Unless he's got a high dollar loss or some friends in law enforcement, no one's going to be explaining anything to a cop or a judge, unfortunately. Those laws are for enforcement on behalf of those with coin.
I don't think this is the case. Speaking as someone who has actually seen through an assault prosecution at one time, and sat on a jury another, I do believe the local police will help if you give them sufficient evidence. Can't speak for federal law enforcement though, never encountered those guys. I have mixed feelings about the police though. I have in the past donated to the FOP and do consider the police an important part of my community. But I also disagree with our drug laws (though don't blame the cops for following orders to enforce), and feel that cops all too often protect their own bad apples at the expense of society. Tax dollar for dollar I do feel the fire department gives better service to the community on average.
OK enough ranting. I do think the top level poster ought to consider contacting the police if she has sufficient evidence to pursue those criminals. But that's JMO.
I kicked the WIPO Troll off my site and got his account pulled because he posted hardcore gay porn pics to my board using an IE exploit.
The crapflooders ruined that, up to and including running exploits against the board software itself. The security issues got to be so much for the good people at Hosting Matters that we mutually decided it wasn't worth it.
You have an opportunity to file a criminal complaint against those who exploited the security of your system in order to wrongfully damage your property or service. This was very likely a federal felony and deserves an investigation with both local police and the FBI. In addition you also have grounds for a civil suit; should you gain a criminal conviction winning a civil suit is almost assured. I hope you saved your logs.
Want to teach those assholes a lesson? Let them explain their behavior to the police, district attorney, and finally - a judge.
Yup, I considered that route - but I wanted to control the screen gain and use a professional looking screen, so I blew the money. I'm nearing the end of a renovation so when the contractors blew through my LR I had them install conduit for the video cables and an outlet up in the ceiling. It looks pretty good except for the lack of theatre seating. I'm not going to bother with that as the room has to double as a LR and I live in a fairly small apartment. BTW: are you near the Boston area? If so, interested in a shoot out? --M
Bought the HS20 from Pricejapan recently as well. Almost purchased the AE500 and would have were it not for the Japanese menu limitation. Looks like the AE500 is a great deal though. Congratulations on your purchase! So, what did you do about a screen? I wound up buying a Carada and am highly pleased. --M
This is all very entertaining, and you've managed to demonstrate to the world quite well my propensity to permit myself to get dragged into silly side arguments and meaningless defense of personal attacks. It's a failing of mine, I readily admit.
OK. Let's agree that the discussion is a dead end and not continue further. I wish to also say that while I think your argument has not been logically sound, I do not intend to personally attack you. If you feel I have done so, then I apologize for any sense of personal insult. Let's drop this like two gentlemen in disagreement and move on to newer and fresher topics on the front page.
And here were are, full circle. You point to a completely irrelevant side issue as an indication of false claims, demand a 'higher bruden of proof' for these claims you consider aprioi suspect, and then walk away from a debate over any specific points which you think calls the claims of the documentary into question. That's because you haven't seen the documentary or apparently know anything about any specifics presented. But you certainly have an opinion on its veracity.
Oh, right, but that's irresponsible of me, not to become a globetrotter tracking down proof.
No. It is irresponsible of you to claim bias and irresponsible reporting on the part of others when you are unwilling to spent the time to discern any facts for yourself. You point to the Snopes article on 'Bowling for Columbine' as if that has any relevance to "Massacre at Mazar", when what you really should do is read the Bowling for Columbine report on Snopes and use the same standards they apply to Michael Moore to your own argument in this thread. If you did so I expect you would find your train of thought quite lacking in logical analysis. --M
I'm merely pointing out that labelling something a "documentary" lends it no real credibility, and provided one very visible example.
Your 'example' bears no relevance to the veracity of "Massacre at Mazar", nor does it shine any light into whether any definanable subset of documentaries are prima facie non-credible. I will not debate the credibility of Bowling for Columbine because it's both off-topic and I don't know enough about the issues involved in that documentary to debate the point factually.
Did it strike you that part of the reason it was never brought to the forefront could possibly because someone did look at it and found it impossible to substantiate?
No. In fact, it strikes me that these are serious charges which deserve full and widespread confirmation or refutation.
We quite rightly rail on news media when they throw rumors around that later turn out to be debunked; now are we to claim that due diligence is equivalent to bias?
