I don't know, but I know that there are people who voted the current politicians into power. Blame them for everything that is happening!
Quite right too. In a democracy the electorate are collectively responsible for the crimes of the government - although the Americans get a pass on the first four years of the Bush regime, since they didn't vote for him that time.
Bear in mind however that had the Tories been elected in 2005, the prime minister today would be Michael Howard, a notorious authoritarian. Things would likely be considerably worse.
Show me after the Borg wars and the Delta Q wars. Toss in a few Borg or Changlings or Jem Hadar into the Academy. Introduce some sweet new technology, ships & people.
Like what?
What was the big technological advance from Kirk to Picard? Holodecks and the replicator. That's it. Phasers look less like pistols and more like mice, communicators have miniaturised a bit. And there's a robot aboard. Wow, big change there.
Now you're going to tell me that the Enterprise-D could do warp nine point whatever while the original couldn't get much past warp six, and the phaser banks were amplified and the shields more powerful and yadda yadda yadda. It's technobabble. Makes no fucking difference. In Deep Space 9 they replaced photon torpedoes with quantum torpedoes, but the enemy were upgrading too so that made no difference either. A ship is either fast enough, or not fast enough; its armament either powerful enough, or not powerful enough.
What do you want to see in the next century forward? Warp 12? Polyfrequency superphasers to defeat metaphasic shields? No. The only difference there is in dialogue; the ship will still arrive either in the nick of time or way too late, and the phasers will still either work just fine or not at all. Time travel? Would turn the show into Doctor Who without the sense of its own absurdity. Oh, wait, that's what Enterprise turned into.
I remember once extrapolating the technological trends seen in the TNG to VOY era, and concluding that the Federation starship of the future would consist of a warp core, a computer, and a lot of holographic projectors and replicators. The warp core provides the power. The computer does the thinking (remember, they can run Moriarty plus guest in a device the size of a Rubik cube, and holographic AI crew are becoming commonplace in later Trek). And the holographic projectors and replicators are there to create whatever equipment the ship needs on demand. In flight the ship would be nothing but a warp drive. In orbit it would consist entirely of surveying equipment. In battle, its whole power goes to the phasers and the shields, and it only has to protect a tiny volume, compared to the vast bulk of living space a Galaxy-class ship must defend.
But then there's no crew. No human interest. Nothing for the viewer to care about at all.
I have seen the current national debt. Liberals overextended us! Too many welfare programs. Welfare = higher taxes, So when a conservative tries to keep taxes down, its practically impossible because of all the welfare programs it has to support.
So you cut taxes anyway and run up a massive debt, that's the responsible thing to do?
How is that any different from me just physically mailing you a box of child pornography, along with a letter saying "Here is your order from kid's-r-us"?
Because it's not real CP, it's random binary gibberish with a note attached saying 'Here is your encrypted CP'. The police will pick up that email (in other news today, they're going to be monitoring all emails) and go 'Oho, we have caught ourselves a paedophile and will soon look good in the newspapers when we lock him up for ever and always', and come around and arrest you. The they demand you decrypt the file so they can present you along with the CP to the court and get you sent to prison.
No CP exists - no key exists - it's not encrypted data at all, just noise. But you can't prove that. And so you go to jail for failing to provide the key.
Why bother with a monkey though. The main desirable thing about a monkey is its brain, so if you're only interested in the body.. you might as well use something more powerful, like a tiger, or a shark.. and possibly mount a weapon on them...
Monkeys can be dangerous. The famous fighting monkey Jacco Macacco, for instance, was notorious for killing dogs by jumping onto their necks and biting out their throats.
Is there a system which will allow the use of a 'duress' key? If the duress key is given instead of the real key the encrypted data is erased. This would be easy enough to defeat by a suitably motivated investigator, but they'd have to have figured out what was going to happen first...
The first thing they do is take a backup of the evidence. Then they work from that, not the original. If they do anything at all to the original other than taking a faithful bit-for-bit copy, the defence can claim they planted the evidence there.
Instead, make the duress key decrypt to a volume full of really kinky but not illegal porn, and the real key decrypt to what it is you really want hidden. That'll satisfy the police, as you have a good reason to encrypt that stuff. I believe TrueCrypt supports this kind of trick.
Any reason why they'd do that? Nothing illegal about having books
There are certain books that would get you in trouble. If they concern, for instance, highly exothermic chemistry, certain political movements especially in the Middle East and in Ireland, or exotic erotic practices, then you could be arrested for possession of 'material likely to be useful to terrorists' or 'obscenity'.
About 75+ years ago what we would now assign the label of "conservative," then carried the label "liberal." Strange.
Conservatives want to maintain the status quo. That's why they're called 'conservatives' - they're trying to conserve things.
Progressives want to change the status quo. That's why they're called 'progressives' - they're trying to achieve progress.
Once a progressive has successfully implemented the changes he wanted, he is happy with the way things are and naturally wants to prevent anyone making further changes. So he becomes a conservative.
Yes, give them more ammo that you are an irrational, online cabal by posting bad reviews not of the game you have not purchased due to DRM, but of the DRM that caused you to not purchase the game.
Suppose I found that my hamburger contains rat turds. I talk to some friends who bought burgers from the same store and find that they found rat turds in their burgers too. I then pay close attention to the announcements regarding other products that store is planning to introduce in the near future - they say they're going to put rat turds in those too.
So to forewarn others, I go to an online review site and write up about these new products 'These contain rat turds'.
Even though I haven't bought those products, I know perfectly well there are rat turds in them, and that's why I haven't bought them. Are the rat turds an irrelevance to an otherwise tasty burger, excellent in parts? Or are they an integral part of the product, sufficient in themselves to ruin it entirely and make it deserve the worst possible review?
Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY? etc. By definition it can't probe beyond the big bang, as far as science is conserned, beyond here be dragons is as good an answer any. It can't answer a single moral question.
Actually, it's not 'by definition' - just as a matter of practical fact, our current models of physics fail when they get too close to t=0. In addition, if the Big Bang is a singularity then no information about prior events survives in the current Universe - if prior events even exist. It may be that we're wrong about that; there are models coming out of exotic physics that don't require a singularity there.
As for moral questions, if their conditions are carefully stated they're amenable to game-theoretical analysis to produce a strategy giving optimum outcomes. Or do you define 'moral questions' as 'questions that are by definition so ill-posed as not to have a clear answer'? If so then 'science can't answer moral questions' isn't a useful statement, since nobody can answer moral questions.
Um, the traditional definition of a first world country is based on solid allegiance to the United States and opposition to the Soviet Union.
Yes, but there's no Soviet Union any more, and the list of countries with solid allegiance to the United States nowadays runs to... well, four by my count, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel and the UK, and that last one's there only on official policy not public opinion.
So there isn't much of a 'First World' left, which indicates to me that we might want to update the definition.
I happen to know someone who worked at Airbus in the 90s. Lets just say the early software had a few bugs that needed to be ironed out. But of course its far easier to blame the pilot in a rigged trial than ruin a large proportion of the european aircraft manufacturing industry.
So you couldn't find a link that supported you, instead included one that contradicted you, and now we get anecdote and conspiracy theory? Sorry, but file me under 'unconvinced'.
And don't retort with that old guff about it being the pilots fault.
We don't need to. The article you linked to says it was the pilot's fault. It's listed as 'Pilot error (disputed)' insofar as the pilot blamed a dodgy altimeter and some of the evidence was improperly handled, but he was still convicted of manslaughter for it.
Flamebait, guys? Just for criticising some specific parts of a Linux distribution? I don't know about the mail apps, I just use gmail, and I don't use bookmarks much, but it's certainly true that OpenOffice.org is not yet a complete MS Office equivalent.
Millennium was close to cutsey, but even that's not in the same league as Ubuntu's childish and unprofessional naming convention.
