I don't know whether we should be surprised, but we shouldn't be complacent.
A better policy would force all those items you listed to scope their data to solely those transactions. With the surveillance process exposing them to only the active transaction, without retention or distribution beyond it. IOW, DNR should be the default, with only temporary security exceptions.
BTW (OT), I thought you might be interested to hear that David Bromberg pulled off a killer "Dark Hollow" and "It Takes a Lot to Laugh..." last night in NYC, on a rare tour. And I don't care who knows about it!
Yes, it's possible to trust the government, when (as I posted) they implement
Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
Which the government mostly did, when Congress was Democratic. And which a Democratic Congress would need to protect the democratic process from being subverted from the outside by Republicans, who would return to power. And without which reforms Democrats would also be kicked from power, as Republicans are facing over the next 2 elections (starting this November 7).
We already do trust the government quite a bit. We have to. But not "blind trust". Rather the "trust but verify" that limits government in competition with itself. Even when Democrats controlled Congress and the Executive, under Carter and Johnson, they didn't destroy that competition. Republicans, however, have turned their power monopoly against the government, bankrupting us both ethically and financially.
Typically retarded Anonymous illiterate Coward. The point is that they have a "glut" when it suits them, and a "shortage" when that suits them. What, you work for the telcos? Think before you spew your crap.
No, especially in our big government, the people's ability to have our rights and interests protected is most of the way it works. That's one reason why the breakdowns are so big: corporations and the corrupt politicans they love have got to exploit their opportunity to the maximum when they can, to return on their long investments opening the opportunity.
Believing that our government never, ever works the way the people need it to is exactly the kind of writeoff that enables corporations to exploit it, and us. It's their main means to that end.
They've got a bandwidth glut, which they use to get even more government subsidies. Except when they statistically oversubscribe, which they use to abuse their monopoly on consumer access.
All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them. Not to expose our personal info to ID fraud (and worse). Not to hand the data to their corporate cronies. Not to spy on political enemies for counterstrategy or blackmail. Regardless of which party, faction or person is in power, publicly or covertly.
Not just "trust" as in "the president seems like a decent person", but Reagan's promise to "trust but verify". Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
ISPs could endrun around the whole issue by just selling explicitly "statistical oversubscription" (familiar to air travelers as "overbooking") services. Instead, they agree to sell us bandwidth that they won't give us even though we've paid for it. Because they don't want anything to appear to interfere with their "always-on Internet" advertising message. And they also want to provide less than they sold, because they profit more from lower deployment costs.
It's much more likely to enforce "common carriage" rules on networks than to force them to sell off networks to competitors. The people are never going to get ownership returns on our investment in WAN infrastructure. The best, and minimum, we can expect is that the networks we paid to build will be run "the American Way": equal access to opportunity for everyone, without anticompetitive monopoly abuse by the "gatekeepers".
I knew you'd plead "Libertarian". That's the weasel move of cryptorepublicans. Like ignoring the Supreme Court justices' party affiliation in their votes, like voting Bush into office. Like the two "Conservative" Bush appointed justices who helped create Bush's torture gulags and unitary executive tyranny.
I didn't deconstruct your viewpoint. I just reconstructed your side of the discussion, which is contradictory to some of your defensive statements. Like denying that recent crimes "Conservatives" ignore or commit would make them "liberal". There's nothing new under the Sun, but there are new abuses against old laws. While your definitions are a nice theory, the actions of actual "Conservatives" don't abide by them, nor do "liberals". The reason I keep putting those terms in quotes is that they're only nominally accurate, and practically meaningless. It's actions that I care about, that speak louder than any "loud" partisan, whether "liberal" or "Conservative".
No, that's in order to continue selling people bandwidth they couldn't deliver, known to ISPs as "statistical oversubscription". Then when we want to get what we paid for, they take it away entirely. Unless you're watching the telco's own IPTV, which somehow has as much bandwidth as they need to sell it to you, for an additional charge.
Blocking competitive services to support ripoff monopoly business models is the reason telcos and other big ISPs hate Net Neutrality.
