You asserted that Phil inspired the modern BSD daemon (Beastie). This is absolutely incorrect.
Wow, you're all fired up about this. I'll let Kirk do my talking for me, since you referenced his site:
About 1 year after Usenix produced the Portland conference T-shirts, they paid Phil for the artwork. Thus, Usenix currently holds title to the copyright.
The BSD daemon showed up again on the shirt shown in the second picture for the Usenix multimedia conference held in 1991 in Nashville Tennessee.
As I've said before, that is the BSD party line and has been for over 2 decades (long before the current round of kiddies or even some of the old timers like me got involved). If Phil agrees, that's fine, but last I heard he was not, in fact, in agreement, and with nothing written down other than Kirk's assertions, I'm at a loss as to how this is "resolved"
Let me stress that I have nothing but respect for all concerned, and I'm not suggesting anyone did anything deliberately wrong, but I've been hearing about this since I first saw the shirt, and I would have thought that at this point a) people would be openly thanking Phil for his wonderful contribution, not denying it and b) there would be some definitive document from Phil as to the ownership of the original copyright.
Reversing a hash - meaning you start w/ the hash and work backwards to recreate the original data - is impossible
Not at all.
Bits are lost during the hash process, and there is no data in the hash that will allow those bits to be reconstructed.
Again, not true.
You would be correct if you had given the definitions and worked backward:
A hash is a set A of information which represents some n other sets of information, where n is greater than 0. Your statement fails for many reasons, but chief among them is the fact that no information need be lost in hashing an input (see below).
To "hash" an input requires a functionf which, when passed an input B will always produce the output A. What people miss in looking at this is that A is not (necessarily) the unique result of "hashing" B with f, so reversing f (which is computationally hard, if f is a "good" or "strong" hashing function) is going to produce B along with zero or more (possibly infinite) other possible inputs. This is what it means to "reverse" a hash.
Let's take two examples (both of which are terrible hashing functions) to illustrate:
The "input as output" hash (f(x) = x) produces its input as its output. This hashing function is easy to reverse and always has exactly one output that maps to every input.
The "first letter" hash (f(x) = first_letter_of(x)) is a very different case. In this hash, we reliably produce a fixed-size output (a desirable trait in a hashing function). However, that means that an infinite number of inputs map to the output "a", and so on. However, if your inputs are restricted (e.g. they must be 2 or less letters), then the output is also restricted and it is quite reasonable to produce the inputs for any given output (e.g. for an output "a", the inputs "aa", "ab", "ac", etc.)
These are very bad hashes for different reasons depending on what application you have in mind. For example, for storage (e.g. indexing "buckets" in a hash table) the second function produces results which cluster too many inputs into the same buckets (e.g. "s" will be a very popular bucket, while "x" will not). For cryptography it is bad for the above reason, but also because it is computationally trivial to produce the list of inputs without brute force testing of the entire domain of inputs, or even a reasonably large subset of them.
If your hashing function is based on some complex mathematical problem, though, you might come very close to having an "unreversable" hash, but even the best hashes are in fact reversable. As with cryptography (and hashing is the fraternal twin of cryptography), absolute statements about hashing should be avoided at all costs unless you have a proof in hand.
If you have no clue of the issues, if you're basing your decision solely on superficial reasons, or if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.
You should only vote if you can honestly answer yes to ALL of these items:
1. Your money (via taxation) will be used to fund the resulting government. 2. You are a citizen. 3. You have an opinion.
Never let anyone convince you that you don't have a right to vote because they know what you need better than you do. Will you always be right? No (look at the last 20 people elected to any federal office for confirmation of that). However, you will have involved yourself. The very act of voting engages you in the mechanism of democracy like nothing else can.
Of course, you should involve yourself. Of course you should read the positions of all candidates for every office you're going to vote fore. Of course. But "they're not smart enough to vote" is never a phrase you should be comfortable with!
