I started doing some real research. And I have to say, he is the first politician (at that level) I've actually admired.
Then either your research is poor, or you're easily swayed by emotion rather than logic.
He speaks with a level of candor and immense credibility that is so rare.
Credibility?!?! OK, you really haven't done any research. He's prone to hyperbole ("Harper wants to quit his job as PM") and can't accept responsibility for his own actions. ("It's not my fault - the Liberals *made* me do it!")
want to solve conflicts rather than fan the flames.
Oh, come on. All he's ever done is fan the flames!
Most of his plans are completely idealistic and borderline delusional.
I don't know about that - although I haven't read anything in-depth, the cursory readings seem OK. Can you provide some examples?
The leader is also a scummy politician.
On this, I wholeheartedly agree with you. While well-spoken, he's a sociopath who refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions, and tries to take credit for the work of others (besides being prone to hyperbole.)
Examples: The last election was triggered when the NDP (led by Layton) voted non-confidence against a Liberal finance bill. The election happened over the holidays, and in a press conference Layton blamed the Liberals, saying that they "forced" him to trigger the election. (Rather than accepting responsibility for it, and saying that he couldn't vote in favour because of his conscience.)
During the English leader's debate, he said that "no NDP government in Canada has ever run a deficit." Conveniently ignoring the fact that the provincial and federal parties are completely different, essentially sharing only their names.
If the NDP had a decent leader, I would probably vote for them this election, but with Layton at the helm, fat chance.
Do you know what scares me actually? It's that we really have lost the middle ground.... there is still, thank God, a strong centrist element to actual American thinking
You lost the middle ground a long time ago, and you lost it because there is no left in your country - only right, and far right.
What's amusing to the rest of the world is that you call Democrats "left".
it's so excessive that it's probably unenforceable
Whether it's enforceable or not isn't the issue. If it's in a contract, and you sign it, it's effectively enforceable.
Yes, you could probably convince a judge that it's unfair. But how much will it cost you to do that? Want another job in the same industry? Be prepared to be treated like a leper, because employers won't want to go near you for fear of being sued.
Even if it's unenforceable, are you prepared to get sued and spend thousands of $$$ defending yourself against that 'unenforceable' clause, while you're flipping burgers (because you can't get a programming job.)
If the submitter had read the summary, they would know that it's DNS errors that are being hijacked, not 404s.
It's an important difference - 404 means that they are transparently proxying your connections, which can cause problems with various sites (and that they are recording every URL you visit.)
I do have a hard time believing that just becuase you work in tech support in a call center, you aren't getting jobs. There must be a little more to it.
You are entirely correct - the simple fact is that he's blaming the wrong thing.
This is quite plain with this sentence:
I can't seem to get further than the first interview.
If the problem was as simple as him being in tech support, why would they give him an interview in the first place?
Tech support is on his resume, and yet he still gets an interview. If this was really the problem, he wouldn't get called in, they'd just round-file his app and not waste their time.
I think the real question he should ask is "why do I keep blowing interviews?" The answer is one of two things:
1. He interviews poorly.
2. He's bad at technology, and it's blatantly apparent to the people running the interview.
The first might be able to be fixed. If it's the second, he should just give up and seek another career (considering he's already received enough schooling, it's clear that schooling won't help.)
I am simply pointing out that that is not a problem that cryptosystems are designed to solve.
While that statement is correct, that is *NOT* what you are pointing out. In fact, it is the complete *opposite* of what you are pointing out.
This statement is precisely what debatem1 said when he said
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem in which the attacker and intended recipient are the same person
, and which you directly attacked.
DRM, exactly what it says (Digital Rights Management) is a complicated cryptographic problem that can be solved technologically with correct systems design.
No, it can't. DRM by definition requires you to give the cryptographic keys to the end user. (Because the end-user must be allowed to view the content.) Every end-user is also a potential attacker (because if they weren't, then DRM is not needed.) If the attacker must have the keys, then cryptography cannot (again, by definition) be used to protect the content, and thus it is not a cryptograpic problem.
Simply put: If the end-user is not also the attacker, then exactly which problem is DRM trying to solve?
Not have to shut down other applications because my 4 BitTorrent connections are making my email logon time out and my web browser not load images on the pages (assuming it can even load the page to begin with)?
This can be fixed quite easily if you simply manage your upstream bandwidth appropriately.
Read this for details of why this is happening to you, and what needs to be done to fix it.
So, what you're saying is that it's OK to censor and wrongly accuse people of things, and we should all just roll over and be good sheep, because it "happens all the time."
After all, if it's "not news", and we should just ignore it, then it must be OK.
Are we going to complain about Mozilla's definition of beta too then?
Yes, if they're using the term incorrectly.
According to original definition (before marketing co-opted it), beta testing is a testing phase, wherein the product is shipped to *testers*, not end users. The testers report back to the developers any bugs they find, so that the bugs can be fixed before release.
