Women are also "weaker negotiators" because women are often considered to *be* "monster bitches" just for negotiating in the same way a man would, much of the time.
when Hud retrieves the camera and the monster is standing over him-- I was sitting in my seat holding my breath and thinking "OhGodpleasedon'tlookdown, ohGodpleasedon'tlookdown!"
Hunh. I was thinking "Where's a Barrett when you really need one?"
The independent cinema trick we use is basically that, a monopod, with a 5 pound bench weight on the south end of it. It really damps the motion of the camera.
I was just thinking "embed". Though, I have to admit I can't figure out a good backplot for why a reporter would be an embed in a unit that was Stateside.
Hell, I just want to know where the Army guys came from so fast. There's Fort Hamilton in South Brooklyn, but I don't think they have any Abrahms.
A video camera with a high powered spotlight and night vision. And the thing doesn't have image stabilization? I'd have forgiven violent camera motions when they were running, if there hadn't been violent motions when they were standing still, too.
Hell, I makemovies with "prosumer" A/V equipment, and I still use a steadicam. I hate that shaky bullshit. I mean, sure, I can understand why from the point of the story, the camera work should be shaky, but there are high-end camcorders that have built in image stabilization, and given that this thing had it's own 100,000 candle power spot and night vision, I think we can infer that this was a high-end camcorder.
I can't take anybody seriously that brings up the Nazis in a discussion.
Right, because the Nazis could never possibly relevant to any discussion of world politics involving countries waging war on one another for imperialist purposes, or engaging in massive internal surveillance.
Here's a hint. The Nazis actually did things, and many of them were bad. When one's government emulates those acts, the Nazi reference becomes valid.
The Democrat threat is overstated by the Republicans only in that the Republicans claim they aren't a threat.
(It was Reagan that signed 1986, outlawing further transfer of Class III weapons to the civilian registry [also why I despise the NRA], and it was Bush I that signed 1989, outlawing import of certain weapons.)
There are states which are "non-NFA", meaning they do not allow class 3 weapons to be owned by anyone other than law-enforcement agencies, even if you pay the $200 tax and have a signed form 4.
Likewise there are states (california) where owning an "assault weapon" is banned as well.
Also, since the ATF decided in 1986 that they would no longer be transferring fully automatic weapons to the civilian registry, the price of owning such a firearm has been artificially inflated vastly beyond what normal market pressures would dictate. (Given the prevalence of these firearms in the world, and their ease of manufacture, one might fairly easily expect their price to be somewhere in the sub-$500 range. However, do to the influence of *ahem* regulatory factors, the cost is more like $5000, and rising.)
Yes, absolutely. The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights which predecess government. They are the natural rights of all people, not just citizens of the United States of America. Just as I hold that every human has the right to free expression, free practice of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble to petition for redress of greivance, so do I hold that they have the right to keep and bear arms.
We (the USA) are doing a thoroughly craptacular job of supporting these rights--in Iraq, everywhere abroad, and everywhere at home.
Ah. I've read your responses in this thread, and I think I understand the underlying disconnect that is going on here.
You're a programmer. You like programming. You want to make money and support yourself being a programmer.
But there are other programmers (and quite good programmers) who do it as a hobby, and are willing to do it for free.
This means, that if you want to make money charging for a service that others are willing to provide for nothing, your product had better be really good, or protected by government regulation....
Hacking isn't neccesarily something that the average joe, or anyone for that matter, can make a living doing. Let me provide an example, and lets see if it works for this scenario.
I have a hobby. I like to customize cars. Specifically, I like to make cars that look like they are from a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Call it the "Mad Max" look. I'd love to make a living doing this. But all of my potential customers, the very very small segment of the population that would even want such a vehicle, are either broke-ass rivetheads and punks, or want to build it themselves for aesthetic reasons, or both. This means there is no market for this service.
So I don't try to make any money off of my hobby. If software is capable of being written by people that are willing to do it for free, then there's no need to pay people to do it.
You may counter, "But there are people who customize cars for a living!" But I am not George Barris. Only the truly bad-ass can make money from that which others are willing to do for free.
The first rule of capitalism is that the universe doesn't owe you shit. If there's no market for the service you are providing, then you're going to starve unless you start offering something that people are willing to pay for.
Your mistake is in thinking that software is required to be something that people are able to make money doing, instead of a hobby.
