How do you re-secretize something that is in Public Domain???
Publishing bomb-making instructions has been considered wrong (and often illegal) for ages — even if the general principles (nor even actual designs) aren't particularly secret.
Even if you can not make it impossible for your enemies to obtain a secret, you can still make it harder — every step of the way. And making it harder for America's enemies (such as Iran and North Korea) to build their own ICBMs is a good goal.
For more, search this site and others for something like "security is a process".
Political leader of a country (cuba, Germany early 1940s, Venezuela) who censors an opponent or opposition's speech to retain power.
Come, come, I'm quite certain, all of those monsters were convinced, their actions were for the better of their countries. Not even Stalin would admit — even if only to himself — that the country would've been better off under someone else... There is always justification.
That being said I believe that censorship isn't inherently a bad thing or a good thing, it's the reason that it's being used which defines it.
There is one very important characteristic, which I already mentioned elsewhere on this board. The fact and the rules of the censorship may not themselves be censored. Chinese, for example, are happy to deflect criticism of their censorship of debate on different government structures, &c. by pointing out, that "the so called free" America is censoring child pornography.
Well, our censorship is not self-perpetuating — unlike the Chinese — and that's the important distinction.
They want to pretend censorship like this is only taking place in places like China. That's bullshit. It's happening here in America and with ever increasing frequency.
I'm glad, your Israel-bashing was bashed back into whence it came from (more detailed anatomy would be off-topic). This censorship does not bother me at all — and not because I support Israel's right to exist, but because the policy of censorship itself can be discussed freely.
On contrast, Chinese censorship is self-perpetuating (or, hopefully, merely self-prolonging), because they can't discuss topics like the very fact of censorship and the alternative forms of government themselves.
This is an even more important difference than that in China censorship is government business, while you have no evidence of your speech having ever been targeted by the US-government.
What can Wikipedia do about those who would use it for their own purposes?
What a retarded question... Don't we all use Wikipedia for our own purposes? The reaction — if any is needed at all — should depend on the purposes.
A covert agent of a reasonably democratic government investigating a crime is one thing. A pseudo-scientist lying about his credentials is another. A pranskter vandalizing pages is the third. An overt agent of a reasonably democratic government pushing their government's view is yet another. And so on... And then, of course, come the rest of us using the resource to learn, teach, and immortalize ourselves via contributions...
Today it takes a dedicated 20-ton truck. In three years, there will be a Bradley-mounted design. In 10 or 20, these things would be mounted on helmets to protect individual soldiers.
Stop counting other people's money (CEOs') and rejoice at the progress your side of the war is making.
I've met certified programmers who could make code practically sing
You have? That's called "anecdotal evidence". Anyway, those people you met (whoever "certified" them) are already gainfully employed, aren't they? Which means, if Google were to hire them, their current employer would'be short. Which just reaffirms, what I said: "There are qualified programmers, we just don't have enough of them". And I like that personally as a programmer (although Google chose not to hire me for some reason after 3 interviews).
But I feel sad for the foreigners, who — through their talent and/or hardwork — deserve no worse a job, than I can get, but are restricted by America's protectionism...
The qualified programmers are out there, the companies just need to learn that they need to look beyond the silicon corridor and the outsourcing countries.
It is far easier for Google et al. to hire these people than to fight for visas... Google opened an East Coast office just to get access to wider job-market, for example. They don't have a recruiting post in every little town, but they certainly are looking among those already in the States. There simply aren't enough people... Unemployment is "too low".
I don't think, this article was written by a real (ex-)spammer. Either that, or it has been too heavily edited be plausible.
If he deliberately targeted only recovering gambling addicts or only people in need of particular drugs, he is not even a spammer by some of the (vague) definitions — spammers carpet-bomb all addresses they can reach, without trying to narrow down to the (relatively) small groups of addressees, as a more responsible marketeer would do (not to defend those types).
But, wait a minute, the article was not written by "Ed", as the write-up would imply, it simply (mis)quotes and sensationalizes him.
Being "the things, that people hate about the Internet" was not dramatic enough for the magazine — they had to add these details, which aren't even true. Why target "recovering gambling addicts", when you are going to get more money from those, who have not started recovering, for example?
