Me neither, but don't forget that FB does keep profiles on non-members too. And your friends who are on FB might mention you by name, upload photo's with you in it, and so on.
However... the US respects the law and the treaties they sign.
If there is a legal dispute and they want to take the US to court, then let them take the US to court.
Actually, I suspect the reason they filed a separate suit for the US is probably that the States unilaterally withdrew from jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is because they were upset of having been found guilty by that court of violating many international laws in a case brought to the ICJ by Nicaragua.
And, more recently, the US even threatened with military action against The Netherlands if the ICJ were ever to consider cases against US military personnel. This became affectionately known as the The Hague Invasion Act, no less.
So no -- the US does not always respect the treaties they sign. See also: Geneva Convention.
Everyone skeptic of AGW needs to not only ignore basically all of climate science, but also the common sense argument:
The energy captured in coal, gas, and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. How, exactly, does one reasonably maintain an expectation that our releasing that in a matter of a couple decades should have no significant effects?
You go ahead and keep on using it. Meanwhile, for the rest if us, no proof is needed -- not in the sense that you insist is relevant. The theoretical possibility is enough to ditch this generator. That, and as kasperd and others point out, all those circumstantial bits of evidence... It must take real effort not to see it.
Some people claim that it has a backdoor, but that isn't what has been proven. What has been proven is that a backdoor is possible with the technology and you wouldn't know either way.
The difference is academic, but I suppose you mean as in this story about the proof of concept?
An algorithm for which a backdoor is possible should be considered backdoored. Especially for crypto PRNGs. Anyway, taken in context, which is to say the RSA connection and those unexplained constants P and Q which you couldn't change in certified implementations.. Guess I'm inclined to being just slightly more paranoid these days.
NIST recommends that people using Dual_EC_DRBG should transition to one of the other three recommended algorithms as quickly as possible.
Presumably GP worries that if one out of four options selected by this body is not just flawed but apparently deliberately subverted, what does that say about how well the other three were vetted?
Is it really "misogynous" (sic) to point out that sexual harassment charges are frequently abused?
Depends on the motivation. GP however didn't just point this out, but appeared to be arguing that this would be valid reason to not hire women, period.
In the interest of improving my English, what is wrong with "misogynous"? Spell checker likes it.. Would "misogynistic" be more common?
I'll give you that the sexual harassment label is over-applied. But to leap from that to "nothing but a weapon of revenge", i.e. that no sexual harassment charge ever has any merit, is leaping quite a bit too far.
I mostly agree with you, on this occasion. Except one detail: this founder nor his wife were part of the harassment accusations. I suppose it's just a bit unfortunate, if understandable, that the victim combined all her grievances in a single blog post. But the sexual harassment bit was about someone else. So an example has not been made actually, because that guy was apparently promoted!
You're probably right that in general such phrases have been subject to so much inflation so as to be almost meaningless by now.
In this specific case though, Ms Horvath claimed that a male co-worker showed up at her house with romantic ideas. And that he subsequently reverted some of her patches, presumably because she didn't go along. I think that qualifies as sexual harassment, even in the pre-inflation sense of the word?
Incidentally, some of the press reports have been getting it wrong; the harassment accusations were NOT about this founder, or his wife, but another guy at GH (who has apparently been promoted since).
I'm wondering if you linked to the correct law. The one you cited says:
authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups
I don't doubt that somewhere along the line some miserable excuse for a human being signed some piece of paper which serves as the basis for the US routinely lobbing hellfires into sovereign, often formally allied, nations (no doubt creating far more terrorists in the process than it eradicates) but this can't be it.
IT is, in the most general sense, best served by a logic and philosophy/psychology degree.
I've always thought that comp.sci. is, fundamentally, a kind of applied discrete mathematics. Kant or Spinoza are not going to be of much help, Freud and Jung even less so.
Most people think critical thinking is something that "haters" do.
Well, I've heard Ken Ham use the phrase, arguing that critical thinking is the goal behind pushing his own literal interpretation of Genesis into science classes. Of course he has a very particular definition, because in the next sentence he was saying that this will lead kids to "think the right way" -- which is to say, not at all critical, or even really thinking, but good old blind faith.
In general though, study after study seems to be showing that the US, while still ahead at its most prestigious institutions, is falling behind when considering education in breadth. For instance, this seems to me like it should worry educators no end.
Also, because this kind of thing somehow remains unpunished by consumers most of the time, they'll just try and try again and sooner or later some of it might even stick.
The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction?
They don't. They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote. And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.
I see your point. And much though I admire Verne and his visionary imagination... I was under the impression that he was extrapolating from contemporary science and engineering.
Now, perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of touch, but I'm not aware of any current work, not even any out-of-box blue sky imagineering (eew), toward actual teleportation.
I don't follow you, both have the ad absurdum label for much the same reason. Both can be applied correctly or not. I fail to see how it is "funny". But we're severely off topic here, so never mind; it's probably some really specific humor deficiency on my part.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing courts here. The Hague Invasion Act is directed against the International Criminal Court (ICC)
You are absolutely correct, thanks for pointing that out!
Ghostery was acquired by a marketing firm. That does not make it evil, per se, but probably deserves a bit more scrutiny.
...I don't use Facebook.
Me neither, but don't forget that FB does keep profiles on non-members too. And your friends who are on FB might mention you by name, upload photo's with you in it, and so on.
And BTW, admins, Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.
True. The Hague is the seat of government though, and the location of the ICJ.
