"What should we do about state mandated car insurance and things like that? Not own a car? I'm really asking, this isn't necessarily rhetorical. "
There are a number of problems with manditory auto insurance.
One of the largest problems is non-compliance.
Another problem is the fact that insurance rates are calculated by time period (monthly, quarterly, yearly) instead of by the distance driven. Someone who drives five thousand miles a month is more likely to be in an acident than their neighbor who drives fifty miles a month.
Both these problems would be solved by requiring that insurance be included in the price of gasoline. Everyone who drives would be insured, and people would pay insurance based on the distance they drive.
Motorists who get good gas mileage would get a small break on their insurance costs, which would provide incentives that would please the environmentalists.
Police and the court systems would spend less time pursuing charges of driving without insurance.
New drivers could avoid the catch-22 of needing an insured car to get a driver's licence, and needing a driver's license to register a car.
There wouldn't be so many advertisements for auto insurance.
"Therefore, somewhere in the digits of Pi is a string of digits which, when transformed into binary, form the code to decrypt CCS on a Linux box. All the scientists have to do is find the correct starting position and how may digits need to be calculated. The resulting information could be spread throughout the internet and used to decrypt protected content. "
You've misunderstood something very basic. The fact that something is infinate does not guarentee that it will contain everything. There may be sequences that do not occur.
On the otherhand, once you've located a particular sequence, providing the offset and length may be a good compression algorithm, depending on how efficiently you can store the offset.;-}
Perhaps, if you limit it to PCs in the US running x86 based chips.
Include Macs and everything else, include the rest of the world, your 96% figure is considerably wrong.
What kind of Microsoft shill are you?
Seriously, this is the first time I've ever seen someone at slashdot actually verify something before posting it.
Your user number (#2322) suggests you've been around for a long time. Your statement is either a joke, completely inaccurate, or you've been gone for a very long time.
Perhaps you should think about verifying your statements before posting them, eh?
Think of it as continuing a trend if it make you happier.
I'll take our (the US) system. Its not perfect but its the best I've seen so far. (And I've looked)
Do you think the US system is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same.
Many of the complaints of people who live in the US are based on a perception that the US system is getting worse, that they had a good system and it is being damaged as they watch.
You've looked, have you? Are you sure you aren't just jingoisticly assuming that your country has the best system?
Words don't always have just one meaning. From Dictionary.com,
1.Robbery committed at sea.
1.A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2.The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
3.The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
I reject those second and third definitions. What people are really talking about when they use those definitions is better described as 'copyright infringement' or 'violation of the FDAs guidelines'.
There's another word in common use that I particularly dislike, which is 'racism'. Again from dictionary.com,
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I prefer to call this 'ethnic bigotry'. One reason is that it is more clear what is meant, but another is that it focuses attention on the fact that the bigotry is about ethnic differences.
This is important to me because I believe that one of the things that makes ethnic bigotry possible is a deep-rooted belief that we are somehow significantly different from other humans.
The word 'racism' helps promotes the idea that different ethnic groups are somehow different subspecies or even a different species altogether. This in turn can promote the very 'racism' that people are using the word 'racism' to discuss.
It is my belief that there would be less 'racism' if we would stop calling it 'racism'. That is why the semantics are important to me. That is why I call it ethnic bigotry.
We've seen another word widely misused: Hackers.
'Piracy' is another such word. Accepting their use of the word empowers their agenda by promoting calculated emotional responses. Calling it 'copyright infringement' [or whatever is most appropriate for the particulars of the case being discussed] focuses the attention on the proper issues: the alleged crime of infringement and the relevant copyright law.
Anyway, you are certainly correct. Words often have multiple meanings. That doesn't mean that we should accept the semantic manipulations of others without thinking about them.
Memes are important. Know which memes you are spreading. Only share memes you agree with.
"First of all I find insulting the insinuation that anybody who takes advantage of the
services of government must be "lazy" never having held a job, inputting nothing into the economy."
I didn't mean to insinuate anything at all. I ask a hypothetical question, intending to get an answer to just that question. I don't think that most peopl are lazy.
My question ammounts to "What do we do when the resources aren't there to support the minimums?"
I meant to suggest a scenario in which the situation arrives gradually, but it might also come quickly with a economic turmoil or a natural disaster.
Suppose we implement the suggested minimums then California slides into the ocean but we save everyone and move them to Nevada, and the same year several states are consumed in forest fires, terrorists blow up all the dam in the country, and again we save everyone, and no lives are lost.
Through a series of natural disasters and terrorist actions, the country lays in ruins, with half the population homeless, the economy is shattered, the rest of the world is asking that we pay our debts off, and they refuse to help.
What happens to the minimum levels we've guarenteed? Is the government still OBLIGATED to provide those minimum levels? Who should the government force to pay for those minimum levels?
If not then, why now?
