My blackberry uses 128-bit AES encryption to send information to/from my company's blackberry enterprise server.
What about between their server and the device (in China)? Is that leg just as encrypted — is the communication end-to-end, or is it sent clear-text over GSM, for the purposes of expediency?
water boarding causes moderate to severe brain damage due to Asphyxia.
No, it does not — not unless done really-really wrong — CIA agents undergo it as part of their training. Beaten-out teeth, on the other hand, are permanent. Same with broken hands — McCain's still don't function right, for example, decades after he suffered real torture in Vietnam.
I rather suffer damage to my flesh, rather than to my self, meaning the brain.
How do you know, you have anything to worry about? It is certainly not self-evident here...
China has never kidnapped someone from another country, IN another country
How do you know? Oh, it was not on CNN... I wonder, how those TV-stations are still able to broadcast after exposing their own government in such bad light... Such an outrage would never have happened in China, I tell you!
and then sent them off to be tortured in a THIRD country in a secret CIA prison.
Why would they need to do that? They can torture right there at home. And I mean real torture, the kinds that leaves long-term (or permanent) disfigurement — not the waterboarding, which CIA agents are undergoing, as part of their training.
All because they heard some chatter that they decided was "terrorist" talk.
Right, right. China is busy with real and tangible threats, like Tibet freedom, leaving Taiwan alone, and ending sponsorship of Sudan.
At least China sticks within their own borders.
There is no misdeed, that America has done in the last 150 years, that is not beaten by something, China has done in the last 60.
Until they tie your ass to a board and "pretend" to drown you until you cough up the passphrase.
They would not do that to visiting foreigners. Not en-masse, and not for the purposes of economic espionage. Thus encryption would've been effective protecting 99% of communications.
Oh wait....That's only legal in the US.
Although waterboarding is certainly legal in China, over there they have a number of other methods too — and most of them usually leave long-term (sometimes permanent) disfigurement to the body, unlike waterboarding.
Why? China only cares if you're trying to free tibet or mongolia
And my fax, or blackberry-relayed e-mail may say something about this...
"Hi, honey! Saw a pro-Tibet sign in Bejing last night — they guy, who unfurled it, was kinda short and escaped through a little store — here is the picture of him, that I snapped. Say Hi to the twins. Love you all. Daddy."
or possibly have discovered a super giant oilfield under beijing.
Or under Darfur...
The feds however will be very interested in why you were in China and the reasons you are now returning to the US, where you're staying, how much tax you pay, how you voted last time, how much weed you smoked at high school and who you bought it off.
This may be overused, but, really, I have nothing to hide from them on any of the topics you listed... It is, of course, mildly unsettling, that they may learn these things about me without a good reason, but compared to the lives of Tibetians or Darfuris, that unease is nothing. Heck, it is insignificant even compared to the economic losses, which my country may sustain, if China's industrial espionage is successful...
It sure as hell does target the innocents. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had NO weapons of mass destruction, and was NO threat to the USA.
The 2003 resumption of hostilities was due to Iraq's repeated failure on its obligations stemming from the 1992 cease-fire agreement. We should've gone "all out" much earlier, but Clinton was not up to the task and could only engage in occasional "fly swatting".
But if you think, the war is illegal, you'll have no troubles coming up with the UN Security Council's condemnation of it (and of earlier acts of war), would you? And if you can't, then, perhaps, something is still severely missing in that organization, that you'd rather have more power than America, is not there?
But let's not get distracted... Whether the war itself is illegal, or whether it is done to benefit "big oil" or MPAA, the fact remains: US military does not target civilians. And this makes us drastically different from terrorists.
So, don't give me this hair splitting malarky about how the US military doesn't target civilians,
It really does not. Sorry to repeat it to you — it does not.
Lets see, if the FBI catches you downloading things on TPB, you could possibly be sued.
Maybe, I'm not worried, because I do not, as a matter of principle, steal other people's intellectual property (I assume, "TPB" means "The Pirate Bay")? Possible, possible... Wake me up, when you have evidence of America's "illegal wiretapping" benefiting the hated *AAs, though.