As for the IRS seizing property, there is at least some sort of process that happens before they do that.
All of it within themselves — there is no separation of branches there. You can only argue with them in "Tax Courts" run by the IRS (part of the Executive Branch) themselves.
This, along with the entire concept of income tax has been a burning issue for decades among some people. Unfortunately, the katzes and dawsons of this country have always dismissed these people as (right-wing) wackos...
It's arguable if what they [IRS -mi] do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than what this order gives the Treasury Department the authority to do.
It affects a lot more people than the Treasury's new-found authority. This makes it worse. But here is another example for you — if a cop finds a trunk of cash in your car, he'll seize it. On suspicion of money laundering/drug trading or some such...
Chances are, you will get it back — as will the innocent victims of the Treasury's new authority — but the seizure will still be swift and without prior notice...
In today's electronically-connected world money can be pushed between jurisdictions very quickly... Freezing one perpetrator's assets could be viewed as just as unavoidable as shooting another — and police could do just that (based on their own judgment) since, uhm, forever. At least, the frozen funds could be thawed in case of a mistake...
Wherever a police officer could be standing, there could — legally, morally — be a surveillance camera. We just can't afford this many policemen, and the cameras simply allow fewer of them to be (much) more productive.
There will be more of them, and there is nothing wrong with it, unless they peek into what's justifiably considered private — which they could do, but a live policeman is much more likely to.
The problem with Big Brother was not that it was "always watching", but that it was suffocatingly oppressive — and the UK government is not, nor moving in that direction... So, relax already...
Of course you can compare them - You could compare both to the Girl Scouts, too.
But not justifiably.
I would not call DHS nearly as bad as the Gestapo - yet.
Well, it appeared, you agreed with the poster I was referring to — one who called DHS "one happy Gestapo". I'm glad, you don't agree with him.
But only a fool would deny that certain rather disconcerting parallels exist.
Yes, indeed... Also Bush has two hands and two legs — just like Hitler. Is not that an unnerving parallel?
But that we have anyone vanishing means we damned well better start watching our watchers a bit more closely.
Laws we can go to prison for but can't know
Whah?
evidence secret even from the defendant
Whah?
"rendition"
What about it? We are fighting a war — would you also have objected to our shooting Japanese soldiers during WW2? Thousands of Japanese (and German) civilians died back then too — it happens during war. Today most of our active enemies don't belong to any military. They thus have no legal protection whatsoever. That DHS (CIA), actually, keeps them alive and are concerned about their health at all, already makes them distinctly different from Gestapo. CIA's having to go through the troubles of "rendition" in the first place is in stark contrast to Gestapo practices.
But that we have anyone vanishing
So, who vanished?
Do we have Muslims vanishing by the trainload? Of course not.
Until DHS gets in charge of camps, where people are systematically killed (or even detained!) simply for belonging to an ethnic or a religious group, any invocations of Gestapo, Hitler, et al. shall remain mindless name-calling — justly ridiculed with Godwin's Law and the like.
Personally, I find it even more amazing that so many people will fall back on cheesy "laws" of social norms such as Godwin's rather than admit they can see the Emperor's schlong.
You, actually, agree that America's Department of Homeland Security can justifiably be compared with Hitler's Gestapo (Third Reich's secret police)?! Wow...
I'd be rather upset, if an American government agency were unable to find a way to find a (legal) way to penetrate an American-made operating system with or without cooperation of American computer-security firms to investigate bombs threats against an American school...
Yes, privacy is very important — unless you are dead, that is...
To protect a few hundreds of innocents from McCarthy-like harassment, America shackled its intelligence services in the past, which appears to have contributed substantially to the deaths of several thousands (and billions of dollars worth of destruction) in 2001 alone.
The pendulum is now swinging into the other direction and already there are dimwits, who break Godwin's Law and still get moderated to heavens by fellow dimwits... Something tells me, I will not be:-)
Violence can be defined as increasing the further away the assailant is from his/her target.
Here is what happened in 415 B.C. — when distance you are talking about was zero (unless archers were used):
When the Melians steadfastly refused to agree to Athenian demands, the fleet laid siege to their city; the islanders surrendered, and Athens razed the walls, killed all the men, and enslaved the women and children.
