I agree largely. But what were to happen if a democracy became a despotism? That said, I don't beleive good policing stems from new technology, I beleive it largely stems from well trained policemen (they should have mandatory riot training). I also beleive someone like Nixon would have loved something like this.
My problem with it is that it could increase the likely hood of the police using these weapons against protestors. With tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags etc. people are forced into making important choices, with technology like this the choice[of use] becomes less important and I think could lead to wider usage.
Judge Death in Judge Dredd considered that the only way to eradicate crime was to eradicate life and the theological aspects of free-will also come into play. You're right I didn't intend to make it a black and white issue. There are more greys out there when it comes to politics and war. I agree with you entirely.
In the UK we have had plenty of violent demonstrations and the police have done an excellent job (with some *very* notable exceptions) at controlling violence, without needing firearms in the bulk of cases and without resorting to tear gas etc., I think to a certain extent having easier methods of dispelling demonstration would allow cheaper and less skilled policing.
This is not a new problem. The 1715 Riot act tried to address these problems
Rubber bullets are pretty harsh. Bean bag rounds are far safer. Over here in the UK we have seen several deaths and injuries from rubber bullets in Northern Ireland.
The problem with dispersal and aerosol based products is that they can kill people with exisisting lung conditions, such as those suffering asthma.
I think there is a terrific grounding for litigation with all of these technologies. For instance what happens if someone is injured who was not taking part in the demonstrations, either by slipping on the residue or been caught in the cross-slime-fire?
I'm all for non-lethal supression of demonstrations when they create a public nuisance without cause. But what happens when the demonstrators are right? Will non-lethal slime, sound waves etc. increase the likelyhood of police supression?
No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement?... etc.
This is interesting because IIRC the negotiations between China and the WTO (17th September 2001), concluded with China saying:
"China will provide non-discriminatory treatment to all WTO Members. All foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, will be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade."
"Within three years of accession all enterprises will have the right to import and export all goods and trade them throughout the customs territory with limited exceptions."
"price controls will not be used for purposes of affording protection to domestic industries or services providers."
Does blocking spam count as anti-competative or discriminatory treatment of foreign compentitors?
Why do we always tiptoe around China's sensibilities?
We aid them block so called subversive sites from their entire country, we tolerate crackdowns on their populace, we paper over the facts, we supress demonstration when their officials visit our countries, we tolerate the occational nuclear secret heading their way and we've forgotton about Tienemen Square.
Why? Are they as bigger threat as Russia was? Are they capable of collapsing the Western economies with the stroke of a pen? No! Their near slave labor, poor working conditions and semi-rural economy is the cheapest place to make our goods. That's all. If you want the support of the west just open up your market, keep prices cheap and keep production up.
This spam blocking is another way of making China comfortable. Maybe we are doing the right thing and eventually (because of the increased trade) they'll become just like us. We'll just have to wait and see.
I would argue that a great series, as opposed to a good series, can be seen in any order and will still draw exitement, interest and suspense from the viewer. The Prisoner is a good example of this.
Re:Continuous plots... NOPE.
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but the mark of a really good soap, documentrary, or drama is that someone can come in at any point and still draw enjoyment from the series. I think that yes, this is exhibited in relatively narrow demographics such as Sci-Fi, but I'd really like to see some good, in depth, intellegent drama from the US. Something a bit more gritty and down to earth. LAPD was good like that, I thought OZ was OK too (that was another one you could pick up at any point or view in no particular order). But I find CSI a bit derivative and really spells out any emotion in tedious moments with appropriate music.
The other point is that most programs are now repeated at least twice a week on a lot of networks (not to mention +1hr channels).
Light, Light, Light
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The characters are two dimensional and they also sum-up a complete forensic case in one episode. I think were they to spread a case over several episodes it'd be much better. Prime Suspect and Silent Witness were two programs that managed to do things in a more gritty way. It comes across as as a cross-between Scrubs and Columbo.
Damn my awful typing, 'saled' should say 'sales' and in the last paragraph 'the word tamper resistant' should say the 'the statement tamper resistant'. Cheers.
I don't want to be a pedant, but resistant doesn't mean immune in all contexts, it also means "the attempt to prevent something by action or argument" [or something to that effect - I don't have a dictionary within reach].
So tamper resistant isn't an absolute statement and often refers to the ability to buy time. However many companies (typically the saled dept.) often refer to it as though it buys *complete* piece of mind, yet even physical bank safes are rated by time to resist cracking/breaking.
I think this paper is good because it means that PR claims can be provided with a counter argument from a third party that provides a proof. However I think that anyone using the word tamper resistant is not an imbecile, I think that anyone who uses it in the context of tamper-proof is an imbecile. Resistant has so many contexts.
