In regards to the John Kerry speech "Don't Tase Me Bro!" incident..
1. they weren't cops, they were security. 2. the kid did resist arrest, I saw it, he crossed the line. 3. when they started tasing him he was still resisting arrest and refusing to go peacefully.
I don't know what is so hard to understand.. if rivate security, tell you to leave the premises, you go quietly. If you don't, expect them to use force.
I'm sorry, but why are we supposed to have any feelings for a person who attacks a police officer? Frankly, I'd consider it wrong if the police didn't give him a kick in the ribs after they got him under control. Don't attack the police.
For a start, don't call me kid. If you did a tiny (itsy bitsy) bit of research you would see how old I am.
I've actually been beaten by police in a "peaceful protest". Our sit down was broken up by police and someone I didn't know hit one of them. That was all they needed to beat down all of us. I tell you, the only thing I was thinking was that if I could get one of the batons off them I could have an even shot at taking a few of them out.
They don't call it "fight or flight" for nothing. Some people run, some people fight.
In retrospect the whole thing (included the reasons why we were protesting) seems kind of stupid.
That's a form of torture too and the kind of "non-lethal force" the police used to turn to. The only difference between beating someone with a baton and tasering them is that the officer using a taser doesn't have to be physically stronger than the victim (err, suspect), and suspects don't think they can fight back like they do against police using batons.
If there's low demand when there's high supply of power (any kind) then that power is lost. There's no storage. That's the issue that needs to be solved. Of course it makes virtually no difference right now cause there's almost always enough demand to use all the available supply of wind power.
Blah, that's a load of shit. It's an academic answer to how to fix the problem of people logging your conversation with them.
When the log is presented in court the person who logged it will be asked "is this log an accurate representation of the conversation you had with the accused?" and they say "yes, it is" and the defense then has to show not that it is possible that the log was doctored but that person who has just sworn, under penalty of perjury, is lying. They typically do this by showing instances in the past where the person has submitted false evidence to a court, or they can try to show that the person has something to gain by changing the log and that they had the skills (if any special skills are required, which they wouldn't be). It would be a very tough sell and a jury is more likely to believe that the log is accurate because what kind of idiot would lie in court when the punishment is so severe.
Consider that email is so trivial to fake and yet emails are considered official correspondence in many many many court cases. It's not about the technology, it's about the people making the claims.
Burst alleges that Apple's iTunes Music Store, iTunes software, the iPod devices, and Apple's QuickTime Streaming products infringe Burst's U.S. Patents 4,963,995; 5,995,705; 5,057,932 and 5,164,839.
Bit more than, err, one-click I think. And check out the dates on those patents.
See, my problem with you, and most people on Slashdot who talk about security like they know what they are on about, is that you don't even understand basic terminology. You confuse data integrity and privacy with confidentiality. You've tried to say something about availability, but all you see is the upside. This is like COMPSEC-101 stuff here. To evaluate the security of a system, identify the degree to which it protects:
Confidentiality;
Integrity; and
Availability
It even has a familiar mnemonic so you can remember it. If something has bad scores in a particular one of these area, and you're trying to improve the security, try to think of ways to improve that score without trading off the scores in the other areas.
Google Docs is bad in all these areas because they don't use strong authentication systems - even in availability, because if someone can delete your files then they are obviously not available. If they just used SSL and enforced its use then their scores would immediately shoot up - most notably in availability which is what you get when you put something online, at the expense of confidentiality and integrity.
Are you trying to make an argument about data loss vs confidentiality? Cause if you are, yes, bravo, perhaps an encrypted online backup system is a nice way to achieve balance in that department, but using Google's services will not give you that.
Slashdot Mirror
In regards to the John Kerry speech "Don't Tase Me Bro!" incident..
1. they weren't cops, they were security.
2. the kid did resist arrest, I saw it, he crossed the line.
3. when they started tasing him he was still resisting arrest and refusing to go peacefully.
I don't know what is so hard to understand.. if rivate security, tell you to leave the premises, you go quietly. If you don't, expect them to use force.
