live in, and as "bad" as people may think the US is, I really don't think there's anywhere else you can have the freedoms we have here.
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- if you don't like the people in office, vote them out. It's not impossible, although it may be difficult in some cases, but it's at least worth a shot. That's the beauty of this country -- everyone has at least some say in government. I know it's not perfect, but at least give it a shot.
Guys -- I think they finally bit off more than they can chew. If anyone can buy the justice system in the US it's AT&T and Sprint...
Seriously, though -- there's no way this will work in their favor. I'm sure AT&T and Sprint's lawyers are salivating over the fees they're going to earn beating ??AA back and forth around the legal system until they beg and scream for mercy. And the bad guys started it!
I don't agree with copying music without compensating the artist (note I didn't say record company) in some way, but this is like trying to hold the phone company responsible if someone phones a bomb threat in to a school. It's ludicrous.
I find it just plain wrong. Point by point rebuttal follows:
Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit (cocaine).
Allegedly is a key word here -- I'm glad you added it.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.
You call the Supreme Court of the United States, the final authority on law and order in this country "irregular means?" When something is as close as the election in Florida was, there's not much choice but to get the Supreme Court involved. Do you have a better solution? They made the right call, and many "recounts" since bear that fact out, whether you like the results of it or not.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
So what?
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
I suspect the NSA and CIA knew who did it within minutes - it wasn't a hard call. They had all the information, and when you know what you're looking for, it's very easy to find it. Their only failing was in not processing all that information prior to September 11th.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
No - looking for terrorists does not, in my book, qualify as a witch hunt.
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
So did Abraham Lincoln and others. What's your point? It may not have always been the best thing to do -- but it is a power the executive branch has in war time. I know we don't have a "declared" war -- that's only because there's not a well defined entity to declare war on.
Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
We've been under surveillance for the last 60 years. The NSA was formed in the forties - you really think they've never spied on anyone before? Now you hear about it more - that's the only difference.
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
Sure... Right... The Illuminati are really in power in the US, right?
Both created a new agency for domestic security - one for the Fatherland and the other for the Homeland.
So?
Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html
You probably have a problem with Neighborhood Watch too, right?
Both launched wars against most of the world. One had a funny mustache. Can you
name the other one?
Umm... Had to think about this for a bit - Does the Taliban rule "most of the world?" Maybe I missed a late breaking news flash or something....
I gather you must be talking about our President by the election bit, but I think you may want to check your facts -- they don't really jive.
I agree with you -- it certainly doesn't meet most definitions of "hacking." However -- and here's the rub -- it is unauthorized access to someone else's computer system. That's illegal in most states that I know of. I know at my college the login screen has a large print, red font statement that basically says if you aren't the person you're logging in as you're breaking the law and will be prosecuted.
umm.... no. That had nothing to do with why God was angry with David. God was angry with David because of David's pride -- his census was a public display of pride, which God hates. The people's privacy had nothing to do with it.
To deal with your other statements -- just because I have a SSN and a credit card doesn't mean the government can track all my purchases. Ever heard of cash? If you really don't want someone to know what you're buying, just use cash. Just because I have a driver's license doesn't mean the government is tracking me everywhere I go. Whatever you say, we still have many freedoms that no other country in the world has.
My point was responsibility. The law is not necessarily the only definition of responsibility -- so, yes, it's very possible they're acting like decent, responsible human beings.
If you own a gun shop, you don't have to ask why the person wants to buy a gun. (You have to do a background check, but that's the limit of your responsibility.) If you rent cars, you don't have to make sure your car isn't used to violate traffic laws.
not quite true. The law may not require you to ask them why they want to buy a gun, but if you sell them a gun that they re-sell to a minor or commit a crime with, you can be held responsible. I know the shop I go to is very strict -- if they even suspect someone may be buying a weapon for an illegal purpose, they refuse to sell to them.
The point isn't whether or not you're sure the machines work fine. The public paid money for the devices -- the public should be able to find out how they work.
Any time something like this happens, it only increases mistrust of the government -- whether it's justified or not. Public officials shouldn't be able to sign NDA's for something like this -- a device like this needs to have open standards and peer review of their methods, otherwise they will always be open to the charge that they're being paid off to deliver votes to one candidate or another.
