This cop was following a drug dealer, but didn't have a warrant to search the guy's car. But he found some almost-century-year-old local ordinance that said if you were driving a horseless carriage, you had to have someone go 100 yards ahead of you swinging a lantern to warn people to get out of the way. So he pulled the guy over, he resisted, the cop arrested him and searched the car. The law got taken off the books after that, but the dealer's conviction was upheld in court. So I don't think your point has any legal validity.
Of course, IANAL, and the above story was probably a tenth-hand version of an urban legend...
I am not saying he should not be allowed to swear. I am saying that he shouldn't use his freedom to swear, just as he should not use it to so strongly denounce the US government (criticism is ok and encouraged as long as it is helpful, but that was not helpful criticism). I am not demanding that he not swear, but it certainly didn't help his arguments, which now seem to be made more on the basis of anger than that of rational thought. And it is offensive.
In the (translated) words of Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Of course that doesn't mean I won't ask him not to say it...
This is offtopic but:
1) Please don't swear on the forum. Or at least limit swearing to a
few places that you feel particularly passionate about: this may
strengthen your argument somewhat. Swearing everywhere just makes
people angry.
2) I quote: "In this country, it is perfectly
legal to for the government to take your life... This is called
"tough love"." And later: "Back in the good old days, we
dealt properly with our enemies. We killed them." So what IS
your stance on the death penalty? Should we kill them or not? I am
against the death penalty for religious reasons, and I am no
hypocrite. If we capture Osama alive, I would be against killing
him. Flame me all you want, that's my belief.
3) "In this
country, a cokehead piece of crap can block black people from voting,
wipe his ass with absentee ballots than call the candidate who did
win a "sore loser" for asking that the ballots be count right in the
first place... This is called "democracy."" Most absentee
ballots turn up republican. There were definite problems with the
election though, but that's not my point. My point is: "Our
voices don't count for shit. Our president is an indolent shithead.
Our votes are useless." The whole lesson of the election is that
our voices and votes DO count: one of the reasons that Bush won was
the people who didn't vote because "their votes don't count
anyway."
4) Pot. Granted, a critical blow in the war on
terror might be struck if we legalized pot and ended the oligopoly of
gun-weilding Colombian cartels. But the point of keeping pot and
other drugs illegal is that we want Americans to be productive
members of society, not stoners (it is possible, though rare, to be
both). Breaking raves doesn't violate free assembly for the same
reason that you can't assemble freely to watch child pr0n or plan to
blow up buildings. It's illegal.
5) War on terror. Although
perhaps we might want to reconsider our stance toward Israel, the War
on Terror has produced some good results. Taliban Afghanistan, an
infinitely more oppressive society than this exaggerated US
government you criticize, was liberated. We cannot eradicate terror,
but we can do something to limit it.
6) FBI. The FBI has not
done a great job, particularly WRT 9/11. But they are only as good
as the info they receive. If the airlines don't tell them that
wanted people are in the country, etc then they can't do much.
Certainly they bungled the flight school thing though. I am more
against the FBI than for it, but they are not completely
worthless.
7) "...that fucker Hollings (1st against the
wall)..." Good thing you chickened out and posted anonymously,
because this is a threat advocating immediate lawless action and
therefore could land you in jail, and for good reason. The
government would be stupid if it didn't take these warning signs
seriously.
8) "How can this shit be supported any fucking
longer?" By the people who think that imperfect democracy is
better than anarchy until the government actually starts oppressing
us. Consider that you are sitting in the richest country in the
world, the richest country in all of history, sitting at this
computer, posting stuff on the internet (which the government
pioneered) and not worried about how you are going to live from day
to day. Then consider the Chinese peasants or the Palestinian
villagers, worried that they will starve or that the government (in
this case, Israel) will roll in with tanks and kill them because of
their ethnicity. And you dare to call our country oppressive! There
is much that is wrong, and much that needs to be reformed, but
anarchy and extremism have no place in the struggle. You coward!
You fool! Get out of my sight until you have learned some gratitude,
and some moderation.
9) The bottom line: "THIS FUCKING
COUNTRY IS A BIG PILE OF DOG SHIT." Then leave. If you really
think that the US is that bad, then relieve us of your worthless
presence. The government will let you leave freely, it's one of your
basic rights. Go to China or something, see what an oppressive
government is really like, then come back and apologize (if you are
still alive), and I will forgive you. God bless America, although
South Africa probably needs it more. Go in peace.
It also says nothing about fucking MOVIES either, genius.
Exactly. IANA parent, but I can say that I wouldn't want my kids to be watching ANY fucking movies. The point of the system is that fucking movies are not speech they are pr0n, and people only want their kids to watch chaste movies. Watch it when you swear on an internet forum, someone may make a valid point about it.
