Why all this hubbub about electronic voting? What's wrong with paper? Honestly, if we can't, as a society, come up with an easily understandable way to vote on paper, what makes us think we can do it reliably with millions of transistors? It seems like overcomplicating something that ought to be really simple.
Could this also be because the stakes of hijackings are now so much higher? What I'm saying is that in the past, people on a hijacked plane might reason that if they just chilled out that the terrorists' demands might be met and they would be released or that the terrorists would be stopped by the authorities.
Nowadays it seems reasonable that if your plane is hijacked you're dead whether you resist or not. If your plane is going to be delibeately crashed, what have you got to lose? You might as well just fight back from the start. Governments may think the same way. So it seems that terrorists might think it's not worth hijacking a plane since it might be shot down when the hijacking is discovered. Besides, hijacking is a global problem. Why would one US law make a difference anywhere but here? I'm not saying you're wrong, just thinking it out.
Ok, I'll have a go. Under the PATRIOT Act the FBI can collect sales and borrowing data from book stores and libraries respectively, without a warrant. The store or libraray is then not allowed to tell anyone that this has happened.
The problems here are that there is no judicial oversight and the right to free speech of the store or library employees is being abridged. This leaves the provision open to easy abuse becaus ethe FBI can investigate anyone whenever they please and keep it secret. This does not square with an open and free society.
"Why do you think Microsoft is what it is? Socialism? Communism? Fairness for all?"
Microsoft is where it is by riding IBM's coattails, strong arm tactics, and anti-competitive practices. If you are so against communism and socialism, I would think you would be in favor of a free market and competition. Microsoft has no regard for either, so it is strange you would hold them up as an example.
Your point seems to boil down to "people are assholes, so get used to it and stop whining". If that's so, why don't I just come over, kick your ass, and take your stuff? Or maybe we should just disband the police and judicaial system. Justice and redress of grievances seem to have no place in your philosophy.
Because it contributes to a more fearful and anxious world that's why not. Which is better, a society where everyone carries guns and fears for their safety or one in which no-one carries guns because they do not fear?
I know, I know, utopian pie in the sky. But we have to ask ourselves, especially these days, what we are working towards, and how we plan to get there. Further, we must ask whether what we are doing will get us where we want to go and why. We have a choice as to whether the world becomes more violent or more peaceful. Researching weapons seems to me to be planning for more violence.
Heh, don't forget we gave it to Iraq to begin with. It's interesting that we will arm anybody who shoots in the direction we want them to, and then we wonder why the world is such a dangerous place.
Actually, it's both. But we are still pretty free compared with the rest of the world. Really though, why do we need to be researching this? I don't think we need such a deadly weapon especially since it can be turned so easily against us. Besides, as the parent post said, it makes us hypocrites (yet again).
Re:Wireless still = Dangerous
on
Wireless Hacks
·
· Score: 1
"So, couldn't you setup a wireless network that was firewalled from the rest of the network and allow access through VPN?"
We have a VPN as well, and yes I could do this for the office. I would be comfortable as long as there were no DHCP on the wireless segment, or perhaps MAC address restrictions, so war drivers could not just hop on. But this is of limited value. My users want wireless so they can use it at home, in the airport, at Starbucks, at conferences, etc. These are the real reasons they want it but I just can't give a reasonable assurance security. It's not just the network traffic, but the integrity of the systems themeselves that I am concerned with. My users can't install hardware or software either for the same reasons. It's all about my control! MWAHAHAHA!
Re:We already *have* an alternative to fossil fuel
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 1
"Historically to sell cars, but it's not very efficent."
What are you saying? That private industry does not automatically create efficiency? What are you, a communist? Everyone knows that private industry is God's system and will save us from everything from overcrowded prisons to overripe bananas. I mean, why else would all those smart, foresightful people in Washington be pushing to privatize everything?
Oh, and the reason we spread out like this is that our country is F'ing huge. Urban sprawl is good for wildlife too. It introduces them to competition, which is the cornerstone of the free market, which is always good (see beginning of post).
