Enforcing the Law — using, among other things, eavesdropping on communications — and prosecuting wars, are practically the only things, a government of a free country is supposed to do. Because no one else can be allowed to do these things...
Everything else — and I do mean everything: elementary and higher education, personal retirement, health care, communications, transportation — should be left to the competing enterprises. If only because they are much easier to switch from one to another, than it is to change the government...
Given that Barack Obama is a spammer (see below), I don't object to his on-line presence being hacked. Maybe, it is illegal, but I wish the prosecution to be as lenient, as that of the certain Black Panthers was...
Yes, he is a spammer, because I am receiving e-mails from him — without ever asking to be subscribed, much less having gone through the double opt-in, the only responsible method of adding subscribers to a mailing list:
Yes, some PDFs are unsearchable, but the PDF (which Limbaugh was specifically talking about) wasn't one of them.
We don't know that for sure — it is possible, that, when Rush was preparing for his broadcast, the file was non-searchable... It could've been replaced by the searchable version by someone with a clue after Rush made his comment...
Which is only evil if your PDF reader respects restriction flags...
It is evil regardless of that — whether it is successful or not, the very attempt by the government to prevent me from printing a legal document is evil...
oh, right, in the USA that is required by law.
Actually, in the case of kpdf, it can be switched off: edit the share/config.kcfg/kpdf.kcfg (an XML-file), and flip the ObeyDRM switch from true to false.
The Left-fringe link you posted blasts Rush Limbaugh for "lying" about the posted bill being unsearchable. What they don't seem to allow for, however, is that the file could've been posted the way Rush describes it initially, and then — perhaps even in response to Rush's criticism — replaced by a properly searchable file.
I, for one, have seen many PDF-files, which were simply scans of printed documents — unsearchable bitmaps...
PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing. Indeed, in addition the Adobe's own reader, free ones like kpdf exist too and, for some reason, politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages. (Yes, I know, lawyers need that, but they could — and do — just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs...)
But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting printing of the viewed document... For example, the New Jersey Fire Prevention Code are deliberately non-printable — and even kpdf obeys that restriction (you can still print it by running it through pdf2ps first, but try to teach your mother that).
On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF — as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.
Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems? I don't think so...
... for NFS to give up on a disconnected server... By the original design and the continuing default settings, the stuck processes are neither killable nor interruptible. You can reboot the whole system, but you can't kill one process.
The jury held that the law required the company to do so.
The jury found, that saws without such devices are defective. I agree, that this is nonsense, but most people cheered, when an automaker was crucified for not making their gas tank safer. GM did not break any law, but were found responsible for the deaths anyway.
The saws weren't defective before the device was invented, but they are now — according to the jury...
There is a much worse example of this problem, one that actually involves the (Executive) Government — I am talking about building codes, which get tightened every year. An unelected government official can force you to rebuild your house "to code" whenever you ask them for a building permit. But we don't read about that outrage in newspapers...
"If the government is going to require companies to use a patented technology"
In this case, the "requirement" is not coming from the government, but from a jury... The lawsuit was not brought by a government agency, but by a private individual...
Nice to see an opposition to government-required purchases, though... Health insurance, anyone?
The information is already out, assume hostile agents, agencies and goverments already have it
That's a shake assumption. It seems, that quite often things get "leaked" not for the benefit of "hostile agents" (which would be an outright treason), but in order to give to Wikileaks and/or the press. The leaker believes, they are saving the world (or the nation).
Who do you trust — the leaker or his superiors? In military/national secret cases, I'd take the superiors' view — and so should you, if only because erring on the side of secrecy is far less dangerous (you can always declassify a secret, but can not put the toothpaste back into tube).
The threat of enthusiastic investigation and vigorous prosecution is a good deterrent against would-be leaks...
If slavery was legal, would you support it? How about herding Jews into ghettos? Or shooting union supporters on the streets of Philadelphia?
That's a No, No, and Yes, dickwad. Thanks for asking.
When the government makes something illegal, that by no means makes their argument moral or valid.
This is a straw-man. I said nothing about things declared illegal. I asked readers — including you, dickwad — whether anything should be secret... Unless you claim — in stark divergence of opinion from Che Guevara and other Chomsky heroes — that nothing should ever be classified, you have to accept, dickwad, that it is somebody's judgment call. Whoever that somebody is — a government official (appointed/elected), a Wikileaks editor (anonymous), or Naum Chomsky himself — they need to be able to make that judgment and enforce it.
should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman? a military officer would probably say no. i say yes.
