Because "people" understand what a theory is in scientific terms. A theory is not simply a hypothesis or some idea someone just conjured up. It takes a good number of people reviewing a hypothesis before it gains some consensus as a theory. Yes, evolution is a theory and not a scientific law, but the vast majority of ideas we accept in physics and chemistry are simply theories.
I couldn't agree more. In addition to the species that are found 2 or 3 miles deep in the ocean, basic science tells you that evolution will continously create more species. It is a bit like trying to compile a database of every single software title in the world.
I may be alone here, but I do not think Microsoft should open its source code. I believe if Microsoft did publicly release Windows source code, every open source project would live in fear of a lawsuit. Microsoft's would sue everyone that released anything for copyright infringement.
I think the key here is "search warrant". Corporate databases should not be public information. Flight records are not public information, I cannot call Delta and say "I would like to know who is flying on such and such". I cannot call slashdot and say, "I would like to know who posted such and such." The federal government is capable of obtaining all the information you have talked about the search warrants.
Once you open the door it is incredibly difficult to shut. We supported the government when they wanted military tribunals for non-citizens they believe where involved in terrorism. The government said that only non-citizens would be face tribunals. Now there are citizens being held, with no evidence provided they did anything, for indefinite periods of time.
What is to say this technology won't be used to track down people who don't support current political regimes, and then they can throw them in military lock-up indefinitely without telling anyone.
As I cans see it there are only two possibilities:
1) The people in control of our National Security here in the United States are absolute morons. They believe this technology will help the catch terrorists because they think terrorist groups make travel arrangements through priceline.com.
2) They believe that the American people are absolute morons. They know this technology will not help at all in fighting terrorism. They just see it as an opportunity to invade their citizens privacy and think the average American will fall for the "war on terror" argument.
Isn't it amazing how slashdot users will post on anything without even reading the source article. The paragraph posted on slashdot is designed to be a summary. In theory the process should work like this -
1) Slashdot user reads article summary and thinks it is interesting.
2) User clicks on link to actual article and reads the ENTIRE article.
3) Provided the user understands the article and has something meaningful to add, user posts his/her comments.
This is how horrible encryption algorithms get released to the public. When Windows CE was first released Microsoft would encrypt a users NT password and store it on the handheld device. This allowed faster sinking w/ main computer. They said the password was encrypted and for most people that was good enough for them. They encrypted it using an XOR w/ susagep (i believe). It was CE project name in reverse. This took about 6 days to crack.
I am not sure how signing it withn your private key would prove it has been unaltered. You could alter it and then sign it, or you could sign it and then alter it. Provided you (or someone else) does not alter the signature. If someone alters some values in the middle of the file there will be no avalanche effect that causes the signature at the bottom to change.
Every camera, scanner, and printer is going to cause some distortion, but that is really not the point of this technology.
Courts have difficulty accepting digital images as evidence because it is very difficult to prove that the image has not been altered. This technology, atleast if I understand it correctly, will ensure that a digital image has not been altered since some point in time (when the encryption was added). Sorta like what a hash or a checksum does for files people download.
What would be more curious is how they get this encryption into the picture without causing ANY distortion. For sometime people have been able to encode messages in images by chaning the least significant bit of each color or something like that. This causes very little distortion but still some. I wonder if their technology can be extended to sending encrypted messages within images?
I am very sorry for any deaths that result from anything (don't want to sound insensitive). Still I think the point would be that individuals should be responsible for themselves.
If you believe in freedom, and surely you do, then you must accept that everyone is free to do whatever they want. This becomes a problem when someone decides to use your front door as target practice or drive 200mph down your neighborhood street. So you give government the right to infringe on your freedom when your actions endanger others.
Others is important, atleast to me. If you want to drink a combination of bleach and ammonia then that is your business (please don't do it cause I would feel very bad).
Just my opinion. I don't use any illegal drugs but I really don't care if someone else does. It is not as though the human race is having trouble procreating.
So in your opinion all websites open to the public must be accessible in any language to anyone?
Your house does not have to be accessible because it is a private residence. This would be absurd, practically all websites available to the public. I can not translate my personal page of links into 300 different languages and make it compatible with every special needs technology on the market.
Businesses as well as individuals should be responsible and make every REASONALBE effort to accommodate special needs individuals. However, saying that all websites must be accessible to the blind is not reasonable.
What I really don't understand is why people even buy a Mac. It is not as though Mac's used to be supported and now aren't, they never have been supported. Mac's are more expensive than other computers and they do a lot less. If you are really stuck with a Mac I have heard that Linux will install on their architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Because "people" understand what a theory is in scientific terms. A theory is not simply a hypothesis or some idea someone just conjured up. It takes a good number of people reviewing a hypothesis before it gains some consensus as a theory. Yes, evolution is a theory and not a scientific law, but the vast majority of ideas we accept in physics and chemistry are simply theories.