"It is *not* unreasonable to expect that the most powerful country on earth does something as simple and basic as provide a quality education to all citizens..."
I completely agree. But I don't think that the government should be involved. This is a social problem. People should treat each other decently, and provide for those in need if they are able to do so.
But forcing them to do so will not help bring about the social enlightenment that is required in order to solve this problem. Using the governements coercive abilities will only retard the development which is nessecary to address these issues.
"In light of this great economic "boom", no, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this from my country."
You aren't talking about 'expecting' it. You are talking about 'demanding' it.
I agree with you that you should be able to expect that people treat each other well, particularly when so many have so much. I disagree with the idea that they should be forced to do so.
You cannot use legislation to enforce morality. You can try. You can put the laws in place and arrest a great many people, but you cannot use legislation to force people to act the way you want. You will only end up making them resent the message you are trying to promote.
"If you support the Green Party, you've got to vote Nader in this election so that he can get federal matching funds for the next
election!"
There are points to the Green platform that I agree with. Forcing others to help support their
campaigns is not one of them. Of course, I also don't like being forced to support the campaigns on the Democratic, Republican and Reform parties either.
I applaud the fact that Harry Browne turned down those matching funds. It demonstrates the fact that he believes in the principles he is talking about. If he had accepted those funds, I wouldn't be voting for him, and I wouldn't have contributed to his campaign.
Instead of pressuring people to vote for Nader so that the Green party can force others to support the Green party later, why don't you simply send them a contribution of your own now, and ask others to do so as well?
Is it because you don't think highly enough of the Green party to support them directly, or because you don't think they have enough support to succeed without forcing others to help them?
Your "If Nader doesn't get the support he needs this time, then...." is the same sort of fear-mongering that Nader argues against.
Vote your dreams. Support your dreams with your own dollars, not mine.
"Look at the polls. Ever the professional know-it-alls in the media have given up trying to predict this election. Meanwhile, Nader is
sitting at 5%. The scenario that W. wins by less than 5% is a not only possible, it's probable."
For people who agree with Nader, that is the best possible outcome. Sure, they would have to endure 4 years of Bush's 'leadership',
but in 2004, the Democratic party would have a platform that included many Green positions.
So many people get hung up on the question "Who will win?" that they forget to ask "Who will implement the policies I care about?".
The only way to convince the Democratic or Republican parties to offer any new platform issues is to show them that a lot of people want something else, something they didn't offer. Then
they will stsart offering those new ideas, claiming they have always supported them.
"We all should have a *minimum* level of education.
We all should have a *minimum* level of health.
We all should have at least a very *minimum* means of subsistence."
All well and good, on the surface, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose we implement these minimums, add constitutional ammendments and everything so that the Libertarians stop complaining about the legalities and whatnot. Now suppose that many generations from now the government is unable to provide those minimum
levels because high taxes have encouraged the productive people to leave the planet, and so many of the people who remain have never held a job or are being so lazy that providing those minimum levels requires 1000% of the gross global product.
What then?
Do we decide that we were wrong, change the minimum levels, and claim we were overly optimistic? Would we get enough votes to repeal
the ammendments?
Do we deny some people their constitution right to these minimums?
The problem I see with claiming that anyone has a right to a minimum is that it requires that someone else produce the resouces to provide that minimum while reducing the insentive for anyone to do so. Many people only go to work because they don't like being hungry. Do we force them to go to work camps so that we can maintain those minimums?
"I would love to vote for a Libertarian candidate, but in our two party system the third part gets screwed and the voters throw away
their vote. I am not currently registered because I feel that my only true choice would be the lesser of the two evils OR to throw
away my vote on a third party. Please tell me how I am wrong and show me the way to a better future."
It's a bit late now, unless your state has a different deadline for registration.
In the 1930, the Socialist party was a third party. People voted for them. Every item on their platform was eventually adopted by the Democratic party. Of course, they've updated their platform, and are now asking for more things, but most of the things they were asking for then have come to pass.
I favor the things that the Libertarian party is pushing. I don't care if they are implemented by someone who claims to be a Libertarian. What I care about is the issues the party is pushing. As long as those are done, I'll be happy.
It doesn't matter than the Libertarians might not win this election, and might not win the next one.
Every vote for them will make their issues more appealing to other parties, who will adopt them in an effort to sway my vote, and yours if you manage to register in time and vote Libertarian.
Our votes aren't about electing leaders so much as they are about determining which choices we will get next time.
"What kind of nonsense is that? As near as I can tell, the kind that could only come from an education that failed to teach that it is often (usually, perhaps always) better to fix something than to abandon it."
'Perhaps always?' Wow! Let's see, how would you suggest one go about 'fixing' the geocentric viewpoint? Or the flat earth theory? Or the crusades? Or the witch hunts? Or prohibition? Or Mir? Are these not examples where it is better to abandon than to try to fix?
