That may be.... But spend transactions are digitally signed.
That means the Feds stole his personal credentials and FORGED his signature.
The feds are allowed to command the seizure of property. Nothing entitles them to forge signatures, commit frauds, or other crimes, to complete their seizures; under any circumstances -- if they are physical assets,
with a warrant they can go and take them: otherwise they need a properly executed order to the bank or other institution holding the assets...
It's not permissible to forge an alleged fellon's signature on a bank check, for example; to deliver cash alleged to be connected with a crime.
They are not a thing - you can't sell them. You are effectively selling a service
You really think, the government folks can't look through that, and recognize that in fact Bitcoins have become a thing, and you can "sell" Bitcoins.
Your are effectively buying a service in that sense, every time you go to the grocery store and buy a 1 gallon jug of milk --- you are paying for the service of conferring to you an exclusive right to the specified 1 gallon jug of milk.
In what way is seizing his bitcoins illegal? Can you name the statute or case law that backs either you or Ulbricht up?
The act of forging his digital signature on a spend transaction.
Which is the only way to "seize" coins.
This is the equivalent to the FBI seizing your checkbook, and forging your name, to empty your bank account. They can't legally do that.
(Although they do have legal options provided by the law, at their disposal).
Measuring something different
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
graph on the release date of gems over time could help determine an answer.
Perhaps that would just show you if 'gems' are dying. COBOL^H^H^H^H^HRuby, could still be thriving.
This is like trying to use CPAN project release dates to determine if Perl is dying.
But I suspect the problem is that the benefits simply outweigh the inconvenience of having to run with an entirely separate ABI.
Well; if the benefits outweigh the inconvenience --- then it seems x32 should be catching on more than it is.
Personally I think it is a bad idea because of the 4GB program virtual address space limit;
which applications will be frequently exceeding, especially the server applications that would otherwise
benefit the most from optimization.
He thinks, but it's most likely true. The government has stopped hundreds of bombing attempts with the help of all the data they've collected, but no one knows about this because they never happened.
You missed the point. They could stop the next bombing attempt by cutting everyone's leg off.
You can make your computer unhackable by unplugging the power cord.
Privacy Breaches of innocent citizens' private message metadata are over the line.
It doesn't matter if you could cure cancer, with that data.
The harm caused by the violation is more severe, than the improvement you made.
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
He isn't the first great person to have fallen, and he won't be the last. One thing to keep in mind is.... not everyone gets the message about such things. He may have been a genius, and a great war hero: but the legislators don't know about it; heros are often modest and unlikely to boast about it, and the courts at the time weren't even allowed to consider it, anyways.... at the end of the day, all the heros are just average people that have to live by the same rules as everyone else, or their future will be wrecked.
Think of the government, and the justice system like a "machine"; the courts operate in a mechanized fashion to implement the law and standards that have been put to them. Only the highly influential and powerful people can bend the machine, adjust the cogs, or cause it to act differently; Usually by AVOIDing the "Input" chute of the criminal justice machine altogether (Alan and partner were arrested after he and his mate were the victims of a robbery, and he reported the robbery - and admitted the relationship) - if the officers recognized him as a hero, and he had a powerful family, he could have probably escaped arrest, or at least gotten charges withdrawn --- Alan was neither well-known nor powerful at the time.
He just had a reward for military service. The criminal conviction also made Alan immediately stripped of his security clearance and ineligible for any further government/ top-secret work --- his consultancy with the GCHQ on signals intelligence and cryptography was terminated (probably to their great detriment);
he was also Denied Entry to the United States based on the criminal record --- so you can't fault the UK alone; there, see, you have a conspiracy ----- the US customs will mechanically treat a UK conviction as a fact, and not doubt that justice has been done.
Take Hypatia --- killed by a mob of christians.
Petrus Ramus -- executed in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Giordano Bruno --- burnt alive due to the roman inquisition for heresy; cosmological theories going beyond the copernican model, the sun as one of many stars, and inhabited alien worlds
Siger of Brabant, Socrates, Anaxarchus, Seneca, Boethius, Judah Halevi, Jan Hus, Thomas More, Galileo,
The pages of history are written in blood ---- people that could have done so many more great things for humanity,
but whose work got redirected to the industry of war, or their lives got cut short by violent acts or lawful abuses and miscarriages of justice of the government.
