Forgive me for the late reply. I just wanted to point out that the Congressman who proposed the 14th Amendment, Representative Bingham, explicitly stated in arguing for the amendment that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States. He said things like "I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution." And "Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights." And much more. Incorporation is not a 20th Century invention, but was explicitly intended.
Beyond the initial "ha-ha" moment, I agree with you totally.
Intellectually, I agree. Of course I've long felt that the war on drugs does far more harm than good. But as for the specific case of spammers -- fuck 'em. I have negative sympathy for them. They cost me time every day, and that comes right out of my long ago depleted "feel sorry for spammers getting nailed by draconian laws" supply. I'll work on helping in the general case. I have far more important things to do than worry about some spammer. Like posting to/. and counting the CPU cycles wasted by crap carefully crafted to avoid my spam filter.
Who exactly were the Federalist Papers trying to get elected again?
Not a who, but the Federalist Papers were written to influence people to support the Constitution. Likewise, the Antifederalist Papers were written to influence people to oppose the Constitution. They were written anonymously, under the pseudonym "Publius" for the Federalist Papers and "A Farmer" and "An Observer" among others for the Antifederalist Papers, though some of the Antifederalist Papers were attributed.
It's kinda like the Republican's whining about being shut out of the legislating process as the minority party -- intellectually I agree, but emotionally I can't work up any amount of give-a-fuck. Fuck 'em.
Well, it really depends on what the definition of "in business" is. If all you mean is that they're not bankrupt yet, yep. If you mean that they have some sort of plan involving making a profit by selling a good or service, I'd say they're a dead company walking. And they will fold when the last service -- their proxy lawsuit -- is no longer operational. But I do thank them for the tidy profit I made shorting their worthless stock in the meantime.
Cheers,
Craig
.forward and bouncing are why SMTP needs to be updated to include SPF as a requirement and a Forwarded-by header which is used by SPF at each step. Additionally, home routers should throttle outgoing port 25 connections by default (configurable, originally set to allow at most 1 connection per minute.) That would go a ways towards rudicing spam.
I guess this is the price you pay for taking money from the government for your research.
It shouldn't be. Doing a job for the government should mean that you are ultimately responsible to the people of the US and not to the party in power. The party is administration, not the client. To put this in corporate terms, the client of an employee of a corporation is the shareholder (not to be confused with the speculator, but that's another rant) and not the management. The government should never be an arm of the party. A government scientists should be able to report on research even when the resaerch says something that the party in power doesn't like.
I'm not sure I agree. Creationism seems to be the "traditional" God creation myth from the Bible. I think "intelligent design" advocates could arguably be a bit more enlightened. Consider the following argument. [snip AI argument]
In the US, organized Intelligent Design advocates are either explicit creationists (such as the El Tejon folks) or have the political goal of undermining the authority of the scientific method (See The Wedge Strategy.) The genius of the public relations campaign by the latter group is that the phrase "intelligent design" is merely a placeholder for the reader/listener's prejudices (as you've demonstrated with your AI example.) Many people like to be fair, so the phrase is often read with every benefit of the doubt given; when usually no benefit of the doubt is deserved.
In the end, ID removed from explicit creationism is vacuous. There is at most a trivial amount of science to it. When formalized, it falls apart. Heck, even when examined critically (yet short of formalization,) it falls apart.
You all seem to think this investment should just be written off, and the pipes be free for everyone.
No. I don't think the pipes should be free. If SBC isn't charging enough to provide their customers with the content that make the service valuable to those customers, then there's a problem with SBC's business model. SBC's "broadband service" without access to Google and similar content is effing useless. And with an annual net operating income of
about 5 billion dollars, I find it hard to believe that SBC is getting hurt too badly by Google providing content to SBC's customers without forking over some cash to SBC for the priviledge.
The universe we know of is 15 billion years old. Whatever has a beginning does not exist necessarily, for whatever exists necessarily cannot not exist, but clearly at some point, the universe did not exist.
