...Pretty much the only reason to spend money on your equivalent of NASA is if your population is growing at an exponential rate, so you actually need the space. Your smartest strategy in almost any other case is to use your technology to manage your resources on-planet, rather then risk throwing an asteroid into the only planet you;ve got when you're trying to wrangle the thing into orbit.
This is a fallacious argument. The resources required to move enough people off-planet to outstrip birth rates would be far more than are available to us. There are many other good reasons to go off-planet and even create colonies elsewhere, but that isn't one of them.
We're the first technologically intelligent life here. Which is odd in itself. There are other biological features that have independently evolved multiple times: fins, wings, eyes...
Actually, we don't even know that for sure. As I pointed out in a previous post, it's entirely possible that intelligent, technological dinosaurs existed before the mass extinction 65 million years ago. Even our most durable polymers would break down in much less than 65 million years and erosion and the action of plate tectonics would likely wipe out any trace of such a civilization.
I'm not saying that it's what happened, but saying it didn't should hold just as much weight as saying it did. There is no evidence (or even the opportunity for evidence) either way.
But more on point, people who suggest there's no reason to think that there isn't other places in the universe with life tend not to understand how truly fucking huge the universe is.
There are 88 objects (known) in our solar system larger than 200 miles in diameter. We know one has life, we believe 3 others have a promising chance to have life (Enceladus, Titan. Europa), as well as the possibility of subterranean life on Mars (methane venting).
So lets do some math. There's 88 objects around our star. There is an estimated 300-500 billion stars in our galaxy. There is an estimated 100-200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, however newer models project 500 billion; the estimated diameter of the observable being 93 billion light years. Various estimates of the size of the universe overall range from 250 times the size of the observable to 3x10e23 times the size.
You do the math on how many objects that are out there. Again, anyone who doesn't think the odds are there's any life out there don't understand how fucking big an "out there" it is.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
However, I'd modify the quote, especially in light of our discussion, to read "Spacetime is big...peanuts to spacetime."
Of course, it's also entirely possible we actually are in particularly well governed galaxy and everyone is staying out of our way till we reach out and make first contact. Then we'll find out that Galactic Resolution 8A prohibited the international broadcasting of luminal RF in our direction or something.
What are you? Some kind of liberal? "well governed?" The government that governs least, governs best, you pinko!
Get your government out of my radio spectrum, you commie pig! God made man (and all the other intelligent races) in his Libertarian image! Regulation of radio signals? I bet you jerk off to photos of Marx and Lenin! Cretin!
This is satire, for those of you who fall on the low side of the bell curve for intelligence. Have a nice day!
But besides that, what amazes me is that we are not only the most intelligent life on earth (for some values of intelligence), but as far as we can tell, the most intelligent life to have ever developed on earth.
This seems odd, given that there are so many other intelligent life (but nowhere near our level) like cetaceans, some birds (which are descended from Dinos, which had a longer time to evolve in interesting forms- not like early, ratlike mammals, to boot), other primates, some species of octopuses, and I am sure I can think of more examples.
Maybe the trick is having a big brain and a body plan that is flexible enough to do many things, starting with a high metabolism. I would think that a therapod with human intelligence levels would have an awfully hard time building spaceships.
An interesting point. However, given the action of plate tectonics and erosion causing the extreme remodeling of the earth in the last 65 million years, it's possible that intelligent, even technologically advanced, dinosaurs could have existed, yet all traces have been erased by natural processes. That's not even a hypothesis, nor is it even science, as the idea isn't falsifiable. However, it is just as valid a conjecture as any that posit the existence (or non-existence) of extra-solar intelligent life.
...Sharpton has never held an elected public office; ergo, he has never been reelected, let alone elected.
And never will, if I have anything to say about it. Al Sharpton is a liar and an opportunist, like most politicians. However, he isn't very good at it. cf. Tawana Brawley and the Crown Heights Riot.
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.
