I see Ukraine and Kazakhstan in that view, as well as Russia. Zoom in a bit and the other republics are listed. Chechnya isn't, because Russia still considers it to be part of Russia.
I would say that it's probably not that important whether we can hear stars very well. It's even less important whether we can hear (potentially non-existent) aliens.
Have you ever sat near someone who was talking on a cell phone? You think what they were saying was important???
That said, was that last section in boldface (copying your friend's tape) part of your current Copyright Law?
Yes, it is. From the Copyright Act:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
But the fact is most of these terrorists don't mind your freedom, they mind US foreign policy which is supporting their dictators and exploiting their peoples. They are not fighting the US, they are fighting the US' ruthless protection of corporate interests overseas.
I think they are less ambitious than that. You're right that they are fighting against their own governments, though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but I think they were Muslim fundamentalists, in opposition to the Saudi government. They would love to bring it down and bring in an Islamic republic.
The reason they attacked the US was to provoke a response that would destabilize things in the Middle East. They probably expected something like Clinton's cruise missiles against innocent targets in Sudan, only more extreme. They didn't expect the speed and success of the Afghanistan invasion, but are probably reasonably happy with the state of affairs in Iraq.
They weren't trying to change US foreign policy, they were trying to use it.
You indicated earlier that if a librarian thought a user was up to no good that that would the time to act. But how would the librarian know?
Presumably because someone like you would have called up the library to say that a breakin was in progress, or had just finished.
However, I think this is very unlikely to happen. You said that you get breakin attempts from libraries, dorms, etc. all the time. I think most of those are likely compromised machines acting as zombies, they don't actually have a human being sitting at them to be arrested.
This is why I think your proposed monitoring of library patrons is useless and potentially dangerous. It's useless, because most abuse of library PCs is probably done by people who aren't in the library, and the logs aren't going to help to find them. It's dangerous, because it's very likely the logs won't be protected adequately (the machines are compromised, after all), and will potentially be distributed and published.
Doctors need to keep records to do their jobs. Libraries don't need long term records, and shouldn't keep them.
I value my privacy, and the privacy of others to a nearly religious degree.
And yet you think that the ALA ethical principle of protecting the privacy of their patrons is anachronistic.
I'm afraid I don't understand what principle you would replace it with. Instead of "We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted", what would you suggest?
They won't search your apartment without reason, because that takes time and effort. Searching through your email for keywords takes almost no effort at all.
Read the whole page. The rules aren't absolute, they're guiding principles. If librarians had reason to believe that someone was violating the law in their library, I imagine they'd violate that user's privacy.
But the point is, taking away privacy is bad. You shouldn't take away everyone's privacy, just because you have a theory that some library users are criminals.
Public libraries operate under a code of ethics. The third principle of this code is
"We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted."
This isn't something secret, it's right out there on the ALA web site, and I'm sure it's available on paper in most libraries. This is what you're paying for. Violations of this code are violations of your rights as a taxpayer.
If you disagree with this principle, I suppose you could lobby the ALA to change it, or you could lobby your government to stop funding public libraries, but saying that the libraries should violate this principle because they are publicly funded is just plain wrong.
I think you're missing the point: libraries *want* to provide anonymous services. It's not users demanding this, and libraries saying "we're taxpayer funded, so you have to put up with our monitoring".
Why should sitting down in front of a computer and network paid for by me (and you) be a wide-open avenue, with no recourse, for people to attack me (and you)?
Because librarians think that distributing information is good, even when some of it is false. They think that restricting the distribution of information is bad, and that invading their patrons' privacy is bad.
None of this applies when you put money into a payphone, because you're purchasing a service from a common or private carrier.
I think it depends on the contract with the phone company whether you're purchasing a service from them or from the owner of the location where the phone is installed, but surely getting something for free or getting it for $0.25 shouldn't make such a fundamental difference to whether you have a right to expect privacy or not.
How is this different from lending with regular ID? If you borrow an irreplaceable item and lose it, you'll be charged something (maybe $50), but the library won't get the item back.
Now, you walk into a library and want to use the internet. Fine. But suppose your entire purpose of using that service is to phish, defraud, or otherwise be bad? If some merchant somewhere tracks a fraud attempt, or a bank tracks the use of a stolen credit card back to an IP address mapped to a machine in a facility provided by taxpayers, isn't it reasonable to be able to figure out who was driving at the time they were committing a crime?
By the same token, all uses of a public telephone should be recorded, just in case the call was used to plan something illegal.
In fact, why not record the whole phone call? And why limit it to public phones? You might have gone to your friend's house to plan your next terrorist attack.