The fact that you think it might be possible for it to always be better to fix than to abandon seems to say something about your own education.
"How is a gutted science curriculum different from a gutted reading curriculum?"
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program? While you are I may agree that science and reading are even more important than music and art, we should not assume that all parents feel that way, and we should not force them to make the sacrifices we choose for them, particularly if those sacrifices involve giving up something that may be even more important to them, like religion (whether it be the Christ on a stick flavor, the sacrificial goat flavor, or something else).
Here's the email I just sent the author of that page:
Hi Brad,
I'm writing to offer another perspective on the deep linking issue,
in response to your page at
http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html
" The trick is that there may be restrictions on how the pages are fetched that the owner wishes to set. In particular, many web pages are composite documents, consisting of several items, such as graphics and text, and are not meant to be viewed in their individual parts. That they can be viewed as independent parts is an artifact of the HTML language, not the intention of the copyright holders."
I'd agrue that this isn't like specifying that book cannot be photocopied,
but that it is more like specifying that the pages of the book must be
read in a particular order, trying to claim that reading the last page
of a mystery novel first is a violation of copyright law. Such an
arguement wouldn't get very far.
"So does the owner have the right to say you can only fetch pages from a server according to rules they might set? Quite possibly. Remember
that while technologically it is difficult (but not quite impossible) to stop people from being able to fetch a component graphic from a web
page or a sub-page buried under advertising supported menus, the whole purpose of copyright law is to provide legal protection for documents
when technological protection is hard. You don't need legal copyright protection if technological protection is easy, after all. "
It seems to me that it would be technologically easy to require that the referrer tag have some particular value in order to retrieve a particular file.
A server could be set up to compare the value of the referrer to the expected value. If they matched, the file would be sent. If they failed to match, another page would be sent instead, making it clear that the copyright holder wishes that the request file be viewed as part of whole, and providing the URL for the page the copyright holder would like to have people start from.
While it would be possible for someone to bypass such a mechanism, it would be _much_ more clear that they knew about the copyright holder's
wishes, and that they were disregarding them.
The way HTTP requests are structured, and the way web servers are typically configured, it seems to be that the intent is that all files which are accessable are available to be viewed in any order or no order at all.
While I agree that some copyright holders may want something else, there should be some burden placed on them to make their wishes known. This could be done clearly, easily and concisely by checking the referrer and providing a page with a URL link when the referrer doesn't have the expected value.
For a copyright holder to complain about deep linking when they haven't taken such a step is a lot like someone dumping copies of their book out of an airplane and complaining when people fail to pay for the copies. Both people are choosing a distribution medium which doesn't provide for their desires, then blaiming the medium for their poor choice.
The fact is that the web is well designed for sharing information without regard to order. If that isn't what someone wants to do, they should avoid using the web to distribute their information, or they should make the effort to change the details of distribution to more closely suit their desires.
"What I don't understand about all of the fuss over Carnivore I've read on sites like/. is that essentially it isn't any different from already existing methods of surveillance like phone tapping. "
There is a primary difference which you overlooked. The available methods of automatically scanning ascii text are vastly better than the available methods of automatically scanning human speech.
One part of the concern is that this means it is physically possible for the FBI to scan ALL internet communications, while it hasn't been possible for them to scan ALL human speech.
The concern is that they may try to implement a system which allows them to do exactly that. We haven't worried that they may try to implement a system which scans ALL human speech, because it's been believed that it isn't possible. We are worried that they may try to implement a system which scans ALL internet communication, because it is clearly possible.
"Anyone who thinks that the FBI will scan every packet going through routers in the US is living in a paranoid fantasy world."
Anyone who believes that the FBI would never violate a single law is living in a nieve fantasy world.
It doesn't matter if they actually reach the point of scanning all the traffic. One point is that if the ever scan any traffic they shouldn't have, that's a problem. That's a problem that also faces wiretapping, but with Carnivore, the concern is that it's gotten vastly easier for them to violate the law, and vastly harder for anyone to find out about it or prove it.
"Either you trust the FBI or you don't, but stop being hypocritical in what you complain about."
I don't trust them, but I don't think I'm hypocritical either. I think it should be possible for us to catch them when they do wrong.
For me, Carnivore is a problem because it makes it more likely that they will be able to get away with something, and I believe that in turn makes it more likely that they will try.
The point was that traffic analysis that includes the time the transfers occur and the size of the messages could connect the line of dots from my machine to my ISP, through several other machines, to someone else's ISP and to their machine.
That is, it could do so if they had enough surveilance at enough of the points. And it could do so even if the headers are encrypted.
Beating traffic analysis requires padding to the same length, introducing delays, and having lots of traffic.
"If I want to plot a kidnapping/assination/kiddie porn ring (NOTE: I don't...), should I have the unrestricted freedom to make all of my plans online?"
