At this point it means that if you go through the source code and understand it, you know what the truecrypt binaries are doing, because you can be pretty sure (modulo built-in compiler exploits affecting both your and their compiler the same way) their binaries match the source code.
You keep insisting that there will be a cheap plan, yet I'm not aware of a single ISPs introducing a new cheap capped plan, every ISP I know of that introduced data caps, they simply capped their existing plan, kept the price, and added a charge (or shut you off) for going over.
Actually, they asked the SEC to bail them out and got the boot. They had to do a round of private investment and diluted shareholders' value quite a bit. It's generally cited as the "right way" to deal with companies that fuck up and lose billions. Shame we can't do the same with the banks.
removes an incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles
Damn straight! I'll show them fools who's boss, they want to bill me by the mile, fine, I'll switch to a Hummer and load it down with lead ingots so I get 5 miles to the gallon and spend ten times as much on gas getting from A to B than my 50mpg hybrid AND pay their damn mileage tax! That'll show 'em! That'll show 'em all!
What imaginary circumstances? That some guy in Hong Kong might log into the NSA, download all of their back door documentation, and start using that information for their own gain?
There's an ISP level solution to a major chunk of it, but they're too busy cracking down on bittorrent and competing voip/video services to do anything about it.
A lot of DDoS traffic has spoofed source IPs in order to make it difficult to track down the source. All the ISP has to do is prevent packets from leaving their network if they aren't addressed from their network, and at least what's left can be traced back to the source. For instance, this would eliminate using DNS servers as reflectors for attacks, since these attacks rely on sending a DNS request with the From address forged to be the victim's from address.
And when you add back the 20%+deductibles and other out of pocket costs that the insurance in the US makes the patient pay, how does it compare? Otherwise you're saying that paying for all of it is more expensive than paying for some of it, which isn't exactly earth shattering news.
I just spend a few bucks and get all the information from this site I found, superget.info. Yeah, you can get it for free elsewhere but they don't try to stick you with signing up with all sorts of bullcrap. Funny, though, I can't seem to log into the site right now, maybe you're right about useful things getting shut down.
Google tells me I can get a free report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ but the site looks like one of those crappy scam sites crapped out of a template with some generic stock photos, so I'm not sure I'd trust it.
Because the founders made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land, but forgot to put anything in there about what happens if you break it, so we've basically been making that part up as you go along. So far, the only thing we've come up with is along the lines of "if you're arrested by someone violating the constitution you get a get out of jail free card".
I just don't actually know what you're trying to say.
"Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" is a question, Leon. In answer to your query, I wrote it to make people think about whether insurance companies would "fix" the cost of healthcare to the point where nobody would need their services anymore.
Let's start from the top.
The fundamental problem is that the actual cost of healthcare is way too high, mostly because a healthy market cannot be established when the option is pay or die and many of the 'customers' come in unconscious. If insurance could fix it, it would have done so in the last several decades.
I responded to the statement that "insurance would have fixed it" by first attempting to have the reader conjure up the image of an America where it was fixed: "$50 ER visits" (compare to the average ER visit cost here, not counting the ambulance ride). Then I asked what the role of insurance companies would be in that America: "Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" (I add "America" here, because I noticed a lot of people replying live in other countries where these things aren't true. That's nice, but this is an article about American government, with a post about American healthcare, and my response should be assumed to be on topic). This question is addressed to the reader (for instance, you): If healthcare was this cheap, would you buy insurance for the purpose of paying for it? My personal opinion is "no", and through my personal fault of projection, I expect readers to answer the same way. They would not pay insurance companies every month to protect themselves from the occasional loss of the cost of a dinner for two. Based on that, I expected readers to then make the connection between their decision not to buy insurance, and the insurance companies not working to create a situation where they would put themselves out of business.
Why exactly is providing healthcare to all people so bad?
I don't think it's all that bad. What we've got, though, is providing health insurance to all people. The difference isn't readily apparent unless you've actually had to use it.
That's nice. So your position is that all the countries should just bend over and take it without lube and close all their counterintelligence offices?
That position is just as stupid as the one where everyone closes all their intelligence offices.
The First Amendment (in the US) only covers censorship by the US government (and then only when the government decides that it should not be allowed to censor that content), but anyone else blocking content from being sold or read is also censoring that content, whether it's because of the government or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Ding Dong, that's the sound of Ford pardoning Nixon because we're a nation of men, not of laws.
sure it does. (x + 10) mod 10 = x, (binary + trojan) mod trojan = binary
At this point it means that if you go through the source code and understand it, you know what the truecrypt binaries are doing, because you can be pretty sure (modulo built-in compiler exploits affecting both your and their compiler the same way) their binaries match the source code.
It also doesn't help when the patent holder doesn't make anything but lawsuits.
BTW, the free software movement has a cross-licensing pool already.