I couldn't agree more. In addition to the species that are found 2 or 3 miles deep in the ocean, basic science tells you that evolution will continously create more species. It is a bit like trying to compile a database of every single software title in the world.
I may be alone here, but I do not think Microsoft should open its source code. I believe if Microsoft did publicly release Windows source code, every open source project would live in fear of a lawsuit. Microsoft's would sue everyone that released anything for copyright infringement.
The state of Florida is a small price to pay for a shortcut to China.
I think the key here is "search warrant". Corporate databases should not be public information. Flight records are not public information, I cannot call Delta and say "I would like to know who is flying on such and such". I cannot call slashdot and say, "I would like to know who posted such and such." The federal government is capable of obtaining all the information you have talked about the search warrants. Once you open the door it is incredibly difficult to shut. We supported the government when they wanted military tribunals for non-citizens they believe where involved in terrorism. The government said that only non-citizens would be face tribunals. Now there are citizens being held, with no evidence provided they did anything, for indefinite periods of time. What is to say this technology won't be used to track down people who don't support current political regimes, and then they can throw them in military lock-up indefinitely without telling anyone.
As I cans see it there are only two possibilities:
1) The people in control of our National Security here in the United States are absolute morons. They believe this technology will help the catch terrorists because they think terrorist groups make travel arrangements through priceline.com.
2) They believe that the American people are absolute morons. They know this technology will not help at all in fighting terrorism. They just see it as an opportunity to invade their citizens privacy and think the average American will fall for the "war on terror" argument.
I am not sure which I am more scared of.
Isn't it amazing how slashdot users will post on anything without even reading the source article. The paragraph posted on slashdot is designed to be a summary. In theory the process should work like this -
1) Slashdot user reads article summary and thinks it is interesting.
2) User clicks on link to actual article and reads the ENTIRE article.
3) Provided the user understands the article and has something meaningful to add, user posts his/her comments.
This is how horrible encryption algorithms get released to the public. When Windows CE was first released Microsoft would encrypt a users NT password and store it on the handheld device. This allowed faster sinking w/ main computer. They said the password was encrypted and for most people that was good enough for them. They encrypted it using an XOR w/ susagep (i believe). It was CE project name in reverse. This took about 6 days to crack.
I am not sure how signing it withn your private key would prove it has been unaltered. You could alter it and then sign it, or you could sign it and then alter it. Provided you (or someone else) does not alter the signature. If someone alters some values in the middle of the file there will be no avalanche effect that causes the signature at the bottom to change.
Every camera, scanner, and printer is going to cause some distortion, but that is really not the point of this technology.
Courts have difficulty accepting digital images as evidence because it is very difficult to prove that the image has not been altered. This technology, atleast if I understand it correctly, will ensure that a digital image has not been altered since some point in time (when the encryption was added). Sorta like what a hash or a checksum does for files people download.
What would be more curious is how they get this encryption into the picture without causing ANY distortion. For sometime people have been able to encode messages in images by chaning the least significant bit of each color or something like that. This causes very little distortion but still some. I wonder if their technology can be extended to sending encrypted messages within images?
All I can say is thank God for operating systems like Linux. I don't think Debian plans to add software that censors the files on my computer.
I am very sorry for any deaths that result from anything (don't want to sound insensitive). Still I think the point would be that individuals should be responsible for themselves. If you believe in freedom, and surely you do, then you must accept that everyone is free to do whatever they want. This becomes a problem when someone decides to use your front door as target practice or drive 200mph down your neighborhood street. So you give government the right to infringe on your freedom when your actions endanger others. Others is important, atleast to me. If you want to drink a combination of bleach and ammonia then that is your business (please don't do it cause I would feel very bad). Just my opinion. I don't use any illegal drugs but I really don't care if someone else does. It is not as though the human race is having trouble procreating.
So in your opinion all websites open to the public must be accessible in any language to anyone? Your house does not have to be accessible because it is a private residence. This would be absurd, practically all websites available to the public. I can not translate my personal page of links into 300 different languages and make it compatible with every special needs technology on the market. Businesses as well as individuals should be responsible and make every REASONALBE effort to accommodate special needs individuals. However, saying that all websites must be accessible to the blind is not reasonable.
What I really don't understand is why people even buy a Mac. It is not as though Mac's used to be supported and now aren't, they never have been supported. Mac's are more expensive than other computers and they do a lot less. If you are really stuck with a Mac I have heard that Linux will install on their architecture.