All of the genocides recorded in history — starting, perhaps, from the one mentioned above — were performed with rather low-tech implements, in the immediate proximity to the victims. They were using machetes in Rwanda — to hack the men and to cut the women's breasts off (so that they would not be able to feed their babies)...
In other words, your attempts to redefine, what the term "violence" means is bullshit.
A $3.8 billion expansion and they can't afford to clean up the mess that they're creating?
Cleaning completely is not possible. There may be one or three people on the entire Slashdot, who know, what can and can not be done with this waste... The rest are just venting.
The article's numbers are weird. They assert, the amount of "industrial sludge" will increase by 35% (non-toxic ammonia by even more), but the refinery's output — by only 15%.
It would seem, they are better of allowing another refinery — just like the existing one — it would double the pollution, but also double the output...
I think, the problem comes from the switch to heavy oil, which largely comes from friendly Canada is much harder to process (although companies like Ivanhoe are coming up with revolutionary methods).
We all want "energy independence", but the sales of big SUVs are only growing.
Financing unwholesome governments and terrorism abroad, or polluting your own lakes (or air, if you add ethanol to your fuel). Make your choice...
There is hope — if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...
Because the subject is repeatedly appearing on Slashdot's front page.
It's important because those who enjoy music are getting less and less of a choice.
Bzzz, wrong. Factually wrong... The range of devices and means of content-delivery is expanding — and quickly. Only five years ago, there was no iPod. Today many cellphones comes with built-in music player. You just have to pay. The content-owners don't want you to "pay-once-listen-everywhere", which sucks, of course. But the choices are only growing — even if not as fast as you'd like.
If it were about medicine, firefighting, military, or even simply traffic-control — maybe I'd be upset about the growth being slower, than it could be. But to get so worked-up over entertainment?.. Please...
It's not just a flawed business model. A lot of people do it as a hobby. [...] Most of all, its because this was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago.
So? Pay up, and continue to enjoy this hobby. I love horseback riding — and I'm not alone — but you don't see any complaints, that the horses aren't given away for free, nor is keeping yours at the stables complimentary (because you helped test the stables).
It wasn't until the RIAA thought that they should be paid royalties for these songs
So, the owners of the content have finally won the right to be paid for your perusing of it... Is this supposed to be outrageous? They are right — however unpleasant they may be in asserting that right. I think, you owe them for those years, you've been listening for free...
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm, SS? Here is a working link for you...
Publishing bomb-making instructions has been considered wrong (and often illegal) for ages — even if the general principles (nor even actual designs) aren't particularly secret.
Even if you can not make it impossible for your enemies to obtain a secret, you can still make it harder — every step of the way. And making it harder for America's enemies (such as Iran and North Korea) to build their own ICBMs is a good goal.
For more, search this site and others for something like "security is a process".
Come, come, I'm quite certain, all of those monsters were convinced, their actions were for the better of their countries. Not even Stalin would admit — even if only to himself — that the country would've been better off under someone else... There is always justification.
There is one very important characteristic, which I already mentioned elsewhere on this board. The fact and the rules of the censorship may not themselves be censored. Chinese, for example, are happy to deflect criticism of their censorship of debate on different government structures, &c. by pointing out, that "the so called free" America is censoring child pornography.
Well, our censorship is not self-perpetuating — unlike the Chinese — and that's the important distinction.
I'm glad, your Israel-bashing was bashed back into whence it came from (more detailed anatomy would be off-topic). This censorship does not bother me at all — and not because I support Israel's right to exist, but because the policy of censorship itself can be discussed freely.
On contrast, Chinese censorship is self-perpetuating (or, hopefully, merely self-prolonging), because they can't discuss topics like the very fact of censorship and the alternative forms of government themselves.
This is an even more important difference than that in China censorship is government business, while you have no evidence of your speech having ever been targeted by the US-government.
It is not like the the censors are sitting somewhere rubbing their hands thinking, Ok, who am I gonna stick it to today...
They all mean well...
What a retarded question... Don't we all use Wikipedia for our own purposes? The reaction — if any is needed at all — should depend on the purposes.