I do not agree that there was ever a point at which the universe did not exist. At least it appears that time & the universe are inextricably linked. To say that the Universe began to exist is to assert a time in which the Universe did not exist. I do not agree that that assertion is valid. I also object to the statement that "whatever has a beginning does not exist necessarily." I see no reason to believe that this is true. It assumes causality for existence -- in other words, the statement assumes its conclusion.
How about inference to the best explanation? Either the universe began to exist by itself, or something outside it caused it to exist? The first option may be simpler, but the second explanation is more plausible.
You are simply asserting that a non-observed non-contingent entity (a god) caused to come into being a contingent observed entity (the universe) is more plausible than the observed entity being non-contingent. I see no justification for that assertion and disagree with it.
Cheers, Craig
PS - I know I'm responding to a logical fallacy, but I'm sure others have done it too.
Yeah, NeoOfficeJ(ava) is the one I was thinking of. Is this project still live? The homepage shows the last "news" posted 12/21/04 (not that OO.o ever updates their website with regularity either).
They keep releasing patches to the 1.1 beta, so I'm guessing they're still active. Nice port.
It's perfectly OK to let the coders of open source projects know about security holes because they are not going to sue you. If you find a hole in a commercial product just announce it anonymously on the usenet and let it go.
In other words, open source programmers should be warned privately when they have a problem which needs fixing. But you should be free to broadcast anonymous charges against closed source developers without fear of reprisal.
I don't think that the gp was advising this course in order to punish the copyright holder of the proprietary code, but to protect the reporter. Such protection is not neccessary from open source copyright holders in general (there are probably some caveats here, such as releasing any exploit code under a compaitible license.)
That is, a reporter should be able to report a vulnerability without fear of reprisal regardless of the nature of the vulnerable product. And vulnerabilities should be reported. OSS just allows a reporter a means to report without fear of reprisal. Proprietary companies have a means that some have used to punish the messenger, and thus it is in the reporters interest to make the report anonymously.
If a proprietary author wishes to be treated like an OSS author, then that proprietary author should make an explicit exception in their license that allows for the public disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Or they could change bad laws. But companies should not rely on the silence of those who discover vulnerabilities in ther products. If an honest person can find it and publicize it, a dishonest person can find it and keep quietly exploiting it.
The "bug" was that they didn't turn off anonymous FTP, and the "hack" was:
Userid: anonymous
Password: Nazgul@ibm.com
Was the hack even that? Don't most modern browsers/clients automatically (i.e. without notifying the user) do this for ftp site that ask for authentication? "Hack" my ass.
"You don't understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in South Florida." I was shocked that they were actually trying to steal the election and told her that neither I nor anyone else could produce such a program.
Guess the programmer never heard of Perl, eh?
Heh. Actually, a more interesting way to hide the malicious code would be to do as Ken Thompson did with Unix.
Ken Thompson's 1983 Turing Award lecture to the ACM revealed the existence of a back door in early Unix versions that may have qualified as the most fiendishly clever security hack of all time. The C compiler contained code that would recognise when the "login" command was being recompiled and insert some code recognizing a password chosen by Thompson, giving him entry to the system whether or not an account had been created for him.
Normally such a back door could be removed by removing it from the source code for the compiler and recompiling the compiler. But to recompile the compiler, you have to use the compiler - so Thompson also arranged that the compiler would recognise when it was compiling a version of itself, and insert into the recompiled compiler the code to insert into the recompiled "login" the code to allow Thompson entry - and, of course, the code to recognise itself and do the whole thing again the next time around! And having done this once, he was then able to recompile the compiler from the original sources; the hack perpetuated itself invisibly, leaving the back door in place and active but with no trace in the sources.
The talk that revealed this truly moby hack was published as ["Reflections on Trusting Trust", "Communications of the ACM 27", 8 (August 1984), pp. 761--763].
By hiding the hack in the compiler binary, and having it recognize when it's compiling the target program and when it's compiling a new version of the compiler binary, there is no way that source code analysis could detect the malicious code. All code for running elections should be decompiled and examined -- and individual voting machine binaries should be audited to make sure that they are the same as the analyzed binaries. There is absolutely no excuse for not requiring this kind of check by all civil agencies that operate elections.
The completely rational answere is that they believe that no one would ever trust the initial computer count.