With 16GB USB sticks that can hold at least 2 movies, we can walk up to most PCs without even needing a DVD player on them for basic playback. But what's the highest end USB TV decoder we can carry to friends' houses, without carrying the delicate/bulky PC that they already have?
so far it seems the third branch of the government is pretty good at disagreeing with the first two./I'm sure I'm gonna get some liberal to jump on this and argue about recent appointments and such and such
I think its become fairly obvious by now that "liberal" judges are ones that use the constitution to say things we've been doing all along were bad. While "conservative" judges are ones that use the constitution to say things we've just started doing are bad.
When I specified recent crimes which "Conservative" judges say are OK, you said
And you think these things are new in war??? HAHA.
You're obviously a "Conservative". You obviously prefer "Conservative" judges. You obviously think that "Conservative" judges are more likely than "liberals" think to "disagree" with the rest of the government. They're not, and they're more dangerous. And you're grinding your ax while hiding it behind your back, under judges' robes, in true Conservative fashion.
When you have a neutral position, I'll argue it in neutral terms, unless you're denying the highly unbalanced context of the issue. You won't catch me helping pretend that Conservative judges aren't activists, especially when they are tacit activists ignoring the crimes of fellow "Conservatives".
The Internet lesson is that you can say something to someone who won't play along with the denial that people in a familiar echo chamber will play. You just might learn something new.
War on Americans like domestic wiretapping, Iraq lies, American torture gulags, pandering to zombie lovers and unitary executive tyranny is recent, but not what "Conservative" judges are ruling against. They're ruling against civil rights, labor, environmental, "Watergate" oversight laws. Just because "Conservatives" want to "roll us back" to an imaginary past doesn't make mean they're really "conserving" anything. Just like "liberals" don't necessarily want to "try new things", but usually do want to keep free from old constraints.
And just because these recent American crimes are old war crimes doesn't make them OK, or something we can accept, especially having found ways to move past them.
And just because you prefer "Conservative" activist judges to "liberal" ones doesn't make the Conservatives any less activist. They're more activist, and more dangerous.
A "planet" is a "wanderer", a "wandering star" seen from Earth. We should define a planet as any body orbiting a star that could be seen by a (20/20) human from 1AU from that star, either unaided or with a 33x telescope (Galileo's) on a clear, dry moonless night, or any body that could be seen in those conditions to disturb the orbit of a planet.
That was the definition used by humans for many thousands of years, which is why even scientists are still attached to it. Let the ITU haggle about the definition of "planetoid" in whatever objective terms serves science. Pluto and its dinky fellow travelers can be "dwarf" planetoids together, while Pluto remains a "planet". And it will be easier for everyone to imagine distant solar systems when described in familiar terms to which we can relate.
The emotional and subjective definitions of planet are important to humans using science to relate to the universe and our place in it. Throwing that under the bus discredits science in the public mind while losing the value that the public mind brings to producing new science.
Obvious to Republicans, maybe. What about recent crimes like the NSA wiretapping, lying us into Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Terry Schiavo, signing statements...
It's probably worth trying an experiment expanding public defenders and prosecutors to encompass a greater percentage of criminal cases. Maybe even require private lawyers to rotate through those offices something like 1 of every 10 years. If successful, maybe it's worth trying with civil law, too.
Lawyers should be required to instruct (off the clock) clients how to complain, and judges should ask clients if they've been informed (checking against a form the client signs). Failure should be like violating Miranda rights.
Yes, a more prolific lawyer should be more likely to be audited. Probably every nth case (by all lawyers) should have an audit initiated secretly to follow the proceedings, reporting malpractice as it's observed, so corrections aren't applied only after the case is derailed. That doesn't sound so sophisticated, but it does seem like lawyers would spend their careers learning to abuse it. NP complete, but best effort counts.
Another big reform that seems essential is to direct all punitive damages (not compensation damages) to the state, or perhaps even to some certified victim's fund, rather than to the plaintiff (and a percentage to their lawyers). That seems like a fundamental abuse that needs to be fixed, and would help fund a better justice department to make better decisions. Oh, and big penalties for lawyers introducing invalid evidence, all evidence determined before trial in separate hearings... anything for lawyer accountability to standards would make big improvements.
Interesting stats. I'd love to see the percentage of challengers to incumbents who are lawyers. Every second November, like this coming November 7, 2006, we can fire all the lawyers in the House, and probably about 30% of the lawyers in the Senate. And replace them with people who legislate, rather than lawyer.