Actually, since I use it, there is something to see here. And there won't be an Intel version for all the reasons that have already been beaten like the proverbial dead horse.
Well, at least you present a well reasoned arguement. Macintosh computers are more stable and pleasant to use. There are great features built into the OS, which you would know had you read the article.
I know Windows pretty well. I work with it professionally and have an MCSE in Win2k (I'm not bragging, I swear). I wouldn't use it at home though. Product activation? Trustworthy computing? Please. And if that doesn't change your mind like a bolt of lightning, well I guess you're just a stupid head.
"Diebold queried the machines in San Obispo County in the middle of election day, apparently by dialing into them via modem."
You can dial in by modem?!? WTF?? That's it, I'm leaving...
Re:you always have choices
on
Wireless Hacks
·
· Score: 1
Dude! Use the preview!
Re:Dispelling the Myth of Wireless Security
on
Wireless Hacks
·
· Score: 1
This reminds me of a story on/. recently about how poorly Windows is setup when one takes the defaults (Administrator account with no password, etc.). A friend of mine recently tapped into a neighbor's wireless LAN by accident (Hey, that address isn't in my IP range!). It took only a few minutes for him to access the neighbor's router (default admin account and password) and to map her c:\ drive and install VNC remote control software. I mean really, you don't even have to know how to hack anymore! But Windows is certainly more "useable"!
Re:Wireless still = Dangerous
on
Wireless Hacks
·
· Score: 1
I am the Sys Admin at a small financial institution and I don't allow wireless on any of my laptops for this very reason. It's way too easy to find a way in, and I have no control over anyone's home setup. And, as we all know, hacking Windows is trivial.
I can sympathise. But running an unpatched Windows machine, even behind a firewall, is asking for trouble. I apply all security patches, but not all recommended updates.
Holy Cow! If this is true, it's huge! With all the talk these days of diversifying our energy sources, this seems an obvious route of inquiry. Why has nobody taken this further? Is the current fossil fuel energy concern so powerful? Perhaps they are, but they would be holding all of humanity back.
Ok, I can see your point. What it comes to here is a difference in perception of how the world works. I believe that people put these men into power. Now, one could argue that God works through people, and in a way I think this is true. But only in the sense that God lives in us. I do not believe that God is working his will. We are working our will with God's blessing (thus our Free Will). This is just a matter of personal belief.
Once again, the reason Bush's attitude concerns me is that we have seen through history that when a person believes that he has divine power behind him he can justify doing some bad things. I have seen this administration act with hubris, not humility. They have been forceful and arrogant with our allies and the American people. Bush speaks of humility, but I don't see his actions carrying that out. I think it is possible to be at once empowered and humbled before God, but I don't see this in Bush.
Nonetheless, I have enjoyed this discussion with you. You seem to have a balanced opinion. I think that Bush's attitudes perhaps have different implications for you and I based on our world and spiritual view. But that is part of what makes this life interesting and instructive.
"Why is it so dangerous to make decisions informed by the distilled wisdom of countless generations distilled into religous texts?"
Because that religious text proclaims to be the word of a spiritual being that lords over us all. On the face of it, it is a dubious claim at best. But that aside, it has been edited, added to and generally messed with over the centuries. There were initially many more than four gospels in the Bible, but the Catholic Church decided a while back that there should be only four. King James created his bible through committee and then made the final changes himself. Don't you think that in 2000 years (more for the Old Testament) something could have gotten lost in translation? I suppose you could make the argument that God sheperded it through the ages, but that's really getting into the metaphysical.
It's not that the Bible doesn't have wisdom in it; it does. But there is alot of terrible stuff that goes on in there that is supposedly condoned by God (the Torah and Qu'ran have this same problem). I'll do the research if you need chapter and verse, but I think you know what I mean.
"Why is it so dangerous to have a leader who seeks to humble himself before God?"
