No...just go to a service like senduit and upload your files encrypted and anonymously with an expiration date. Email yourself the links. Then when you get across the border, download and decrypt. Easy.
Why hasn't someone come up with an application that chops up my data, encrypts it, sends it up using one of these services, sends an email that triggers my client running at home, which then initiates download so everything's ready and waiting when I get home so all I have to do is type a password? Huh?
The thing about kids is you can't make it all about them. If they think the only one they're hurting when they misbehave is themselves, they calculate the cost/benefit.
Once a kid is a little older, if you play it so they're not the only one benefiting and losing, they start to realize that other people are depending upon them to do what's right. Kids want more than anything to fit in socially...even if the social group is their parents (especially when young).
The problem is that many parents don't see why they should be inconvenienced by someone else, even if it is their own kid, so they isolate the negative consequences to the child. But that doesn't give the kid a sense of his effect on his local environment...or it mitigates it somewhat, so the kid learns that his negative behavior only affects himself (the same is often true of good behavior—parents naturally want their little angel to get all the credit when they do the right thing, so they try to direct all the benefit that way).
Example: A kid is acting up in a restaurant. Hopefully, the parent did the right thing in getting the child excited about going to the restaurant as a kind of plus, so just being there is a fun experience. The parent should: (1) tell the child once that if they don't settle down, they'll pay the bill and leave immediately, food or no food and then (2) do it. Most parents won't follow through without a big to do, because they themselves want the meal. But this isn't the right answer—the right thing to do is get up and go, and suffer the consequences of your kid's bad behavior with them. Make sure they know your skipped meal is no fun either, but they had the chance to fix it and there's no going back.
If the kid learns early that there are inflexible rules of the universe, and once you run afoul of them the path is determined and quickly followed, they shape up quickly. If parents don't have the will to pursue the behavior they want and not settle for less, however, in the end no one gets what they want.
I've been thinking a lot lately about ID management as a solution to these kinds of problems. Financials are only one thing that's moved onto the web—it seems health is next. As we put more and more of ourselves into The InterPipes, I think there's going to come a point when we need to actively create and manage an online identity.
The real key to good ID mgmt is not simply collecting all of your information in one place, being able to create different personas and share those based on who you're talking to a la OpenID. There's also going to have to be the concept of a "secure" persona (or perhaps a secure area of your identity profile that can contain multiple personas). Outside this secure area, your identity can be protected in the normal way—a password linked to an email account. The secure personas, however, should be linked to a security certificate and kept using strong encryption.
The problem with this approach is that in order to be strong, the security certificate must issue you some kind of hard-to-guess information that you keep under lock and key. Lose that, and you've lost those areas of your identity—your financial accounts, health records, etc.—at least until you can prove your identity to the trustworthy third party that issued it.
All of these ideas have already been developed and are in practice in different contexts. The missing link right now is a service that collects many different levels of reliable, secure techniques and makes them feasible to manage. ID mgmt is that missing link right now.
Actually, a much bigger problem that I see is the random creation and placement of temporary variables. Code like:
int foo = someObject.getCount(); //... 100 lines of code...
logger.log( "foo: " + foo );// only use of foo
Why not just call someObject.getCount() when it's needed instead of storing it way at the top of the method?
Or worse, people will create a single method-local variable far away from its first use, and then periodically store new objects in the reference, each of which is used once.
Don't get me wrong, there are times when storing intermediate results in method-local vars is necessary, either from efficiency or design standpoints, but far too much do I see other people I work with create 15 temp vars and use each one once at random places. This is why, in Java, I've started using the final keywork with abandon. In the cases where I can't avoid creating a method-local var, I make it final. If you're reading my code and you see a non-final method-local var, sirens go off and you realize something is up.
I think we can all agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how one formats if-else blocks...however, I will say this much about it: if you consider knocking out sections using comments, then this style makes the most sense:
This way, you can just grab the else lines and line comment them out in your IDE very quickly without leaving dangling braces, so the commented version will compile and you can test it quickly before reverting the commented block. On the other hand, if you put opening braces on a separate line, and accidentally comment out the "if" or the "else" statement, in many languages the braces just become a valid scope and the code compiles and executes. But that's probably not what you intended, so it would be much better if the IDE would let you know.