China doesn't care about you and China is powerless [...]
Call me old-fashioned, but China's getting other people's intellectual property (such as mine or my employer's) would bother me — even if the Chinese could not put that info to good use. They may also do real bodily harm to some Chinese, who may have approached me (the foreigner), and whom I foolishly named in my fax transmission.
Your attempt to equate the two countries (reflected even in your choice of "Subject") is wrong — pathetically so. With what did the Chinese government buy you? With unfettered access to TPB? If that's really all you need, you may wish to move across the Pacific...
What we have here is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The "pot" here is not talking to the "kettle". It is talking to us — don't use fax or blackberry, if you don't want China to intercept the information.
In pot's defense, I may add, the thought of Chinese spying on my communications worries me far more.
We can both agree, perhaps, that every war America fights is a major failure.
Of course not...
Since we kill many times more civilians in every conflict than soldiers or terrorists.
There is nothing particularly "American" to this odd measure of a war's success... But not only is your definition of "failure" asinine, it also contradicts the statement you are trying to support with it — in the Korean War we killed well over a million enemy soldiers, while the total number of perished civilians is about two millions. Even if all of the dead civilians are our victims, your statement is still wrong, unless two is "many" in your book...
In other words, take your anti-American agenda to a place where there are more morons like yourself.
A failure by intent is no worse than a failure by accident.
I'm not even sure, this was a humanoid response... But I'll try again: Terrorist succeeds, when he blows up a wedding party... See? Succeeds... Now, which two failures were you comparing?
Look at the ratio of Wedding Parties obliterated in Afghanistan to that of "terrorist" groupings.
You are equating the deeds based on their results, rather than the intentions of the perpetrators. It is a very common fallacy, so I don't blame you in particular. For example, for reasons irrational we punish successful murderers harsher than the failures, even though the crime is exactly the same.
Similarly, you assign equal blame for a blown-up wedding party — and spice it up with graphic depictions of bodily damage ("mothers decapitated"). Very touching, and very idiotic — either you are an idiot yourself, or you have serious contempt for your audience.
US does not target the innocent — when we kill them, it is by a tragic mistake, a major failure. Terrorists do target them — the "decapitated mothers" means success for them, and a cause for celebrations.
However, the VASIMR rockets have a range of specific impulses from 3,000 to 30,000 seconds.
This is the part I don't get, but you probably do. Why would I lower the exhaust speed, instead of lowering the mass?
The distances a spacecraft can travel in a given time are limited by the mass of "stuff" it can throw back multiplied by the speed, with which it is thrown. So, one would think, the most efficient engine would be throw "stuff" out as fast as it can, and if lower thrust is desired at times, it would throw less of it instead of throwing the same amounts at lower speed...
Or is varying the amount at will simply too difficult today and requires another 10 years of research?
permanently attached to that "human labor" thing, as inconvenient as it is.
Your attempts to remind me, that humans are involved in "human labor" are touching, but irrelevant. The labor is sold by each individual human (in a free country) making the human a labor-supplier. It is perfectly fine for the buyer (of the labor) to check references on the supplier.
What ever you do to "human labor", you unavoidably do it to "human beings", since you can't have one without the other.
I buy other humans' labor and sell mine. Are you seriously stating, I buy humans and sell myself? Ooopsie... What a hole in your logic...
But let's take it farther. Your statement: if you can't have A without B, whatever you do to A, you unavoidably do to B is quite a fallacy. For starters, let's replace "A" with "toilet paper" and "B" with "delivery truck". Amusing, is not it?..
Municipal wifi is noncommercial, therefore it can't be a monopoly to begin with.
Why? According to some definition of "monopoly"? But I don't even care, because it is irrelevant to the argument. As you admit, municipal WiFi would've eliminated other possible service-providers thus limiting my choices. A year later they would've implemented the same feature as Verizon (rejecting usernames with indecent substrings), or installed porn-filters, and we would've had to start punching them in the faces, as the original poster suggested.