I'm always quite amused when someone calls the US Democratic party "leftist" (no offense meant bobbied, your post just caught my eye) or the US Republican party as "right-wing." From a practical perspective, both parties are (and have been, for a long time) center-right.
That's not to say that there aren't real ideological/policy differences between the two major US political parties, but on the whole, they are quite close together ideologically when viewed through the lens of the broad spectrum of political thought.
Full disclosure: I am an American who has lived his whole life in the US.
I agree that man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet by a small amount. HOWEVER, other factors can affect the climate MORE than man made CO2 -- for example the Sun.. solar dynamics.. we can't make good predictive models of the Sun's output yet.. is it going to fluctuate? What if a new ice age starts tomorrow? We know each sunspot cycle isn't the same.. who knows if the sun will reduce or increase its output by some percent? Second our geophysical models are not good enough to tell us whether we may enter a phase of volcanic activity that may cause at least short term climate impacts. This has happened in the past by the way. I mean as recently as the 1800s.
We need to frame our argument better on this. CO2 emission is bad because it's pollution, and MIGHT cause global warming IF there are no changes in solar output or geophysically.
Okay. Let's parse the facts in your post:
1. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet.
One fact. I'd go farther and say "Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of source, increases the temperature of the planet.
An additional point, which is ignored is that the sun's luminosity is increasing ~10% every billion years. From a human standpoint, that's a long time, but shouldn't be ignored WRT the habitability of Earth.
In any case, there are few things that affect our climate which we can control. One of those is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Since our models are incomplete, it's not clear what effect (although the models and data we do have overwhelmingly suggest a negative effect) those could have on our climate. Putting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can (and likely will) have an effect, and based on the *facts* we have, that effect will be to increase global temperatures.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Based on the incomplete information we have, it appears that could be quite bad. If it turns out (based on better models and more data), that it's a good thing, we can certainly pump lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, until such time as we have better models/data, I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix (or break it, as the case may be) it. Folks with open minds and without financial incentives to the contrary will, if presented with the available facts and data, agree IMHO.
There's huge sums shoveled at STEM today. It's not funding that's the problem here, but the remarkably poor returns on that funding.
Eh, not so much. US Science Funding only represents 20% (~$90 Billion) of total R&D (~$450 Billion) in the US. That means that government spending on R&D is only 0.56% of US GDP
Yes. SpaceX is a classic example of privatising profits and socialising costs.
And your post is a good example of speaking before thinking.
Err...No. What OP meant was that all the R&D done by and for NASA from 1945 through 2006 or so gave SpaceX the knowledge, technology and expertise to improve the exercise of going to LEO. I am going to assume you didn't realize that, rather than assume that you are an idiot. That may be a mistake, but that happens sometimes.
How about actually fricking following these roadmaps ( SLS is NOT in there ) and getting some stuff done ? Advanced radioisotope stirling generator that was outlined as the CRUCIAL enabling technology piece for future exploration ? Cancelled ! Funds are required to build a monster rocket to nowhere instead...
But, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, no reason to expect a different result. Kill the waste, and start investing in future.
The idea that any sub-part of Congress can readily impose punishment upon a witness flies in the face of the concept of checks-and-balances. If an outraged subcommittee or committee had the power to jail or fine witnesses based on their testimony then imagine the fun a subcommittee completely controlled by political radicals (there are several House subcommittees that qualify) could have effectively removing members of the Executive from their ability to act ! Catch-22 would be de rigeur. Chairman: Spill the Beans! Witness: That would be unlawful! Chairman: Answering that is unlawful! Go to jail! Chairman: Spill the Beans! WItness: There are no beans to spill. Chairman: That's a lie! Go to jail!
(it's pretty obvious the AC referenced is Alyssa Rowan from TFA, a known persona in the crypto community).
Really? And you have documentary evidence supporting this contention? What is your evidence based upon? Did you see this "person" type the message? Did you view/.'s logs and trace back the IP address used by that particular AC and confirm that it is the "persona" (you can't even confirm who "Alyssa Rowan" is, let alone whether or not that was the person who posted that comment as AC.) you think it is.