I am aware of this, but I am still skeptical of both the ramifications and overall meaning to users. Untill this has been put to extensive peer review and other cryptographers have vented their spleens I cannot be sure of the consequences.
It also depends on the context of the messages transmitted, troop movements are good when they are moving, but not as helpfull to your troops when the information is old. [Not to say that the message structure isn't helpfull] So how long the attack takes is also very important (in some circumstances, not as important in others)
One-time pads are feasible but difficult to manage and of course have other limitations. Although they have been the mainstay of numbers stations etc. for the last 40 years.
Another point I'd like to raise is that major international companies are as well funded as government and maybe have as much influence. If a big international were to intercept and decode a rivals mail it could give them an advantage (or even customers mail, if the customer's info is of enough value). The other point is that as equipment becomes cheaper and faster the attack will be within reach of so many more people.
Yes, although I don't like the window manager integration at that level. I'd be interested to see a jailed non-priveledged Perl built into a word-processor, OTH, it'd be nice to see a plug-in tat allows ordinary Perl to operate from within the text-buffer (I believe you can do this with Emacs) not operating on the output format.
Fair enough, but I still think that Sun will have a far more drastic influence on the direction and underlying mechanics of Gnome depending of course on the level of funding and the number of Sun developers devoted to the tasks. Sun's weight compared to
When I say vendor neutral I mean that they evaluate code mediums on there relative merits as opposed to looking at a project (part-funded in any way) as a extension of their revenue stream. Which I beleive Sun already is. I beleive that this will effect the funding and affections of any GNOME involvement. I think I probably over emphasised Miguel De Icaza's MONO, interaction, looking back on that I think its probably quite irrelevant. But the question remains, how can a commercial organization become financially (or even idiosyncratically) involved with a non-for-profit organization and both sides remain spotless? It's easy to see how Ximian has influenced Gnome, what's a relative two ton gorilla like Sun going to do?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree largely. But what were to happen if a democracy became a despotism? That said, I don't beleive good policing stems from new technology, I beleive it largely stems from well trained policemen (they should have mandatory riot training). I also beleive someone like Nixon would have loved something like this.
My problem with it is that it could increase the likely hood of the police using these weapons against protestors. With tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags etc. people are forced into making important choices, with technology like this the choice[of use] becomes less important and I think could lead to wider usage.
Won't be much good on concrete. It'd be interesting to see if snow shoes would work.
Cleats are a bitch on concrete, similarly I once busted by knee running over a tarmac surface with football boots on. I haven't done that again.
I'm actually from the UK. Enough said? ;-)
I won't even begin to go into the laws over here...
To be fair most of the poor legislation flows from politicians as opposed to the police and security services.
Judge Death in Judge Dredd considered that the only way to eradicate crime was to eradicate life and the theological aspects of free-will also come into play. You're right I didn't intend to make it a black and white issue. There are more greys out there when it comes to politics and war. I agree with you entirely.
Do the police have to resort to riot-slime?
In the UK we have had plenty of violent demonstrations and the police have done an excellent job (with some *very* notable exceptions) at controlling violence, without needing firearms in the bulk of cases and without resorting to tear gas etc., I think to a certain extent having easier methods of dispelling demonstration would allow cheaper and less skilled policing.
This is not a new problem. The 1715 Riot act tried to address these problems
Rubber bullets are pretty harsh. Bean bag rounds are far safer. Over here in the UK we have seen several deaths and injuries from rubber bullets in Northern Ireland.
The problem with dispersal and aerosol based products is that they can kill people with exisisting lung conditions, such as those suffering asthma.
I think there is a terrific grounding for litigation with all of these technologies. For instance what happens if someone is injured who was not taking part in the demonstrations, either by slipping on the residue or been caught in the cross-slime-fire?
Heh. A bit like Slimer in Ghostbusters..
I'm all for non-lethal supression of demonstrations when they create a public nuisance without cause. But what happens when the demonstrators are right? Will non-lethal slime, sound waves etc. increase the likelyhood of police supression?
... etc.
No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement?
This is interesting because IIRC the negotiations between China and the WTO (17th September 2001), concluded with China saying:
"China will provide non-discriminatory treatment to all WTO Members. All foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, will be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade."
"Within three years of accession all enterprises will have the right to import and export all goods and trade them throughout the customs territory with limited exceptions."
"price controls will not be used for purposes of affording protection to domestic industries or services providers."
Does blocking spam count as anti-competative or discriminatory treatment of foreign compentitors?
Why do we always tiptoe around China's sensibilities?
We aid them block so called subversive sites from their entire country, we tolerate crackdowns on their populace, we paper over the facts, we supress demonstration when their officials visit our countries, we tolerate the occational nuclear secret heading their way and we've forgotton about Tienemen Square.