Quite the reverse. Due diligence is not served by ignoring serious charges of military (or any) misconduct. No matter what the reason. You seem to be arguing that ignoring the charges in this documtary is appropriate due diligence. I vigorously disagree.
To instead bless it with a status of martyrdom strikes me as the actions of someone who rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of seeing the American military kicked in the 'nads very publicly, and frankly without concern for substantiation of the claims involved.
More demagoguery. Claiming that to take the possibility of US military atrocities is to 'rub one's hands with glee' over 'seeing the military kicked in the 'nads' is completely fatuous and belies an ideological unwillingness to accept even the possibility that such activity may be fact. In my book, that's a form of insanity.
Our primary difference of opinion appears to be that I am willing to accept the possibility that the US military and political leaders may be involved in massacre today, simply because I believe that there is more than enough factual evidence to assert that the they have been involved in such behavior before. It's not surprising, considering that this appears to be the historical norm with governments the world over. Whether the US military and/or political leaders have engaged in this type of behavior individually or at a policy level in Afghanistan is another matter, one which has yet to be determined. Time will tell. Though I suspect the only outcome you will accept will be one from a history book devoid of any factual analysis whatsoever. Enjoy your fantasy.
...with 'Massacre in Mazo'? Further, when did I say that I accepted the claims presented in the film at face evidence? I didn't. But you replied with demagoguery by making reference to a completely unrelated documentary as proof (or implication) that the film in question is somehow non-credible. What kind of logic is that? If, by your logic, anyone can make false claims therefor we shouldn't believe any of them, why investigate anything at all? Do you argue that only those stories why receive mainstream press coverage are credible? If so, are you arguing that the mainstream media isn't biased in one way or the other? And where does "truth" fit into any of this at all? At some point one must answer the question: Are these allegations correct? Regardless of one's political persuasions, the allegations are either factual or non-factual. If you can't face a factual statement that flies in the face of your personal politics it is you who are biased, not the story. I'm less than impressed by your non-argument.
Yes, we did kill a lot of them. Fortunately, there was no conspiracy there. WAIT! Because we funded the enemy of our soviet enemy when they were our enemy, that must mean the Taliban was, is and will always be our freind. Get married so you can find out about how friendships change over the years.
To be honest, I haven't read the article in question since project censored appears to be suffering a nasty bout of/.ing. However, I assume they're referring to the film Massacre in Mazar, a documentary film which investigates the claim that US troops were directly involved with mass extrajudicial executions, along with the killing of several hundred in a train. If these allegations are true they would implicate US troops of clear human rights violations and war crimes of the first order. Beyond the US abrogation of the ICC war crimes treaty, such behavior would abrogate our signing of the Geneva Convention 53 years ago.
Note that I am not stating that US troops did engage in such behavior, only that there are journalists who claim they have evidence in support of such allegations. That such a story was buried instead of followed up vigorously by the media speaks volumes of their priorities in war reporting. Whatever your political persuasion, you must admit you would want to know if your country was violating a long standing treaty like the Geneva Convention during times of war. Wouldn't you?
As you quote, McBride claims that 'Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us."'
What McBride is saying is that Raymond knows the perpretrator, hasn't contacted the authorities with this information, and that as such he is implicitely supporting the criminal activity while denouncing it in public. That is a specific claim by McBride.
Is it true? McBride doesn't quote Raymond directly or provide source material to back his claim up. I haven't seen a single statement by Raymond claiming to know the perpetrator. Can anyone verify this claim and point to a printed source? If not, I'd say McBride is - once again - full of shit. --M
Please include Ann Coulter with the people who are trying to silence people...
Black Parrot wrote:
The phenomenon isn't really new; recall the McCarthy Era and Lincoln's high-handed dealings with a wavering Maryland...
The irony here is that the content of "Treason" is a meandering screed in support of the much maligned McCarthy. Coulter sure does know how to pick her heros. *cough* --M
So conservativism (limited government) is equated with communism(totalitarian government). I guess the gubment education is paying off eh?
Do you see this administration engaging in limited government, or espousing freedom in any way, shape or form? I certainly don't. How much larger has the budget grown under under these GOP controlled executive and congressional branches of government? How many more laws and repressions of basic constitutional freedom and civil liberties has this GOP instituted? How limited has their role been in "Nation Building", that term so Bush disdainfully spouted to tar Clinton's policies in the Balkans and Africa, and yet exactly the same has he done (poorly) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You call that "conservative"??? I call them "authoritarian", but certainly not"conservative".
