If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?
In tonights news four people were killed in a drive by voting. It is thought that the assailents obtained their vote by falsifying their own death certificates while in florida. A motive for the attack has not yet been established, but it is thought the popular campaign "Rock The Vote", which has received wide publicity in the media is desensitising young people to the effects of voting; it is becoming socially acceptable to vote. This combined with arguments made by constitutional proponents that the right to carry a ballot is fundamental to the national identity suggests that these instances of random voting are likely to become more commonplace over time.
--show-session-key Display the session key used for one message. See --override-session-key for the counterpart of this option.
We think that Key Escrow is a Bad Thing; however the user should have the freedom to decide whether to go to prison or to reveal the content of one specific message without compromising all messages ever encrypted for one secret key. DON'T USE IT UNLESS YOU ARE REALLY FORCED TO DO SO.
Sounds like those smart GnuPG developers have already seen this coming.
I like the idea of an eight-head computer. I wonder what the price difference would be to equip a computer lab with octoheads instead of singles.
In fact, if I could get some long enough wires, every television in my house could be just another head of one master computer. Master Control! Huzzah!
I'm afraid your experiment won't work. This experiment is only valid if the original light source is coherent. i.e. in phase and monochromatic. Most light sources aren't either of these things.
Also, the beat frequency isn't what you think it is - it certainly isn't them interfering with each other. Interefence in sound waves is what gives sound its rich texture. None of what you say make any sense.
I don't really like the Gnome vs. KDE wars - both camps seem to be gaining from the existence of the other. However I was a little surprised the other day to find: $ du -h/etc/gconf/ 4.0K/etc/gconf/1 4.0K/etc/gconf/2 0/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory 921K/etc/gconf/schemas 9.7M/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults 11M/etc/gconf/
Which I traced to the fact that I installed gthumb.
Why on Earth does a set of defaults need nearly 10M?
Of course they were, that was my point. We're measuring sales of something that is sold against something that isn't sold. What a surprise that the thing that is sold wins in that comparison. However, it is a pointless exercise and doesn't give any useful information one way or the other.
Way to go Microsoft! In the Window's versus Linux war, sales is the comparison you will always win!
Could it possibly be that Unix server sales are down because Unix servers (non-free) are being replaced with Linux servers (free)? How surprising would it then be that the dollar value spent on servers is lower for Unix?
Email/http/ftp/ssh/vpn are also options, but that's rather easy to monitor for abnormally large amounts of data.
I run a VPN from my work desktop to my home desktop (primarily to get around the crappy NAT on our network that keeps dropping my IMAP connection after a few hours). It would be trivial to set my desktop to upload the whole of the company intranet to my home computer. It would be just as trivial to throttle the upload to 100 bytes a second. Of course the upload would then take months, but who would care about that?
If I were actually trying to hide the fact of the connection, I'd run the VPN on port 80. 100 bytes a second on port 80 would be invisible in any reasonably sized corporation.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no such thing as security against your employees. If you want anyone to do any work in a modern company, they will have access to IT resources. Those resources can always be subverted in some way or other. Forget the paranoia, this security obsession is like securing against a meteor strike. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
You're not thinking evil enough. Taking the GP's example, what if the USB device with financial PDFs on had a PDF that contained a buffer overflow for Adobe Acrobat Reader? What if that overflow was then used to install a rootkit with a keylogger and back door, plus a connection to some botchannel of the owners choosing.
Does it matter that the records aren't stored on that computer? Does it matter that the connection is encrypted?
So you get at their computer, you get the info right? No
I'm afraid: yes. Better than that, you get access to the mainframe, using the keylogged username and password.
You've talked a lot about morality. The problem, I believe, is this: is it moral to ignore an imoral agreement?
What if the sole supplier of milk in your town says "I will sell you this milk on the condition that you don't give any of it to a baby. I hate babies". What is the moral thing to do?
Don't get me wrong, the situation with Apple is nowhere near this baby-starving area. Would it be moral for a software company to tell me that I can only use their software if I am pro-abortion? Is it moral for a record company to tell me that I can't listen to their CDs on the sabbath? These are all arbitrary conditions, they are analagous with the real conditions producers are putting on their works.
