That's good idea, lets amend the Constitution to give the president 60 days to use the armed forces. That way an immediate response can be made if we are attacked or there is some other crisis. After that rather than Congress authorizing war, lets make it a popular vote.
Well between those very same sort pea shoots and IEDs the various groups in Afghanistan have kept our so powerful military bogged down for ten years.
No I don't think it would be possible to organize civilians with typical consumer fire arms and lead a siege of Washington that is opposed by the military. I do think the guns being out there make our government a bit concerned that riots might be uncontrollable and stops them from doing anything to unpopular.
I also think the prospect of doing something that people would never get over like say suspending free speech, would mean decades of dealing with renegade groups sporadically murdering public officials and collaborators in law enforcement to the point that it might cause a total break down of society and is therefor off the table.
Right even the head line is bias, sea-level rise is liberal talking point, if they want us to take the article seriously they should use politically neutral language like "persistent coastal flooding".
That would require not only memory but a great deal of understanding. I find it hard to accept a tortoise could possess such mental power. Given lizards are older than mammals were that the case I suspect we'd all be cowering in the shadow of our overload's shells.
Because there is difference between independently duplicating published material and converting someone else's property for your use, getting their computer to publish materials to you in this case.
I and I expect many other Slashdot readers would argue the harm here is the using of a computer that does not belong to you to do something you have not been given permission to do. I also think exposing trade secrets and duplication copyrighted works need to be thought about differently. In the case of copyright infringement you are looking at stuff that has been make publicly available by the author; with trade secrets its a question of confidentiality and privacy.
I can only imagine the incredible data volumes banks and sock exchanges would need to keep online. I have had some experience working in data warehouse architecture for a nation wide retail chain and the transaction processing systems we were pulling from typically needed to keep 800GB+ online between accounting close events. We obviously grew pretty fast in total size as we swallowed all that data in the DWH.
Fair enough but it isnt as if an individuals or an industry for that matter needs change that rapidly. Wants and perhaps efficiencies do but not needs. There is 0 things I can think of need'ing to do with my PC that was not possible with my first PC AT. There are lots of multi-media type stuff I 'like' to do but nothing I 'need' that could not be effected with that old AT.
People would be able to get by just fine with the tech they have for years. When things start failing they most likely could still be sourced from the secondary market. Which will still exist. Sure hospitals and folks who *need* a computer might have to pay thru the nose for it to acquire it from someone like me who has one and does not *need* it; but they will be able to get it.
Wake me up when that is 800GB to a few TB. Then you can say. This might shock you to learn but some business uses their databases to drive more than just web forums.
Kenzie clearly does not understand how e-mail works. What he is doing is clearly an attempt to extort money for owners of legitimate domains. I don't know if he is doing anything that will pass muster in court of law but he is obviously stupid, a fraud, and prick.
Still though he does even though he does sorta point out a weakness in mail even if his solutions are off base. The correct way to handle this is as follows:
1. Sign all mail, and really try to convince recipients to validate signatures. This will give you integrity and irrefutably when sending; at least if you tell all your recipients, if its not signed to assume its a fraud.
2. Use SFP this will allow recipients to know mail really did come from your domain even if they can't check signatures. It will also help guard against innocent miss configured sending clients and servers, on similar but legitimate domains. It will also keep your domain off RBLs if someone tries false flag spamming to get your domain listed.
3. Encrypt anything you send if any of it is remotely confidential. Not only will this offer protection from interception, it will also cover you in the case you send to a black hole domain like Kenzie likes to set up by mistake; he won't have the ability to decrypt.
If we did these things routinely the over all security picture of Internet E-mail would be enhanced to the point that would be "good enough" to thwart most serious threats. Kenzie is dipshit but he is correct about the weakness of e-mail. Perhaps this security researcher should do a little more research and a little less "consulting" until he learns a thing or two. He is just best ignored.
You can't declare bankruptcy when you are not bankrupt. RIMM has a positive net tangible assets on their balance sheet, loot it up. Still its an open question as to if they post a profit anytime in the future or if they are going to hang around until they are slowly bleed dry by expenses.