Yeah George Bush is a big leftist commie. *rolling eyes*
Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M
"Neocon?" Isn't that the politically-correct codeword for "Jew-Supporting?"
Yes... why, yes I believe it is!
Why, no it isn't! In fact, it's a term created by Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol (the founder and editor of "The Weekly Standard"). Irving Kristol founded the New York Intellectual tradition of "Neo Conservatism" as a transition from Democratic liberal Trotskyism (a group of Democrats who were former Trotskyites) to Conservative Republicanism (meaning the joined the GOP) in defiance of Democratic support for anti-war protestors during the Vietnam era. You have your history completely wrong, Sir. How does it feel to be ruled by a group of former Trotskyite "Neo-Marxist: intellectuals? Because that's who's running the GOP at the moment.
Here is a notable quote taken from the link above:
" Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo- that's all, neo dash nothing."
Dude, look at an old sparc sometime. Sparc 1/1+/2 had 16 ram slots, circa 1990. Of course, you had to fill 4 at a time. The max is 128 MB i think.
Not unless you could find a 30 pin SIMM in 32MB/four density, which I've never seen; the biggest being 16MB/four. I still have several Sun 3/80's, Sparc 1s, 2s, 5s, and 20s sitting in my basement. And the 20s I still consider a perfectly usable workstation. They were great computers in their time and I still have many fond memories hacking those Suns. But *sigh* it's time to clean out my basement.:) --M
1) DRM technology will be available to businesses which choose to run a DRM server on Windows 2003. It will not be enabled by default.
2) The technology will allow a management (or really the top level key holders) to limit document access rights to specific individuals or a group within the organization. A very valuable feature for many businesses.
3) Without a doubt, MS will abuse this technology to lock their customers into the new Office document format, which they will further abuse to limit document exchange from MS to third party applications.
The problem here is not 1) and 2). Those are perfectly reasonable features that most businesses want to buy. The problem is 3), the vendor lock-in issue. The Open Office project could write the same kind of DRM services into their suite, while at the same time offering document portability to those who hold top level keys to an organization's documents. IMO, this is where they should go long term, since it's obvious MS has hit upon a valuable technology - but like they're always abt to do, they're first instinct is to use the new technology to lock their customers in rather than sell their customers on their new features, quality engineering, and support. Businesses want both the DRM controls and document portability across a wide range of applications. MS always fails their customers in this regard and that's one reason why they've got such a bad reputation.
Read the FAQ. One of the more interesting aspects of the protocol is the publishing of "concisely-defined policies".
Read it. Enforcing "policies" comes after authenticating a valid connection between two parties. This is where the cert comes in, and where I'm arguing that a public/private key pair is a better solution. Also note that encrypting the session between both mail servers is not a critical function of authenticating the validity of both servers, which can be done strictly by passing signatures, though it may be desirable.
Just because a servers policy is "no spam", how to I know that's true (and what it means by "spam"
In this case "spam" is definied as any message originating from a server or client that does not offer proper authentication in order to assure the validity of a chain of trust from sender to recipient. It's assumed that a valid user would not SPAM, or at the very least if one did site administrators and/or authorities would be able to determine just who did so.
I just happen to think a PGP private key embedded in the server, and thus used to sign the message envelope with a signature and public key for the recipient server to verify, is better than using a public cert. But that's JMO.
hm... so how is this supposed to stop any spammer? Of course this would authenticate the server, but couldnt some future spam trojan simply generate those keys?
To turn that question on its head: how would a central cert stop a spammer? As you point out, either the cert or a public/private keypair offers only assurance that a message was processed by a specific server. It's a signature in the header assuring traceability to a specific point. In neither case would it stop a spammer, especially if the server site administrator allows spamming services to originate from his/her server to the outside net. The primary advantage of a public/private keypair is to remove unnecessary central authorities from the email process. It allows for scalability through decentralization.
As for your trojan question, I'm not sure I understand. If the mail server was compromised, sure - someone could gain access to the private key and then sign outbound messages as that server. This is no different than if a server using a central cert were compromised.