I used to be a software engineer. I still write code. But I put bread on the table by being a welder, because when I was looking for code jobs, I was unemployed for 18 months. Just because you want to make money writing software doesn't mean that you will make money writing software.
Um, "modifications and derivations" exactly. You seem to be missing a critical step here, namely, that if the GPL'd software didn't exist in the first place, you'd have to buy the source you were modifying, or write it all from scratch.
You seem to be saying "Those people who gave me this stuff for free, that I painted racing stripes on, are unreasonably demanding that I tell people how to add racing stripes to things." If you don't like that, write your own software, from byte zero.
A.) I don't expect the fedgov cares whether sites use their UI structure or not (though, I would be unsurprised to see them require those guidelines for internal websites, and the websites of contractors) or would choose to enforce their guidelines. I think they were just trying to come up with some useful suggestions. But hey, I've learned not to totally discount the possibility that the fedgov with do any particular stupid thing.
B.) So buy a gun. Then you get to negotiate over the rules.
C.) So vote for candidates who don't want the fedgov to be in the web design business (or any of the other hundred million things they do that they aren't authorized to).
Well, it seems relatively obvious that no matter what level he is at, it is his concern that financial data be kept safe because his financial data is going into that system.
In addition, in the current era of job-scarcity, if the company gets sued and goes out of business, because the Union Bosses find out that not only is Due Diligence being ignored, it's being actively trampled, then he has the concern of finding a new job.
And finally, knowing Nathan as well as I do, I can say with certainty that part of the issue is that he hates watching people be willfully incompetent.
The first is symmetric key crypto, wherein both parties have the same key, which needs to be kept secret. The problem is twofold: exchanging the key, and keeping it secure. The advantage of public key crypto is that you can more easily do key exchange, since you don't need to make any effort to keep your public key a secret. However, there is a set of math rules known as the Diffie-Hellman key exchange which allows you to publicly (unsecured channel) exchange private keys, and then begin using them for secure channel communications.
Once you have exchanged the keys, you need to keep them a secret, but I believe that is not any more difficult than keeping your private PGP key secret, and can use the same manner of encryption.
The advantage of symmetric key crypto is that it is much more efficient. In fact, the efficiency of PKC keys is equivalent to (very approximately) a SKC algorithm using a key size of sqrt(PKC keysize).
Another option is one time pad. But one time pads also have synchronisation problems, and distribution problems, and secrecy problems. You could use Diffie-Hellman to exchange one time pads, but then your security is no better than that of the SKC scheme you use to pass them along with. Also, since you need to have 1 bit of pad for every 1 bit of message you send, it would get really long, and anyone who compromised your SKC session would already have your message anyway.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to think of SKC as a viable option over one time pad.
The point isn't whether you have secrets now, it's whether you'll ever have secrets. If you only send one encrypted email, and "someone" is watching, they know to devote all of their effort to breaking that one message. It's not a matter of "having secrets to protect", it's a matter of ideologically being a thorn in the side of people who want to be able to read your email.
The other point is that it's better to use encryption because you can. It's like always using ssh, instead of "just when you don't want someone to snoop your connection". Use encryption all the time, because protecting your privacy is always a good thing.
The advantage, of course, is that if someone decides it's important to make GPG pretty, it will get done.
Interfacing isn't that hard. What sort of "easy to use" features would be desired in a personal encryption suite?
A graphic display? PerlTK can do that. Simple means to keep track of new keys? I don't know what features would be wanted here. Lets figure it out and write it. Open Source is all about fixing problems you percieve.
Slashdot Mirror
Re: 2.) "Women are weaker negotiators"
Women are also "weaker negotiators" because women are often considered to *be* "monster bitches" just for negotiating in the same way a man would, much of the time.
One huge plot hole after another and things that frankly just didn't make any kinds of sense.
You mean like "I have a time machine, but instead of going and preventing the destruction of my planet, I'm going to go get revenge instead"?
when Hud retrieves the camera and the monster is standing over him-- I was sitting in my seat holding my breath and thinking "OhGodpleasedon'tlookdown, ohGodpleasedon'tlookdown!"
Hunh. I was thinking "Where's a Barrett when you really need one?"
The independent cinema trick we use is basically that, a monopod, with a 5 pound bench weight on the south end of it. It really damps the motion of the camera.