You have no documentary evidence. Therefore your assertions are also just opinion. Sigh.
Okay. I'll say it a fourth time. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. We don't know for sure. Anything else is speculation.
In fact, Alyssa Rowan (quoted in TFA and a known persona in the crypto community) detailed the canary in the previous./ article, posting as an AC: http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Mayhap it is, and mayhap it isn't. Either way, TrueCrypt is dead. Anything else, without documentary evidence (and that means independently verifiable evidence, not mysterious tweets and AC posts) is just speculation, IMHO. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't mind.
When it comes to authority, the mere suspicion of abuse should be sufficient to start an investigation. People in power must always be treated as suspect in an adversarial manner. In other words, always treat those with power as a hostile witness. History is full of events that justify action against them.
An excellent point. I'd love to find out what really happened. I suppose I could write my congressman. That always works.:(:(:(
Don't worry man, you obviously don't need secure volume protection from anyone more hostile than the guy next door.
This is not an extraordinary claim. It is the most plausible explanation. This is simply someone posting their observation to bring a little light to people with their heads too buried in the sand to realize.
For the rest of us, an NSL was pretty obvious from the start. And a good reason to toss the last version and move on to something else.
My requirements are irrelevant. And, as I've said twice now (I guess reading comprehension isn't required for ACs?), the claim about an NSL or some other sort of government involvement is certainly possible. However, I'm not going to go off half-cocked without actual, verifiable information.
You'll note that I most certainly did not say "Oh, everything is perfectly fine. Nothing to see here. Go on about your business, citizen.
Given the product involved and the current environment, some paranoia is certainly justified. And just because some of us (me included) are paranoid, doesn't mean that "they" aren't out to get us.
All that said, if by some freak occurrence, if you actually read what I wrote, I merely pointed out that the claims made on the site linked to by TFS were unsubstantiated by any real evidence.
[Rant]Why is it that some people have such a hard time understanding simple English on an English language website? Sheesh![/Rant]
The reference to a "canary" is suspect, as it isn't discussed what that canary was.
The canary is the fact that the "explanation" of the EOL of XP is inconsistent with the stated goals and roadmap for the product as of recently.
If they'd wanted people to believe they'd gotten tired of the product, they'd have said "We're tired of working on this, we've changed our licensing terms, and releasing the code to everyone for future development."
If you can't say why you're taking the product down, you have two alternatives: either say nothing, fueling suspicion, or lie so poorly that everyone's suspicions are raised even higher.
The government can compel you to neither confirm nor deny any secret orders from any secret courts. (This also ought to be intolerable in a free society, but we're well past that tipping point.) What it cannot do is require that you be a sufficiently good liar that anyone believes your explanation. They can't charge you for not mentioning the secret court's secret letter because to do so would expose said letter's existence, which is precisely what the government wants hidden in the first place. Warrant canaries are a legal catch-22 of the government's own making.
Yes, it's suspicious. Yes, the suggestions make little or no sense to anyone with technical knowledge.
As I said, the report might be accurate.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see no evidence. At all. It's all supposition and guesswork. Present me with actual evidence, and I can be convinced. Until then, it's all noise and hand waving, IMHO.
I know it's a pipe dream. But a fella can dream, can't he?
A fella can do more than dream. A fella can contribute to the FreedomBox project. Money, code, trying it out on your mother-in-law, every little bit helps.
(Fine print: FreedomBox Foundation takes no responsibility for disturbances in your domestic tranquility due to software experimentation on your mother-in-law.)
That's an interesting idea. However, AFAICT that's all it is. In truth, there are many other things we can do:
1. Contact your municipal government about making the "last mile" a public utility serviced by multiple providers.
2. Contact the FCC and let them know that they need to address the issue of content providers owning ISPs and the "last mile."