Sometimes, letting them discover some parts of the real world is necessary. You and I both know what a gun can do, and I think it can sometimes backfire keeping a devloping teen locked away from being able to experience certain elements of the real world.
Yes, it is important for kids to see violence at some age, but is it really a good idea to have them playing stuff like GTA3 where they derive pleasure from killing cops and terrorizing civilians? --A kid who plays GTA3
Why not read the Grundgesetz, the constitution of Germany?
Because I don't read German. But there is a translation here.
The section about free speech says: (1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing, and pictures and to freely inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films are guaranteed. There will be no censorship.
(2) These rights are subject to limitations in the provisions of general statutes, in statutory provisions for the protection of the youth, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from allegiance to the constitution.
Re:Primality proof please?
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
Actually, when I wrote that comment, I was thinking of a comment that a Harvard number theory prof had written; he said that there was a method that ran in polynomial time, based on the one I posted, but with modifications to avoid factoring n-1.
I may have misrembered or he may have been wrong: the APR test, which sounds similar to his description, only runs in close to p-time.
Meganet claims to have done it, but they do not have the source on their website, and since they also claim to have created "unbreakable" encryption (no source there either), they are probably full of...um...deception.
this is false. There are numbers called Carmichael numbers that pass this "fermat test" for all numbers and yet are not prime (561 is one IIRC) ie 3^i mod i=3, 5^i mod i=5. 561=3*11*17 although i do not recall if this is a carmichael number and i dont have time to check it. Proving numbers are PROBABLY primes is easy.
Re:Primality proof please?
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
this is way, way, way offtopic, but something like the Rabin-Miller test (sp?) can tell you that a given number is probably a prime, i.e. that the chances that it is not a prime are less than 10^(-100), or whatever. There are other algorithms that can PROVE a number prime in polynomial time, but they are slower than this test.
All you have to do is use fast exponentiation or the like to compute a^(p-1)/2) and its square mod p. If p is a prime these will be +-1 and 1 respectively; if it is composite or weak pseudoprime, the second will fail to be 1 very quickly, and if it is a Carmichael number, you will factor it at least 3 times out of 4 with every test, so that after 100 tests (can be done in minutes on a 1024bit prime), you will almost certainly have factored it.
To prove a number prime, you find a primitive root, ie an element with order p-1. This generally requires factoring p-1 and so can be very hard, but it is usually doable in polynomial time and can be checked very quickly.
would you react with "oh the insanity" to the (patented) RSA algorithm?
Yes.
I am just one of the many people who are pissed at RSA for patenting their algorithm. That's why I use DH/DSS. Not only is it free, it's also faster and more secure than RSA.
no. The emails would be sent anonymously, or by a foreign reporter who is suspect anyway, but the issue is that witnesses might be mentioned in the body of the email, and contact information for them. That way, Amnesty can get first-hand information. Cryptography would be useful here to keep the government from going down your witness list and killing every one of them.
This is all speculation, I am not an amnesty operative.
And if I were, I wouldn't tell you:-P
Did you read the article? If not, please do not post that it is ridiculous. What you didnt notice was that the color you get from such an attack is merged only with the ambient color from the room, which could be filtered out by a simple brightness, contrast calculation. The color from the monitor is not merged because different pixels light up at different times in a CRT.
Amnesty International uses PGP to protect their people (e.g. witnesses, reporters, etc.) from abusive governments. If the documents they sent could be decoded by these governments, the corrospondents referred to in the documents would be tortured and killed. Of course, while this is relatively high-profile, they are a non-profit organization and therefore can use the free version, so NAI doesn't get any money from them.
Well, I suppose I will. The whole point is that if we release a 99 times as many sterile males into the environment as there are fertile males, females are only 1% as likely to find a fertile mate. Thus, after this generation dies, population is down 99%. Very effective.
Second, the huge increase in fly populations causes a huge increase in predator populations, which eat the flies that do get born next generation. Thus, the flies take a double beating.
Third, the ones that remain suffer from inbreeding.
This method was used to great effect agaist the screwworm fly in the US sometime in the middle of the 20th century. But with the screwworm fly, its the maggots that are the problem, while with the tsetse fly, its the flies that spread disease etc. So the downside is that in the short run, more people may get sleeping sickness.
It amazes me how scientists forget relativity so easily and quickly. this supposed slowing of the planetary rotation is in relation to what?
Although I doubt that we could measure such a slight change in speed, I would remind you that rotation is not relative. For one thing, objects at the surface must accelerate inward at the rate of (IIRC) r*v^2, where v is the angular velocity in radians/unit time and r is the radius of the planet, and acceleration cannot be relative because it implies force, which we call centrifugal force.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny story I heard the other day...