The original cute-looking daemon you know today, yes. There was a shirt by Phil Foglio which showed a bunch of little creatures with horns and pitchforks climbing on a PDP mini-computer before that, though. The current daemon was clearly based on those little, much less detailed, daemons.
His perception was that it was a work for hire, and Phil didn't have residual rights to it. It was, however, a highly informal deal and there was nothing in writing (which, under US copyright law, I believe gives credence to Phil's claim over the shirt itself, if not the derivative daemon as well, but I'm not a lawyer).
The disagreement (and, if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see it was, in fact a question), as I heard about it, was around the rights to the original shirt and any designs based on it. The original shirt showed a DEC PDP with many very Foglioesque daemons climbing all over it. The current daemon is much more detailed than any of Foglio's but the combination of the lack of citation of his original work and the re-issue of the T-shirt without permission (apparently involving a DEC marketting push for Ultrix) were reported to have gotten under Phil's collar, and he's been a bit touchy on the subject ever since.
I don't know how serious it ever was. I only talked to Phil at a con once, and I never brought up the design. I was just asking.
What disagreement?!?! There is no disagreement!
Unless you're Phil Foglio, I don't think it's really your place to make that assertion.
That it was resolved, I'd buy... if it was resolved, but to say that there was never a dispute? No.
This whole control of space thing is approaching the thin line between annoyed and pissed.
Ah... yes, well I'll assume you meant that YOU are getting annoyed.
While USAF claims this [...] jammer [...is...] temporary and reversible [...] it will only take one mistake (and it's not that unusual) to fry someone's $500mil baby.
How often does this particular jamming technology fry satellites? Really, how often? Heck, you don't even know what this *is*, must less what its failure modes are. ANY complaint about this technology must be on the grounds of lack of information (kind of strange to complain about THIS instead of the dozens of other, far more problematic items that the US military refuses to discuss) or on the grounds that the US feels it has the right to unilaterally develop technology to disable other country's communications (again, I'd start with the MONITORING of communications which is ONGOING rather than the chance that the US MIGHT block communications in the future).
Anything else is arm waving.
If other countries even dare to think about developing a similar jammer to "neutralize" US's satellite communication and its space-based capabilities, it's likely that US will simply launch another pre-emptive attack to destroy those jammers in these countries.
Doubtful. Of the countries that have the capabilities to do so, only one is not an ally, and I don't think we'd invade China over THIS.
I'm curious, did the BSDs ever resolve the "disagreement" (I put it in quotes because the nature or extent of it and who exactly it was directed at was never clear to the public) between themselves and Phil Foglio? As I recall, it was Phil's Daemon design for one of the early Unix conferences that inspired the modern BSD daemon (I've seen the original T-shirt once, it's pretty cool).
For those who got lost, there, let me recap the parent's sources:
"Has anyone combined this with other falling-object problems?"
A reference to this story.
"if one butters one side of the paper [...] Since cats fall on their feet [...]"
A reference to the ever-so-often-handed around buttered cat story. It's been cited dozens of times, but I've never found a good attribution. The earliest reference I can find is here:
The person claims to have been the author, and another reference cites this as coming from the Usenet Oracle, so perhaps he sent this as an answer to an Oracle question? I first came across it when it was posted to Usenet under the Babylon 5 newsgroup here:
I'm running the pre-release 5 for 1.0 with all of the codecs that were provided. I don't think I want to go CVS just to view this one file. Perhaps the guy who made it in the first place could just save it in a different format.
It's amazing how similar trying to view videos from a Windows system is to trying to view Word documents... you'd think it was the same monopoly trying to break standards in yet another field... oh wait...
I didn't attend the Vote or Die rally at my school, but the reports I've heard [...]
Let me paraphrase a lot of people who said roughly the same thing under different circumstances:
I haven't seen The Last Temptation of Christ, but from what I've heard it's very anti-Christian
Turns out that that movie was anythnig but anti-Christian, but even to this day (last time was actually a few months ago) I hear from Christians who think it's a movie that was designed to make them hate their faith or some such foolishness.