Why not have the site administrator generate a public/private keypair and embed the private key in the mail server? This allows for the same level of authenticity by cryptographic signature, without resorting to a central certificate authority. --M
Many people have misunderstood my point. I did not write my original post in support of wings as the default spacecraft design NASA should take, but that NASA and Congress chose a winged shuttle for valid policy R&D reasons. You're mixing desired policy with engineering here.
I don't in any way dispute that a capule is cheaper to launch and return and safer for the astronauts, I only pointed out that the use of a winged reusable vehicle has a rationale which isn't stupid or worthless, one which meets future R&D goals toward a space craft which operates in both terrestrial and space realms.
That was the goal, and the Shuttle was the execution of that goal (whatever you may think of the quality of their execution).
We may lack the materials technology, improperly fund the goal, subvert other cheaper and more reliable technologies in the process, and in general reduce the viability of NASA in pursuit of that goal. But I belive it was a worthy goal at the time, and still think it's worth pursuing today. That's JMO. And, like I said, an opinion from someone who doesn't work in the industry.
The Shuttle, and any next generation craft, is an attempt at creating not just a reusable vehicle, but also one which offers control at landing at a specific place
Of course, having this as a goal presupposes that it is a huge advantage.
Yes. Although in fairness I note that this advantage wasn't predetermined by me, but by NASA officials and Congress some thirty years previously. You can argue that it's a worthless goal today, and you may be able to make valid engineering points in favor of your argument, but it doesn't negate the point that folks at NASA thought it was a good idea back then.
If NASA had built one space plane, better than the shuttle because it wouldn't have needed the design compromises included to try and turn it into a day to day service, and had in parallel developed lauch systems using up to date but stable technology, everyone would have won, except a few beurocrats and politicians.
Agreed. There's no doubt the Shuttle suffered from a thousand paper-dollar cuts from its original inception as an idea to the final design and execution. NASA has not been funded properly to do that which Congress has tasked for them, and as a result we've experienced both loss of life and lost science (faster, cheaper, better - not).
BTW: I read the Economist article yesterday afternoon while at a cafe. Good article, and one which was in the back of my mind when I originally replied.
...companies which are conducting R&D toward launch systems outside of US shores? I seem to see only governments doing such research. Governments like Russia, China, France, and Brazil (poorly). Upfront capitalization costs for space exploration make private R&D vastly too expensive for most private corporations. That some are attempting to win the X-prize of $10 Million is no reason to assume that commercial space flight is just around the corner. We'll need government subsidization of the industry for many years yet before it turns profitable, and many years beyond that before it becomes a common means of travel throughout our solar system (never mind the stars). We're not even at the state when Christopher Columbus begged for the necessary funds to search for an alternative route to India (and thus "discovered" America). Who funded that operation? --M
Slashdot Mirror
Unless he's got a high dollar loss or some friends in law enforcement, no one's going to be explaining anything to a cop or a judge, unfortunately. Those laws are for enforcement on behalf of those with coin.
I don't think this is the case. Speaking as someone who has actually seen through an assault prosecution at one time, and sat on a jury another, I do believe the local police will help if you give them sufficient evidence. Can't speak for federal law enforcement though, never encountered those guys. I have mixed feelings about the police though. I have in the past donated to the FOP and do consider the police an important part of my community. But I also disagree with our drug laws (though don't blame the cops for following orders to enforce), and feel that cops all too often protect their own bad apples at the expense of society. Tax dollar for dollar I do feel the fire department gives better service to the community on average.
OK enough ranting. I do think the top level poster ought to consider contacting the police if she has sufficient evidence to pursue those criminals. But that's JMO.
Cheers,
--Maynard
You have an opportunity to file a criminal complaint against those who exploited the security of your system in order to wrongfully damage your property or service. This was very likely a federal felony and deserves an investigation with both local police and the FBI. In addition you also have grounds for a civil suit; should you gain a criminal conviction winning a civil suit is almost assured. I hope you saved your logs.
Want to teach those assholes a lesson? Let them explain their behavior to the police, district attorney, and finally - a judge.
