Or Tor. Which is the same thing as a bot net proxy, but consensual. Make sure you don't send any personally identifiable traffic through the tunnel, because the exit nodes are monitored.
Teaching kids to "program" is as useless as teaching kids to "use a computer".
I agree, both are not useless at all. Not everyone who has to use a computer for work is interested enough to learn on their own. I had a secretary here a few weeks ago who works on a computer all day, she couldn't open a.csv file. A little bit of education would go a long way to making people like that less helpless.
My co-workers have started asking me, "How do I know if it's safe to connect to a wi-fi hotspot when I'm traveling?"... and I'm realizing the answer isn't very clear-cut.
The answer is very clear cut. All networks are hostile until proven otherwise. The solution is an encrypted tunnel back to a secure network. VPN or SSH tunneling are both easy to set up and use.
You missed the point. Not everyone with programming knowledge is a programmer, any more than anyone with English knowledge is a writer. We're not talking about making everyone a software engineer. We're talking about giving people the tools to automate the day to day problems everyone encounters in their lives.
They were pretty mean spirited because it was clear from the outset that it was almost certainly a technical error. Scientists don't get anything out of cleaing up someone elses mistakes. These people could have spent their time doing real work if the original researcher had washed her samples properly.
In this case, there's no law being broken if you refuse the password. It's violating a court order. That's a lot worse. Contempt of court doesn't just last 2 years, it lasts as long as the judge thinks it should, and you have very little recourse.
There are very few skills that _everybody_ needs to have for their normal day to day lives - developing software isn't one of them.
Not everyone who programs develops software. Basic computer use is made a whole lot nicer when you can automate tasks.
Picture it from this side - when I went to school, programming courses looked at BASIC and Pascal. Nice languages - for teaching - but I'm not sure whether it will really prepare you for coding C/C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby,...
BASIC would be a fine language, even today. The key is to get kids thinking about what automation can do for them. Which language you use is irrelevant.
Development classes and paradigms are too specific a skill for a mandatory course to be forced on everyone.
You're right. But we're not talking about making everyone into software engineers. We're talking about giving people a valuable life skill.
Here in the UK people don't seem to get so irate over stupid little things like CCTV systems.
You should be. How much crime have CCTVs actually stopped? How much do you think your government has paid for CCTVs? Are these numbers in a reasonable proportion to one another?
You might be surprised to find that there is no correlation between CCTV installations and crime prevention. So, whether you care about your privacy or not, you should care that your government spent millions of dollars on useless toys.
I don't consider all slopes so heavily slippery as everyone else does.
Do you have historical evidence to back up your opinion here? As far as I can tell, every law that can be abused will be abused. I have not found one exception. If the potential for abuse exists, abuse is a certainty. If you have a counterexample, even just one, I'd be most interested in it.
getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.
Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people, because they encourage people to drive which is far more dangerous than flight.
If you don't think the government should be able to prohibit harmless acts, you have to force them to collect data proving the act is harmful before hand, otherwise what's the point? They can just make shit up, like they did with pot, and the TSA.
I think both Rand and his father are nut jobs. No, let me rephrase that - I think they have a very simplistic, but consistent, core values from which they derive a series of logical positions which vary from downright practical to socially unworkable.
While not perfect, this is preferable to the usual alternative, where representatives have no values beyond their personal aggrandizement. That leads to a series of illogical positions that vary from downright impractical to socially abhorrent.
When young white men spend time together in public, they're hanging out with friends. When young black men spend time together in public, they're engaged in gang activity.
How many police officers would be willing to do their jobs or properly pursue criminals if they didnt get at least some accomodation under the law?
They get accomodation under the law. They are allowed to do all sorts of things normal people can't do, as long as they follow the proper procedures. If you expect to be unable to follow those procedures, I don't really want you as a cop.
cops are pushing suspected criminals because it is their job. I don't think we would get better justice by making a habit of pursuing those that pursue suspects.
The problem occurs when the criminal in question is a cop. If a cop breaks the law, he's a criminal. He deserves to be treated as such. Protecting bad cops is enforcing criminality.
Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule doesn't punish the cop who broke the law. What we need is a doctrine that says any search, arrest, detention, etc that oversteps legal authority is a crime just as if any non-police officer had done it. Then it's just a matter of prosecuting police misconduct as assault, breaking and entering, etc. You can keep the evidence, but the person who broke the law to get it is going to jail. This is the exact same way evidence is treated if it's collected illegaly by a non-cop, btw.
Of course, prosecutors are going to be poorly-disposed towards prosecuting the cops they work with daily. So we'd need an independent meta-justice system to keep tabs on that.
Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
Allowing discretion by individual officers is how we ended up with more black men in jail today than were enslaved in 1840. This is despite the fact that the crime they are ostensibly charged with (drug related) occurs with equal frequency across race lines.
With a success record like that, how can you argue for racial profiling unless your hidden agenda is racism?
Yeah, except for the part where he was. He wouldn't have missed the flight if he wasn't detained. A detention is merely a euphemism for arrest that allows the cops to circumvent your constitutional rights. Therefore, he was arrested. QED.
There is no difference. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest. That's the definition of arrest:
Definition of ARREST transitive verb 1 a : to bring to a stop b : check, slow c : to make inactive 2 : seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law 3 : to catch suddenly and engagingly
Authoritarians like to play this game where they call things by different words and pretend that they're not the same. Don't fall for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or Tor. Which is the same thing as a bot net proxy, but consensual. Make sure you don't send any personally identifiable traffic through the tunnel, because the exit nodes are monitored.
Teaching kids to "program" is as useless as teaching kids to "use a computer".