Absolutely, without question. Up to the point where you commit a crime. Once you've commited a crime, and the authorities have evidence of a crime, you should be prosecuted.
Currently, planning a crime and discusing the details with others is a crime. Specifically, it's conspiracy to commit a crime, and you can be prosecuted for conspiracy.
"If the FBI got wind that a crime ring was planning to kidnap, rape, and exploit YOUR wife/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc. by planning the dispicable act entirely through e-mail, would you not want to have some means to protect your loved ones?"
I would wonder how the FBI 'got wind' that something was happening. I would hope that they had done so legally. I would expect them to prosecute everyone involved for conspiracy to commit whatever crime, which is why it would be important to me that they had used legal means to find out about the conspiracy in the first place.
It's worth noticing here that the FBI doesn't have any obligation to protect us, and the police don't either. Instead, they have an obligation to catch criminals after a crime has been commited.
As for having the means to protect myself and my loved ones, I would like to be able to go get a gun or whatever I might feel I need, without waiting for X days, at a moments notice. I certainly wouldn't expect the FBI to protect me, because that isn't their job.
Placing a wiretap or a Carnivore device might help the FBI gain information, but it certainly wouldn't help protect me or my loved ones.
What would be more likely to happen is that the FBI would choose to place my loved ones in danger by failing to pursue a conviction for conspiracy in the hopes that they might wait and catch you in the act of commiting a more serious crime.
In the meantime, if I also happened to find out that you were planning something, I would quite likely be unable to go get a gun without waiting for government approval. I might also be required by the FBI to remain in the danger zone, taking no actinos that might let you know that the FBI had some clue what you were up to. It is quite likely I would be unable to pack everything up and leave.
"The FBI would still need to obtain the appropriate warrants to place the tap device on the criminal's ISP (BTW - these orders are time sensitive - the [whatever]ivore device can only be on the system for a specific period of time), and collect the information required to perform their mission."
More to the point, they would be required to do so if they wanted to be certain that any information they obtained would be admissable in a court of law.
If they decided that it was more important to have the information quickly than to be able to use that information in a court of law, they might ignore the requirement.
For example, they might ignore this requirement if they thought they could get away with the crime, and thought that they could build a 'strong enough' case without that specific information.
Or perhaps you'd like me to believe that the FBI never commits a crime.
"OTOH, if the criminals were solely using the telephone to plot, would you have a different view or expectation as to their capture?"
No. All of my answers would be exactly the same. Perfect consistancy. The technology doesn't matter.
"I'm not saying that the FBI (or any governmental agency, for that matter) should have unrestricted access to our personal lives - that is CLEARLY a breach of the law. "
Clear to us, now. What of the things the government is currently doing which people fifty years ago believed were CLEARLY a breach of the law. If the government starts doing this now, I predict that this clear line will move.
"I still think that a review of Carnivore is a good idea, but if looking at it's algorithms yielded information as to how to thwart it's capabilities, should that kind of information be out in the public?"
Absolutely. Otherwise the system is flawed and only certain people, such as former FBI agents and friends, have that information and the public doesn't. This gets back to security through obscurity. Frankly, I'd rather have a system with known flaws than a system with flaws known only to people who had worked with the FBI. In the first case the system might get fixed. In the second case, someone might abuse the system when they wanted some information that they couldn't justify getting a court order for.
"Would you be happy if, in the aforementioned scenario where your loved one is in danger, the criminals knew how to thwart the system, rendering the FBI's protection of your family useless?"
Again, the FBI doesn't protect us. My family wouldn't be any worse off than if the system didn't exist at all.
That question depends on the assumption that the only way for you to know about a problem is if it is publicly disclosed. This assumption is false. It is also possible that you might know how to thwart the system in some way which isn't publicly known. In such a case, a public review might have revealed the flaw and allowed time to fix it, where a hidden system let it linger.
"Just some thoughts... I'm not fully a proponent of government, but I think that there are some things best left out of the public eye."
If you can provide an example, I'd be glad to hear it. The only one I can think of is information about military tactics (note that I don't include military strategy). Can you think of another?
True, to a point. Linux will use available ram as a disk cache. It won't choose to swap programs out in order to provide more space for the disk cache, even if you have programs you haven't used in a long time, and a little more disk cache would mean you could get everything you are using into the disk cache, instead of rotating a bunch of stuff through the cache.
This is because Linux gives higher priority to programs (even seldom used programs) than disk blocks (even frequently used disk blocks).
Using a RAM disk can give you a way around that by letting you dictate that the disk cache is more important than keeping other programs in memory, and allowing you to specify which programs should be cached.
This isn't a really common problem, which explains the fact that RAM disks aren't used all that often.
"There's one time ramdisks are good... If you have a small set of files (relative to your total ram) that you
don't use very often, but when you do, you want them to load with as little delay as possible... "
That's what I wanted when I was playing Civ:CTP last year. I made a 300M swap file and copied parts of the graphics directory structure to the
ramdisk, then pointed at it with symlinks.
