When have prices ever come down because the demand increases?
1)Demand increases. 2)Prices and profit margins go up. 3)Everybody and his brother moves into that business. 4)Supply increases. 5)When the supply increase catches up to the demand increase, it often overshoots, leading to a glut. 6)Prices go down. Simple. /.
Actually, the U.S. has a law on the books (18 USC 241) which "makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States". It carries penalties of up to ten years in prison -- or death if the crime results in death, kidnapping, or sexual abuse.
I don't see any clause in this law that exempts politicians, and enforcing it against them would focus their minds wonderfully upon their oaths to the Constitution. /.
can anyone translate this to enlish? i can't read legalese
Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.
[MUMBLE]"Damn dirty pinko hippies... we oughta ship 'em all back to Russia...."[/MUMBLE]
Less radically, they have raised a legitimate concern about the possible impact on traditional fair use of access control measures in the digital era.
[Looks up, notes court stenographer's stunned expression] "Strike that last from the record; replace it with, 'Having fairly and impartially considered the evidence,...'"
We need to get back to being tough on criminals in order to prevent crime
Certainly! For instance, when a cop is caught violating the Fourth Amendment, we need to be send him to prison (real don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed).
I'd watch this thread to see if you 1)endorse this position, or 2)prove yourself to be a hypocrite. /.
If they have a warrent to listen to the calls of either you or your priest, yes, they have the right to listen to your confessional. In the eyes of the law, your "confessional" with your preist should be no more significant than if I call a friend and say "I have to tell you something really really secret and this can't ever be known by another soul."
There are established legal principles pertaining to different levels of expected privacy. For instance, if I talk to someone on the street, a police officer who happens to be within listening range can listen, because I have minimal expectation of privacy. However, if I deliberately move out of range or ask the officer to do so, the police can't continue listening without some grounds for suspicion, because my expectation of privacy is higher once I specifically do something to protect it. (Note: The case law in the U.S. is pretty clear that asserting privacy against the police is not in itself sufficient cause.)
Obviously, a confessional has just about the highest expectation of privacy -- certainly, a higher expectation than a pesonal request not backed by strong institutional tradition. The fact that the "strong institutional tradition" in this case happens to be religious is irrelevant; government in the U.S. is no more supposed to discriminate against a religion than to discriminate in its favor.
/.
The significance of Quantum Computers in the field of Cryptoanalysis is that they work differently! For a "normal" computer the time taken to decrypt a PGP messages increases rapidly with the length of the message (was it exponentially?). So a 4000 bit key will not take 4 times as long to decrypt as a 1000 bit key, but many many times as long!
The Quantum Computer built by IBM however, does it in 1 (ONE!!!) step. So if they can scale it to several thousand atoms, your 4000 bit key is worth nothing... because it will still only take ONE step!!! The only thing they need is a computer with a register long enough to hold your key (4096 bit, possibly they need a bit more..). I imagine however, that this will be quite difficult and that our keys should be safe for the near future:)
The question, as you mention, is whether is is practical to set up a 4000-qbit computer such that the quantum entanglements of the 4000 qbits cause the right solution (e.g. the factors of a specific 4000-bit number) to pop out of the collapsed state. The slow crawl from 2 qbits to 5 qbits to 7 qbits suggests to me that it might turn out that the difficulty of setting up a 4000-qbit computer for a given problem isn't much less than the difficulty of just solving the problem algorithmically. /.
I have a demoronised mirror of the MPAA brief on my site.
I would have thought that this process would have had the same result as the analysis of Lord Dorwin's assurances in Foundation -- nothing would be left. /.
If you're interested in detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against libertarianism, I recommend this Web site.
On the other hand, detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against the arguments on that Web site can be found on this Web site or perhaps this other one. /.
I can see why you might want the government to protect against force. But why "fraud"?
Because it's not desirable to (for example) effectively require everyone to carry a chemical testing lab on every shopping trip, just as it's not desirable to effectively require everyone to go armed every time they step out of doors. (If people choose to take steps to augment their personal protection over what the government provides, fine, but mainstream libertarianism advocates just enough government to prevent a Hobbesian war of all against all.) /.
