It is my understanding that Microsoft certified a non-network connected NT machine C2 certified and then sold whatever version and configuration the customer wanted, while saying:
"sure NT is C2 certified"
Seems like this ties into the helping out the spies therory. Sell something that is as open as a baby and then tell everyone it is solid as a rock. Could make it much easier to spy.
They say that their top tech guy is Andy Hertzfeld.
Read more about Andy Hertzfeld in this old wired article from when he was working at General Magic. My favorite line is:
"Are you guys going to be here ten years from now?" I ask Bill and Andy.
"Yeah," says Bill.
Andy looks startled. "At General Magic?"
"Oh, I don't know," says Bill.
"I don't think I'll be at General Magic," says Andy, "because I'm better at starting things.... There'll be new adventures - "
"I would guess that General Magic will have been taken over by weird people who don't know what they've got," concedes Bill.
"It's not so much that," says Andy. "I don't know if I have the wherewithal inside me as a person in his forties to try and start another platform. I think it's most likely for me to want to go work as an independent artist."
Guess he is starting with a new platform after all.
Bad or good it is about choices
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
I am sure that there are people that are addicted to some activity on the Internet, but this does not then lead to all people who use x for more than y hours a week are addicts who have lost all social interaction.
The number one internet activity is mail. Everybody uses it to.... yeah to communicate with other people.
So many people I have known spend huge ammounts of time in front of a TV and that just can not be good for you.
I think that people should choose activities that lend balence to their lives. That they find rewarding. For some this is face to face interaction but for others it is coding.
I think that mp3.com is creating the future of music.
Let me explain my experience with them:
I wanted to learn more about Baroque music so I went to their site searched on Baroque and found several groups that played that style of music. I downloaded example songs from their CDs. Decided I liked a group called Moscow Baroque I ordered their CDs at less than what I would buy a cd for in a brick and morter. They arrived quickly. The CDs had both audio tracks for cdplayers and MP3 files.
Now this is a group that is a group that is not big enough to be picked up by a big label and sold. But the MP3 people can sell their music, and allow me to preview it.
BTW I do not have anything to do with mp3.com except as a customer.
I for one am very happy to see this code released. By releasing it there will be time for a lot of eyes to look at it and for refinments to be made. Linux will be helped in the long term by being ported to this chip.
I want as much choice in the Linux world as possible. The more processors the better in my book.
It is true that there are only so many developers, but choice will cause the better systems to get more work done on them and thus improve.
One of the big differences between linux and M$ winXXXX is that we can move faster as this release shows.
The biggest problem with this entire thread is that the subject is so controversial that it has obscured the subject.
The original intent of my first post was that you do not take away someone's freedoms by calling them a monster. (You will Please notice that I did not say threatening to kill them shooting them etc.) This was based on Katz's statement:
The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.
The use of the terms "murder" and "genocide" can be applied to those that in someone's opinion that advocate "murder" and "genocide" . Just because someone else believes that there is no "murder" and "genocide" enveloped does not mean that the person is not debating the issue.
I also think that putting pressure on the media... is reprehensible and anyone who does such a thing is simply trying to limit someone else's ability or willingness to speak their mind.
I agree completely. I think however (and one of my motivations for talking about it) is that one of the tactics that is used in these arguments is to present the side that uses the terms "murder" and "genocide" as hateful or people that will not "talk" about it rationally. The ignore the opinion that the subject is murder in one sides eyes and instead steer the debate into talking about how mean or hateful the side is that used such terms. Thus ignoring the argument that it is murder. let me give an example:
Side A: Aborting a baby is a woman's right and it's ok that thousands of fetuses are aborted each year.
Side B: Aborting a baby is murder and they are practicing genocide! Side A: Your using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of the idea of abortion.
You will notice how side b does not explain how side a is wrong about it being murder, instead they attack side b's argument as being wrong to make
Just for contrast let's replace abortion with Murder, woman with Nazi, baby with subhuman and fetus with them.
Side A: Murdering a subhuman is a Nazi's right and it's ok that thousands of them are murdered each year.
Side B: Murdering someone you thing is subhuman is murder and they are practicing genocide! Side A: Your using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of the idea of murder of sub humans.
Interesting contrast.