For every time a major new level of enlightenment is reached ---- the pattern seems to be someone has to suffer and die
at the hands of unjust suppression or unjust laws deemed just at the time the events transpired
Re:An utter disgrace. Should be a full apology
on
Alan Turing Pardoned
·
· Score: 1
The charges and conviction still stand. Conviction should be quashed and a full "royal" apology
That is what in effect the pardon amounts to.
There is no such thing as "quashing" a conviction that was valid and proper under the law.
Today we may feel the law is unjust -- but the courts and legislators aren't entitled to nullify convictions on laws that existed at the time they were violated.
1000 years from now; they may well say the same thing about Disorderly conduct felons, felony Curfew violators, Public drunkenness laws, etc.
They can't exactly reverse the sentence or atone for it, now that he's already dead.
Or did I miss the part from the article, where they showed how the government is going to excavate his grave: bring him back to life, and reverse all effects of decay and aging, so he'll be as young and wily as the day before he was charged of a crime?
Any refusal to sign something by the monarch would lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis, possibly resulting in the end of the monarchy
Or the dissolution of the government, with the monarchy's position prevailing -- depending on what exactly it was they refused to sign, or what proclamation they did choose to sign "without permission"
As long as the government administration in play at the time is corrupt, and the public is truly overwhelmingly in agreement with the monarchy's position.
It is an unlikely event, and it might not happen in the next year, or in the next 100 years, BUT history is very very long, and eventually almost every unlikely event will happen.
It would be silly to expect the current government institution to last forever, or for the monarchy to last forever, in the state that it does today. Ultimately; it will be influenced by the state of the country and the world ---- many different things in the future can happen to influence things.
I'm aware of what it involves. I'm also aware that we continually improve and refine these processes
We also refined our processes of execution... oh how much more humane. Look at how much more the victims of the death penalty are pleased with the final outcome?
Consider, for example, the various psychiatric medications available on the market that are increasingly prescribed for trivial reasons.
What, like Thorazine, Haldol, and other chemical straitjackets; "Anti-psychotics" touted by psychiatrists due to their ability to cause maximal behavioral disruption, disturbance or interruption of their subjects' thought processes or ability to think and coherently act, and other permanent damage?
So it is reasonable to expect that something like this -- if refined and convenient enough -- would become over-prescribed as well.
Fine; as long as patients retain the right to refuse this and other barbaric treatments.
It really doesn't matter how "refined" the task of shocking the hell out a subject's brain becomes;
it's still a blunt imprecise, damaging action as well --- even refined, the "cure" may well be substantially worse than the disease.
Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened.
Because "YOU THINK"? That is a good enough reason to rape Americans' of their privacy?
And if we station armed soldiers at every interstate entrance and exit, every state border, every entrance and exit to every major cvity, to interrogate all travelers, strip search everyone driving -- demand to see and record the "metadata" (identification of all vehicle passengers, and their reported origin and destination) --- just maybe we stop the next 9/11 or carbombing too.
The terrorists will just have to use a different technique...
The liquid water does its thing and... you know the rest. Titanic.
Titanic was supposed to be an indestructible container for air and humans....
Water has the odd property of expanding at around 4C at normal (sea level) pressure.
Above 4 degrees; water is more dense at lower temperatures, just like other fluids. Water is most dense at 4 degrees C. If you cool OR heat water at 4 degrees C either above or below that temperature; it will have to become less dense or be under greater pressure.
Therefore; if you have a partially frozen body of water of any significant depth; the water that is at the bottom, should be close to 4 degrees C -- and under heavy pressure, of course.
The document is available for review, but not scanning it, or even writing your own notes about it.
Because the two versions are similar, a side-by-side comparison allows a reader to deduce what was redacted in the later version. The copyright office does not allow readers to take pictures or notes, but during a brief inspection, a few redactions stood out.
