The person who still doesn't realize the computer is a tool like any tool, and just like with a car [...], you have to be able to use it without being an expert mechanic....
Do you drive an automatic or manual? How long did it take you to learn how? If you want to use a car metaphor with Linux, it's now closer to "Windows is an automatic, Linux is a stick-shift" than anything else.
The benefit of being an expert mechanic is that your hood isn't welded shut with Linux.
(potential disclaimer: I've got a WinXP box, a Mac Mini, and a Linux box.)
Truth. So how do we fix those problems? If entity A dislikes entity B enough, they will find some way to inflict harm; I don't care how much security is there. The 9/11 terrorists were in the country legally. They had good ID.
The funding is definitely a problem, though.
I guess the focus for the people against this is the trade-off between safety from our government and safety from the new threat. People arguing against it are seeing the worst that could be done by our government with this new power, and determining it at least as bad as what would be done by the threat if the government doesn't have this power.
People who consider it necessary (like yourself) have considered the external threat to be worse than the internal threat, or don't consider the gov't a threat at all.
Personally, I'd rather have my fourth amendment rights apply to electronic communication. I'm glad you've made your own decision, though.
"We can't force citizens to to exercise their rights, but that doesn't make the Consitution just a piece of paper, it just makes the citizens fools."
That's right - my point was that some people think that just because the constitution exists, that guarantees our rights. We both agree that this view is incorrect.
"their privacy will be moot because they will be dead."
Have you taken a look at death statistics? Deaths by terrorism in 2005 (around the world) number somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 (reports vary). Deaths by car accident? 42,636, in the US alone. Don't talk about terrorism as if it's the biggest threat to life in the world today. We'd have better luck sending the NSA against cancer, for example, or using the money to purchase portable defibrillators.
So use some other argument for this - "They're attacking our country, we must defend ourselves," perhaps. Just don't use FUD.
(by the way: I know a bunch of smart people on the right. In fact, they generally have very compelling arguments for smaller government. This sort of thing, though, is not smaller government - why is it conservative?)
Bravo. I wonder when people like the GP will understand that the Constitution's only a piece of paper. It's just like money; only worth something because people think it's worth something.
Take a group with no respect for the principles behind it (and no checks and balances on their power), and it's worthless. The founders wanted to make sure it was really difficult to get around the checks on power for each branch of government, but these checks have been slowly eroding for over 200 years now.
What's to stop a law being passed that restricts free speech? The president's veto power, the bicameral legislature, and the courts. If none of these are used, the bill of rights is useless.
It's a piece of paper - why can't people understand that it doesn't magically bind anyone to anything?
You'd be correct. I think Tanenbaum came up with both of these terms. He coins it in the first edition of his OS book (which includes the Minix source code, IIRC).
On that note, some people call them "macrokernels" instead.
You do realize that half the strategy in an MMO depends on the idiotic AI they're using? That, if the AI was actually intelligent, the games would have to be different?
You think it's fun because the reason you're winning is that the enemy is too stupid to beat you? You concede that if Ragnaros actually thought about it for a second (even before dying the first time), he would go for the healers first; therefore, you're winning not by strategy or tactics (which are meaningless against a pattern - you're just responding with a pattern at that point), let alone initiative, but by brute strength and strict orders? Where every fight with him is the same as any other - random patterns aside?
Personally, I'd rather fight a much weaker (but much smarter) boss, where I actually had to show some initiative, where the fight is different from week to week. Ever played the same chess game twice with an experienced player?
Eh, I understand the draw for a 40-man raid, though. I'd rather play 32 on 32 Tribes, though.
It's a dictatorship, albiet one in which the dictator is no longer a single figurehead, but rather a single organisation.... Voting in China is only a cynical rubber stamp on a rigged process.
Really makes the HJKL movement not work too well, huh? I'm a Dvorak-using Vim enthusiast, though - just couldn't make two switches at once, and got used to the shortcuts with the new layout.
...it's bad for IE/MSNsearch to behave unethically, yet it's good for Firefox/Google to behave in exactly the same manner.
Your comment would imply that the situation is the same for these two pairs, because otherwise there would be no need to do "logical backflips" to make the morality assessment. I think that's what the GP is trying to say. You might mean that the actions are what are good or bad, so same actions = same "goodness," so to speak.
You'd think they could find someone with actual technical expertise to look over these things - can't stand people who think they can throw out buzzwords and sound intelligent...
This is kinda silly. When's the last time you showed your driver's license to your ISP? Or used it at the metro? Or in the grocery store (unless you're one of those freaks that still uses checks?) Or at a toll booth.