My guess was JDAMs. I figure a nuke would have EMP'd the tape, too.
I was just thinking "embed". Though, I have to admit I can't figure out a good backplot for why a reporter would be an embed in a unit that was Stateside.
Hell, I just want to know where the Army guys came from so fast. There's Fort Hamilton in South Brooklyn, but I don't think they have any Abrahms.
A video camera with a high powered spotlight and night vision. And the thing doesn't have image stabilization? I'd have forgiven violent camera motions when they were running, if there hadn't been violent motions when they were standing still, too.
Hell, I make movies with "prosumer" A/V equipment, and I still use a steadicam. I hate that shaky bullshit. I mean, sure, I can understand why from the point of the story, the camera work should be shaky, but there are high-end camcorders that have built in image stabilization, and given that this thing had it's own 100,000 candle power spot and night vision, I think we can infer that this was a high-end camcorder.
It is that simple, and soon, everyone will be doing it.
It wasn't feasible 10 or even 3 years ago. It is now. Welcome to the bandwidth revolution.
I can't take anybody seriously that brings up the Nazis in a discussion.
Right, because the Nazis could never possibly relevant to any discussion of world politics involving countries waging war on one another for imperialist purposes, or engaging in massive internal surveillance.
Here's a hint. The Nazis actually did things, and many of them were bad. When one's government emulates those acts, the Nazi reference becomes valid.
They make stuff up and pass it off as fact.
-il cylic
The Democrat threat is overstated by the Republicans only in that the Republicans claim they aren't a threat.
(It was Reagan that signed 1986, outlawing further transfer of Class III weapons to the civilian registry [also why I despise the NRA], and it was Bush I that signed 1989, outlawing import of certain weapons.)
-il cylic
I think you are overoptimistic about the ability of the U.S. Military to deal with guerilla insurgents.
I give you as examples; Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
-il cylic
Microsoft violated a law. That offers no judgement on whether the law is a good law or not.
The DMCA is also a law, does that make it good?
Patriot Act?
-il cylic
Well, not quite.
There are states which are "non-NFA", meaning they do not allow class 3 weapons to be owned by anyone other than law-enforcement agencies, even if you pay the $200 tax and have a signed form 4.
Likewise there are states (california) where owning an "assault weapon" is banned as well.
Also, since the ATF decided in 1986 that they would no longer be transferring fully automatic weapons to the civilian registry, the price of owning such a firearm has been artificially inflated vastly beyond what normal market pressures would dictate. (Given the prevalence of these firearms in the world, and their ease of manufacture, one might fairly easily expect their price to be somewhere in the sub-$500 range. However, do to the influence of *ahem* regulatory factors, the cost is more like $5000, and rising.)
-Il Cylic
Yes, absolutely. The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights which predecess government. They are the natural rights of all people, not just citizens of the United States of America. Just as I hold that every human has the right to free expression, free practice of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble to petition for redress of greivance, so do I hold that they have the right to keep and bear arms.
We (the USA) are doing a thoroughly craptacular job of supporting these rights--in Iraq, everywhere abroad, and everywhere at home.
-Il Cylic
Ah. I've read your responses in this thread, and I think I understand the underlying disconnect that is going on here.
...
You're a programmer. You like programming. You want to make money and support yourself being a programmer.
But there are other programmers (and quite good programmers) who do it as a hobby, and are willing to do it for free.
This means, that if you want to make money charging for a service that others are willing to provide for nothing, your product had better be really good, or protected by government regulation.
Hacking isn't neccesarily something that the average joe, or anyone for that matter, can make a living doing. Let me provide an example, and lets see if it works for this scenario.
I have a hobby. I like to customize cars. Specifically, I like to make cars that look like they are from a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Call it the "Mad Max" look. I'd love to make a living doing this. But all of my potential customers, the very very small segment of the population that would even want such a vehicle, are either broke-ass rivetheads and punks, or want to build it themselves for aesthetic reasons, or both. This means there is no market for this service.
So I don't try to make any money off of my hobby. If software is capable of being written by people that are willing to do it for free, then there's no need to pay people to do it.
You may counter, "But there are people who customize cars for a living!" But I am not George Barris. Only the truly bad-ass can make money from that which others are willing to do for free.
