All of these encryption techniques can be beaten with a simple man-in-the-middle.
There is no mathematical way to send a secret over a writable medium without some sort predefined secret information (like a password, or sternography, or one time pass, or a custom secret encryption algorithm).
Anyone who can implement your encryption can crack it, it's trivial.
I'm guessing you mean any increased chance, since we live in the real world where everything always has a non-zero chance of not working as advertised. How much of an increased chance do these things have of failing? I'd be interested to see real data rather than conjecture. If this thing fails one out of every, I dunno, one thousand trigger pulls, that could be more reliable than your average Saturday night special.
I agree that actual statistics would be better, but this is a different type of failure. If a pistol fails to fire then you just pull the trigger again; you might have to cycle a round. If a fingerprint gun fails to fire, then it will probably fail to fire in all subsequent attempts.
Sounds like an actual genuine legal problem if someone is misrepresenting your prices. Why didn't you ask a lawyer?
Not to mention, when your argument to Facebook is "hey I'm real and he's fake", how are they to know you are telling the truth? What if the other page had made the claim first? They aren't going to hire a detective to investigate every claim just because you paid for some ads. God knows how many requests they get from angry teenagers, businesses with non-unique names, trolls behind proxies, etc.
I suspect their policy is something along the lines of "respond to legal requests and to hell with everyone else" out of necessity. It's somewhat hard to imagine that for identity arguments that they could do anything else. I don't have any love for Facebook, but what exactly were you hoping for?
What is your definition of freedom of speech? Mine is: no information may be made illegal to disseminate. By that definition, making identity theft illegal is not a violation of rights to freedom of speech. It's not the information that is illegal (who someone is) but rather the intent behind it (to steal or otherwise usurp someone's reputation).
Some people confusion "X may not be made illegal" with "anything is legal as long as you are also doing X". Just because you are using speech does not mean that concurrent actions are or should be legal. A driver's license grants you legal right to drive on a road, but it doesn't mean you can drive over people. If you drive over someone you can't say "but I have a legal right to drive and my license proves that." You can drive all day long, but you are being arrested for hitting someone.
You can talk about a person's identity all day long. But mens rea means that we just based on intent, not on superficial actions.
I imagine the IRS would like tax laws simplified as much as anyone else. Maybe they have some employees working for them who are specialists who would have to find other work, but I would guess that almost none of the push for our absurd tax laws come from the IRS. It comes from campaigns trying to find ways to promise things to people and then find ways to pay for it.
If he can make a statement like this, and still be employed as a university professor, then yes he is effectively eating for free on the tax dollar. If a carpenter demonstrated that his approach to making chairs always led to them breaking, he'd be fired. The only reason the professor can stay employed after saying this is because his income is so close to the treasury, so he has little pressure to actually work hard, so he is effectively eating for free.
I see people working hard every day in areas in competitive areas far removed from the government, and they get taxed an incredible amount to pay for the incomes of parasites like these. If a claim wants to be made that this professor is earning his income, then he would have to be a prof in a university system with no subsides (direct, student loans, favorable legislation, etc). I doubt such a thing even exists anymore.
I prefer your second choice of conceptualizing the question. The phrase "should X be allowed" puts the burden of proof on choosing freedom, but I prefer that freedom always be the default choice until otherwise persuaded.
I guess it's somewhat definitive of libertarian to consider the answer to "should X be allowed" to always be true, until someone gives a very convincing argument otherwise.
It's seven or more sexual crimes with DNA evidence. It is 100% certain the DNA recovered belongs to BOTH of them as they are twins with identical DNA.
So if one won't confess, or BOTH are offending, the question is why not just put BOTH in jail so the state is 100% certain it won't happen again. DNA is involved, so this is not a case of randomly grabbing somebody... If they didn't live together, they would have separate alibis...
So which is more important? 100% sure we get the "right" brother (when it could be both) [33% wrong], or 100% sure we arrest the person(s) responsible for seven rapes? [66% right]
If you ever are asked to serve on a jury, make sure the courts know that this is your position. I can't believe you are fine with 1 in 3 people in jail for serial sexual assault actually being innocent. But for the sake of civilization, make sure the judge knows clearly that you believe this.