There's a good case to be made for lawyers being paid by the state, as they certainly are working in those offices on that business. But even more than doctors they cannot be allowed to make their own interests coincide with that of the state. Lawyers often work for people against the state, which must be recognized by the state as a primary responsiblity of lawyers. Doctors rarely find their interests conflicting with that of the state (except when they're not getting paid on time;), so that structure isn't as dangerous.
There's probably a way to ensure that lawyers represent people's rights better than they do now. Regular random audits of billings and practices. More "contempt of court" punishment. More suspended/revoked licenses, especially for repeated frivolous representation. More "malpractice" awards. There ought to be more competition, with more standardized reviews contextualizing all those "scores", published for consumers.
Lawyers even more than doctors hide behind consumer ignorance and blind "respect". Exposing their performance as part of the shopping process would make them more competitive, and better adhere to the required "ethics" that usually are assumed to come with the tie.
What's really disappointing is that it's apparently cheaper to pay lawyers to settle a case than it is to defend your right to ignore optional guidelines like robots.txt in US courts.
If Congress were serious about keeping the US economy "safe and effective", it would reform the "lawyers' job security" laws. Instead it will surely make them even worse, and make the lawyer tax on technology mandatory.
OSX BSD is bigger than Linux, so it's obvious that more separates NetBSD from Linux. Like exactly the kinds of problems I mentioned, consistent with the problems we're discussing in the open letter.
Critics disagree with your dismissal of the conflict among the NetBSD team in 1994-5. And your point about NetBSD/OpenBSD losing compared to other BSDs coincides exactly with mine.
When I said "I'd like to see an honest dissection of the relevant project management issues that underlaid the mutually destructive split.", I meant it. All TrollMods mean is to reduce lessons from an old flamewar to another flamewar. That's the kind of juvenille bickering and communications breakdown that helped kill NetBSD.
I'd like an Ubuntu image on a thumbdrive that reboots the host PC and uses only the thumbdrive for storage. That way I could use any PC with my own software, ensuring no tracks were left on the host PC because my software is controlling everything, and take the private stuff with me when I go. Without losing my history. I could keep personal info for filling forms and completing transactions on the thumbdrive.
If the Ubuntu image rebooted in seconds as a suspended RAMdisk or hibernate image, it would be convenient enough to do this on demand without slowing down my work.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whether we should be surprised, but we shouldn't be complacent.
A better policy would force all those items you listed to scope their data to solely those transactions. With the surveillance process exposing them to only the active transaction, without retention or distribution beyond it. IOW, DNR should be the default, with only temporary security exceptions.
BTW (OT), I thought you might be interested to hear that David Bromberg pulled off a killer "Dark Hollow" and "It Takes a Lot to Laugh..." last night in NYC, on a rare tour. And I don't care who knows about it!
Typically retarded Anonymous illiterate Coward. The point is that they have a "glut" when it suits them, and a "shortage" when that suits them. What, you work for the telcos? Think before you spew your crap.
No, especially in our big government, the people's ability to have our rights and interests protected is most of the way it works. That's one reason why the breakdowns are so big: corporations and the corrupt politicans they love have got to exploit their opportunity to the maximum when they can, to return on their long investments opening the opportunity.
Believing that our government never, ever works the way the people need it to is exactly the kind of writeoff that enables corporations to exploit it, and us. It's their main means to that end.
They've got a bandwidth glut, which they use to get even more government subsidies. Except when they statistically oversubscribe, which they use to abuse their monopoly on consumer access.
All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them. Not to expose our personal info to ID fraud (and worse). Not to hand the data to their corporate cronies. Not to spy on political enemies for counterstrategy or blackmail. Regardless of which party, faction or person is in power, publicly or covertly.
Not just "trust" as in "the president seems like a decent person", but Reagan's promise to "trust but verify". Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
ISPs could endrun around the whole issue by just selling explicitly "statistical oversubscription" (familiar to air travelers as "overbooking") services. Instead, they agree to sell us bandwidth that they won't give us even though we've paid for it. Because they don't want anything to appear to interfere with their "always-on Internet" advertising message. And they also want to provide less than they sold, because they profit more from lower deployment costs.