I just checked, and there are towns in my province (canadian prairies) that only have 1.5 mbps connectivity and most of the smaller places max out at 5mbps.
Virtually... in any town; small or not, there is plenty of fiber and other Telecommunications infrastructure.
The telephone company essentially needs large digital trunks, just to deliver basic phone service.
If there are providers delivering 1.5 and 5 megabit connections to residents then they Do have high-speed links in the area --- the provider has to have access to some high speed links in the first place in order to be able to offer 5 megabit connections in the first place....
If significant bandwidth is available over wireless 4G, then again there must be nearby 4G towers in range of the area area that also must have access to high-speed links.
I'm not buying "the infrastructure is not there" argument, for those areas.
Now: it may be unavailable for political reasons, or the school not willing to spend more than a few $100 a month for a 100 megabit private circuit to an IP transit provider.
You have linked to a non-standard document, which is not a normative reference.
No consensus required to publish. Non-standard use of the designation "Virtual Private Network".
Sample a large enough number of the population, and you are bound to find people abusing terms.
Their usage is inaccurate. Informational level RFCs don't have the blessings of the IESG or the community.
The fact that you use the term "secure" in this context already shows that you are clueless. What do you mean by secure? Security can include any of the following
Are you trying to be a smart-ass?
All three are necessary conditions.
A Virtual Private Network is the combination of the concept of a Virtual IP Network with a Private Network.
All those various solutions are virtual networks. Virtual networks are networks that have been extended over the top of another physical network --- in other words, the network is tunneled or encapsulated, so the IP addressing of the network is not that of the physical network.
The important bit is Private: A private network that is physically secured to only the endpoints in the network.
A virtual private network replaces physical isolation of data links with cryptography.
If the network is not secured using cryptography, then it is not Private.
For example; in a MPLS Virtual Network; the Virtual network, would be subject to the possibility of intrusion into the network by the circuit provider, or any third party ---- there is no way to know that the network is actually Private then, so it is not.
Since you're in such a remote area, your visitors very likely also have slow connections at home too. Why not cache the updates instead? You'll be contributing towards a safer, more secure internet.
Not only that.... but malware can suck up your bandwidth just as fast, or faster than updates; the consequences of failing to update can over time be adverse to your own network's performance.
Reading the post, I immediately said, "not the best you can buy, just the best you're willing to pay for."
Yeah.... use of freebie or low-end consumer-grade broadband services in a large scale instruction environment.
If your school spends more in a month on toilet paper; or getting the grounds mowed or floors cleaned, in costs, than on your internet connection, then you are doing it wrong.
Wasn't there billions of dollars spent by the government like 10 years ago to get every school connected with high speed internet?
Discounted telecommunication services available to schools under E-Rate.
For every 1000 students; there should be 100 Megabits.
This is like saying.... for our school lunch program; the budget we have allocated, only allows us to buy 10 pounds of meat.
All 10000 of you will just have to share it.
By the way; if any of you are hungry because you skipped breakfast: we're going to have to take measures to block you from accessing the serving dish,
since we find that such users are likely to eat a lot more food.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be.... But spend transactions are digitally signed.
That means the Feds stole his personal credentials and FORGED his signature.
The feds are allowed to command the seizure of property. Nothing entitles them to forge signatures, commit frauds, or other crimes, to complete their seizures; under any circumstances -- if they are physical assets, with a warrant they can go and take them: otherwise they need a properly executed order to the bank or other institution holding the assets...
It's not permissible to forge an alleged fellon's signature on a bank check, for example; to deliver cash alleged to be connected with a crime.
They are not a thing - you can't sell them. You are effectively selling a service
You really think, the government folks can't look through that, and recognize that in fact Bitcoins have become a thing, and you can "sell" Bitcoins.
Your are effectively buying a service in that sense, every time you go to the grocery store and buy a 1 gallon jug of milk --- you are paying for the service of conferring to you an exclusive right to the specified 1 gallon jug of milk.
They are certainly OK to auction the car, and certainly not OK to auction the heroin.
