Well, for one thing, some of the hijackers had driver's licenses for multiple states under multiple names. They were "valid" insofar as the hijackers were able to game the system to get the states to issue them IDs. Real-ID would have prevented them from doing that. I can't tell you that would have prevented 9/11, but obviously criminals can and do use weak state-issued IDs in commission of their crimes.
My point is that his argument advocated less voting security (from his POV, regardless of whether there was any actual fraud) in trade for making voting more accessible. Arguing that election fraud is acceptable up to the swing of a few percentage points is not a security position, it's a political viewpoint.
Everything you say is true, but is not relevant to his definition of fairness. The Electoral College is not meant to be proportional to the population while the House of Representatives is. He's trying to make a system that was MEANT to be proportional more accurate, while you are arguing for a conceptual change to the system. His definition of "fair" is more procedural ("if it's supposed to be proportional, is it?") than yours, which is essentially political ("One Person One Vote is a better system than the Electoral College.") Not to say you aren't right, but he's a mathematician and not a politician so he's studying the former and not the latter.
But you have to look at it in Bruce's mind, this only happens to probably a few thousand people a year, so it's an acceptable risk! Because all security is a tradeoff. In this case, the what you get is getting to feel "polite," and the risk is that anyone could do anything on your network and you're the one who gets investigated by the police or FBI who are all very trustworthy and concerned about maintainging your innocence. Now this personally doesn't sound to me like an acceptable tradeoff, but then I'm not Bruce Schneier.
For at least a couple of years now Bruce's online presence has been in the business of pushing a certain political viewpoint. In this case, free wifi is cool, so it's more important for society if people stick their necks out for free wifi, even when that exposes the individual to personal risk. Now my question is, how is this a security viewpoint? Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election. For the most part I quit reading his crap after that.
It's supposed to be ironic. The joke is that nerds think that only things THEY are interested in are things that actually matter. That's why you get posts about things like video games and Star Trek--because they matter to nerds.
If every community has a separate testing measure, it's impossible to compare learning nationally. We can argue about the efficacy of NCLB all. But government intervention came because at the local level schools continuously refused any and all accountability measures. Before NCLB, you could hear the gloating, if we all ignore this thing it'll go away. It didn't go away, and now the worst schools are losing their charters, and the others are getting the picture that things have changed. So, I don't think your analogy holds because I don't agree with your original premise.
You're missing my point. If nearly every other country does this already, why is the USA being singled out for Real-ID when we didn't even pass it?
To clarify on my minimum level of security comment, the standard dictates measures to ensure it is more difficult to forge, such as holograms and digitally encoded information. How this enhances security is that it's more difficult for someone to make a fake ID in your name and steal your identity.
I don't get their hard-on against REAL-ID anyway, even if it was passed. They call for national data retention policies, and REAL-ID provides national data retention policies. Real-ID requires a minimum level of security on the ID, which IMPROVES PROTECTION AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT which would seem, indirectly, to enhance your privacy. Real-ID requires the sharing of databases between states. OK they are worried about the detriment of centralized databases, but show me where any other country gets attacked for requiring a centralized database for drivers licenses. They don't.
NASA begrudgingly released some results Monday from an $11.3 million federal air safety study it previously withheld from the public over concerns it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits. Hey NASA, it's not in your charter to protect airline profits. You know what IS in your charter?
"[the agency shall] provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."
Because, when you think about it, things are very simple. Either, growing up the way past generations did wasn't totally fucked up, and the kids will be just fine, or if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to. No, it is not simple at all. Your great-grandparents lived in a world of increased daily crime and violence, oppression of women and infant death. It was not common for schools to teach sex education, but marriage around the age of 13 was. Society generally cooperated to keep sexually explicit imagery away from children. Abortion was largely illegal and birth control was hard to acquire.
In the interim what has happened is that people have fallen away from the traditional centers of morality such as the Church and social organizations and replaced them with nothing. We more understand the psychology of the child and the deleterious effects of premature sexualization, yet we bombard all media with constant, lascivious and unrealistic depictions of sex. For good measure we combine it with rampant consumerism so that sex is a product that is to be desired. Prior methods of easing children into adult relationships by mixing the sexes in a controlled manner, such as camps and retreats and dances are being abandoned as hokey remnants of a prior century. Things like abortion and birth control are legal and prevalent, yet large numbers of people still don't use them responsibly.