3. Contact your municipal, state and federal representatives and let them know "You're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore!" [With apologies to Paddy Chayefsky]
4. Contact your ISP and demand they change their liberty restricting, abusive contracts to allow server traffic from your site.
5. For those who are technically inclined, get involved in technical efforts to design NG "last mile" protocols that have synchronous bandwith, rather than the asynchronous mechanisms of DOCSIS and ADSL.
6. Convince your friends, relatives and neighbors to do 1-5 as well.
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Not that the "FreedomBox" is a bad idea, it's a great idea! It can allow those who are being directly censored and oppressed to get the word out.
For the vast majority who are being covertly surveilled and their expression limited by the hegemony of content providers restricting our access to each other, having reasonable upload speeds and no restrictions on traffic will do more to promote freedom than any enryption/anonymization device.
No evidence is presented. The reference to a "canary" is suspect, as it isn't discussed what that canary was.
Some semi-random tweeter is reposted on some random blog? I don't think so.
It's possible that this is accurate, but without evidence, why bother? As I asked in the original discussion about the shuttering of TrueCrypt, who stands to benefit?
This may be an absurd suggestion, but given that internet access is somewhat required to participate in society today, perhaps it's time to class internet access as a utility like water and electricity/gas.
Yeah, some day I could see it being a utility because... I need to consume it every day to live and maintain sanitary conditions and shelter in the winter. Like the Telephone.
Oh, wait, Telephone isn't a utility. And the internet isn't either.
I don't want government providing me the internet, even local government. I don't think you do either??
Perhaps you should google "snowden nsa" or something.
By your logic, electricity isn't a utility either, nor is indoor plumbing. We all got along just fine for thousands of years without either one, didn't we? Geez Louise. If you're going to go for that false comparison, you might as well go all the way, no?
This may be an absurd suggestion, but given that internet access is somewhat required to participate in society today, perhaps it's time to class internet access as a utility like water and electricity/gas.
I doubt you would find anything that would lead to the destruction of Net Neutrality faster.
Please. Enlighten us. How exactly would reclassifying ISPs as common carriers destroy net neutrality?
In fact:
A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity". A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority.[Emphasis added]
What was that you were saying? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
The ability to run a server is an overlooked part of net neutrality. The debate now is motivated by content providers who only care about downstream parity with other providers â" but real neutrality would also allow consumers to run their own servers including mail and web servers. That would open up markets for plug servers and turn the privacy debate on its ear. In the long run, it might even prove more important than content provider equality.
Just so. However, I'd go even farther than that. The last mile protocols (DOCSIS, ADSL, etc.) that have been developed mimic the Consumer (download)/Provider (upload) model.
This is a direct assault on free speech and free collaboration across the Internet.
Restricting servers is just another part of the process which limits the promise and potential of the Internet.
When everyone can have reasonable upload speeds, then everyone can host content, everyone can publish their creative output, each of us can share our thoughts and ideas with the world, the big content providers (including MPAA/RIAA, major newsotainment outlets, the eBays and AmazonMarketplaces of the world) will become less relevant, and we will become freer.
I know it's a pipe dream. But a fella can dream, can't he?
Doing as the OP suggests would, almost certainly, "cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a family member, or an acquaintance"
Such a threat is implicit in the actions advocated by OP.
That's the definition of "assault", but I suppose I should have expected severe overlap so they can charge you with half a dozen crimes at once...
According to Article 120 of NY State Penal Law, that is not the case. According to NY State law, "Menacing" comes close, but the definition of "Assault" does not. At least that's how I read the law. IANAL, YMMV
Why, you might ask, do I focus on NY State law? According to the filing with the USPTO, Paul Ingrisano lists his zip code as 11204 (Brooklyn, NY).
Slashdot Mirror
...Pretty much the only reason to spend money on your equivalent of NASA is if your population is growing at an exponential rate, so you actually need the space. Your smartest strategy in almost any other case is to use your technology to manage your resources on-planet, rather then risk throwing an asteroid into the only planet you;ve got when you're trying to wrangle the thing into orbit.