Humble? Okay, maybe he started out that way, maybe. But now we have "With us or against us", "dead or alive" and "Bring 'em on". We have a man who says that Saddam has to go for defying US resolutions, and then defies the UN in going after him. In the State of the Union address he said of terrorists who had been killed, "Let's just say they're not a problem anymore." with his best gunslinger lean. Bush talked of humility during his campaign, but he has shown himself to be proud and arrogant.
"but they certainly never cited his faith or God as a reason for war."
This is true. I do not believe that Bush got us into this war for religious reasons, which is why I didn't cite it specifically in my response. However, I have read (I don't remember where) that Bush has remarked that he feels he has been chosen by Providence to lead the nation through it's time of crisis. He has also made numerous references to this conflict as one between good and evil. Who do you think is on the side of good? And what license does that bestow?
Now, I suppose one could characterize flying planes into buildings as evil. But this is not a battle between good and evil. It is the United States trying to defend itself and it's way of life against a band of criminals. But when Bush uses such apocalyptic language, I get concerned. I am concerned that he does not appreciate the complexity of the issue, or indeed the world. Reducing things to good and evil is simplistic and is not very applicable to world affairs or foreign policy. In this way I believe he is blinded.
"Bush does not present his faith as a reason for his policy decisions."
Are you sure? How about his stance on abortion? Stem cell research? Gay rights? On that last one I believe he started out by acknowledging that we are all sinners. You see, I am not a sinner, as I do not believe in sin. But obviously, when considering the legal status of two homosexuals who want to pledge themselves to each other, one of the first things George Bush considers is that we are sinners. This is the prism through which he sees the world, and it is often opposed to the prism through which I see it.
George W. Bush is a man who has had his life changed by faith. With the help of his faith he stopped drinking late in life and made some profund changes. He was "born again". You can't expect me to believe that personal faith does not play a huge role in the outlook of such a person. Again, I do not fault him for this in and of itself. God has had a profound effect on my life as well (though in a different way I suspect). But I do think that it affects his judgement and policy decisions in adding a rigidity to his thinking. I don't think he spends much time considering whether he might be wrong and I think it has a religious origin. Just my $0.02, I don't know the man personally. There is a difference between faith and adherence to dogma.
Actually America is a free country. Free to be religious or not. This is why I believe that the pledge (if it is even necessary) should not include "Under God". For that matter, our money should not either. Especially since it is obviously the Dollar in which we trust.
I do not hate religious people. I have friends and family who are religious and of different religions. I myself believe in God, but do not trust a religion to dole out his Word to me. Furthermore, I am certianly not comfortable with George Bush's religiousness. I believe it has blinded him. He holds so strongly to his beliefs, that he is unwilling to consider other possibilities. This is very dangerous.
Our constitution guarantees the freedom to worship. This is based on the idea that religion is a personal matter. Thus it should not be part of public policy.
I'm sorry, but that would call for introspection and asking just why we do things. We Americans have no time for such things. Let the French worry about it. We have God on our side, and we are right. Everyone else just needs to ge used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well damn! If its all predetermined, I'm going out to get a hooker!
Why all this hubbub about electronic voting? What's wrong with paper? Honestly, if we can't, as a society, come up with an easily understandable way to vote on paper, what makes us think we can do it reliably with millions of transistors? It seems like overcomplicating something that ought to be really simple.
Nowadays it seems reasonable that if your plane is hijacked you're dead whether you resist or not. If your plane is going to be delibeately crashed, what have you got to lose? You might as well just fight back from the start. Governments may think the same way. So it seems that terrorists might think it's not worth hijacking a plane since it might be shot down when the hijacking is discovered. Besides, hijacking is a global problem. Why would one US law make a difference anywhere but here? I'm not saying you're wrong, just thinking it out.
The problems here are that there is no judicial oversight and the right to free speech of the store or library employees is being abridged. This leaves the provision open to easy abuse becaus ethe FBI can investigate anyone whenever they please and keep it secret. This does not square with an open and free society.
Microsoft is where it is by riding IBM's coattails, strong arm tactics, and anti-competitive practices. If you are so against communism and socialism, I would think you would be in favor of a free market and competition. Microsoft has no regard for either, so it is strange you would hold them up as an example.