Now, I have no idea what that rally contained, but I can state as fact that people who didn't attend it like you and me are not authorities on what it's about. Go find a town where they're going to show up, go in and listen to them. Hear them out and think about what they've said. Wouldn't you expect the same?
The article specifically tells you how to get it via Gnutella. My download is working just fine. Gnutella is at least as powerful as BT these days, and the GUIs are, IMHO, far better (I use gtk-gnutella out of CVS).
Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Not at all. In fact, I certainly hope that it's NOT uniform (if it were something very strange and difficult to explain would be going on).
Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
Again, I hope not. I'd like to think that temperature change is going to affect climate.
Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
Hmm... depends on how you define disruptive. Certainly warming is likely to make some places more suited to growing while doing the opposite for other places. I imagine Canadians are drooling at the idea while Mexico is not so thrilled. For the US it would probably just shift agriculture northward (more in some places, less in others) while increasing the size of some of the south-western deserts, south-eastern swamps and north-western temperate rain forests.
Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe
"Globe"? No. "Nation"? Yes. Large nations like the US and Russia produce most of the food that the developed world eats and they would probably have to shift (slowly over decades) production northward if warming continues.
In the 500-1000 period of warming many groups of humans in Europe were wiped out, but they were relying only on their own food production.
When I say "search egnine" I don't mean a front-end to the pitiful searching that such tools already have.
First off, a good search engine should index items based on their content, not their naming (just as Google indexes on far more than the title of a page). For another, because of the nature of the medium, I think you need some screening. For one, it would be really, really nice to have a cross-index of those items available for download that are licensed in such a way that offering them is legal. I would prefer to patronize music, movies and other art that is distributed in this way, rather than corporate junk that's been ripped and shared by some teeny-bopper.
Thanks for all of the great links... clearly I have some reading to do.
I'm glad to see others have brought up the Sun. It's amazing how often I hear people talk about global warming with total disregard for the most powerful source of electromagnetic radiation within 4 light years.
Yes, you're exactly right Antarctic ice has been melting for 10,000 years. In fact, when you hear people claim that this is really bad because what's melting is all very old ice that hasn't melted in 10,000 years, what they're really saying is, "10,000 years worth of ice melting has finally revealed these ancient layers... which are, of course, also now melting."
Give it another 2-3 millenia and I'm sure our ability to measure global changes will have improved (mostly because we'll have a great deal more reliable data).
Now just be wise and prepare to face it instead of looking who is to blame.
Exactly. 500 years ago warming was VERY bad, and while this period of warming may be as bad or worse, it's not catastrophic by a long run. Take it as it comes, stop dwelling on dangerous-sounding rhetoric and relax.
There ARE things you can do to help, though. Assuming CO2 behaves the way we think it does (THINK? yep, we know about as much about CO2 as we do about ocean water, which is to say lots on a small scale and not much on a large scale) you can lobby hard (by voting or bringing it up at a local level) to re-structure forest fire-fighting around the prevention of very large, very hot fires. How do you do this? Several pilot programs indicate that a combination of clearing clutter like dead wood and thickets combined with selective burning can prevent these fires.
Why do you want to do that? Well, for starters, very hot fires release far more CO2 than cooler, slower burning fires. This is because the hot fires burn whole trees, and in colder areas they can also burn permafrost. This has the potential to release more CO and CO2 than any other force in nature or from man-made causes.
For another one, you can support politicians who suggest spending money to do real research into the environment. Right now environmental issues are so political that it's hard to tell which end is up, but doing more research can only help to set the ground-work for future understanding.
I suspect we're going to discover several things in the next few decades that will make us re-evaluate the way we see global warming.
Shocking, since Safari is based on the same code as Konqueror and I just checked out Konq, which is not vulnerable.
