"Safe" products have always been what are mass-marketed. Have you ever considered that your beloved masses enjoy "safe" things? Even prefer them? Companies push whatever sells.
What simplistic baloney. The drug cartels would love your logic, though.
This might shed a little light on government codebreaking capabilities overall. If the German Government thinks encryption of this caliber is worth supporting, it may be an indicator of what governments can break and what they cannot.
Of course, there's no way to know whether the German Government is familiar with the capabilities of, say, the NSA, but one would think they'd have more info than the average Joe Citizen.
And the opposite interpretation would be that the German Government might know how to break codes like these (or is working with someone, say, the NSA, who can) and wants to make this sort of encryption widespread so they will have access.
Then again, maybe they're just being really cool:^)
Exactly. Since government is the source of monopoly, we should get rid of all government involvement in the marketplace (including pesky things like the creation/enforcement of a modern property rights system, currency, etc.).
I, for one, don't think humanity spent enough time in dark ages barter systems. Let's get government out of the marketplace!
My previous post was intended as a commentary on the original post in this thread, and many of the ones thereafter. It was NOT a shot at the opinion of the person to whom I replied -- we obviously agree on this:^)
We evidently have tremendous numbers of pro-Microsoft astroturfers who subscribe to Slashdot these days.
Yes, the case was warranted.
No, you don't want to get rid of antitrust laws.
Yes, Microsoft has abused their (patently obvious) monopoly.
No, not all (or even most) monopolies come from government.
etc., etc.
This radical lassaiz-faire neoliberal crap just doesn't cut it in the real world. Guess where we all live?
Grow up, folks. Modern markets exist due to government, and antitrust is part of that framework for existence.
Microsoft has violated good law, and needs to be brought back into line. I'm glad Judge Jackson's understanding of this is a good deal better than that of many folks here.
we still dont have a decent way to transfer information through 1 molecule sized pathways...
The materials being worked on are organic (rotaxane, etc.) which, of course, involve carbon. Hence, some of the advances over the last few years (carbon nanotubules or "Buckytubes", etc.) in carbon nanostructures would probably lend themselves nicely to the effort.
Hmmm...I'm pretty sure the NSA does have field agents. Some of them have been killed in the line of duty (as evidenced by their "They Served In Silence" memorial).
As for geeks not being good at killing people: It depends upon the method. Geeks have designed the world's worst weapons, and at the NSA, could conceivably enable those who do the killing directly.
That's not to say such things are not sometimes justified. I'm a liberal at heart, but I'm well aware of the need to defend the U.S. militarily. Hell, I've even considered applying at the NSA. We need agencies like the NSA. I'd prefer, however, that they were kept on a much-shorter democratic leash.
I, however, fundementally trust my government to protect the interests of the people of the United States.
Even (or perhaps especially?) in a democracy, I think such sentiment is a little simplistic. I don't trust the government. I don't fear it, but don't trust it, either.
The beauty of democratic government is that trust is only a minor part of the equation. Rather, checks, balances and oversights keep the government in line, and more important, keep it in touch with the wants and needs of the people.
Much of the U.S. government is under significant representative oversight. This is simply not true when it comes to the intelligence agencies, including the NSA.
The troubling part about ECHELON, specifically, is that it allegedly allows the U.S. to spy on its own citizens, thereby circumventing legal safeguards. Those safeguards exist because information is power, and too much power in one place has, historically, been bad for things.
If you're trying to argue against the rabid anti-government conspiracy theorists out there, I agree with you. The other extreme, however, is untenable. A middle ground must be struck, and ECHELON, if it lives up to its billing, goes quite a bit over the line.
The United States has done quite a bit to piss other countries off, and thus a reletively large percentage of the population of the world would love to see us hurt.
I'll give you three guesses as to why many of them are pissed off at us. I'll even give you a hint: it involves the U.S. intelligence agencies creating holy political hell in other countries just to promote American business interests. Not for democracy, and not for security. The same sort of stuff for which Echelon is alleged to have been used.
