I guess my question about this reaches back to the incorporation of SELinux in the kernel and in many distributions: when the NSA, along with many three-letter agencies, is the preeminent threat to personal privacy in what Privacy International has labeled an endemic surveillance society (yes, that's the U.S.), how can it make any sense to rely on the NSA for security advice?
The argument I've seen in the past essentially comes to seeing the NSA as not a monolithic organization, that there there are pieces of it doing legitimate work. But given the pervasiveness of this surveillance, does that really make sense, and more to the point, does it really make sense in the context of this thread?
I notice that the story linked above doesn't substantiate the claim. The only reference appears in a teaser (above the byline) which I'm guessing might have been written by an editor rather than by the reporter. It's a helluva rumor to start--I've been seeing all over the place all day.
Finally, the beginnings of a correct approach to this question.
First, we can't really answer because we don't know specifically where you would be backpacking. The comments about line of sight are, of course, correct, but repeaters may indeed exist where cell sites do not. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) publishes guides to repeaters and a Windows program (which I haven't recently tried under Wine) that can somewhat automate the process.
It is true that the Skype client works great with ALSA. At least on my laptops, however, pulseaudio removes the ability to configure audio devices within Skype. Skype's audio configuration allows you to configure distinct ring, audio, and microphone devices. I'll probably get flamed by pulseaudio advocates, but getting pulseaudio to configure any audio devices appears to me to be more in the realm of magic than actual function (which is why I now routinely uninstall pulseaudio).
I'll agree with the open software advocates on one point though: I'm basically looking to phase out Skype and use Twinkle more. As far as I've heard, Skype still hasn't made their code available even for a security audit and still hasn't satisfactorily answered questions about any possible back doors for three-letter government agencies.
No, I don't really think these poor suckers should go to jail, I just don't think it's unbelievable to even suggest that, as the summary says.
It certainly isn't unbelievable, but there is another angle to all this.
There is little (if any) justice in the economic hierarchy today. If people perceive they are being stolen from, even by the elite, and they see no other opportunity for themselves, then it becomes a little harder to blame them.
Yes, they're stupid. But they might also be desperate.
I had some problems--which, frankly, I deserved for doing it this way--but nothing in the least bit unsurmountable.
1) Synaptic was actually willing to do a lot of the upgrade. Last time, it immediately complained I needed to do an apt-get dist-upgrade, which I really still needed to do this time. Because I began the upgrade after it had been slashdotted, I had a little trouble getting all the files for the update part, and cycled through marking updates a couple times.
2) I did a reboot after Synaptic got through, and X failed to start. This is because I had installed vmware, and the upgrade refused to automatically reconfigure X with the modification that the vmware installation inserts. Scratching my head, trying to figure out what to do next, I looked at the configuration, and it told me what to do. So I did it. Voila, X worked. Re-running the vmware installation (which I had to do anyway for the new kernel) got me to status quo ante there.
3) So now I get into the usual GUI environment, and the update icon came on almost immediately. See #1. The update was willing to do the remaining bits of the distribution upgrade (something like 115 files, if I recall correctly), and I didn't even have to reboot.
Now I have to say I haven't tried things like wireless access yet; this seemed to be a problem in the previous version, at least with my old Cisco Aeronet 802.11B card. But I have a system which is at least as usable as what I had before, with no horror stories whatsoever.
Commander Taco argues rhetorically, "it's likely that a sizable percentage of these students download copyrighted material from the Internet. Do you think any of them are concerned about IP rights then?" Papers are often available on the Internet as PDFs expressly for the public--academic or not--to download. It is legitimate under fair use and academic fair use to "download," which strictly speaking could be as simple as hitting a web page, material and use it in papers as long as you cite sources properly. This is not the same thing as uploading someone's intellectual property to a site without the author's permission, without any compensation to the author, and for use other than the author's intent.
Plagiarism is a problem. I recall one of my professors saying she busts someone every quarter. It is not cool. The minimum penalty is an "F" for the class and expulsion is possible or, depending on the school, probable.
But Commander Taco might be talking about peer-to-peer file sharing of music, and thereby accusing all students who protest the use of turnitin.com of stealing copyrighted music. He paints with a broad brush.