Why are libertarians often so pro-gun?
Isn't it absolutely obvious that you *can* hurt someone else with a gun?
The standard is not whether something can hurt someone -- that standard would justify the prohibition of just about everything -- but whether something does hurt someone or at least is highly likely to hurt someone (e.g. drunk driving). /.
it's not the government that's fucking you, it's the corporations that own the government
Yes, and the solution to that problem is to shrink the government small enough that owning it isn't worth anything -- not to let somebody else (i.e. you) take possession of it so they can have their turn fucking everybody else. /.
You are personally sovereign, but you also have a responsibility.
Yes, people have natural responsibilities (e.g. provide an honest living for themselves and their families if at all possible, keep their given word, respect the rights of others to at least the degree they want their own right respected).
One of the great scams of history, perpetrated by some pre-historic tribal leader, was to invent a bunch of new "responsibilities" (e.g. give me a share of your goods, obey my orders, kill who I tell you to kill) and bamboozle his fellows into treating them as equivalent to natural responsibilities. Thus, the latter acquired the moral patina which belongs to the former
The scam fools a majority of people to this day, which is why politicians can whip up indignation aginst political "criminals" (draft resisters, pot smokers, whatever the bogeyman du jour happens to be) similar to the natural indignation aroused by thieves and murderers.
/.
Quiz: Where would you rather create a start-up, in Chechnya/Sierra Leone or in Northern California where the roads are good and the food and pharmaceutical supply is untainted and bandits don't lurk around corners on Skyline Boulevard and houses mostly won't fall down after they are built and work-study exists and libraries are free and the Arpanet/Internet had 20 years of slow, commercial-free development? All due to the fine invisible hand of government...
Actually, it is all due to the existence of a legal system which defends property rights, which, Borsook to the contrary notwithstanding, cannot be treated as synonymous with "government". If Borsook's (over)simplification worked, North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe, all of which have far more government than Northern California, would be better choices for a start-up. /.
Forcing a private business to become an arm of law enforcement is just plain wrong. That's the really nasty part of this. No different than cops using your living room to spy on a neighbor.
This is a large part of the original intent of the T hird Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. /.
A country depends on its laws to preserve peace and stability, and anyone breaking said laws is a criminal and deserves whatever they get. If we let shades of grey into the system then we'd soon have anarchy, and that's something no right-minded person would want right?
"What is your definition of justice?"
"Justice, Elijah, is that which exists when all the laws are enforced."
Fastolfe nodded. "A good definition, Mr. Baley, for a robot.... A human being can recognize the fact that, on the basis of an abstract moral code, some laws may be bad ones and their enforcement unjust. What do you say, R. Daneel?"
"An unjust law," said R. Daneel evenly, "is a contradiction in terms."
-- Isaac Asimov (The Caves Of Steel)
Yes, but Franklin didn't live in an era were innocent children are attacked and killed every day, where pornographers make twice as much money as the regular film industry, where Islamic fundamentalists want to destroy America and where crime and murder are so commonplace.
No, he lived in an era when his culture occupied a narrow strip of seacoast, beyond which lay a vast frontier full of hostile natives. (Not that the natives didn't have good reason to be hostile, but that's beside the point, which is that modern times simply aren't fundamentally different from earlier periods.) /.
Why should they? Yeah, they let the phone companies do the wire taps, but last time I checked, 1) there are a lot more ISPs than phone companies, 2) they tend to be smaller, and thus 3) there is a greater chance that the employees of the ISP who are trusted with the tapping have some personal knowledge or opinion of the person being tapped. This is called a conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed in an investigation.
Having a third party in the loop insures that somebody will be in a position to blow the whistle if the cops break the law. Removing a safety alarm is generally understood to be a Bad Idea.
"If presented with a proper court order, we are required to allow the FBI to attach a device to our feed to monitor an unknown customer."
Or,
"We will personally forward your mail to the cops if they ask."
You have it precisely reversed. The actual alternatives are:
"We are allowinig the FBI to hook this black box to our network, which they double-pinky-swear will be used only to facilitate court-authorized surveillance."
Or,
"We will forward your mail to the cops if and when they show us a proper search warrant."