I think your position of they made it so it's their terms is far too absolute, and it's certainly not clear that breaking conditions of purchase is "definitely morally wrong", as you put it.
I think I would go further: morality is defined by the grey areas. Should I murder a murderer to stop him murdering? Should I lie to protect someone's feelings? Should I break a promise to one friend in order that I keep faith with another? They aren't easy answers, and their is certainly no one morally correct position.
Why don't you take a little visit to a museum of natural history. Then have a wander around a farm and marvel at the way almost every creature has four limbs, a spine, a head and eyes. Gibber at the concept that every creature alive (and dead) has an ancestor that is similar in almost every respect to it and that the fossils for a large proportion of these relatives turn up on a regular basis.
As it happens, for the past few years, I've been trying to be polite and non-threatening and use persuasion rather than insult to make my point about evolution. Has the pro-ID crowd done the same? No. So my opinion is now to be as black-and-white about the issue as they are.
I believe the problem is that scientists are fighting this battle on the ground they are used to - science. ID is not science though, even letting it have a seat at the table does science a disservice.
I realise that in the general case. However in the case of evolution, there is no proof that it's inaccurate, in which case you do have to come up with something better to replace it.
I think you missed my point (or more likely I made it badly). I wasn't saying there are no problems with gravity, I was trying to make the point that if you are going to pass yourself off as an expert and claim that there are "problems with the theory of gravity" then you'd better be willing to back it up with some evidence. Similarly with "there are problems with evolution".
I suspect that the GP poster is an expert in neither gravity nor evolution, hence my challenge was to them rather than to the world in general - I'm quite sure that there are problems, but that is for the theoretical astrophysists to argue, not some looney ID proponent.
Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot.
Yes it does. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in medicine? Electricity? Mobile phones? Radio? Nuclear physics? Biology? Geology? Maths?
Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't. Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better.
That doesn't mean I don't understand it
Yes it does.
Just as the Theory of Gravity has some problems
Really? You pass yourself off as being some sort of expert. What exactly are the problems you see with the theory of gravity? Why not write them down, present some evidence, I'm sure your views will be published in some learned journal and then we can all see how wise you are. Then you can tell us what's wrong with evolution as well.
Throughout the entire history of science, when things "need to be understood better" it has generally been through an evolution of ideas -- Newtonian mechanics wasn't wrong, it just needed some extra bits bolting on, Einsteinian relativity isn't wrong, it just need some quantum stuff attaching. Each discovery builds on the last. Evolution is the same, there are holes and gaps and things we don't yet understand, but these will be filled and modified and adapted - the theory will get better.
There have been very few absolute reversals in science, why do you expect that evolution will be any different?
I've set my whole family to use encryption and signatures using either KMail or Thunderbird. The setting up is the hard bit, and I don't think any of them really understand what the difference between signing and encrypting is, what a public or private key is. That doesn't matter though. If it's possible to encrypt (i.e. the key for the recipient is in the keyring) then both Kmail and Thunderbird automatically do so.
The only thing any of them notice is that ocassionally they have to enter their password again.
I have to say though that when Kmail popped up a message that was all in red to indicate that a signature was invalid, everyone loved it (it wasn't sinister, MS Exchange mangles certain messages).
Being sure that your email wasn't read, nor was it tampered with is a great feeling. Nothing any of us say to each other is, in theory, worth protecting in this way; however, it's now perfectly safe for them to send, say a home address or a telephone number or any other personal information in the knowledge that it hasn't been read. It's not national security stuff, it's just privacy. You're not protecting against government snooping, you're protecting against random snooping by some bored mail server operator.
I'd argue that if the government wanted to spy on me, they'd find it very dull, but wouldn't be thwated by the fact that I encrypt my emails.
In the back of the lastest Linux Journal is a report about a usability study at Novell. It was a description of how a user has trouble sending email because they where pressing the "Send" button instead of the "New" button. It made me wonder if the way the instructions are given are influencing the user. Would the results have been different in each of the following cases?