That's more or less the same title, but quite a different article. Graham is writing about how (some) smart people just jump into the first thing they think of. Berkun says (some) smart people refuse to give up on bad ideas.
Both are writing about how smart != wise, but Graham explains it as inexperience, whereas Berkun says it's arrogance. I know both sorts of smart people, but it's certainly a lot more pleasant to work with the ones Graham was writing about.
I have no issues with someone being being deported because of links with declared enemies.
I think you're right, then. *You* will find that being required to produce your ID on demand will not curtail your liberties at all. If you get arrested, it won't be a problem, because you will realize that you must have deserved it.
So, again, I ask, how, specifically, would an ID card threaten my liberty? How is this "a system designed to curtail the freedoms of whoever the people in power consider enemies"? What "additional power" is going to be given to the government?
Here's an example. Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was returning home to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia through JFK airport in New York. At the airport, the authorities are allowed to demand to see ID; they did, and saw that his name was on some list as an associate of someone who was on a list as being associated with al Qaeda, so he was deported to Syria, where he was held for a year and tortured.
Now fast forward a few years, to a time when the authorities can stop you anywhere (not just at a border crossing) and demand to see your ID. Turns out someone in your office attends the same mosque as a known al Qaeda supporter! One of your classmates wrote some crap in support of the Oklahoma City bombing! Your 3rd cousin was at Waco! Your next door neighbour supported the Tamil Tigers! Holy cow, you're involved in all kinds of terrorist activities. Better take you in for questioning.
Bin Laden hoped to curtail our freedoms and he succeeded. US Citizens are not as free today as they were before 9/11.
I think it's pretty unlikely that either you or I understands bin Laden's motives, but I'd guess it's more likely the 9/11 attacks were designed to provoke a response in order to make Islamic revolutions more likely in the middle east. Get the Saudis out of bed with the US, etc.
I'd say on those grounds they were a mixed success. There's been an irrational response, killing lots of innocent Arabs, but no Islamic revolutions as a result.
I've taken language courses at several universities(one of them in the Big 10) where the whole dept. used the same crap book because the head of the department wrote it.
There are a couple of claims here I have no way to judge -- the book is crap, the head of the department is forcing everyone to use it. It may be that the head of department thinks the book is not crap (most authors like their own work), and that the department agrees. In that case there's no issue.
But let's suppose both claims are correct. Then the head of department is abusing his/her position for personal gain. This is a problem, and most universities would recognize it as one, but most are vulnerable to this kind of abuse because it's so hard to prove. They are also vulnerable to the abuse of publishers who churn out new editions every couple of years in order to stifle the used book market.
But I think you are wrong in thinking that the university is complicit or likes being victimized this way.
I realize I am a bit broad with my statement but there comes a point where courses like language courses do not benefit from ego-boosting books. Either open up the course or get a good general concensus on the materials... or face consequences of being made irrelevant.
If you think there's a situation like this going on, complain to the Dean. Chances are you'll be blown off (students complain all the time, most complaints are crap), but formal complaints about conflicts of interest will be listened to.
I am sorry but I feel no pity for the Universities and book publishers.
I think you do not understand the real situation when you lump universities and book publishers into the same group. Their aims are very different.
Commercial book publishers sell "the same recycled crap year after year and call each one a new edition". Universities don't do that. Universities teach courses that require textbooks, and often require commercially published textbooks, but they don't make a lot of money on the sales. They'd be just as happy to re-use a good textbook year after year, but the commercial publishers don't want that.
Oh, I'm sure someone will point out some McDonald's U that makes a lot of money publishing or takes a big cut of textbook sales and loves the new edition churn. But most universities aren't there for the profit.
if what i've worked on is similar to what is going into these contact-less cards, they will be as vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks as PGP is. (not at all)
No, it's different from PGP. It would be like PGP with a robot handling one end of the conversation for you.
Vendor: Is it okay to charge $1000 to this account?
Robot in the card: Sure, no problem,
If the holder of the card is not a participant in the conversation, it doesn't matter if the whole thing is encrypted. The robot may be able to verify that it's really a vendor asking, and the vendor can verify that the robot really said yes, but the robot doesn't know when it should say no and when it should say yes.
Now if the transaction *also* requires the card holder to enter a PIN or do something physical like swiping the card, then he's involved in the transaction and it would be much safer.
Slashdot Mirror
You just need to know where to look.
I see Ukraine and Kazakhstan in that view, as well as Russia. Zoom in a bit and the other republics are listed. Chechnya isn't, because Russia still considers it to be part of Russia.
I would say that it's probably not that important whether we can hear stars very well. It's even less important whether we can hear (potentially non-existent) aliens.