If you want the source code or more info about its inner workings, that tells me that :
1) You are performing unlawful activities you don't want people to know about.
OR
2) You're paranoid that the device does something other than email and packet capturing - like shuts down the net.
Maybe that's what it tells you. What it tells a person who actually knows the FBI's history is:
3. You're concerned that the people in power may decide that your activities, while perfectly legal, are politically undesirable and should be "discouraged" by
COINTELPRO-style dirty tricks.
Someone argue with me here because I'm not yet convinced that the inner workings of Carnivore need to be revealed.
Even if we lived in some parallel universe where the FBI was trustworthy, the inner workings of Carnivore should be revealed, so that any bugs are discovered by objective researchers (who will issue warnings and recommendations) rather than criminal crackers (who will quietly exploit them to either get around legal surveillance or conduct illegal surveillance of their own). /.
Having the government be able to read the mail of people who are known or suspected terrorists is most certainly not unreasonable and not unconstitutional.
We are not discussing a program that allows the government to "read the mail of people who are known or suspected terrorists". We are discussing Carnivore, which is a black box containing Ghu knows what capabilities. The FBI simply wants us to trust their assurances that the two are equivalent. Sorry; I base trust on past performance, and by that criterion I would no more allow the FBI to install Carnivore boxes than I would allow my teenage daughter to work in Bill Clinton's office. /.
What does anonymous posting on Slashdot have to do with the ability of the government to judiciously and selectively intercept e-mail from enemies of the state?
Ah, I remember that movie. Besides being entertaining, it served as a reminder that the people in power use one definition of "enemy of the state" when selling these power grabs and quite another when utilizing them.
I have participated in discussions like this in other forums and have recieved threats against myself and my family from these people who claim to espouse "liberty."
Even the "mainstream" Christian Coalition has called for the United Nations building to be "torn down and moved to Havana." These are exactly the sorts of things that should set off alarm bells.
I can think of no rebuttal more damning that simply to quote this statement, and invite the reader to let its implications sink in. /.
Slashdot Mirror
1)Demand increases. 2)Prices and profit margins go up. 3)Everybody and his brother moves into that business. 4)Supply increases. 5)When the supply increase catches up to the demand increase, it often overshoots, leading to a glut. 6)Prices go down. Simple.
/.
I don't see any clause in this law that exempts politicians, and enforcing it against them would focus their minds wonderfully upon their oaths to the Constitution.
/.
/.
Certainly! For instance, when a cop is caught violating the Fourth Amendment, we need to be send him to prison (real don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed).
I'd watch this thread to see if you 1)endorse this position, or 2)prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
/.
They're welcome to ask all they like. In most cases, the answer will and should be "Request Denied".
/.
There are established legal principles pertaining to different levels of expected privacy. For instance, if I talk to someone on the street, a police officer who happens to be within listening range can listen, because I have minimal expectation of privacy. However, if I deliberately move out of range or ask the officer to do so, the police can't continue listening without some grounds for suspicion, because my expectation of privacy is higher once I specifically do something to protect it. (Note: The case law in the U.S. is pretty clear that asserting privacy against the police is not in itself sufficient cause.)
Obviously, a confessional has just about the highest expectation of privacy -- certainly, a higher expectation than a pesonal request not backed by strong institutional tradition. The fact that the "strong institutional tradition" in this case happens to be religious is irrelevant; government in the U.S. is no more supposed to discriminate against a religion than to discriminate in its favor.
/.
The Quantum Computer built by IBM however, does it in 1 (ONE!!!) step. So if they can scale it to several thousand atoms, your 4000 bit key is worth nothing... because it will still only take ONE step!!! The only thing they need is a computer with a register long enough to hold your key (4096 bit, possibly they need a bit more..). I imagine however, that this will be quite difficult and that our keys should be safe for the near future :)
The question, as you mention, is whether is is practical to set up a 4000-qbit computer such that the quantum entanglements of the 4000 qbits cause the right solution (e.g. the factors of a specific 4000-bit number) to pop out of the collapsed state. The slow crawl from 2 qbits to 5 qbits to 7 qbits suggests to me that it might turn out that the difficulty of setting up a 4000-qbit computer for a given problem isn't much less than the difficulty of just solving the problem algorithmically.