If two unrelated people were both accused of a crime, I doubt you would consider them both guilty just because both denied their guilt. Let's assume no one is that stupid. Then what is different about this? Two things: it's a sexual crime, and both the accused are related. It's far more likely that the slashdotters jumping onto the guilt-by-association bandwagon are doing so because it's a sexual crime in nature, which tends to make people nervous, unsure of how to properly pretend to react.
I wonder if the technician would have avoided suggesting certain options because of liability concerns. The guy has a large chance of dying anyway due to the company's mistake. Suppose the technician suggested something with a small chance of killing the driver, but the unlikely happened and the driver crashed due to the suggestion. The technician might not have suggested some of the breaking or engine destroying options even if he knew about them, especially if the driver is already being escorted by the police and a plan to wait until the gas runs out is already underway.
In addition to what others have pointed out, I would prefer if police used more fuel efficient means, this is tax money they are spending.
I suggest that the standard should be "anything the police want to do that a regular civilian can't, they need a warrant for". If the police want to monitor with drones, then either we all can do it or the police need a judge-signed-with-reason-given warrant in every single case. This would fix many problems besides just drones. It would also being a start to putting police (especially Federal) back under the authority of the civilian populace.
There is no criminal more dangerous than a police officer.
I don't see the part of the 2nd amendment that says an armed robber can have his rights denied either. Two things I'll say: 1) Many (most?) amendments are directly in place to protect the accused or convicted. The 8th amendment would actually not even make since if it was applied to anyone besides a convicted criminal. Would you remove a convicts freedom of speech? Religion? Denying a constitutional right because a person is convicted is a terrible standard. Next thing you know convicts won't even be allowed to vote, or have any privacy at all. Hmm....
2) If someone is convicted and shown that they can't be trusted with a gun, then why are they out of jail at all? They can get a gun by illegal means, or use many legal lethal weapons. Why compromise at all? Do you realize that a person who committed armed robbery was literally putting themselves in a position to force the death of another individual? We can make an exception to the constitution for them and let them out of jail before we are confident they are safe, or we can just leave them in jail and possibly (if you are not against it) execute them.
I've really never seen a good reason to ever have an exception to any constitutional amendment. It's not really a right if exceptions can be made.
I prefer the old fashioned view of this: there are no good cops, there are no good people. Start with the assumption that we all would want to abuse the power a police officer has, and would all do it if given the opportunity. Then we can stop being surprised when we see police problems.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We have to constantly be monitoring our own police and setting standards of acceptable behavior. That actually takes work. Most slashdot viewers (minus the shills) are at least going to be the type to pay attention to problems and try some way to fix them (voting, talking to people, etc). Unfortunately, the majority of the population can't be bothered until it becomes a problem for themselves directly.
The best thing to do at this point is really to constantly monitor things, talk to everyone you know when there's a problem, and raise hell with whoever is responsible. Also many judges are directly elected, and they have a strong hand in deciding what is acceptable police behavior.
I wonder about what you said. If Dorner had killed the police officer, who would suffer more, the officer or his family? Dorner stated in his manifesto that he personally wasn't afraid to die anymore, and that the police had ruined his relationships with his family. While I am aware that you are advocating the common view of things, perhaps Dorner thought a bit more seriously about his actions and decided that the family would suffer less if they died and the officer had to live with it. It's pure speculation, but if Dorner survives this then we might find out.
Actually, it is exactly what the constitution says. Try Googling "9th amendment" for starters. And I don't see how the constitution being mispracticed is working at all. Hows that budget doing? Military still serving under the absolute authority of the civilian populace? I wouldn't mind having the 4th amendment back either.
As far as "necessary and proper", for which enumerated power is it "necessary" for the feds to regulate airspace? Post office?
You also have to wonder what they were supposed to cite. Engineering isn't literature. In engineering, things are true just because they are true, not because someone said so. You don't constantly cite Fourier when doing DSP work.
Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden charges the US Govt with espionage.
All of these encryption techniques can be beaten with a simple man-in-the-middle.
There is no mathematical way to send a secret over a writable medium without some sort predefined secret information (like a password, or sternography, or one time pass, or a custom secret encryption algorithm).
Anyone who can implement your encryption can crack it, it's trivial.