The arguments in favor of voting seem to break down as follows:
Every vote counts. I respond by wanting to see a single election where a single vote would make a difference in the outcome. Even if you find one, I think you're going to find it wasn't a very important election.
For change to occur, those who feel disenfranchised must vote. I say that they don't vote, I don't have the power to make them vote, and so my vote remains, just one vote.
Each vote is as important as any other vote. I say this is only true when the vote is on the winning side. Call me a poor loser but I fail to see what a vote for a loser has accomplished. Of course a vote for a winner is also a questionable accomplishment, unless the margin of victory is your one vote.
If you don't vote, you can't complain. I ask, why not? I prefer to limit my actions to those I think are effective. Are you really any more righteous for having taken an ineffective action?
Voting is a civic duty. I think that the claim that your vote is important is a sham. From this, I conclude that this process is a fraud. I choose not to participate in fraud.
My response, as you see, to all these arguments is basically the same: the individual vote is meaningless.
The usual response I hear to this is that one must, then, get involved. Take, for instance, Ralph Nader, who some believe might deliver the election to George Bush by cutting into the vote which might otherwise go to Al Gore. But not all of his career has been so Quixotic.
Ralph Nader, for better or worse, has devoted his working life to consumer advocacy. He has attracted some support and proven somewhat effective, because he has come to represent so many.
Nader has done this by devoting his entire life to this cause. Obviously, not all of us can do the same. Influence, for which you may read, the ability to take effective action, therefore, is forever limited to the few. This is true regardless of the form of government we choose.
But now I must urge you not to let this truth spread too far. I must, in fact, participate in the very fraud I have sought here to debunk.
For there are these simple little questions: If democracy is meaningless, why are we, in the United States, better off than in so many other countries in the world? How is it that we retain any portions of those freedoms (albeit diminished) we cherish? Can I really argue that our system of government is really no better than that of a number of petty and corrupt regimes throughout the world (some sub-Saharan African nations come to mind)?
Keep those politicians as scared as you possibly can! Vote early, vote often! Above all, vote!
Slashdot Mirror
I guess my question about this reaches back to the incorporation of SELinux in the kernel and in many distributions: when the NSA, along with many three-letter agencies, is the preeminent threat to personal privacy in what Privacy International has labeled an endemic surveillance society (yes, that's the U.S.), how can it make any sense to rely on the NSA for security advice?
The argument I've seen in the past essentially comes to seeing the NSA as not a monolithic organization, that there there are pieces of it doing legitimate work. But given the pervasiveness of this surveillance, does that really make sense, and more to the point, does it really make sense in the context of this thread?
I notice that the story linked above doesn't substantiate the claim. The only reference appears in a teaser (above the byline) which I'm guessing might have been written by an editor rather than by the reporter. It's a helluva rumor to start--I've been seeing all over the place all day.
Finally, the beginnings of a correct approach to this question.
First, we can't really answer because we don't know specifically where you would be backpacking. The comments about line of sight are, of course, correct, but repeaters may indeed exist where cell sites do not. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) publishes guides to repeaters and a Windows program (which I haven't recently tried under Wine) that can somewhat automate the process.
N4RKY
It is true that the Skype client works great with ALSA. At least on my laptops, however, pulseaudio removes the ability to configure audio devices within Skype. Skype's audio configuration allows you to configure distinct ring, audio, and microphone devices. I'll probably get flamed by pulseaudio advocates, but getting pulseaudio to configure any audio devices appears to me to be more in the realm of magic than actual function (which is why I now routinely uninstall pulseaudio).
I'll agree with the open software advocates on one point though: I'm basically looking to phase out Skype and use Twinkle more. As far as I've heard, Skype still hasn't made their code available even for a security audit and still hasn't satisfactorily answered questions about any possible back doors for three-letter government agencies.
No, I don't really think these poor suckers should go to jail, I just don't think it's unbelievable to even suggest that, as the summary says.
It certainly isn't unbelievable, but there is another angle to all this.
There is little (if any) justice in the economic hierarchy today. If people perceive they are being stolen from, even by the elite, and they see no other opportunity for themselves, then it becomes a little harder to blame them.