Noel expresses some opionions on Singer and morality:
Personally on the issue of what singer has advocated. That animals have the same rights as people and that babies do are not people or animals and have even less rights. I find this monstrous and that a person that is expressing these opinions publicly with the intent to convince others of the morality of these opinions is working to destroy the basic building blocks of society. That his ideas remind me of the ideas the Nazi criminals advocated. It is so unbelievable and horrifying that I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can support it.
It seems to me that our definition of the value of human life is slipping steadily away. They are delivering babies today and if the mother wants the baby they put it in an incubator if she does not they set the baby on a counter to die. People shoot each other over who goes first or who cut who off on a highway
I believe that there are basic laws of conduct and morality. I believe that the come from God. You may believe that they come from something else. But as a society we will violate these laws with peril. I could say what comes around goes around or I could say that we will be judged by God. Either way you look at it you reap what you sow. The less we value human life the less value our own life has. The more exceptions we make in who is human and deserves life the less value all of our lives have. We become colder and less caring. We suddenly wonder why we do not like the world we are living in. I value human life. I do not believe that some people are not really people and thus can be killed out of hand.
You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct. Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them. In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe. Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Let me take this one point at a time:
You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct.
What I said is that I did not believe that morality is subjective. This could have been more accurately stated. So let me try. I believe that there is a truth and morality that comes from God. That is universal and static. We to the best of our ability and the light that we have in our lives try to follow that truth and morality. For the record many of us disagree. But regardless of our beliefs and interpretations there is but one truth and light. I did not claim that I had a perfect understanding of truth and morality. I do however believe that I am on the path.
Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them.
I do not think and have not said that anyone that does anything immoral is a monster. I and every other man have done immoral things. I also would object to your saying that I would easily call someone a monster. That is not true. It takes monstrous ideas, advocated to make a monster. Hitler sitting in his house thinking that the jews were not really people did not make him a monster. His convincing of others that this was so made him the monster.
In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe.
This is the smokescreen that I have discussed earlier. I express my opinions and ideas and they are dismissed as avoiding a discussion. Is this not the same thing that you accuse me of? Instead of actually talking about the subject you turn the debate into the validity of my arguments. If you were truly interested in debate would you not say something like "I think that Singer is not a monster because..."?
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong. (BTW this is not a typo it just seemed just to be a fine response to your point.)
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth political and religious leaders who get up and thump their bibles at us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their religion.
May I say again:
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
If I may paraphrase your statement:
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth people who get up and tell us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their opinion.
Your argument seems to be that I have the right to free speech as long as I say certain things and do not say others or to put it a different way as long as I construct my arguments according to your preferences.
Danse Said:
believe he was referring to this statement from your first post:
So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
In that statement, you seem to imply that you should have the right to call Singer a monster.
Exactly, I have the right to call him a monster. To compare his ideas to the nazi holocaust. To compare Singer to a war criminal of my choice.
Let me say again a little louder. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
The argument that certain arguments are incorrect or not really an argument as others have said in this thread:
No, his point is that large groups of people are themselves using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of his idea. Instead of trying to refute it, all they're doing is labeling him a monster, murdered, advocate of genocide. And trying to make anyone else not even consider discussing his idea for fear of being labeled the same way.
----------
By calling someone a monster, and basically de-humanizing him
----------
and you attack HIM because of his arguments -- instead of his arguments -- then you are quenching free speech.
Do you have a right to shout something down just because you don't like it?
----------
Let me state again I have the right to free speech. I have the right to say things that you do not like. I have the right to say them in a way that makes you very angry. I have the right to piss you off. I have the right to talk about your mother. I HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
If we did not have this right then you would hear one side of it. you would only hear the "Let's kill our children" side or you would hear the "They are monsters side" according to who had the power over the censors.
If you do not like this right spend more time at home staring at the wall. But telling me that calling people that advocate monstrous things monsters is somehow restricting their freedom of speech is a smokescreen brought out by how much you disagree with me and not based on some higher understanding of the freedom of speech.
Noel
P.S on the subject of morality
Danse Said:
Morality is highly subjective. It is never a good argument.
I do not believe that morality is subjective and in cases involving human life it is what your argument must be based on. You fall into the falsehood that all cultures are equily moral. This is not true.