/.
I would have thought that this process would have had the same result as the analysis of Lord Dorwin's assurances in Foundation -- nothing would be left.
/.
On the other hand, detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against the arguments on that Web site can be found on this Web site or perhaps this other one.
/.
Because it's not desirable to (for example) effectively require everyone to carry a chemical testing lab on every shopping trip, just as it's not desirable to effectively require everyone to go armed every time they step out of doors. (If people choose to take steps to augment their personal protection over what the government provides, fine, but mainstream libertarianism advocates just enough government to prevent a Hobbesian war of all against all.)
/.
Isn't it absolutely obvious that you *can* hurt someone else with a gun?
The standard is not whether something can hurt someone -- that standard would justify the prohibition of just about everything -- but whether something does hurt someone or at least is highly likely to hurt someone (e.g. drunk driving).
/.
Yes, and the solution to that problem is to shrink the government small enough that owning it isn't worth anything -- not to let somebody else (i.e. you) take possession of it so they can have their turn fucking everybody else.
/.
Yes, people have natural responsibilities (e.g. provide an honest living for themselves and their families if at all possible, keep their given word, respect the rights of others to at least the degree they want their own right respected).
One of the great scams of history, perpetrated by some pre-historic tribal leader, was to invent a bunch of new "responsibilities" (e.g. give me a share of your goods, obey my orders, kill who I tell you to kill) and bamboozle his fellows into treating them as equivalent to natural responsibilities. Thus, the latter acquired the moral patina which belongs to the former
The scam fools a majority of people to this day, which is why politicians can whip up indignation aginst political "criminals" (draft resisters, pot smokers, whatever the bogeyman du jour happens to be) similar to the natural indignation aroused by thieves and murderers.
/.
My condolences; can any of us assist with the funeral arrangements and voting re-registrations?
/.
Actually, it is all due to the existence of a legal system which defends property rights, which, Borsook to the contrary notwithstanding, cannot be treated as synonymous with "government". If Borsook's (over)simplification worked, North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe, all of which have far more government than Northern California, would be better choices for a start-up.
/.
This is a large part of the original intent of the T hird Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
/.
...is the Kansas curriculum now going to cover homo superior ?
/.
/.
No, he lived in an era when his culture occupied a narrow strip of seacoast, beyond which lay a vast frontier full of hostile natives. (Not that the natives didn't have good reason to be hostile, but that's beside the point, which is that modern times simply aren't fundamentally different from earlier periods.)
/.
Having a third party in the loop insures that somebody will be in a position to blow the whistle if the cops break the law. Removing a safety alarm is generally understood to be a Bad Idea.
"If presented with a proper court order, we are required to allow the FBI to attach a device to our feed to monitor an unknown customer."
Or,
"We will personally forward your mail to the cops if they ask."
You have it precisely reversed. The actual alternatives are:
/.
Even if we lived in some parallel universe where the FBI was trustworthy, the inner workings of Carnivore should be revealed, so that any bugs are discovered by objective researchers (who will issue warnings and recommendations) rather than criminal crackers (who will quietly exploit them to either get around legal surveillance or conduct illegal surveillance of their own).
/.
We are not discussing a program that allows the government to "read the mail of people who are known or suspected terrorists". We are discussing Carnivore, which is a black box containing Ghu knows what capabilities. The FBI simply wants us to trust their assurances that the two are equivalent. Sorry; I base trust on past performance, and by that criterion I would no more allow the FBI to install Carnivore boxes than I would allow my teenage daughter to work in Bill Clinton's office.
/.
Ah, I remember that movie. Besides being entertaining, it served as a reminder that the people in power use one definition of "enemy of the state" when selling these power grabs and quite another when utilizing them.
I have participated in discussions like this in other forums and have recieved threats against myself and my family from these people who claim to espouse "liberty."
"The lurkers support me in e-mail...."
/.
Good question. There's something a bit surreal in taking the pro-privacy side against an AC....
/.
I can think of no rebuttal more damning that simply to quote this statement, and invite the reader to let its implications sink in.
/.