Here's a perfect example of why Google's stuff is not beta:
When Google Earth "beta" was released for Linux, I downloaded it. I played around with it, and in doing so, discovered some bugs. I documented them, made sure they were repeatable, and went to give this to Google so they could fix it.
Except there was no way to do that.
There was no bugzilla for the project. There was no email address to report bugs to, there was *nothing*.
This was not beta in the original sense of the word (which is what Sasayaki said it was.) This was just buggy software.
It's not in the RIAA's best interest for web radio stations to go offline, because they generate no money from web radio that way.
If you ask the RIAA, they'd tell you that what would be in their best interest is if this whole internet music thing went away so they could continue making tons of money the way they had for years.
As music over the internet becomes more commonplace, the RIAA loses it's stranglehold over music production, which ultimately means less money for them unless they change their business practices.
And the *last* thing they want to do is change their business practices.
Your examples neglect the most prominent example of this - namely the Hollywood movie industry.
You know why California is the center of the major studios' world? Because they we getting hammered by enforcement of patents when they were on the east coast.
Hollywood owes it's existence to it's deliberate evasion of "intellectual property" laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Eliza has been doing this for years.
I just tried it, and every single episode I tried said "You have requested a video that has expired. Please visit www.cbs.com for current videos."
So either their site is fscked, or they're displaying a generic error message for people outside the US (in which case, their site is fscked.)
What's bad about that?
Come on, they didn't *once* use the phrase "support our troops" - they're clearly freedom-hating communist-loving terrists!
Oh, please
Please what? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to think I disagree with you somehow.
Don't you see Layton's TV ads where he claims he will hire 1,000 doctors?
No, all I've seen are his attack ads against Harper. But yes, that does seem pretty far-fetched.
The Tories have a much more practical plan. They will make it easier for foreign professionals to have their credentials recognized.
What does the Tory plan have to do with NDP? (Besides the fact that they've been in power for two years, and haven't actually implemented anything.)
Layton is not a good person
Yeah, that's why I used the term sociopath to describe him.
I started doing some real research. And I have to say, he is the first politician (at that level) I've actually admired.
Then either your research is poor, or you're easily swayed by emotion rather than logic.
He speaks with a level of candor and immense credibility that is so rare.
Credibility?!?! OK, you really haven't done any research. He's prone to hyperbole ("Harper wants to quit his job as PM") and can't accept responsibility for his own actions. ("It's not my fault - the Liberals *made* me do it!")
want to solve conflicts rather than fan the flames.
Oh, come on. All he's ever done is fan the flames!
Most of his plans are completely idealistic and borderline delusional.
I don't know about that - although I haven't read anything in-depth, the cursory readings seem OK. Can you provide some examples?
The leader is also a scummy politician.
On this, I wholeheartedly agree with you. While well-spoken, he's a sociopath who refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions, and tries to take credit for the work of others (besides being prone to hyperbole.)
Examples: The last election was triggered when the NDP (led by Layton) voted non-confidence against a Liberal finance bill. The election happened over the holidays, and in a press conference Layton blamed the Liberals, saying that they "forced" him to trigger the election. (Rather than accepting responsibility for it, and saying that he couldn't vote in favour because of his conscience.)
During the English leader's debate, he said that "no NDP government in Canada has ever run a deficit." Conveniently ignoring the fact that the provincial and federal parties are completely different, essentially sharing only their names.
If the NDP had a decent leader, I would probably vote for them this election, but with Layton at the helm, fat chance.
modern social customs have lowered the age at which human males have offspring
That makes no sense
Actually, it makes *tons* of sense.
Men have been marrying later (or not at all).
Yes, and as everybody in high-school knows, it's impossible to get a girl pregnant if you're not married to her.
Do you know what scares me actually? It's that we really have lost the middle ground. ... there is still, thank God, a strong centrist element to actual American thinking
You lost the middle ground a long time ago, and you lost it because there is no left in your country - only right, and far right.
What's amusing to the rest of the world is that you call Democrats "left".
As others have said, underhanded
Sorry, but what?!?!?!?!
How on earth is it "underhanded" to help underprivileged people exercise their right to vote?
it's so excessive that it's probably unenforceable
Whether it's enforceable or not isn't the issue. If it's in a contract, and you sign it, it's effectively enforceable.
Yes, you could probably convince a judge that it's unfair. But how much will it cost you to do that? Want another job in the same industry? Be prepared to be treated like a leper, because employers won't want to go near you for fear of being sued.
Even if it's unenforceable, are you prepared to get sued and spend thousands of $$$ defending yourself against that 'unenforceable' clause, while you're flipping burgers (because you can't get a programming job.)
DON'T SUPPORT THEIR PRODUCT AT ALL. Anything else just gives them ammunition.
That would be good advice, except not supporting their product at all gives them ammunition too.
If the stuff doesn't sell, they blame it on piracy. Regardless of the reason.
Republicans want into your bedroom. Democrats want into your wallet. Libertarians want neither.
That should read:
Republicans want into your bedroom. Democrats want into your wallet. Libertarians want to let everyone else into your wallet and bedroom.