I'm sorry, but why are we supposed to have any feelings for a person who attacks a police officer? Frankly, I'd consider it wrong if the police didn't give him a kick in the ribs after they got him under control. Don't attack the police.
Not saying it should be.. just saying that in the majority of countries on the planet that's what you would get.
Wow, he attacked police and they didn't just shoot him to death? Man, your country has nice cops.
For a start, don't call me kid. If you did a tiny (itsy bitsy) bit of research you would see how old I am.
I've actually been beaten by police in a "peaceful protest". Our sit down was broken up by police and someone I didn't know hit one of them. That was all they needed to beat down all of us. I tell you, the only thing I was thinking was that if I could get one of the batons off them I could have an even shot at taking a few of them out.
They don't call it "fight or flight" for nothing. Some people run, some people fight.
In retrospect the whole thing (included the reasons why we were protesting) seems kind of stupid.
That's a form of torture too and the kind of "non-lethal force" the police used to turn to. The only difference between beating someone with a baton and tasering them is that the officer using a taser doesn't have to be physically stronger than the victim (err, suspect), and suspects don't think they can fight back like they do against police using batons.
yeah, especially seeing as it has been a success beyond even their most wildest fantasies. A better description would be "super fantastic."
Just don't look.
Terrorism is like advertising, if you ignore it, pretty soon it will go away.
Yeah, exactly. Call me when someone makes a killbot for $1000 and gets venture capital funding to take over a small country.
The typical email trail presented in a court case is completely intra-domain.
Ya know, "the boss sent me an email saying we should fire all workers who had signed the latest union agreement".
If there's low demand when there's high supply of power (any kind) then that power is lost. There's no storage. That's the issue that needs to be solved. Of course it makes virtually no difference right now cause there's almost always enough demand to use all the available supply of wind power.
Yes, solutions that start with "force everyone to" are not very helpful.
no.
but would have no effect on methane, which is what the article is about, so STFU.
Blah, that's a load of shit. It's an academic answer to how to fix the problem of people logging your conversation with them.
When the log is presented in court the person who logged it will be asked "is this log an accurate representation of the conversation you had with the accused?" and they say "yes, it is" and the defense then has to show not that it is possible that the log was doctored but that person who has just sworn, under penalty of perjury, is lying. They typically do this by showing instances in the past where the person has submitted false evidence to a court, or they can try to show that the person has something to gain by changing the log and that they had the skills (if any special skills are required, which they wouldn't be). It would be a very tough sell and a jury is more likely to believe that the log is accurate because what kind of idiot would lie in court when the punishment is so severe.
Consider that email is so trivial to fake and yet emails are considered official correspondence in many many many court cases. It's not about the technology, it's about the people making the claims.
When we have the technology for brain implant communications we will have the technology for brain implant based thought monitoring.. no thanks.
I believe I gave Google fair credit here.
By default it is insecure.
Therefore it is insecure.
yes, cause I often fly my plane around in an aerodome.
Burst alleges that Apple's iTunes Music Store, iTunes software, the iPod devices, and Apple's QuickTime Streaming products infringe Burst's U.S. Patents 4,963,995; 5,995,705; 5,057,932 and 5,164,839.
Bit more than, err, one-click I think. And check out the dates on those patents.
About a million...
Hint: proprietary software have licenses too.
There's no-one else posting on this story.
If you think the GPL (any version) is "extremely restrictive" then you haven't read many software licenses.
It even has a familiar mnemonic so you can remember it. If something has bad scores in a particular one of these area, and you're trying to improve the security, try to think of ways to improve that score without trading off the scores in the other areas.
Google Docs is bad in all these areas because they don't use strong authentication systems - even in availability, because if someone can delete your files then they are obviously not available. If they just used SSL and enforced its use then their scores would immediately shoot up - most notably in availability which is what you get when you put something online, at the expense of confidentiality and integrity.
Are you trying to make an argument about data loss vs confidentiality? Cause if you are, yes, bravo, perhaps an encrypted online backup system is a nice way to achieve balance in that department, but using Google's services will not give you that.