The first rule of capitalism is that the universe doesn't owe you shit. If there's no market for the service you are providing, then you're going to starve unless you start offering something that people are willing to pay for.
Your mistake is in thinking that software is required to be something that people are able to make money doing, instead of a hobby.
I used to be a software engineer. I still write code. But I put bread on the table by being a welder, because when I was looking for code jobs, I was unemployed for 18 months. Just because you want to make money writing software doesn't mean that you will make money writing software.
-il cylic
Um, "modifications and derivations" exactly. You seem to be missing a critical step here, namely, that if the GPL'd software didn't exist in the first place, you'd have to buy the source you were modifying, or write it all from scratch.
You seem to be saying "Those people who gave me this stuff for free, that I painted racing stripes on, are unreasonably demanding that I tell people how to add racing stripes to things." If you don't like that, write your own software, from byte zero.
-il cylic
Universities, using tuition money, also purchase Microsoft and Apple products. So, what's your point, other than that you don't like the FSF?
Because workers in those industries are not suicidal. They formed a union and fought for every last penny.
So, what have you done to unionize software people, and solve the problem as you see it?
-il cylic
A.) I don't expect the fedgov cares whether sites use their UI structure or not (though, I would be unsurprised to see them require those guidelines for internal websites, and the websites of contractors) or would choose to enforce their guidelines. I think they were just trying to come up with some useful suggestions. But hey, I've learned not to totally discount the possibility that the fedgov with do any particular stupid thing.
B.) So buy a gun. Then you get to negotiate over the rules.
C.) So vote for candidates who don't want the fedgov to be in the web design business (or any of the other hundred million things they do that they aren't authorized to).
-il cylic
Does anyone of any age really think there's a "Hot Hot Hot Shortcake" outfit set available?
There wasn't before, but there will be now... time to go to the fabric store and look for strawberry printed fabrics...
-il cylic
Well, it seems relatively obvious that no matter what level he is at, it is his concern that financial data be kept safe because his financial data is going into that system.
In addition, in the current era of job-scarcity, if the company gets sued and goes out of business, because the Union Bosses find out that not only is Due Diligence being ignored, it's being actively trampled, then he has the concern of finding a new job.
And finally, knowing Nathan as well as I do, I can say with certainty that part of the issue is that he hates watching people be willfully incompetent.
-il cylic
Well, there are several alternatives.
The first is symmetric key crypto, wherein both parties have the same key, which needs to be kept secret. The problem is twofold: exchanging the key, and keeping it secure. The advantage of public key crypto is that you can more easily do key exchange, since you don't need to make any effort to keep your public key a secret. However, there is a set of math rules known as the Diffie-Hellman key exchange which allows you to publicly (unsecured channel) exchange private keys, and then begin using them for secure channel communications.
Once you have exchanged the keys, you need to keep them a secret, but I believe that is not any more difficult than keeping your private PGP key secret, and can use the same manner of encryption.
The advantage of symmetric key crypto is that it is much more efficient. In fact, the efficiency of PKC keys is equivalent to (very approximately) a SKC algorithm using a key size of sqrt(PKC keysize).
Another option is one time pad. But one time pads also have synchronisation problems, and distribution problems, and secrecy problems. You could use Diffie-Hellman to exchange one time pads, but then your security is no better than that of the SKC scheme you use to pass them along with. Also, since you need to have 1 bit of pad for every 1 bit of message you send, it would get really long, and anyone who compromised your SKC session would already have your message anyway.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to think of SKC as a viable option over one time pad.
-il cylic
The point isn't whether you have secrets now, it's whether you'll ever have secrets. If you only send one encrypted email, and "someone" is watching, they know to devote all of their effort to breaking that one message. It's not a matter of "having secrets to protect", it's a matter of ideologically being a thorn in the side of people who want to be able to read your email.
The other point is that it's better to use encryption because you can. It's like always using ssh, instead of "just when you don't want someone to snoop your connection". Use encryption all the time, because protecting your privacy is always a good thing.
-il cylic
The advantage, of course, is that if someone decides it's important to make GPG pretty, it will get done.
Interfacing isn't that hard. What sort of "easy to use" features would be desired in a personal encryption suite?
A graphic display? PerlTK can do that. Simple means to keep track of new keys? I don't know what features would be wanted here. Lets figure it out and write it. Open Source is all about fixing problems you percieve.
-il cylic