An interesting observation. Though it is dampened by the fact that brute forcing encryption is pretty much the poster child of an application that lends itself well to parallel processing.
AT&T is nowhere near saturating their lines, nor are any of the other major carriers. They cried wolf in Canada and Canada made them actually reveal the data and nowhere in their network were they anywhere near 50% saturation at peak.
He was obviously making a good faith effort to find out the relevant laws and comply. He bought freely available materials over-the-counter so to speak. This isn't a bad guy but rather a curious one and justice is not served by punishing him. As some point people have forgotten that the law is guideline to justice and that actual justice should be served by the system, not strict compliance with the letter of the law.
"though improbably I can still suffer data loss from 2+ disk failure"
It's no that improbable. We just had three old systems lose their data due to multiple disk failures. All raid 5's that could only lose one drive at a time.
The problem with these systems is that all the drives tend to be bought at once to fill it up, and all the drives are rated for the same number of operational hours.
My suggestion wasn't merely to harden the door but to remove the internal door outright leaving the only the access to the cockpit, on the ground or in flight, from the exterior of the plane. Additionally, I suggested eliminating two way voice communication with the cockpit (you do still need a buzzer for the attendants to let the pilot know when the crew is ready for landing and such. That way, taking hostages has no impact since you have no way to let the pilot know it even happened.
There is nothing in the polls you just linked that supports your assertion that supporting an end to the war on drugs is political suicide. Those are only for marijuana legalization but only 16% were opposed to legalization for personal and medical use. The other polls didn't give people a chance to specify. None of those polls asked if people felt that individuals should be imprisoned for personal drug use alone.
"Then get more votes. That trumps money every time."
In your world maybe it does. Here in the real world, without money you have no votes or reason for getting any... The entire point of being a politician is the bribe money.
"As the parent post said, "The problem is the introduction of dangerous components into an airplane" - not hijacking. Hijacking died on 9/11. "
That may be a valid point but it wasn't the parents point. The parent used a Taser as an example of a "dangerous component" so he was obviously talking about a hijacking. Additionally, he was arguing that a plane could not be made hijack proof. Anything is possible but with that point given, you can make an airplane more or less hijack proof.
You can accomplish minor destruction with an explosive but you can't get publicity to a cause without access to any communications once aboard the plane nor can you make demands. You certainly can't commandeer the plane and use it as a weapon. There aren't many people who want to blow something up without getting to make a statement or let anyone know WHY they blew it up.
"Paragraph one, maybe or maybe not, rigged ballot boxes are as old as ballot boxes"
So you acknowledge ballot boxes are likely rigged but you still think it is worthwhile to put a ballot in one or that a politician being elected by rigged ballot boxes needs to be concerned about the votes? Curious logic. If I were a ballot box rigging politician I'd do what I want (or rather what the highest bidder wants), since when election day comes I'm guaranteed to win. My corporate masters will either rig the box for me again via some sort of exploit or they will rig the box through massive marketing.
"Paragraph two, you are an idiot. Wake up and join the real world."
Actually this is an example of what I'm talking about. You make the same knee jerk comment repeatedly in place any sort of reasoned or logical argument. It is obvious that something in what I said causes you to disengage your reasoning brain and instead you access the memory centers of your brain.
This is an easy to see example. Generally the more politically oriented material is a regurgitation of something that has enough reasoning behind it to appear to be an intelligent point to most people. That is why representatives of your party spoon fed it out. This is compounded by the fact that in many cases, the ones who came up with the nonsense did so because when the issue came up it struck them as being either D or R oriented and their memory centers gave them their stance, they subsequently sought out logic to support their view (in the rational this process is reversed with the issue and supporting logic for all views being sought and the correct view selected only AFTER this is done).
No need to reply. *tips hat* Your persuasive argument has convinced me I need to wake up and join the real world.
"IP might make a difference. Most people don't have a strong opinion on that matter, after all, but if they can pick up a few extra votes, why not?"
The IP lobby is big on buying politicians. That will trump your few votes every time.
As for the pro drug legalization. Polls, the presidents change.gov site, and letters from voters all indicate that most people want an end to the war on drugs. The MONEY however is behind keeping drugs illegal, the pharmacutical, oil, privatized prison, and organized crime industries all have strong financial interest in keeping drugs regulated and/or illegal.
