It is not at all uncommon for rape victims to not want to get involved in a full blown criminal investigation. You see the same things at colleges all the time, where women come forward with rape allegations and don't want the police involved but rather college administrators. Moreover in this particular case, they belong to a community being actively persecuted by the police subject to frequent violent confrontations.
This is a common problem in policing, you see it in ethnic ghettos as well. If the police aren't seen as representing the community, the community starts treating the local police force like an occupying army and have no interest in assisting them in enforcing their laws. Instead sometimes the community sets up a community based legal enforcement mechanisms which do have the support of the governed population. Again, among whites colleges campus are a place you see this. Police offers are quite often representing the administrations or the townies against the students and consequently the students are remarkably hostile when the police want their assistance for crimes, even crimes being perpetrated against college students.
If the police don't like being thought of that way, they need to stop acting like mercenaries for corporate interests. From the 1930s the the 1970s police generally would not get involved in peaceful protest for precisely the reason that the people who were involved in political protests quite often go on to be politicians and their negative attitudes towards law enforcement continue even when they are in positions of power.
Which I think proves my point about the conduct of the OWS being the issue.
As for the rest, if you are Libertarian then there is no reason OWS should appeal to you. They are asking for a much stronger government regulation of the financial sector, redistribution.... it is hard to imagine policies more at odds with Libertarianism.
I get that. The whole point plausibly deniable encryption is that you can deny having encrypted data. The encrypted data is hidden in something else or hidden in some way. There will be no evidence of using deniable encryption.
Given that there are several open source implementations I'm not sure how effective outlawing them would be. Especially since it is easy enough to use them with a regular file system and just embedding the secondary encrypted file inside another file.
I've already seen this for email where an email folder is encrypted with part of the password stored in a gif. The end user has to select the right gif, the program doesn't know.
You aren't thinking about a terrorist organization.
In the case of antrax you need lots of local delivery that is complex, like planes or getting into sky scraper air conditioning systems if you want to kill large numbers of people. In the case of smallpox you could have a dozen people do 100 releases each in crowded locations and let nature take its course.
When we were all concerned about the war on terror a weaponized or modified form of smallpox was one of the primary concerns in terms of bioweapons. Weapons like anthrax require local delivery and it was assumed that a terrorist organization could not pull off a huge number of local deliveries. On the other hand having a dozen people do 20 releases each of a smallpox vaccine to cause a plague was considered a realistic option.
At the time we had poor quality vaccines and as a country we decided to improve the quality of our vaccination program. The offensive parts of the war on terror are so much more expensive than the defensive parts, I'm not even concerned.
If we didn't have fire safety regulations most business would have poor fire safety If we didn't have OSHA regulations for jobs with physical work, we'd have more workplace injuries If we didn't have building codes, the buildings most business operated in would be unsafe If we allowed the importation of unsafe cars, business would buy them
Doing things right costs money in the short term. Most businesses and business people think and act short term.
That is applying Chinese law to Chinese nationals, same thing that any other country does (it's an unjust law, but it's not what we've been talking about).
I understand. GP claimed China didn't do this sort of thing.
The world did not consent for U.S. to be its policeman. And, well, a person with a baton beating other people up is not necessarily a cop even if he claims he does.
Two points: a) Whether the world consented or not, is actually somewhat irrelevant to the point that the United States is in more wars than most countries because of its role.
b) It is not factually true that the world didn't consent. Generally the world urges US involvement and encourages it in these wars. The entire reason the United Nations was located in the USA was a European attempt to avoid having the US have the kind of indifference to world affairs it did between the world wars. The actions the US has taken generally have strong international support, Iraq exceptional in that the US took the action without strong international support. That is not the norm.
The country - i.e. the people of the country in question - is usually very bitter about it. Heck, just ask any Brit what he thinks about the extradition treaty his country has with U.S., and its practical application.
Foreign justice is unpopular in most countries with the population. If you don't want an extradition treaty with the USA don't have one. But the United States didn't force the UK to have one, your issue is with British politicians not US policy.
