Well actually you can walk into a police office and tell them you just murdered somebody, but unless they can prove it you'll never go to court, never mind go to jail. Of course, you can act as a pretty good witness to your own prosecution (i.e. telling them where you buried the body) but again there has to be substantial evidence to prove that you yourself aren't lying (such as in the case of where the person is missing but there's no body.)
Not only that but if this ever became policy, it would create an interesting line that will have to be drawn: What constitutes a hidden message that needs to have its keys or its otherwise actual meaning revealed to the government in plain English?
For example, the US government itself hid its communications from the enemy in the WWII Pacific Theater by simply translating it to another language that the enemy couldn't understand, and then using code within that language.
Although that was actually so weak it was rather pathetic (side note: even more pathetic that the Japanese never broke it, but then again it was never used in long range communication so they rarely had ever heard it in action during a time that they could meaningfully use it) there are a lot of ways you can encode information that aren't necessarily for cryptography, yet even more advanced datamining techniques will easily miss it.
And what's the punishment for sending a message to somebody in a manner that the government cant decrypt without providing them with key escrow, even if your actions were completely benign and you had no intention of hiding anything to begin with?
Or, somebody's accent and mannerisms aren't indicative of their overall intellect or knowledge.
I myself graduated at the top of my class, yet I behave more like the common-folk, mainly because I choose to, which itself is mainly because that's what I know best. I don't ever intend on running for office of anything either. I disagree vehemently with some of the more so called "civilized" mannerisms because they're outright pointless, such as wearing a tie to a business meeting. And you know what? When I talk to other people who wear ties often, they all agree.
I mean shit, if you compare modern values to the Victorian era, we're all a bunch of uneducated rabble. All of us. For example, anybody who couldn't speak Latin fluently was an uneducated nobody (even though Latin was a long dead language by this era.)
Besides, there's been a somewhat long-standing theory that it's best to keep the vocabulary to a minimum. Using really complicated and/or obscure words doesn't benefit anybody, ever. At best, people who you need to get your message across to haven't heard the word before and misunderstand you (there are somewhere north of a million words in the English language; nobody anywhere knows all of them) and at worst you sound like a snooty asshole. It cannot benefit you in any way to constantly use them, but it can harm you and those around you. That's a fact.
I think it could work if they get the governor to arrange time that he can spend outside periodically as a quid pro quo, which ends with him eating his captors and escaping.
Europe has mostly become pacifist as a result of a rise of existentialism, which itself arised from a rejection of extremes (such as communism and fascism) that were highly destructive during WWII (only about 70 years ago, Fascism was considered an example of European governance as a LOT of countries practiced it at the time; not just the Axis powers.)
Though before that, France has somewhat of a history of violently killing people who they believe don't even think the same way as themselves. Take the reign of terror for example.
A lot of muslims are ethnic Persians, which are anything BUT brown. Related: Iran changed its name from Persia in reference to it being the "land of the Aryans" with the Persian word for Aryan transliterating to English as Iranian.
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it. Make that apply to ANY amount, even if it was only a dollar.
I want an HTPC as well but I've found the software stacks offered by both Windows and Linux to be inadequate for that purpose (mainly due to lack of being able to switch applications with remote control seamlessly, but also some things like Netflix and Amazon Prime don't work terribly well with a remote in either setup as well.) Android TV sounds about right, but I don't want to buy a device like this without being able to verify that it works.
Microsoft has a solution to this problem. It's a walled garden called Metro and the Windows Store.
In spite of some of Android's faults, I'd really like to see Google come up with a desktop design spec and have it replace Windows as the de-facto desktop OS.
And no, linux on its own can't really do this because no developers can ever seem to agree on which libraries they want to use, making it a big giant gaggle-fuck as far as desktop applications are concerned. Android meanwhile has a respectable standard set, and as of 5.0 has a nice UI/UX design language that can scale to any resolution and looks really nice in any form factor.
CO2 causes damage to the environment because of its action as a greenhouse gas, and by causing acidification of the oceans.
I personally am not convinced that acidification (at least, from CO2) is a problem. During the cretaceous period, CO2 PPM was well known to be at least 1700, possibly more, which is considerably higher than our present 400. Furthermore during this same period, the earth is believed to have been far more green than it is today (that is, much more abundant plant life) had rather large and abundant macroscale life (dinosaurs to be exact) in addition to a rather thriving oceanic ecosystem.
