For the lazy: [...] The French Government tried to deny their involvement and a major cover-up ensued. By September the French defence minister Charles Hernu had resigned and France paid New Zealand $7m compensation.
Five years later the UN criticised French failure to uphold the sentences of their convicted agents [...]
WHen you "protest" by sabotaging trees so that loggers will be killed when they try to cut.
We don't do that. Greenpeace has never, ever done that.
Back up your facts.
WHen you intentionaly impede international shipping so that your "voice" will be heard, and in the doing cause a menace to navigation.
Example?
Do you mean to tell me that a very small rubber raft is stopping shipping? No, it's not.
THat's terrorism. Your right to speak your mind ends where my right to not be endangered by it begins.
Sure, can you cite an example where Greenpeace actually endangered someone? Because I am pretty sure that you're going to come back and try to sell me something, but it won't be the truth.
Greenpeace never puts someone in danger. Not loggers, not sailors.
When we did our logging campaign in Oregon last month, I had a chance to talk with the loggers that were being stopped from logging. What did they say when asked how they felt about the protests?
They said: "These people mean us no harm, it's Greenpeace, not ELF."
That's important, the people being protested didn't even have harsh words for us.
We don't do the things we say we do.
And as far as the French, they were charged and payed Greenpeace for KILLING our photographer after SINKING our ship. Who is the criminal there?
Perhaps it's the government that payed Greenpeace for it's crime? Gee, I wonder!?
I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?
Greenpeace has a history of Non-Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years.
We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace, I am speaking as a member of it who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot.
You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Now onto what you asked, why did this make the front page? It's quite obvious that this made the front page because of the people involved and the challenges that those people overcame.
Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
We have many worthwhile causes.
I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal, or the illegal logging in the Amazon, but Greenpeace does.
Of course, this is offset by the fact that some free software fanatics find the idea of a binary-only module loathsome, and that Fedora Core 2 won't even run a binary application compiled two years ago [...]
I don't want to bash on you, but you do see what you just said right?
Some free software fanatics find binary only modules loathesome? Then you site a binary only program that was abandoned and *shock* it doesn't work anymore... Perhaps there is more than idealism behind some of the people working in the freesoftware movement, say functionality?
It's not possible to have binary only software when the landscape changes so often. It's going to work for a while and with a given distro, but not for that long and fragmenting your software to only work with redhat, or mandrake, or suse, or debian is a bad idea.
Hardware vendors should give out the specs and/or open source drivers that are actually free (Read GPL for the linux kernel). At this point it's actually a reasonable thing to do. Linux is actually used on the desktop.
Re:Does this finally solve the *other* major probl
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 1
That sounds really great. How does the traffic between all the hosts reach each other?
If you have a give host on the wifi and you attempt to ping it from another wireless host, what happens? What's the process?
Also is the encryption going to be done in firmware of the card? For the client, will all the traffic that reaches it will be decrypted before the host operating system knows it? Will it drop all data that isn't able to be decrypted?
Re:Does this finally solve the *other* major probl
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 1
I can't help but think that you don't know what you're talking about.
Well then that would be your problem, no?
It's not impossible to build a radio system where each person has entirely different encrypted stream of data sent to them. Much like CSMA/CD only with some sort of encryption where if it's not decrypting, it's not for you and it should be ignored.
I am just tossing it out there off the top of my head.
If it uses different keys for each user, it would be solved. No complicated radio hopping needed (nor would that be useful as an attacker can always program the card to hop).
Does this finally solve the *other* major problem?
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know, the one that makes it that anyone on the wifi network can see all the other traffic?
I personally think a HUB is still a bad idea, even if the main transports are encrypted to the outside. The insider doesn't need to be able to see anyones traffic unless it's repeated to the target. It would be great if it was encrypted and acted like a switch.
I agree with most of the things you say, but you miss a point. It's not a liberals or conservatives. In this day and age, that means very little. How many hippies are trying to be progressive? Not many if you consider they are trying to keep things the same (stopping the cutting down of a forest for example). The conservatives are the ones taking away our rights, just look at Hatch. What a fucker.
With that said, it's not liberals or conservatives but anti-gun nuts.
I am a leftist in many peoples eyes, but I am a big supporter of gun rights.
To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable. Oh, I'd love to see that. Please do.
I entirely agree, it would be hard. But ask an average person in a middle to upper class area if they support their cops. If they think they do a good job.
Ask them also if they could do a better job, then ask if they support measures that the police think are reasonable.
I am scared to tell you the answers to my questions when I asked.