It might make the most sense to say, its a crowded market, we are behind, its unlikely we can gain the share and product margin we'd need to be profitable again, lets sell. RIMM could sell of its assets, patent portfolio, real-estate, network infrastructure, software licenses, etc in and disburse the proceeds to the share holders. RIMM is likely worth more broken up than as an whole in my not especially researched or considered opinion.
Tell that to all the farmers down south struggling with Pig weed. Its become very resistant to herbicide, in many cases more resistant then their deliberately engineered to be resistant crop. Nature adapts and can do some amazing and horrifying things in the process.
The only real issue with GM, is that it means potentially you mix genetic traits that come from completely foreign organisms; maybe even belonging to different kingdoms. Where as with breeding you are restricted to selecting traits that already exist within the organisms genome, or traits from organisms closely related enough to produce viable offspring.
In theory with GM you might be able to make a grass that produces some protein normally found in say fish, and there is concern that doing so might upset ecology.
A judge and likely a jury determine that at the trial after hearing arguments from both sides of the issue. If the defendant does not agree with the outcome they can appeal to a higher court. Higher courts will set precedent, which lower courts will then use to make determinations about future similar cases, just like you know every other area of law.
There is a difference between blocking site that is serving malware and blocking one that is pushing an unpopular political idea, displaying images some consider art, or exposing some objectionable behavior by others or similar. In the case of malware the site is part of scheme to illegally convert another persons property for the operators own use.
The thing is the government CAN shut those sites down already and they don't need SOPA to do it. They simply have to gather enough evidence to get a court order to do it. Then they have to conduct some proceeding where the site owner gets to argue they were not doing anything wrong where they state must prove they were; they same SHOULD hold true for sites engaged in distributing intellectual property they don't control.
Nobody I have ever talked to seriously objects the idea the government can shut down a website, when its being used directly in what appears to be some form of crime, and there is enough evidence to support that claim to get warrant from a judge, and its on a TEMPORARY TENTATIVE basis pending the outcome a fair legal proceeding.
What SOPA is about is depriving site operators their rights to due process of law, and reducing it to someone in the executive branch can pull your site at any time for any reason without review, and with little or no possibility of appeal. Which is NOT HOW THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!
I think the content industry has an entitlement problem. We live in a democracy, not a utopia. Churchill said something to the effect of "a democracy is a terrible form of government, but its the best one anyone has come up with so far"; I am butchering the quote.
The only way for a democracy to ever be a utopia is if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything. That is not likely to happen. We all have rights, and sometimes in exercising those rights we are going to infringe in some mild way on the rights of others. Its unavoidable. One of the stated goals of our organizing document is to promote the general welfare; a big part of that is maximizing each individuals ability to exercise their rights, and putting some minimal controls in place to limit the amount of infringement on the rights of others that occurs. That infringement can't be eliminated so where permitted it should happen in a fair way, in that harm is spread around equally.
The content industry does not seem to recognize that society has already given them all sorts of concessions; which limit the rights of others in order to protect them. They have copyright extensions that go well beyond what the Constitution stated the aim of copyright to be; they have tools like DMCA, the have FBI acting like the own team of private investigators, the have the FCC requiring completely unnecessary content control features in electronics, the list goes on.
None of those things are sufficient to eliminate copyright violations. I think may of them already go to far but in any case the amount of copyright infringement going on out there is at a perfectly acceptable level. Why, well because the content industry is wildly profitable, and while I think private property is the cornerstone of freedom, these guys are not hurting they don't need more protection for the state to hold on to what is theirs. Any good it would do them is in no way proportional the harm it does to others.
Lots of folks are limited by what the content industry already has. Indie artists can't use all sorts of material because is locked up under copyright in perpetuity, small manufactures are locked out of the market because they can't implement mandatory DRM, tinkers are locked out of their hobbies by draconian FCC rules, citizens have the privacy violated by the FBI and others all the time. Giving the content industry the right to completely curb stomp our ability to express ourselves on the Internet, with no process and no appeals; is simply unjustified.
Moore and Metalitz still don't get it. Its not about the Internet or site blocking, its about that fundamental characteristics of our nation. Its about due process and freedom of speech.
In a world where much work is done at a computer, it's pretty easy to continue as CEO of a company (especially one as tech-oriented as Google) but not be able to participate in a public speaking engagement due to laryngitis.