I used to think the same way. It doesn't matter, though...no matter what you or your friend's intentions, some idiot is going to tag a photo with your real name, address, email, etc on a public forum like Facebook. You don't even have to have an account there to be identified in the most public possible way. Just hope it's a photo of you at your best. It's a public life, and we did it to ourselves--didn't take a government or nothing to get us to install a two-way TV like in 1984.
I respectfully submit that, in any of the 50 states, it is impossible to find any individual that can take local trips in his motor vehicle without violating at least several aspects of the applicable motor vehicle code. I further submit that most people are unaware that the motor vehicle code with which they ostensibly claim familiarity (by attempting the Rules of the Road test) is the size of the average large city yellow pages, measured by weight, number of words, and/or uselessness.
Why, just today I drove the short commute to work and, with nothing but the most honorable of intentions, accidentally evaded my taxes.
I think we should prosecute anyone that behaves as though they know someone else is who they say they are on the Intar-webz without some kind of solid corroborating evidence. If that makes sense...
If you're looking for great software design principles, start with the greats: Liskov, Fowler, Martin. Go to Object Mentor's published articles, click on "Design Principles", and start reading.
These handful of articles changed the way I look at software, particularly OO software, but not necessarily restricted to OO, and highlighted the importance of controlling dependencies. All of the Gang of Four design patterns use one or more of the principles laid out in these white papers. I would go so far as to say that good architecture and design primarily revolves around managing dependencies correctly around your functional requirements and points of future extension, no matter what language you're in.
These concepts are going to become ever more important as we have to scale across more cores and more machines using functional languages like Erlang and Scala and techniques like map/reduce (see Hadoop, for Java).
You obviously don't understand the legal concept of "conflict of interest". By your standard, if judge looks at porn, judge must recuse himself in this case. On the other hand, if judge doesn't look at any porn ever, then judge must also recuse himself in this case. After all, if he really feels that strongly that he's never viewed even a Playboy—say he's a Mormon—then by your thinking there's a clear and obvious "conflict of interest".
So following your line of thought...no Mormons can be judges. Definitely no Islamic people, probably no religious people at all. No one with thoughts or beliefs of any kind.
No, sir, you're just wrong here. Looking at porn in his free time has nothing to do with him making a good and valid interpretation of the law in this case.
This may sound counterintuitive, but if the judge is doing the job, they're interpreting the law as written and conceived, not their own fanciful idea of what the law should be. The very title of the job intimates that we expect the judge to exercise judgment in such situations—not as an exception, but as a rule.
So, in your example, if a judge were to rule on a case based on his religious beliefs about homosexuals rather than the law, this is not an example of conflict of interest. It's an example of a judge that's bad at doing his job, sure...still no conflict of interest.
You might say the result is the same, regardless of whether it's conflict of interest or being a bad judge. You'd be wrong. The system expects good judges to recuse themselves when there is a legitimate conflict of interest, and if a judge should recuse oneself, that should not reflect poorly on that judge in the least. Quite the contrary...it's a mark of concern for the integrity of the system. In your world, a judge would recuse himself for simply having opinions that he admits cloud his judgment...in other words, for being a bad judge. I don't want bad judges to recuse themselves, I don't think that's the right mechanism for dealing with bad judges. How about getting them off the bench instead if they can't do the job properly?
Until that does happen, we have the other remedy for dealing with bad judges in our system—they get overturned by higher courts. (And if a judge gets overturned enough, they start to look really, really bad.)
In a nutshell, you've conflated two things that have nothing to do with each other: conflict of interest and being a bad judge.
Easier solution...don't use both green and red, just choose one. (Same goes for yellow and blue, the other kind of color blindness.) Or, go ahead and use both, but put a black dot in the center of red and blue.
Besides, this isn't really a problem after all. They can make colors look red and green to us normal people but still make them easily distinguishable, though not by hue, to color blind people. That's why there aren't more accidents at intersections controlled by (red and green) stoplights, even the ones hung sideways.
I fail to see the story here at all, and I think the comments in this thread up to this post miss the point.
The point: why should a judge recuse himself from a case due to a supposed conflict of interest when there really is no conflict of interest? Judges are, by definition, asked to compartmentalize their professional opinions and personal opinions, so when the law or a judge's interpretation of the law is in conflict with their personal stance, that is business as usual. We still expect them to rule based on a valid interpretation of the law...regardless of what they think the law ought to be.