"Send an email"
"Create a new email then send it"
"Write an email"
The answer from my point of view is "I don't know", but I'd be interested to know. Of course you need a load more people and a load more tests. But this is science, it's always tough:-)
To quote Douglas Adams on the Great Ventilation and Telephone Riots of SrDt 3454:
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair"
I like en_GB as much as the next man; but I'd hazard a guess that en_GB is lower priority as we can get by perfectly well with en_US. Slovenia, Norway and Finland - probably not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
In tonights news four people were killed in a drive by voting. It is thought that the assailents obtained their vote by falsifying their own death certificates while in florida. A motive for the attack has not yet been established, but it is thought the popular campaign "Rock The Vote", which has received wide publicity in the media is desensitising young people to the effects of voting; it is becoming socially acceptable to vote. This combined with arguments made by constitutional proponents that the right to carry a ballot is fundamental to the national identity suggests that these instances of random voting are likely to become more commonplace over time.
Beware the false analogy. Votes are not guns.
Pro/E is available for Linux.
Admittedly it's not easy to find on PTC's website, but it's listed on the software update page
Sounds like those smart GnuPG developers have already seen this coming.
All evolution is directed.
I heard that the reason nobody does this is that some evil corp has a patent on mini-games during installers.
I'm not really sure how, I remember playing pac man on my sinclair once while a game was loading from tape, which would surely be prior art.
I like the idea of an eight-head computer. I wonder what the price difference would be to equip a computer lab with octoheads instead of singles.
In fact, if I could get some long enough wires, every television in my house could be just another head of one master computer. Master Control! Huzzah!
I'm afraid your experiment won't work. This experiment is only valid if the original light source is coherent. i.e. in phase and monochromatic. Most light sources aren't either of these things.
Also, the beat frequency isn't what you think it is - it certainly isn't them interfering with each other. Interefence in sound waves is what gives sound its rich texture. None of what you say make any sense.
I don't really like the Gnome vs. KDE wars - both camps seem to be gaining from the existence of the other. However I was a little surprised the other day to find:
/etc/gconf/ /etc/gconf/1 /etc/gconf/2 /etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory /etc/gconf/schemas /etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults /etc/gconf/
$ du -h
4.0K
4.0K
0
921K
9.7M
11M
Which I traced to the fact that I installed gthumb.
Why on Earth does a set of defaults need nearly 10M?
Of course they were, that was my point. We're measuring sales of something that is sold against something that isn't sold. What a surprise that the thing that is sold wins in that comparison. However, it is a pointless exercise and doesn't give any useful information one way or the other.
Way to go Microsoft! In the Window's versus Linux war, sales is the comparison you will always win!
Could it possibly be that Unix server sales are down because Unix servers (non-free) are being replaced with Linux servers (free)? How surprising would it then be that the dollar value spent on servers is lower for Unix?
I run a VPN from my work desktop to my home desktop (primarily to get around the crappy NAT on our network that keeps dropping my IMAP connection after a few hours). It would be trivial to set my desktop to upload the whole of the company intranet to my home computer. It would be just as trivial to throttle the upload to 100 bytes a second. Of course the upload would then take months, but who would care about that?
If I were actually trying to hide the fact of the connection, I'd run the VPN on port 80. 100 bytes a second on port 80 would be invisible in any reasonably sized corporation.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no such thing as security against your employees. If you want anyone to do any work in a modern company, they will have access to IT resources. Those resources can always be subverted in some way or other. Forget the paranoia, this security obsession is like securing against a meteor strike. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
Does it matter that the records aren't stored on that computer? Does it matter that the connection is encrypted?
I'm afraid: yes. Better than that, you get access to the mainframe, using the keylogged username and password.
You've talked a lot about morality. The problem, I believe, is this: is it moral to ignore an imoral agreement?
What if the sole supplier of milk in your town says "I will sell you this milk on the condition that you don't give any of it to a baby. I hate babies". What is the moral thing to do?
Don't get me wrong, the situation with Apple is nowhere near this baby-starving area. Would it be moral for a software company to tell me that I can only use their software if I am pro-abortion? Is it moral for a record company to tell me that I can't listen to their CDs on the sabbath? These are all arbitrary conditions, they are analagous with the real conditions producers are putting on their works.
I think your position of they made it so it's their terms is far too absolute, and it's certainly not clear that breaking conditions of purchase is "definitely morally wrong", as you put it.