Yes, they're stupid. But they might also be desperate.
I had some problems--which, frankly, I deserved for doing it this way--but nothing in the least bit unsurmountable.
1) Synaptic was actually willing to do a lot of the upgrade. Last time, it immediately complained I needed to do an apt-get dist-upgrade, which I really still needed to do this time. Because I began the upgrade after it had been slashdotted, I had a little trouble getting all the files for the update part, and cycled through marking updates a couple times.
2) I did a reboot after Synaptic got through, and X failed to start. This is because I had installed vmware, and the upgrade refused to automatically reconfigure X with the modification that the vmware installation inserts. Scratching my head, trying to figure out what to do next, I looked at the configuration, and it told me what to do. So I did it. Voila, X worked. Re-running the vmware installation (which I had to do anyway for the new kernel) got me to status quo ante there.
3) So now I get into the usual GUI environment, and the update icon came on almost immediately. See #1. The update was willing to do the remaining bits of the distribution upgrade (something like 115 files, if I recall correctly), and I didn't even have to reboot.
Now I have to say I haven't tried things like wireless access yet; this seemed to be a problem in the previous version, at least with my old Cisco Aeronet 802.11B card. But I have a system which is at least as usable as what I had before, with no horror stories whatsoever.
Commander Taco argues rhetorically, "it's likely that a sizable percentage of these students download copyrighted material from the Internet. Do you think any of them are concerned about IP rights then?" Papers are often available on the Internet as PDFs expressly for the public--academic or not--to download. It is legitimate under fair use and academic fair use to "download," which strictly speaking could be as simple as hitting a web page, material and use it in papers as long as you cite sources properly. This is not the same thing as uploading someone's intellectual property to a site without the author's permission, without any compensation to the author, and for use other than the author's intent.
Plagiarism is a problem. I recall one of my professors saying she busts someone every quarter. It is not cool. The minimum penalty is an "F" for the class and expulsion is possible or, depending on the school, probable.
But Commander Taco might be talking about peer-to-peer file sharing of music, and thereby accusing all students who protest the use of turnitin.com of stealing copyrighted music. He paints with a broad brush.
The arguments in favor of voting seem to break down as follows:
- Every vote counts. I respond by wanting to see a single election where a single vote would make a difference in the outcome. Even if you find one, I think you're going to find it wasn't a very important election.
- For change to occur, those who feel disenfranchised must vote. I say that they don't vote, I don't have the power to make them vote, and so my vote remains, just one vote.
- Each vote is as important as any other vote. I say this is only true when the vote is on the winning side. Call me a poor loser but I fail to see what a vote for a loser has accomplished. Of course a vote for a winner is also a questionable accomplishment, unless the margin of victory is your one vote.
- If you don't vote, you can't complain. I ask, why not? I prefer to limit my actions to those I think are effective. Are you really any more righteous for having taken an ineffective action?
- Voting is a civic duty. I think that the claim that your vote is important is a sham. From this, I conclude that this process is a fraud. I choose not to participate in fraud.
My response, as you see, to all these arguments is basically the same: the individual vote is meaningless.The usual response I hear to this is that one must, then, get involved. Take, for instance, Ralph Nader, who some believe might deliver the election to George Bush by cutting into the vote which might otherwise go to Al Gore. But not all of his career has been so Quixotic.
Ralph Nader, for better or worse, has devoted his working life to consumer advocacy. He has attracted some support and proven somewhat effective, because he has come to represent so many.
Nader has done this by devoting his entire life to this cause. Obviously, not all of us can do the same. Influence, for which you may read, the ability to take effective action, therefore, is forever limited to the few. This is true regardless of the form of government we choose.
But now I must urge you not to let this truth spread too far. I must, in fact, participate in the very fraud I have sought here to debunk.
For there are these simple little questions: If democracy is meaningless, why are we, in the United States, better off than in so many other countries in the world? How is it that we retain any portions of those freedoms (albeit diminished) we cherish? Can I really argue that our system of government is really no better than that of a number of petty and corrupt regimes throughout the world (some sub-Saharan African nations come to mind)?
Keep those politicians as scared as you possibly can! Vote early, vote often! Above all, vote!