It's much more likely to enforce "common carriage" rules on networks than to force them to sell off networks to competitors. The people are never going to get ownership returns on our investment in WAN infrastructure. The best, and minimum, we can expect is that the networks we paid to build will be run "the American Way": equal access to opportunity for everyone, without anticompetitive monopoly abuse by the "gatekeepers".
And the people create the government to protect us from abuse by big business, when we don't write government off to corporate manipulation.
I knew you'd plead "Libertarian". That's the weasel move of cryptorepublicans. Like ignoring the Supreme Court justices' party affiliation in their votes, like voting Bush into office. Like the two "Conservative" Bush appointed justices who helped create Bush's torture gulags and unitary executive tyranny.
I didn't deconstruct your viewpoint. I just reconstructed your side of the discussion, which is contradictory to some of your defensive statements. Like denying that recent crimes "Conservatives" ignore or commit would make them "liberal". There's nothing new under the Sun, but there are new abuses against old laws. While your definitions are a nice theory, the actions of actual "Conservatives" don't abide by them, nor do "liberals". The reason I keep putting those terms in quotes is that they're only nominally accurate, and practically meaningless. It's actions that I care about, that speak louder than any "loud" partisan, whether "liberal" or "Conservative".
"in order to ensure connectivity for everyone"
No, that's in order to continue selling people bandwidth they couldn't deliver, known to ISPs as "statistical oversubscription". Then when we want to get what we paid for, they take it away entirely. Unless you're watching the telco's own IPTV, which somehow has as much bandwidth as they need to sell it to you, for an additional charge.
Blocking competitive services to support ripoff monopoly business models is the reason telcos and other big ISPs hate Net Neutrality.
With 16GB USB sticks that can hold at least 2 movies, we can walk up to most PCs without even needing a DVD player on them for basic playback. But what's the highest end USB TV decoder we can carry to friends' houses, without carrying the delicate/bulky PC that they already have?
.
Then you said
When I specified recent crimes which "Conservative" judges say are OK, you said
You're obviously a "Conservative". You obviously prefer "Conservative" judges. You obviously think that "Conservative" judges are more likely than "liberals" think to "disagree" with the rest of the government. They're not, and they're more dangerous. And you're grinding your ax while hiding it behind your back, under judges' robes, in true Conservative fashion.
When you have a neutral position, I'll argue it in neutral terms, unless you're denying the highly unbalanced context of the issue. You won't catch me helping pretend that Conservative judges aren't activists, especially when they are tacit activists ignoring the crimes of fellow "Conservatives".
The Internet lesson is that you can say something to someone who won't play along with the denial that people in a familiar echo chamber will play. You just might learn something new.
War on Americans like domestic wiretapping, Iraq lies, American torture gulags, pandering to zombie lovers and unitary executive tyranny is recent, but not what "Conservative" judges are ruling against. They're ruling against civil rights, labor, environmental, "Watergate" oversight laws. Just because "Conservatives" want to "roll us back" to an imaginary past doesn't make mean they're really "conserving" anything. Just like "liberals" don't necessarily want to "try new things", but usually do want to keep free from old constraints.
And just because these recent American crimes are old war crimes doesn't make them OK, or something we can accept, especially having found ways to move past them.
And just because you prefer "Conservative" activist judges to "liberal" ones doesn't make the Conservatives any less activist. They're more activist, and more dangerous.
A "planet" is a "wanderer", a "wandering star" seen from Earth. We should define a planet as any body orbiting a star that could be seen by a (20/20) human from 1AU from that star, either unaided or with a 33x telescope (Galileo's) on a clear, dry moonless night, or any body that could be seen in those conditions to disturb the orbit of a planet.
That was the definition used by humans for many thousands of years, which is why even scientists are still attached to it. Let the ITU haggle about the definition of "planetoid" in whatever objective terms serves science. Pluto and its dinky fellow travelers can be "dwarf" planetoids together, while Pluto remains a "planet". And it will be easier for everyone to imagine distant solar systems when described in familiar terms to which we can relate.
The emotional and subjective definitions of planet are important to humans using science to relate to the universe and our place in it. Throwing that under the bus discredits science in the public mind while losing the value that the public mind brings to producing new science.