This greatly improved game play. Of course, it was at the expense of slower access to other files, and caused the system to swap out some programs, but I didn't care, because I was planning to play the game for a while and didn't need the other programs in memory.
Of course, I turned the ramdisk off while I wasn't playing, and had to pay the start up cost of loading the ramdisk each time I turned it back on.
I don't see how a ramdisk would be a useful thing for a web server unless you could be sure you didn't cause anything you care about to be swapped out. That would require adding more memory, but adding more memory would give you more buffer cache, which would have the same (argueable better) effect as the ram disk in the first place.
It's a specialized tool, useful in some specific cases. A web server doesn't seem to be such a case.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a number of problems with manditory auto insurance.
One of the largest problems is non-compliance.
Another problem is the fact that insurance rates are calculated by time period (monthly, quarterly, yearly) instead of by the distance driven. Someone who drives five thousand miles a month is more likely to be in an acident than their neighbor who drives fifty miles a month.
Both these problems would be solved by requiring that insurance be included in the price of gasoline. Everyone who drives would be insured, and people would pay insurance based on the distance they drive.
Motorists who get good gas mileage would get a small break on their insurance costs, which would provide incentives that would please the environmentalists.
Police and the court systems would spend less time pursuing charges of driving without insurance.
New drivers could avoid the catch-22 of needing an insured car to get a driver's licence, and needing a driver's license to register a car.
There wouldn't be so many advertisements for auto insurance.
Yeah, if the government isn't able to keep the flow of drugs coming into the country, society might fall apart.
You've misunderstood something very basic. The fact that something is infinate does not guarentee that it will contain everything. There may be sequences that do not occur.
On the otherhand, once you've located a particular sequence, providing the offset and length may be a good compression algorithm, depending on how efficiently you can store the offset. ;-}
No, that's not how it goes.
If you're not part of the solution, your're part of the precipitate.
Perhaps, if you limit it to PCs in the US running x86 based chips.
Include Macs and everything else, include the rest of the world, your 96% figure is considerably wrong.
Seriously, this is the first time I've ever seen someone at slashdot actually verify something before posting it.
Your user number (#2322) suggests you've been around for a long time. Your statement is either a joke, completely inaccurate, or you've been gone for a very long time.
Perhaps you should think about verifying your statements before posting them, eh?
Think of it as continuing a trend if it make you happier.
Do you think the US system is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same.
Many of the complaints of people who live in the US are based on a perception that the US system is getting worse, that they had a good system and it is being damaged as they watch.
You've looked, have you? Are you sure you aren't just jingoisticly assuming that your country has the best system?
1.Robbery committed at sea.
1.A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2.The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
3.The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
I reject those second and third definitions. What people are really talking about when they use those definitions is better described as 'copyright infringement' or 'violation of the FDAs guidelines'.
There's another word in common use that I particularly dislike, which is 'racism'. Again from dictionary.com,
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I prefer to call this 'ethnic bigotry'. One reason is that it is more clear what is meant, but another is that it focuses attention on the fact that the bigotry is about ethnic differences. This is important to me because I believe that one of the things that makes ethnic bigotry possible is a deep-rooted belief that we are somehow significantly different from other humans.
The word 'racism' helps promotes the idea that different ethnic groups are somehow different subspecies or even a different species altogether. This in turn can promote the very 'racism' that people are using the word 'racism' to discuss.
It is my belief that there would be less 'racism' if we would stop calling it 'racism'. That is why the semantics are important to me. That is why I call it ethnic bigotry.
We've seen another word widely misused: Hackers.
'Piracy' is another such word. Accepting their use of the word empowers their agenda by promoting calculated emotional responses. Calling it 'copyright infringement' [or whatever is most appropriate for the particulars of the case being discussed] focuses the attention on the proper issues: the alleged crime of infringement and the relevant copyright law.
Anyway, you are certainly correct. Words often have multiple meanings. That doesn't mean that we should accept the semantic manipulations of others without thinking about them.
Memes are important. Know which memes you are spreading. Only share memes you agree with.
What an ammazingly wrong statement. It's incorrect on so many levels.
I didn't mean to insinuate anything at all. I ask a hypothetical question, intending to get an answer to just that question. I don't think that most peopl are lazy.
My question ammounts to "What do we do when the resources aren't there to support the minimums?" I meant to suggest a scenario in which the situation arrives gradually, but it might also come quickly with a economic turmoil or a natural disaster.
Suppose we implement the suggested minimums then California slides into the ocean but we save everyone and move them to Nevada, and the same year several states are consumed in forest fires, terrorists blow up all the dam in the country, and again we save everyone, and no lives are lost.
Through a series of natural disasters and terrorist actions, the country lays in ruins, with half the population homeless, the economy is shattered, the rest of the world is asking that we pay our debts off, and they refuse to help.