OK. But what do the feds do with the $100,000 in cash found in the glove box? Where do the proceeds go? Executive bonuses for the chief?
In what way is seizing his bitcoins illegal? Can you name the statute or case law that backs either you or Ulbricht up?
The act of forging his digital signature on a spend transaction. Which is the only way to "seize" coins.
This is the equivalent to the FBI seizing your checkbook, and forging your name, to empty your bank account. They can't legally do that. (Although they do have legal options provided by the law, at their disposal).
graph on the release date of gems over time could help determine an answer.
Perhaps that would just show you if 'gems' are dying. COBOL^H^H^H^H^HRuby, could still be thriving.
This is like trying to use CPAN project release dates to determine if Perl is dying.
But I suspect the problem is that the benefits simply outweigh the inconvenience of having to run with an entirely separate ABI.
Well; if the benefits outweigh the inconvenience --- then it seems x32 should be catching on more than it is.
Personally I think it is a bad idea because of the 4GB program virtual address space limit; which applications will be frequently exceeding, especially the server applications that would otherwise benefit the most from optimization.
He thinks, but it's most likely true. The government has stopped hundreds of bombing attempts with the help of all the data they've collected, but no one knows about this because they never happened.
You missed the point. They could stop the next bombing attempt by cutting everyone's leg off. You can make your computer unhackable by unplugging the power cord.
Privacy Breaches of innocent citizens' private message metadata are over the line.
It doesn't matter if you could cure cancer, with that data. The harm caused by the violation is more severe, than the improvement you made.
That myth has been disproven hundreds of times. The tons of sugar in an apple beats out the miniscule amount of cyanide present in the seeds.
They didn't say anything about the seeds. It's possible the apple had been exposed to additional poison.
Alan Turing's favorite fairy tale was reportedly the Walt Disney Film: "Snow White"
Hodges suggested that Alan was re-enacting a seen from the show, and:
It's also possible, that Alan had been exposed to cyanide fumes, due to accidental inhalation.
Shouldn't the law apply to everyone in an equal manner? Why should he be exempted from the same treatment others got?
Because the war would be lost without the benefit of his work. Britain would be German-occupied, and a great many of innocent people would have died.
Sometimes: applying the law to every person in an equal matter is inherently unfair.
Equal Treatment != Justice
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
He isn't the first great person to have fallen, and he won't be the last. One thing to keep in mind is.... not everyone gets the message about such things. He may have been a genius, and a great war hero: but the legislators don't know about it; heros are often modest and unlikely to boast about it, and the courts at the time weren't even allowed to consider it, anyways.... at the end of the day, all the heros are just average people that have to live by the same rules as everyone else, or their future will be wrecked.
Think of the government, and the justice system like a "machine"; the courts operate in a mechanized fashion to implement the law and standards that have been put to them. Only the highly influential and powerful people can bend the machine, adjust the cogs, or cause it to act differently; Usually by AVOIDing the "Input" chute of the criminal justice machine altogether (Alan and partner were arrested after he and his mate were the victims of a robbery, and he reported the robbery - and admitted the relationship) - if the officers recognized him as a hero, and he had a powerful family, he could have probably escaped arrest, or at least gotten charges withdrawn --- Alan was neither well-known nor powerful at the time.
He just had a reward for military service. The criminal conviction also made Alan immediately stripped of his security clearance and ineligible for any further government/ top-secret work --- his consultancy with the GCHQ on signals intelligence and cryptography was terminated (probably to their great detriment); he was also Denied Entry to the United States based on the criminal record --- so you can't fault the UK alone; there, see, you have a conspiracy ----- the US customs will mechanically treat a UK conviction as a fact, and not doubt that justice has been done.
Take Hypatia --- killed by a mob of christians.
Petrus Ramus -- executed in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre Giordano Bruno --- burnt alive due to the roman inquisition for heresy; cosmological theories going beyond the copernican model, the sun as one of many stars, and inhabited alien worlds
Siger of Brabant, Socrates, Anaxarchus, Seneca, Boethius, Judah Halevi, Jan Hus, Thomas More, Galileo,
The pages of history are written in blood ---- people that could have done so many more great things for humanity, but whose work got redirected to the industry of war, or their lives got cut short by violent acts or lawful abuses and miscarriages of justice of the government.