Monopoly sucks, and government's monopoly is even worse than a commercial one.
I find it extremely offensive that people like you treat economy as if it has the goal of providing a way for producers to squeeze wealth out of the consumers.
Yada-yada. I don't treat it this way at all. But that's irrelevant. So let's not drag on.
Your employer is not agreeing to buy your labor for the rest of your life.
That's irrelevant.
So the timeframe an employer is committing for is something between maybe 1 and 80 hours of labor.
That's irrelevant too. What an employer is legally committing to is dwarfed by their other commitments — the costs of hiring and training an employee, making her part of the process.
You don't really need detailed files to determine if someone is likely to live through the day or the week.
What I don't need to do is irrelevant to what I can legally do. But yes, short-term hires usually undergo less scrutiny — that's irrelevant too, as we were discussing, what is or is not legal.
The larger point is, we are all employers. If you ever checked references on a plumber (whom you only needed for 2 hours) or a babysitter (whom you needed for 2 years), you should not object to your potential employer(s) checking your background.
Much like the grocery store sells milk and Britannica-salesmen sell encyclopedias to you, you are marketing and — if you are good — selling your labor to an employer.
There is nothing wrong with the employer checking up the quality of your health before buying. If you make that illegal, you should outlaw Consumer Reports and, in particular, their repair-history database...
Yes, monopoly sucks, but it was not so bad — in this particular case — as the submitter and editor (kdawson) made it out to be, and not enough to justify the GP's mouth-foaming reaction.
And it always sucks, yet, this very forum was all the rage for several years over a monopoly called "municipal wifi"...
Unfortunately for many theories and schools of economics, it turns out that capitalism destroys the market mechanisms supposedly vital for capitalism to work.
It does?
Or else governments step in to regulate them, in a process that soon comes to resemble the Ptolemaic system of astronomy - adjustments to adjustments to adjustments, while the whole thing becomes steadily less stable and credible.
Points for referencing Ptolemaic system of astronomy, but nothing else. The piling up of adjustments upon adjustments is not inevitable. If it weren't for the socialism-minded demagogues, we would not have any of those beyond the original anti-trust laws, which would also have applied equally to trade-unions. And there would've been much more rejoicing.
You did not read the article... And neither did the submitter nor the editor...
The argument was not over providing him with service. It was over his choice of the user-name:
informing him that he could not have the user name because it didn't comply with company rules.
So the couple returned the Verizon DSL kit.
See? There was no problem ordering — and getting the "DSL kit" delivered. It was, when he wanted to use something like "hlibshitz" for login, that the problem began — the computer auto-rejected his choice of login.
Not that it is a particularly smart rule either (especially leaving the tech-support unable to overwrite it), but neither his being a Vietnam vet nor Verizon's special monopoly status have anything to do with it.
Then punch him in the face.
I think, you owe that guy an apology and a couple of beers... Unless he already had you knocked-out in response, that is.
Check and triple-check your facts next time — especially if the subject is "big business" and the posting editor is kdawson.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you very much for acknowledging, that China is, indeed, worse than USA.
What about between their server and the device (in China)? Is that leg just as encrypted — is the communication end-to-end, or is it sent clear-text over GSM, for the purposes of expediency?
Love ya too, Anonymous Coward.
No, it does not — not unless done really-really wrong — CIA agents undergo it as part of their training. Beaten-out teeth, on the other hand, are permanent. Same with broken hands — McCain's still don't function right, for example, decades after he suffered real torture in Vietnam.
How do you know, you have anything to worry about? It is certainly not self-evident here...
How do you know? Oh, it was not on CNN... I wonder, how those TV-stations are still able to broadcast after exposing their own government in such bad light... Such an outrage would never have happened in China, I tell you!
Why would they need to do that? They can torture right there at home. And I mean real torture, the kinds that leaves long-term (or permanent) disfigurement — not the waterboarding, which CIA agents are undergoing, as part of their training.