I agree, both are not useless at all. Not everyone who has to use a computer for work is interested enough to learn on their own. I had a secretary here a few weeks ago who works on a computer all day, she couldn't open a .csv file. A little bit of education would go a long way to making people like that less helpless.
My co-workers have started asking me, "How do I know if it's safe to connect to a wi-fi hotspot when I'm traveling?" ... and I'm realizing the answer isn't very clear-cut.
The answer is very clear cut. All networks are hostile until proven otherwise. The solution is an encrypted tunnel back to a secure network. VPN or SSH tunneling are both easy to set up and use.
You missed the point. Not everyone with programming knowledge is a programmer, any more than anyone with English knowledge is a writer. We're not talking about making everyone a software engineer. We're talking about giving people the tools to automate the day to day problems everyone encounters in their lives.
I meant "verbal" in the "wordy" sense, not the "oral" sense.
Sure we did. Hell, Extremadura Linux is the only one Stallman will use, IIRC.
They were pretty mean spirited because it was clear from the outset that it was almost certainly a technical error. Scientists don't get anything out of cleaing up someone elses mistakes. These people could have spent their time doing real work if the original researcher had washed her samples properly.
That's what 'whatis', 'apropos', and 'man' are for.
So the big menu improvement is... a text console!
As well it should be. People use words to communicate. The ideal interface is going to be verbal.
Don't do it.
In this case, there's no law being broken if you refuse the password. It's violating a court order. That's a lot worse. Contempt of court doesn't just last 2 years, it lasts as long as the judge thinks it should, and you have very little recourse.
Computer programming is a part of basic computer literacy. If you can't write a for loop, you're not computer literate.
There are very few skills that _everybody_ needs to have for their normal day to day lives - developing software isn't one of them.
Not everyone who programs develops software. Basic computer use is made a whole lot nicer when you can automate tasks.
Picture it from this side - when I went to school, programming courses looked at BASIC and Pascal. Nice languages - for teaching - but I'm not sure whether it will really prepare you for coding C/C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, ...
BASIC would be a fine language, even today. The key is to get kids thinking about what automation can do for them. Which language you use is irrelevant.
Development classes and paradigms are too specific a skill for a mandatory course to be forced on everyone.
You're right. But we're not talking about making everyone into software engineers. We're talking about giving people a valuable life skill.
I agree, but the burden of proof should be on the government to prove something is harmful. Otherwise we get atrocities like the war on drugs.
Here in the UK people don't seem to get so irate over stupid little things like CCTV systems.
You should be. How much crime have CCTVs actually stopped? How much do you think your government has paid for CCTVs? Are these numbers in a reasonable proportion to one another?
You might be surprised to find that there is no correlation between CCTV installations and crime prevention. So, whether you care about your privacy or not, you should care that your government spent millions of dollars on useless toys.
I don't consider all slopes so heavily slippery as everyone else does.
Do you have historical evidence to back up your opinion here? As far as I can tell, every law that can be abused will be abused. I have not found one exception. If the potential for abuse exists, abuse is a certainty. If you have a counterexample, even just one, I'd be most interested in it.
getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.
Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people, because they encourage people to drive which is far more dangerous than flight.
If you don't think the government should be able to prohibit harmless acts, you have to force them to collect data proving the act is harmful before hand, otherwise what's the point? They can just make shit up, like they did with pot, and the TSA.
I think both Rand and his father are nut jobs. No, let me rephrase that - I think they have a very simplistic, but consistent, core values from which they derive a series of logical positions which vary from downright practical to socially unworkable.
While not perfect, this is preferable to the usual alternative, where representatives have no values beyond their personal aggrandizement. That leads to a series of illogical positions that vary from downright impractical to socially abhorrent.
Why would you have to rename after each download? Let the client take care of that.
When young white men spend time together in public, they're hanging out with friends. When young black men spend time together in public, they're engaged in gang activity.
How many police officers would be willing to do their jobs or properly pursue criminals if they didnt get at least some accomodation under the law?
They get accomodation under the law. They are allowed to do all sorts of things normal people can't do, as long as they follow the proper procedures. If you expect to be unable to follow those procedures, I don't really want you as a cop.
cops are pushing suspected criminals because it is their job. I don't think we would get better justice by making a habit of pursuing those that pursue suspects.
The problem occurs when the criminal in question is a cop. If a cop breaks the law, he's a criminal. He deserves to be treated as such. Protecting bad cops is enforcing criminality.
Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule doesn't punish the cop who broke the law. What we need is a doctrine that says any search, arrest, detention, etc that oversteps legal authority is a crime just as if any non-police officer had done it. Then it's just a matter of prosecuting police misconduct as assault, breaking and entering, etc. You can keep the evidence, but the person who broke the law to get it is going to jail. This is the exact same way evidence is treated if it's collected illegaly by a non-cop, btw.
Of course, prosecutors are going to be poorly-disposed towards prosecuting the cops they work with daily. So we'd need an independent meta-justice system to keep tabs on that.
Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
Allowing discretion by individual officers is how we ended up with more black men in jail today than were enslaved in 1840. This is despite the fact that the crime they are ostensibly charged with (drug related) occurs with equal frequency across race lines.
With a success record like that, how can you argue for racial profiling unless your hidden agenda is racism?
Yeah, except for the part where he was. He wouldn't have missed the flight if he wasn't detained. A detention is merely a euphemism for arrest that allows the cops to circumvent your constitutional rights. Therefore, he was arrested. QED.
There is no difference. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest. That's the definition of arrest:
Authoritarians like to play this game where they call things by different words and pretend that they're not the same. Don't fall for it.
Rand Paul is a Senator. Ron Paul is a Representative.