I was actually kind of shocked how many Web browsers I have at my disposal when I went to look. There's: links, lynx, w3c, Konq, Mozilla (and the Mozilla-based Forefox, Galeon, Epiphany), and Nautilus. Nice to have options;-)
Democrats (Japanese internment) and Republicans (Guantanamo Bay) have both been more than happy to flush Habeas Corpus down the toilet when the voters let them get away with it, so keep your eyes open, guys.
Guantanamo Bay is a bad example. I personally feel that what we're doing there is inexcusable, but it doesn't match your argument. You bring up two cases from Canada and the US where civil rights of citizens were violated, and one where those of foreign nationals were. You're better off pointing at the 3000 (I'm pulling that number out of memory from an NPR story) people who have been detained without due procedure and eventually let go (in some cases months later) without charges ever being brought. These are US citizens who were plucked out of ordinary lives in order to... what exactly?
THAT is your comparison.
If you're itching for another one... and you have a strong stomach, do a google search for the words "extraordinary rendition", but I warn you that if you're a citizen of the US and you had respect for your country's record on human rights, this information will not sit well with you (the term was introduced by Clinton's administration and the practice is being expanded by Bush's so don't give me that party-politics response either).
Couple of points. If you're not from outside the states, I appologized for my assumption, it just seemed logical given your statements. No need to be rude.
Second I misunderstood this to be an internal-to-the-states issue, but even still customs does go through local (or at least federal) law enforcement when dealing with items that are already past the import stage, no? Certainly where these items were on shelves, I just don't see how they had the jurisdiction to walk in and yank them.
PS: Never saw Law & Order, but if you're a fan and want to suggest some episodes, I'm sure I can download them from an oversees server;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're all fired up about this. I'll let Kirk do my talking for me, since you referenced his site: As I've said before, that is the BSD party line and has been for over 2 decades (long before the current round of kiddies or even some of the old timers like me got involved). If Phil agrees, that's fine, but last I heard he was not, in fact, in agreement, and with nothing written down other than Kirk's assertions, I'm at a loss as to how this is "resolved"
Let me stress that I have nothing but respect for all concerned, and I'm not suggesting anyone did anything deliberately wrong, but I've been hearing about this since I first saw the shirt, and I would have thought that at this point a) people would be openly thanking Phil for his wonderful contribution, not denying it and b) there would be some definitive document from Phil as to the ownership of the original copyright.
For those who have never seen it, check out: the very first, grinning red devil w/ pitchfork that inspired the modern BSD daemon.
Reversing a hash - meaning you start w/ the hash and work backwards to recreate the original data - is impossible
Not at all.
Bits are lost during the hash process, and there is no data in the hash that will allow those bits to be reconstructed.
Again, not true.
You would be correct if you had given the definitions and worked backward:
A hash is a set A of information which represents some n other sets of information, where n is greater than 0. Your statement fails for many reasons, but chief among them is the fact that no information need be lost in hashing an input (see below).
To "hash" an input requires a function f which, when passed an input B will always produce the output A. What people miss in looking at this is that A is not (necessarily) the unique result of "hashing" B with f, so reversing f (which is computationally hard, if f is a "good" or "strong" hashing function) is going to produce B along with zero or more (possibly infinite) other possible inputs. This is what it means to "reverse" a hash.
Let's take two examples (both of which are terrible hashing functions) to illustrate:
The "input as output" hash (f(x) = x) produces its input as its output. This hashing function is easy to reverse and always has exactly one output that maps to every input.
The "first letter" hash (f(x) = first_letter_of(x)) is a very different case. In this hash, we reliably produce a fixed-size output (a desirable trait in a hashing function). However, that means that an infinite number of inputs map to the output "a", and so on. However, if your inputs are restricted (e.g. they must be 2 or less letters), then the output is also restricted and it is quite reasonable to produce the inputs for any given output (e.g. for an output "a", the inputs "aa", "ab", "ac", etc.)
