If the information being intercepted is encrypted by the service provider and the service provider has access to the keys, then the information MUST be decrypted before delivery to the LEA or the encryption keys MUST be passed to the Law Enforcement Agency to allow them to decrypt the information.....
What a stunningly useless RFC.
"In order to make money on the stock market, one MUST buy low and MUST sell high."
The different direction of the water in either hemisphere is an urban myth -- the effect is too small to impact the thing when compared to the hydrodynamics of the toilet. Given an appropriate basin, drain, and water insertion device you can get the water to spin either way in either hemisphere.
Yes, but unlike Microsoft, RH doesn't *sell* an overpriced server to let you do exactly this, and hence *does* cache just fine. Just like apt-get (actually, apt can even grok bittorrent) and yum. I would strongly suspect that urpmi and emerge can be cached as well, though I can't personally confirm it.
It was specifically said that it was safe to *spray people* with an insecticide, or just that food sprayed with it is safe to eat?
"PCBs won't cause widescale pollution"
But in what kind of quantities? There's probably water that I've pissed at one point or another in the US over in Mongolia...but not a lot of it.
"Nuclear power is completely safe."
Umm...on this one I can safely say you're full of shit. People were *petrified* of nuclear power for the longest time, and the dangers of it were definitely known. Marie Curie had come and gone (the *amount* of radiation released during government weapons tests was lied about, but again, that's not the technology's fault in the least, and holding off longer wouldn't have helped against simple factual lies). Nuclear power *is* very safe compared to our most common power source, coal (puts sulphur dioxide into the air, causes black lung and other health problems for miners involved with it). Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster. Chernobyl only happened because the workers that triggered it deliberately disabled all the safeguards and ignored warnings to test a particular backup system. The reactor was deliberately being operated out of spec, and *not* in an approved manner. You can do all *kinds* of wonderfully stupid things with all kinds of devices if you deliberately misuse them.
"MBTE is a great way to meet emissions goals!"
Don't know anything about MBTE, so I can't comment.
"Asbestos is a great material to use in brake pads, clutches, fire curtains in theaters, insultation on pipes..."
Asbestos is still being used, because it has impressive properties. Yes, use *is* scaled back, but a move to halt research on it would have been far premature. In addition, it is incredibly useful from a safety standpoint if a fire does occur. I'm not sure that it hasn't helped more than it's hurt. Tthere are a *lot* of things that cause cancer that we deal with. The sun, secondhand smoke, etc, etc. Simply being carcinogenic is not a death blow to a substance.
"Lobotomies are a great way to cure mental illness"
At the time they were in use to prevent progressively worse grand mal seizures, they were the only alternative available to doing nothing and eventually dying. They were hardly a general purpose cure for "mental illness". So at the time, well, they weren't a bad idea. Yes, they did inflict mental damage, but damage that could be lived with.
"Cigarettes don't cause cancer."
The result of an industry cover-up, not a case where we didn't know what we were doing. And the tobacco companies are paying dearly for it now. More time wouldn't have helped -- it would just have produced a "no, they're definitely safe" response from said companies.
Let's throw in alcohol, too, since both are poisons
What are you, nuts? Alcohol's been with humans *forever*, and we've known that it causes damage *forever*. You can't blame this on technological progressives in the least.
That's just a small sampling of some of the gems that have come from both the scientific community and industry, often both. Why should we trust them now?
Your complaint is a sample of why I intensely distrust anti-technological arguments. They generally pick out a few examples, ignore the general case (where things work fine), and are quite misleading. I agree that sometimes we don't know all the side effects of something (especially social side effects, which are hard to predict), but that's a long, long way from being anywhere near deciding to postpone production.
I mean, do the authors of this thing ever go *outside*? Like, breathe in dust or anything like that? There are tiny particles of all sorts of things all over!
I still can't believe that cloning is on hold because of "ethical" issues, and the thought that nanobots might be "toxic" because they're *small* makes even that look reasonable and sane.
The problem is that everyone has their own issues.
Physicists like modeling things, and aren't that concerned about pure logic issues. If they can make an easy-to-use, helpful model, being wrong or inconsistent doesn't matter that much. Hence you get stuff based on things like "probability functions". It's great for making potentially simple, useful, probably wrong models, and comple crap for making philosophical arguments.
Metaphysicists are so stuck on rigor and abstract issues that they can't come up with stuff that appeals to your average Joe. So they tend to get ignored, and definitely aren't making sweeping, grandiose claims like "there's probably an alternate universe forking off of this one that we can travel to!"