Yes it is pretty easy. Its really strange to suggest, today that he might miss the share holder conference more than a week from now though. That is long time to be too sick with a cold virus to participate in what is probably the CEO's most visible event all year. It almost looks like they are trying to manage expectations, which could indicate something is more deeply wrong than him just being out sick today.
The US has with little apparent forethought though moved it in the tool box of statecraft. The stakes are a bit higher there or at least can be. Iran might have a reason conduct a major disruptive campaign against our vital infrastructure. There are other influential players (Russia, China) that if timed right would place limits on at least the nature of our reprisal. I can imagine situations where at least the Iranian government might see such an attack as to their personal benefits, if not those of the nation.
The Mob on the other hand would NEVER hit a target like a power plant. Anti police state voices would be pretty well shouted down after a power grid failure lasting more than a few days. After that we would start to see a significant human toll, Enoujgh people would suddenly get ok with letting the FBI kick down however many doors, and military do however many drone strikes are needed to stop these 'terrorists'. There is no profit in organized crime in that.
It sounds like you have already done some work and have some references you can use in the future. That contract work you did already is the sorta thing you will be able to point at to land that (hopefully paid) internship next year when you are in college.
You might not be old anytime soon but you will never be young again. Nor are you likely to have a situation like you have right now where its so unclear what you 'ought' be doing that you need to pose the question on Slashdot. After you freshmen year your objects are going to be much more clearly defined. You will have sense how to work toward them and likely want to.
There opportunity cost of 'having some fun' for you is at an all time low, so go do it. Have a summer fling with some girl from your highschool, gather your buds and take a road trip to nowhere for a few weeks. Go hike what you can of the AT or PCT. Do things you won't have the time for later.
I think how well you analogy fits might get to intent.
You could also look at it like. These guys showed up at their house, with burglars tools planing to beak in. They try the door first and discover its been left unlocked. Okay its not longer breaking an entering but its still trespassing. What they did with the data afterward is still extortion.
Most crimes have intent as part of their definition. That is how we have to separate innocently running across confidential data mistakenly published and actions like this. Yes its gonna get messy, but in this case I think the follow up extortion attempt makes the original intent pretty clear.
Oh, and the reason you're not curb stomping Iran is because you can't. It took 10 years to make Iraq into something manageable, with Iraq being a far less prepared and formidable enemy than Iran.
Not buying that one. The existing regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were push overs. The Taliban fled practically the moment we showed up and Saddam's military was more or less defeated after three days.
The hard and expensive part, that we have had much less success with, is the nation building and occupation of those two areas.
I would suggest we don't need to do that. Libya was a mistake because Quadaffi was an SOB but he was our SOB. He was cooperating with the war on terror etc. The message we send to these dictators and oligarchs is steer clear of us or cooperate and we will leave you to run your nation. If however you become a pain in our sides we are coming after you, not your country, YOU and your family. Your choices are play ball and enjoy ruling your little slice of hell or find yourself dead or hiding in pit someplace. No we are not afraid of what it will cost us because we are not going to hang around after we going to pack up and leave and assume the next strong man who takes over for you will see how you met your end and realize it would be best not to poke the bear.
There is no reason we need to be pulled into these ten year wars of occupation. We just need to maintain a healthy level of fear of our power, and behave in a consistent and predictable way.
Except that these are not all soldiers in a foreign military belonging to a hostile state. In some cases they are even our own Citizens. These people are by and large accused criminals, violent ones maybe but criminals not uniform soldiers.
We passed laws decades against our intelligence services assassinating people.
We are supposed to have rights, in the case of citizens at least, to face our accuser, have the decision on our guilt be made by a jury of our peers if we desire, have the burden of proof be placed on the state.
Some how we have let that slip, and now the President and some of his yes men get together in a room, and order the execution of whoever they want! If we are not fighting to protect our freedom and the rule of our law, why are fighting at all? The president has flaunted the law consistently since he was in office. The harm Obama has done to this nation is beyond measure. Bush made some bone headed moves, and the PATRIOT Act sucks, but at least he largely operated within our legal frame work. Obama is a dangerous criminal who should himself be on the execution block for treason, well after a fair trial and if convicted anyway
Slashdot Mirror
That's good idea, lets amend the Constitution to give the president 60 days to use the armed forces. That way an immediate response can be made if we are attacked or there is some other crisis. After that rather than Congress authorizing war, lets make it a popular vote.