Right, right. China is busy with real and tangible threats, like Tibet freedom, leaving Taiwan alone, and ending sponsorship of Sudan.
There is no misdeed, that America has done in the last 150 years, that is not beaten by something, China has done in the last 60.
Of course, the blame for accidental death is less than for a premeditated one. Consult your local ethicist.
They would not do that to visiting foreigners. Not en-masse, and not for the purposes of economic espionage. Thus encryption would've been effective protecting 99% of communications.
Although waterboarding is certainly legal in China, over there they have a number of other methods too — and most of them usually leave long-term (sometimes permanent) disfigurement to the body, unlike waterboarding.
And my fax, or blackberry-relayed e-mail may say something about this...
Or under Darfur...
This may be overused, but, really, I have nothing to hide from them on any of the topics you listed... It is, of course, mildly unsettling, that they may learn these things about me without a good reason, but compared to the lives of Tibetians or Darfuris, that unease is nothing. Heck, it is insignificant even compared to the economic losses, which my country may sustain, if China's industrial espionage is successful...
The 2003 resumption of hostilities was due to Iraq's repeated failure on its obligations stemming from the 1992 cease-fire agreement. We should've gone "all out" much earlier, but Clinton was not up to the task and could only engage in occasional "fly swatting".
But if you think, the war is illegal, you'll have no troubles coming up with the UN Security Council's condemnation of it (and of earlier acts of war), would you? And if you can't, then, perhaps, something is still severely missing in that organization, that you'd rather have more power than America, is not there?
But let's not get distracted... Whether the war itself is illegal, or whether it is done to benefit "big oil" or MPAA, the fact remains: US military does not target civilians. And this makes us drastically different from terrorists.
It really does not. Sorry to repeat it to you — it does not.
Maybe, I'm not worried, because I do not, as a matter of principle, steal other people's intellectual property (I assume, "TPB" means "The Pirate Bay")? Possible, possible... Wake me up, when you have evidence of America's "illegal wiretapping" benefiting the hated *AAs, though.
Call me old-fashioned, but China's getting other people's intellectual property (such as mine or my employer's) would bother me — even if the Chinese could not put that info to good use. They may also do real bodily harm to some Chinese, who may have approached me (the foreigner), and whom I foolishly named in my fax transmission.
Your attempt to equate the two countries (reflected even in your choice of "Subject") is wrong — pathetically so. With what did the Chinese government buy you? With unfettered access to TPB? If that's really all you need, you may wish to move across the Pacific...
The "pot" here is not talking to the "kettle". It is talking to us — don't use fax or blackberry, if you don't want China to intercept the information.
In pot's defense, I may add, the thought of Chinese spying on my communications worries me far more.
This is where having a strong end-to-end encryption would've been really nice... Too bad, the "I have nothing to hide" mentality continues to prevail.
Of course not...
There is nothing particularly "American" to this odd measure of a war's success... But not only is your definition of "failure" asinine, it also contradicts the statement you are trying to support with it — in the Korean War we killed well over a million enemy soldiers, while the total number of perished civilians is about two millions. Even if all of the dead civilians are our victims, your statement is still wrong, unless two is "many" in your book...
In other words, take your anti-American agenda to a place where there are more morons like yourself.
I'm not even sure, this was a humanoid response... But I'll try again: Terrorist succeeds, when he blows up a wedding party... See? Succeeds... Now, which two failures were you comparing?
You are equating the deeds based on their results, rather than the intentions of the perpetrators. It is a very common fallacy, so I don't blame you in particular. For example, for reasons irrational we punish successful murderers harsher than the failures, even though the crime is exactly the same.
Similarly, you assign equal blame for a blown-up wedding party — and spice it up with graphic depictions of bodily damage ("mothers decapitated"). Very touching, and very idiotic — either you are an idiot yourself, or you have serious contempt for your audience.
US does not target the innocent — when we kill them, it is by a tragic mistake, a major failure. Terrorists do target them — the "decapitated mothers" means success for them, and a cause for celebrations.
This is the part I don't get, but you probably do. Why would I lower the exhaust speed, instead of lowering the mass?