This is a fallacious argument. The resources required to move enough people off-planet to outstrip birth rates would be far more than are available to us. There are many other good reasons to go off-planet and even create colonies elsewhere, but that isn't one of them.
We're the first technologically intelligent life here. Which is odd in itself. There are other biological features that have independently evolved multiple times: fins, wings, eyes...
Actually, we don't even know that for sure. As I pointed out in a previous post, it's entirely possible that intelligent, technological dinosaurs existed before the mass extinction 65 million years ago. Even our most durable polymers would break down in much less than 65 million years and erosion and the action of plate tectonics would likely wipe out any trace of such a civilization.
I'm not saying that it's what happened, but saying it didn't should hold just as much weight as saying it did. There is no evidence (or even the opportunity for evidence) either way.
But more on point, people who suggest there's no reason to think that there isn't other places in the universe with life tend not to understand how truly fucking huge the universe is. There are 88 objects (known) in our solar system larger than 200 miles in diameter. We know one has life, we believe 3 others have a promising chance to have life (Enceladus, Titan. Europa), as well as the possibility of subterranean life on Mars (methane venting). So lets do some math. There's 88 objects around our star. There is an estimated 300-500 billion stars in our galaxy. There is an estimated 100-200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, however newer models project 500 billion; the estimated diameter of the observable being 93 billion light years. Various estimates of the size of the universe overall range from 250 times the size of the observable to 3x10e23 times the size. You do the math on how many objects that are out there. Again, anyone who doesn't think the odds are there's any life out there don't understand how fucking big an "out there" it is.
Thank you. As Dougie said:
However, I'd modify the quote, especially in light of our discussion, to read "Spacetime is big...peanuts to spacetime."
Of course, it's also entirely possible we actually are in particularly well governed galaxy and everyone is staying out of our way till we reach out and make first contact. Then we'll find out that Galactic Resolution 8A prohibited the international broadcasting of luminal RF in our direction or something.
What are you? Some kind of liberal? "well governed?" The government that governs least, governs best, you pinko!
Get your government out of my radio spectrum, you commie pig! God made man (and all the other intelligent races) in his Libertarian image! Regulation of radio signals? I bet you jerk off to photos of Marx and Lenin! Cretin!
This is satire, for those of you who fall on the low side of the bell curve for intelligence. Have a nice day!
But besides that, what amazes me is that we are not only the most intelligent life on earth (for some values of intelligence), but as far as we can tell, the most intelligent life to have ever developed on earth. This seems odd, given that there are so many other intelligent life (but nowhere near our level) like cetaceans, some birds (which are descended from Dinos, which had a longer time to evolve in interesting forms- not like early, ratlike mammals, to boot), other primates, some species of octopuses, and I am sure I can think of more examples. Maybe the trick is having a big brain and a body plan that is flexible enough to do many things, starting with a high metabolism. I would think that a therapod with human intelligence levels would have an awfully hard time building spaceships.
An interesting point. However, given the action of plate tectonics and erosion causing the extreme remodeling of the earth in the last 65 million years, it's possible that intelligent, even technologically advanced, dinosaurs could have existed, yet all traces have been erased by natural processes. That's not even a hypothesis, nor is it even science, as the idea isn't falsifiable. However, it is just as valid a conjecture as any that posit the existence (or non-existence) of extra-solar intelligent life.
...Sharpton has never held an elected public office; ergo, he has never been reelected, let alone elected.
And never will, if I have anything to say about it. Al Sharpton is a liar and an opportunist, like most politicians. However, he isn't very good at it. cf. Tawana Brawley and the Crown Heights Riot.
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.
I'm always quite amused when someone calls the US Democratic party "leftist" (no offense meant bobbied, your post just caught my eye) or the US Republican party as "right-wing." From a practical perspective, both parties are (and have been, for a long time) center-right.