Nothing about the question is easy at all. There were things in the past that were good and bad, and there are things today that are good and bad. There are both things that we have done as a society that should help raise kids into healthy adults, and other things we have allowed that potentially make it much, much harder. You can't just assume that everything's going to be okay. Children need to be raised, healthy adults DO NOT just "happen," and there is a social and moral aspect to sexuality that cannot be adequately addressed by a sex ed class in middle school. We should be very, very concerned about the next generation, and we should be looking at how as a society we are raising them and if necessary, try to make changes.
This is a direct result of trying to install it on a Macintosh. I have installed 7.10 on probably 15 different machines now since it came out, including the following Macintoshes: Mac Mini PPC 1.2Ghz, Intel Macbook Pro (first revision,) and an iMac PPC 400Mhz. Three for three, I went through hell getting it on the Macs, never got it fully working on the Mac Mini. Every other machine, all commodity x86 hardware, it installed perfectly, full functionality, first try no problems.
I'm not clear what you think is bogus, did I not give enough information? Windows authentication used Active Directory. Executive secretary regularly logs into president's machine using his account so she can send emails as him, update his personal documents, etc, but she fails authentication a few times and locks the account. I worked the helpdesk, and was responsible for unlocking accounts, among other things. What is so fantastical about this that it sounds bogus to you?
I nearly got fired by a Ms. Entitlement Finger-Pointer. Personal secretary for the president of an unnamed fortune 500 company has the president's Active Directory password, and ended up locking the account. This is where I got the "do you know who I am, I am the SECRETARY of mr. So and So. I was just a phone support operator. After a little bit of screaming and accusation, I figure out what the problem is and unlock the account. A week later, she locks the account again, conveniently right before the weekend. Next, I get an angry phone call from the president himself, demanding to know why his account is locked, because HE IS THE PRESIDENT, and is trying to get ready for an important meeting. I end up in a conference call with the secretary, who proceeds to tell the president that I've "done this to her before." Now we've established the finger-pointing. She'd successfully established my guilt as the baseline of the "discussion", and it was downhill after that. After that point, the writing was on the wall, and I got out of there after a few months. Basically, I ended up on the "list" and was not going to get off.
These people can ruin your job. I'm just glad that I was a lowly operator, it would really suck if I'd have had a good job there and this happened.
please to be telling the trench coated emos who shoot up schools and malls, that they just need to hang out with jocks more, they'll be very understanding to your thesis about sports being a better way to relieve asocial violence instincts Nice strawman, you don't have to hang out with jocks to jog or lift weight or play tennis with your friends. Anyway, they are abnormal, which is why they end up shooting up schools in the first place.
Anyway, all you did was promote your theory. Internally consistent though it is, it's contradicted by this and other studies. The study didn't say seeing violence turned kids into killers, it said it made them more aggressive. At best, studies like this are only tangentially related to why kids go on shooting sprees.
We are still in the infancy of the profession of software development. We have a rough set of processes that increase the likelihood of ending up with working, reliable software. What we don't have is the respect that comes from professional recognition. So if you are in a roundabout way saying we need to start forming some sort of a professional guild to force the issue of software development quality, then I agree.
Fractional reserve banking allows the country to keep operating when people are hoarding money, because banks can still give loans to people to help kickstart the economy by expanding or starting new businesses. It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve."
It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe.
it's not like the violent videogame creates violence. what made the ancient romans violent? violent is inherent to human nature. The fact that humans are naturally violent doesn't negate the possibility that video games create violence. Humans have to be socialized to suppress their violent nature, and it could be argued that media violence is anti-socialization, desensitizing one to violence and encouraging one to act out on their violent fantasies and explore them rather than suppress them. I am not convinced that acting out violence is the solution to reducing violence, rather it creates acceptability and familiarity. There are other, vastly superior ways to sublimate violent tendencies, like sports or exercise (in my experience, anyway.)
What you said:
What they didn't prove: Violent imagery makes you violent. What the summary said:
Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life violent behavior, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. While it isn't _proven_ that exposure to violent imagery leads to more aggressive behavior, the correlation had already been established. The question isn't whether exposure to violent media makes ordinary people into serial killers, it's if it makes ordinary people more violent than they were. Serial killers are statistical outliers, I don't think they are testing for that anyway.