Why? Are they as bigger threat as Russia was? Are they capable of collapsing the Western economies with the stroke of a pen? No! Their near slave labor, poor working conditions and semi-rural economy is the cheapest place to make our goods. That's all. If you want the support of the west just open up your market, keep prices cheap and keep production up.
This spam blocking is another way of making China comfortable. Maybe we are doing the right thing and eventually (because of the increased trade) they'll become just like us. We'll just have to wait and see.
I would argue that a great series, as opposed to a good series, can be seen in any order and will still draw exitement, interest and suspense from the viewer. The Prisoner is a good example of this.
Yes, but the mark of a really good soap, documentrary, or drama is that someone can come in at any point and still draw enjoyment from the series. I think that yes, this is exhibited in relatively narrow demographics such as Sci-Fi, but I'd really like to see some good, in depth, intellegent drama from the US. Something a bit more gritty and down to earth. LAPD was good like that, I thought OZ was OK too (that was another one you could pick up at any point or view in no particular order). But I find CSI a bit derivative and really spells out any emotion in tedious moments with appropriate music.
The other point is that most programs are now repeated at least twice a week on a lot of networks (not to mention +1hr channels).
The characters are two dimensional and they also sum-up a complete forensic case in one episode. I think were they to spread a case over several episodes it'd be much better. Prime Suspect and Silent Witness were two programs that managed to do things in a more gritty way. It comes across as as a cross-between Scrubs and Columbo.
Damn my awful typing, 'saled' should say 'sales' and in the last paragraph 'the word tamper resistant' should say the 'the statement tamper resistant'. Cheers.
I don't want to be a pedant, but resistant doesn't mean immune in all contexts, it also means "the attempt to prevent something by action or argument" [or something to that effect - I don't have a dictionary within reach].
So tamper resistant isn't an absolute statement and often refers to the ability to buy time. However many companies (typically the saled dept.) often refer to it as though it buys *complete* piece of mind, yet even physical bank safes are rated by time to resist cracking/breaking.
I think this paper is good because it means that PR claims can be provided with a counter argument from a third party that provides a proof. However I think that anyone using the word tamper resistant is not an imbecile, I think that anyone who uses it in the context of tamper-proof is an imbecile. Resistant has so many contexts.
I am aware of this, but I am still skeptical of both the ramifications and overall meaning to users. Untill this has been put to extensive peer review and other cryptographers have vented their spleens I cannot be sure of the consequences.
It also depends on the context of the messages transmitted, troop movements are good when they are moving, but not as helpfull to your troops when the information is old. [Not to say that the message structure isn't helpfull] So how long the attack takes is also very important (in some circumstances, not as important in others)
One-time pads are feasible but difficult to manage and of course have other limitations. Although they have been the mainstay of numbers stations etc. for the last 40 years.
That may be the case, but peer review is very important in these matters.
Another point I'd like to raise is that major international companies are as well funded as government and maybe have as much influence. If a big international were to intercept and decode a rivals mail it could give them an advantage (or even customers mail, if the customer's info is of enough value). The other point is that as equipment becomes cheaper and faster the attack will be within reach of so many more people.
Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that ;-). I'll have to ask them for a combined hang-glider skateboard I've been thinking about for some time...
Shouldn't we all hang on until crypto experts validate this? Is it theoretical? How much does the attack cost? etc. etc.
I wouldn't start sending those revocation certificates just yet.
I missed the r, so it should be relate. Damned keyboard.
Yes, although I don't like the window manager integration at that level. I'd be interested to see a jailed non-priveledged Perl built into a word-processor, OTH, it'd be nice to see a plug-in tat allows ordinary Perl to operate from within the text-buffer (I believe you can do this with Emacs) not operating on the output format.
What are the major differences currently between OpenOffice and StarOffice?
I remember a DoD procurement elated to StarOffice, has the price remained the same? (Are they running it on Solaris anyway?)
Fair enough, but I still think that Sun will have a far more drastic influence on the direction and underlying mechanics of Gnome depending of course on the level of funding and the number of Sun developers devoted to the tasks. Sun's weight compared to
When I say vendor neutral I mean that they evaluate code mediums on there relative merits as opposed to looking at a project (part-funded in any way) as a extension of their revenue stream. Which I beleive Sun already is. I beleive that this will effect the funding and affections of any GNOME involvement. I think I probably over emphasised Miguel De Icaza's MONO, interaction, looking back on that I think its probably quite irrelevant. But the question remains, how can a commercial organization become financially (or even idiosyncratically) involved with a non-for-profit organization and both sides remain spotless? It's easy to see how Ximian has influenced Gnome, what's a relative two ton gorilla like Sun going to do?
However, I guess we'll have to agree to differ.