This is the point, see. You may disagree with Singer, but you disagree with his idea, and expression of an idea should not make you label him as immoral. If you do this, you are ensuring that no one will dare to express ideas contrary to that which you believe, and therefore asserting your moral superiority through brute force intellectual terrorism. I don't object to your lambasting Singer's opinion - I object to your lambasting Singer for holding this opinion.
If I might point out several things.
I never have said that singer is a monster. Go read what I actually said. I do feel that the idea of killing children is evil and monstrous. I do not know singer. Do you? How do you know that he is not a monster? The evidence presented does not lend itself to him being an angel.
Accusing me of brute force intellectual terrorism is amusing. Do you really support my right to speak my opinions or do you begrudge me this only because you lack the power to shut me up?
Your argument seems to be that I have the right to free speech as long as I say certain things and do not say others or to put it a different way as long as I construct my arguments according to your preferences.
You use the phrase "label him as immoral" After all we all recognize that labeling is not politically correct. But a horse is a horse is a horse. A person that advocates immoral behavior is not acting morally.
After all, if you find Singer offensive, so what? Is the expression of his offensive idea going to somehow sour the world? Hardly. Why do you find it so galling that someone might have a thought contrary to yours? After all, if your idea is the truth, then how can it suffer when held up against a false idea?
After all, if you find me offensive, so what? Is the expression of my offensive idea going to somehow sour the world?
Not that I find my ideas offensive.
Why does someone have the right to express the idea that it is ok to kill children and yet if I present the opposite opinion it is attacked as somehow being wrong to express? Is it possible that as AngryMob said:
You are unwilling to change, even though you are not necessarily right. This is flat out wrong. This is dogmatism at its worst.
That there is dogmatism at work from a standpoint of:
Anything to do with morality is an opinion
There is no right or wrong
people have no inherent value
Parental rights are more important than child rights until some magical age when they suddenly are granted rights.
and that anything that disagrees with this dogma is attacked as being a assault on the rights of those that present this dogma?
see, this is something that bugs me about those religious people who are always trying to get people to do what their god likes. they always say "I have a right to express my views too", and they do, under the first amendment. what they don't have the right to do is hold me hostage with their god's laws; disagreeing with abortion or euthanasia is one thing,
actually trying to make it impossible for me to kill my baby is another thing entirely
So to paraphrase this statement: disagreeing with (thing you hate) is one thing, actually trying to make it impossible for you to kill (person doing the thing you hate) is another thing entirely.
The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.
Singer is no monster, and the notion that he's an advocate of mass murder seems outrageously simple-minded and hysterical, a club to shut him up rather than a way to support or refute his ideas.
So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.
I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.
This could be interesting but only if there where some sort of measurable objective. Not just a popularity contest. They should put everyone on different islands, have a doctor examine them before and after. Evaluate how well they survived. What their housing looked like etc. How well they ate. That would be a contest that I would be interested in.
But then they would not have a soap opera.
I predict they select "survivors" based on:
Girls
Hair
Breasts
Legs
Boys
Hair
Chin
Muscles
The good news is that for the girls heroin sheik is in....
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE FUND For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.
15 million directly spent to protect our governments ability to tap phones. It seems like a lot of effort being spent on a task that in the long run is going to fail.
In the long run I don't think that the government can keep everything under wraps, it is as doomed to failure as the efforts in past centuries to keep the reading of the bible the exclusive domain of clergy.
The only argument I have ever read by a non gov official for this sort of thing is in one of the Tom Clancy novels, were he has the terrorists using encryption to prevent their detection. However these same terrorists have the resources of an oil producing nation to back them up, So would pgp being exported really have been needed for them to be protected or would they have just been able to buy what they needed? After all in the book they are able to produce biological weapons to attack the US with, so how hard would it have been for them to operate without coming to the notice of the CIA without public domain strong encyption?
So give me a break. Read my mail if you want to, but have fun I even have trouble keeping up with it.
At the end of 1998, the Foundation had committed $133 million to organizations working in global health; $122 million to educational concerns; more than $42 million to community projects in the Pacific Northwest; and over $60 million to special projects and annual giving campaigns.