Best,
--Maynard
Yup, I considered that route - but I wanted to control the screen gain and use a professional looking screen, so I blew the money. I'm nearing the end of a renovation so when the contractors blew through my LR I had them install conduit for the video cables and an outlet up in the ceiling. It looks pretty good except for the lack of theatre seating. I'm not going to bother with that as the room has to double as a LR and I live in a fairly small apartment. BTW: are you near the Boston area? If so, interested in a shoot out? --M
Bought the HS20 from Pricejapan recently as well. Almost purchased the AE500 and would have were it not for the Japanese menu limitation. Looks like the AE500 is a great deal though. Congratulations on your purchase! So, what did you do about a screen? I wound up buying a Carada and am highly pleased. --M
Most people agree that simplicity is a wonderful goal... until that means the dropping (or not including) the feature they need or want.M
Yeah, like me - who has over 200 desktop clients that need the AFS support. ARRRGH!! --M
This is all very entertaining, and you've managed to demonstrate to the world quite well my propensity to permit myself to get dragged into silly side arguments and meaningless defense of personal attacks. It's a failing of mine, I readily admit.
OK. Let's agree that the discussion is a dead end and not continue further. I wish to also say that while I think your argument has not been logically sound, I do not intend to personally attack you. If you feel I have done so, then I apologize for any sense of personal insult. Let's drop this like two gentlemen in disagreement and move on to newer and fresher topics on the front page.
Best,
--Maynard
And here were are, full circle. You point to a completely irrelevant side issue as an indication of false claims, demand a 'higher bruden of proof' for these claims you consider aprioi suspect, and then walk away from a debate over any specific points which you think calls the claims of the documentary into question. That's because you haven't seen the documentary or apparently know anything about any specifics presented. But you certainly have an opinion on its veracity.
Oh, right, but that's irresponsible of me, not to become a globetrotter tracking down proof.
No. It is irresponsible of you to claim bias and irresponsible reporting on the part of others when you are unwilling to spent the time to discern any facts for yourself. You point to the Snopes article on 'Bowling for Columbine' as if that has any relevance to "Massacre at Mazar", when what you really should do is read the Bowling for Columbine report on Snopes and use the same standards they apply to Michael Moore to your own argument in this thread. If you did so I expect you would find your train of thought quite lacking in logical analysis. --M
When you clearly haven't seen the actual film in question in order to substantiate this 'burden of proof' for yourself. --M
I'm merely pointing out that labelling something a "documentary" lends it no real credibility, and provided one very visible example.
Your 'example' bears no relevance to the veracity of "Massacre at Mazar", nor does it shine any light into whether any definanable subset of documentaries are prima facie non-credible. I will not debate the credibility of Bowling for Columbine because it's both off-topic and I don't know enough about the issues involved in that documentary to debate the point factually.
Did it strike you that part of the reason it was never brought to the forefront could possibly because someone did look at it and found it impossible to substantiate?
No. In fact, it strikes me that these are serious charges which deserve full and widespread confirmation or refutation.
We quite rightly rail on news media when they throw rumors around that later turn out to be debunked; now are we to claim that due diligence is equivalent to bias?
Quite the reverse. Due diligence is not served by ignoring serious charges of military (or any) misconduct. No matter what the reason. You seem to be arguing that ignoring the charges in this documtary is appropriate due diligence. I vigorously disagree.
To instead bless it with a status of martyrdom strikes me as the actions of someone who rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of seeing the American military kicked in the 'nads very publicly, and frankly without concern for substantiation of the claims involved.
More demagoguery. Claiming that to take the possibility of US military atrocities is to 'rub one's hands with glee' over 'seeing the military kicked in the 'nads' is completely fatuous and belies an ideological unwillingness to accept even the possibility that such activity may be fact. In my book, that's a form of insanity.
Our primary difference of opinion appears to be that I am willing to accept the possibility that the US military and political leaders may be involved in massacre today, simply because I believe that there is more than enough factual evidence to assert that the they have been involved in such behavior before. It's not surprising, considering that this appears to be the historical norm with governments the world over. Whether the US military and/or political leaders have engaged in this type of behavior individually or at a policy level in Afghanistan is another matter, one which has yet to be determined. Time will tell. Though I suspect the only outcome you will accept will be one from a history book devoid of any factual analysis whatsoever. Enjoy your fantasy.
Cheers,
--Maynard
...with 'Massacre in Mazo'? Further, when did I say that I accepted the claims presented in the film at face evidence? I didn't. But you replied with demagoguery by making reference to a completely unrelated documentary as proof (or implication) that the film in question is somehow non-credible. What kind of logic is that? If, by your logic, anyone can make false claims therefor we shouldn't believe any of them, why investigate anything at all? Do you argue that only those stories why receive mainstream press coverage are credible? If so, are you arguing that the mainstream media isn't biased in one way or the other? And where does "truth" fit into any of this at all? At some point one must answer the question: Are these allegations correct? Regardless of one's political persuasions, the allegations are either factual or non-factual. If you can't face a factual statement that flies in the face of your personal politics it is you who are biased, not the story. I'm less than impressed by your non-argument.