China was monitoring US internet communication back in 1989?
There wasn't a US internet in 1989. Usenet, gopher... were international. Because the internet wasn't focused on commerce, and there was no advertising, it was actually more international than it is today. The internet sites I was talking about though were in Chinese. I suspect the Chinese government got reports about what was going on, on those sites not directly monitored them, I don't know how it happened; what I do know is that it did.
CGCC is not another country. It is an American "research and policy institute".
Understood. Members of foreign police forces come their and train American forces. GP had argued that never happens. I would agree with your description of what is happening at CGCC, "a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military". You and I aren't disagreeing, you are disagreeing with GP.
The other thing is usually the result of a government trying to wage a secretive war without getting its hands dirty or without the consent of its people.
Agreed. The US assists other government against the will of their population. I claimed we had government support, not popular support.
If the government of the UK didn't believe the US is protecting you from anything, simply ask your government to not renew the status of forces agreement. Here is the agreement from your government Nato UK Safo.
If you don't like the UK government's policies stop blaming Americans.
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.
They're policing the world in the same sense a bully "polices" his classroom. In either case, nobody asked them to and nobody wants them to.
Actually the US is frequently asked by countries involved to intervene. That's over and above international groups that frequently ask for those interventions.
Orly? Who will be glad for the US taking the case when Julian Assange gets extradited?
I suspect most European governments that think Wikileaks got out of hand. Besides right now this is UK and Sweden. You may not agree, but this is not US bullying. If the US were bullying Asange would have been rendered.
China being China, why do you want to justify US actions based on their example? Are you living in United States of China, by chance?
There was a specific claim about Chinese behavior that was factually false.
jbolden: Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
Come on! What bases from other countries are operating on US ground? I hope you're not being paid too much!
I think you should read the context. GP talked about policing. And I gave you a specific example. England, is the primary one, but Australia and Germany are heavily involved in the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now.
What's fair about this? Unless you define policing like Rodney King.
What does Rodney King have to do with extradition?
I'm going to stop now. You need to read the posts you are responding to.
I think they can and should condemn us when we act in ways contrary to the universal declaration of human rights. They aren't telling us what to do, just telling us we are being jerks.
In theory there doesn't need to be any work. Someone just needs to do it. Anyone can run a DNS and those DNSes can have any policy. I already use Google's DNS as a backup DNS. There are a whole network of anti-censorship tools in place for countries with internet censorship. That's done and easy.
The problem is getting hundreds of millions of Americans to use them. Things like my iPhone don't even give me the option of setting up a secondary DNS.
They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.
I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.
They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training"
Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
US is the only country in the world that has been constantly in war with at least one country
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.
They try to extradite people from other countries to jail them for years in US soil.
Not that often. And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.
A value trap is a stock with bad fundamentals that is declining based on those fundamentals. That is a situation when investors assume a stock is a good buy, a value stock because the price is now low. Microsoft is a stock with (according to my argument) good fundamentals that used to be valued for strong growth and now is valued for slow/no growth. You could disagree with my assessment of the fundamentals, but it ain't a value trap if there is a strong fundamental case to be made.
Which is where a robot rules: just download the appropriate manual from the cloud and it's a highly trained mechanic for your particular model (download the log, and it also has all the repair history for that particular plane at it's fingertips, as it were)
Humans are still much more general purpose than robots even with infinite knowledge. That may change but so far we are better constructed for things like different size repairs.
True so far, but they will surely get better. Not to mention that they can use a wide variety of sensors and interface directly with the plane's systems to track changes in real time, or almost.
I worked on that system for satellites (where you aren't going to be fixing it manually ever). Trust me, the best possible automated systems suck. You still want a mechanic if you get one. 20-30 years...
Heck, they can do some maintenance operations while flying, why not? I can see for example robots crawling the outside of the plane and scraping ice off (of course, some mechanism needs to be designed to keep them on the plane at those speeds).
That's a good idea. I'm not sure we know how to make airfoils to offer that sort of support but I'd imagine a high friction paint....