Unless you only use cash, the first three are already tied together through your debit/credit card. The last one has your plate number. The GP is saying that with a national ID card that is tied to these, suddenly everything is connected in very few places. At worst, the query becomes (pseudo sql):
select * from citizen,plate,bank join on id=plate.citizen_id, id=bank.citizen_id;
"They are a tool just like any other. The particular purpose of this tool is authentication."
Then why not just have your (RSA/DSA) private key on it? Why not make it a smart card that lets you generate/revoke keys, and perhaps have a way of distributing them? Why is there such a need to tie it to your name/address?
I don't mind store cards so much because they don't really care who you are, it seems (you can use the card even if you never fill out the registration), but your individual buying patterns and the correlation you can pull (people who buy skim milk are more likely to buy organic chips, or whatever). Of course, the possibility exists that they can tie it to you through your debit card/check that you used to purchase things, but like I said, that doesn't seem to be the goal.
Now, for a national ID card (international?), one is generally talking about a card that isn't purely for authentication (RSA private key, biometric signature, etc.), but also has a bunch of personal information either on it, or readily accessible (through a network connection to a national database, for example). In the first case, there's no purpose for it when you want secure authentication, and if anyone gets their hands on the card, you can't revoke that kind of thing. In the second case - you're talking about a national database of personal information, accessible over a network (like the ATM or credit card system).
Perhaps that's not so bad (I've at least not heard of anyone cracking into the ATM network), but it's still creepy to anyone who doesn't trust the government as far as he/she can throw them. (and that's not very far - Cheney isn't a light guy, let me tell you)
tl;dr: It's creepy, but furthermore, anything beyond an RSA key and some biometrics is worthless for authentication, which is what you're talking about using the card for.
Slashdot Mirror
The person who still doesn't realize the computer is a tool like any tool, and just like with a car [...], you have to be able to use it without being an expert mechanic....
Do you drive an automatic or manual? How long did it take you to learn how? If you want to use a car metaphor with Linux, it's now closer to "Windows is an automatic, Linux is a stick-shift" than anything else.
The benefit of being an expert mechanic is that your hood isn't welded shut with Linux.
(potential disclaimer: I've got a WinXP box, a Mac Mini, and a Linux box.)
Ah, so that's what the neo-con movement is all about.
I have been enlightened.
"No, the constitution is only a series of phrases strung together which holds force of law, the paper/ink itself is rather irrelevant."
The difference is irrelevant to my argument.
"'the church' means a pretty building in Italy."
It could, if you're in Italy, and you point at the building and say, "look at that pretty church."
Truth. So how do we fix those problems? If entity A dislikes entity B enough, they will find some way to inflict harm; I don't care how much security is there. The 9/11 terrorists were in the country legally. They had good ID.
The funding is definitely a problem, though.
I guess the focus for the people against this is the trade-off between safety from our government and safety from the new threat. People arguing against it are seeing the worst that could be done by our government with this new power, and determining it at least as bad as what would be done by the threat if the government doesn't have this power.
People who consider it necessary (like yourself) have considered the external threat to be worse than the internal threat, or don't consider the gov't a threat at all.
Personally, I'd rather have my fourth amendment rights apply to electronic communication. I'm glad you've made your own decision, though.
"We can't force citizens to to exercise their rights, but that doesn't make the Consitution just a piece of paper, it just makes the citizens fools."
That's right - my point was that some people think that just because the constitution exists, that guarantees our rights. We both agree that this view is incorrect.
They make ATMs. They definitely have the experience and knowledge to make secure boxes. It's either laziness or maliciousness, not incompetence.
How about freaking paper ballots?
"their privacy will be moot because they will be dead."
Have you taken a look at death statistics? Deaths by terrorism in 2005 (around the world) number somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 (reports vary). Deaths by car accident? 42,636, in the US alone. Don't talk about terrorism as if it's the biggest threat to life in the world today. We'd have better luck sending the NSA against cancer, for example, or using the money to purchase portable defibrillators.
So use some other argument for this - "They're attacking our country, we must defend ourselves," perhaps. Just don't use FUD.
(by the way: I know a bunch of smart people on the right. In fact, they generally have very compelling arguments for smaller government. This sort of thing, though, is not smaller government - why is it conservative?)
Bravo. I wonder when people like the GP will understand that the Constitution's only a piece of paper. It's just like money; only worth something because people think it's worth something.
Take a group with no respect for the principles behind it (and no checks and balances on their power), and it's worthless. The founders wanted to make sure it was really difficult to get around the checks on power for each branch of government, but these checks have been slowly eroding for over 200 years now.