Have you ever sat near someone who was talking on a cell phone? You think what they were saying was important???
That said, was that last section in boldface (copying your friend's tape) part of your current Copyright Law? Yes, it is. From the Copyright Act:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
But the fact is most of these terrorists don't mind your freedom, they mind US foreign policy which is supporting their dictators and exploiting their peoples. They are not fighting the US, they are fighting the US' ruthless protection of corporate interests overseas.
I think they are less ambitious than that. You're right that they are fighting against their own governments, though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but I think they were Muslim fundamentalists, in opposition to the Saudi government. They would love to bring it down and bring in an Islamic republic.
The reason they attacked the US was to provoke a response that would destabilize things in the Middle East. They probably expected something like Clinton's cruise missiles against innocent targets in Sudan, only more extreme. They didn't expect the speed and success of the Afghanistan invasion, but are probably reasonably happy with the state of affairs in Iraq.
They weren't trying to change US foreign policy, they were trying to use it.
This is great. Now the dupe articles have comments that are dupes of bits of the previous article...
You indicated earlier that if a librarian thought a user was up to no good that that would the time to act. But how would the librarian know?
Presumably because someone like you would have called up the library to say that a breakin was in progress, or had just finished.
However, I think this is very unlikely to happen. You said that you get breakin attempts from libraries, dorms, etc. all the time. I think most of those are likely compromised machines acting as zombies, they don't actually have a human being sitting at them to be arrested.
This is why I think your proposed monitoring of library patrons is useless and potentially dangerous. It's useless, because most abuse of library PCs is probably done by people who aren't in the library, and the logs aren't going to help to find them. It's dangerous, because it's very likely the logs won't be protected adequately (the machines are compromised, after all), and will potentially be distributed and published.
Doctors need to keep records to do their jobs. Libraries don't need long term records, and shouldn't keep them.
I value my privacy, and the privacy of others to a nearly religious degree.
And yet you think that the ALA ethical principle of protecting the privacy of their patrons is anachronistic.
I'm afraid I don't understand what principle you would replace it with. Instead of "We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted", what would you suggest?
I guess some people value privacy more than you do. I'm glad they're the librarians, and you're not.
They won't search your apartment without reason, because that takes time and effort. Searching through your email for keywords takes almost no effort at all.
Read the whole page. The rules aren't absolute, they're guiding principles. If librarians had reason to believe that someone was violating the law in their library, I imagine they'd violate that user's privacy.
But the point is, taking away privacy is bad. You shouldn't take away everyone's privacy, just because you have a theory that some library users are criminals.
Public libraries operate under a code of ethics. The third principle of this code is
"We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted."
This isn't something secret, it's right out there on the ALA web site, and I'm sure it's available on paper in most libraries. This is what you're paying for. Violations of this code are violations of your rights as a taxpayer.
If you disagree with this principle, I suppose you could lobby the ALA to change it, or you could lobby your government to stop funding public libraries, but saying that the libraries should violate this principle because they are publicly funded is just plain wrong.
I think you're missing the point: libraries *want* to provide anonymous services. It's not users demanding this, and libraries saying "we're taxpayer funded, so you have to put up with our monitoring".
Why should sitting down in front of a computer and network paid for by me (and you) be a wide-open avenue, with no recourse, for people to attack me (and you)?
Because librarians think that distributing information is good, even when some of it is false. They think that restricting the distribution of information is bad, and that invading their patrons' privacy is bad.
None of this applies when you put money into a payphone, because you're purchasing a service from a common or private carrier.
I think it depends on the contract with the phone company whether you're purchasing a service from them or from the owner of the location where the phone is installed, but surely getting something for free or getting it for $0.25 shouldn't make such a fundamental difference to whether you have a right to expect privacy or not.
How is this different from lending with regular ID? If you borrow an irreplaceable item and lose it, you'll be charged something (maybe $50), but the library won't get the item back.
Now, you walk into a library and want to use the internet. Fine. But suppose your entire purpose of using that service is to phish, defraud, or otherwise be bad? If some merchant somewhere tracks a fraud attempt, or a bank tracks the use of a stolen credit card back to an IP address mapped to a machine in a facility provided by taxpayers, isn't it reasonable to be able to figure out who was driving at the time they were committing a crime?
By the same token, all uses of a public telephone should be recorded, just in case the call was used to plan something illegal.
In fact, why not record the whole phone call? And why limit it to public phones? You might have gone to your friend's house to plan your next terrorist attack.
Privacy? There is no privacy here.
Looks like you didn't even read the summary, let alone the article.