These are very bad hashes for different reasons depending on what application you have in mind. For example, for storage (e.g. indexing "buckets" in a hash table) the second function produces results which cluster too many inputs into the same buckets (e.g. "s" will be a very popular bucket, while "x" will not). For cryptography it is bad for the above reason, but also because it is computationally trivial to produce the list of inputs without brute force testing of the entire domain of inputs, or even a reasonably large subset of them.
If your hashing function is based on some complex mathematical problem, though, you might come very close to having an "unreversable" hash, but even the best hashes are in fact reversable. As with cryptography (and hashing is the fraternal twin of cryptography), absolute statements about hashing should be avoided at all costs unless you have a proof in hand.
"Anti-radiation missiles? WTF? [...] There's no such thing as an anti-radiation missile."
Google is your friend
If you have no clue of the issues, if you're basing your decision solely on superficial reasons, or if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.
You should only vote if you can honestly answer yes to ALL of these items:
1. Your money (via taxation) will be used to fund the resulting government.
2. You are a citizen.
3. You have an opinion.
Never let anyone convince you that you don't have a right to vote because they know what you need better than you do. Will you always be right? No (look at the last 20 people elected to any federal office for confirmation of that). However, you will have involved yourself. The very act of voting engages you in the mechanism of democracy like nothing else can.
Of course, you should involve yourself. Of course you should read the positions of all candidates for every office you're going to vote fore. Of course. But "they're not smart enough to vote" is never a phrase you should be comfortable with!
The original cute-looking daemon you know today, yes. There was a shirt by Phil Foglio which showed a bunch of little creatures with horns and pitchforks climbing on a PDP mini-computer before that, though. The current daemon was clearly based on those little, much less detailed, daemons.
You can look here for Jonathan M. Bresler's take: http://www.lemis.com/grog/whyadaemon.html
His perception was that it was a work for hire, and Phil didn't have residual rights to it. It was, however, a highly informal deal and there was nothing in writing (which, under US copyright law, I believe gives credence to Phil's claim over the shirt itself, if not the derivative daemon as well, but I'm not a lawyer).
If anyone has more info, please reply.
Well, did you follow the second link in my post?
The disagreement (and, if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see it was, in fact a question), as I heard about it, was around the rights to the original shirt and any designs based on it. The original shirt showed a DEC PDP with many very Foglioesque daemons climbing all over it. The current daemon is much more detailed than any of Foglio's but the combination of the lack of citation of his original work and the re-issue of the T-shirt without permission (apparently involving a DEC marketting push for Ultrix) were reported to have gotten under Phil's collar, and he's been a bit touchy on the subject ever since.
I don't know how serious it ever was. I only talked to Phil at a con once, and I never brought up the design. I was just asking.
What disagreement?!?! There is no disagreement!
Unless you're Phil Foglio, I don't think it's really your place to make that assertion.
That it was resolved, I'd buy... if it was resolved, but to say that there was never a dispute? No.
This whole control of space thing is approaching the thin line between annoyed and pissed.
Ah... yes, well I'll assume you meant that YOU are getting annoyed.
While USAF claims this [...] jammer [...is...] temporary and reversible [...] it will only take one mistake (and it's not that unusual) to fry someone's $500mil baby.
How often does this particular jamming technology fry satellites? Really, how often? Heck, you don't even know what this *is*, must less what its failure modes are. ANY complaint about this technology must be on the grounds of lack of information (kind of strange to complain about THIS instead of the dozens of other, far more problematic items that the US military refuses to discuss) or on the grounds that the US feels it has the right to unilaterally develop technology to disable other country's communications (again, I'd start with the MONITORING of communications which is ONGOING rather than the chance that the US MIGHT block communications in the future).
Anything else is arm waving.
If other countries even dare to think about developing a similar jammer to "neutralize" US's satellite communication and its space-based capabilities, it's likely that US will simply launch another pre-emptive attack to destroy those jammers in these countries.
Doubtful. Of the countries that have the capabilities to do so, only one is not an ally, and I don't think we'd invade China over THIS.