However... the US respects the law and the treaties they sign.
If there is a legal dispute and they want to take the US to court, then let them take the US to court.
Actually, I suspect the reason they filed a separate suit for the US is probably that the States unilaterally withdrew from jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is because they were upset of having been found guilty by that court of violating many international laws in a case brought to the ICJ by Nicaragua.
And, more recently, the US even threatened with military action against The Netherlands if the ICJ were ever to consider cases against US military personnel. This became affectionately known as the The Hague Invasion Act, no less.
So no -- the US does not always respect the treaties they sign. See also: Geneva Convention.
Everyone skeptic of AGW needs to not only ignore basically all of climate science, but also the common sense argument:
The energy captured in coal, gas, and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. How, exactly, does one reasonably maintain an expectation that our releasing that in a matter of a couple decades should have no significant effects?
Operating by suspicion can be hazardous when it comes to encryption.
I would argue that operating by suspicion should be the default when it comes to encryption.
You go ahead and keep on using it. Meanwhile, for the rest if us, no proof is needed -- not in the sense that you insist is relevant. The theoretical possibility is enough to ditch this generator. That, and as kasperd and others point out, all those circumstantial bits of evidence... It must take real effort not to see it.
Some people claim that it has a backdoor, but that isn't what has been proven. What has been proven is that a backdoor is possible with the technology and you wouldn't know either way.
The difference is academic, but I suppose you mean as in this story about the proof of concept?
An algorithm for which a backdoor is possible should be considered backdoored. Especially for crypto PRNGs. Anyway, taken in context, which is to say the RSA connection and those unexplained constants P and Q which you couldn't change in certified implementations.. Guess I'm inclined to being just slightly more paranoid these days.
NIST recommends that people using Dual_EC_DRBG should transition to one of the other three recommended algorithms as quickly as possible.
Presumably GP worries that if one out of four options selected by this body is not just flawed but apparently deliberately subverted, what does that say about how well the other three were vetted?
Is it really "misogynous" (sic) to point out that sexual harassment charges are frequently abused?
Depends on the motivation. GP however didn't just point this out, but appeared to be arguing that this would be valid reason to not hire women, period.
In the interest of improving my English, what is wrong with "misogynous"? Spell checker likes it.. Would "misogynistic" be more common?
I'll give you that the sexual harassment label is over-applied. But to leap from that to "nothing but a weapon of revenge", i.e. that no sexual harassment charge ever has any merit, is leaping quite a bit too far.
... and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.
More likely, because they get this weird impression that you might be a misogynous reactionary.
I mostly agree with you, on this occasion. Except one detail: this founder nor his wife were part of the harassment accusations. I suppose it's just a bit unfortunate, if understandable, that the victim combined all her grievances in a single blog post. But the sexual harassment bit was about someone else. So an example has not been made actually, because that guy was apparently promoted!
You're probably right that in general such phrases have been subject to so much inflation so as to be almost meaningless by now.
In this specific case though, Ms Horvath claimed that a male co-worker showed up at her house with romantic ideas. And that he subsequently reverted some of her patches, presumably because she didn't go along. I think that qualifies as sexual harassment, even in the pre-inflation sense of the word?
Incidentally, some of the press reports have been getting it wrong; the harassment accusations were NOT about this founder, or his wife, but another guy at GH (who has apparently been promoted since).
I'm wondering if you linked to the correct law. The one you cited says:
authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups
I don't doubt that somewhere along the line some miserable excuse for a human being signed some piece of paper which serves as the basis for the US routinely lobbing hellfires into sovereign, often formally allied, nations (no doubt creating far more terrorists in the process than it eradicates) but this can't be it.
IT is, in the most general sense, best served by a logic and philosophy/psychology degree.
I've always thought that comp.sci. is, fundamentally, a kind of applied discrete mathematics. Kant or Spinoza are not going to be of much help, Freud and Jung even less so.
But you're an oligarchy
Not the last time I checked.
Check again.
Most people think critical thinking is something that "haters" do.
Well, I've heard Ken Ham use the phrase, arguing that critical thinking is the goal behind pushing his own literal interpretation of Genesis into science classes. Of course he has a very particular definition, because in the next sentence he was saying that this will lead kids to "think the right way" -- which is to say, not at all critical, or even really thinking, but good old blind faith.
In general though, study after study seems to be showing that the US, while still ahead at its most prestigious institutions, is falling behind when considering education in breadth. For instance, this seems to me like it should worry educators no end.
Also, because this kind of thing somehow remains unpunished by consumers most of the time, they'll just try and try again and sooner or later some of it might even stick.
The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction?
They don't. They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote. And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.
I see your point. And much though I admire Verne and his visionary imagination... I was under the impression that he was extrapolating from contemporary science and engineering.
Now, perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of touch, but I'm not aware of any current work, not even any out-of-box blue sky imagineering (eew), toward actual teleportation.
Would love to be wrong though!
I don't follow you, both have the ad absurdum label for much the same reason. Both can be applied correctly or not. I fail to see how it is "funny". But we're severely off topic here, so never mind; it's probably some really specific humor deficiency on my part.
Fiction isn't reality.
Heh, tell that to the 39% of survey respondents who apparently believe teleportation will be "solved" by 2064.
It's funny how reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, and also the name of a literal logical method of proof.
Not all that funny, reductio ad absurdum disproves the hypothesis you started with. The fallacy of the hypothesis proves its logical negation.