Your point seems to boil down to "people are assholes, so get used to it and stop whining". If that's so, why don't I just come over, kick your ass, and take your stuff? Or maybe we should just disband the police and judicaial system. Justice and redress of grievances seem to have no place in your philosophy.
I know, I know, utopian pie in the sky. But we have to ask ourselves, especially these days, what we are working towards, and how we plan to get there. Further, we must ask whether what we are doing will get us where we want to go and why. We have a choice as to whether the world becomes more violent or more peaceful. Researching weapons seems to me to be planning for more violence.
Heh, don't forget we gave it to Iraq to begin with. It's interesting that we will arm anybody who shoots in the direction we want them to, and then we wonder why the world is such a dangerous place.
Actually, it's both. But we are still pretty free compared with the rest of the world. Really though, why do we need to be researching this? I don't think we need such a deadly weapon especially since it can be turned so easily against us. Besides, as the parent post said, it makes us hypocrites (yet again).
We have a VPN as well, and yes I could do this for the office. I would be comfortable as long as there were no DHCP on the wireless segment, or perhaps MAC address restrictions, so war drivers could not just hop on. But this is of limited value. My users want wireless so they can use it at home, in the airport, at Starbucks, at conferences, etc. These are the real reasons they want it but I just can't give a reasonable assurance security. It's not just the network traffic, but the integrity of the systems themeselves that I am concerned with. My users can't install hardware or software either for the same reasons. It's all about my control! MWAHAHAHA!
Ugh, that's so damn typical...
What are you saying? That private industry does not automatically create efficiency? What are you, a communist? Everyone knows that private industry is God's system and will save us from everything from overcrowded prisons to overripe bananas. I mean, why else would all those smart, foresightful people in Washington be pushing to privatize everything?
Oh, and the reason we spread out like this is that our country is F'ing huge. Urban sprawl is good for wildlife too. It introduces them to competition, which is the cornerstone of the free market, which is always good (see beginning of post).
So, I should lower my 401k contribution is what you're saying...
Actually, since I use it, there is something to see here. And there won't be an Intel version for all the reasons that have already been beaten like the proverbial dead horse.
I know Windows pretty well. I work with it professionally and have an MCSE in Win2k (I'm not bragging, I swear). I wouldn't use it at home though. Product activation? Trustworthy computing? Please. And if that doesn't change your mind like a bolt of lightning, well I guess you're just a stupid head.
You can dial in by modem?!? WTF?? That's it, I'm leaving...
Dude! Use the preview!
This reminds me of a story on /. recently about how poorly Windows is setup when one takes the defaults (Administrator account with no password, etc.). A friend of mine recently tapped into a neighbor's wireless LAN by accident (Hey, that address isn't in my IP range!). It took only a few minutes for him to access the neighbor's router (default admin account and password) and to map her c:\ drive and install VNC remote control software. I mean really, you don't even have to know how to hack anymore! But Windows is certainly more "useable"!
I am the Sys Admin at a small financial institution and I don't allow wireless on any of my laptops for this very reason. It's way too easy to find a way in, and I have no control over anyone's home setup. And, as we all know, hacking Windows is trivial.
I can sympathise. But running an unpatched Windows machine, even behind a firewall, is asking for trouble. I apply all security patches, but not all recommended updates.
Holy Cow! If this is true, it's huge! With all the talk these days of diversifying our energy sources, this seems an obvious route of inquiry. Why has nobody taken this further? Is the current fossil fuel energy concern so powerful? Perhaps they are, but they would be holding all of humanity back.
Once again, the reason Bush's attitude concerns me is that we have seen through history that when a person believes that he has divine power behind him he can justify doing some bad things. I have seen this administration act with hubris, not humility. They have been forceful and arrogant with our allies and the American people. Bush speaks of humility, but I don't see his actions carrying that out. I think it is possible to be at once empowered and humbled before God, but I don't see this in Bush.