What did you think the point of making the tax laws so complex and subjective was?
hint: it wasn't to help *you*
+1 insightful, who modded this troll?
I'm guessing you mean any increased chance, since we live in the real world where everything always has a non-zero chance of not working as advertised. How much of an increased chance do these things have of failing? I'd be interested to see real data rather than conjecture. If this thing fails one out of every, I dunno, one thousand trigger pulls, that could be more reliable than your average Saturday night special.
I agree that actual statistics would be better, but this is a different type of failure. If a pistol fails to fire then you just pull the trigger again; you might have to cycle a round. If a fingerprint gun fails to fire, then it will probably fail to fire in all subsequent attempts.
Sounds like an actual genuine legal problem if someone is misrepresenting your prices. Why didn't you ask a lawyer?
Not to mention, when your argument to Facebook is "hey I'm real and he's fake", how are they to know you are telling the truth? What if the other page had made the claim first? They aren't going to hire a detective to investigate every claim just because you paid for some ads. God knows how many requests they get from angry teenagers, businesses with non-unique names, trolls behind proxies, etc.
I suspect their policy is something along the lines of "respond to legal requests and to hell with everyone else" out of necessity. It's somewhat hard to imagine that for identity arguments that they could do anything else. I don't have any love for Facebook, but what exactly were you hoping for?
What is your definition of freedom of speech? Mine is: no information may be made illegal to disseminate. By that definition, making identity theft illegal is not a violation of rights to freedom of speech. It's not the information that is illegal (who someone is) but rather the intent behind it (to steal or otherwise usurp someone's reputation).
Some people confusion "X may not be made illegal" with "anything is legal as long as you are also doing X". Just because you are using speech does not mean that concurrent actions are or should be legal. A driver's license grants you legal right to drive on a road, but it doesn't mean you can drive over people. If you drive over someone you can't say "but I have a legal right to drive and my license proves that." You can drive all day long, but you are being arrested for hitting someone.
You can talk about a person's identity all day long. But mens rea means that we just based on intent, not on superficial actions.
I would assume that a newspaper would take one look at this and go "if we print this can we sell more newspapers without going to jail?"
I imagine the IRS would like tax laws simplified as much as anyone else. Maybe they have some employees working for them who are specialists who would have to find other work, but I would guess that almost none of the push for our absurd tax laws come from the IRS. It comes from campaigns trying to find ways to promise things to people and then find ways to pay for it.
If he can make a statement like this, and still be employed as a university professor, then yes he is effectively eating for free on the tax dollar. If a carpenter demonstrated that his approach to making chairs always led to them breaking, he'd be fired. The only reason the professor can stay employed after saying this is because his income is so close to the treasury, so he has little pressure to actually work hard, so he is effectively eating for free.
I see people working hard every day in areas in competitive areas far removed from the government, and they get taxed an incredible amount to pay for the incomes of parasites like these. If a claim wants to be made that this professor is earning his income, then he would have to be a prof in a university system with no subsides (direct, student loans, favorable legislation, etc). I doubt such a thing even exists anymore.
I prefer your second choice of conceptualizing the question. The phrase "should X be allowed" puts the burden of proof on choosing freedom, but I prefer that freedom always be the default choice until otherwise persuaded.
I guess it's somewhat definitive of libertarian to consider the answer to "should X be allowed" to always be true, until someone gives a very convincing argument otherwise.
What's scary was that 330 was the lesser of the two crime coefficients. Gotta wonder how high the old man's coefficient was.
People who are unimportant being compromised by a lack of privacy, those are not the ones I worry about.
It's seven or more sexual crimes with DNA evidence. It is 100% certain the DNA recovered belongs to BOTH of them as they are twins with identical DNA.
So if one won't confess, or BOTH are offending, the question is why not just put BOTH in jail so the state is 100% certain it won't happen again. DNA is involved, so this is not a case of randomly grabbing somebody... If they didn't live together, they would have separate alibis...
So which is more important? 100% sure we get the "right" brother (when it could be both) [33% wrong], or 100% sure we arrest the person(s) responsible for seven rapes? [66% right]
If you ever are asked to serve on a jury, make sure the courts know that this is your position. I can't believe you are fine with 1 in 3 people in jail for serial sexual assault actually being innocent. But for the sake of civilization, make sure the judge knows clearly that you believe this.