Opera is a for-profit company trying to compete with free-of-price alternatives from the open source community and a convicted monopolist trying to wipe out competitors by dumping. The only way that they stay in business is by selling something. Selling their desktop browser was rapidly becoming an unviable business model, and the ad thing was skeevy, so they VERY, VERY wisely moved into the embedded market where they could leverage their remarkable codebase and still sell their browser. Firefox/Mozilla is not viable for embedded, IE is buggy and has unreliable rendering and only works on Windows Mobile; and then you have Opera, which is user-friendly, small, fast, standards-compliant and can be scaled to almost any platform. They have found a way to be competitive and make a profit in the browser market, it just wasn't going to happen on the desktop.
Oh. I see. You think slashdot moderation works, therefore you think that posts are designed for the approval of these moderators. Well, sadly, slashdot moderation does not work, and never will, until or unless it provides for (a1) recovery of posts lost to bad mods, or (a2) stops downgrading good posts (moderator accountability is key here), and (b) actually uplifts all the posts worth reading. In the meantime, all savvy slashdot readers read at -1 so they don't miss all the great posts that the manifestly broken slashdot moderation lets fall by the wayside. So, no, not posted for any reason to do with "karma." Bzzzt. Blame the moderation system all you want, replying to first post to get at the top of the discussion is still makes you a karma whore whether or not you get slapped down for it.
I've seen a long - and ultimately boring - litany of complaints from so-called 'web designers', all of them predicated on the false assumption that the website owner gets to dictate the look and feel of their website.
The bottom line is this: We web designers cannot know the display capabilities of the remote client. Therefore, we can only suggest the best way to display our content.
I know this as well as you. I am not arguing that the client lose the ability to render content as it sees fit. You and I both know that we couldn't stop that anyway. What I am saying is that CSS is not even good at creating the output you want when the damn stylesheet you created IS honored by the client, because you don't know the defaults of a browser, you can't derive programmatically the defaults in place, and you can't explicitly tell the browser to start from a baseline blank stylesheet. In other words, the state of CSS and browsers today is that you can't even rely on CSS to do what it is supposed to do when all conditions are honored by the client, let alone when it's not. The best you can do is use kludgey and processor-sucking CSS reset stylesheets that have to be written specifically for the top few most popular browsers, and still don't always work right because they are, you know, hacks.
The user can do whatever they want when they get my data, but if they want to use my stylesheet, it would have been cool that I could have given them what I envision. You can, but with limitations and caveats, and it is harder than it ought to be. that's my complaint.
This identifies a major source of the problems surrounding growing the web: we've got self-identified graphic designers who think that they know how to build the protocols. It is a situation similar to painter telling chemists how they should formulate the pigments. This identifies a major source of the problems surrounding the future of graphic design: we've got self-identified "software architects" who think that they know how to design a layout system. It is a situation similar to chemist telling painters how they should mix the pigments.
Dude, it's not about the technology, it's about the content. I am both a software architect AND an artist, I've created tools and I've used tools. Here, try doing this in CSS: create a three-column layout where text automatically flows from one column to the next. How about defining multiple blocks to have the same size based on the contents rather than specifying a fixed width? Easy to do in a real layout engine, not even conceptually possible in CSS.
CSS Zen Garden is awesome until you look at the herculean effort that went into creating some of those stylesheets, and the write-only code that produced the desired effect. Refactoring CSS after you get it to just work is an art in of itself. Look, even I am sick of the responses I have to make to everyone, my point is that CSS is extremely limited in what it can do compared to real graphic design tools, and it is about 10x as complicated as it needs to be to accomplish routine layout tasks. I do not love CSS for what it is, I have a job to do and it's an overcomplicated and badly designed tool. There are tools that I love, CSS is not one of them.
Not trying to be insulting, just curious as to who I am talking to. I was just being a smartass:-) I've been the rigid standards compliance evangelist at my place of employment for years now. That requires both technical knowledge and practical implementation experience. Of course that doesn't PROVE I know anything, I might just suck at it:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one thing, some of the hijackers had driver's licenses for multiple states under multiple names. They were "valid" insofar as the hijackers were able to game the system to get the states to issue them IDs. Real-ID would have prevented them from doing that. I can't tell you that would have prevented 9/11, but obviously criminals can and do use weak state-issued IDs in commission of their crimes.
My point is that his argument advocated less voting security (from his POV, regardless of whether there was any actual fraud) in trade for making voting more accessible. Arguing that election fraud is acceptable up to the swing of a few percentage points is not a security position, it's a political viewpoint.