I think I would go further: morality is defined by the grey areas. Should I murder a murderer to stop him murdering? Should I lie to protect someone's feelings? Should I break a promise to one friend in order that I keep faith with another? They aren't easy answers, and their is certainly no one morally correct position.
I think the more moderate opinions stay quiet, all we here is intelligent design.
Why don't you take a little visit to a museum of natural history. Then have a wander around a farm and marvel at the way almost every creature has four limbs, a spine, a head and eyes. Gibber at the concept that every creature alive (and dead) has an ancestor that is similar in almost every respect to it and that the fossils for a large proportion of these relatives turn up on a regular basis.
A large percentage of the population of the world is an idiot.
At least half are below average.
As it happens, for the past few years, I've been trying to be polite and non-threatening and use persuasion rather than insult to make my point about evolution. Has the pro-ID crowd done the same? No. So my opinion is now to be as black-and-white about the issue as they are.
I believe the problem is that scientists are fighting this battle on the ground they are used to - science. ID is not science though, even letting it have a seat at the table does science a disservice.
I realise that in the general case. However in the case of evolution, there is no proof that it's inaccurate, in which case you do have to come up with something better to replace it.
I think you missed my point (or more likely I made it badly). I wasn't saying there are no problems with gravity, I was trying to make the point that if you are going to pass yourself off as an expert and claim that there are "problems with the theory of gravity" then you'd better be willing to back it up with some evidence. Similarly with "there are problems with evolution".
I suspect that the GP poster is an expert in neither gravity nor evolution, hence my challenge was to them rather than to the world in general - I'm quite sure that there are problems, but that is for the theoretical astrophysists to argue, not some looney ID proponent.
Yes it does. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in medicine? Electricity? Mobile phones? Radio? Nuclear physics? Biology? Geology? Maths?
Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't. Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better.
Yes it does.
Really? You pass yourself off as being some sort of expert. What exactly are the problems you see with the theory of gravity? Why not write them down, present some evidence, I'm sure your views will be published in some learned journal and then we can all see how wise you are. Then you can tell us what's wrong with evolution as well.
Throughout the entire history of science, when things "need to be understood better" it has generally been through an evolution of ideas -- Newtonian mechanics wasn't wrong, it just needed some extra bits bolting on, Einsteinian relativity isn't wrong, it just need some quantum stuff attaching. Each discovery builds on the last. Evolution is the same, there are holes and gaps and things we don't yet understand, but these will be filled and modified and adapted - the theory will get better.
There have been very few absolute reversals in science, why do you expect that evolution will be any different?
A wife? A family? Happiness?
... ish.
I'm not saying that that would be guaranteed, but you painted a very bleak picture. Women aren't all bad
I've set my whole family to use encryption and signatures using either KMail or Thunderbird. The setting up is the hard bit, and I don't think any of them really understand what the difference between signing and encrypting is, what a public or private key is. That doesn't matter though. If it's possible to encrypt (i.e. the key for the recipient is in the keyring) then both Kmail and Thunderbird automatically do so.
The only thing any of them notice is that ocassionally they have to enter their password again.
I have to say though that when Kmail popped up a message that was all in red to indicate that a signature was invalid, everyone loved it (it wasn't sinister, MS Exchange mangles certain messages).
Being sure that your email wasn't read, nor was it tampered with is a great feeling. Nothing any of us say to each other is, in theory, worth protecting in this way; however, it's now perfectly safe for them to send, say a home address or a telephone number or any other personal information in the knowledge that it hasn't been read. It's not national security stuff, it's just privacy. You're not protecting against government snooping, you're protecting against random snooping by some bored mail server operator.
I'd argue that if the government wanted to spy on me, they'd find it very dull, but wouldn't be thwated by the fact that I encrypt my emails.
- "Send an email"
- "Create a new email then send it"
- "Write an email"
The answer from my point of view is "I don't know", but I'd be interested to know. Of course you need a load more people and a load more tests. But this is science, it's always toughTo quote Douglas Adams on the Great Ventilation and Telephone Riots of SrDt 3454:
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair"
I like en_GB as much as the next man; but I'd hazard a guess that en_GB is lower priority as we can get by perfectly well with en_US. Slovenia, Norway and Finland - probably not so much.