A conflict of interest only arises when the judge-in-question has a personal and relevant involvement in the particular proceeding at hand. For example, if the judge regularly does business with a contractor and that contractor comes into his courtroom as a party to a lawsuit, depending on the nature of their relationship, it might be appropriate for the judge to recuse himself. If the judge has financial dealings with anyone involved in a case, then even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided.
However, to say that any judge that's viewed porn should not be able to rule in pornography cases is kind of stupid (even if it's fetish porn). Actually, even if it's child porn, there's no conflict of interest—rather, the commission of a felony is grounds for having that judge removed from the bench, but it wouldn't be a conflict of interest any more than a judge who's an alcoholic ruling on a drunk driving case.
So there's just no conflict of interest here. If we say there is, we have to accept that any judge who's had or had a significant other that's had an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. And we also have to accept that any judge that's refused to have or be party to an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. Basically, we're saying that they cannot have taken a position on anything in their personal lives if they're to form a legal interpretation on that thing from the bench. Stupid.
Normally, I'm all for responding after reading just the headline and not the body of the message. After all, this is/.!
But if you had read the actual content of my post, neither example I present requires the key breaker to make hundreds of millions of dollars from breaking the key.
First up, we have the government, which specializes in spending hundreds of millions of dollars, not making it, and they'll drop that much cash in a heartbeat, without much research, and on fairly stupid things (Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?).
Next up, we have everyone else. In 5 years, "millions" of computers will have fallen to "thousands". And the cost of compute cycles will have fallen significantly as well, meaning that anyone who understands how to deploy to Amazon's EC2 or Google's App Engine could easily mount such an attack with fairly modest resources.
Your point about signing authorities using more bits is exactly the heart of the issue. They're not allowed to use more bits—my understanding is that data encrypted with more than 56-bits may not cross in or out of the US (though I seem to remember this has been raised to 128 or 256?), and more than 1024 even within the country is not legal. Actually, I can't even remember if this law was eventually struck down altogether...but the fact that it ever was even suggested makes me wonder exactly why the government would concern itself with restricting and/or regulating such things.
Uhhhhh....let us presume for a moment that the hackers are trying to trick us into factoring a root signing authority's RSA key. Isn't it, like, bad that that's possible?
But severoon, you protest, in all but the most bizarre circumstances those keys are safe! It takes 15 million computers a year to break that key! No one person could do it!
Yea, after all, when was the last time the government corralled massive compute power to do something stupid (-ahem- tee off AT&T's web traffic and do deep packet inspection)? And when was the last time we saw a 15 million X increase in compute power (-ahem- since 10 years ago)?
I no likey this thread...it makes me nervous. I'm going to go drink away the bad thoughts.
-ahem- I was going for satire. Blaming Google for making us stupid is essentially saying that the power to bring more information more quickly to ourselves is somehow deleterious to our ability as humans to solve problems.
But this is precisely what the printing press did.
Agreed...they probably did think of that. But what's the big downside for me? Loss of $1? And their big win is having all their obfuscation processes thoroughly exercised to make $1?
(And I still have all my important data anyway because I backed it up.)
I would happily contact the criminal and send them $1 after working with my bank and law enforcement to set up an account trace to see where the money goes and who ends up with it.
You're right if you mean to say that most companies don't do security properly. You're wrong if you mean to say that most companies can't or won't make moves to do security properly in this new world.
The fact is that hackers will have access to the power of massive parallelization in the cloud just as companies will. The difference is that hackers will have to find a way to continuously monetize the cycles and bandwidth they use if they're going to attack on a massive scale using the cloud. Either that, or they have to infect VMs of existing cloud-based infrastructures somehow and leverage that in a way that doesn't cause some detector to trip and reboot the instance from an uninfected image.
I agree with you, and I'm sure you agree with my modified version of your statement as well: If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they [take a horse feedbag full of crystal meth before each race], too?
Slashdot Mirror
No...just go to a service like senduit and upload your files encrypted and anonymously with an expiration date. Email yourself the links. Then when you get across the border, download and decrypt. Easy.
Why hasn't someone come up with an application that chops up my data, encrypts it, sends it up using one of these services, sends an email that triggers my client running at home, which then initiates download so everything's ready and waiting when I get home so all I have to do is type a password? Huh?