That's not to say that there aren't real ideological/policy differences between the two major US political parties, but on the whole, they are quite close together ideologically when viewed through the lens of the broad spectrum of political thought.
Full disclosure: I am an American who has lived his whole life in the US.
I agree that man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet by a small amount. HOWEVER, other factors can affect the climate MORE than man made CO2 -- for example the Sun .. solar dynamics .. we can't make good predictive models of the Sun's output yet .. is it going to fluctuate? What if a new ice age starts tomorrow? We know each sunspot cycle isn't the same .. who knows if the sun will reduce or increase its output by some percent? Second our geophysical models are not good enough to tell us whether we may enter a phase of volcanic activity that may cause at least short term climate impacts. This has happened in the past by the way. I mean as recently as the 1800s.
We need to frame our argument better on this. CO2 emission is bad because it's pollution, and MIGHT cause global warming IF there are no changes in solar output or geophysically.
Okay. Let's parse the facts in your post:
1. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet.
One fact. I'd go farther and say "Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of source, increases the temperature of the planet.
An additional point, which is ignored is that the sun's luminosity is increasing ~10% every billion years. From a human standpoint, that's a long time, but shouldn't be ignored WRT the habitability of Earth.
In any case, there are few things that affect our climate which we can control. One of those is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Since our models are incomplete, it's not clear what effect (although the models and data we do have overwhelmingly suggest a negative effect) those could have on our climate. Putting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can (and likely will) have an effect, and based on the *facts* we have, that effect will be to increase global temperatures.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Based on the incomplete information we have, it appears that could be quite bad. If it turns out (based on better models and more data), that it's a good thing, we can certainly pump lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, until such time as we have better models/data, I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix (or break it, as the case may be) it. Folks with open minds and without financial incentives to the contrary will, if presented with the available facts and data, agree IMHO.
There's huge sums shoveled at STEM today. It's not funding that's the problem here, but the remarkably poor returns on that funding.
Eh, not so much. US Science Funding only represents 20% (~$90 Billion) of total R&D (~$450 Billion) in the US. That means that government spending on R&D is only 0.56% of US GDP
.
Yes. SpaceX is a classic example of privatising profits and socialising costs.
And your post is a good example of speaking before thinking.
Err...No. What OP meant was that all the R&D done by and for NASA from 1945 through 2006 or so gave SpaceX the knowledge, technology and expertise to improve the exercise of going to LEO. I am going to assume you didn't realize that, rather than assume that you are an idiot. That may be a mistake, but that happens sometimes.
How about actually fricking following these roadmaps ( SLS is NOT in there ) and getting some stuff done ? Advanced radioisotope stirling generator that was outlined as the CRUCIAL enabling technology piece for future exploration ? Cancelled ! Funds are required to build a monster rocket to nowhere instead ...
But, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, no reason to expect a different result. Kill the waste, and start investing in future.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The idea that any sub-part of Congress can readily impose punishment upon a witness flies in the face of the concept of checks-and-balances. If an outraged subcommittee or committee had the power to jail or fine witnesses based on their testimony then imagine the fun a subcommittee completely controlled by political radicals (there are several House subcommittees that qualify) could have effectively removing members of the Executive from their ability to act ! Catch-22 would be de rigeur. Chairman: Spill the Beans! Witness: That would be unlawful! Chairman: Answering that is unlawful! Go to jail! Chairman: Spill the Beans! WItness: There are no beans to spill. Chairman: That's a lie! Go to jail!
Err...Not so much.
(it's pretty obvious the AC referenced is Alyssa Rowan from TFA, a known persona in the crypto community).
Really? And you have documentary evidence supporting this contention? What is your evidence based upon? Did you see this "person" type the message? Did you view /.'s logs and trace back the IP address used by that particular AC and confirm that it is the "persona" (you can't even confirm who "Alyssa Rowan" is, let alone whether or not that was the person who posted that comment as AC.) you think it is.