Random audits of paper versus machine results in every election would go a long way towards increasing my confidence in these machines.
Although I do know that Illinois has many problems with Dead voters voting more than once. And they aren't electronic and they are heavily Democrat.
I don't give a tinker's damn if they're heavily Bull Moose Party and they use colored marbles to tally the vote. The problems with e-voting are not party specific and do not go away because other methods of collecting and tallying votes have problems. I want a receipt from my ATM transactions and I want a paper record that I can verify at the time of casting my vote. Complaining that I wouldn't trust machine results if it were possible to verify those results does not make me suddenly trust them when it is not possible to verify the results. In fact, the more resistance I see to paper trails, the less I trust the machines and those who build or buy them.
A filibuster can be defeated by a vote of Cloture, which is something the Republicans will not be shy to use if needed.
That requires 60 out of 100 senators to back it. There aren't currently 60 Republican senators.
You are correct. There was talk about a rule change regarding cloture votes that only requires (in theory at least) a simple majority. Thus they could change the rules with a simple majority and the force cloture with a simple majority, but that would be the equivalent of a partisan tactical nuke. My guess is that W will propose Ashcroft, withdraw and then propose someone slightly less controversial, hoping to give Senate Dems enough of a moral victory to avert this. Personally, I am hoping only Rehnquist vacates in the next four years. Really, really hoping.
When was the last time you needed an underwater robot?
Oh, for fuck's sake! I absolutely loathe the "when was the last time you needed..." objection. It's fucking cool. That's enough. I might build one for just that reason (been looking to get back into autonomous vehicles for a bit, and maybe I can take up scuba again at the same time.) When was the last time most people needed broadband? Fucking "good use." That shit's for grant applications.
Unfortunately I see way too many Republicans saying "it's those sore loser Democrats trying to cause trouble". And quite a few Democrats saying "this proves the election was wrong"
We MUST investigate these machines.
Hear, hear. Another thing I've heard is "it was just a glitch" -- i.e. what the "help"desk worker tells you when you call with a problem. It may well be just a glitch, but ignoring reports doesn't make real problems go away. I am not satisfied with the "glitch" dismissal -- I want proof that there are sufficient safeguards against real problems. Personally, I'm not satisfied with anything but a multiple-vendor two-step solution with a paper trail. My ideal system would have machine 1 (manufactured by independent companies A,B or C) record & count votes and produce a machine+human readable receipt which is fed into machine 2 (manufactured by independent companies D,E or F) which records & counts the votes and saves the receipt for audits. I don't trust one vendor solutions.
On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion.
Nah, that would never happen. I think perhaps you have a distorted view of reality. (a) There is nothing noble in ignoring a systemic problem, and (b) even if it were, as Niven said, "[t]here is no cause so noble that it will not attract fuggheads." And I have never been of the opinion that political parties succeed because they are particularly noble in the first place.
After the BS around one-click shopping, Amazon gets exactly what they deserve.
While it is somewhat satisfying to see Amazon hoist be their own petard, I still think that this is an example of software patents stiffling innovation. Two wrongs still don't make a right, but poetic justice is something of a consolation. The system still needs to be fixed.
Agreed about that. The interesting thing is that (according to TFA) the estimates were that it would take 20 years of continuous spraying for this to develop. But the conclusion (assuming the Colombian scientists was honest) was that it occured via selective breeding.
Four weeks later, the scientist sends me an email saying that he has completed the DNA analysis and found no evidence of modification. He tested specifically for the presence of CP4 - a telltale indicator of the Roundup Ready modification - as well as for the cauliflower mosaic virus, the gene most commonly used to insert foreign DNA into a plant. It is still possible that the plant has been genetically modified using other genes, but not likely. Discovering new methods of engineering glyphosate resistance would require the best scientific minds and years of organized research. And given that there is already a published methodology, there would be little reason to duplicate the effort.
Which points back to selective breeding. The implication is that the farmers' decentralized system of disseminating coca cuttings has been amazingly effective - more so than genetic engineering could hope to be.
> The god given right of evangelical xians to impose their views on everyone else and meddle in people's lives.
Really? Because I thought that right was given to them by the laws of our democratic republic.