Our rights and freedoms are NOT granted to us by the state. The bill of rights is not the state granting anyone anything. It's what our forefathers decided were God-given, or natural (if you don't believe in God -- they did) rights and freedoms. Meaning that they transcend the state -- what the state does not give, the state cannot take away. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.
Now, you're correct that you can't trespass -- that's because the exercise of my "freedom to move" can't infringe on your right to control your own personal property. Many people misunderstand freedom in this way, and feel that freedom is the ability to do anything they feel like. It's not -- in fact I believe the Supreme Court has even ruled in some cases (like shouting fire in a crowded theatre) that some freedoms can be restricted by the state because it's in the greater interest of the common good for there to be laws "restricting" some freedoms.
They're not exaggerating. Watermarking can survive printing and scanning in addition to many manipulations. I know I tried it once just to see -- it's a weird feeling to put a watermark in something, save it as a jpeg, print it out, wrinkle up the paper, recan it, and still be able to get the watermark out of it. I don't know about steganography, but if the process is similar your information should survive.
You missed one -- if they offer Pre-calculus, take it before you take calculus. It will save you a LOT of headaches. Basically, algebra will not prepare you for calculus -- you need a much stronger foundation is trig to understand the concepts in calculus.
You're probably right. He probably didn't mean what he said to refer to me. But it's a slap in the face of every person in military service to suggest that burning a flag is a patriotic statement. What I do is a patriotic statement -- if you want to make a statement, serve your country in some way, don't try to piss off the people who guarantee your freedoms by burning their flag.
You know, maybe you should consider who you lump into that group.
I serve proudly in the US military. Almost every man in my entire extended family has served in the military, in just about every military action since WW1 (except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years). That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776. When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.
Fuckers like you piss me off. You have no comprehension of what freedom means. Yeah, you're free to burn an american flag -- but only because people like me are willing to die to protect that freedom. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Maybe just a bit insulting to us?
When you burn our flag, you revile the very "freedom" that you profess to value so highly.
If you want to understand what freedom is, volunteer. Help someone else. Make your pitiful existence useful for a change.
I'll end this with a quote from Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That's my motto, but it still pisses me off to hear fuckers like you spout.
Think again... Even if you overwrite it, someone with the right equipment (electron scanning microscope, etc) can still get it back.
DOD standards require overwriting once with a fixed character, then that character's complement, then with another random character. There's a very good reason for that.
Technically feasible is a stretch -- But you're probably correct in your insight into what they want to do. Unfortunately for them, I think before that happens there will be a consumer revolt. I guess I can hope, anyway.
What you don't get is that everybody gets that source. Including every single programmer in the world who wants to download it. Have you heard of Open-BSD by any chance? The most secure(modern) OS available right now -- I don't think there's been a remote root exploit. Why? Well, partly because that's what the lead developers obsess about. But there's also the fact that it's reviewed by a lot of people. The more people who get the code, the more likely it is to be secure. Pretty much the only people who debate that point are either MS, or MS funded.
My point was that closed source is usually less secure -- not more, and open source is usually more secure. The whole security-through-obscurity debate has been had many times here, and you're just spouting all the old arguments that have been debunked way too many times to make it worth my time to do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
There may be people who isolate their children, but that's the exception, not the norm. I was home-schooled, and I learned to interact with people just fine. I started college when I was 13, and I fit in with the freshman without any problems. In fact, they would frequently come to me for help with the math and computer programming stuff that they couldn't do. They didn't have the critical thinking skills to handle complicated problems, I did. As a result, I got along with just about everyone. Had I gone to a public school, or to a high-school, I would have probably been ostracized for being a geek, but I managed to completely avoid having to deal with it by bypassing the immature high-school crowd. And if you want proof that I can "socialize" and deal with people, I've been a supervisor in the Navy for the last 5 years, and I've always received outstanding marks for leadership and teamwork -- even from some of the most difficult people I've ever had to work for.