You have no documentary evidence. Therefore your assertions are also just opinion. Sigh.
Okay. I'll say it a fourth time. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. We don't know for sure. Anything else is speculation.
In fact, Alyssa Rowan (quoted in TFA and a known persona in the crypto community) detailed the canary in the previous ./ article, posting as an AC: http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Mayhap it is, and mayhap it isn't. Either way, TrueCrypt is dead. Anything else, without documentary evidence (and that means independently verifiable evidence, not mysterious tweets and AC posts) is just speculation, IMHO. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't mind.
Getting anything from a congress person requires a subpoena at least. They only get away with this crap because the population is so submissive.
Do you actually have a suggestion? Or are you just tilting at windmills?
Perhaps we should buy a US Attorney. I've got a jar full of silver change. A pretty big one too.
When it comes to authority, the mere suspicion of abuse should be sufficient to start an investigation. People in power must always be treated as suspect in an adversarial manner. In other words, always treat those with power as a hostile witness. History is full of events that justify action against them.
An excellent point. I'd love to find out what really happened. I suppose I could write my congressman. That always works. :( :( :(
Don't worry man, you obviously don't need secure volume protection from anyone more hostile than the guy next door.
This is not an extraordinary claim. It is the most plausible explanation. This is simply someone posting their observation to bring a little light to people with their heads too buried in the sand to realize.
For the rest of us, an NSL was pretty obvious from the start. And a good reason to toss the last version and move on to something else.
My requirements are irrelevant. And, as I've said twice now (I guess reading comprehension isn't required for ACs?), the claim about an NSL or some other sort of government involvement is certainly possible. However, I'm not going to go off half-cocked without actual, verifiable information.
You'll note that I most certainly did not say "Oh, everything is perfectly fine. Nothing to see here. Go on about your business, citizen.
Given the product involved and the current environment, some paranoia is certainly justified. And just because some of us (me included) are paranoid, doesn't mean that "they" aren't out to get us.
All that said, if by some freak occurrence, if you actually read what I wrote, I merely pointed out that the claims made on the site linked to by TFS were unsubstantiated by any real evidence.
[Rant]Why is it that some people have such a hard time understanding simple English on an English language website? Sheesh![/Rant]
The canary is the fact that the "explanation" of the EOL of XP is inconsistent with the stated goals and roadmap for the product as of recently.
If they'd wanted people to believe they'd gotten tired of the product, they'd have said "We're tired of working on this, we've changed our licensing terms, and releasing the code to everyone for future development."
If you can't say why you're taking the product down, you have two alternatives: either say nothing, fueling suspicion, or lie so poorly that everyone's suspicions are raised even higher.
The government can compel you to neither confirm nor deny any secret orders from any secret courts. (This also ought to be intolerable in a free society, but we're well past that tipping point.) What it cannot do is require that you be a sufficiently good liar that anyone believes your explanation. They can't charge you for not mentioning the secret court's secret letter because to do so would expose said letter's existence, which is precisely what the government wants hidden in the first place. Warrant canaries are a legal catch-22 of the government's own making.
Yes, it's suspicious. Yes, the suggestions make little or no sense to anyone with technical knowledge.
As I said, the report might be accurate.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see no evidence. At all. It's all supposition and guesswork. Present me with actual evidence, and I can be convinced. Until then, it's all noise and hand waving, IMHO.
I know it's a pipe dream. But a fella can dream, can't he?
A fella can do more than dream. A fella can contribute to the FreedomBox project. Money, code, trying it out on your mother-in-law, every little bit helps.
(Fine print: FreedomBox Foundation takes no responsibility for disturbances in your domestic tranquility due to software experimentation on your mother-in-law.)
That's an interesting idea. However, AFAICT that's all it is. In truth, there are many other things we can do:
1. Contact your municipal government about making the "last mile" a public utility serviced by multiple providers.
2. Contact the FCC and let them know that they need to address the issue of content providers owning ISPs and the "last mile."