The NSA spying on terrorist organizations isn't the problem. Lack of the oversight necessary to make sure that's all they're doing is the problem.
The NSA's official mission is to eavesdrop on foreign powers, and to protect our own communications (in a nutshell). The problem isn't with the mission. It's with lack of oversight.
The history of the CIA is a prime example of what happens, even in a democracy, when people are given tremendous power and little oversight. The sheer number of atrocities the CIA has been involved with is a testament to these dangers. Unfortunately, the NSA enjoys even less oversight.
I'd like to think most NSA'ers are good people who have the best interests of the country and the Constitution firmly in mind. Unfortunately, intentions aren't worth much. In a democracy, the people's best interests must be, fundamentally, decided by the people. The farther from democracy (read: oversight, representation, etc.) the system strays, the more the intentions of the powerful few will inevitably digress from the intentions of the majority.
Hey, I'm all for preventing terrorism and defending the country. But let's make sure we're defending the country, not just a few people's idea of it. IOW, let's keep it a country worth defending. There's more to life than survival, you know.
Thanks for debunking the notion that violence in media isn't related to youth violence. John's dead wrong on this. I'm thinking he needs to take some Psychology courses. The one thing I'll quibble with is the notion that religion didn't conflict with freedom for the U.S. founders. At the time the Constitution was ratified, 11 of 13 Colonies had religious tests for public office. It was largely religious differences, and a desire to not have anyone else get their way, that resulted in the Constitutional prohibitions against religious tests, and the First Amendment. I agree with your basic point, though, that religion need not conflict with freedom.
IMPORTANT: MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY MICROSOFT
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 3
Look at the disclaimer on the bottom of the page. This article appears to have been written by Microsoft. They evidently have an area on the Gartner Group's web site.
If this is correct, then this represents a new low in astroturfing. They must have known this would look like a Gartner Group analysis.
While this was, indeed, a technical success, real missles may be decoyed much more thoroughly.
For example, the warhead here had a balloon with it as a decoy. Real warheads may, in fact, be hidden inside balloons, leaving you with the option of trying to nail every balloon, or somehow track from liftoff to separation where the warhead is likely to be.
Warheads may also be set spinning, tumbling, etc., and may be set with a hyperfast trigger that detonates the nuke when the warhead is in the process of being destroyed. Naturally, this can create enormous problems with EMP.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think this was, overall, a fairly idealized test.
It's true that China has roughly four times the population of the U.S. And they have long relied upon the sheer size of their population for military purposes. This idea, however, changed in the Gulf War -- which made it all too clear that numerical superiority meant a lot less than technical capability.
The U.S. military has, of late, shown consistent kill - to - casualty ratios of more than 1000:1. If allowed to go all-out, that ratio would probably increase.
Yes, China has numbers, and nukes. But they're quite overmatched against the U.S. -- which is one reason they're so interested in exporting military technology: the U.S. can be kept busy better this way than China could manage alone.
Really, though, it's a much better idea to not get into a military situation with them in the first place. We could do without another Cold War. And if it came down to it, they COULD inflict considerable damage to us, even though we'd "win".
2b) DVORAK is more efficient than QWERTY, and the benefits of switching outweigh the cost. And really, if this were the case, we would have switched by now
This is the assumption made by pro-market theory, and where the market can be said to have failed. In stating that "if this were the case, we would have switched", you are demonstrating the logic that the market is always right; ergo, choice 2b must be wrong.
If 2b is in fact correct, yet we haven't switched thanks to externalities the market cannot comprehend (such as the notion that people don't want to bother switching, even if the benefits outweigh the costs; or they don't want to switch because "everyone uses QWERTY"), then the market has failed. And, I might point out, this would be but one example.
You might want to take a look at Robert Kuttner's "Everything for Sale" for a nice overview of the flaws in lassaiz-faire market theory.