New Jersey's Cablevision Hijacks 404 Error Pages
No, they didn't.
If the submitter had read the summary, they would know that it's DNS errors that are being hijacked, not 404s.
It's an important difference - 404 means that they are transparently proxying your connections, which can cause problems with various sites (and that they are recording every URL you visit.)
For example: http://slashdot.org/akasjdflkasdjfl;kajsdl;aksdjfkdjkfdjlkjsdf would not be affected by this, whereas http://sslashhdot.org/ would.
Is it *too* much to ask that a technical news site present technical articles correctly?
I do have a hard time believing that just becuase you work in tech support in a call center, you aren't getting jobs. There must be a little more to it.
You are entirely correct - the simple fact is that he's blaming the wrong thing.
This is quite plain with this sentence:
I can't seem to get further than the first interview.
If the problem was as simple as him being in tech support, why would they give him an interview in the first place?
Tech support is on his resume, and yet he still gets an interview. If this was really the problem, he wouldn't get called in, they'd just round-file his app and not waste their time.
I think the real question he should ask is "why do I keep blowing interviews?" The answer is one of two things:
1. He interviews poorly.
2. He's bad at technology, and it's blatantly apparent to the people running the interview.
The first might be able to be fixed. If it's the second, he should just give up and seek another career (considering he's already received enough schooling, it's clear that schooling won't help.)
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
I wasn't scratching, and mind your own damn business. :)
collecting taxes on the un-sanctioned/black/gray market activities will mean you're still fighting the same exact battles as we are today.
Exactly - just look at alcohol.. why the number of gin-runners and speakeasies is through the roof since the lifting of prohibition..
err, wait.
I am simply pointing out that that is not a problem that cryptosystems are designed to solve.
While that statement is correct, that is *NOT* what you are pointing out. In fact, it is the complete *opposite* of what you are pointing out.
This statement is precisely what debatem1 said when he said
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem in which the attacker and intended recipient are the same person
, and which you directly attacked.
DRM, exactly what it says (Digital Rights Management) is a complicated cryptographic problem that can be solved technologically with correct systems design.
No, it can't. DRM by definition requires you to give the cryptographic keys to the end user. (Because the end-user must be allowed to view the content.) Every end-user is also a potential attacker (because if they weren't, then DRM is not needed.) If the attacker must have the keys, then cryptography cannot (again, by definition) be used to protect the content, and thus it is not a cryptograpic problem.
Simply put: If the end-user is not also the attacker, then exactly which problem is DRM trying to solve?
Not have to shut down other applications because my 4 BitTorrent connections are making my email logon time out and my web browser not load images on the pages (assuming it can even load the page to begin with)?
This can be fixed quite easily if you simply manage your upstream bandwidth appropriately.
Read this for details of why this is happening to you, and what needs to be done to fix it.
So, what you're saying is that it's OK to censor and wrongly accuse people of things, and we should all just roll over and be good sheep, because it "happens all the time."
After all, if it's "not news", and we should just ignore it, then it must be OK.
No. You are simply wrong.
<sarcasm>
Wow - you've convinced me! Your argument, complete with all of your citations and background has proven me wrong!
</sarcasm>
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the term before you embarrass yourself like that.
"Open beta" is a marketing buzzword. It has no definition in the real testing cycle.
Says who?
Says everybody who knows what the term means.
Are we going to complain about Mozilla's definition of beta too then?
Yes, if they're using the term incorrectly.
According to original definition (before marketing co-opted it), beta testing is a testing phase, wherein the product is shipped to *testers*, not end users. The testers report back to the developers any bugs they find, so that the bugs can be fixed before release.
You can read more about it here.
Here's a perfect example of why Google's stuff is not beta:
When Google Earth "beta" was released for Linux, I downloaded it. I played around with it, and in doing so, discovered some bugs. I documented them, made sure they were repeatable, and went to give this to Google so they could fix it.
Except there was no way to do that.
There was no bugzilla for the project. There was no email address to report bugs to, there was *nothing*.
This was not beta in the original sense of the word (which is what Sasayaki said it was.) This was just buggy software.
There pretty stupid at the DOJ.
Here here!!
Wear? Wear?
they've bought it back to what it SHOULD be
No, they haven't.
usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs
You missed the last part of that, which reads by a limited number of testers.
If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.
It's not in the RIAA's best interest for web radio stations to go offline, because they generate no money from web radio that way.
If you ask the RIAA, they'd tell you that what would be in their best interest is if this whole internet music thing went away so they could continue making tons of money the way they had for years.
As music over the internet becomes more commonplace, the RIAA loses it's stranglehold over music production, which ultimately means less money for them unless they change their business practices.
And the *last* thing they want to do is change their business practices.
Your examples neglect the most prominent example of this - namely the Hollywood movie industry.
You know why California is the center of the major studios' world? Because they we getting hammered by enforcement of patents when they were on the east coast.
Hollywood owes it's existence to it's deliberate evasion of "intellectual property" laws.