Gates Learning Foundation
The Gates Learning Foundation began life as the Gates Library Foundation in June 1997 with the mission of helping to bridge the "digital divide" between those who have access to computers and the Internet and those who lack such access. By the end of 1998, the Foundation had awarded grants of over $22 million to 1300 libraries in 28 states to bring Internet access to their patrons, as well as provide staff technical assistance and training.
Gates Center for Technology Access
The Gates Center for Technology Access (GCTA) is dedicated to ensuring that no one becomes "information disenfranchised." GCTA works to establish access to information technology resources in communities throughout the United States through partnerships with libraries, schools, and community organizations.
The Administration generally, and law enforcement particularly, are not trying to ban encryption. Law enforcement supports the responsible spread of strong encryption. Use of strong encryption will help deter crime and promote a safe national information infrastructure.
But in the letter she says:
Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must soon address the risks posed by electronic distribution of encryption software.
Very different.
I would bet that the latter more accuratly shows the policy of the DOJ.
Is not strong and trusted encryption software built by the open and free flow of ideas. How strong would the encryption be that is available to everyone but the governments if there was no electronic distribution?
The investment community needs to realize that the online arena is going to grab up large chunks of the economy and that they can not afford to alienate the people that are building it.
This Article on BBC news points out that the Internet generated over 300 billion in revenue and over 1.2 million jobs.
Also from the article:
For the past three years, revenue generated on the Internet has been doubling every year, and there is no slowdown in sight.
If they do not understand where we are going and do not line up the people (hackers) that are in a good position to understand what is going to work and what will not and purhaps make lots of money along the way. Then they are going to be that online trading house that failed in the 90's that no one can quite remember the name of.
There will be a Yahoo! Chat Event devoted to SETI@home from 5 to 7 PM (PST) this Friday 7/30/1999. Go here for details.
From the Yahoo page:
Dr. David P. Anderson, Project Director and Dr. Dan Werthimer, Chief Scientist, of the SETI@Home project discuss their perspectives regarding this exciting new approach to computing.
Looks like anyone interested can find out the real scoop from the horses mouth.
The article seemed to be flame bait to me. They never said that Seti@home said anything other detailing the performance critical routine in the seti@home software. Then the way I read it seti@home did not want to give up their source. The article said:
SETI is not interested in receiving a faster client software
Is this what they said or more likely an interpertation of what they said?
Koskinen said the command center was meant to keep tabs on critical private-sector activities as well as local, state and federal computer systems
Is it just me or does "keep tabs" really mean sniff the net for all interesting traffic?
"should serve as a framework for future cooperation between critical infrastructure industries... and the federal government"
This sounds like more of the same. Reminds me of the governments efforts to control keys, the clipper chip etc. Is this just the command bunker for Echelon II?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like this ties into the helping out the spies therory. Sell something that is as open as a baby and then tell everyone it is solid as a rock. Could make it much easier to spy.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
Read more about Andy Hertzfeld in this old wired article from when he was working at General Magic. My favorite line is:
Guess he is starting with a new platform after all.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
The number one internet activity is mail. Everybody uses it to
So many people I have known spend huge ammounts of time in front of a TV and that just can not be good for you.
I think that people should choose activities that lend balence to their lives. That they find rewarding. For some this is face to face interaction but for others it is coding.
Live your own life.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
They (IBM) also have an interesting bio up on Robert L. Wisnieff Manager, Advanced Display Technology Laboratory. Interesting if you can ignore the market spin at least :).
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
- Retrofitting Quality of Service into a Time-Sharing Operating System
- Quality of Service Support for Legacy Applications
- Disk Scheduling with Quality of Service Guarantees
and for the power point enabled: Quality of Service Support in Eclipse/BSDNoel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
Take a look at the MPEG-4 Structured Audio: Developer Tools for info on MP-4.
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
Let me explain my experience with them:
I wanted to learn more about Baroque music so I went to their site searched on Baroque and found several groups that played that style of music. I downloaded example songs from their CDs. Decided I liked a group called Moscow Baroque I ordered their CDs at less than what I would buy a cd for in a brick and morter. They arrived quickly. The CDs had both audio tracks for cdplayers and MP3 files.
Now this is a group that is a group that is not big enough to be picked up by a big label and sold. But the MP3 people can sell their music, and allow me to preview it.