The thing about kids is you can't make it all about them. If they think the only one they're hurting when they misbehave is themselves, they calculate the cost/benefit.
Once a kid is a little older, if you play it so they're not the only one benefiting and losing, they start to realize that other people are depending upon them to do what's right. Kids want more than anything to fit in socially...even if the social group is their parents (especially when young).
The problem is that many parents don't see why they should be inconvenienced by someone else, even if it is their own kid, so they isolate the negative consequences to the child. But that doesn't give the kid a sense of his effect on his local environment...or it mitigates it somewhat, so the kid learns that his negative behavior only affects himself (the same is often true of good behavior—parents naturally want their little angel to get all the credit when they do the right thing, so they try to direct all the benefit that way).
Example: A kid is acting up in a restaurant. Hopefully, the parent did the right thing in getting the child excited about going to the restaurant as a kind of plus, so just being there is a fun experience. The parent should: (1) tell the child once that if they don't settle down, they'll pay the bill and leave immediately, food or no food and then (2) do it. Most parents won't follow through without a big to do, because they themselves want the meal. But this isn't the right answer—the right thing to do is get up and go, and suffer the consequences of your kid's bad behavior with them. Make sure they know your skipped meal is no fun either, but they had the chance to fix it and there's no going back.
If the kid learns early that there are inflexible rules of the universe, and once you run afoul of them the path is determined and quickly followed, they shape up quickly. If parents don't have the will to pursue the behavior they want and not settle for less, however, in the end no one gets what they want.
I've been thinking a lot lately about ID management as a solution to these kinds of problems. Financials are only one thing that's moved onto the web—it seems health is next. As we put more and more of ourselves into The InterPipes, I think there's going to come a point when we need to actively create and manage an online identity.
The real key to good ID mgmt is not simply collecting all of your information in one place, being able to create different personas and share those based on who you're talking to a la OpenID. There's also going to have to be the concept of a "secure" persona (or perhaps a secure area of your identity profile that can contain multiple personas). Outside this secure area, your identity can be protected in the normal way—a password linked to an email account. The secure personas, however, should be linked to a security certificate and kept using strong encryption.
The problem with this approach is that in order to be strong, the security certificate must issue you some kind of hard-to-guess information that you keep under lock and key. Lose that, and you've lost those areas of your identity—your financial accounts, health records, etc.—at least until you can prove your identity to the trustworthy third party that issued it.
All of these ideas have already been developed and are in practice in different contexts. The missing link right now is a service that collects many different levels of reliable, secure techniques and makes them feasible to manage. ID mgmt is that missing link right now.
I'm used to seeing l33t on /. occasionally, so I tried to read your pet name and car make and my brain exploded.
Actually, a much bigger problem that I see is the random creation and placement of temporary variables. Code like:
// ... 100 lines of code ... // only use of foo
int foo = someObject.getCount();
logger.log( "foo: " + foo );
Why not just call someObject.getCount() when it's needed instead of storing it way at the top of the method?
Or worse, people will create a single method-local variable far away from its first use, and then periodically store new objects in the reference, each of which is used once.
Don't get me wrong, there are times when storing intermediate results in method-local vars is necessary, either from efficiency or design standpoints, but far too much do I see other people I work with create 15 temp vars and use each one once at random places. This is why, in Java, I've started using the final keywork with abandon. In the cases where I can't avoid creating a method-local var, I make it final. If you're reading my code and you see a non-final method-local var, sirens go off and you realize something is up.
I think we can all agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how one formats if-else blocks...however, I will say this much about it: if you consider knocking out sections using comments, then this style makes the most sense:
// blah blah blah
// blah blah blah
if( test ) {
}
else {
}
This way, you can just grab the else lines and line comment them out in your IDE very quickly without leaving dangling braces, so the commented version will compile and you can test it quickly before reverting the commented block. On the other hand, if you put opening braces on a separate line, and accidentally comment out the "if" or the "else" statement, in many languages the braces just become a valid scope and the code compiles and executes. But that's probably not what you intended, so it would be much better if the IDE would let you know.
I used to think the same way. It doesn't matter, though...no matter what you or your friend's intentions, some idiot is going to tag a photo with your real name, address, email, etc on a public forum like Facebook. You don't even have to have an account there to be identified in the most public possible way. Just hope it's a photo of you at your best. It's a public life, and we did it to ourselves--didn't take a government or nothing to get us to install a two-way TV like in 1984.