What's to stop a law being passed that restricts free speech? The president's veto power, the bicameral legislature, and the courts. If none of these are used, the bill of rights is useless.
It's a piece of paper - why can't people understand that it doesn't magically bind anyone to anything?
Precisely.
You'd be correct. I think Tanenbaum came up with both of these terms. He coins it in the first edition of his OS book (which includes the Minix source code, IIRC).
On that note, some people call them "macrokernels" instead.
Somehow this is missing from a lot of games lately: we want them to be fun, remember? Not just all simulation?
You do realize that half the strategy in an MMO depends on the idiotic AI they're using? That, if the AI was actually intelligent, the games would have to be different?
You think it's fun because the reason you're winning is that the enemy is too stupid to beat you? You concede that if Ragnaros actually thought about it for a second (even before dying the first time), he would go for the healers first; therefore, you're winning not by strategy or tactics (which are meaningless against a pattern - you're just responding with a pattern at that point), let alone initiative, but by brute strength and strict orders? Where every fight with him is the same as any other - random patterns aside?
Personally, I'd rather fight a much weaker (but much smarter) boss, where I actually had to show some initiative, where the fight is different from week to week. Ever played the same chess game twice with an experienced player?
Eh, I understand the draw for a 40-man raid, though. I'd rather play 32 on 32 Tribes, though.
It's a dictatorship, albiet one in which the dictator is no longer a single figurehead, but rather a single organisation.... Voting in China is only a cynical rubber stamp on a rigged process.
Some would say the same about the US.
This isn't mean - it's fair. Everyone has something to trade with, even if it's just an IOU.
Really makes the HJKL movement not work too well, huh? I'm a Dvorak-using Vim enthusiast, though - just couldn't make two switches at once, and got used to the shortcuts with the new layout.
What about Spycraft?
...it's bad for IE/MSNsearch to behave unethically, yet it's good for Firefox/Google to behave in exactly the same manner.
Your comment would imply that the situation is the same for these two pairs, because otherwise there would be no need to do "logical backflips" to make the morality assessment. I think that's what the GP is trying to say. You might mean that the actions are what are good or bad, so same actions = same "goodness," so to speak.
Just for clarification.
Right - ignored by the mainstream news.
Ouch.
You'd think they could find someone with actual technical expertise to look over these things - can't stand people who think they can throw out buzzwords and sound intelligent...
Sounds like TagWorld.
I don't know - they must be doing something right, even if it does look like vomit...
This is kinda silly. When's the last time you showed your driver's license to your ISP? Or used it at the metro? Or in the grocery store (unless you're one of those freaks that still uses checks?) Or at a toll booth.
Unless you only use cash, the first three are already tied together through your debit/credit card. The last one has your plate number. The GP is saying that with a national ID card that is tied to these, suddenly everything is connected in very few places. At worst, the query becomes (pseudo sql):
select * from citizen,plate,bank join on id=plate.citizen_id, id=bank.citizen_id;
This does not stop terrorism, so take it off the list of benefits.
"They are a tool just like any other. The particular purpose of this tool is authentication."
Then why not just have your (RSA/DSA) private key on it? Why not make it a smart card that lets you generate/revoke keys, and perhaps have a way of distributing them? Why is there such a need to tie it to your name/address?
I don't mind store cards so much because they don't really care who you are, it seems (you can use the card even if you never fill out the registration), but your individual buying patterns and the correlation you can pull (people who buy skim milk are more likely to buy organic chips, or whatever). Of course, the possibility exists that they can tie it to you through your debit card/check that you used to purchase things, but like I said, that doesn't seem to be the goal.
Now, for a national ID card (international?), one is generally talking about a card that isn't purely for authentication (RSA private key, biometric signature, etc.), but also has a bunch of personal information either on it, or readily accessible (through a network connection to a national database, for example). In the first case, there's no purpose for it when you want secure authentication, and if anyone gets their hands on the card, you can't revoke that kind of thing. In the second case - you're talking about a national database of personal information, accessible over a network (like the ATM or credit card system).
Perhaps that's not so bad (I've at least not heard of anyone cracking into the ATM network), but it's still creepy to anyone who doesn't trust the government as far as he/she can throw them. (and that's not very far - Cheney isn't a light guy, let me tell you)
tl;dr: It's creepy, but furthermore, anything beyond an RSA key and some biometrics is worthless for authentication, which is what you're talking about using the card for.
You do realize that users submit these things, right?