BTW I do not have anything to do with mp3.com except as a customer.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
The songs are then listed on http://my.mp3.com for your listening pleasure.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
I want as much choice in the Linux world as possible. The more processors the better in my book.
It is true that there are only so many developers, but choice will cause the better systems to get more work done on them and thus improve.
One of the big differences between linux and M$ winXXXX is that we can move faster as this release shows.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
The original intent of my first post was that you do not take away someone's freedoms by calling them a monster. (You will Please notice that I did not say threatening to kill them shooting them etc.) This was based on Katz's statement:
The use of the terms "murder" and "genocide" can be applied to those that in someone's opinion that advocate "murder" and "genocide" . Just because someone else believes that there is no "murder" and "genocide" enveloped does not mean that the person is not debating the issue.
I agree completely. I think however (and one of my motivations for talking about it) is that one of the tactics that is used in these arguments is to present the side that uses the terms "murder" and "genocide" as hateful or people that will not "talk" about it rationally. The ignore the opinion that the subject is murder in one sides eyes and instead steer the debate into talking about how mean or hateful the side is that used such terms. Thus ignoring the argument that it is murder. let me give an example: You will notice how side b does not explain how side a is wrong about it being murder, instead they attack side b's argument as being wrong to makeJust for contrast let's replace abortion with Murder, woman with Nazi, baby with subhuman and fetus with them.
Interesting contrast.Noel expresses some opionions on Singer and morality:
Personally on the issue of what singer has advocated. That animals have the same rights as people and that babies do are not people or animals and have even less rights. I find this monstrous and that a person that is expressing these opinions publicly with the intent to convince others of the morality of these opinions is working to destroy the basic building blocks of society. That his ideas remind me of the ideas the Nazi criminals advocated. It is so unbelievable and horrifying that I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can support it.
It seems to me that our definition of the value of human life is slipping steadily away. They are delivering babies today and if the mother wants the baby they put it in an incubator if she does not they set the baby on a counter to die. People shoot each other over who goes first or who cut who off on a highway
I believe that there are basic laws of conduct and morality. I believe that the come from God. You may believe that they come from something else. But as a society we will violate these laws with peril. I could say what comes around goes around or I could say that we will be judged by God. Either way you look at it you reap what you sow. The less we value human life the less value our own life has. The more exceptions we make in who is human and deserves life the less value all of our lives have. We become colder and less caring. We suddenly wonder why we do not like the world we are living in. I value human life. I do not believe that some people are not really people and thus can be killed out of hand.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
Let me take this one point at a time:
What I said is that I did not believe that morality is subjective. This could have been more accurately stated. So let me try.
I believe that there is a truth and morality that comes from God. That is universal and static. We to the best of our ability and the light that we have in our lives try to follow that truth and morality. For the record many of us disagree. But regardless of our beliefs and interpretations there is but one truth and light. I did not claim that I had a perfect understanding of truth and morality. I do however believe that I am on the path.
I do not think and have not said that anyone that does anything immoral is a monster. I and every other man have done immoral things. I also would object to your saying that I would easily call someone a monster. That is not true. It takes monstrous ideas, advocated to make a monster. Hitler sitting in his house thinking that the jews were not really people did not make him a monster. His convincing of others that this was so made him the monster.
This is the smokescreen that I have discussed earlier. I express my opinions and ideas and they are dismissed as avoiding a discussion. Is this not the same thing that you accuse me of? Instead of actually talking about the subject you turn the debate into the validity of my arguments. If you were truly interested in debate would you not say something like "I think that Singer is not a monster because..."?
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong. (BTW this is not a typo it just seemed just to be a fine response to your point.)
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth political and religious leaders who get up and thump their bibles at us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their religion.
May I say again:
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
If I may paraphrase your statement:
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth people who get up and tell us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their opinion.
Noel
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
You miss the point of why genocide and other words such as monster have such an emotional charge it is because of other genocides and monsters.
I think that you just do not agree with me and that this is a method of argument.Give me a break "the value of our freedoms".
You mean that you don't like what they are saying.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
Danse Said:
Exactly, I have the right to call him a monster. To compare his ideas to the nazi holocaust. To compare Singer to a war criminal of my choice.