Well between those very same sort pea shoots and IEDs the various groups in Afghanistan have kept our so powerful military bogged down for ten years.
No I don't think it would be possible to organize civilians with typical consumer fire arms and lead a siege of Washington that is opposed by the military. I do think the guns being out there make our government a bit concerned that riots might be uncontrollable and stops them from doing anything to unpopular.
I also think the prospect of doing something that people would never get over like say suspending free speech, would mean decades of dealing with renegade groups sporadically murdering public officials and collaborators in law enforcement to the point that it might cause a total break down of society and is therefor off the table.
How would you disguise encrypted traffic to non-standard destinations?
Stenography?
Right even the head line is bias, sea-level rise is liberal talking point, if they want us to take the article seriously they should use politically neutral language like "persistent coastal flooding".
Study shows people driving luxury cars tended to park them outside nicer restaurants
That would require not only memory but a great deal of understanding. I find it hard to accept a tortoise could possess such mental power. Given lizards are older than mammals were that the case I suspect we'd all be cowering in the shadow of our overload's shells.
Because there is difference between independently duplicating published material and converting someone else's property for your use, getting their computer to publish materials to you in this case.
I and I expect many other Slashdot readers would argue the harm here is the using of a computer that does not belong to you to do something you have not been given permission to do. I also think exposing trade secrets and duplication copyrighted works need to be thought about differently. In the case of copyright infringement you are looking at stuff that has been make publicly available by the author; with trade secrets its a question of confidentiality and privacy.
I can only imagine the incredible data volumes banks and sock exchanges would need to keep online. I have had some experience working in data warehouse architecture for a nation wide retail chain and the transaction processing systems we were pulling from typically needed to keep 800GB+ online between accounting close events. We obviously grew pretty fast in total size as we swallowed all that data in the DWH.
Fair enough but it isnt as if an individuals or an industry for that matter needs change that rapidly. Wants and perhaps efficiencies do but not needs. There is 0 things I can think of need'ing to do with my PC that was not possible with my first PC AT. There are lots of multi-media type stuff I 'like' to do but nothing I 'need' that could not be effected with that old AT.
People would be able to get by just fine with the tech they have for years. When things start failing they most likely could still be sourced from the secondary market. Which will still exist. Sure hospitals and folks who *need* a computer might have to pay thru the nose for it to acquire it from someone like me who has one and does not *need* it; but they will be able to get it.
Wake me up when that is 800GB to a few TB. Then you can say. This might shock you to learn but some business uses their databases to drive more than just web forums.
Kenzie clearly does not understand how e-mail works. What he is doing is clearly an attempt to extort money for owners of legitimate domains. I don't know if he is doing anything that will pass muster in court of law but he is obviously stupid, a fraud, and prick.
Still though he does even though he does sorta point out a weakness in mail even if his solutions are off base. The correct way to handle this is as follows:
1. Sign all mail, and really try to convince recipients to validate signatures. This will give you integrity and irrefutably when sending; at least if you tell all your recipients, if its not signed to assume its a fraud.
2. Use SFP this will allow recipients to know mail really did come from your domain even if they can't check signatures. It will also help guard against innocent miss configured sending clients and servers, on similar but legitimate domains. It will also keep your domain off RBLs if someone tries false flag spamming to get your domain listed.
3. Encrypt anything you send if any of it is remotely confidential. Not only will this offer protection from interception, it will also cover you in the case you send to a black hole domain like Kenzie likes to set up by mistake; he won't have the ability to decrypt.
If we did these things routinely the over all security picture of Internet E-mail would be enhanced to the point that would be "good enough" to thwart most serious threats. Kenzie is dipshit but he is correct about the weakness of e-mail. Perhaps this security researcher should do a little more research and a little less "consulting" until he learns a thing or two. He is just best ignored.
You can't declare bankruptcy when you are not bankrupt. RIMM has a positive net tangible assets on their balance sheet, loot it up. Still its an open question as to if they post a profit anytime in the future or if they are going to hang around until they are slowly bleed dry by expenses.