Everything you say is true, but is not relevant to his definition of fairness. The Electoral College is not meant to be proportional to the population while the House of Representatives is. He's trying to make a system that was MEANT to be proportional more accurate, while you are arguing for a conceptual change to the system. His definition of "fair" is more procedural ("if it's supposed to be proportional, is it?") than yours, which is essentially political ("One Person One Vote is a better system than the Electoral College.") Not to say you aren't right, but he's a mathematician and not a politician so he's studying the former and not the latter.
But you have to look at it in Bruce's mind, this only happens to probably a few thousand people a year, so it's an acceptable risk! Because all security is a tradeoff. In this case, the what you get is getting to feel "polite," and the risk is that anyone could do anything on your network and you're the one who gets investigated by the police or FBI who are all very trustworthy and concerned about maintainging your innocence. Now this personally doesn't sound to me like an acceptable tradeoff, but then I'm not Bruce Schneier.
For at least a couple of years now Bruce's online presence has been in the business of pushing a certain political viewpoint. In this case, free wifi is cool, so it's more important for society if people stick their necks out for free wifi, even when that exposes the individual to personal risk. Now my question is, how is this a security viewpoint? Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election. For the most part I quit reading his crap after that.
It's supposed to be ironic. The joke is that nerds think that only things THEY are interested in are things that actually matter. That's why you get posts about things like video games and Star Trek--because they matter to nerds.
If every community has a separate testing measure, it's impossible to compare learning nationally. We can argue about the efficacy of NCLB all. But government intervention came because at the local level schools continuously refused any and all accountability measures. Before NCLB, you could hear the gloating, if we all ignore this thing it'll go away. It didn't go away, and now the worst schools are losing their charters, and the others are getting the picture that things have changed. So, I don't think your analogy holds because I don't agree with your original premise.
You're missing my point. If nearly every other country does this already, why is the USA being singled out for Real-ID when we didn't even pass it? To clarify on my minimum level of security comment, the standard dictates measures to ensure it is more difficult to forge, such as holograms and digitally encoded information. How this enhances security is that it's more difficult for someone to make a fake ID in your name and steal your identity.
I don't get their hard-on against REAL-ID anyway, even if it was passed. They call for national data retention policies, and REAL-ID provides national data retention policies. Real-ID requires a minimum level of security on the ID, which IMPROVES PROTECTION AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT which would seem, indirectly, to enhance your privacy. Real-ID requires the sharing of databases between states. OK they are worried about the detriment of centralized databases, but show me where any other country gets attacked for requiring a centralized database for drivers licenses. They don't.
"[the agency shall] provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."
In the interim what has happened is that people have fallen away from the traditional centers of morality such as the Church and social organizations and replaced them with nothing. We more understand the psychology of the child and the deleterious effects of premature sexualization, yet we bombard all media with constant, lascivious and unrealistic depictions of sex. For good measure we combine it with rampant consumerism so that sex is a product that is to be desired. Prior methods of easing children into adult relationships by mixing the sexes in a controlled manner, such as camps and retreats and dances are being abandoned as hokey remnants of a prior century. Things like abortion and birth control are legal and prevalent, yet large numbers of people still don't use them responsibly.
Nothing about the question is easy at all. There were things in the past that were good and bad, and there are things today that are good and bad. There are both things that we have done as a society that should help raise kids into healthy adults, and other things we have allowed that potentially make it much, much harder. You can't just assume that everything's going to be okay. Children need to be raised, healthy adults DO NOT just "happen," and there is a social and moral aspect to sexuality that cannot be adequately addressed by a sex ed class in middle school. We should be very, very concerned about the next generation, and we should be looking at how as a society we are raising them and if necessary, try to make changes.
The body has a different metabolic response to fructose as it does to sucrose. Bodybuilders have known this for years.
This is a direct result of trying to install it on a Macintosh. I have installed 7.10 on probably 15 different machines now since it came out, including the following Macintoshes: Mac Mini PPC 1.2Ghz, Intel Macbook Pro (first revision,) and an iMac PPC 400Mhz. Three for three, I went through hell getting it on the Macs, never got it fully working on the Mac Mini. Every other machine, all commodity x86 hardware, it installed perfectly, full functionality, first try no problems.