"It is attitudes like yours, that there is no point in trying to change things"
Who said we shouldn't try to change things? I merely said that talking (via letters, calls, ranting on forums, etc) isn't an effective way of going about it.
It has been proven, beyond any sane reasonable doubt, that voting machines were rigged in Ohio. Aside from the voting machine company changing its name and continuing to sell the same machines, the only action taken in response is that the system used has spread to most of the nation. All of this is well documented and none of it requires a conspiracy theory.
But even without that, what do your letters have to do with getting votes? Even if you got participation beyond the wildest dreams of any lobbying efforts you wouldn't even begin to register compared to the mindless masses who are influenced only by marketing machines. Additionally, no matter what you put in your letters, you are still going to vote for whoever has the right letter next to their name on the ballot in the election. The greater your level of participation the greater the probability that you associate yourself with a political party. FMRI scans show that those who acknowledge a party affiliation actually stop using the reasoning portions of their brains and begin accessing memory when presented with an issue that has been associated with one party or another. In other words, if you've self identified as (D) you will vote D, the same with R. And no, you aren't a moderate D or moderate R, everyone thinks they are toward a reasonable center with leanings in one direction or the other.
So I challenge all Slashdoters to write letters to their senators taking an anti-IP cartel or anti-drug war stance. That is a sample size of millions. Lets see how many post here having gotten something other than a BS response. In fact, lets raise the bar further, post even if you get a BS response that isn't in exactly the format I detailed above repeating a bland description of what the bill is and/or hopes to accomplish followed by a note that the senator will take your comments and views into consideration when voting on the issue.
If you are pro-ip or pro drug war, don't worry, (unfortunately) you can still sleep soundly knowing that writing an anti-ip or anti-drug war letter will have absolutely no impact on what happens.
"If you think it doesn't, it's because you've got your head up your ass, and spend more time reading conspiracy propaganda or watching Hollywood movies than paying attention real life."
Ah yes, very persuasive argument. I need to stop working from the assumption that all people serve their personal interests until presented with evidence to the contrary. I need to focus on the real world where everyone is selfless and good by default and only working toward their personal interests when evidence is presented to that effect.
"Your main problem with attacking consent is that you cannot attack it in a vacuum. That is, attack consent in relation to TSA and you attack all consent laws based upon the voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently standard. There is no TSA specific consent doctrine. You have two ways to do this. First, attack the consent doctrine itself. Basically, make an argument that constitutional rights cannot be waived. Say that even if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rights cannot be waived."
Perhaps you could take a narrower argument. Consent implies an option not to consent, an option not to consent is not an option unless it is both reasonable and practical. If one must fly in order to engage in their chosen profession then purchasing a ticket is an act of necessity in order to prevent the loss of livelihood and pursue happiness. If one does not have a reasonable and practical alternative to providing consent due to necessity, then consent is not actually voluntary.
That simply leaves proving that flying is a necessary and standard industry business practice which seems like a fairly trivial argument to make.
"If we all got upset enough that we wrote to our senators/representatives, it would change."
ROFLMAO. You still think they represent the voter, or read those letters, or even that your vote (or all the cumulative votes) are actually used to determine the politicians? That is so cute.
The elections are rigged so your vote doesn't count and your letter is being read by a staffer or even an automated computer system that guesses the bill you are writing about and then replies with what amounts to a canned summary describing what that bill is (in neutral tones) along with a note that they will consider your comments if given the opportunity to vote on this issue. Some corporate cartel owns your politician or maybe he is a freelancer selling votes to the highest bidder. The only thing your view does is change the way he spins the votes his corporate purchasers indicate he wants. You see, you can take a pro and con stance on literally any issue and spin it in a way that fits with either the R or D position. As long as the R's use R spin for and the D's use D spin, it doesn't matter what the votes actually are the sheeple won't ever be upset enough to take any action. No, talking real unhappy isn't taking action.
Maybe, but you can seal off the cockpit and a restroom with no door, just an armored wall and have only a one way intercom with a buzzer to let the pilot know when everything is stowed for landing.
That would at least make it (virtually) impossible to hijack the plane from the passenger compartments because there is no access and no way to communicate a hijacking to the pilot.