It might make the most sense to say, its a crowded market, we are behind, its unlikely we can gain the share and product margin we'd need to be profitable again, lets sell. RIMM could sell of its assets, patent portfolio, real-estate, network infrastructure, software licenses, etc in and disburse the proceeds to the share holders. RIMM is likely worth more broken up than as an whole in my not especially researched or considered opinion.
Tell that to all the farmers down south struggling with Pig weed. Its become very resistant to herbicide, in many cases more resistant then their deliberately engineered to be resistant crop. Nature adapts and can do some amazing and horrifying things in the process.
The only real issue with GM, is that it means potentially you mix genetic traits that come from completely foreign organisms; maybe even belonging to different kingdoms. Where as with breeding you are restricted to selecting traits that already exist within the organisms genome, or traits from organisms closely related enough to produce viable offspring.
In theory with GM you might be able to make a grass that produces some protein normally found in say fish, and there is concern that doing so might upset ecology.
A judge and likely a jury determine that at the trial after hearing arguments from both sides of the issue. If the defendant does not agree with the outcome they can appeal to a higher court. Higher courts will set precedent, which lower courts will then use to make determinations about future similar cases, just like you know every other area of law.
There is a difference between blocking site that is serving malware and blocking one that is pushing an unpopular political idea, displaying images some consider art, or exposing some objectionable behavior by others or similar. In the case of malware the site is part of scheme to illegally convert another persons property for the operators own use.
The thing is the government CAN shut those sites down already and they don't need SOPA to do it. They simply have to gather enough evidence to get a court order to do it. Then they have to conduct some proceeding where the site owner gets to argue they were not doing anything wrong where they state must prove they were; they same SHOULD hold true for sites engaged in distributing intellectual property they don't control.
Nobody I have ever talked to seriously objects the idea the government can shut down a website, when its being used directly in what appears to be some form of crime, and there is enough evidence to support that claim to get warrant from a judge, and its on a TEMPORARY TENTATIVE basis pending the outcome a fair legal proceeding.
What SOPA is about is depriving site operators their rights to due process of law, and reducing it to someone in the executive branch can pull your site at any time for any reason without review, and with little or no possibility of appeal. Which is NOT HOW THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!
I think the content industry has an entitlement problem. We live in a democracy, not a utopia. Churchill said something to the effect of "a democracy is a terrible form of government, but its the best one anyone has come up with so far"; I am butchering the quote.
The only way for a democracy to ever be a utopia is if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything. That is not likely to happen. We all have rights, and sometimes in exercising those rights we are going to infringe in some mild way on the rights of others. Its unavoidable. One of the stated goals of our organizing document is to promote the general welfare; a big part of that is maximizing each individuals ability to exercise their rights, and putting some minimal controls in place to limit the amount of infringement on the rights of others that occurs. That infringement can't be eliminated so where permitted it should happen in a fair way, in that harm is spread around equally.
The content industry does not seem to recognize that society has already given them all sorts of concessions; which limit the rights of others in order to protect them. They have copyright extensions that go well beyond what the Constitution stated the aim of copyright to be; they have tools like DMCA, the have FBI acting like the own team of private investigators, the have the FCC requiring completely unnecessary content control features in electronics, the list goes on.
None of those things are sufficient to eliminate copyright violations. I think may of them already go to far but in any case the amount of copyright infringement going on out there is at a perfectly acceptable level. Why, well because the content industry is wildly profitable, and while I think private property is the cornerstone of freedom, these guys are not hurting they don't need more protection for the state to hold on to what is theirs. Any good it would do them is in no way proportional the harm it does to others.
Lots of folks are limited by what the content industry already has. Indie artists can't use all sorts of material because is locked up under copyright in perpetuity, small manufactures are locked out of the market because they can't implement mandatory DRM, tinkers are locked out of their hobbies by draconian FCC rules, citizens have the privacy violated by the FBI and others all the time. Giving the content industry the right to completely curb stomp our ability to express ourselves on the Internet, with no process and no appeals; is simply unjustified.
Moore and Metalitz still don't get it. Its not about the Internet or site blocking, its about that fundamental characteristics of our nation. Its about due process and freedom of speech.
Clearly we narrowly escaped what would have been a disaster for our entire nation. Hyperbole much? Gee wiz
In a world where much work is done at a computer, it's pretty easy to continue as CEO of a company (especially one as tech-oriented as Google) but not be able to participate in a public speaking engagement due to laryngitis.