If a soldier does that, he should prosecuted. The disobeyed order being illegal (not "inhuman" — illegal) will be a valid defense for him, but if he fails to demonstrate, that the order was, indeed, illegal, he will be convicted.
I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are — by design — charged with national security.
Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...
Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking. They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...
Seriously — the very tip — kinda like a rabbit does. (It is a real "chick-magnet", BTW.)
When posing for an ID-picture, I always move it a little bit so that it looks a different on the picture from what is is in normal (relaxed) position. I don't think, the described method would identify me from those pictures...
You can train yourself to do it, BTW — an hour or two in front of the mirror and you'll "get it".
Yes, if you don't own the location, you don't want to do this... I had the impression, though, that you do. Or, at least, meet at the same location every time. If I owned a conference hall, I would have done that — and billed a little extra going forward.
Plus, people much prefer the wireless. Even in areas where wireline Ethernet is available, most people use the wireless.
Can't explain this... In my opinion, WiFi is the "Plan B" — a fall-back if the real Ethernet is not available... Perhaps, the wireline was not as ubiquitous as in my proposal (at every seat — including cafeteria)?
There are rows upon rows upon rows of chairs in large, or sometimes VERY large rooms
OMG, "rows upon rows"? For a total of — pinky-to-mouth — 1000 people? Puhlease... Sure, it is going to cost money, but so will arranging a WiFi access for the same crowd.
WTF are you talking about, run a CAT6 to every seat?
Ever been to Metropolitan Opera? There is small display in every seat showing English translation for the currently-performed aria — and I doubt, MET is unique among opera theaters in that respect...
Ever been to a decent movie theater? There is a headphones-plug in every seat for the hearing-impaired (movie-pirates have been abusing that feature to record soundtracks). Yes, CAT6 is a bit more expensive than audio, but the main expense in this work is labor anyway — whether you are running a two-wire audio cable or a CAT6 almost does not matter. It is possible and not too expensive... If I were an owner of a conference hall, I would've done it as part of the next renovations — and then added this item to the list of bullet points when marketing to conference-organizers.
The other ends of those cables would end in the cascading array of switches. If I were doing it today, I'd pick used switches (10 or 100 Mbps), or even hubs for the first layer or two. Unlike cables, switches are easy to upgrade in the future.
IETF meetings are larger (1200+ typically), and basically everyone has an uses a laptop / pda, so they make for a demanding wireless environment. After some really bad experiences, resources were put into this [emphasis mine -mi], and the last few years, things have really improved.
At what point does it become cheaper (or comparable) to just run a CAT6 cable to every seat in the conference room? I mean, movie theaters and airplanes have that for headphones. Every laptop I've seen has an Ethernet jack... You spend some more money once, but then save on every event... And you provide better service — while emitting less radiation and consuming less electricity (would somebody think of the polar bears?!)...
Those few devices, that only have WiFi can still use wireless, but, if the bulk of your audience use cables, you can get away with cheap "SoHo" equipment...
When renovating my house, I ran CAT6 to every room — the number of power outlets is only 4 times higher, than:-)
No, in my opinion, these e-mails were not "stolen", but, rather, outed by a hero whistle-blower. The illiberals (scratch a climate alarmist, and you will find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath), use the terms "stolen" and "theft" referring to them, however, suddenly having found, that some information may be stolen, after all — as long as it is not movies nor music, and as long as victims aren't Corporationy Corporations, but "scientists".
Perhaps, trying to do better in a cyber war ought to have a higher priority, than consolidation?
The rest of the article is scary too:
Huge Implications for Data Center Sector
The government data center consolidation has huge implications for the fortunes of system integrators, data center service providers (especially in northern Virginia), and cloud computing platforms optimized for hosting government apps.
Promote the use of Green IT by reducing the overall energy and real estate footprint of government data centers;
Reduce the cost of data center hardware, software and operations;
Oh, again, the "greenness" goes before the cost. Hey, I have this $100 fan, that uses 1/3 less electricity, than the $10 fan from my polluting competitor. Per the Administration's instructions, you must buy my equipment...
The banks will pass that savings down to their bottom lines before they pass you any savings.
Whatever the banks do with the savings, that would legitimate money. On contrast any and all profits/savings from using a stolen property are illegitimate.
Even if I completely agree with you about the banks' need to increase the profits all the time, their having these savings will help in the profits, thus allowing them to not squeeze as much elsewhere... So, even your own (flawed) notion still leads to the same conclusion — effective and efficient law-enforcement is good...