Mathematicians like building models, and aren't even constrained, as are physicists, by any sort of relationship to the real world.
Occam's Razor is pretty standard in science (yes, not logic, philosophy, etc, but the fields aim for different goals).
If conventional physics don't explain something properly, theories have to be formed about them. So we get a lot of ideas floating around, most of which *aren't* very mundane because they're trying to explain something that doesn't fit well with our view of the universe. However, the effort is still to strive for a simple-as-possible explanation.
The people claiming UFOs exist see a light in the sky and choose a *not* particularly simple explanation involving Venusians anally probing people. 's why they don't get taken that seriaously.
I agree that it is very uncommon for women to enjoy violent games, but I do remember one Quake goddess from high school...
Also, there may be more flux among likes. TV tended to homogenize interests -- you watch one show that's in line with your interests, and it becomes very easy to also try another show that isn't quite as much as it, and eventually, you watch a pretty broad range.
If someone tries a MMORPG, it may be easier for them to play similar games.
Yeah, I gotta agree. This is ridiculous. Look at the story post:
This is your chance to talk directly to a man without whom the modern-day personal computer -- and modern hacking and many other things we take for granted -- might not exist at all, and certainly would not exist in their current forms.
Don't get me wrong, lots of (new school) hackers have good technical knowledge, but they certainly don't have the kind of impact that greats like Monty, Carmack or Andreeson has. And the mindless idolation of famous phreaks and hackers is just *stupid*. Mitnick is notable because he liked nasty practical jokes and managed to get lots of people pissed off at him, not because he managed to do much for computing or had much technical knowledge.
Are these necessarily bad people? No. But they are nowhere *near* as significant as they're made out to be.
Microsoft seeks to make money off their own technology. News at Eleven.
Ah, but this *is* important.
Capitalism doesn't benefit the consumer any more when a monopoly exists -- by leveraging incompatibility, Microsoft is using monopolistic approaches. So, it's not necessarily that what they're doing is dumb from their point of view, but that consumers are justified in doing whatever they can to eliminate this, because it *is* hurting them.
It's not the same as Microsoft charging an arm and a leg for their software. Then a competitor could come along...and if it doesn't, then MS can keep raking in the money.
What's interesting about this standard is that it allows "up to 31 miles of linear service area range and allows users connectivity without a direct line of sight to a base station," all at a shared speed of 70Mbps. This simultaneously blows away 3G mobile and 802.11 technologies."
Yeah. Damn. *31 miles* of users sharing 70Mbps.
Heck, I'll whip out my trusty ol' 56k modem and get better performance.
That doesn't affect the validity of my post. I simply said that they'd be leveraging file format compatibility for at least another release.
You're certainly correct that using XML doesn't mean that the document will be parseable and renderable, but I'd say that the move *is* a prerequisite -- no one is going to be able to implement all the quirks and legacy crap in the current parser. (This is the same parser that accidently left chunks of uninitialized data from the disk in saved files on the Mac a few years back).
My favorite analogy: "If Microsoft would just start using 8-bit bytes, then anybody could read their file formats."
More like "If Microsoft hasn't moved to 8-bit bytes, so it's unlikely that anyone will be reading their file formats any time soon."
But representative of the masses. Most people don't care about anything but Web access and email -- and the more this happens, the more the Internet heads in that direction, regardless of how much we dislike it.
It may be pitiful -- but it's probably indicative of the future. Already, extensive random firewalling has made HTTP one of the few mechanisms that can be relied on to work in all environments.
Slashdot Mirror
If the information being intercepted is encrypted by the service provider and the service provider has access to the keys, then the information MUST be decrypted before delivery to the LEA or the encryption keys MUST be passed to the Law Enforcement Agency to allow them to decrypt the information.....
What a stunningly useless RFC.
"In order to make money on the stock market, one MUST buy low and MUST sell high."
If you play FPSs and like to click effectively, you're better off with a real, dedicated button.
The scroll wheel is nice for general productivity stuff.
Same way it does in the Northern Hemisphere.
The different direction of the water in either hemisphere is an urban myth -- the effect is too small to impact the thing when compared to the hydrodynamics of the toilet. Given an appropriate basin, drain, and water insertion device you can get the water to spin either way in either hemisphere.
So you're saying nuclear power *is* completely safe? If so, then it is you sir who is full of shit.