If the models are correct, then it would likewise follow that today's ocean is very alkaline compared to that era, a condition that should be equally inhospital to marine life. Relatively speaking anyways.
I know the common counter-argument is that life can't adapt fast enough to these changes, but when we look at places like Chernobyl, you can see that that isn't true either. Not just for animals, but for humans as well. People indigenous to the Andes for example made dramatic physiological changes to adapt to the cold low oxygen atmosphere within a single generation (they literally walk barefoot in VERY cold temperatures.)
Excuse me if I don't see a doomsday scenario come of this. The best arguments I've heard center around preserving present environment in order to preserve the economy, but the likes of Kyoto propose wrecking the economy anyways.
Exactly. The states could theoretically sue to gain that funding anyways, but because federal highways are theoretically about interstate commerce (because they facilitate interstate travel for commercial trucks,) the federal government can just use the commerce clause as its basis anyways.
Perhaps Google could adopt a different driver model that permits them to create AOSP updates to OEM phones that have play services installed.
Basically they would allow OEMs to make the same changes to AOSP that they already make, but the underlying hardware would have to be built within certain parameters that allow for generic Android images to be downloadable by the end user.
Or to put it another way, every device has the option of becoming a "Google Play Edition" device.
Normally I'm in favor of states rights, but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of the commerce clause taking precedent. The internet is all about interstate commerce. I mean how often do most people access resources located within their own state? Rarely ever, and practically none of them ONLY use resources in their own state while on the internet. But yeah, other than that, the commerce clause is WAY overused (such as the national 21 year old drinking law.)
End user hardware generally does support it though - any vaguely modern computer, smartphone or tablet should automatically pick up and use an IPv6 address if available.
Typically it never reaches that point. The CPE router either doesn't support it or isn't configured for it. That means the rest of the CPE network doesn't either.
Broken v6 does affect connectivity, even if v4 still works fine.
Incorrect. The v6 stack does path MTU discovery prior to creating a socket. If that fails, then as per IETF spec, the packet will try to fail over to v4. You can test this for yourself; IPv6 devices that have the stack enabled and functioning out of the box still autoconfigure a link local IPv6 address as part of NDP (DHCP is mostly deprecated in IPv6, and will rarely ever be used.) When the stack doesn't discover a default router at address ff02::2 then the stack assumes there is no v6 routing, and it fails over to v4.
That should be true in theory, but the IPv6 hardware & software is nowhere near as well tested as the IPv4 equivalent, both in terms of home equipment and in the ISPs own networks.
It's true in fact. If the device doesn't support the v6 stack, then it just flat out ignores it; it may as well not even be there. After it gets passed to the CPE device at layer 2, the layer 3 doesn't know what to do with it, so it's simply discarded as if it were a corrupt IP datagram. Likewise it can't cause any trouble.
Domestic production and imports are very closely linked with one another. If you put ANY artificial restrictions on one, it negatively impacts the other by a near equal amount. This has been shown to be true time and time again.
If they removed their tariffs, they'd suddenly find that they have the means of acquiring capital. That wouldn't fix their economic problems overnight, or even over a few years, but would absolutely benefit long-term growth.
In the developed world, mercantilism ended with the great depression for this exact reason.
Personally I fully accept everything found by modern science. I'm on board with evolution, big bang, multiverse theory, and global warming. However I don't accept the "how" answer we've been handed on several of them. Nobody has figured out with certainty what exactly drives evolution (natural selection only represents part of it; there are many other processes that we've still yet to understand) we're still very uncertain of the expansion of the universe (is it asymptotal, cyclical, ever expanding, etc) and we're still uncertain what, if any, bridge there is between other universes (black holes being the likely candidate.)
Likewise, I still don't think we've fully figured out the "how" in global warming. Sure, you can place CO2 in a closed container and observe that it warms more than a container with normal air, but that is not at all a good model for atmospheric conditions. For example, we've still yet to figure out why the periods with higher CO2 composition than we have today (about 20 times as much) have been found to be cooler using the same methods that Michael Mann uses to argue his hockey stick graph.
Now, controlling pollution is good. You'll have a hard time finding even the most staunch libertarians that are against rules as far as keeping air and water quality good (Obama's big speech about them wanting dirty air and dirty water was likewise a straw man argument.) However CO2 doesn't play a role in that. I mean shit, we create it simply by breathing.