I respectfully submit that, in any of the 50 states, it is impossible to find any individual that can take local trips in his motor vehicle without violating at least several aspects of the applicable motor vehicle code. I further submit that most people are unaware that the motor vehicle code with which they ostensibly claim familiarity (by attempting the Rules of the Road test) is the size of the average large city yellow pages, measured by weight, number of words, and/or uselessness.
Why, just today I drove the short commute to work and, with nothing but the most honorable of intentions, accidentally evaded my taxes.
I think we should prosecute anyone that behaves as though they know someone else is who they say they are on the Intar-webz without some kind of solid corroborating evidence. If that makes sense...
I'm pretty sure the site was not designed by the guys that authored those articles. :-)
If you're looking for great software design principles, start with the greats: Liskov, Fowler, Martin. Go to Object Mentor's published articles, click on "Design Principles", and start reading.
These handful of articles changed the way I look at software, particularly OO software, but not necessarily restricted to OO, and highlighted the importance of controlling dependencies. All of the Gang of Four design patterns use one or more of the principles laid out in these white papers. I would go so far as to say that good architecture and design primarily revolves around managing dependencies correctly around your functional requirements and points of future extension, no matter what language you're in.
These concepts are going to become ever more important as we have to scale across more cores and more machines using functional languages like Erlang and Scala and techniques like map/reduce (see Hadoop, for Java).
You obviously don't understand the legal concept of "conflict of interest". By your standard, if judge looks at porn, judge must recuse himself in this case. On the other hand, if judge doesn't look at any porn ever, then judge must also recuse himself in this case. After all, if he really feels that strongly that he's never viewed even a Playboy—say he's a Mormon—then by your thinking there's a clear and obvious "conflict of interest".
So following your line of thought...no Mormons can be judges. Definitely no Islamic people, probably no religious people at all. No one with thoughts or beliefs of any kind.
No, sir, you're just wrong here. Looking at porn in his free time has nothing to do with him making a good and valid interpretation of the law in this case.
Yes, you got it precisely.
This may sound counterintuitive, but if the judge is doing the job, they're interpreting the law as written and conceived, not their own fanciful idea of what the law should be. The very title of the job intimates that we expect the judge to exercise judgment in such situations—not as an exception, but as a rule.
So, in your example, if a judge were to rule on a case based on his religious beliefs about homosexuals rather than the law, this is not an example of conflict of interest. It's an example of a judge that's bad at doing his job, sure...still no conflict of interest.
You might say the result is the same, regardless of whether it's conflict of interest or being a bad judge. You'd be wrong. The system expects good judges to recuse themselves when there is a legitimate conflict of interest, and if a judge should recuse oneself, that should not reflect poorly on that judge in the least. Quite the contrary...it's a mark of concern for the integrity of the system. In your world, a judge would recuse himself for simply having opinions that he admits cloud his judgment...in other words, for being a bad judge. I don't want bad judges to recuse themselves, I don't think that's the right mechanism for dealing with bad judges. How about getting them off the bench instead if they can't do the job properly?
Until that does happen, we have the other remedy for dealing with bad judges in our system—they get overturned by higher courts. (And if a judge gets overturned enough, they start to look really, really bad.)
In a nutshell, you've conflated two things that have nothing to do with each other: conflict of interest and being a bad judge.
Easier solution...don't use both green and red, just choose one. (Same goes for yellow and blue, the other kind of color blindness.) Or, go ahead and use both, but put a black dot in the center of red and blue.
Besides, this isn't really a problem after all. They can make colors look red and green to us normal people but still make them easily distinguishable, though not by hue, to color blind people. That's why there aren't more accidents at intersections controlled by (red and green) stoplights, even the ones hung sideways.
My friends alone will order a trillion burritos in the next 40 days. So, I'm not sure where that leaves us, but it's probably not good.
I fail to see the story here at all, and I think the comments in this thread up to this post miss the point.
The point: why should a judge recuse himself from a case due to a supposed conflict of interest when there really is no conflict of interest? Judges are, by definition, asked to compartmentalize their professional opinions and personal opinions, so when the law or a judge's interpretation of the law is in conflict with their personal stance, that is business as usual. We still expect them to rule based on a valid interpretation of the law...regardless of what they think the law ought to be.