As long as the laws themselves are sensible, of course. But you don't seem to argue against property laws themselves, so that is not an issue.
The faster the recovery of stolen property (including the lender-owned vehicles driven by deadbeats), the better.
In the typical theft, the shorter times reduces the chance, the car will be destroyed by the either by the thief — and increases the likelihood of his getting caught. In the lender-deadbeat case, it is good as it reduces the lenders' costs, allowing them to give a slightly better deal to the rest of us, who pay on time...
Efficient and effective law-enforcement is a good thing, generally. Certainly so in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Enforcing the Law — using, among other things, eavesdropping on communications — and prosecuting wars, are practically the only things, a government of a free country is supposed to do. Because no one else can be allowed to do these things...
Everything else — and I do mean everything: elementary and higher education, personal retirement, health care, communications, transportation — should be left to the competing enterprises. If only because they are much easier to switch from one to another, than it is to change the government...
Just what I wanted. An undergraduate student writing an Encyclopedia article on monetary standards...
The little brother is taking pictures. And videos...
He posts them to the Internet for the rest of the little brothers and sisters to see.
Given that Barack Obama is a spammer (see below), I don't object to his on-line presence being hacked. Maybe, it is illegal, but I wish the prosecution to be as lenient, as that of the certain Black Panthers was...
Yes, he is a spammer, because I am receiving e-mails from him — without ever asking to be subscribed, much less having gone through the double opt-in, the only responsible method of adding subscribers to a mailing list:
Exactly — anything not false might be true... This is just as correct today as it was in the Middle Ages...
We don't know that for sure — it is possible, that, when Rush was preparing for his broadcast, the file was non-searchable... It could've been replaced by the searchable version by someone with a clue after Rush made his comment...
It is evil regardless of that — whether it is successful or not, the very attempt by the government to prevent me from printing a legal document is evil...
Actually, in the case of kpdf, it can be switched off: edit the share/config.kcfg/kpdf.kcfg (an XML-file), and flip the ObeyDRM switch from true to false.
The Left-fringe link you posted blasts Rush Limbaugh for "lying" about the posted bill being unsearchable. What they don't seem to allow for, however, is that the file could've been posted the way Rush describes it initially, and then — perhaps even in response to Rush's criticism — replaced by a properly searchable file.
I, for one, have seen many PDF-files, which were simply scans of printed documents — unsearchable bitmaps...
PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing. Indeed, in addition the Adobe's own reader, free ones like kpdf exist too and, for some reason, politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages. (Yes, I know, lawyers need that, but they could — and do — just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs...)
But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting printing of the viewed document... For example, the New Jersey Fire Prevention Code are deliberately non-printable — and even kpdf obeys that restriction (you can still print it by running it through pdf2ps first, but try to teach your mother that).
On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF — as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.
Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems? I don't think so...
... for NFS to give up on a disconnected server... By the original design and the continuing default settings, the stuck processes are neither killable nor interruptible. You can reboot the whole system, but you can't kill one process.
Hurray for the OS designers!
The jury found, that saws without such devices are defective. I agree, that this is nonsense, but most people cheered, when an automaker was crucified for not making their gas tank safer. GM did not break any law, but were found responsible for the deaths anyway.
The saws weren't defective before the device was invented, but they are now — according to the jury...
There is a much worse example of this problem, one that actually involves the (Executive) Government — I am talking about building codes, which get tightened every year. An unelected government official can force you to rebuild your house "to code" whenever you ask them for a building permit. But we don't read about that outrage in newspapers...
In this case, the "requirement" is not coming from the government, but from a jury... The lawsuit was not brought by a government agency, but by a private individual...
Nice to see an opposition to government-required purchases, though... Health insurance, anyone?
That's a shake assumption. It seems, that quite often things get "leaked" not for the benefit of "hostile agents" (which would be an outright treason), but in order to give to Wikileaks and/or the press. The leaker believes, they are saving the world (or the nation).
Who do you trust — the leaker or his superiors? In military/national secret cases, I'd take the superiors' view — and so should you, if only because erring on the side of secrecy is far less dangerous (you can always declassify a secret, but can not put the toothpaste back into tube).
The threat of enthusiastic investigation and vigorous prosecution is a good deterrent against would-be leaks...
That's a No, No, and Yes, dickwad. Thanks for asking.
This is a straw-man. I said nothing about things declared illegal. I asked readers — including you, dickwad — whether anything should be secret... Unless you claim — in stark divergence of opinion from Che Guevara and other Chomsky heroes — that nothing should ever be classified, you have to accept, dickwad, that it is somebody's judgment call. Whoever that somebody is — a government official (appointed/elected), a Wikileaks editor (anonymous), or Naum Chomsky himself — they need to be able to make that judgment and enforce it.