For every time a major new level of enlightenment is reached ---- the pattern seems to be someone has to suffer and die at the hands of unjust suppression or unjust laws deemed just at the time the events transpired
The charges and conviction still stand. Conviction should be quashed and a full "royal" apology
That is what in effect the pardon amounts to.
There is no such thing as "quashing" a conviction that was valid and proper under the law.
Today we may feel the law is unjust -- but the courts and legislators aren't entitled to nullify convictions on laws that existed at the time they were violated. 1000 years from now; they may well say the same thing about Disorderly conduct felons, felony Curfew violators, Public drunkenness laws, etc.
What point does a posthumous pardon have?
They can't exactly reverse the sentence or atone for it, now that he's already dead.
Or did I miss the part from the article, where they showed how the government is going to excavate his grave: bring him back to life, and reverse all effects of decay and aging, so he'll be as young and wily as the day before he was charged of a crime?
Any refusal to sign something by the monarch would lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis, possibly resulting in the end of the monarchy
Or the dissolution of the government, with the monarchy's position prevailing -- depending on what exactly it was they refused to sign, or what proclamation they did choose to sign "without permission"
As long as the government administration in play at the time is corrupt, and the public is truly overwhelmingly in agreement with the monarchy's position.
It is an unlikely event, and it might not happen in the next year, or in the next 100 years, BUT history is very very long, and eventually almost every unlikely event will happen.
It would be silly to expect the current government institution to last forever, or for the monarchy to last forever, in the state that it does today. Ultimately; it will be influenced by the state of the country and the world ---- many different things in the future can happen to influence things.
Never say never.
I'm aware of what it involves. I'm also aware that we continually improve and refine these processes
We also refined our processes of execution... oh how much more humane. Look at how much more the victims of the death penalty are pleased with the final outcome?
Consider, for example, the various psychiatric medications available on the market that are increasingly prescribed for trivial reasons.
What, like Thorazine, Haldol, and other chemical straitjackets; "Anti-psychotics" touted by psychiatrists due to their ability to cause maximal behavioral disruption, disturbance or interruption of their subjects' thought processes or ability to think and coherently act, and other permanent damage?
So it is reasonable to expect that something like this -- if refined and convenient enough -- would become over-prescribed as well.
Fine; as long as patients retain the right to refuse this and other barbaric treatments.
It really doesn't matter how "refined" the task of shocking the hell out a subject's brain becomes; it's still a blunt imprecise, damaging action as well --- even refined, the "cure" may well be substantially worse than the disease.
Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened.
Because "YOU THINK"? That is a good enough reason to rape Americans' of their privacy?
And if we station armed soldiers at every interstate entrance and exit, every state border, every entrance and exit to every major cvity, to interrogate all travelers, strip search everyone driving -- demand to see and record the "metadata" (identification of all vehicle passengers, and their reported origin and destination) --- just maybe we stop the next 9/11 or carbombing too.
The terrorists will just have to use a different technique...
The liquid water does its thing and... you know the rest. Titanic.
Titanic was supposed to be an indestructible container for air and humans....
Water has the odd property of expanding at around 4C at normal (sea level) pressure.
Above 4 degrees; water is more dense at lower temperatures, just like other fluids. Water is most dense at 4 degrees C. If you cool OR heat water at 4 degrees C either above or below that temperature; it will have to become less dense or be under greater pressure.
Therefore; if you have a partially frozen body of water of any significant depth; the water that is at the bottom, should be close to 4 degrees C -- and under heavy pressure, of course.
The document is available for review, but not scanning it, or even writing your own notes about it.
So you're saying that an MPLS VPN is not a VPN? Well, good luck convincing the rest of the world that the Earth is flat.