A covert agent of a reasonably democratic government investigating a crime is one thing. A pseudo-scientist lying about his credentials is another. A pranskter vandalizing pages is the third. An overt agent of a reasonably democratic government pushing their government's view is yet another. And so on... And then, of course, come the rest of us using the resource to learn, teach, and immortalize ourselves via contributions...
You can't read (much) from /dev/null, and your numbers don't look like they come from /dev/zero either — those would be rather repetative.
I think, you meant /dev/random...
False dichotomy. You can rejoice at some aspect of a war (such as fewer deaths), while still looking for "a better way".
Boeing are a member of neither RIAA nor MPAA. What's the problem?
Today it takes a dedicated 20-ton truck. In three years, there will be a Bradley-mounted design. In 10 or 20, these things would be mounted on helmets to protect individual soldiers.
Stop counting other people's money (CEOs') and rejoice at the progress your side of the war is making.
Everybody has a right to work for whoever would hire them.
Yes, Germany's laws on the subject are worse than ours. So?..
You have? That's called "anecdotal evidence". Anyway, those people you met (whoever "certified" them) are already gainfully employed, aren't they? Which means, if Google were to hire them, their current employer would'be short. Which just reaffirms, what I said: "There are qualified programmers, we just don't have enough of them". And I like that personally as a programmer (although Google chose not to hire me for some reason after 3 interviews).
But I feel sad for the foreigners, who — through their talent and/or hardwork — deserve no worse a job, than I can get, but are restricted by America's protectionism...
It is far easier for Google et al. to hire these people than to fight for visas... Google opened an East Coast office just to get access to wider job-market, for example. They don't have a recruiting post in every little town, but they certainly are looking among those already in the States. There simply aren't enough people... Unemployment is "too low".
Whom are you quoting here? Can we, please, have a link to anything like this and the evidence of it being "embraced by everyone here"?
We do. American programmers are qualified alright on average, but there aren't enough of them.
I don't think, this article was written by a real (ex-)spammer. Either that, or it has been too heavily edited be plausible.
If he deliberately targeted only recovering gambling addicts or only people in need of particular drugs, he is not even a spammer by some of the (vague) definitions — spammers carpet-bomb all addresses they can reach, without trying to narrow down to the (relatively) small groups of addressees, as a more responsible marketeer would do (not to defend those types).
But, wait a minute, the article was not written by "Ed", as the write-up would imply, it simply (mis)quotes and sensationalizes him.
Being "the things, that people hate about the Internet" was not dramatic enough for the magazine — they had to add these details, which aren't even true. Why target "recovering gambling addicts", when you are going to get more money from those, who have not started recovering, for example?
Shoddy journalism, again...
All of it within themselves — there is no separation of branches there. You can only argue with them in "Tax Courts" run by the IRS (part of the Executive Branch) themselves.
This, along with the entire concept of income tax has been a burning issue for decades among some people. Unfortunately, the katzes and dawsons of this country have always dismissed these people as (right-wing) wackos...
It affects a lot more people than the Treasury's new-found authority. This makes it worse. But here is another example for you — if a cop finds a trunk of cash in your car, he'll seize it. On suspicion of money laundering/drug trading or some such...
Chances are, you will get it back — as will the innocent victims of the Treasury's new authority — but the seizure will still be swift and without prior notice...
In today's electronically-connected world money can be pushed between jurisdictions very quickly... Freezing one perpetrator's assets could be viewed as just as unavoidable as shooting another — and police could do just that (based on their own judgment) since, uhm, forever. At least, the frozen funds could be thawed in case of a mistake...
Great stuff, dude, but should not we count them votes first ?..
What loss of freedom?
Wherever a police officer could be standing, there could — legally, morally — be a surveillance camera. We just can't afford this many policemen, and the cameras simply allow fewer of them to be (much) more productive.
There will be more of them, and there is nothing wrong with it, unless they peek into what's justifiably considered private — which they could do, but a live policeman is much more likely to.
The problem with Big Brother was not that it was "always watching", but that it was suffocatingly oppressive — and the UK government is not, nor moving in that direction... So, relax already...
But not justifiably.
Well, it appeared, you agreed with the poster I was referring to — one who called DHS "one happy Gestapo". I'm glad, you don't agree with him.
Yes, indeed... Also Bush has two hands and two legs — just like Hitler. Is not that an unnerving parallel?