The robot doesn't have to be fully autonomous, you know: when a robot fails, it can transfer control to a highly trained operator that takes the robot over the bump and then lets it go back to standard operation. This way, a single engineer can oversee manintenance over lots of planes, replacing lots of human mechanics.
Microsoft has tripled earning in the last decade, a long history of solid steady (though slowing) growth. The stock had lots of growth priced in and the stock has delivered growth. Growth is slowing. P/E of under 10, PEG.85, 3 P/S and P/B for a healthy growing company; 44% return on equity. The stock was priced for growth a decade ago and is now priced for value. And all this with a 3% dividend yield!
Slashdot Mirror
It is not at all uncommon for rape victims to not want to get involved in a full blown criminal investigation. You see the same things at colleges all the time, where women come forward with rape allegations and don't want the police involved but rather college administrators. Moreover in this particular case, they belong to a community being actively persecuted by the police subject to frequent violent confrontations.
This is a common problem in policing, you see it in ethnic ghettos as well. If the police aren't seen as representing the community, the community starts treating the local police force like an occupying army and have no interest in assisting them in enforcing their laws. Instead sometimes the community sets up a community based legal enforcement mechanisms which do have the support of the governed population. Again, among whites colleges campus are a place you see this. Police offers are quite often representing the administrations or the townies against the students and consequently the students are remarkably hostile when the police want their assistance for crimes, even crimes being perpetrated against college students.
If the police don't like being thought of that way, they need to stop acting like mercenaries for corporate interests. From the 1930s the the 1970s police generally would not get involved in peaceful protest for precisely the reason that the people who were involved in political protests quite often go on to be politicians and their negative attitudes towards law enforcement continue even when they are in positions of power.
Which I think proves my point about the conduct of the OWS being the issue.
As for the rest, if you are Libertarian then there is no reason OWS should appeal to you. They are asking for a much stronger government regulation of the financial sector, redistribution.... it is hard to imagine policies more at odds with Libertarianism.
I get that. The whole point plausibly deniable encryption is that you can deny having encrypted data. The encrypted data is hidden in something else or hidden in some way. There will be no evidence of using deniable encryption.
And I'm sure you voted Democrat and supported Democratic causes prior to OWS it is just their conduct that turned you off.
Thanks AC!
That wouldn't work for the reasons discussed below. But there are drive electronics that respond to tampering by wiping. That already exists.
Given that there are several open source implementations I'm not sure how effective outlawing them would be. Especially since it is easy enough to use them with a regular file system and just embedding the secondary encrypted file inside another file.
I've already seen this for email where an email folder is encrypted with part of the password stored in a gif. The end user has to select the right gif, the program doesn't know.
You aren't thinking about a terrorist organization.
In the case of antrax you need lots of local delivery that is complex, like planes or getting into sky scraper air conditioning systems if you want to kill large numbers of people. In the case of smallpox you could have a dozen people do 100 releases each in crowded locations and let nature take its course.
When we were all concerned about the war on terror a weaponized or modified form of smallpox was one of the primary concerns in terms of bioweapons. Weapons like anthrax require local delivery and it was assumed that a terrorist organization could not pull off a huge number of local deliveries. On the other hand having a dozen people do 20 releases each of a smallpox vaccine to cause a plague was considered a realistic option.
At the time we had poor quality vaccines and as a country we decided to improve the quality of our vaccination program. The offensive parts of the war on terror are so much more expensive than the defensive parts, I'm not even concerned.
For the same reason that
If we didn't have fire safety regulations most business would have poor fire safety
If we didn't have OSHA regulations for jobs with physical work, we'd have more workplace injuries
If we didn't have building codes, the buildings most business operated in would be unsafe
If we allowed the importation of unsafe cars, business would buy them
Doing things right costs money in the short term. Most businesses and business people think and act short term.
I understand. GP claimed China didn't do this sort of thing.