The distances a spacecraft can travel in a given time are limited by the mass of "stuff" it can throw back multiplied by the speed, with which it is thrown. So, one would think, the most efficient engine would be throw "stuff" out as fast as it can, and if lower thrust is desired at times, it would throw less of it instead of throwing the same amounts at lower speed...
Or is varying the amount at will simply too difficult today and requires another 10 years of research?
Your attempts to remind me, that humans are involved in "human labor" are touching, but irrelevant. The labor is sold by each individual human (in a free country) making the human a labor-supplier. It is perfectly fine for the buyer (of the labor) to check references on the supplier.
I buy other humans' labor and sell mine. Are you seriously stating, I buy humans and sell myself? Ooopsie... What a hole in your logic...
But let's take it farther. Your statement: if you can't have A without B, whatever you do to A, you unavoidably do to B is quite a fallacy. For starters, let's replace "A" with "toilet paper" and "B" with "delivery truck". Amusing, is not it?..
Why? According to some definition of "monopoly"? But I don't even care, because it is irrelevant to the argument. As you admit, municipal WiFi would've eliminated other possible service-providers thus limiting my choices. A year later they would've implemented the same feature as Verizon (rejecting usernames with indecent substrings), or installed porn-filters, and we would've had to start punching them in the faces, as the original poster suggested.
Monopoly sucks, and government's monopoly is even worse than a commercial one.
Yada-yada. I don't treat it this way at all. But that's irrelevant. So let's not drag on.
That's irrelevant.
That's irrelevant too. What an employer is legally committing to is dwarfed by their other commitments — the costs of hiring and training an employee, making her part of the process.
What I don't need to do is irrelevant to what I can legally do. But yes, short-term hires usually undergo less scrutiny — that's irrelevant too, as we were discussing, what is or is not legal.
The larger point is, we are all employers. If you ever checked references on a plumber (whom you only needed for 2 hours) or a babysitter (whom you needed for 2 years), you should not object to your potential employer(s) checking your background.
No, not human beings. As the very subject of this thread states, the trade is in the human's labor.
Much like the grocery store sells milk and Britannica-salesmen sell encyclopedias to you, you are marketing and — if you are good — selling your labor to an employer.
There is nothing wrong with the employer checking up the quality of your health before buying. If you make that illegal, you should outlaw Consumer Reports and, in particular, their repair-history database...
I bet, if the talk was about pay increases, everything would've gone very smooth...
In fact, I'm fairly certain, they have already done a number of pay-increasing code-modifications since the last Cobol-book was published.
Yes, monopoly sucks, but it was not so bad — in this particular case — as the submitter and editor (kdawson) made it out to be, and not enough to justify the GP's mouth-foaming reaction.
And it always sucks, yet, this very forum was all the rage for several years over a monopoly called "municipal wifi"...
It does?
Points for referencing Ptolemaic system of astronomy, but nothing else. The piling up of adjustments upon adjustments is not inevitable. If it weren't for the socialism-minded demagogues, we would not have any of those beyond the original anti-trust laws, which would also have applied equally to trade-unions. And there would've been much more rejoicing.
You did not read the article... And neither did the submitter nor the editor...
The argument was not over providing him with service. It was over his choice of the user-name:
See? There was no problem ordering — and getting the "DSL kit" delivered. It was, when he wanted to use something like "hlibshitz" for login, that the problem began — the computer auto-rejected his choice of login.
Not that it is a particularly smart rule either (especially leaving the tech-support unable to overwrite it), but neither his being a Vietnam vet nor Verizon's special monopoly status have anything to do with it.
I think, you owe that guy an apology and a couple of beers... Unless he already had you knocked-out in response, that is.
Check and triple-check your facts next time — especially if the subject is "big business" and the posting editor is kdawson.
A lot of Americans do not either.
Not if there is a filming crew outside — makes it fairly obvious, you aren't a criminal sneaking in.
Unless, of course, someone recognizes Michael Moore — then all bets are off.