It doesn't hurt to conduct an experiment or two for yourself now and then as well. Your personal testing may not qualify to be published. You should be prepared to let it go when presented with better evidence but you will be better able to recognize what is and is not better evidence after having put enough thought into something to design and run an experiment.
"Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself?"
That isn't what he said at all. He said to review those findings for yourself which is the opposite of ignoring them. Since there are undoubtedly many conflicting findings on which you could build your work, how are you to know which ones to trust if you don't review them? Or do you just trust in whichever findings seem to be popular or were supported by your professors in school?
We could stand to cut defense spending by a lot more than 50%. But we don't just need to cut, we also need to make the top 20% pay a PROPORTIONATE share of the tax burden. They will be quick to point out that they pay about 60% already... which sounds unfair until you realize they have far more than 60% of the wealth.
"And if one does that, and absorbs the culture to the extent that one has become Scottish, then anti-Scottish racism will also affect that person."
Except we've established that without a geographic ancestry requirement it isn't racism at all but merely nationalism.
As for "If the concept of racism wasn't a useful concept then the word wouldn't exist." Given even a brief second of contemplation I'm sure you wanted these words back. There are plenty of useless distinctions made every day and words are created by the mob. Race is a distinction born of ignorance and agenda, used both by those who are racist and by those who are opposed to racism. The existence of the word, and its widespread use, does not mean the concept has utility or merit. If all words had utility we'd have no synonyms.
One can become Scottish by moving to Scotland. No geographic ancestry is required.
"And if you want to argue and say that the biological use of the word race should instead be used, then you would find that all humans are the same race, and that the word racist is therefore meaningless."
Agreed. The logical conclusion is indeed that race and racism are meaningless for either positive or negative uses.
Scottish is not a race, it is a nationality, you have no choice of what genetic markers that people will group into an arbitrary "race". You do have a choice of what nation you claim. Some people move to say America and stop being scottish, some do the opposite, some move and continue claiming scotland. All of these people are making choices which open them to mockery.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting observation. Though it is dampened by the fact that brute forcing encryption is pretty much the poster child of an application that lends itself well to parallel processing.
dunno about the creators but I beat Ninja Gaiden and I generally suck at games. Quit your bitchin!
AT&T is nowhere near saturating their lines, nor are any of the other major carriers. They cried wolf in Canada and Canada made them actually reveal the data and nowhere in their network were they anywhere near 50% saturation at peak.
He was obviously making a good faith effort to find out the relevant laws and comply. He bought freely available materials over-the-counter so to speak. This isn't a bad guy but rather a curious one and justice is not served by punishing him. As some point people have forgotten that the law is guideline to justice and that actual justice should be served by the system, not strict compliance with the letter of the law.
"though improbably I can still suffer data loss from 2+ disk failure"
It's no that improbable. We just had three old systems lose their data due to multiple disk failures. All raid 5's that could only lose one drive at a time.
The problem with these systems is that all the drives tend to be bought at once to fill it up, and all the drives are rated for the same number of operational hours.
My suggestion wasn't merely to harden the door but to remove the internal door outright leaving the only the access to the cockpit, on the ground or in flight, from the exterior of the plane. Additionally, I suggested eliminating two way voice communication with the cockpit (you do still need a buzzer for the attendants to let the pilot know when the crew is ready for landing and such. That way, taking hostages has no impact since you have no way to let the pilot know it even happened.
There is nothing in the polls you just linked that supports your assertion that supporting an end to the war on drugs is political suicide. Those are only for marijuana legalization but only 16% were opposed to legalization for personal and medical use. The other polls didn't give people a chance to specify. None of those polls asked if people felt that individuals should be imprisoned for personal drug use alone.
"Then get more votes. That trumps money every time."
In your world maybe it does. Here in the real world, without money you have no votes or reason for getting any... The entire point of being a politician is the bribe money.
"As the parent post said, "The problem is the introduction of dangerous components into an airplane" - not hijacking. Hijacking died on 9/11. "
That may be a valid point but it wasn't the parents point. The parent used a Taser as an example of a "dangerous component" so he was obviously talking about a hijacking. Additionally, he was arguing that a plane could not be made hijack proof. Anything is possible but with that point given, you can make an airplane more or less hijack proof.