Even if CO2 is the big issue here, (as I said earlier, I'm not convinced) I'm sure there are other ways of dealing with it that don't involve putting a cap on the economy, which is essentially what the Kyoto protocol was asking for, and is what most of the free market types are rebelling against.
Alternative energy is fine (I myself am a huge fan of Tesla, I think those cars are really neat, not to mention fast, but I just don't have that kind of money, and I'm sure a LOT more people would be on board if they were cheaper) but it needs to be practical. Expensive is never practical. You can't just force everybody to operate on technology that isn't practical yet and expect that they won't push back. In many ways this is comparable to IPv6 adoption, which fortunately nobody is in a rush for anything other than letting it happen as gracefully as its adopters are willing.
They shouldn't have any support issues to deal with when deploying IPv6. If end user hardware doesn't support it or isn't configured properly, then they will be completely unaware of and unaffected by its existence. That would only change when IPv4 becomes deprecated (my personal prediction is 2030.)
Now if the end users explicitly need IPv6, then they might have support issues to deal with (i.e. telling them how to configure it) but usually the only ones that would need to do that (at least, until IPv4 is deprecated) wouldn't be asking for help.
AFAIK all four of the major wireless providers support IPv6 (just tested and confirmed on my t-mobile galaxy note 4, and saw it working on a verizon phone earlier, meanwhile AT&T and Sprint say they support it.) The only way you wouldn't be using it at this point is if your phone doesn't support it, or you're on a small carrier that doesn't (though I would assume all MVNOs support it.)
However, strangely enough it seems that my phone defaults to using the V4 stack when hitting google specifically (typing 'what is my ip' in google shows a v4 address on google's page.) Pretty sure that the spec mandates that your browser always prefer v6 over v4, so I'm not sure what that's about.
On the other hand, not many cable ISPs support it. Though if it's any consolation, the largest cable ISP appears to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well actually you can walk into a police office and tell them you just murdered somebody, but unless they can prove it you'll never go to court, never mind go to jail. Of course, you can act as a pretty good witness to your own prosecution (i.e. telling them where you buried the body) but again there has to be substantial evidence to prove that you yourself aren't lying (such as in the case of where the person is missing but there's no body.)
Not only that but if this ever became policy, it would create an interesting line that will have to be drawn: What constitutes a hidden message that needs to have its keys or its otherwise actual meaning revealed to the government in plain English?
For example, the US government itself hid its communications from the enemy in the WWII Pacific Theater by simply translating it to another language that the enemy couldn't understand, and then using code within that language.
Although that was actually so weak it was rather pathetic (side note: even more pathetic that the Japanese never broke it, but then again it was never used in long range communication so they rarely had ever heard it in action during a time that they could meaningfully use it) there are a lot of ways you can encode information that aren't necessarily for cryptography, yet even more advanced datamining techniques will easily miss it.
And what's the punishment for sending a message to somebody in a manner that the government cant decrypt without providing them with key escrow, even if your actions were completely benign and you had no intention of hiding anything to begin with?
Or, somebody's accent and mannerisms aren't indicative of their overall intellect or knowledge.
I myself graduated at the top of my class, yet I behave more like the common-folk, mainly because I choose to, which itself is mainly because that's what I know best. I don't ever intend on running for office of anything either. I disagree vehemently with some of the more so called "civilized" mannerisms because they're outright pointless, such as wearing a tie to a business meeting. And you know what? When I talk to other people who wear ties often, they all agree.
I mean shit, if you compare modern values to the Victorian era, we're all a bunch of uneducated rabble. All of us. For example, anybody who couldn't speak Latin fluently was an uneducated nobody (even though Latin was a long dead language by this era.)
Besides, there's been a somewhat long-standing theory that it's best to keep the vocabulary to a minimum. Using really complicated and/or obscure words doesn't benefit anybody, ever. At best, people who you need to get your message across to haven't heard the word before and misunderstand you (there are somewhere north of a million words in the English language; nobody anywhere knows all of them) and at worst you sound like a snooty asshole. It cannot benefit you in any way to constantly use them, but it can harm you and those around you. That's a fact.
I hope that we can soon change to another administration before anything like this comes to pass.
I think it could work if they get the governor to arrange time that he can spend outside periodically as a quid pro quo, which ends with him eating his captors and escaping.