Two points:
a) Whether the world consented or not, is actually somewhat irrelevant to the point that the United States is in more wars than most countries because of its role.
b) It is not factually true that the world didn't consent. Generally the world urges US involvement and encourages it in these wars. The entire reason the United Nations was located in the USA was a European attempt to avoid having the US have the kind of indifference to world affairs it did between the world wars. The actions the US has taken generally have strong international support, Iraq exceptional in that the US took the action without strong international support. That is not the norm.
Foreign justice is unpopular in most countries with the population. If you don't want an extradition treaty with the USA don't have one. But the United States didn't force the UK to have one, your issue is with British politicians not US policy.
I agree but that's a different argument than the one GP was raising.
Gopher, usenet, email and some FTP. The web wasn't big until 1994 but there was plenty of activity on the internet prior to the web.
There wasn't a US internet in 1989. Usenet, gopher... were international. Because the internet wasn't focused on commerce, and there was no advertising, it was actually more international than it is today. The internet sites I was talking about though were in Chinese. I suspect the Chinese government got reports about what was going on, on those sites not directly monitored them, I don't know how it happened; what I do know is that it did.
Understood. Members of foreign police forces come their and train American forces. GP had argued that never happens. I would agree with your description of what is happening at CGCC, "a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military". You and I aren't disagreeing, you are disagreeing with GP.
Agreed. The US assists other government against the will of their population. I claimed we had government support, not popular support.
If the government of the UK didn't believe the US is protecting you from anything, simply ask your government to not renew the status of forces agreement. Here is the agreement from your government Nato UK Safo.
If you don't like the UK government's policies stop blaming Americans.
Actually the US is frequently asked by countries involved to intervene. That's over and above international groups that frequently ask for those interventions.
I suspect most European governments that think Wikileaks got out of hand. Besides right now this is UK and Sweden. You may not agree, but this is not US bullying. If the US were bullying Asange would have been rendered.
There was a specific claim about Chinese behavior that was factually false.
I think you should read the context. GP talked about policing. And I gave you a specific example. England, is the primary one, but Australia and Germany are heavily involved in the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
What does Rodney King have to do with extradition?
I'm going to stop now. You need to read the posts you are responding to.
There was an active internet in academia well before there was a commercially used web. Usenet in particular, but also chinese newspapers via. gopher.
I think they can and should condemn us when we act in ways contrary to the universal declaration of human rights. They aren't telling us what to do, just telling us we are being jerks.
In theory there doesn't need to be any work. Someone just needs to do it. Anyone can run a DNS and those DNSes can have any policy. I already use Google's DNS as a backup DNS. There are a whole network of anti-censorship tools in place for countries with internet censorship. That's done and easy.
The problem is getting hundreds of millions of Americans to use them. Things like my iPhone don't even give me the option of setting up a secondary DNS.
I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.
Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.
Not that often. And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.
A value trap is a stock with bad fundamentals that is declining based on those fundamentals. That is a situation when investors assume a stock is a good buy, a value stock because the price is now low. Microsoft is a stock with (according to my argument) good fundamentals that used to be valued for strong growth and now is valued for slow/no growth. You could disagree with my assessment of the fundamentals, but it ain't a value trap if there is a strong fundamental case to be made.
Humans are still much more general purpose than robots even with infinite knowledge. That may change but so far we are better constructed for things like different size repairs.
I worked on that system for satellites (where you aren't going to be fixing it manually ever). Trust me, the best possible automated systems suck. You still want a mechanic if you get one. 20-30 years...
That's a good idea. I'm not sure we know how to make airfoils to offer that sort of support but I'd imagine a high friction paint....
Now that's scary. I can see that setup working.
The yield is 3% on MSFT. Which given the bond yield is outstanding.
Microsoft has tripled earning in the last decade, a long history of solid steady (though slowing) growth. The stock had lots of growth priced in and the stock has delivered growth. Growth is slowing. P/E of under 10, PEG .85, 3 P/S and P/B for a healthy growing company; 44% return on equity. The stock was priced for growth a decade ago and is now priced for value. And all this with a 3% dividend yield!
That's a good stock.