This cop was following a drug dealer, but didn't have a warrant to search the guy's car. But he found some almost-century-year-old local ordinance that said if you were driving a horseless carriage, you had to have someone go 100 yards ahead of you swinging a lantern to warn people to get out of the way. So he pulled the guy over, he resisted, the cop arrested him and searched the car. The law got taken off the books after that, but the dealer's conviction was upheld in court. So I don't think your point has any legal validity.
Of course, IANAL, and the above story was probably a tenth-hand version of an urban legend...
I am not saying he should not be allowed to swear. I am saying that he shouldn't use his freedom to swear, just as he should not use it to so strongly denounce the US government (criticism is ok and encouraged as long as it is helpful, but that was not helpful criticism). I am not demanding that he not swear, but it certainly didn't help his arguments, which now seem to be made more on the basis of anger than that of rational thought. And it is offensive.
In the (translated) words of Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Of course that doesn't mean I won't ask him not to say it...
--Mike Hamburg
This is offtopic but:
1) Please don't swear on the forum. Or at least limit swearing to a few places that you feel particularly passionate about: this may strengthen your argument somewhat. Swearing everywhere just makes people angry.
2) I quote: "In this country, it is perfectly legal to for the government to take your life... This is called "tough love"." And later: "Back in the good old days, we dealt properly with our enemies. We killed them." So what IS your stance on the death penalty? Should we kill them or not? I am against the death penalty for religious reasons, and I am no hypocrite. If we capture Osama alive, I would be against killing him. Flame me all you want, that's my belief.
3) "In this country, a cokehead piece of crap can block black people from voting, wipe his ass with absentee ballots than call the candidate who did win a "sore loser" for asking that the ballots be count right in the first place... This is called "democracy."" Most absentee ballots turn up republican. There were definite problems with the election though, but that's not my point. My point is: "Our voices don't count for shit. Our president is an indolent shithead. Our votes are useless." The whole lesson of the election is that our voices and votes DO count: one of the reasons that Bush won was the people who didn't vote because "their votes don't count anyway."
4) Pot. Granted, a critical blow in the war on terror might be struck if we legalized pot and ended the oligopoly of gun-weilding Colombian cartels. But the point of keeping pot and other drugs illegal is that we want Americans to be productive members of society, not stoners (it is possible, though rare, to be both). Breaking raves doesn't violate free assembly for the same reason that you can't assemble freely to watch child pr0n or plan to blow up buildings. It's illegal.
5) War on terror. Although perhaps we might want to reconsider our stance toward Israel, the War on Terror has produced some good results. Taliban Afghanistan, an infinitely more oppressive society than this exaggerated US government you criticize, was liberated. We cannot eradicate terror, but we can do something to limit it.
6) FBI. The FBI has not done a great job, particularly WRT 9/11. But they are only as good as the info they receive. If the airlines don't tell them that wanted people are in the country, etc then they can't do much. Certainly they bungled the flight school thing though. I am more against the FBI than for it, but they are not completely worthless.
7) "...that fucker Hollings (1st against the wall)..." Good thing you chickened out and posted anonymously, because this is a threat advocating immediate lawless action and therefore could land you in jail, and for good reason. The government would be stupid if it didn't take these warning signs seriously.
8) "How can this shit be supported any fucking longer?" By the people who think that imperfect democracy is better than anarchy until the government actually starts oppressing us. Consider that you are sitting in the richest country in the world, the richest country in all of history, sitting at this computer, posting stuff on the internet (which the government pioneered) and not worried about how you are going to live from day to day. Then consider the Chinese peasants or the Palestinian villagers, worried that they will starve or that the government (in this case, Israel) will roll in with tanks and kill them because of their ethnicity. And you dare to call our country oppressive! There is much that is wrong, and much that needs to be reformed, but anarchy and extremism have no place in the struggle. You coward! You fool! Get out of my sight until you have learned some gratitude, and some moderation.
9) The bottom line: "THIS FUCKING COUNTRY IS A BIG PILE OF DOG SHIT." Then leave. If you really think that the US is that bad, then relieve us of your worthless presence. The government will let you leave freely, it's one of your basic rights. Go to China or something, see what an oppressive government is really like, then come back and apologize (if you are still alive), and I will forgive you. God bless America, although South Africa probably needs it more. Go in peace.
--Mike Hamburg
It also says nothing about fucking MOVIES either, genius.
Exactly. IANA parent, but I can say that I wouldn't want my kids to be watching ANY fucking movies. The point of the system is that fucking movies are not speech they are pr0n, and people only want their kids to watch chaste movies.