That's an entirely different problem and it's very valid.
If you assume that the data is unique (1 in 9,000,000,0000) it's entirely possible that you have 10 in a row. It reminds me of the book, "R&G are dead" where they flip a coin over and over and get heads each time.
After all, if it's there and it's your DNA, you had to have been there!
Hair samples are really easy to get and even easier to drop.
I promise that this will happen without this law, but this is only going to make it go faster.
How long until some thug decides it's easy to walk past you, grab some of your hair (just one or two strands that you won't even notice), kill someone, drop the hair on the victim and then tip the cops that it was you?
The ways that are possible to get this sample are _endless_, they could pose as a janitor at your work taking your skin flakes from keyboard, perhaps they could go to your gym and use your hair from your brush?
Then the police come to arrest you and forceable dna sample proves you were at the crime scene. You had no proper reason for being around. Infact all your cover story about being somewhere else, that's not possible. You see, your DNA shows it so.
It's much like what happened in the USSA with the police snitches. They had power, they could screw you badly without having a reason.
In a police state, everyone has something to fear. Innocent or not.
You shouldn't argue that this isn't a good idea because of a unreasonable law enforcement system. To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.
What would make more of an impact, even if it was a reasonable police force, iis that it would be unreasonable to take DNA samples, period.
It's an ironic day for the world when the only thing stopping an absolute police force from taking over in a very orwellian way is apathy.
Slashdot Mirror
My sarcasm stands corrected!
You know, you make right wingers like myself look like less of a troll than you.
You should knock it off if you want to actually discredit these stupid hippies.
Thanks for playing but it's you that's wrong.
By the way, you're wrong!
For the lazy:
[...]
The French Government tried to deny their involvement and a major cover-up ensued. By September the French defence minister Charles Hernu had resigned and France paid New Zealand $7m compensation.
Five years later the UN criticised French failure to uphold the sentences of their convicted agents
[...]
WHen you "protest" by sabotaging trees so that loggers will be killed when they try to cut.
We don't do that. Greenpeace has never, ever done that.
Back up your facts.
WHen you intentionaly impede international shipping so that your "voice" will be heard, and in the doing cause a menace to navigation.
Example?
Do you mean to tell me that a very small rubber raft is stopping shipping? No, it's not.
THat's terrorism. Your right to speak your mind ends where my right to not be endangered by it begins.
Sure, can you cite an example where Greenpeace actually endangered someone? Because I am pretty sure that you're going to come back and try to sell me something, but it won't be the truth.
Greenpeace never puts someone in danger. Not loggers, not sailors.
When we did our logging campaign in Oregon last month, I had a chance to talk with the loggers that were being stopped from logging. What did they say when asked how they felt about the protests?
They said: "These people mean us no harm, it's Greenpeace, not ELF."
That's important, the people being protested didn't even have harsh words for us.
We don't do the things we say we do.
And as far as the French, they were charged and payed Greenpeace for KILLING our photographer after SINKING our ship. Who is the criminal there?
Perhaps it's the government that payed Greenpeace for it's crime? Gee, I wonder!?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Hi.
I work for Greenpeace.
I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?
Greenpeace has a history of Non-Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years.
We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace, I am speaking as a member of it who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot.
You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Now onto what you asked, why did this make the front page? It's quite obvious that this made the front page because of the people involved and the challenges that those people overcame.
Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
We have many worthwhile causes.
I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal, or the illegal logging in the Amazon, but Greenpeace does.
Is this now the best TV tuner card for linux or is it going to be 2 years before a proper X server comes out?
It's only slightly off topic to ask, but what's the best video card in this market?
Of course, this is offset by the fact that some free software fanatics find the idea of a binary-only module loathsome, and that Fedora Core 2 won't even run a binary application compiled two years ago [...]
I don't want to bash on you, but you do see what you just said right?
Some free software fanatics find binary only modules loathesome? Then you site a binary only program that was abandoned and *shock* it doesn't work anymore... Perhaps there is more than idealism behind some of the people working in the freesoftware movement, say functionality?
It's not possible to have binary only software when the landscape changes so often. It's going to work for a while and with a given distro, but not for that long and fragmenting your software to only work with redhat, or mandrake, or suse, or debian is a bad idea.
Hardware vendors should give out the specs and/or open source drivers that are actually free (Read GPL for the linux kernel). At this point it's actually a reasonable thing to do. Linux is actually used on the desktop.
Scalefree networks are fun!
That sounds really great. How does the traffic between all the hosts reach each other?