You can accomplish minor destruction with an explosive but you can't get publicity to a cause without access to any communications once aboard the plane nor can you make demands. You certainly can't commandeer the plane and use it as a weapon. There aren't many people who want to blow something up without getting to make a statement or let anyone know WHY they blew it up.
"Paragraph one, maybe or maybe not, rigged ballot boxes are as old as ballot boxes"
So you acknowledge ballot boxes are likely rigged but you still think it is worthwhile to put a ballot in one or that a politician being elected by rigged ballot boxes needs to be concerned about the votes? Curious logic. If I were a ballot box rigging politician I'd do what I want (or rather what the highest bidder wants), since when election day comes I'm guaranteed to win. My corporate masters will either rig the box for me again via some sort of exploit or they will rig the box through massive marketing.
"Paragraph two, you are an idiot. Wake up and join the real world."
Actually this is an example of what I'm talking about. You make the same knee jerk comment repeatedly in place any sort of reasoned or logical argument. It is obvious that something in what I said causes you to disengage your reasoning brain and instead you access the memory centers of your brain.
This is an easy to see example. Generally the more politically oriented material is a regurgitation of something that has enough reasoning behind it to appear to be an intelligent point to most people. That is why representatives of your party spoon fed it out. This is compounded by the fact that in many cases, the ones who came up with the nonsense did so because when the issue came up it struck them as being either D or R oriented and their memory centers gave them their stance, they subsequently sought out logic to support their view (in the rational this process is reversed with the issue and supporting logic for all views being sought and the correct view selected only AFTER this is done).
No need to reply. *tips hat* Your persuasive argument has convinced me I need to wake up and join the real world.
"IP might make a difference. Most people don't have a strong opinion on that matter, after all, but if they can pick up a few extra votes, why not?"
The IP lobby is big on buying politicians. That will trump your few votes every time.
As for the pro drug legalization. Polls, the presidents change.gov site, and letters from voters all indicate that most people want an end to the war on drugs. The MONEY however is behind keeping drugs illegal, the pharmacutical, oil, privatized prison, and organized crime industries all have strong financial interest in keeping drugs regulated and/or illegal.
"It is attitudes like yours, that there is no point in trying to change things"
Who said we shouldn't try to change things? I merely said that talking (via letters, calls, ranting on forums, etc) isn't an effective way of going about it.
It has been proven, beyond any sane reasonable doubt, that voting machines were rigged in Ohio. Aside from the voting machine company changing its name and continuing to sell the same machines, the only action taken in response is that the system used has spread to most of the nation. All of this is well documented and none of it requires a conspiracy theory.
But even without that, what do your letters have to do with getting votes? Even if you got participation beyond the wildest dreams of any lobbying efforts you wouldn't even begin to register compared to the mindless masses who are influenced only by marketing machines. Additionally, no matter what you put in your letters, you are still going to vote for whoever has the right letter next to their name on the ballot in the election. The greater your level of participation the greater the probability that you associate yourself with a political party. FMRI scans show that those who acknowledge a party affiliation actually stop using the reasoning portions of their brains and begin accessing memory when presented with an issue that has been associated with one party or another. In other words, if you've self identified as (D) you will vote D, the same with R. And no, you aren't a moderate D or moderate R, everyone thinks they are toward a reasonable center with leanings in one direction or the other.
Your right, we need a larger sample.
So I challenge all Slashdoters to write letters to their senators taking an anti-IP cartel or anti-drug war stance. That is a sample size of millions. Lets see how many post here having gotten something other than a BS response. In fact, lets raise the bar further, post even if you get a BS response that isn't in exactly the format I detailed above repeating a bland description of what the bill is and/or hopes to accomplish followed by a note that the senator will take your comments and views into consideration when voting on the issue.
If you are pro-ip or pro drug war, don't worry, (unfortunately) you can still sleep soundly knowing that writing an anti-ip or anti-drug war letter will have absolutely no impact on what happens.
"If you think it doesn't, it's because you've got your head up your ass, and spend more time reading conspiracy propaganda or watching Hollywood movies than paying attention real life."
Ah yes, very persuasive argument. I need to stop working from the assumption that all people serve their personal interests until presented with evidence to the contrary. I need to focus on the real world where everyone is selfless and good by default and only working toward their personal interests when evidence is presented to that effect.