Watch it when you swear on an internet forum, someone may make a valid point about it.
Sometimes, letting them discover some parts of the real world is necessary. You and I both know what a gun can do, and I think it can sometimes backfire keeping a devloping teen locked away from being able to experience certain elements of the real world.
Yes, it is important for kids to see violence at some age, but is it really a good idea to have them playing stuff like GTA3 where they derive pleasure from killing cops and terrorizing civilians?
--A kid who plays GTA3
Why not read the Grundgesetz, the constitution of Germany?
Because I don't read German. But there is a translation here.
The section about free speech says:
(1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing, and pictures and to freely inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films are guaranteed. There will be no censorship.
(2) These rights are subject to limitations in the provisions of general statutes, in statutory provisions for the protection of the youth, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from allegiance to the constitution.
Actually, when I wrote that comment, I was thinking of a comment that a Harvard number theory prof had written; he said that there was a method that ran in polynomial time, based on the one I posted, but with modifications to avoid factoring n-1. I may have misrembered or he may have been wrong: the APR test, which sounds similar to his description, only runs in close to p-time. Meganet claims to have done it, but they do not have the source on their website, and since they also claim to have created "unbreakable" encryption (no source there either), they are probably full of...um...deception.
this is false. There are numbers called Carmichael numbers that pass this "fermat test" for all numbers and yet are not prime (561 is one IIRC) ie 3^i mod i=3, 5^i mod i=5. 561=3*11*17 although i do not recall if this is a carmichael number and i dont have time to check it. Proving numbers are PROBABLY primes is easy.
this is way, way, way offtopic, but something like the Rabin-Miller test (sp?) can tell you that a given number is probably a prime, i.e. that the chances that it is not a prime are less than 10^(-100), or whatever. There are other algorithms that can PROVE a number prime in polynomial time, but they are slower than this test.
All you have to do is use fast exponentiation or the like to compute a^(p-1)/2) and its square mod p. If p is a prime these will be +-1 and 1 respectively; if it is composite or weak pseudoprime, the second will fail to be 1 very quickly, and if it is a Carmichael number, you will factor it at least 3 times out of 4 with every test, so that after 100 tests (can be done in minutes on a 1024bit prime), you will almost certainly have factored it.
To prove a number prime, you find a primitive root, ie an element with order p-1. This generally requires factoring p-1 and so can be very hard, but it is usually doable in polynomial time and can be checked very quickly.
would you react with "oh the insanity" to the (patented) RSA algorithm?
Yes.
I am just one of the many people who are pissed at RSA for patenting their algorithm. That's why I use DH/DSS. Not only is it free, it's also faster and more secure than RSA.
no. The emails would be sent anonymously, or by a foreign reporter who is suspect anyway, but the issue is that witnesses might be mentioned in the body of the email, and contact information for them. That way, Amnesty can get first-hand information. Cryptography would be useful here to keep the government from going down your witness list and killing every one of them. This is all speculation, I am not an amnesty operative. And if I were, I wouldn't tell you :-P
Did you read the article? If not, please do not post that it is ridiculous. What you didnt notice was that the color you get from such an attack is merged only with the ambient color from the room, which could be filtered out by a simple brightness, contrast calculation. The color from the monitor is not merged because different pixels light up at different times in a CRT.
Amnesty International uses PGP to protect their people (e.g. witnesses, reporters, etc.) from abusive governments. If the documents they sent could be decoded by these governments, the corrospondents referred to in the documents would be tortured and killed. Of course, while this is relatively high-profile, they are a non-profit organization and therefore can use the free version, so NAI doesn't get any money from them.
Well, I suppose I will. The whole point is that if we release a 99 times as many sterile males into the environment as there are fertile males, females are only 1% as likely to find a fertile mate. Thus, after this generation dies, population is down 99%. Very effective.
Second, the huge increase in fly populations causes a huge increase in predator populations, which eat the flies that do get born next generation. Thus, the flies take a double beating.
Third, the ones that remain suffer from inbreeding.
This method was used to great effect agaist the screwworm fly in the US sometime in the middle of the 20th century. But with the screwworm fly, its the maggots that are the problem, while with the tsetse fly, its the flies that spread disease etc. So the downside is that in the short run, more people may get sleeping sickness.
It amazes me how scientists forget relativity so easily and quickly. this supposed slowing of the planetary rotation is in relation to what?
Although I doubt that we could measure such a slight change in speed, I would remind you that rotation is not relative. For one thing, objects at the surface must accelerate inward at the rate of (IIRC) r*v^2, where v is the angular velocity in radians/unit time and r is the radius of the planet, and acceleration cannot be relative because it implies force, which we call centrifugal force.