Let me say again a little louder. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
The argument that certain arguments are incorrect or not really an argument as others have said in this thread:
Let me state again I have the right to free speech. I have the right to say things that you do not like. I have the right to say them in a way that makes you very angry. I have the right to piss you off. I have the right to talk about your mother. I HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECHIf we did not have this right then you would hear one side of it. you would only hear the "Let's kill our children" side or you would hear the "They are monsters side" according to who had the power over the censors.
If you do not like this right spend more time at home staring at the wall. But telling me that calling people that advocate monstrous things monsters is somehow restricting their freedom of speech is a smokescreen brought out by how much you disagree with me and not based on some higher understanding of the freedom of speech.
Noel
P.S on the subject of morality
Danse Said:
I do not believe that morality is subjective and in cases involving human life it is what your argument must be based on. You fall into the falsehood that all cultures are equily moral. This is not true.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
If I might point out several things.
Noel
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
After all, if you find me offensive, so what? Is the expression of my offensive idea going to somehow sour the world?
Not that I find my ideas offensive.
Why does someone have the right to express the idea that it is ok to kill children and yet if I present the opposite opinion it is attacked as somehow being wrong to express? Is it possible that as AngryMob said:
That there is dogmatism at work from a standpoint of:
and that anything that disagrees with this dogma is attacked as being a assault on the rights of those that present this dogma?
that is what it looks like from my seat.
Noel
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
So to paraphrase this statement:
disagreeing with (thing you hate) is one thing, actually trying to make it impossible for you to kill (person doing the thing you hate) is another thing entirely.
Gosh is that what you really meant?
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.
I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.
Noel
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
But then they would not have a soap opera.
I predict they select "survivors" based on:
The good news is that for the girls heroin sheik is in....
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
15 million directly spent to protect our governments ability to tap phones.
It seems like a lot of effort being spent on a task that in the long run is going to fail.
In the long run I don't think that the government can keep everything under wraps, it is as doomed to failure as the efforts in past centuries to keep the reading of the bible the exclusive domain of clergy.
The only argument I have ever read by a non gov official for this sort of thing is in one of the Tom Clancy novels, were he has the terrorists using encryption to prevent their detection. However these same terrorists have the resources of an oil producing nation to back them up, So would pgp being exported really have been needed for them to be protected or would they have just been able to buy what they needed? After all in the book they are able to produce biological weapons to attack the US with, so how hard would it have been for them to operate without coming to the notice of the CIA without public domain strong encyption?
So give me a break. Read my mail if you want to, but have fun I even have trouble keeping up with it.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
From the site:
William H. Gates Foundation
At the end of 1998, the Foundation had committed $133 million to organizations working in global health; $122 million to educational concerns; more than $42 million to community projects in the Pacific Northwest; and over $60 million to special projects and annual giving campaigns.
Gates Learning Foundation
The Gates Learning Foundation began life as the Gates Library Foundation in June 1997 with the mission of helping to bridge the "digital divide" between those who have access to computers and the Internet and those who lack such access. By the end of 1998, the Foundation had awarded grants of over $22 million to 1300 libraries in 28 states to bring Internet access to their patrons, as well as provide staff technical assistance and training.
Gates Center for Technology Access
The Gates Center for Technology Access (GCTA) is dedicated to ensuring that no one becomes "information disenfranchised." GCTA works to establish access to information technology resources in communities throughout the United States through partnerships with libraries, schools, and community organizations.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
But in the letter she says:
Very different.
I would bet that the latter more accuratly shows the policy of the DOJ.
Is not strong and trusted encryption software built by the open and free flow of ideas. How strong would the encryption be that is available to everyone but the governments if there was no electronic distribution?
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
This Article on BBC news points out that the Internet generated over 300 billion in revenue and over 1.2 million jobs.
Also from the article:
If they do not understand where we are going and do not line up the people (hackers) that are in a good position to understand what is going to work and what will not and purhaps make lots of money along the way. Then they are going to be that online trading house that failed in the 90's that no one can quite remember the name of.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
From the Yahoo page:
Looks like anyone interested can find out the real scoop from the horses mouth.
The article seemed to be flame bait to me. They never said that Seti@home said anything other detailing the performance critical routine in the seti@home software. Then the way I read it seti@home did not want to give up their source. The article said:
Is this what they said or more likely an interpertation of what they said?
Lets check the facts before slamming Seti@Home.
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation