My guess would be whoever has access to the computer that can do it, claims a $625,000 reward for cracking the remaining codes...
But seriously, unbreakable quantum encryption is available now; it doesn't even require a quantum computer. It's just less convenient and more expensive than RSA since it requires special equipment.
And this is exactly why the country is so screwed up: Republicans refuse to admit that anyone else's opinion is valid, and once they come into power they simply dismiss the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them.
From the article: >While Texas was shifting its districts, the governing Republicans in Colorado did their own mid-cycle reapportionment, to solidify their hold >on the one House seat in the state that produced a close election in 2002. (Legal challenges to the new Texas and Colorado districts are >now pending.)
Background for this: In 2002, there were 4 republican seats, 2 democratic seats, and 1 intensely competetive seat (the republican won by 121 votes) In 2003, in the last 3 days of the session, republicans pushed through a redistricting which would essentially have guaranteed that 5 seats will remain republican until the next redistricting. Challenges were immediately filed on both legal and constitutional grounds; the legal case (in federal court) has been on hold pending the outcome of the constitutional case.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court, the democrats argued that the redistricting was unconstitutional; the republicans argued that not only did they have the right to redistrict, but AG Ken Salazar (the plantiff) didn't have the right to sue the state he works for. The court found 5-2 that the redistricting was unconstitutional and 7-0 that the AG has the duty to challenge laws he feels violate the Constitution.
Because the ruling was based in the Colorado constitution, it may or may not affect rulings in other redistrictings.
Unfortunately, a more accurate comparison would be that in an area to be divided into 3 districts, 102 people are your relatives and 198 are not. By placing 51 of your relatives into each of two districts, you get a 2-1 advantage in spite of being outnumbered nearly 2-1, which means that 1/3 of the people are not being represented.
Democrats have proposed something similar in the US; the commission would be basically half democrats, half republicans, plus another person chosen by everyone else together.
>is a pen name author any less valid than non-anonymous one?
Not at all. If a pen name is used by only one person, then you can tell if that person is being internally consistant or not.
Heck, most handles on slashdot could be considered pen names. I certainly don't read based on who posted what; I have no idea which handles go with which people.
With AC, on the other hand, you can't tell if contradictory posts are coming from the same person or different people.
As I said, there are valid reasons to post AC, but most of the AC posts in this thread have been just anonymous flames. And I say again, if you believe in your opinions, you should be willing to be associated with them.
Exactly; I may not always agree with McCain, but I respect the man and I'd trust him to try to do what's right, because he's shown a willingness to do what the right thing reguardless of the party line.
Bush, on the other hand, I neither trust nor respect.
(And since I'm sure someone will ask...no, I wouldn't trust Clinton either, at least not about his sex life...but then, I didn't vote for him)
As to the AC bit: ACs have no credibility. If you're not willing to defend your views publically, why should we believe they're worth anything? There are valid reasons to post AC, but in this discussion it seems to be mainly used for anonymous flames.
The Denver Post (or maybe the Rocky Mountain News, I forgot which...read both of them) reported that Bush would have won a partial recount, but Gore would have won a full recount.
Although, it was so close there was gonna be doubt either way.
> so, now you want Bush to have vetoed DEM legislation? make up your mind pal.
I want him to have veto'd *ANY* bad legislation, reguardless of who passed it. The democrats are quite capable of making bad decisions, just like the republicans. (Both sides, for example, voted for the PATRIOT act)
> anytime the system works for your agenda you praise it
My only "agenda" is to have a president who can do the job properly. That doesn't neccesarily mean a democratic president - I would have been happy with McCain. It just means someone who actually knows what he's doing.
And if you're so sure of yourself, how come you're afraid to post with your real handle?
> Bush was accused of it but Gore didnt call for a statewide recount, just recounts in democratic strongholds.
Which was dumb of him, since we later found out that a statewide recount would have given Gore the election. Not that it mattered, since the supreme court stepped into something that was none of their business and handed Bush the election..
>hey, name a SINGLE piece of legislation that Bush vetoed when teh DEMS where in control. >You cant. he never vetoed ANY legislation to DATE.
Which is another reason he shouldn't be in office. The whole point of our system of government is checks and balances: each part is supposed to keep the others from getting out of hand. The opposing parties are supposed to keep bad bills from getting out of congress, and the executive is supposed to veto any that do.
Because, as the 2000 elections clearly showed, being competant isn't the most important quality when running for office. Gore was obviously the one who knew what he was doing, but Bush got almost as many votes simply because he's more likeable. Heck, I think Bush is totally incompetant, but I'm happy to admit that he seems to be a nice enough guy.
Anyway, Bush takes office and everything the Democrats predicted comes true. So what happens in 2002? The Republicans have massive wins across the country. Obviously being right isn't as important as being popular.
Let me start this off by saying that I am in no way against technology (obviously, or I wouldn't be reading Slashdot). As a graduate student currently, I've found that being able to hook up a laptop and show a powerpoint presentation can be a big help in many classes.
The trouble is, many times computers, instead of supplementing existing materials, are replacing them. To take two related examples, I believe one of the most useful tools in the modern classroom is the whiteboard. It has all the benifits of a chalkboard, without the mess. (And it's quieter, since markers don't make the annoying chalk scraping noises)
At my university, every building is now full of "smart" classrooms, meaning there's a big tower of equipment in every room (most of which I've never seen used). I'm not faulting that - one of the improvements was that the professor can just plug in his laptop and have his presentation projected on the screen. My problem is, they spent millions of dollars on all this fancy equipment (do you really need a VCR in every classroom?) and yet, as far as I've seen, none of the classrooms have whiteboards. There are whiteboards in the computer labs, but not in the classrooms. (They do have chalkboards, but that's a poor substitute)
In the public schools there's a similar problem. At the high school I work at, they do have whiteboards, and they get a lot of use. So much use, in fact, that the teachers have to buy markers with thier own money, because there's no budget for them, so there often aren't enough. How many markers would one computer buy?
I was thinking about using some of the country codes. Then I could have an email address like William@Spring.er
Might confuse people though.
I used to run the website www.wnohgb.com (it was a game magazine) When I stopped publishing I accidentally let the domain lapse, and it got snapped up by a porn site:-p
Unfortunately for the family domain idea, there are too many companies looking to make money off of it:-p
I was looking into that earlier and I have the misfortunate of having a common last name....springer.com, springer.net, springer.org, springer.us, are owned by 3 different companies, at least 2 of which want to sell you email:-p
Probably because the only ways to do that are to all die or to come to America (where people will still want to blow them up, they'll just be out of the way)
The muslims don't want to kill them because of what they do; they want to kill them because of who they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Or from people pretending to be ebay?
I get basically two types of spam: the nigerian scam and fake ebay/paypal messages. Some of the ebay/paypal ones are VERY well done.
YEEEEEEEEES!
My guess would be whoever has access to the computer that can do it, claims a $625,000 reward for cracking the remaining codes...
But seriously, unbreakable quantum encryption is available now; it doesn't even require a quantum computer. It's just less convenient and more expensive than RSA since it requires special equipment.
Try Maxima; it's a free, open source computer algebra system that can handle numbers of arbitrary length.
Coincidentally, I was just using it to factor a (much smaller) RSA-encrypted message last week for a class..
And this is exactly why the country is so screwed up: Republicans refuse to admit that anyone else's opinion is valid, and once they come into power they simply dismiss the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them.
Of course, by this analogy, you imply that you can have too much bandwidth...
From the article:
>While Texas was shifting its districts, the governing Republicans in Colorado did their own mid-cycle reapportionment, to solidify their hold
>on the one House seat in the state that produced a close election in 2002. (Legal challenges to the new Texas and Colorado districts are
>now pending.)
Background for this: In 2002, there were 4 republican seats, 2 democratic seats, and 1 intensely competetive seat (the republican won by 121 votes) In 2003, in the last 3 days of the session, republicans pushed through a redistricting which would essentially have guaranteed that 5 seats will remain republican until the next redistricting. Challenges were immediately filed on both legal and constitutional grounds; the legal case (in federal court) has been on hold pending the outcome of the constitutional case.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court, the democrats argued that the redistricting was unconstitutional; the republicans argued that not only did they have the right to redistrict, but AG Ken Salazar (the plantiff) didn't have the right to sue the state he works for. The court found 5-2 that the redistricting was unconstitutional and 7-0 that the AG has the duty to challenge laws he feels violate the Constitution.
Because the ruling was based in the Colorado constitution, it may or may not affect rulings in other redistrictings.
Unfortunately, a more accurate comparison would be that in an area to be divided into 3 districts, 102 people are your relatives and 198 are not. By placing 51 of your relatives into each of two districts, you get a 2-1 advantage in spite of being outnumbered nearly 2-1, which means that 1/3 of the people are not being represented.
Democrats have proposed something similar in the US; the commission would be basically half democrats, half republicans, plus another person chosen by everyone else together.
>is a pen name author any less valid than non-anonymous one?
Not at all. If a pen name is used by only one person, then you can tell if that person is being internally consistant or not.
Heck, most handles on slashdot could be considered pen names. I certainly don't read based on who posted what; I have no idea which handles go with which people.
With AC, on the other hand, you can't tell if contradictory posts are coming from the same person or different people.
As I said, there are valid reasons to post AC, but most of the AC posts in this thread have been just anonymous flames. And I say again, if you believe in your opinions, you should be willing to be associated with them.
Exactly; I may not always agree with McCain, but I respect the man and I'd trust him to try to do what's right, because he's shown a willingness to do what the right thing reguardless of the party line.