According to their webpage, the current version of Ubuntu is called '8.04 LTS'. A new release called '8.10' is coming out at the end of the month. What's this unprofessional naming convention you're talking about? Perhaps you have some internal development codenames in mind?
WTF is up with the "Teddy Bear" gun they've shown in the previews? That's got to be the dumbest idea. Loading up with spikes I can see, but "Teddy Bears"...why don't they add in rainbows and ponies.
Next thing you know they'll make a kid's BB gun the most powerful weapon in the game.
Ok, outside the copyright debate, am I the only one that is extremely skeptical when someone is the "czar" of something? What the hell does that actually mean, and what can they actually do?
They get shot, bayonetted, dunked in an acid bath, then thrown down a mineshaft, by Communists.
A spectre is haunting America - the spectre of Piracy;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure whether there's any major prestigious prize given out in the field of crypto, but if there is, you just won it. Please publish!
Quite right too. In a democracy the electorate are collectively responsible for the crimes of the government - although the Americans get a pass on the first four years of the Bush regime, since they didn't vote for him that time.
Bear in mind however that had the Tories been elected in 2005, the prime minister today would be Michael Howard, a notorious authoritarian. Things would likely be considerably worse.
It's OK, we know what you mean. You can say 'Jews' here.
Like what?
What was the big technological advance from Kirk to Picard? Holodecks and the replicator. That's it. Phasers look less like pistols and more like mice, communicators have miniaturised a bit. And there's a robot aboard. Wow, big change there.
Now you're going to tell me that the Enterprise-D could do warp nine point whatever while the original couldn't get much past warp six, and the phaser banks were amplified and the shields more powerful and yadda yadda yadda. It's technobabble. Makes no fucking difference. In Deep Space 9 they replaced photon torpedoes with quantum torpedoes, but the enemy were upgrading too so that made no difference either. A ship is either fast enough, or not fast enough; its armament either powerful enough, or not powerful enough.
What do you want to see in the next century forward? Warp 12? Polyfrequency superphasers to defeat metaphasic shields? No. The only difference there is in dialogue; the ship will still arrive either in the nick of time or way too late, and the phasers will still either work just fine or not at all. Time travel? Would turn the show into Doctor Who without the sense of its own absurdity. Oh, wait, that's what Enterprise turned into.
I remember once extrapolating the technological trends seen in the TNG to VOY era, and concluding that the Federation starship of the future would consist of a warp core, a computer, and a lot of holographic projectors and replicators. The warp core provides the power. The computer does the thinking (remember, they can run Moriarty plus guest in a device the size of a Rubik cube, and holographic AI crew are becoming commonplace in later Trek). And the holographic projectors and replicators are there to create whatever equipment the ship needs on demand. In flight the ship would be nothing but a warp drive. In orbit it would consist entirely of surveying equipment. In battle, its whole power goes to the phasers and the shields, and it only has to protect a tiny volume, compared to the vast bulk of living space a Galaxy-class ship must defend.
But then there's no crew. No human interest. Nothing for the viewer to care about at all.
So you cut taxes anyway and run up a massive debt, that's the responsible thing to do?
Because it's not real CP, it's random binary gibberish with a note attached saying 'Here is your encrypted CP'. The police will pick up that email (in other news today, they're going to be monitoring all emails) and go 'Oho, we have caught ourselves a paedophile and will soon look good in the newspapers when we lock him up for ever and always', and come around and arrest you. The they demand you decrypt the file so they can present you along with the CP to the court and get you sent to prison.
No CP exists - no key exists - it's not encrypted data at all, just noise. But you can't prove that. And so you go to jail for failing to provide the key.
Monkeys can be dangerous. The famous fighting monkey Jacco Macacco, for instance, was notorious for killing dogs by jumping onto their necks and biting out their throats.
If Al Gore had won in 2000, there would probably have been some kind of shenanigans pulled to make sure Bush became president anyway.
Oh, wait...