--Maynard
Note that I am not stating that US troops did engage in such behavior, only that there are journalists who claim they have evidence in support of such allegations. That such a story was buried instead of followed up vigorously by the media speaks volumes of their priorities in war reporting. Whatever your political persuasion, you must admit you would want to know if your country was violating a long standing treaty like the Geneva Convention during times of war. Wouldn't you?
--Maynard
As you quote, McBride claims that 'Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us."'
What McBride is saying is that Raymond knows the perpretrator, hasn't contacted the authorities with this information, and that as such he is implicitely supporting the criminal activity while denouncing it in public. That is a specific claim by McBride.
Is it true? McBride doesn't quote Raymond directly or provide source material to back his claim up. I haven't seen a single statement by Raymond claiming to know the perpetrator. Can anyone verify this claim and point to a printed source? If not, I'd say McBride is - once again - full of shit. --M
Previous poster wrote:
Please include Ann Coulter with the people who are trying to silence people...
Black Parrot wrote:
The phenomenon isn't really new; recall the McCarthy Era and Lincoln's high-handed dealings with a wavering Maryland...
The irony here is that the content of "Treason" is a meandering screed in support of the much maligned McCarthy. Coulter sure does know how to pick her heros. *cough* --M
So conservativism (limited government) is equated with communism(totalitarian government). I guess the gubment education is paying off eh?
Do you see this administration engaging in limited government, or espousing freedom in any way, shape or form? I certainly don't. How much larger has the budget grown under under these GOP controlled executive and congressional branches of government? How many more laws and repressions of basic constitutional freedom and civil liberties has this GOP instituted? How limited has their role been in "Nation Building", that term so Bush disdainfully spouted to tar Clinton's policies in the Balkans and Africa, and yet exactly the same has he done (poorly) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You call that "conservative"??? I call them "authoritarian", but certainly not "conservative".
Better check your political compass, buddy.
Cheers,
Maynard
Yeah George Bush is a big leftist commie. *rolling eyes*
Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M
"Neocon?" Isn't that the politically-correct codeword for "Jew-Supporting?"
Yes... why, yes I believe it is!
Why, no it isn't! In fact, it's a term created by Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol (the founder and editor of "The Weekly Standard"). Irving Kristol founded the New York Intellectual tradition of "Neo Conservatism" as a transition from Democratic liberal Trotskyism (a group of Democrats who were former Trotskyites) to Conservative Republicanism (meaning the joined the GOP) in defiance of Democratic support for anti-war protestors during the Vietnam era. You have your history completely wrong, Sir. How does it feel to be ruled by a group of former Trotskyite "Neo-Marxist: intellectuals? Because that's who's running the GOP at the moment.
Here is a notable quote taken from the link above:
" Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo- that's all, neo dash nothing."
Maynard
Dude, look at an old sparc sometime. Sparc 1/1+/2 had 16 ram slots, circa 1990. Of course, you had to fill 4 at a time. The max is 128 MB i think.
:) --M
Not unless you could find a 30 pin SIMM in 32MB/four density, which I've never seen; the biggest being 16MB/four. I still have several Sun 3/80's, Sparc 1s, 2s, 5s, and 20s sitting in my basement. And the 20s I still consider a perfectly usable workstation. They were great computers in their time and I still have many fond memories hacking those Suns. But *sigh* it's time to clean out my basement.
A few facts and then an opinion:
1) DRM technology will be available to businesses which choose to run a DRM server on Windows 2003. It will not be enabled by default.
2) The technology will allow a management (or really the top level key holders) to limit document access rights to specific individuals or a group within the organization. A very valuable feature for many businesses.
3) Without a doubt, MS will abuse this technology to lock their customers into the new Office document format, which they will further abuse to limit document exchange from MS to third party applications.