Bush, on the other hand, I neither trust nor respect.
(And since I'm sure someone will ask...no, I wouldn't trust Clinton either, at least not about his sex life...but then, I didn't vote for him)
As to the AC bit: ACs have no credibility. If you're not willing to defend your views publically, why should we believe they're worth anything? There are valid reasons to post AC, but in this discussion it seems to be mainly used for anonymous flames.
The Denver Post (or maybe the Rocky Mountain News, I forgot which...read both of them) reported that Bush would have won a partial recount, but Gore would have won a full recount.
Although, it was so close there was gonna be doubt either way.
> so, now you want Bush to have vetoed DEM legislation? make up your mind pal.
I want him to have veto'd *ANY* bad legislation, reguardless of who passed it. The democrats are quite capable of making bad decisions, just like the republicans. (Both sides, for example, voted for the PATRIOT act)
> anytime the system works for your agenda you praise it
My only "agenda" is to have a president who can do the job properly. That doesn't neccesarily mean a democratic president - I would have been happy with McCain. It just means someone who actually knows what he's doing.
And if you're so sure of yourself, how come you're afraid to post with your real handle?
> Bush was accused of it but Gore didnt call for a statewide recount, just recounts in democratic strongholds.
Which was dumb of him, since we later found out that a statewide recount would have given Gore the election. Not that it mattered, since the supreme court stepped into something that was none of their business and handed Bush the election..
>hey, name a SINGLE piece of legislation that Bush vetoed when teh DEMS where in control.
>You cant. he never vetoed ANY legislation to DATE.
Which is another reason he shouldn't be in office. The whole point of our system of government is checks and balances: each part is supposed to keep the others from getting out of hand. The opposing parties are supposed to keep bad bills from getting out of congress, and the executive is supposed to veto any that do.
Because, as the 2000 elections clearly showed, being competant isn't the most important quality when running for office. Gore was obviously the one who knew what he was doing, but Bush got almost as many votes simply because he's more likeable. Heck, I think Bush is totally incompetant, but I'm happy to admit that he seems to be a nice enough guy.
Anyway, Bush takes office and everything the Democrats predicted comes true. So what happens in 2002? The Republicans have massive wins across the country. Obviously being right isn't as important as being popular.
Are they? I've never actually seen one from a distance, due to the aforementioned problem (and I generally sit at front anyway so I can hear better)
One of my professors commented that they used to say chalk dust was bad for computers, but nobody seems to mention that anymore.
Let me start this off by saying that I am in no way against technology (obviously, or I wouldn't be reading Slashdot). As a graduate student currently, I've found that being able to hook up a laptop and show a powerpoint presentation can be a big help in many classes.
The trouble is, many times computers, instead of supplementing existing materials, are replacing them. To take two related examples, I believe one of the most useful tools in the modern classroom is the whiteboard. It has all the benifits of a chalkboard, without the mess. (And it's quieter, since markers don't make the annoying chalk scraping noises)
At my university, every building is now full of "smart" classrooms, meaning there's a big tower of equipment in every room (most of which I've never seen used). I'm not faulting that - one of the improvements was that the professor can just plug in his laptop and have his presentation projected on the screen. My problem is, they spent millions of dollars on all this fancy equipment (do you really need a VCR in every classroom?) and yet, as far as I've seen, none of the classrooms have whiteboards. There are whiteboards in the computer labs, but not in the classrooms. (They do have chalkboards, but that's a poor substitute)
In the public schools there's a similar problem. At the high school I work at, they do have whiteboards, and they get a lot of use. So much use, in fact, that the teachers have to buy markers with thier own money, because there's no budget for them, so there often aren't enough. How many markers would one computer buy?
End rant.
I was thinking about using some of the country codes. Then I could have an email address like William@Spring.er
:-p
Might confuse people though.
I used to run the website www.wnohgb.com (it was a game magazine) When I stopped publishing I accidentally let the domain lapse, and it got snapped up by a porn site
One wonders if Google might decide to retaliate in any way.
Or maybe they'll just make a new logo satirizng it..
Unfortunately for the family domain idea, there are too many companies looking to make money off of it :-p
:-p
I was looking into that earlier and I have the misfortunate of having a common last name....springer.com, springer.net, springer.org, springer.us, are owned by 3 different companies, at least 2 of which want to sell you email
Mozilla?
:-)
Open Office?
Of course, those aren't made by Microsoft
So that would be, what, a few billion apiece for the people who control the power?
15% of a penny...now THAT's a micropayment.
hmm, maybe you'd better clarify that..
are you saying there will still be some idiots who want to blow up the jews for who they are, or are you saying you'd have to be an idiot to think so?
Probably because the only ways to do that are to all die or to come to America (where people will still want to blow them up, they'll just be out of the way)
The muslims don't want to kill them because of what they do; they want to kill them because of who they are.