Yes it is pretty easy. Its really strange to suggest, today that he might miss the share holder conference more than a week from now though. That is long time to be too sick with a cold virus to participate in what is probably the CEO's most visible event all year. It almost looks like they are trying to manage expectations, which could indicate something is more deeply wrong than him just being out sick today.
The US has with little apparent forethought though moved it in the tool box of statecraft. The stakes are a bit higher there or at least can be. Iran might have a reason conduct a major disruptive campaign against our vital infrastructure. There are other influential players (Russia, China) that if timed right would place limits on at least the nature of our reprisal. I can imagine situations where at least the Iranian government might see such an attack as to their personal benefits, if not those of the nation.
The Mob on the other hand would NEVER hit a target like a power plant. Anti police state voices would be pretty well shouted down after a power grid failure lasting more than a few days. After that we would start to see a significant human toll, Enoujgh people would suddenly get ok with letting the FBI kick down however many doors, and military do however many drone strikes are needed to stop these 'terrorists'. There is no profit in organized crime in that.
It sounds like you have already done some work and have some references you can use in the future. That contract work you did already is the sorta thing you will be able to point at to land that (hopefully paid) internship next year when you are in college.
You might not be old anytime soon but you will never be young again. Nor are you likely to have a situation like you have right now where its so unclear what you 'ought' be doing that you need to pose the question on Slashdot. After you freshmen year your objects are going to be much more clearly defined. You will have sense how to work toward them and likely want to.
There opportunity cost of 'having some fun' for you is at an all time low, so go do it. Have a summer fling with some girl from your highschool, gather your buds and take a road trip to nowhere for a few weeks. Go hike what you can of the AT or PCT. Do things you won't have the time for later.
I think how well you analogy fits might get to intent.
You could also look at it like. These guys showed up at their house, with burglars tools planing to beak in. They try the door first and discover its been left unlocked. Okay its not longer breaking an entering but its still trespassing. What they did with the data afterward is still extortion.
Most crimes have intent as part of their definition. That is how we have to separate innocently running across confidential data mistakenly published and actions like this. Yes its gonna get messy, but in this case I think the follow up extortion attempt makes the original intent pretty clear.
Oh, and the reason you're not curb stomping Iran is because you can't. It took 10 years to make Iraq into something manageable, with Iraq being a far less prepared and formidable enemy than Iran.
Not buying that one. The existing regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were push overs. The Taliban fled practically the moment we showed up and Saddam's military was more or less defeated after three days.
The hard and expensive part, that we have had much less success with, is the nation building and occupation of those two areas.
I would suggest we don't need to do that. Libya was a mistake because Quadaffi was an SOB but he was our SOB. He was cooperating with the war on terror etc. The message we send to these dictators and oligarchs is steer clear of us or cooperate and we will leave you to run your nation. If however you become a pain in our sides we are coming after you, not your country, YOU and your family. Your choices are play ball and enjoy ruling your little slice of hell or find yourself dead or hiding in pit someplace. No we are not afraid of what it will cost us because we are not going to hang around after we going to pack up and leave and assume the next strong man who takes over for you will see how you met your end and realize it would be best not to poke the bear.
There is no reason we need to be pulled into these ten year wars of occupation. We just need to maintain a healthy level of fear of our power, and behave in a consistent and predictable way.
Well if its anything like their bullet train, yea.
Except that these are not all soldiers in a foreign military belonging to a hostile state. In some cases they are even our own Citizens. These people are by and large accused criminals, violent ones maybe but criminals not uniform soldiers.
We passed laws decades against our intelligence services assassinating people.
We are supposed to have rights, in the case of citizens at least, to face our accuser, have the decision on our guilt be made by a jury of our peers if we desire, have the burden of proof be placed on the state.
Some how we have let that slip, and now the President and some of his yes men get together in a room, and order the execution of whoever they want! If we are not fighting to protect our freedom and the rule of our law, why are fighting at all? The president has flaunted the law consistently since he was in office. The harm Obama has done to this nation is beyond measure. Bush made some bone headed moves, and the PATRIOT Act sucks, but at least he largely operated within our legal frame work. Obama is a dangerous criminal who should himself be on the execution block for treason, well after a fair trial and if convicted anyway