On the other hand, this could be a great leap for neural networks in general. Realizing that the timing of synapse signals is a critical factor in neuron firing is going to shake up some things in AI
This is my feeling, too. This might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Can anyone see how something like this could be made using software?
I am very glad you don't fall into the lassaiz-faire trap that seems to be too common in economics. I'd guess you don't go to school in Chicago?
There are many economists who treat historical evidence as important, in addition to theory. Unfortunately, there are many who don't. They tend to ignore or use convoluted routes to explain how free-market theory deals with externalities.
Of course, it's only the really radical folk who believe the market never fails. These are the ones who tend to back Microsoft, frequently on the grounds that antitrust law is bad in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
What simplistic baloney. The drug cartels would love your logic, though.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
You can check out an excellent article (and references for further reading) by Mike Huben on the subject at Suite101, titled Globalism, Neoliberalism, and Corporatism.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Let's hope it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I was sorta wondering when they might get into the act.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Of course, there's no way to know whether the German Government is familiar with the capabilities of, say, the NSA, but one would think they'd have more info than the average Joe Citizen.
And the opposite interpretation would be that the German Government might know how to break codes like these (or is working with someone, say, the NSA, who can) and wants to make this sort of encryption widespread so they will have access.
Then again, maybe they're just being really cool :^)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
OK, I'll bite. What do you propose as the means to make sure markets maintain easy entry?
Or do you just assume that whoever corners it deserves whatever perks are gained, and the rest can go hang?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I don't suppose you actually bothered to check out Mike Huben's criticisms of Ms. Rand, did you (the link Jafac posted)?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I, for one, don't think humanity spent enough time in dark ages barter systems. Let's get government out of the marketplace!
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
My previous post was intended as a commentary on the original post in this thread, and many of the ones thereafter. It was NOT a shot at the opinion of the person to whom I replied -- we obviously agree on this :^)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Yes, the case was warranted.
No, you don't want to get rid of antitrust laws.
Yes, Microsoft has abused their (patently obvious) monopoly.
No, not all (or even most) monopolies come from government.
etc., etc.
This radical lassaiz-faire neoliberal crap just doesn't cut it in the real world. Guess where we all live?
Grow up, folks. Modern markets exist due to government, and antitrust is part of that framework for existence.
Microsoft has violated good law, and needs to be brought back into line. I'm glad Judge Jackson's understanding of this is a good deal better than that of many folks here.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The materials being worked on are organic (rotaxane, etc.) which, of course, involve carbon. Hence, some of the advances over the last few years (carbon nanotubules or "Buckytubes", etc.) in carbon nanostructures would probably lend themselves nicely to the effort.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
As for geeks not being good at killing people: It depends upon the method. Geeks have designed the world's worst weapons, and at the NSA, could conceivably enable those who do the killing directly.
That's not to say such things are not sometimes justified. I'm a liberal at heart, but I'm well aware of the need to defend the U.S. militarily. Hell, I've even considered applying at the NSA. We need agencies like the NSA. I'd prefer, however, that they were kept on a much-shorter democratic leash.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Even (or perhaps especially?) in a democracy, I think such sentiment is a little simplistic. I don't trust the government. I don't fear it, but don't trust it, either.
The beauty of democratic government is that trust is only a minor part of the equation. Rather, checks, balances and oversights keep the government in line, and more important, keep it in touch with the wants and needs of the people.
Much of the U.S. government is under significant representative oversight. This is simply not true when it comes to the intelligence agencies, including the NSA.
The troubling part about ECHELON, specifically, is that it allegedly allows the U.S. to spy on its own citizens, thereby circumventing legal safeguards. Those safeguards exist because information is power, and too much power in one place has, historically, been bad for things.
If you're trying to argue against the rabid anti-government conspiracy theorists out there, I agree with you. The other extreme, however, is untenable. A middle ground must be struck, and ECHELON, if it lives up to its billing, goes quite a bit over the line.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'll give you three guesses as to why many of them are pissed off at us. I'll even give you a hint: it involves the U.S. intelligence agencies creating holy political hell in other countries just to promote American business interests. Not for democracy, and not for security. The same sort of stuff for which Echelon is alleged to have been used.