On the minus side, home-schooling isn't perfect. I am currently trying to get admitted to a College in the Hampton Roads area, and found out that they will not accept me. Even though I have 117 credit hours (transferable -- I've got more than that), most of it on the dean's list -- they will not accept me into their undergraduate program because I do not have a high-school diploma from a "state accredited" school. It's a slap in the face to the whole home-school movement, and an insult to me and my education, but I have no choice but to go out and take the GED so I can get my Bachelor's degree.
Good point -- but I have to disagree in this instance. I think the reason that we didn't declare war on the country of Afghanistan is primarily that we didn't have any beef with the regular people there. Their government had been taken over by terrorists, and I think we did the right thing by singling out terrorism as the target of our military actions instead of saying we were declaring war on a specific country. I know it's a semantic difference, but I think it's an important one in this case. We had no intention of taking over their country -- simply overthrowing a regime that was owned and controlled by a known terrorist.
You are correct, however that terrorism is poorly defined. I would not be surprised if congress moves at some time in the near future to correct this, as we have a de-facto declaration of war against a non-entity right now.
Winex is a GREAT project -- it's not perfect yet, but they've really done a good job. And you just can't beat 15 bucks to go windows free!
I haven't booted into windows in so long I'm probably going to delete my windows partition -- I've just got to make sure UT 2003 is supported under Winex... :)
You're right -- I just wanted to get it out there and make my main points quickly... I think I accomplished that.
So does Cox.net... Not that I particularly care, I listen to DigitallyImported... But it sets a bad precedent, silently redirecting web sites is kind of like sticking someone in prison incommunicado so no one can hear what they have to say...
I just don't agree with the whole comparing our president to hitler -- at least if we don't like our elected officials we have some recourse provided by our Constitution. I don't think the germans had much of a chance once hitler took power.
There has to be a balance between liberty and safety -- I don't want to live in a society where anyone can do anything they want. Anarchy never works because people aren't basically good.
And just so you know, I don't consider our current system infallible. I have some measure of faith in the people we elected -- if I didn't, it would be time for me to find a new country to live in, and as "bad" as people may think the US is, I really don't think there's anywhere else you can have the freedoms we have here.
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- if you don't like the people in office, vote them out. It's not impossible, although it may be difficult in some cases, but it's at least worth a shot. That's the beauty of this country -- everyone has at least some say in government. I know it's not perfect, but at least give it a shot.
Seriously, though -- there's no way this will work in their favor. I'm sure AT&T and Sprint's lawyers are salivating over the fees they're going to earn beating ??AA back and forth around the legal system until they beg and scream for mercy. And the bad guys started it!
I don't agree with copying music without compensating the artist (note I didn't say record company) in some way, but this is like trying to hold the phone company responsible if someone phones a bomb threat in to a school. It's ludicrous.
Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit (cocaine).
Allegedly is a key word here -- I'm glad you added it.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.
You call the Supreme Court of the United States, the final authority on law and order in this country "irregular means?" When something is as close as the election in Florida was, there's not much choice but to get the Supreme Court involved. Do you have a better solution? They made the right call, and many "recounts" since bear that fact out, whether you like the results of it or not.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
So what?
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
I suspect the NSA and CIA knew who did it within minutes - it wasn't a hard call. They had all the information, and when you know what you're looking for, it's very easy to find it. Their only failing was in not processing all that information prior to September 11th.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
No - looking for terrorists does not, in my book, qualify as a witch hunt.
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
So did Abraham Lincoln and others. What's your point? It may not have always been the best thing to do -- but it is a power the executive branch has in war time. I know we don't have a "declared" war -- that's only because there's not a well defined entity to declare war on.
Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
We've been under surveillance for the last 60 years. The NSA was formed in the forties - you really think they've never spied on anyone before? Now you hear about it more - that's the only difference.
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
Sure... Right... The Illuminati are really in power in the US, right?
Both created a new agency for domestic security - one for the Fatherland and the other for the Homeland.
So?
Both enlisted members of the citizenry to spy on their neighbors. see http://citizencorps.gov/tips.html
You probably have a problem with Neighborhood Watch too, right?
Both launched wars against most of the world. One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?
Umm... Had to think about this for a bit - Does the Taliban rule "most of the world?" Maybe I missed a late breaking news flash or something....
I gather you must be talking about our President by the election bit, but I think you may want to check your facts -- they don't really jive.
I agree with you -- it certainly doesn't meet most definitions of "hacking." However -- and here's the rub -- it is unauthorized access to someone else's computer system. That's illegal in most states that I know of. I know at my college the login screen has a large print, red font statement that basically says if you aren't the person you're logging in as you're breaking the law and will be prosecuted.
Probably because the licensing terms specify no Linux. Just a guess, but it would make sense, right? Nice way to slip one under the wire.
To deal with your other statements -- just because I have a SSN and a credit card doesn't mean the government can track all my purchases. Ever heard of cash? If you really don't want someone to know what you're buying, just use cash. Just because I have a driver's license doesn't mean the government is tracking me everywhere I go. Whatever you say, we still have many freedoms that no other country in the world has.
My point was responsibility. The law is not necessarily the only definition of responsibility -- so, yes, it's very possible they're acting like decent, responsible human beings.
If you own a gun shop, you don't have to ask why the person wants to buy a gun. (You have to do a background check, but that's the limit of your responsibility.) If you rent cars, you don't have to make sure your car isn't used to violate traffic laws.
not quite true. The law may not require you to ask them why they want to buy a gun, but if you sell them a gun that they re-sell to a minor or commit a crime with, you can be held responsible. I know the shop I go to is very strict -- if they even suspect someone may be buying a weapon for an illegal purpose, they refuse to sell to them.
Any time something like this happens, it only increases mistrust of the government -- whether it's justified or not. Public officials shouldn't be able to sign NDA's for something like this -- a device like this needs to have open standards and peer review of their methods, otherwise they will always be open to the charge that they're being paid off to deliver votes to one candidate or another.
Now, you're correct that you can't trespass -- that's because the exercise of my "freedom to move" can't infringe on your right to control your own personal property. Many people misunderstand freedom in this way, and feel that freedom is the ability to do anything they feel like. It's not -- in fact I believe the Supreme Court has even ruled in some cases (like shouting fire in a crowded theatre) that some freedoms can be restricted by the state because it's in the greater interest of the common good for there to be laws "restricting" some freedoms.
They're not exaggerating. Watermarking can survive printing and scanning in addition to many manipulations. I know I tried it once just to see -- it's a weird feeling to put a watermark in something, save it as a jpeg, print it out, wrinkle up the paper, recan it, and still be able to get the watermark out of it. I don't know about steganography, but if the process is similar your information should survive.
You missed one -- if they offer Pre-calculus, take it before you take calculus. It will save you a LOT of headaches. Basically, algebra will not prepare you for calculus -- you need a much stronger foundation is trig to understand the concepts in calculus.
You might have noticed that I did not suggest banning anything.
You're probably right. He probably didn't mean what he said to refer to me. But it's a slap in the face of every person in military service to suggest that burning a flag is a patriotic statement. What I do is a patriotic statement -- if you want to make a statement, serve your country in some way, don't try to piss off the people who guarantee your freedoms by burning their flag.
You know, maybe you should consider who you lump into that group.
I serve proudly in the US military. Almost every man in my entire extended family has served in the military, in just about every military action since WW1 (except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years). That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776. When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.
Fuckers like you piss me off. You have no comprehension of what freedom means. Yeah, you're free to burn an american flag -- but only because people like me are willing to die to protect that freedom. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Maybe just a bit insulting to us?
When you burn our flag, you revile the very "freedom" that you profess to value so highly.
If you want to understand what freedom is, volunteer. Help someone else. Make your pitiful existence useful for a change.
I'll end this with a quote from Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That's my motto, but it still pisses me off to hear fuckers like you spout.
The format is openly available, no reverse engineering is necessary.
Think again... Even if you overwrite it, someone with the right equipment (electron scanning microscope, etc) can still get it back. DOD standards require overwriting once with a fixed character, then that character's complement, then with another random character. There's a very good reason for that.
Technically feasible is a stretch -- But you're probably correct in your insight into what they want to do. Unfortunately for them, I think before that happens there will be a consumer revolt. I guess I can hope, anyway.
My point was that closed source is usually less secure -- not more, and open source is usually more secure. The whole security-through-obscurity debate has been had many times here, and you're just spouting all the old arguments that have been debunked way too many times to make it worth my time to do it again.