Nonetheless, I have enjoyed this discussion with you. You seem to have a balanced opinion. I think that Bush's attitudes perhaps have different implications for you and I based on our world and spiritual view. But that is part of what makes this life interesting and instructive.
Peace be with you too.
Because that religious text proclaims to be the word of a spiritual being that lords over us all. On the face of it, it is a dubious claim at best. But that aside, it has been edited, added to and generally messed with over the centuries. There were initially many more than four gospels in the Bible, but the Catholic Church decided a while back that there should be only four. King James created his bible through committee and then made the final changes himself. Don't you think that in 2000 years (more for the Old Testament) something could have gotten lost in translation? I suppose you could make the argument that God sheperded it through the ages, but that's really getting into the metaphysical.
It's not that the Bible doesn't have wisdom in it; it does. But there is alot of terrible stuff that goes on in there that is supposedly condoned by God (the Torah and Qu'ran have this same problem). I'll do the research if you need chapter and verse, but I think you know what I mean.
"Why is it so dangerous to have a leader who seeks to humble himself before God?"
Humble? Okay, maybe he started out that way, maybe. But now we have "With us or against us", "dead or alive" and "Bring 'em on". We have a man who says that Saddam has to go for defying US resolutions, and then defies the UN in going after him. In the State of the Union address he said of terrorists who had been killed, "Let's just say they're not a problem anymore." with his best gunslinger lean. Bush talked of humility during his campaign, but he has shown himself to be proud and arrogant.
This is true. I do not believe that Bush got us into this war for religious reasons, which is why I didn't cite it specifically in my response. However, I have read (I don't remember where) that Bush has remarked that he feels he has been chosen by Providence to lead the nation through it's time of crisis. He has also made numerous references to this conflict as one between good and evil. Who do you think is on the side of good? And what license does that bestow?
Now, I suppose one could characterize flying planes into buildings as evil. But this is not a battle between good and evil. It is the United States trying to defend itself and it's way of life against a band of criminals. But when Bush uses such apocalyptic language, I get concerned. I am concerned that he does not appreciate the complexity of the issue, or indeed the world. Reducing things to good and evil is simplistic and is not very applicable to world affairs or foreign policy. In this way I believe he is blinded.
"Bush does not present his faith as a reason for his policy decisions."
Are you sure? How about his stance on abortion? Stem cell research? Gay rights? On that last one I believe he started out by acknowledging that we are all sinners. You see, I am not a sinner, as I do not believe in sin. But obviously, when considering the legal status of two homosexuals who want to pledge themselves to each other, one of the first things George Bush considers is that we are sinners. This is the prism through which he sees the world, and it is often opposed to the prism through which I see it.
George W. Bush is a man who has had his life changed by faith. With the help of his faith he stopped drinking late in life and made some profund changes. He was "born again". You can't expect me to believe that personal faith does not play a huge role in the outlook of such a person. Again, I do not fault him for this in and of itself. God has had a profound effect on my life as well (though in a different way I suspect). But I do think that it affects his judgement and policy decisions in adding a rigidity to his thinking. I don't think he spends much time considering whether he might be wrong and I think it has a religious origin. Just my $0.02, I don't know the man personally. There is a difference between faith and adherence to dogma.
Actually America is a free country. Free to be religious or not. This is why I believe that the pledge (if it is even necessary) should not include "Under God". For that matter, our money should not either. Especially since it is obviously the Dollar in which we trust.
I do not hate religious people. I have friends and family who are religious and of different religions. I myself believe in God, but do not trust a religion to dole out his Word to me. Furthermore, I am certianly not comfortable with George Bush's religiousness. I believe it has blinded him. He holds so strongly to his beliefs, that he is unwilling to consider other possibilities. This is very dangerous.
Our constitution guarantees the freedom to worship. This is based on the idea that religion is a personal matter. Thus it should not be part of public policy.
I'm sorry, but that would call for introspection and asking just why we do things. We Americans have no time for such things. Let the French worry about it. We have God on our side, and we are right. Everyone else just needs to ge used to it.