3. Contact your municipal, state and federal representatives and let them know "You're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore!" [With apologies to Paddy Chayefsky]
4. Contact your ISP and demand they change their liberty restricting, abusive contracts to allow server traffic from your site.
5. For those who are technically inclined, get involved in technical efforts to design NG "last mile" protocols that have synchronous bandwith, rather than the asynchronous mechanisms of DOCSIS and ADSL.
6. Convince your friends, relatives and neighbors to do 1-5 as well.
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Not that the "FreedomBox" is a bad idea, it's a great idea! It can allow those who are being directly censored and oppressed to get the word out.
For the vast majority who are being covertly surveilled and their expression limited by the hegemony of content providers restricting our access to each other, having reasonable upload speeds and no restrictions on traffic will do more to promote freedom than any enryption/anonymization device.
No evidence is presented. The reference to a "canary" is suspect, as it isn't discussed what that canary was.
Some semi-random tweeter is reposted on some random blog? I don't think so.
It's possible that this is accurate, but without evidence, why bother? As I asked in the original discussion about the shuttering of TrueCrypt, who stands to benefit?
Net neutrality is good.
Common carrier status implies regulation. Regulation is communism. Communism is bad.
Good != bad.
Therefore, common carrier status is the opposite of net neutrality.
-- roman_mir
Not sure if you're trolling or just really, really brainwashed.
This may be an absurd suggestion, but given that internet access is somewhat required to participate in society today, perhaps it's time to class internet access as a utility like water and electricity/gas.
Yeah, some day I could see it being a utility because ... I need to consume it every day to live and maintain sanitary conditions and shelter in the winter. Like the Telephone.
Oh, wait, Telephone isn't a utility. And the internet isn't either.
I don't want government providing me the internet, even local government. I don't think you do either??
Perhaps you should google "snowden nsa" or something.
By your logic, electricity isn't a utility either, nor is indoor plumbing. We all got along just fine for thousands of years without either one, didn't we? Geez Louise. If you're going to go for that false comparison, you might as well go all the way, no?
This may be an absurd suggestion, but given that internet access is somewhat required to participate in society today, perhaps it's time to class internet access as a utility like water and electricity/gas.
I doubt you would find anything that would lead to the destruction of Net Neutrality faster.
Please. Enlighten us. How exactly would reclassifying ISPs as common carriers destroy net neutrality?
In fact:
What was that you were saying? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
The ability to run a server is an overlooked part of net neutrality. The debate now is motivated by content providers who only care about downstream parity with other providers â" but real neutrality would also allow consumers to run their own servers including mail and web servers. That would open up markets for plug servers and turn the privacy debate on its ear. In the long run, it might even prove more important than content provider equality.
Just so. However, I'd go even farther than that. The last mile protocols (DOCSIS, ADSL, etc.) that have been developed mimic the Consumer (download)/Provider (upload) model.
This is a direct assault on free speech and free collaboration across the Internet.
Restricting servers is just another part of the process which limits the promise and potential of the Internet.
When everyone can have reasonable upload speeds, then everyone can host content, everyone can publish their creative output, each of us can share our thoughts and ideas with the world, the big content providers (including MPAA/RIAA, major newsotainment outlets, the eBays and AmazonMarketplaces of the world) will become less relevant, and we will become freer.
I know it's a pipe dream. But a fella can dream, can't he?
Doing as the OP suggests would, almost certainly, "cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a family member, or an acquaintance"
Such a threat is implicit in the actions advocated by OP.
That's the definition of "assault", but I suppose I should have expected severe overlap so they can charge you with half a dozen crimes at once...
According to Article 120 of NY State Penal Law, that is not the case. According to NY State law, "Menacing" comes close, but the definition of "Assault" does not. At least that's how I read the law. IANAL, YMMV
Why, you might ask, do I focus on NY State law? According to the filing with the USPTO, Paul Ingrisano lists his zip code as 11204 (Brooklyn, NY).