A conflict of interest only arises when the judge-in-question has a personal and relevant involvement in the particular proceeding at hand. For example, if the judge regularly does business with a contractor and that contractor comes into his courtroom as a party to a lawsuit, depending on the nature of their relationship, it might be appropriate for the judge to recuse himself. If the judge has financial dealings with anyone involved in a case, then even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided.
However, to say that any judge that's viewed porn should not be able to rule in pornography cases is kind of stupid (even if it's fetish porn). Actually, even if it's child porn, there's no conflict of interest—rather, the commission of a felony is grounds for having that judge removed from the bench, but it wouldn't be a conflict of interest any more than a judge who's an alcoholic ruling on a drunk driving case.
So there's just no conflict of interest here. If we say there is, we have to accept that any judge who's had or had a significant other that's had an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. And we also have to accept that any judge that's refused to have or be party to an abortion cannot rule on abortion cases. Basically, we're saying that they cannot have taken a position on anything in their personal lives if they're to form a legal interpretation on that thing from the bench. Stupid.
Normally, I'm all for responding after reading just the headline and not the body of the message. After all, this is /.!
But if you had read the actual content of my post, neither example I present requires the key breaker to make hundreds of millions of dollars from breaking the key.
First up, we have the government, which specializes in spending hundreds of millions of dollars, not making it, and they'll drop that much cash in a heartbeat, without much research, and on fairly stupid things (Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?).
Next up, we have everyone else. In 5 years, "millions" of computers will have fallen to "thousands". And the cost of compute cycles will have fallen significantly as well, meaning that anyone who understands how to deploy to Amazon's EC2 or Google's App Engine could easily mount such an attack with fairly modest resources.
Your point about signing authorities using more bits is exactly the heart of the issue. They're not allowed to use more bits—my understanding is that data encrypted with more than 56-bits may not cross in or out of the US (though I seem to remember this has been raised to 128 or 256?), and more than 1024 even within the country is not legal. Actually, I can't even remember if this law was eventually struck down altogether...but the fact that it ever was even suggested makes me wonder exactly why the government would concern itself with restricting and/or regulating such things.
Why, indeed.
Uhhhhh....let us presume for a moment that the hackers are trying to trick us into factoring a root signing authority's RSA key. Isn't it, like, bad that that's possible?
But severoon, you protest, in all but the most bizarre circumstances those keys are safe! It takes 15 million computers a year to break that key! No one person could do it!
Yea, after all, when was the last time the government corralled massive compute power to do something stupid (-ahem- tee off AT&T's web traffic and do deep packet inspection)? And when was the last time we saw a 15 million X increase in compute power (-ahem- since 10 years ago)?
I no likey this thread...it makes me nervous. I'm going to go drink away the bad thoughts.
-ahem- I was going for satire. Blaming Google for making us stupid is essentially saying that the power to bring more information more quickly to ourselves is somehow deleterious to our ability as humans to solve problems.
But this is precisely what the printing press did.
Agreed...they probably did think of that. But what's the big downside for me? Loss of $1? And their big win is having all their obfuscation processes thoroughly exercised to make $1?
(And I still have all my important data anyway because I backed it up.)
I think the impending stupidity disaster is still a delayed reaction to the printing press. Damn you, Gutenberg!
I would happily contact the criminal and send them $1 after working with my bank and law enforcement to set up an account trace to see where the money goes and who ends up with it.
You're right if you mean to say that most companies don't do security properly. You're wrong if you mean to say that most companies can't or won't make moves to do security properly in this new world.
The fact is that hackers will have access to the power of massive parallelization in the cloud just as companies will. The difference is that hackers will have to find a way to continuously monetize the cycles and bandwidth they use if they're going to attack on a massive scale using the cloud. Either that, or they have to infect VMs of existing cloud-based infrastructures somehow and leverage that in a way that doesn't cause some detector to trip and reboot the instance from an uninfected image.
I agree with you, and I'm sure you agree with my modified version of your statement as well: If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they [take a horse feedbag full of crystal meth before each race], too?
IN response to your sig...because of turbofox prefetching the links. All of the bandwidth, none of the burden of actual knowledge! :-)