MPLS VPN is not a correct term to begin with. It's just like saying "Spherical box", "Hexagonal circle", or "Time cube"
Or for that matter..... calling an Amazon EC2 instance with a public IP a "Virtual Private Cloud"
It's called deceptive marketing; also known as outright lying.
A network built on a MPLS VRF is not a VPN; MPLS VLLs/pseudowires are not VPNs; a MPLS "switch in the cloud" is not a VPN.
There is encryption on the wire, at the endpoints -- to make the network as private as a physically isolated network.
I just checked, and there are towns in my province (canadian prairies) that only have 1.5 mbps connectivity and most of the smaller places max out at 5mbps.
Virtually... in any town; small or not, there is plenty of fiber and other Telecommunications infrastructure. The telephone company essentially needs large digital trunks, just to deliver basic phone service.
If there are providers delivering 1.5 and 5 megabit connections to residents then they Do have high-speed links in the area --- the provider has to have access to some high speed links in the first place in order to be able to offer 5 megabit connections in the first place....
If significant bandwidth is available over wireless 4G, then again there must be nearby 4G towers in range of the area area that also must have access to high-speed links.
I'm not buying "the infrastructure is not there" argument, for those areas.
Now: it may be unavailable for political reasons, or the school not willing to spend more than a few $100 a month for a 100 megabit private circuit to an IP transit provider.
Just go and read RFC4026 [ietf.org].
You have linked to a non-standard document, which is not a normative reference. No consensus required to publish. Non-standard use of the designation "Virtual Private Network".
Sample a large enough number of the population, and you are bound to find people abusing terms. Their usage is inaccurate. Informational level RFCs don't have the blessings of the IESG or the community.
The fact that you use the term "secure" in this context already shows that you are clueless. What do you mean by secure? Security can include any of the following
Are you trying to be a smart-ass?
All three are necessary conditions.
A Virtual Private Network is the combination of the concept of a Virtual IP Network with a Private Network.
All those various solutions are virtual networks. Virtual networks are networks that have been extended over the top of another physical network --- in other words, the network is tunneled or encapsulated, so the IP addressing of the network is not that of the physical network.
The important bit is Private: A private network that is physically secured to only the endpoints in the network.
A virtual private network replaces physical isolation of data links with cryptography.
If the network is not secured using cryptography, then it is not Private.
For example; in a MPLS Virtual Network; the Virtual network, would be subject to the possibility of intrusion into the network by the circuit provider, or any third party ---- there is no way to know that the network is actually Private then, so it is not.
There's a chance they might not connect to any other network; or might not connect when updates are "allowed" --- especially machines on site.
There may be machines regularly used only on that network, and not connected to a network at other times.
So there is some level of increase in risk, regardless
Since you're in such a remote area, your visitors very likely also have slow connections at home too. Why not cache the updates instead? You'll be contributing towards a safer, more secure internet.
Not only that.... but malware can suck up your bandwidth just as fast, or faster than updates; the consequences of failing to update can over time be adverse to your own network's performance.
Reading the post, I immediately said, "not the best you can buy, just the best you're willing to pay for."
Yeah.... use of freebie or low-end consumer-grade broadband services in a large scale instruction environment.
If your school spends more in a month on toilet paper; or getting the grounds mowed or floors cleaned, in costs, than on your internet connection, then you are doing it wrong.
Hell, I still think the FCC counts it as high-speed even now in their broadband reports.
It is high speed, for a typical household of 3 people.
Hell; 1 Megabit per 10 students is high-speed.
1 Megabit per 20 students is NOT.
3 Megabits per 100 students is insanely crappy.
3 Megabits per 1000 students is a friggin joke.
Wasn't there billions of dollars spent by the government like 10 years ago to get every school connected with high speed internet?
Discounted telecommunication services available to schools under E-Rate.
For every 1000 students; there should be 100 Megabits.
This is like saying.... for our school lunch program; the budget we have allocated, only allows us to buy 10 pounds of meat. All 10000 of you will just have to share it.
By the way; if any of you are hungry because you skipped breakfast: we're going to have to take measures to block you from accessing the serving dish, since we find that such users are likely to eat a lot more food.