Windows had Unicode before UTF-8 and the more modern encodings were invented, so that one at least isn't a "Not Invented Here" policy.
That's more or less the same title, but quite a different article. Graham is writing about how (some) smart people just jump into the first thing they think of. Berkun says (some) smart people refuse to give up on bad ideas.
Both are writing about how smart != wise, but Graham explains it as inexperience, whereas Berkun says it's arrogance. I know both sorts of smart people, but it's certainly a lot more pleasant to work with the ones Graham was writing about.
I have no issues with someone being being deported because of links with declared enemies.
I think you're right, then. *You* will find that being required to produce your ID on demand will not curtail your liberties at all. If you get arrested, it won't be a problem, because you will realize that you must have deserved it.
So, again, I ask, how, specifically, would an ID card threaten my liberty? How is this "a system designed to curtail the freedoms of whoever the people in power consider enemies"? What "additional power" is going to be given to the government?
Here's an example. Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was returning home to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia through JFK airport in New York. At the airport, the authorities are allowed to demand to see ID; they did, and saw that his name was on some list as an associate of someone who was on a list as being associated with al Qaeda, so he was deported to Syria, where he was held for a year and tortured.
Now fast forward a few years, to a time when the authorities can stop you anywhere (not just at a border crossing) and demand to see your ID. Turns out someone in your office attends the same mosque as a known al Qaeda supporter! One of your classmates wrote some crap in support of the Oklahoma City bombing! Your 3rd cousin was at Waco! Your next door neighbour supported the Tamil Tigers! Holy cow, you're involved in all kinds of terrorist activities. Better take you in for questioning.
Bin Laden hoped to curtail our freedoms and he succeeded. US Citizens are not as free today as they were before 9/11.
I think it's pretty unlikely that either you or I understands bin Laden's motives, but I'd guess it's more likely the 9/11 attacks were designed to provoke a response in order to make Islamic revolutions more likely in the middle east. Get the Saudis out of bed with the US, etc.
I'd say on those grounds they were a mixed success. There's been an irrational response, killing lots of innocent Arabs, but no Islamic revolutions as a result.
I've taken language courses at several universities(one of them in the Big 10) where the whole dept. used the same crap book because the head of the department wrote it.
There are a couple of claims here I have no way to judge -- the book is crap, the head of the department is forcing everyone to use it. It may be that the head of department thinks the book is not crap (most authors like their own work), and that the department agrees. In that case there's no issue.
But let's suppose both claims are correct. Then the head of department is abusing his/her position for personal gain. This is a problem, and most universities would recognize it as one, but most are vulnerable to this kind of abuse because it's so hard to prove. They are also vulnerable to the abuse of publishers who churn out new editions every couple of years in order to stifle the used book market.
But I think you are wrong in thinking that the university is complicit or likes being victimized this way.
I realize I am a bit broad with my statement but there comes a point where courses like language courses do not benefit from ego-boosting books. Either open up the course or get a good general concensus on the materials... or face consequences of being made irrelevant.
If you think there's a situation like this going on, complain to the Dean. Chances are you'll be blown off (students complain all the time, most complaints are crap), but formal complaints about conflicts of interest will be listened to.
I am sorry but I feel no pity for the Universities and book publishers.
I think you do not understand the real situation when you lump universities and book publishers into the same group. Their aims are very different.
Commercial book publishers sell "the same recycled crap year after year and call each one a new edition". Universities don't do that. Universities teach courses that require textbooks, and often require commercially published textbooks, but they don't make a lot of money on the sales. They'd be just as happy to re-use a good textbook year after year, but the commercial publishers don't want that.
Oh, I'm sure someone will point out some McDonald's U that makes a lot of money publishing or takes a big cut of textbook sales and loves the new edition churn. But most universities aren't there for the profit.
if what i've worked on is similar to what is going into these contact-less cards, they will be as vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks as PGP is. (not at all)
No, it's different from PGP. It would be like PGP with a robot handling one end of the conversation for you.
Vendor: Is it okay to charge $1000 to this account?
Robot in the card: Sure, no problem,
If the holder of the card is not a participant in the conversation, it doesn't matter if the whole thing is encrypted. The robot may be able to verify that it's really a vendor asking, and the vendor can verify that the robot really said yes, but the robot doesn't know when it should say no and when it should say yes.
Now if the transaction *also* requires the card holder to enter a PIN or do something physical like swiping the card, then he's involved in the transaction and it would be much safer.
No, cachet is a different word, though both it and cache derive from the French cacher.
Using it to mean a mark of superior status is one of several meanings. I think it may be more common in American than British usage.