I'm curious, did the BSDs ever resolve the "disagreement" (I put it in quotes because the nature or extent of it and who exactly it was directed at was never clear to the public) between themselves and Phil Foglio? As I recall, it was Phil's Daemon design for one of the early Unix conferences that inspired the modern BSD daemon (I've seen the original T-shirt once, it's pretty cool).
Here's one person's recollection of the history of the Daemon design.
For those who got lost, there, let me recap the parent's sources:
A 70E0%40BBARRETT.SPEEDLINK.COM&output=gplain
"Has anyone combined this with other falling-object problems?"
A reference to this story.
"if one butters one side of the paper [...] Since cats fall on their feet [...]"
A reference to the ever-so-often-handed around buttered cat story. It's been cited dozens of times, but I've never found a good attribution. The earliest reference I can find is here:
http://w2s.co.uk/timo/jokes/joke1a.html
The person claims to have been the author, and another reference cites this as coming from the Usenet Oracle, so perhaps he sent this as an answer to an Oracle question? I first came across it when it was posted to Usenet under the Babylon 5 newsgroup here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01BB6744.D02
I'm running the pre-release 5 for 1.0 with all of the codecs that were provided. I don't think I want to go CVS just to view this one file. Perhaps the guy who made it in the first place could just save it in a different format.
It's amazing how similar trying to view videos from a Windows system is to trying to view Word documents... you'd think it was the same monopoly trying to break standards in yet another field... oh wait...
mplayer fails to play it for me. Dunno what codec he used, but it's not one that my mplayer supports.
Let me paraphrase a lot of people who said roughly the same thing under different circumstances:Turns out that that movie was anythnig but anti-Christian, but even to this day (last time was actually a few months ago) I hear from Christians who think it's a movie that was designed to make them hate their faith or some such foolishness.
Now, I have no idea what that rally contained, but I can state as fact that people who didn't attend it like you and me are not authorities on what it's about. Go find a town where they're going to show up, go in and listen to them. Hear them out and think about what they've said. Wouldn't you expect the same?
The article specifically tells you how to get it via Gnutella. My download is working just fine. Gnutella is at least as powerful as BT these days, and the GUIs are, IMHO, far better (I use gtk-gnutella out of CVS).
Give it a shot.
Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Not at all. In fact, I certainly hope that it's NOT uniform (if it were something very strange and difficult to explain would be going on).
Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
Again, I hope not. I'd like to think that temperature change is going to affect climate.
Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
Hmm... depends on how you define disruptive. Certainly warming is likely to make some places more suited to growing while doing the opposite for other places. I imagine Canadians are drooling at the idea while Mexico is not so thrilled. For the US it would probably just shift agriculture northward (more in some places, less in others) while increasing the size of some of the south-western deserts, south-eastern swamps and north-western temperate rain forests.
Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe
"Globe"? No. "Nation"? Yes. Large nations like the US and Russia produce most of the food that the developed world eats and they would probably have to shift (slowly over decades) production northward if warming continues.
In the 500-1000 period of warming many groups of humans in Europe were wiped out, but they were relying only on their own food production.
When I say "search egnine" I don't mean a front-end to the pitiful searching that such tools already have.
First off, a good search engine should index items based on their content, not their naming (just as Google indexes on far more than the title of a page). For another, because of the nature of the medium, I think you need some screening. For one, it would be really, really nice to have a cross-index of those items available for download that are licensed in such a way that offering them is legal. I would prefer to patronize music, movies and other art that is distributed in this way, rather than corporate junk that's been ripped and shared by some teeny-bopper.
I only tested the Mozilla variants and Konq; the others I was just citing as interesting in their profusion.
;-)
You're right that Nautilus no-longer renders web content... I had not realized that until I went to verify your post. Thanks!
PS: Amusingly, when I tried to open an HTTP URL in Nautilus it did "render" it in a sense. It brought up a text view of the HTML for that page
Thanks for all of the great links... clearly I have some reading to do.
I'm glad to see others have brought up the Sun. It's amazing how often I hear people talk about global warming with total disregard for the most powerful source of electromagnetic radiation within 4 light years.