What happens to the minimum levels we've guarenteed? Is the government still OBLIGATED to provide those minimum levels? Who should the government force to pay for those minimum levels?
If not then, why now?
"It is *not* unreasonable to expect that the most powerful country on earth does something as simple and basic as provide a quality education to all citizens..."
I completely agree. But I don't think that the government should be involved. This is a social problem. People should treat each other decently, and provide for those in need if they are able to do so.
But forcing them to do so will not help bring about the social enlightenment that is required in order to solve this problem. Using the governements coercive abilities will only retard the development which is nessecary to address these issues.
"In light of this great economic "boom", no, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this from my country."
You aren't talking about 'expecting' it. You are talking about 'demanding' it.
I agree with you that you should be able to expect that people treat each other well, particularly when so many have so much. I disagree with the idea that they should be forced to do so.
You cannot use legislation to enforce morality. You can try. You can put the laws in place and arrest a great many people, but you cannot use legislation to force people to act the way you want. You will only end up making them resent the message you are trying to promote.
There are points to the Green platform that I agree with. Forcing others to help support their campaigns is not one of them. Of course, I also don't like being forced to support the campaigns on the Democratic, Republican and Reform parties either.
I applaud the fact that Harry Browne turned down those matching funds. It demonstrates the fact that he believes in the principles he is talking about. If he had accepted those funds, I wouldn't be voting for him, and I wouldn't have contributed to his campaign.
Instead of pressuring people to vote for Nader so that the Green party can force others to support the Green party later, why don't you simply send them a contribution of your own now, and ask others to do so as well?
Is it because you don't think highly enough of the Green party to support them directly, or because you don't think they have enough support to succeed without forcing others to help them?
Your "If Nader doesn't get the support he needs this time, then...." is the same sort of fear-mongering that Nader argues against.
Vote your dreams. Support your dreams with your own dollars, not mine.
For people who agree with Nader, that is the best possible outcome. Sure, they would have to endure 4 years of Bush's 'leadership', but in 2004, the Democratic party would have a platform that included many Green positions.
So many people get hung up on the question "Who will win?" that they forget to ask "Who will implement the policies I care about?".
The only way to convince the Democratic or Republican parties to offer any new platform issues is to show them that a lot of people want something else, something they didn't offer. Then they will stsart offering those new ideas, claiming they have always supported them.
We all should have a *minimum* level of health.
We all should have at least a very *minimum* means of subsistence."
All well and good, on the surface, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose we implement these minimums, add constitutional ammendments and everything so that the Libertarians stop complaining about the legalities and whatnot. Now suppose that many generations from now the government is unable to provide those minimum levels because high taxes have encouraged the productive people to leave the planet, and so many of the people who remain have never held a job or are being so lazy that providing those minimum levels requires 1000% of the gross global product.
What then?
Do we decide that we were wrong, change the minimum levels, and claim we were overly optimistic? Would we get enough votes to repeal the ammendments?
Do we deny some people their constitution right to these minimums?
The problem I see with claiming that anyone has a right to a minimum is that it requires that someone else produce the resouces to provide that minimum while reducing the insentive for anyone to do so. Many people only go to work because they don't like being hungry. Do we force them to go to work camps so that we can maintain those minimums?
It's a bit late now, unless your state has a different deadline for registration.
In the 1930, the Socialist party was a third party. People voted for them. Every item on their platform was eventually adopted by the Democratic party. Of course, they've updated their platform, and are now asking for more things, but most of the things they were asking for then have come to pass.
I favor the things that the Libertarian party is pushing. I don't care if they are implemented by someone who claims to be a Libertarian. What I care about is the issues the party is pushing. As long as those are done, I'll be happy.
It doesn't matter than the Libertarians might not win this election, and might not win the next one. Every vote for them will make their issues more appealing to other parties, who will adopt them in an effort to sway my vote, and yours if you manage to register in time and vote Libertarian.
Our votes aren't about electing leaders so much as they are about determining which choices we will get next time.
'Perhaps always?' Wow! Let's see, how would you suggest one go about 'fixing' the geocentric viewpoint? Or the flat earth theory? Or the crusades? Or the witch hunts? Or prohibition? Or Mir? Are these not examples where it is better to abandon than to try to fix?
The fact that you think it might be possible for it to always be better to fix than to abandon seems to say something about your own education.
"How is a gutted science curriculum different from a gutted reading curriculum?"
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program? While you are I may agree that science and reading are even more important than music and art, we should not assume that all parents feel that way, and we should not force them to make the sacrifices we choose for them, particularly if those sacrifices involve giving up something that may be even more important to them, like religion (whether it be the Christ on a stick flavor, the sacrificial goat flavor, or something else).
No, perhaps you shouldn't be able to submit until you've previewed. ;-}
I submit without previewing almost every time. Your problem shouldn't lead to the loss of functionality by other people who don't have the problem.