"Your main problem with attacking consent is that you cannot attack it in a vacuum. That is, attack consent in relation to TSA and you attack all consent laws based upon the voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently standard. There is no TSA specific consent doctrine. You have two ways to do this. First, attack the consent doctrine itself. Basically, make an argument that constitutional rights cannot be waived. Say that even if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rights cannot be waived."
Perhaps you could take a narrower argument. Consent implies an option not to consent, an option not to consent is not an option unless it is both reasonable and practical. If one must fly in order to engage in their chosen profession then purchasing a ticket is an act of necessity in order to prevent the loss of livelihood and pursue happiness. If one does not have a reasonable and practical alternative to providing consent due to necessity, then consent is not actually voluntary.
That simply leaves proving that flying is a necessary and standard industry business practice which seems like a fairly trivial argument to make.
"If we all got upset enough that we wrote to our senators/representatives, it would change."
ROFLMAO. You still think they represent the voter, or read those letters, or even that your vote (or all the cumulative votes) are actually used to determine the politicians? That is so cute.
The elections are rigged so your vote doesn't count and your letter is being read by a staffer or even an automated computer system that guesses the bill you are writing about and then replies with what amounts to a canned summary describing what that bill is (in neutral tones) along with a note that they will consider your comments if given the opportunity to vote on this issue. Some corporate cartel owns your politician or maybe he is a freelancer selling votes to the highest bidder. The only thing your view does is change the way he spins the votes his corporate purchasers indicate he wants. You see, you can take a pro and con stance on literally any issue and spin it in a way that fits with either the R or D position. As long as the R's use R spin for and the D's use D spin, it doesn't matter what the votes actually are the sheeple won't ever be upset enough to take any action. No, talking real unhappy isn't taking action.
Maybe, but you can seal off the cockpit and a restroom with no door, just an armored wall and have only a one way intercom with a buzzer to let the pilot know when everything is stowed for landing.
That would at least make it (virtually) impossible to hijack the plane from the passenger compartments because there is no access and no way to communicate a hijacking to the pilot.
It doesn't hurt to conduct an experiment or two for yourself now and then as well. Your personal testing may not qualify to be published. You should be prepared to let it go when presented with better evidence but you will be better able to recognize what is and is not better evidence after having put enough thought into something to design and run an experiment.
"Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself?"
That isn't what he said at all. He said to review those findings for yourself which is the opposite of ignoring them. Since there are undoubtedly many conflicting findings on which you could build your work, how are you to know which ones to trust if you don't review them? Or do you just trust in whichever findings seem to be popular or were supported by your professors in school?
We could stand to cut defense spending by a lot more than 50%. But we don't just need to cut, we also need to make the top 20% pay a PROPORTIONATE share of the tax burden. They will be quick to point out that they pay about 60% already... which sounds unfair until you realize they have far more than 60% of the wealth.
Unless we are never going to pay said interest, then it is an increase in government spending.
"And if one does that, and absorbs the culture to the extent that one has become Scottish, then anti-Scottish racism will also affect that person."
Except we've established that without a geographic ancestry requirement it isn't racism at all but merely nationalism.
As for "If the concept of racism wasn't a useful concept then the word wouldn't exist." Given even a brief second of contemplation I'm sure you wanted these words back. There are plenty of useless distinctions made every day and words are created by the mob. Race is a distinction born of ignorance and agenda, used both by those who are racist and by those who are opposed to racism. The existence of the word, and its widespread use, does not mean the concept has utility or merit. If all words had utility we'd have no synonyms.
One can become Scottish by moving to Scotland. No geographic ancestry is required.
"And if you want to argue and say that the biological use of the word race should instead be used, then you would find that all humans are the same race, and that the word racist is therefore meaningless."
Agreed. The logical conclusion is indeed that race and racism are meaningless for either positive or negative uses.
"And sure, anything fried is edible. I'd really rather have it grilled and basted with honey mustard, or covered in parmesan and baked."
While that would make a nice chicken dish, it isn't actually going to taste better than quality fried chicken.
Scottish is not a race, it is a nationality, you have no choice of what genetic markers that people will group into an arbitrary "race". You do have a choice of what nation you claim. Some people move to say America and stop being scottish, some do the opposite, some move and continue claiming scotland. All of these people are making choices which open them to mockery.