If a soldier does that, he should prosecuted. The disobeyed order being illegal (not "inhuman" — illegal) will be a valid defense for him, but if he fails to demonstrate, that the order was, indeed, illegal, he will be convicted.
I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are — by design — charged with national security.
Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...
Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking. They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...
Seriously — the very tip — kinda like a rabbit does. (It is a real "chick-magnet", BTW.)
When posing for an ID-picture, I always move it a little bit so that it looks a different on the picture from what is is in normal (relaxed) position. I don't think, the described method would identify me from those pictures...
You can train yourself to do it, BTW — an hour or two in front of the mirror and you'll "get it".
Yes, if you don't own the location, you don't want to do this... I had the impression, though, that you do. Or, at least, meet at the same location every time. If I owned a conference hall, I would have done that — and billed a little extra going forward.
Can't explain this... In my opinion, WiFi is the "Plan B" — a fall-back if the real Ethernet is not available... Perhaps, the wireline was not as ubiquitous as in my proposal (at every seat — including cafeteria)?
OMG, "rows upon rows"? For a total of — pinky-to-mouth — 1000 people? Puhlease... Sure, it is going to cost money, but so will arranging a WiFi access for the same crowd.
Ever been to Metropolitan Opera? There is small display in every seat showing English translation for the currently-performed aria — and I doubt, MET is unique among opera theaters in that respect...
Ever been to a decent movie theater? There is a headphones-plug in every seat for the hearing-impaired (movie-pirates have been abusing that feature to record soundtracks). Yes, CAT6 is a bit more expensive than audio, but the main expense in this work is labor anyway — whether you are running a two-wire audio cable or a CAT6 almost does not matter. It is possible and not too expensive... If I were an owner of a conference hall, I would've done it as part of the next renovations — and then added this item to the list of bullet points when marketing to conference-organizers.
The other ends of those cables would end in the cascading array of switches. If I were doing it today, I'd pick used switches (10 or 100 Mbps), or even hubs for the first layer or two. Unlike cables, switches are easy to upgrade in the future.
At what point does it become cheaper (or comparable) to just run a CAT6 cable to every seat in the conference room? I mean, movie theaters and airplanes have that for headphones. Every laptop I've seen has an Ethernet jack... You spend some more money once, but then save on every event... And you provide better service — while emitting less radiation and consuming less electricity (would somebody think of the polar bears?!)...
Those few devices, that only have WiFi can still use wireless, but, if the bulk of your audience use cables, you can get away with cheap "SoHo" equipment...
When renovating my house, I ran CAT6 to every room — the number of power outlets is only 4 times higher, than :-)
No, in my opinion, these e-mails were not "stolen", but, rather, outed by a hero whistle-blower. The illiberals (scratch a climate alarmist, and you will find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath), use the terms "stolen" and "theft" referring to them, however, suddenly having found, that some information may be stolen, after all — as long as it is not movies nor music, and as long as victims aren't Corporationy Corporations, but "scientists".
Pay no attention to the stolen e-mails. The behavior science is settled, and the scientific consensus is:
Perhaps, trying to do better in a cyber war ought to have a higher priority, than consolidation?
The rest of the article is scary too:
Yes, Silicon Valley's support for Obama's candidacy was not in vain...
Oh, again, the "greenness" goes before the cost. Hey, I have this $100 fan, that uses 1/3 less electricity, than the $10 fan from my polluting competitor. Per the Administration's instructions, you must buy my equipment...
Whatever the banks do with the savings, that would legitimate money. On contrast any and all profits/savings from using a stolen property are illegitimate.
Even if I completely agree with you about the banks' need to increase the profits all the time, their having these savings will help in the profits, thus allowing them to not squeeze as much elsewhere... So, even your own (flawed) notion still leads to the same conclusion — effective and efficient law-enforcement is good...
As long as the laws themselves are sensible, of course. But you don't seem to argue against property laws themselves, so that is not an issue.
The faster the recovery of stolen property (including the lender-owned vehicles driven by deadbeats), the better.
In the typical theft, the shorter times reduces the chance, the car will be destroyed by the either by the thief — and increases the likelihood of his getting caught. In the lender-deadbeat case, it is good as it reduces the lenders' costs, allowing them to give a slightly better deal to the rest of us, who pay on time...
Efficient and effective law-enforcement is a good thing, generally. Certainly so in this case.