Sadly it looks like we're wrong on all three counts.
You keep insisting that there will be a cheap plan, yet I'm not aware of a single ISPs introducing a new cheap capped plan, every ISP I know of that introduced data caps, they simply capped their existing plan, kept the price, and added a charge (or shut you off) for going over.
Actually, they asked the SEC to bail them out and got the boot. They had to do a round of private investment and diluted shareholders' value quite a bit. It's generally cited as the "right way" to deal with companies that fuck up and lose billions. Shame we can't do the same with the banks.
It's true that mistakes can be made and accidents can happen.
It's also true that if you bother to try, you might fix some of those mistakes and catch those accidents before they happen.
Knight Capital didn't even bother to try. At least they managed to find private investors to bail them out after the SEC refused.
removes an incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles
Damn straight! I'll show them fools who's boss, they want to bill me by the mile, fine, I'll switch to a Hummer and load it down with lead ingots so I get 5 miles to the gallon and spend ten times as much on gas getting from A to B than my 50mpg hybrid AND pay their damn mileage tax! That'll show 'em! That'll show 'em all!
imaginary circumstances
What imaginary circumstances? That some guy in Hong Kong might log into the NSA, download all of their back door documentation, and start using that information for their own gain?
There's an ISP level solution to a major chunk of it, but they're too busy cracking down on bittorrent and competing voip/video services to do anything about it.
A lot of DDoS traffic has spoofed source IPs in order to make it difficult to track down the source. All the ISP has to do is prevent packets from leaving their network if they aren't addressed from their network, and at least what's left can be traced back to the source. For instance, this would eliminate using DNS servers as reflectors for attacks, since these attacks rely on sending a DNS request with the From address forged to be the victim's from address.
And when you add back the 20%+deductibles and other out of pocket costs that the insurance in the US makes the patient pay, how does it compare? Otherwise you're saying that paying for all of it is more expensive than paying for some of it, which isn't exactly earth shattering news.
I just spend a few bucks and get all the information from this site I found, superget.info. Yeah, you can get it for free elsewhere but they don't try to stick you with signing up with all sorts of bullcrap. Funny, though, I can't seem to log into the site right now, maybe you're right about useful things getting shut down.
Google tells me I can get a free report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ but the site looks like one of those crappy scam sites crapped out of a template with some generic stock photos, so I'm not sure I'd trust it.
why is no-one prosecuting?
Because the founders made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land, but forgot to put anything in there about what happens if you break it, so we've basically been making that part up as you go along. So far, the only thing we've come up with is along the lines of "if you're arrested by someone violating the constitution you get a get out of jail free card".
Or the guy wheeled in unconscious after a wreck.
Or when the death panel decides that you aren't worth treating?
Death panel? Don't you call that an HMO?
"Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" is a question, Leon. In answer to your query, I wrote it to make people think about whether insurance companies would "fix" the cost of healthcare to the point where nobody would need their services anymore.
Let's start from the top.
I responded to the statement that "insurance would have fixed it" by first attempting to have the reader conjure up the image of an America where it was fixed: "$50 ER visits" (compare to the average ER visit cost here, not counting the ambulance ride). Then I asked what the role of insurance companies would be in that America: "Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" (I add "America" here, because I noticed a lot of people replying live in other countries where these things aren't true. That's nice, but this is an article about American government, with a post about American healthcare, and my response should be assumed to be on topic). This question is addressed to the reader (for instance, you): If healthcare was this cheap, would you buy insurance for the purpose of paying for it? My personal opinion is "no", and through my personal fault of projection, I expect readers to answer the same way. They would not pay insurance companies every month to protect themselves from the occasional loss of the cost of a dinner for two. Based on that, I expected readers to then make the connection between their decision not to buy insurance, and the insurance companies not working to create a situation where they would put themselves out of business.
I don't think it's all that bad. What we've got, though, is providing health insurance to all people. The difference isn't readily apparent unless you've actually had to use it.
Nobody ever scared anyone with tales of $50 ER visits. Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?
without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"
The next sentence is "but with the payout from the insurance I'll go on vacation next time."
As opposed to "oh well, I didn't need that stupid money or some dumb holiday vacation."
Shitty security protocols are one of them, if your obsolete software can't cope with modern encryption, it is crap and should be replaced.
That's nice. So your position is that all the countries should just bend over and take it without lube and close all their counterintelligence offices?
That position is just as stupid as the one where everyone closes all their intelligence offices.
So we do it your way and only call it censorship when the government personally comes down and burns the books.
Meanwhile, companies are strongarmed behind the scenes by government officials into ____ certain content. What word should we use there?
Come on guys, techno up here. This is a challange. Rise to it.
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
The First Amendment (in the US) only covers censorship by the US government (and then only when the government decides that it should not be allowed to censor that content), but anyone else blocking content from being sold or read is also censoring that content, whether it's because of the government or not.