No, that the government was not claiming that "nuclear power is completely safe".
Yes, but unlike Microsoft, RH doesn't *sell* an overpriced server to let you do exactly this, and hence *does* cache just fine. Just like apt-get (actually, apt can even grok bittorrent) and yum. I would strongly suspect that urpmi and emerge can be cached as well, though I can't personally confirm it.
At least there's the redeeming fact that it's not an MS tablet PC.
Careful. The trolls are probably already posting goats.cx "Tablet PC" review submissions.
"DDT is perfectly safe"
It was specifically said that it was safe to *spray people* with an insecticide, or just that food sprayed with it is safe to eat?
"PCBs won't cause widescale pollution"
But in what kind of quantities? There's probably water that I've pissed at one point or another in the US over in Mongolia...but not a lot of it.
"Nuclear power is completely safe."
Umm...on this one I can safely say you're full of shit. People were *petrified* of nuclear power for the longest time, and the dangers of it were definitely known. Marie Curie had come and gone (the *amount* of radiation released during government weapons tests was lied about, but again, that's not the technology's fault in the least, and holding off longer wouldn't have helped against simple factual lies). Nuclear power *is* very safe compared to our most common power source, coal (puts sulphur dioxide into the air, causes black lung and other health problems for miners involved with it). Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster. Chernobyl only happened because the workers that triggered it deliberately disabled all the safeguards and ignored warnings to test a particular backup system. The reactor was deliberately being operated out of spec, and *not* in an approved manner. You can do all *kinds* of wonderfully stupid things with all kinds of devices if you deliberately misuse them.
"MBTE is a great way to meet emissions goals!"
Don't know anything about MBTE, so I can't comment.
"Asbestos is a great material to use in brake pads, clutches, fire curtains in theaters, insultation on pipes..."
Asbestos is still being used, because it has impressive properties. Yes, use *is* scaled back, but a move to halt research on it would have been far premature. In addition, it is incredibly useful from a safety standpoint if a fire does occur. I'm not sure that it hasn't helped more than it's hurt. Tthere are a *lot* of things that cause cancer that we deal with. The sun, secondhand smoke, etc, etc. Simply being carcinogenic is not a death blow to a substance.
"Lobotomies are a great way to cure mental illness"
At the time they were in use to prevent progressively worse grand mal seizures, they were the only alternative available to doing nothing and eventually dying. They were hardly a general purpose cure for "mental illness". So at the time, well, they weren't a bad idea. Yes, they did inflict mental damage, but damage that could be lived with.
"Cigarettes don't cause cancer."
The result of an industry cover-up, not a case where we didn't know what we were doing. And the tobacco companies are paying dearly for it now. More time wouldn't have helped -- it would just have produced a "no, they're definitely safe" response from said companies.
Let's throw in alcohol, too, since both are poisons
What are you, nuts? Alcohol's been with humans *forever*, and we've known that it causes damage *forever*. You can't blame this on technological progressives in the least.
That's just a small sampling of some of the gems that have come from both the scientific community and industry, often both. Why should we trust them now?
Your complaint is a sample of why I intensely distrust anti-technological arguments. They generally pick out a few examples, ignore the general case (where things work fine), and are quite misleading. I agree that sometimes we don't know all the side effects of something (especially social side effects, which are hard to predict), but that's a long, long way from being anywhere near deciding to postpone production.
I mean, do the authors of this thing ever go *outside*? Like, breathe in dust or anything like that? There are tiny particles of all sorts of things all over!
I still can't believe that cloning is on hold because of "ethical" issues, and the thought that nanobots might be "toxic" because they're *small* makes even that look reasonable and sane.
Is there a universe packed full of electrons? If so, how come they don't keep screwing with our electrons.
The upgrade is pricey, though ($700) and I am not sure that I am willing to dish out that kind of cash just for a processor upgrade."
Overpriced processor upgrades have a long and rich tradition on Macs.
This is pretty much a killer argument.
The problem is that everyone has their own issues.
Physicists like modeling things, and aren't that concerned about pure logic issues. If they can make an easy-to-use, helpful model, being wrong or inconsistent doesn't matter that much. Hence you get stuff based on things like "probability functions". It's great for making potentially simple, useful, probably wrong models, and comple crap for making philosophical arguments.
Metaphysicists are so stuck on rigor and abstract issues that they can't come up with stuff that appeals to your average Joe. So they tend to get ignored, and definitely aren't making sweeping, grandiose claims like "there's probably an alternate universe forking off of this one that we can travel to!"
Mathematicians like building models, and aren't even constrained, as are physicists, by any sort of relationship to the real world.
Occam's Razor is pretty standard in science (yes, not logic, philosophy, etc, but the fields aim for different goals).
If conventional physics don't explain something properly, theories have to be formed about them. So we get a lot of ideas floating around, most of which *aren't* very mundane because they're trying to explain something that doesn't fit well with our view of the universe. However, the effort is still to strive for a simple-as-possible explanation.
The people claiming UFOs exist see a light in the sky and choose a *not* particularly simple explanation involving Venusians anally probing people. 's why they don't get taken that seriaously.
wow, that was one of the poorest attempts of comedy I've seen on slashdot.
Not a long time reader, are we?
Makes for a damn good movie, though.
Give us something other than levelling via meaninless repeated tasks to look forward to.
If you aren't interacting with other people, adventuring with friends and the like, yes, MMORPGs are not really competitive with traditional CRPGs.
I agree that it is very uncommon for women to enjoy violent games, but I do remember one Quake goddess from high school...
Also, there may be more flux among likes. TV tended to homogenize interests -- you watch one show that's in line with your interests, and it becomes very easy to also try another show that isn't quite as much as it, and eventually, you watch a pretty broad range.
If someone tries a MMORPG, it may be easier for them to play similar games.
Have you ever considered being a promotional figure for Cap'n Crunch cereal? *I* think it'd be a lot more interesting than the animated Captain...
Perhaps because he doesn't like people trying to inhale to blow through one of his famed whistles and just coughing their lungs out instead.
(From someone who's actually seen what lung cancer does to people. It's a bad way to go.)
Why are you so popular
Yeah, I gotta agree. This is ridiculous. Look at the story post:
This is your chance to talk directly to a man without whom the modern-day personal computer -- and modern hacking and many other things we take for granted -- might not exist at all, and certainly would not exist in their current forms.
Don't get me wrong, lots of (new school) hackers have good technical knowledge, but they certainly don't have the kind of impact that greats like Monty, Carmack or Andreeson has. And the mindless idolation of famous phreaks and hackers is just *stupid*. Mitnick is notable because he liked nasty practical jokes and managed to get lots of people pissed off at him, not because he managed to do much for computing or had much technical knowledge.
Are these necessarily bad people? No. But they are nowhere *near* as significant as they're made out to be.
Sigh...BitTorrent needs a standard web-of-trust system...
Microsoft seeks to make money off their own technology. News at Eleven.
Ah, but this *is* important.
Capitalism doesn't benefit the consumer any more when a monopoly exists -- by leveraging incompatibility, Microsoft is using monopolistic approaches. So, it's not necessarily that what they're doing is dumb from their point of view, but that consumers are justified in doing whatever they can to eliminate this, because it *is* hurting them.
It's not the same as Microsoft charging an arm and a leg for their software. Then a competitor could come along...and if it doesn't, then MS can keep raking in the money.
What's interesting about this standard is that it allows "up to 31 miles of linear service area range and allows users connectivity without a direct line of sight to a base station," all at a shared speed of 70Mbps. This simultaneously blows away 3G mobile and 802.11 technologies."
Yeah. Damn. *31 miles* of users sharing 70Mbps.
Heck, I'll whip out my trusty ol' 56k modem and get better performance.
That doesn't affect the validity of my post. I simply said that they'd be leveraging file format compatibility for at least another release.
You're certainly correct that using XML doesn't mean that the document will be parseable and renderable, but I'd say that the move *is* a prerequisite -- no one is going to be able to implement all the quirks and legacy crap in the current parser. (This is the same parser that accidently left chunks of uninitialized data from the disk in saved files on the Mac a few years back).
My favorite analogy: "If Microsoft would just start using 8-bit bytes, then anybody could read their file formats."
More like "If Microsoft hasn't moved to 8-bit bytes, so it's unlikely that anyone will be reading their file formats any time soon."
aol is pitiful
But representative of the masses. Most people don't care about anything but Web access and email -- and the more this happens, the more the Internet heads in that direction, regardless of how much we dislike it.
It may be pitiful -- but it's probably indicative of the future. Already, extensive random firewalling has made HTTP one of the few mechanisms that can be relied on to work in all environments.
Sigh.
They released Marathon 2 (later, when they decided to port some titles), but they were Mac-only for a long time.
Myth was the beginning of their cross-platform titles.