+5 informative to you sir
If two unrelated people were both accused of a crime, I doubt you would consider them both guilty just because both denied their guilt. Let's assume no one is that stupid. Then what is different about this? Two things: it's a sexual crime, and both the accused are related. It's far more likely that the slashdotters jumping onto the guilt-by-association bandwagon are doing so because it's a sexual crime in nature, which tends to make people nervous, unsure of how to properly pretend to react.
I wonder if the technician would have avoided suggesting certain options because of liability concerns. The guy has a large chance of dying anyway due to the company's mistake. Suppose the technician suggested something with a small chance of killing the driver, but the unlikely happened and the driver crashed due to the suggestion. The technician might not have suggested some of the breaking or engine destroying options even if he knew about them, especially if the driver is already being escorted by the police and a plan to wait until the gas runs out is already underway.
In addition to what others have pointed out, I would prefer if police used more fuel efficient means, this is tax money they are spending.
I suggest that the standard should be "anything the police want to do that a regular civilian can't, they need a warrant for". If the police want to monitor with drones, then either we all can do it or the police need a judge-signed-with-reason-given warrant in every single case. This would fix many problems besides just drones. It would also being a start to putting police (especially Federal) back under the authority of the civilian populace.
There is no criminal more dangerous than a police officer.
I don't see the part of the 2nd amendment that says an armed robber can have his rights denied either. Two things I'll say:
1) Many (most?) amendments are directly in place to protect the accused or convicted. The 8th amendment would actually not even make since if it was applied to anyone besides a convicted criminal. Would you remove a convicts freedom of speech? Religion? Denying a constitutional right because a person is convicted is a terrible standard. Next thing you know convicts won't even be allowed to vote, or have any privacy at all. Hmm....
2) If someone is convicted and shown that they can't be trusted with a gun, then why are they out of jail at all? They can get a gun by illegal means, or use many legal lethal weapons. Why compromise at all? Do you realize that a person who committed armed robbery was literally putting themselves in a position to force the death of another individual? We can make an exception to the constitution for them and let them out of jail before we are confident they are safe, or we can just leave them in jail and possibly (if you are not against it) execute them.
I've really never seen a good reason to ever have an exception to any constitutional amendment. It's not really a right if exceptions can be made.
I prefer the old fashioned view of this: there are no good cops, there are no good people. Start with the assumption that we all would want to abuse the power a police officer has, and would all do it if given the opportunity. Then we can stop being surprised when we see police problems.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We have to constantly be monitoring our own police and setting standards of acceptable behavior. That actually takes work. Most slashdot viewers (minus the shills) are at least going to be the type to pay attention to problems and try some way to fix them (voting, talking to people, etc). Unfortunately, the majority of the population can't be bothered until it becomes a problem for themselves directly.
The best thing to do at this point is really to constantly monitor things, talk to everyone you know when there's a problem, and raise hell with whoever is responsible. Also many judges are directly elected, and they have a strong hand in deciding what is acceptable police behavior.
I wonder about what you said. If Dorner had killed the police officer, who would suffer more, the officer or his family? Dorner stated in his manifesto that he personally wasn't afraid to die anymore, and that the police had ruined his relationships with his family. While I am aware that you are advocating the common view of things, perhaps Dorner thought a bit more seriously about his actions and decided that the family would suffer less if they died and the officer had to live with it. It's pure speculation, but if Dorner survives this then we might find out.
Actually, it is exactly what the constitution says. Try Googling "9th amendment" for starters. And I don't see how the constitution being mispracticed is working at all. Hows that budget doing? Military still serving under the absolute authority of the civilian populace? I wouldn't mind having the 4th amendment back either.
As far as "necessary and proper", for which enumerated power is it "necessary" for the feds to regulate airspace? Post office?
So what you're saying is http://xkcd.com/224/
...They disabled Java Web Start too, so whole corporations and government departments are suddently shut down...
That's terrible. Just terrible. So, hypothetically, how often would someone need to find Java bugs to keep them shut down?
You also have to wonder what they were supposed to cite. Engineering isn't literature. In engineering, things are true just because they are true, not because someone said so. You don't constantly cite Fourier when doing DSP work.