The problem here is not 1) and 2). Those are perfectly reasonable features that most businesses want to buy. The problem is 3), the vendor lock-in issue. The Open Office project could write the same kind of DRM services into their suite, while at the same time offering document portability to those who hold top level keys to an organization's documents. IMO, this is where they should go long term, since it's obvious MS has hit upon a valuable technology - but like they're always abt to do, they're first instinct is to use the new technology to lock their customers in rather than sell their customers on their new features, quality engineering, and support. Businesses want both the DRM controls and document portability across a wide range of applications. MS always fails their customers in this regard and that's one reason why they've got such a bad reputation.
JMO.
Maynrd
Read the FAQ. One of the more interesting aspects of the protocol is the publishing of "concisely-defined policies".
Read it. Enforcing "policies" comes after authenticating a valid connection between two parties. This is where the cert comes in, and where I'm arguing that a public/private key pair is a better solution. Also note that encrypting the session between both mail servers is not a critical function of authenticating the validity of both servers, which can be done strictly by passing signatures, though it may be desirable.
Just because a servers policy is "no spam", how to I know that's true (and what it means by "spam"
In this case "spam" is definied as any message originating from a server or client that does not offer proper authentication in order to assure the validity of a chain of trust from sender to recipient. It's assumed that a valid user would not SPAM, or at the very least if one did site administrators and/or authorities would be able to determine just who did so.
I just happen to think a PGP private key embedded in the server, and thus used to sign the message envelope with a signature and public key for the recipient server to verify, is better than using a public cert. But that's JMO.
Cheers,
Maynard
hm... so how is this supposed to stop any spammer? Of course this would authenticate the server, but couldnt some future spam trojan simply generate those keys?
To turn that question on its head: how would a central cert stop a spammer? As you point out, either the cert or a public/private keypair offers only assurance that a message was processed by a specific server. It's a signature in the header assuring traceability to a specific point. In neither case would it stop a spammer, especially if the server site administrator allows spamming services to originate from his/her server to the outside net. The primary advantage of a public/private keypair is to remove unnecessary central authorities from the email process. It allows for scalability through decentralization.
As for your trojan question, I'm not sure I understand. If the mail server was compromised, sure - someone could gain access to the private key and then sign outbound messages as that server. This is no different than if a server using a central cert were compromised.
Cheers,
Maynard
Why not have the site administrator generate a public/private keypair and embed the private key in the mail server? This allows for the same level of authenticity by cryptographic signature, without resorting to a central certificate authority. --M
Many people have misunderstood my point. I did not write my original post in support of wings as the default spacecraft design NASA should take, but that NASA and Congress chose a winged shuttle for valid policy R&D reasons. You're mixing desired policy with engineering here.
I don't in any way dispute that a capule is cheaper to launch and return and safer for the astronauts, I only pointed out that the use of a winged reusable vehicle has a rationale which isn't stupid or worthless, one which meets future R&D goals toward a space craft which operates in both terrestrial and space realms.
That was the goal, and the Shuttle was the execution of that goal (whatever you may think of the quality of their execution).
We may lack the materials technology, improperly fund the goal, subvert other cheaper and more reliable technologies in the process, and in general reduce the viability of NASA in pursuit of that goal. But I belive it was a worthy goal at the time, and still think it's worth pursuing today. That's JMO. And, like I said, an opinion from someone who doesn't work in the industry.
Cheers,
Maynard
Agreed. There's no doubt the Shuttle suffered from a thousand paper-dollar cuts from its original inception as an idea to the final design and execution. NASA has not been funded properly to do that which Congress has tasked for them, and as a result we've experienced both loss of life and lost science (faster, cheaper, better - not).
BTW: I read the Economist article yesterday afternoon while at a cafe. Good article, and one which was in the back of my mind when I originally replied.
Cheers,
Maynard
Ah, I see that you did name one. Whoops. My bad. I feel sheepish now. :) --M
...companies which are conducting R&D toward launch systems outside of US shores? I seem to see only governments doing such research. Governments like Russia, China, France, and Brazil (poorly). Upfront capitalization costs for space exploration make private R&D vastly too expensive for most private corporations. That some are attempting to win the X-prize of $10 Million is no reason to assume that commercial space flight is just around the corner. We'll need government subsidization of the industry for many years yet before it turns profitable, and many years beyond that before it becomes a common means of travel throughout our solar system (never mind the stars). We're not even at the state when Christopher Columbus begged for the necessary funds to search for an alternative route to India (and thus "discovered" America). Who funded that operation? --M