I'm writing to offer another perspective on the deep linking issue, in response to your page at
http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html
" The trick is that there may be restrictions on how the pages are fetched that the owner wishes to set. In particular, many web pages are composite documents, consisting of several items, such as graphics and text, and are not meant to be viewed in their individual parts. That they can be viewed as independent parts is an artifact of the HTML language, not the intention of the copyright holders."
I'd agrue that this isn't like specifying that book cannot be photocopied, but that it is more like specifying that the pages of the book must be read in a particular order, trying to claim that reading the last page of a mystery novel first is a violation of copyright law. Such an arguement wouldn't get very far.
"So does the owner have the right to say you can only fetch pages from a server according to rules they might set? Quite possibly. Remember that while technologically it is difficult (but not quite impossible) to stop people from being able to fetch a component graphic from a web page or a sub-page buried under advertising supported menus, the whole purpose of copyright law is to provide legal protection for documents when technological protection is hard. You don't need legal copyright protection if technological protection is easy, after all. "
It seems to me that it would be technologically easy to require that the referrer tag have some particular value in order to retrieve a particular file.
A server could be set up to compare the value of the referrer to the expected value. If they matched, the file would be sent. If they failed to match, another page would be sent instead, making it clear that the copyright holder wishes that the request file be viewed as part of whole, and providing the URL for the page the copyright holder would like to have people start from.
While it would be possible for someone to bypass such a mechanism, it would be _much_ more clear that they knew about the copyright holder's wishes, and that they were disregarding them.
The way HTTP requests are structured, and the way web servers are typically configured, it seems to be that the intent is that all files which are accessable are available to be viewed in any order or no order at all.
While I agree that some copyright holders may want something else, there should be some burden placed on them to make their wishes known. This could be done clearly, easily and concisely by checking the referrer and providing a page with a URL link when the referrer doesn't have the expected value.
For a copyright holder to complain about deep linking when they haven't taken such a step is a lot like someone dumping copies of their book out of an airplane and complaining when people fail to pay for the copies. Both people are choosing a distribution medium which doesn't provide for their desires, then blaiming the medium for their poor choice.
The fact is that the web is well designed for sharing information without regard to order. If that isn't what someone wants to do, they should avoid using the web to distribute their information, or they should make the effort to change the details of distribution to more closely suit their desires.
There is a primary difference which you overlooked. The available methods of automatically scanning ascii text are vastly better than the available methods of automatically scanning human speech.
One part of the concern is that this means it is physically possible for the FBI to scan ALL internet communications, while it hasn't been possible for them to scan ALL human speech.
The concern is that they may try to implement a system which allows them to do exactly that. We haven't worried that they may try to implement a system which scans ALL human speech, because it's been believed that it isn't possible. We are worried that they may try to implement a system which scans ALL internet communication, because it is clearly possible.
"Anyone who thinks that the FBI will scan every packet going through routers in the US is living in a paranoid fantasy world."
Anyone who believes that the FBI would never violate a single law is living in a nieve fantasy world.
It doesn't matter if they actually reach the point of scanning all the traffic. One point is that if the ever scan any traffic they shouldn't have, that's a problem. That's a problem that also faces wiretapping, but with Carnivore, the concern is that it's gotten vastly easier for them to violate the law, and vastly harder for anyone to find out about it or prove it.
"Either you trust the FBI or you don't, but stop being hypocritical in what you complain about."
I don't trust them, but I don't think I'm hypocritical either. I think it should be possible for us to catch them when they do wrong. For me, Carnivore is a problem because it makes it more likely that they will be able to get away with something, and I believe that in turn makes it more likely that they will try.
That is, it could do so if they had enough surveilance at enough of the points. And it could do so even if the headers are encrypted.
Beating traffic analysis requires padding to the same length, introducing delays, and having lots of traffic.
Go ahead. Surprise me. Give me an exact number. Give me a ball park number. Tell me where you got the number. Support your claim.
I think you'd be surprised how many criminals DON't use the net to plan their crimes...
Absolutely, without question. Up to the point where you commit a crime. Once you've commited a crime, and the authorities have evidence of a crime, you should be prosecuted.
Currently, planning a crime and discusing the details with others is a crime. Specifically, it's conspiracy to commit a crime, and you can be prosecuted for conspiracy.
"If the FBI got wind that a crime ring was planning to kidnap, rape, and exploit YOUR wife/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc. by planning the dispicable act entirely through e-mail, would you not want to have some means to protect your loved ones?"
I would wonder how the FBI 'got wind' that something was happening. I would hope that they had done so legally. I would expect them to prosecute everyone involved for conspiracy to commit whatever crime, which is why it would be important to me that they had used legal means to find out about the conspiracy in the first place.