It is not the right of the majority to impose their views on the minority. It is a power granted by the people (in the U.S.) to civil authority, and it is restricted to some extent by the limits on that grant of power (and explicit denial of some power) to civil authorities by the Constitution.
I support gay marriage, but governmental recognition of marriage is a
privilege, not a right. It is defined by its limitations -- there is also no polygamy, no 1st cousins marrying, no limited-time marriages (a Shia-Muslim thing).
Gays can get pro-gay-marriage laws passed, and that's fine by me. But their opposition can also outlaw it using the same legislative process.
Well, there are limits on the discrimination that can be practiced by civil authority -- see Virginia v Loving for one example. Personally, I think that the concept of civil marriage is ridiculous. I think it should be replaced in its entirety with civil unions -- and should be open to any (and any number of) adults capable of making a binding contract (with misrepresentations in the making of such union contracts punishable as fraud.) I see no reason it why one couldn't time-limit it. Other side-contracts to civil marriage are common (so much that there is a slang term for them -- pre-nups.) Leave the marriage part of the union to religious and other voluntary membership organizations. It's not the business of civil authority. Just the humble opinion of one Madisonian/Jeffersonian LIBERal.
Party representatives are allowed to touch the Ballots???
No, s/he meant sample ballots, which had descriptions on all the things for which you could vote (i.e. U.S. Rep, any bond issues, a proposed amendment to the commonwealth's constitution etc.) These were not actual ballots.
> For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
Obviously not. Personally, I think that this and the Supreme Court are two differences between the major party candidates that matter enough to me that I will pick one over the other. But I can't blame someone for having different priorities. If the differences between Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are unimportant to you (or you think they are both equally bad in different ways,) then a third party vote is certainly appropriate. If these (or some other differences) do matter to you and you still vote 3rd party, I think such an idealistic vote is unwise, but certainly your right anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me for the late reply. I just wanted to point out that the Congressman who proposed the 14th Amendment, Representative Bingham, explicitly stated in arguing for the amendment that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States. He said things like "I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution." And "Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights." And much more. Incorporation is not a 20th Century invention, but was explicitly intended.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Well, it really depends on what the definition of "in business" is. If all you mean is that they're not bankrupt yet, yep. If you mean that they have some sort of plan involving making a profit by selling a good or service, I'd say they're a dead company walking. And they will fold when the last service -- their proxy lawsuit -- is no longer operational. But I do thank them for the tidy profit I made shorting their worthless stock in the meantime. Cheers, Craig
.forward and bouncing are why SMTP needs to be updated to include SPF as a requirement and a Forwarded-by header which is used by SPF at each step. Additionally, home routers should throttle outgoing port 25 connections by default (configurable, originally set to allow at most 1 connection per minute.) That would go a ways towards rudicing spam.
Cheers,
Craig
In the end, ID removed from explicit creationism is vacuous. There is at most a trivial amount of science to it. When formalized, it falls apart. Heck, even when examined critically (yet short of formalization,) it falls apart.
Cheers,
Craig
No. I don't think the pipes should be free. If SBC isn't charging enough to provide their customers with the content that make the service valuable to those customers, then there's a problem with SBC's business model. SBC's "broadband service" without access to Google and similar content is effing useless. And with an annual net operating income of
about 5 billion dollars, I find it hard to believe that SBC is getting hurt too badly by Google providing content to SBC's customers without forking over some cash to SBC for the priviledge.Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
PS - I know I'm responding to a logical fallacy, but I'm sure others have done it too.
Cheers,
Craig
That is, a reporter should be able to report a vulnerability without fear of reprisal regardless of the nature of the vulnerable product. And vulnerabilities should be reported. OSS just allows a reporter a means to report without fear of reprisal. Proprietary companies have a means that some have used to punish the messenger, and thus it is in the reporters interest to make the report anonymously.
If a proprietary author wishes to be treated like an OSS author, then that proprietary author should make an explicit exception in their license that allows for the public disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Or they could change bad laws. But companies should not rely on the silence of those who discover vulnerabilities in ther products. If an honest person can find it and publicize it, a dishonest person can find it and keep quietly exploiting it.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig