Basicly, they were given the choice of backdooring it or shutting it down. Yes, the whole network. They did install a backdoor (still with source), got found out but they didn't exactly have much trust left.
Can someone explain to me why the exact same will not happen to this service? Any reason why TOR servers would have greater legal immunity? I don't see it, at least.
One reason: the white-hat lawyers at the EFF.
I didn't see any indication from your link whether the JAP team got any legal consultation. Did they fully understand their rights and options before they gave in to the authorities?
I don't think the EFF is sponsoring this just to move the technology along. I'd bet that they also want to use Tor to advance their legal arguments for anonymity. They've probably already drawn up "battle plans" for likely legal challenges.
"All right, where is the answer? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you click and we both serve pages, and find out who is right, and who is slashdotted."
I am skeptical of claims that wise people can consistently outperform index growth by that much, simply because if any significant number of people tried it, it would cease to be true (they'd be fighting for the same money when they tried to cash in).
I agree, you absolutely have to have a healthy dose of skepticism when getting information about trading. Everybody's got a miracle cure they want to sell you.
I think it's important to distinguish between skepticism and self-sabotage. When you find a claim that sounds unbelievable, do you always say "that sounds too good to be true, it can't possibly work", or do you sometimes investigate further to see if there's anything to it? If you found something that was too good to be true, but actually was true, would you allow yourself to take advantage of it?
To succeed in the markets, you need more than wisdom. You need training in all the components of a trading system (not just the stock pick du jour). You need to understand your own psychology and how that will affect your trading. You need to have specific goals that you use to design your whole system.
Very few people have all of these. Which is why most people lose their shirts in the markets.
If you get some decent investment system training, you can make your own investment plan that regularly makes you 20% a year. (See IITM for some info.)
With a reliable 20% a year (which is, believe it or not, a low-ball number), you can live like a king on a million dollars, or live in comfort with a lot less.
Not really. In a world where over one billion people are starving, the idea that "literacy-in-a-box" (even if it were somehow available for $1,000,000, which it isn't) is somehow equivalent to preventing starvation is irrational.
How, exactly, does money prevent starvation? If you ship in emergency relief, are you "preventing" starvation, or just postponing it? Do you just keep shipping in food, month after month?
Or do you spend that money to teach people better ways to farm and manage their resources? Do you teach them how to innovate new techniques, and to communicate those techniques to people in other areas?
Literacy gives a massive boost to any education program. And, over the long term, education is, as far as I know, the only way to really end poverty and starvation.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you'd care to present an argument. At this point, I stand by what I've said.
Researchers put the entire speech recognition process in hardware, on a chip. Once you've got a process on a chip, you can refine it, make it cheaper to produce, less power-consumptive, and smaller.
Eventually, you can have a speech recognition chip that fits in a solar-powered credit-card-sized form factor, like all those free calculators. If you can re-target it for different languages (different chip-sets, maybe), and design it so the LCD shows whatever was just said...
Sounds to me like literacy-in-a-box. Which ranks up pretty close to shelter and clean water.
Of course, the original is "goldy and bronzy" instead of "goldy and silvery" - I guess 'bronzy' sounds funnier.
But when I googled for "irony goldy", I got a number of slight mis-quotes, especially "goldy and silvery", but even "goldy and steely". Go figure. (And now I'm _completely_ off-topic...)
Second, as reported on my website Google's stock price is still fairly attractive from a P/E basis. If Google stays on track to grow for the rest of the year, Google should be valued more than Yahoo, which could mean the stock should still be attractive above $100.
Um, isn't Google's P/E around 120?
Given that the historical average for P/E ratios is around, what, 17, how is Google possibly attractive on a P/E basis?
We prefer to arrest people AFTER THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. I know, it's all new fangled, and hard to wrap your head around, but it is the way we do things 'round here. Y'all got that?
Arrested by who? The guy who just stole the election?
Prosecuted by who? The D.A. who was just installed by a corrupt political machine?
At least the judge, who was _surely_ elected in a fair and reasonable manner, will give him a fair trial...
Do the math. When you have voting corruption, it's no longer reasonable to assume that people will be arrested and prosecuted for crimes they commit. Especially when their crimes benefit the corrupt powers.
Re:Well, it looks like the hackers have a new targ
on
Robots in Hospitals
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I can't wait to see what phrase gets hacked into the voice processsor to replace this informative gem.
Normal phones got round this by feeding back some of the signal from the microphone to the earpiece, so you could hear yourself speaking a little. Unfortunately, mobiles don't seem to do this.
I think this is exactly the fix that's needed for cell phones - people are used to the feedback from land-line phones, so they talk louder on cell phones because they don't hear themselves well enough.
Does anybody know, is there a reason why cell phones don't use feedback like this?
I thought you must be joking at first, it's either that or you only watch Fox News!
New York Times and NPR, actually, thanks for the personal attack. Maybe the ideas that you think are "the truth" aren't as mainstream as you would like?
And, yes, I'm familiar with Guantanamo, thanks for being patronizing. Last I heard, Guantanamo was populated mostly by people seized from Afghanistan. Are significant numbers of Iraqis being airlifted to Guantanamo these days?
Oh, and, if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court is set to hear several cases about the constitutionality of the Guantanamo detentions. So even Guantanamo isn't outside the rule of law.
The links you gave me were interesting, but didn't really answer my original question. But thanks for the evangelism.
I'm saying that I trust the U.S. Army not to turn into a terrorist fascist force bent on subverting the rule of law in Iraq.
Are you saying that the van of reporters (a van-full, btw? The reports I've read said two reporters) were fired on deliberately? Or are you saying that the U.S. forces are just completely indifferent to the lives and safety of civilian Iraqis? I find both ideas to be highly implausible.
For a good example of this, check out Iraq, which has once again become the land of midnight raids where people get 'disappeared', but it's all in the name of freedom and democracy this time.
That's a hell of an accusation to make, that occupying troops in Iraq are seizing citizens without publicly reviewable process, or transparency of any kind.
My question is, if they're sitting on stupid piles of cash, why go public at all? Can't they think of non-stock-option ways of perking employees? Like profit-sharing bonuses, and such.
I still don't understand why they would go through with an IPO, unless early investors are looking to cash out...
Stop and pause for a second during the awesome beacon-lighting sequence.
Some poor schmucks had been up in those mountain peaks for years, with nothing to do but watch a horizon that doesn't change. Oh, and try just about anything to keep from freezing their asses off. And no one to talk to but the other poor schmuck, who probably did something terrible to get assigned to this duty.
Now, that's a sucky work environment, even if you are just a motion-capture CG effect.
Terry Pratchett (in his many and various Discworld novels) overed this quite clearly.
The Patrician privatised everything. I mean everything All the usual goings on in a big city (eg crime) were arranged much like insurance is today (in our world).
Unfortunately (you knew I was going to say that).... The Fire Department got into the insurance business (have to raise money somehow) - specifically FIRE insurance.
Did this happen later in the series?
In the first book, I distinctly remember that the insurance policy that Twoflower wrote for the shop keeper was the first insurance policy ever written in Ankh-Morpork.
Which, of course, promptly led to the first case of insurance fraud, and a great fire that destroyed most of the city...
As employees, it can be easy to take the long view - invest a lot of resources in the product now, and it'll be that much better a product, and we won't have to do expensive fixes later.
The CEO, on the other hand, has to keep track of issues like, if we keep pushing back the release date to improve it, in a few months we won't be able to make payroll. And, besides, when cash is plentiful from sales of a release, making expensive fixes is a lot more do-able.
Slashdot Mirror
They're just too embarrassed to call it 'dildonics'.
Q: What's the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts?
A: Beer nuts are $1.79. Deer nuts are under a buck.
Thank you, I'm here all week.
Q: What do you call 50 parachuting lawyers?
A: Skeet!
the flash-based iPod is cool but damn it sure does look like a tampon.
Hmmm...
Tweak the form a little bit, add a "vibrate" function... hello, dildonics!
"Can you feel the bass, baby?"