The NSA spying on terrorist organizations isn't the problem. Lack of the oversight necessary to make sure that's all they're doing is the problem.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The history of the CIA is a prime example of what happens, even in a democracy, when people are given tremendous power and little oversight. The sheer number of atrocities the CIA has been involved with is a testament to these dangers. Unfortunately, the NSA enjoys even less oversight.
I'd like to think most NSA'ers are good people who have the best interests of the country and the Constitution firmly in mind. Unfortunately, intentions aren't worth much. In a democracy, the people's best interests must be, fundamentally, decided by the people. The farther from democracy (read: oversight, representation, etc.) the system strays, the more the intentions of the powerful few will inevitably digress from the intentions of the majority.
Hey, I'm all for preventing terrorism and defending the country. But let's make sure we're defending the country, not just a few people's idea of it. IOW, let's keep it a country worth defending. There's more to life than survival, you know.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'll get it right the next time :)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Thanks for debunking the notion that violence in media isn't related to youth violence. John's dead wrong on this. I'm thinking he needs to take some Psychology courses. The one thing I'll quibble with is the notion that religion didn't conflict with freedom for the U.S. founders. At the time the Constitution was ratified, 11 of 13 Colonies had religious tests for public office. It was largely religious differences, and a desire to not have anyone else get their way, that resulted in the Constitutional prohibitions against religious tests, and the First Amendment. I agree with your basic point, though, that religion need not conflict with freedom.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
http://www.gartne r.com/webletter/microsoft/article3/article3.html
http://www.gartne r.com/webletter/microsoft/article5/article5.html
http://www.gartne r.com/webletter/microsoft/article6/article6.html
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
If this is correct, then this represents a new low in astroturfing. They must have known this would look like a Gartner Group analysis.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
IOW, the "free market" is producing pressure to reduce R&D. Hardly a new occurence, but definitely a downside in this case.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
For example, the warhead here had a balloon with it as a decoy. Real warheads may, in fact, be hidden inside balloons, leaving you with the option of trying to nail every balloon, or somehow track from liftoff to separation where the warhead is likely to be.
Warheads may also be set spinning, tumbling, etc., and may be set with a hyperfast trigger that detonates the nuke when the warhead is in the process of being destroyed. Naturally, this can create enormous problems with EMP.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think this was, overall, a fairly idealized test.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The U.S. military has, of late, shown consistent kill - to - casualty ratios of more than 1000:1. If allowed to go all-out, that ratio would probably increase.
Yes, China has numbers, and nukes. But they're quite overmatched against the U.S. -- which is one reason they're so interested in exporting military technology: the U.S. can be kept busy better this way than China could manage alone.
Really, though, it's a much better idea to not get into a military situation with them in the first place. We could do without another Cold War. And if it came down to it, they COULD inflict considerable damage to us, even though we'd "win".
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is the assumption made by pro-market theory, and where the market can be said to have failed. In stating that "if this were the case, we would have switched", you are demonstrating the logic that the market is always right; ergo, choice 2b must be wrong.
If 2b is in fact correct, yet we haven't switched thanks to externalities the market cannot comprehend (such as the notion that people don't want to bother switching, even if the benefits outweigh the costs; or they don't want to switch because "everyone uses QWERTY"), then the market has failed. And, I might point out, this would be but one example.
You might want to take a look at Robert Kuttner's "Everything for Sale" for a nice overview of the flaws in lassaiz-faire market theory.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is my feeling, too. This might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Can anyone see how something like this could be made using software?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
There are many economists who treat historical evidence as important, in addition to theory. Unfortunately, there are many who don't. They tend to ignore or use convoluted routes to explain how free-market theory deals with externalities.
Of course, it's only the really radical folk who believe the market never fails. These are the ones who tend to back Microsoft, frequently on the grounds that antitrust law is bad in the first place.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from