Europe has mostly become pacifist as a result of a rise of existentialism, which itself arised from a rejection of extremes (such as communism and fascism) that were highly destructive during WWII (only about 70 years ago, Fascism was considered an example of European governance as a LOT of countries practiced it at the time; not just the Axis powers.)
Though before that, France has somewhat of a history of violently killing people who they believe don't even think the same way as themselves. Take the reign of terror for example.
A lot of muslims are ethnic Persians, which are anything BUT brown. Related: Iran changed its name from Persia in reference to it being the "land of the Aryans" with the Persian word for Aryan transliterating to English as Iranian.
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it. Make that apply to ANY amount, even if it was only a dollar.
I want an HTPC as well but I've found the software stacks offered by both Windows and Linux to be inadequate for that purpose (mainly due to lack of being able to switch applications with remote control seamlessly, but also some things like Netflix and Amazon Prime don't work terribly well with a remote in either setup as well.) Android TV sounds about right, but I don't want to buy a device like this without being able to verify that it works.
Besides, south park already addressed the final solution to the homeless question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Basically you just entice them to move to another city.
Microsoft has a solution to this problem. It's a walled garden called Metro and the Windows Store.
In spite of some of Android's faults, I'd really like to see Google come up with a desktop design spec and have it replace Windows as the de-facto desktop OS.
And no, linux on its own can't really do this because no developers can ever seem to agree on which libraries they want to use, making it a big giant gaggle-fuck as far as desktop applications are concerned. Android meanwhile has a respectable standard set, and as of 5.0 has a nice UI/UX design language that can scale to any resolution and looks really nice in any form factor.
Nonsense. The lamp shades were a myth and Zyklon B was actually gift gas!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
CO2 causes damage to the environment because of its action as a greenhouse gas, and by causing acidification of the oceans.
I personally am not convinced that acidification (at least, from CO2) is a problem. During the cretaceous period, CO2 PPM was well known to be at least 1700, possibly more, which is considerably higher than our present 400. Furthermore during this same period, the earth is believed to have been far more green than it is today (that is, much more abundant plant life) had rather large and abundant macroscale life (dinosaurs to be exact) in addition to a rather thriving oceanic ecosystem.
If the models are correct, then it would likewise follow that today's ocean is very alkaline compared to that era, a condition that should be equally inhospital to marine life. Relatively speaking anyways.
I know the common counter-argument is that life can't adapt fast enough to these changes, but when we look at places like Chernobyl, you can see that that isn't true either. Not just for animals, but for humans as well. People indigenous to the Andes for example made dramatic physiological changes to adapt to the cold low oxygen atmosphere within a single generation (they literally walk barefoot in VERY cold temperatures.)
That, and then things like this:
http://www.natureworldnews.com...
Excuse me if I don't see a doomsday scenario come of this. The best arguments I've heard center around preserving present environment in order to preserve the economy, but the likes of Kyoto propose wrecking the economy anyways.
Exactly. The states could theoretically sue to gain that funding anyways, but because federal highways are theoretically about interstate commerce (because they facilitate interstate travel for commercial trucks,) the federal government can just use the commerce clause as its basis anyways.
Perhaps Google could adopt a different driver model that permits them to create AOSP updates to OEM phones that have play services installed.
Basically they would allow OEMs to make the same changes to AOSP that they already make, but the underlying hardware would have to be built within certain parameters that allow for generic Android images to be downloadable by the end user.
Or to put it another way, every device has the option of becoming a "Google Play Edition" device.
Normally I'm in favor of states rights, but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of the commerce clause taking precedent. The internet is all about interstate commerce. I mean how often do most people access resources located within their own state? Rarely ever, and practically none of them ONLY use resources in their own state while on the internet. But yeah, other than that, the commerce clause is WAY overused (such as the national 21 year old drinking law.)
I know parent is trolling, but that's actually a real problem with real world consequences that they've been running into:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sou...
End user hardware generally does support it though - any vaguely modern computer, smartphone or tablet should automatically pick up and use an IPv6 address if available.
Typically it never reaches that point. The CPE router either doesn't support it or isn't configured for it. That means the rest of the CPE network doesn't either.
Broken v6 does affect connectivity, even if v4 still works fine.