Basicly, they were given the choice of backdooring it or shutting it down. Yes, the whole network. They did install a backdoor (still with source), got found out but they didn't exactly have much trust left.
Can someone explain to me why the exact same will not happen to this service? Any reason why TOR servers would have greater legal immunity? I don't see it, at least.
One reason: the white-hat lawyers at the EFF.
I didn't see any indication from your link whether the JAP team got any legal consultation. Did they fully understand their rights and options before they gave in to the authorities?
I don't think the EFF is sponsoring this just to move the technology along. I'd bet that they also want to use Tor to advance their legal arguments for anonymity. They've probably already drawn up "battle plans" for likely legal challenges.
"All right, where is the answer? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you click and we both serve pages, and find out who is right, and who is slashdotted."
HOJILLION (n): amount of money necessary for sex with erotic professionals, non-stop, for an average human lifespan.
I am skeptical of claims that wise people can consistently outperform index growth by that much, simply because if any significant number of people tried it, it would cease to be true (they'd be fighting for the same money when they tried to cash in).
I agree, you absolutely have to have a healthy dose of skepticism when getting information about trading. Everybody's got a miracle cure they want to sell you.
I think it's important to distinguish between skepticism and self-sabotage. When you find a claim that sounds unbelievable, do you always say "that sounds too good to be true, it can't possibly work", or do you sometimes investigate further to see if there's anything to it? If you found something that was too good to be true, but actually was true, would you allow yourself to take advantage of it?
To succeed in the markets, you need more than wisdom. You need training in all the components of a trading system (not just the stock pick du jour). You need to understand your own psychology and how that will affect your trading. You need to have specific goals that you use to design your whole system.
Very few people have all of these. Which is why most people lose their shirts in the markets.
If you get some decent investment system training, you can make your own investment plan that regularly makes you 20% a year. (See IITM for some info.)
With a reliable 20% a year (which is, believe it or not, a low-ball number), you can live like a king on a million dollars, or live in comfort with a lot less.
Not really. In a world where over one billion people are starving, the idea that "literacy-in-a-box" (even if it were somehow available for $1,000,000, which it isn't) is somehow equivalent to preventing starvation is irrational.
How, exactly, does money prevent starvation? If you ship in emergency relief, are you "preventing" starvation, or just postponing it? Do you just keep shipping in food, month after month?
Or do you spend that money to teach people better ways to farm and manage their resources? Do you teach them how to innovate new techniques, and to communicate those techniques to people in other areas?
Literacy gives a massive boost to any education program. And, over the long term, education is, as far as I know, the only way to really end poverty and starvation.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you'd care to present an argument. At this point, I stand by what I've said.
Think of it like this:
Researchers put the entire speech recognition process in hardware, on a chip. Once you've got a process on a chip, you can refine it, make it cheaper to produce, less power-consumptive, and smaller.
Eventually, you can have a speech recognition chip that fits in a solar-powered credit-card-sized form factor, like all those free calculators. If you can re-target it for different languages (different chip-sets, maybe), and design it so the LCD shows whatever was just said...
Sounds to me like literacy-in-a-box. Which ranks up pretty close to shelter and clean water.
Huh.
Of course, the original is "goldy and bronzy" instead of "goldy and silvery" - I guess 'bronzy' sounds funnier.
But when I googled for "irony goldy", I got a number of slight mis-quotes, especially "goldy and silvery", but even "goldy and steely". Go figure. (And now I'm _completely_ off-topic...)
For purposes of organization, all "Real Men of Genius" parodies should be posted under this thread.
This one's for you, Mister Netcraft-Confirms-It's-Dead Guy.
Second, as reported on my website Google's stock price is still fairly attractive from a P/E basis. If Google stays on track to grow for the rest of the year, Google should be valued more than Yahoo, which could mean the stock should still be attractive above $100.
Um, isn't Google's P/E around 120?
Given that the historical average for P/E ratios is around, what, 17, how is Google possibly attractive on a P/E basis?
We prefer to arrest people AFTER THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. I know, it's all new fangled, and hard to wrap your head around, but it is the way we do things 'round here. Y'all got that?
Arrested by who? The guy who just stole the election?