Laws we can go to prison for but can't know Whah? evidence secret even from the defendant Whah? "rendition" What about it? We are fighting a war — would you also have objected to our shooting Japanese soldiers during WW2? Thousands of Japanese (and German) civilians died back then too — it happens during war. Today most of our active enemies don't belong to any military. They thus have no legal protection whatsoever. That DHS (CIA), actually, keeps them alive and are concerned about their health at all, already makes them distinctly different from Gestapo. CIA's having to go through the troubles of "rendition" in the first place is in stark contrast to Gestapo practices. But that we have anyone vanishing So, who vanished?Until DHS gets in charge of camps, where people are systematically killed (or even detained!) simply for belonging to an ethnic or a religious group, any invocations of Gestapo, Hitler, et al. shall remain mindless name-calling — justly ridiculed with Godwin's Law and the like.
You, actually, agree that America's Department of Homeland Security can justifiably be compared with Hitler's Gestapo (Third Reich's secret police)?! Wow...
Fortunately, these aren't the options. I'm happily living a free man — not sure, what makes your day so gloomy.
The self-importance and the cheek-puffing by the TSA in the airports is, no doubt, annoying, but it does not warrant any talk of "slavery".
How refreshing... Dissenting is not treason, dear, have not you learned even this much yet? You have a nice day too now.
I'd be rather upset, if an American government agency were unable to find a way to find a (legal) way to penetrate an American-made operating system with or without cooperation of American computer-security firms to investigate bombs threats against an American school...
Yes, privacy is very important — unless you are dead, that is...
To protect a few hundreds of innocents from McCarthy-like harassment, America shackled its intelligence services in the past, which appears to have contributed substantially to the deaths of several thousands (and billions of dollars worth of destruction) in 2001 alone.
The pendulum is now swinging into the other direction and already there are dimwits, who break Godwin's Law and still get moderated to heavens by fellow dimwits... Something tells me, I will not be :-)
Here is what happened in 415 B.C. — when distance you are talking about was zero (unless archers were used):
All of the genocides recorded in history — starting, perhaps, from the one mentioned above — were performed with rather low-tech implements, in the immediate proximity to the victims. They were using machetes in Rwanda — to hack the men and to cut the women's breasts off (so that they would not be able to feed their babies)...
In other words, your attempts to redefine, what the term "violence" means is bullshit.
Cleaning completely is not possible. There may be one or three people on the entire Slashdot, who know, what can and can not be done with this waste... The rest are just venting.
The article's numbers are weird. They assert, the amount of "industrial sludge" will increase by 35% (non-toxic ammonia by even more), but the refinery's output — by only 15%.
It would seem, they are better of allowing another refinery — just like the existing one — it would double the pollution, but also double the output...
I think, the problem comes from the switch to heavy oil, which largely comes from friendly Canada is much harder to process (although companies like Ivanhoe are coming up with revolutionary methods).
We all want "energy independence", but the sales of big SUVs are only growing.
Financing unwholesome governments and terrorism abroad, or polluting your own lakes (or air, if you add ethanol to your fuel). Make your choice...
There is hope — if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...
Because the subject is repeatedly appearing on Slashdot's front page.
Bzzz, wrong. Factually wrong... The range of devices and means of content-delivery is expanding — and quickly. Only five years ago, there was no iPod. Today many cellphones comes with built-in music player. You just have to pay. The content-owners don't want you to "pay-once-listen-everywhere", which sucks, of course. But the choices are only growing — even if not as fast as you'd like.
If it were about medicine, firefighting, military, or even simply traffic-control — maybe I'd be upset about the growth being slower, than it could be. But to get so worked-up over entertainment?.. Please...
So? Pay up, and continue to enjoy this hobby. I love horseback riding — and I'm not alone — but you don't see any complaints, that the horses aren't given away for free, nor is keeping yours at the stables complimentary (because you helped test the stables).
So, the owners of the content have finally won the right to be paid for your perusing of it... Is this supposed to be outrageous? They are right — however unpleasant they may be in asserting that right. I think, you owe them for those years, you've been listening for free...
So, somebody's business model is flawed... Been there, seen that. Yawn.
Why am I supposed to care, again?