Incorrect. The v6 stack does path MTU discovery prior to creating a socket. If that fails, then as per IETF spec, the packet will try to fail over to v4. You can test this for yourself; IPv6 devices that have the stack enabled and functioning out of the box still autoconfigure a link local IPv6 address as part of NDP (DHCP is mostly deprecated in IPv6, and will rarely ever be used.) When the stack doesn't discover a default router at address ff02::2 then the stack assumes there is no v6 routing, and it fails over to v4.
That should be true in theory, but the IPv6 hardware & software is nowhere near as well tested as the IPv4 equivalent, both in terms of home equipment and in the ISPs own networks.
It's true in fact. If the device doesn't support the v6 stack, then it just flat out ignores it; it may as well not even be there. After it gets passed to the CPE device at layer 2, the layer 3 doesn't know what to do with it, so it's simply discarded as if it were a corrupt IP datagram. Likewise it can't cause any trouble.
Your claim is that not a pollutant because we create it by breathing?
No, I merely stated it as an example. If you're going to use blatant straw man arguments, don't bother replying.
Domestic production and imports are very closely linked with one another. If you put ANY artificial restrictions on one, it negatively impacts the other by a near equal amount. This has been shown to be true time and time again.
If they removed their tariffs, they'd suddenly find that they have the means of acquiring capital. That wouldn't fix their economic problems overnight, or even over a few years, but would absolutely benefit long-term growth.
In the developed world, mercantilism ended with the great depression for this exact reason.
Personally I fully accept everything found by modern science. I'm on board with evolution, big bang, multiverse theory, and global warming. However I don't accept the "how" answer we've been handed on several of them. Nobody has figured out with certainty what exactly drives evolution (natural selection only represents part of it; there are many other processes that we've still yet to understand) we're still very uncertain of the expansion of the universe (is it asymptotal, cyclical, ever expanding, etc) and we're still uncertain what, if any, bridge there is between other universes (black holes being the likely candidate.)
Likewise, I still don't think we've fully figured out the "how" in global warming. Sure, you can place CO2 in a closed container and observe that it warms more than a container with normal air, but that is not at all a good model for atmospheric conditions. For example, we've still yet to figure out why the periods with higher CO2 composition than we have today (about 20 times as much) have been found to be cooler using the same methods that Michael Mann uses to argue his hockey stick graph.
Now, controlling pollution is good. You'll have a hard time finding even the most staunch libertarians that are against rules as far as keeping air and water quality good (Obama's big speech about them wanting dirty air and dirty water was likewise a straw man argument.) However CO2 doesn't play a role in that. I mean shit, we create it simply by breathing.
Even if CO2 is the big issue here, (as I said earlier, I'm not convinced) I'm sure there are other ways of dealing with it that don't involve putting a cap on the economy, which is essentially what the Kyoto protocol was asking for, and is what most of the free market types are rebelling against.
Alternative energy is fine (I myself am a huge fan of Tesla, I think those cars are really neat, not to mention fast, but I just don't have that kind of money, and I'm sure a LOT more people would be on board if they were cheaper) but it needs to be practical. Expensive is never practical. You can't just force everybody to operate on technology that isn't practical yet and expect that they won't push back. In many ways this is comparable to IPv6 adoption, which fortunately nobody is in a rush for anything other than letting it happen as gracefully as its adopters are willing.
Iran-Contra was Reagan's scandal.
Oh...you're one of those...
They shouldn't have any support issues to deal with when deploying IPv6. If end user hardware doesn't support it or isn't configured properly, then they will be completely unaware of and unaffected by its existence. That would only change when IPv4 becomes deprecated (my personal prediction is 2030.)
Now if the end users explicitly need IPv6, then they might have support issues to deal with (i.e. telling them how to configure it) but usually the only ones that would need to do that (at least, until IPv4 is deprecated) wouldn't be asking for help.
AFAIK all four of the major wireless providers support IPv6 (just tested and confirmed on my t-mobile galaxy note 4, and saw it working on a verizon phone earlier, meanwhile AT&T and Sprint say they support it.) The only way you wouldn't be using it at this point is if your phone doesn't support it, or you're on a small carrier that doesn't (though I would assume all MVNOs support it.)
However, strangely enough it seems that my phone defaults to using the V4 stack when hitting google specifically (typing 'what is my ip' in google shows a v4 address on google's page.) Pretty sure that the spec mandates that your browser always prefer v6 over v4, so I'm not sure what that's about.
On the other hand, not many cable ISPs support it. Though if it's any consolation, the largest cable ISP appears to support it.