It's worth noticing here that the FBI doesn't have any obligation to protect us, and the police don't either. Instead, they have an obligation to catch criminals after a crime has been commited.
As for having the means to protect myself and my loved ones, I would like to be able to go get a gun or whatever I might feel I need, without waiting for X days, at a moments notice. I certainly wouldn't expect the FBI to protect me, because that isn't their job.
Placing a wiretap or a Carnivore device might help the FBI gain information, but it certainly wouldn't help protect me or my loved ones.
What would be more likely to happen is that the FBI would choose to place my loved ones in danger by failing to pursue a conviction for conspiracy in the hopes that they might wait and catch you in the act of commiting a more serious crime.
In the meantime, if I also happened to find out that you were planning something, I would quite likely be unable to go get a gun without waiting for government approval. I might also be required by the FBI to remain in the danger zone, taking no actinos that might let you know that the FBI had some clue what you were up to. It is quite likely I would be unable to pack everything up and leave.
"The FBI would still need to obtain the appropriate warrants to place the tap device on the criminal's ISP (BTW - these orders are time sensitive - the [whatever]ivore device can only be on the system for a specific period of time), and collect the information required to perform their mission."
More to the point, they would be required to do so if they wanted to be certain that any information they obtained would be admissable in a court of law.
If they decided that it was more important to have the information quickly than to be able to use that information in a court of law, they might ignore the requirement.
For example, they might ignore this requirement if they thought they could get away with the crime, and thought that they could build a 'strong enough' case without that specific information.
Or perhaps you'd like me to believe that the FBI never commits a crime.
"OTOH, if the criminals were solely using the telephone to plot, would you have a different view or expectation as to their capture?"
No. All of my answers would be exactly the same. Perfect consistancy. The technology doesn't matter.
"I'm not saying that the FBI (or any governmental agency, for that matter) should have unrestricted access to our personal lives - that is CLEARLY a breach of the law. "
Clear to us, now. What of the things the government is currently doing which people fifty years ago believed were CLEARLY a breach of the law. If the government starts doing this now, I predict that this clear line will move.
"I still think that a review of Carnivore is a good idea, but if looking at it's algorithms yielded information as to how to thwart it's capabilities, should that kind of information be out in the public?"
Absolutely. Otherwise the system is flawed and only certain people, such as former FBI agents and friends, have that information and the public doesn't. This gets back to security through obscurity. Frankly, I'd rather have a system with known flaws than a system with flaws known only to people who had worked with the FBI. In the first case the system might get fixed. In the second case, someone might abuse the system when they wanted some information that they couldn't justify getting a court order for.
"Would you be happy if, in the aforementioned scenario where your loved one is in danger, the criminals knew how to thwart the system, rendering the FBI's protection of your family useless?"
Again, the FBI doesn't protect us. My family wouldn't be any worse off than if the system didn't exist at all.
That question depends on the assumption that the only way for you to know about a problem is if it is publicly disclosed. This assumption is false. It is also possible that you might know how to thwart the system in some way which isn't publicly known. In such a case, a public review might have revealed the flaw and allowed time to fix it, where a hidden system let it linger.
"Just some thoughts... I'm not fully a proponent of government, but I think that there are some things best left out of the public eye."
If you can provide an example, I'd be glad to hear it. The only one I can think of is information about military tactics (note that I don't include military strategy). Can you think of another?
True, to a point. Linux will use available ram as a disk cache. It won't choose to swap programs out in order to provide more space for the disk cache, even if you have programs you haven't used in a long time, and a little more disk cache would mean you could get everything you are using into the disk cache, instead of rotating a bunch of stuff through the cache.
This is because Linux gives higher priority to programs (even seldom used programs) than disk blocks (even frequently used disk blocks).
Using a RAM disk can give you a way around that by letting you dictate that the disk cache is more important than keeping other programs in memory, and allowing you to specify which programs should be cached.
This isn't a really common problem, which explains the fact that RAM disks aren't used all that often.
That's what I wanted when I was playing Civ:CTP last year. I made a 300M swap file and copied parts of the graphics directory structure to the ramdisk, then pointed at it with symlinks.
This greatly improved game play. Of course, it was at the expense of slower access to other files, and caused the system to swap out some programs, but I didn't care, because I was planning to play the game for a while and didn't need the other programs in memory.
Of course, I turned the ramdisk off while I wasn't playing, and had to pay the start up cost of loading the ramdisk each time I turned it back on.
I don't see how a ramdisk would be a useful thing for a web server unless you could be sure you didn't cause anything you care about to be swapped out. That would require adding more memory, but adding more memory would give you more buffer cache, which would have the same (argueable better) effect as the ram disk in the first place.
It's a specialized tool, useful in some specific cases. A web server doesn't seem to be such a case.
Is it possible you typed CRASH by mistake?
Here it is, hope it helps clarify what might be going on.
I'm not involved, I just have some insight to offer, and it's was to long for a post.