Yes, you're exactly right Antarctic ice has been melting for 10,000 years. In fact, when you hear people claim that this is really bad because what's melting is all very old ice that hasn't melted in 10,000 years, what they're really saying is, "10,000 years worth of ice melting has finally revealed these ancient layers... which are, of course, also now melting."
Give it another 2-3 millenia and I'm sure our ability to measure global changes will have improved (mostly because we'll have a great deal more reliable data).
Now just be wise and prepare to face it instead of looking who is to blame.
Exactly. 500 years ago warming was VERY bad, and while this period of warming may be as bad or worse, it's not catastrophic by a long run. Take it as it comes, stop dwelling on dangerous-sounding rhetoric and relax.
There ARE things you can do to help, though. Assuming CO2 behaves the way we think it does (THINK? yep, we know about as much about CO2 as we do about ocean water, which is to say lots on a small scale and not much on a large scale) you can lobby hard (by voting or bringing it up at a local level) to re-structure forest fire-fighting around the prevention of very large, very hot fires. How do you do this? Several pilot programs indicate that a combination of clearing clutter like dead wood and thickets combined with selective burning can prevent these fires.
Why do you want to do that? Well, for starters, very hot fires release far more CO2 than cooler, slower burning fires. This is because the hot fires burn whole trees, and in colder areas they can also burn permafrost. This has the potential to release more CO and CO2 than any other force in nature or from man-made causes.
For another one, you can support politicians who suggest spending money to do real research into the environment. Right now environmental issues are so political that it's hard to tell which end is up, but doing more research can only help to set the ground-work for future understanding.
I suspect we're going to discover several things in the next few decades that will make us re-evaluate the way we see global warming.
Shocking, since Safari is based on the same code as Konqueror and I just checked out Konq, which is not vulnerable.
;-)
I was actually kind of shocked how many Web browsers I have at my disposal when I went to look. There's: links, lynx, w3c, Konq, Mozilla (and the Mozilla-based Forefox, Galeon, Epiphany), and Nautilus. Nice to have options
I would like to believe that those rights cover vistors
So would I, I just don't think that that (valid) argument fit in with the other (valid) arguments being made.
Democrats (Japanese internment) and Republicans (Guantanamo Bay) have both been more than happy to flush Habeas Corpus down the toilet when the voters let them get away with it, so keep your eyes open, guys.
... what exactly?
Guantanamo Bay is a bad example. I personally feel that what we're doing there is inexcusable, but it doesn't match your argument. You bring up two cases from Canada and the US where civil rights of citizens were violated, and one where those of foreign nationals were. You're better off pointing at the 3000 (I'm pulling that number out of memory from an NPR story) people who have been detained without due procedure and eventually let go (in some cases months later) without charges ever being brought. These are US citizens who were plucked out of ordinary lives in order to
THAT is your comparison.
If you're itching for another one... and you have a strong stomach, do a google search for the words "extraordinary rendition", but I warn you that if you're a citizen of the US and you had respect for your country's record on human rights, this information will not sit well with you (the term was introduced by Clinton's administration and the practice is being expanded by Bush's so don't give me that party-politics response either).
I share about 2GB of my own photographs as well as ton of open source software tar-balls. I know people who share their own music.
I use Gnutella for this, and what I find amazing is the amount of genuinely useful information you can download IF you know how to look for it.
I'm still shocked no one has build a decent Gnutella search engine.
Couple of points. If you're not from outside the states, I appologized for my assumption, it just seemed logical given your statements. No need to be rude.
;-)
Second I misunderstood this to be an internal-to-the-states issue, but even still customs does go through local (or at least federal) law enforcement when dealing with items that are already past the import stage, no? Certainly where these items were on shelves, I just don't see how they had the jurisdiction to walk in and yank them.
PS: Never saw Law & Order, but if you're a fan and want to suggest some episodes, I'm sure I can download them from an oversees server