I'm not clear what you think is bogus, did I not give enough information? Windows authentication used Active Directory. Executive secretary regularly logs into president's machine using his account so she can send emails as him, update his personal documents, etc, but she fails authentication a few times and locks the account. I worked the helpdesk, and was responsible for unlocking accounts, among other things. What is so fantastical about this that it sounds bogus to you?
I nearly got fired by a Ms. Entitlement Finger-Pointer. Personal secretary for the president of an unnamed fortune 500 company has the president's Active Directory password, and ended up locking the account. This is where I got the "do you know who I am, I am the SECRETARY of mr. So and So. I was just a phone support operator. After a little bit of screaming and accusation, I figure out what the problem is and unlock the account. A week later, she locks the account again, conveniently right before the weekend. Next, I get an angry phone call from the president himself, demanding to know why his account is locked, because HE IS THE PRESIDENT, and is trying to get ready for an important meeting. I end up in a conference call with the secretary, who proceeds to tell the president that I've "done this to her before." Now we've established the finger-pointing. She'd successfully established my guilt as the baseline of the "discussion", and it was downhill after that. After that point, the writing was on the wall, and I got out of there after a few months. Basically, I ended up on the "list" and was not going to get off.
These people can ruin your job. I'm just glad that I was a lowly operator, it would really suck if I'd have had a good job there and this happened.
White people drive like this. Black people drive like this.
Anyway, all you did was promote your theory. Internally consistent though it is, it's contradicted by this and other studies. The study didn't say seeing violence turned kids into killers, it said it made them more aggressive. At best, studies like this are only tangentially related to why kids go on shooting sprees.
We are still in the infancy of the profession of software development. We have a rough set of processes that increase the likelihood of ending up with working, reliable software. What we don't have is the respect that comes from professional recognition. So if you are in a roundabout way saying we need to start forming some sort of a professional guild to force the issue of software development quality, then I agree.
Fractional reserve banking allows the country to keep operating when people are hoarding money, because banks can still give loans to people to help kickstart the economy by expanding or starting new businesses. It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve."
It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe.
Opera is a for-profit company trying to compete with free-of-price alternatives from the open source community and a convicted monopolist trying to wipe out competitors by dumping. The only way that they stay in business is by selling something. Selling their desktop browser was rapidly becoming an unviable business model, and the ad thing was skeevy, so they VERY, VERY wisely moved into the embedded market where they could leverage their remarkable codebase and still sell their browser. Firefox/Mozilla is not viable for embedded, IE is buggy and has unreliable rendering and only works on Windows Mobile; and then you have Opera, which is user-friendly, small, fast, standards-compliant and can be scaled to almost any platform. They have found a way to be competitive and make a profit in the browser market, it just wasn't going to happen on the desktop.
I know this as well as you. I am not arguing that the client lose the ability to render content as it sees fit. You and I both know that we couldn't stop that anyway. What I am saying is that CSS is not even good at creating the output you want when the damn stylesheet you created IS honored by the client, because you don't know the defaults of a browser, you can't derive programmatically the defaults in place, and you can't explicitly tell the browser to start from a baseline blank stylesheet. In other words, the state of CSS and browsers today is that you can't even rely on CSS to do what it is supposed to do when all conditions are honored by the client, let alone when it's not. The best you can do is use kludgey and processor-sucking CSS reset stylesheets that have to be written specifically for the top few most popular browsers, and still don't always work right because they are, you know, hacks.
The user can do whatever they want when they get my data, but if they want to use my stylesheet, it would have been cool that I could have given them what I envision. You can, but with limitations and caveats, and it is harder than it ought to be. that's my complaint.
Dude, it's not about the technology, it's about the content. I am both a software architect AND an artist, I've created tools and I've used tools. Here, try doing this in CSS: create a three-column layout where text automatically flows from one column to the next. How about defining multiple blocks to have the same size based on the contents rather than specifying a fixed width? Easy to do in a real layout engine, not even conceptually possible in CSS.
CSS Zen Garden is awesome until you look at the herculean effort that went into creating some of those stylesheets, and the write-only code that produced the desired effect. Refactoring CSS after you get it to just work is an art in of itself. Look, even I am sick of the responses I have to make to everyone, my point is that CSS is extremely limited in what it can do compared to real graphic design tools, and it is about 10x as complicated as it needs to be to accomplish routine layout tasks. I do not love CSS for what it is, I have a job to do and it's an overcomplicated and badly designed tool. There are tools that I love, CSS is not one of them.