Obvious to Republicans, maybe. What about recent crimes like the NSA wiretapping, lying us into Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Terry Schiavo, signing statements...
It's probably worth trying an experiment expanding public defenders and prosecutors to encompass a greater percentage of criminal cases. Maybe even require private lawyers to rotate through those offices something like 1 of every 10 years. If successful, maybe it's worth trying with civil law, too.
FWIW, I'm not really "a liberal", but I did notice that more Conservative justices overturn Congress more than less Conservative justices. Which makes calling them "Conservative" ironic, and makes the Conservatives "activist judges". I don't think any of them, no matter how "liberal", act to overturn laws nearly enough.
Lawyers should be required to instruct (off the clock) clients how to complain, and judges should ask clients if they've been informed (checking against a form the client signs). Failure should be like violating Miranda rights.
Yes, a more prolific lawyer should be more likely to be audited. Probably every nth case (by all lawyers) should have an audit initiated secretly to follow the proceedings, reporting malpractice as it's observed, so corrections aren't applied only after the case is derailed. That doesn't sound so sophisticated, but it does seem like lawyers would spend their careers learning to abuse it. NP complete, but best effort counts.
Another big reform that seems essential is to direct all punitive damages (not compensation damages) to the state, or perhaps even to some certified victim's fund, rather than to the plaintiff (and a percentage to their lawyers). That seems like a fundamental abuse that needs to be fixed, and would help fund a better justice department to make better decisions. Oh, and big penalties for lawyers introducing invalid evidence, all evidence determined before trial in separate hearings... anything for lawyer accountability to standards would make big improvements.
Interesting stats. I'd love to see the percentage of challengers to incumbents who are lawyers. Every second November, like this coming November 7, 2006, we can fire all the lawyers in the House, and probably about 30% of the lawyers in the Senate. And replace them with people who legislate, rather than lawyer.
There's a good case to be made for lawyers being paid by the state, as they certainly are working in those offices on that business. But even more than doctors they cannot be allowed to make their own interests coincide with that of the state. Lawyers often work for people against the state, which must be recognized by the state as a primary responsiblity of lawyers. Doctors rarely find their interests conflicting with that of the state (except when they're not getting paid on time ;), so that structure isn't as dangerous.
There's probably a way to ensure that lawyers represent people's rights better than they do now. Regular random audits of billings and practices. More "contempt of court" punishment. More suspended/revoked licenses, especially for repeated frivolous representation. More "malpractice" awards. There ought to be more competition, with more standardized reviews contextualizing all those "scores", published for consumers.
Lawyers even more than doctors hide behind consumer ignorance and blind "respect". Exposing their performance as part of the shopping process would make them more competitive, and better adhere to the required "ethics" that usually are assumed to come with the tie.
What's really disappointing is that it's apparently cheaper to pay lawyers to settle a case than it is to defend your right to ignore optional guidelines like robots.txt in US courts.
If Congress were serious about keeping the US economy "safe and effective", it would reform the "lawyers' job security" laws. Instead it will surely make them even worse, and make the lawyer tax on technology mandatory.
OSX BSD is bigger than Linux, so it's obvious that more separates NetBSD from Linux. Like exactly the kinds of problems I mentioned, consistent with the problems we're discussing in the open letter.
Critics disagree with your dismissal of the conflict among the NetBSD team in 1994-5. And your point about NetBSD/OpenBSD losing compared to other BSDs coincides exactly with mine.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
When I said "I'd like to see an honest dissection of the relevant project management issues that underlaid the mutually destructive split.", I meant it. All TrollMods mean is to reduce lessons from an old flamewar to another flamewar. That's the kind of juvenille bickering and communications breakdown that helped kill NetBSD.
I'd like an Ubuntu image on a thumbdrive that reboots the host PC and uses only the thumbdrive for storage. That way I could use any PC with my own software, ensuring no tracks were left on the host PC because my software is controlling everything, and take the private stuff with me when I go. Without losing my history. I could keep personal info for filling forms and completing transactions on the thumbdrive.
If the Ubuntu image rebooted in seconds as a suspended RAMdisk or hibernate image, it would be convenient enough to do this on demand without slowing down my work.