If you have a give host on the wifi and you attempt to ping it from another wireless host, what happens?
What's the process?
Also is the encryption going to be done in firmware of the card? For the client, will all the traffic that reaches it will be decrypted before the host operating system knows it?
Will it drop all data that isn't able to be decrypted?
I can't help but think that you don't know what you're talking about.
Well then that would be your problem, no?
It's not impossible to build a radio system where each person has entirely different encrypted stream of data sent to them. Much like CSMA/CD only with some sort of encryption where if it's not decrypting, it's not for you and it should be ignored.
I am just tossing it out there off the top of my head.
If it uses different keys for each user, it would be solved. No complicated radio hopping needed (nor would that be useful as an attacker can always program the card to hop).
Which basically IMHO, is far from secure.
You know, the one that makes it that anyone on the wifi network can see all the other traffic?
I personally think a HUB is still a bad idea, even if the main transports are encrypted to the outside. The insider doesn't need to be able to see anyones traffic unless it's repeated to the target. It would be great if it was encrypted and acted like a switch.
I would still use my VPN with this.
RTFA!
They can charge you with not complying with their order to comply!
Just wait until they get you for "delaying."
I agree with most of the things you say, but you miss a point. It's not a liberals or conservatives. In this day and age, that means very little. How many hippies are trying to be progressive? Not many if you consider they are trying to keep things the same (stopping the cutting down of a forest for example). The conservatives are the ones taking away our rights, just look at Hatch. What a fucker.
With that said, it's not liberals or conservatives but anti-gun nuts.
I am a leftist in many peoples eyes, but I am a big supporter of gun rights.
Left != anti-gun
Having to work to have your things back after seizure is insanity.
Having to appeal to the courts or a company for the same thing is even worse.
The problem with databases full of information is that it's impossible to know who has the data.
Once it's there, I bet someone hacks into it and rysncs a diff of the database everyday.
But the good news is that it won't run unix!
So it won't have rsync!
Safe!
(ha!)
Obviously you have something to hide!
Shoot the pig in the streets!
(Oh what a sad day it is)
Even if it wasn't the 4th amendment, it's still wrong.
One day the 4th amendment will entirely be gone if people like this get their way.
To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.
Oh, I'd love to see that. Please do.
I entirely agree, it would be hard. But ask an average person in a middle to upper class area if they support their cops. If they think they do a good job.
Ask them also if they could do a better job, then ask if they support measures that the police think are reasonable.
I am scared to tell you the answers to my questions when I asked.
That's an entirely different problem and it's very valid.
If you assume that the data is unique (1 in 9,000,000,0000) it's entirely possible that you have 10 in a row. It reminds me of the book, "R&G are dead" where they flip a coin over and over and get heads each time.
It's not likely, but it's entirely possible.
#6. There will be random checks done (no less than .1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).
What?!
No way.
Absoultely not.
C'mon, you've never ever heard of a government or police force abusing it's power?
How about other people getting into the data base by just joining a police force?
Think about how easy that would be?
You could join the police force and get paid to have access to these records.
Try telling that to someone that thinks they could never ever be a felon.
Why do people not care about subjects?
Most of the time it's because they don't see how it applies to them.
And in addition to that, you're creating a system that allows for someone to help convict you by simply stealing a sample of your DNA.
Or unless I plant it there.
After all, if it's there and it's your DNA, you had to have been there!
Hair samples are really easy to get and even easier to drop.
I promise that this will happen without this law, but this is only going to make it go faster.
How long until some thug decides it's easy to walk past you, grab some of your hair (just one or two strands that you won't even notice), kill someone, drop the hair on the victim and then tip the cops that it was you?
The ways that are possible to get this sample are _endless_, they could pose as a janitor at your work taking your skin flakes from keyboard, perhaps they could go to your gym and use your hair from your brush?
Then the police come to arrest you and forceable dna sample proves you were at the crime scene. You had no proper reason for being around. Infact all your cover story about being somewhere else, that's not possible. You see, your DNA shows it so.
It's much like what happened in the USSA with the police snitches. They had power, they could screw you badly without having a reason.
In a police state, everyone has something to fear. Innocent or not.
You shouldn't argue that this isn't a good idea because of a unreasonable law enforcement system. To defeat that, someone will just try to "prove" that it's reasonable.
What would make more of an impact, even if it was a reasonable police force, iis that it would be unreasonable to take DNA samples, period.
It's an ironic day for the world when the only thing stopping an absolute police force from taking over in a very orwellian way is apathy.