The first thing they do is take a backup of the evidence. Then they work from that, not the original. If they do anything at all to the original other than taking a faithful bit-for-bit copy, the defence can claim they planted the evidence there.
Instead, make the duress key decrypt to a volume full of really kinky but not illegal porn, and the real key decrypt to what it is you really want hidden. That'll satisfy the police, as you have a good reason to encrypt that stuff. I believe TrueCrypt supports this kind of trick.
There are certain books that would get you in trouble. If they concern, for instance, highly exothermic chemistry, certain political movements especially in the Middle East and in Ireland, or exotic erotic practices, then you could be arrested for possession of 'material likely to be useful to terrorists' or 'obscenity'.
Interesting. Which industries is he going to nationalise? I mean, other than banking, which pretty much everyone's nationalising at the moment...
Conservatives want to maintain the status quo. That's why they're called 'conservatives' - they're trying to conserve things.
Progressives want to change the status quo. That's why they're called 'progressives' - they're trying to achieve progress.
Once a progressive has successfully implemented the changes he wanted, he is happy with the way things are and naturally wants to prevent anyone making further changes. So he becomes a conservative.
You've seen the current national debt, right?
TV... that's the monitor that's attached to the Wii, right?
What's that? A TV is something you... watch shows on? No, silly. That's BitTorrent.
Suppose I found that my hamburger contains rat turds. I talk to some friends who bought burgers from the same store and find that they found rat turds in their burgers too. I then pay close attention to the announcements regarding other products that store is planning to introduce in the near future - they say they're going to put rat turds in those too.
So to forewarn others, I go to an online review site and write up about these new products 'These contain rat turds'.
Even though I haven't bought those products, I know perfectly well there are rat turds in them, and that's why I haven't bought them. Are the rat turds an irrelevance to an otherwise tasty burger, excellent in parts? Or are they an integral part of the product, sufficient in themselves to ruin it entirely and make it deserve the worst possible review?
Actually, it's not 'by definition' - just as a matter of practical fact, our current models of physics fail when they get too close to t=0. In addition, if the Big Bang is a singularity then no information about prior events survives in the current Universe - if prior events even exist. It may be that we're wrong about that; there are models coming out of exotic physics that don't require a singularity there.
As for moral questions, if their conditions are carefully stated they're amenable to game-theoretical analysis to produce a strategy giving optimum outcomes. Or do you define 'moral questions' as 'questions that are by definition so ill-posed as not to have a clear answer'? If so then 'science can't answer moral questions' isn't a useful statement, since nobody can answer moral questions.
Yes, but there's no Soviet Union any more, and the list of countries with solid allegiance to the United States nowadays runs to... well, four by my count, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel and the UK, and that last one's there only on official policy not public opinion.
So there isn't much of a 'First World' left, which indicates to me that we might want to update the definition.
So you couldn't find a link that supported you, instead included one that contradicted you, and now we get anecdote and conspiracy theory? Sorry, but file me under 'unconvinced'.
We don't need to. The article you linked to says it was the pilot's fault. It's listed as 'Pilot error (disputed)' insofar as the pilot blamed a dodgy altimeter and some of the evidence was improperly handled, but he was still convicted of manslaughter for it.
Flamebait, guys? Just for criticising some specific parts of a Linux distribution? I don't know about the mail apps, I just use gmail, and I don't use bookmarks much, but it's certainly true that OpenOffice.org is not yet a complete MS Office equivalent.
These are American presidential elections we're talking about. Chrome only needs 49.9.
According to their webpage, the current version of Ubuntu is called '8.04 LTS'. A new release called '8.10' is coming out at the end of the month. What's this unprofessional naming convention you're talking about? Perhaps you have some internal development codenames in mind?
Next thing you know they'll make a kid's BB gun the most powerful weapon in the game.
They get shot, bayonetted, dunked in an acid bath, then thrown down a mineshaft, by Communists.
A spectre is haunting America - the spectre of Piracy ;-)
BeOS, please. And my friends here would like copies for Amiga and RiscOS.