Prosecuted by who? The D.A. who was just installed by a corrupt political machine?
At least the judge, who was _surely_ elected in a fair and reasonable manner, will give him a fair trial...
Do the math. When you have voting corruption, it's no longer reasonable to assume that people will be arrested and prosecuted for crimes they commit. Especially when their crimes benefit the corrupt powers.
I can't wait to see what phrase gets hacked into the voice processsor to replace this informative gem.
"Hey, check out my package."
"Somebody order a pizza?"
"Does this smell funny to you?"
"I swear to god, it was like that when I got it."
And my personal favorite:
"Hey, what'll you give me for this crap?"
Normal phones got round this by feeding back some of the signal from the microphone to the earpiece, so you could hear yourself speaking a little. Unfortunately, mobiles don't seem to do this.
I think this is exactly the fix that's needed for cell phones - people are used to the feedback from land-line phones, so they talk louder on cell phones because they don't hear themselves well enough.
Does anybody know, is there a reason why cell phones don't use feedback like this?
I thought you must be joking at first, it's either that or you only watch Fox News!
New York Times and NPR, actually, thanks for the personal attack. Maybe the ideas that you think are "the truth" aren't as mainstream as you would like?
And, yes, I'm familiar with Guantanamo, thanks for being patronizing. Last I heard, Guantanamo was populated mostly by people seized from Afghanistan. Are significant numbers of Iraqis being airlifted to Guantanamo these days?
Oh, and, if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court is set to hear several cases about the constitutionality of the Guantanamo detentions. So even Guantanamo isn't outside the rule of law.
The links you gave me were interesting, but didn't really answer my original question. But thanks for the evangelism.
I'm saying that I trust the U.S. Army not to turn into a terrorist fascist force bent on subverting the rule of law in Iraq.
Are you saying that the van of reporters (a van-full, btw? The reports I've read said two reporters) were fired on deliberately? Or are you saying that the U.S. forces are just completely indifferent to the lives and safety of civilian Iraqis? I find both ideas to be highly implausible.
For a good example of this, check out Iraq, which has once again become the land of midnight raids where people get 'disappeared', but it's all in the name of freedom and democracy this time.
That's a hell of an accusation to make, that occupying troops in Iraq are seizing citizens without publicly reviewable process, or transparency of any kind.
I assume you have links to back that up?
This is exactly what I was thinking, that she has no understanding of test suites. I thought the following quote was especially telling:
However, most bug fixes require some degree of refactoring, which is always dangerous and unpredictable.
Geez, if refactoring's dangerous, you're probably doing it wrong...
Okay, sounds good so far...
My question is, if they're sitting on stupid piles of cash, why go public at all? Can't they think of non-stock-option ways of perking employees? Like profit-sharing bonuses, and such.
I still don't understand why they would go through with an IPO, unless early investors are looking to cash out...
Some poor schmucks had been up in those mountain peaks for years, with nothing to do but watch a horizon that doesn't change. Oh, and try just about anything to keep from freezing their asses off. And no one to talk to but the other poor schmuck, who probably did something terrible to get assigned to this duty.
Now, that's a sucky work environment, even if you are just a motion-capture CG effect.
The Patrician privatised everything.
I mean everything
All the usual goings on in a big city (eg crime) were arranged much like insurance is today (in our world).
Unfortunately (you knew I was going to say that).... The Fire Department got into the insurance business (have to raise money somehow) - specifically FIRE insurance.
Did this happen later in the series?
In the first book, I distinctly remember that the insurance policy that Twoflower wrote for the shop keeper was the first insurance policy ever written in Ankh-Morpork.
Which, of course, promptly led to the first case of insurance fraud, and a great fire that destroyed most of the city...
Another two simple words also apply: cash flow.
As employees, it can be easy to take the long view - invest a lot of resources in the product now, and it'll be that much better a product, and we won't have to do expensive fixes later.
The CEO, on the other hand, has to keep track of issues like, if we keep pushing back the release date to improve it, in a few months we won't be able to make payroll. And, besides, when cash is plentiful from sales of a release, making expensive fixes is a lot more do-able.