You want to know what I think is an abomination? Yeah, I know, nobody wants to know that, but I'm going to say it anyway. The requirement that one must have "standing" in order to challenge a law in court. That is BULLSHIT. Challenging laws should be EASY. Making them should be hard.
Why is it okay to have a no-fly list? Is there some reason there couldn't be a "carefully check" list? Is it really necessary or moral to deny someone the freedom of movement without even a hint of a chargable crime? Why not simply search them before boarding? IMO; Totalitarianism, that's why.
The no-fly list. the TSA checking everyone before they board the plane to make sure they are not carrying means to do harm.
Pick one. One or the other is STUPID. It is pointless to have both.
The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa.
Agree it is pointless and stupid, but...
What about the many people on the list who are US citizens already residing in the US? They don't NEED visas. The list really does provide a framework to infringe, utterly without due process, the rights of people including US citizens. There is absolutely nothing preventing whoever puts people on the list from adding the names of EVERYONE ON THE PLANET whom they can identify.
The scientific method calls for the formation of a hypothesis and then doing a series of tests that will attempt to disprove that hypothesis.
I would modify that slightly. For "disprove", substitute "support or oppose". The solar eclipse observational experiments of Campbell, Eddington and others were undertaken in a thirst for knowledge to FIND OUT if one phenomenon predicted by general relativity was actually evident; not really to try to prove or disprove general relativity. If the measurements of positions of stars near the disk of the sun indicated departures that the theory predicted, the theory was supported. If the measurements did not so confirm, the theory would become doubted. The former turned out to be the case.
"...inflation is the exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^33 and 10^32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a less accelerated rate."
One itsy bitsy correction if you don't mind. That's not 10^36, 10^33, and 10^32 seconds. It's 10^-36, 10^-33, and 10^-32 seconds. It makes the difference between the big bang lasting far longer than the present estimated age of the universe, and the fraction of a billionth of a trillionth of a picoseond which it actually lasted.
Inflation was raging, crazy quick. It makes a nuclear explosion seem glacially slow.
Here's what I don't get. From what I understand, the NSA is not directly answerable to Congress - they're indirectly answerable through their parent agency, the Department of Defense, but they themselves are not answerable to Congress. What's stopping them from outwardly agreeing to Congress's regulations (assuming they pass) but inwardly ignoring them and continuing to do what they've been doing for years?
Pssst. This is a bill of APPROPRIATIONS. As such, like any other appropriations bill, it does not tell anyone what they may or may not do. It furnishes them money to be used for specified functions and purposes. This particular bill says none of the money being furnished can be used for warrantless surveillance and for programs that force companies to create backdoors in their products.
Appropriations bills are very powerful when used to achieve denial because the Constitution says that they must originate in the House. Other kinds of bills may originate in the Senate, but appropriations bills, no. The House, all of which stands for election every two years, is therefore the most responsive of the branches to the people. If you can't get appropriations for something, you have to resort to the black budget, which is far smaller than the open budget.
Appropriations bills still have to pass the Senate and the White Houise before becoming effective law of the land, but the thing to note about appropriations bills is that they are enabling, not disabling.
If the House chooses to HAVE BALLS in the matter, the rogue administration is screwed trying to fund what the House doesn't want funded. Yeah, the Senate can amend the bill and send it back for reconsideration, but then the House can just give them the finger and say "sorry, denied, no candy, if you want funding at all you can take what we said in the first place, otherwise you're screwed". They could have done this with the ACA and they made a lot of noise that they would do it, but the rogue regime stamped its foot and said it would shut down arbitrarily selected functions of the government until it got its way. Instead of calling them on this tantrum, the House folded like a jellyfish and complied with everything the rogue regime wanted. And they could do so again in this case, but the point is, THEY DO HAVE THE POWER.
If instead the House chose to introduce a bill outright banning the undesired functions from being undertaken, they could certainly do so; the NSA is nominally subject to laws just like everybody else. But the Senate or White House could just outright ignore the bill and let it die, and the bill is stillborn. It could never become law. That is the problem with normal bills that are enabling (in this case, enabling of limits).
Frankly, nothing could concern me less than making it work well with Windows. I am only interested in using it with an open source OS. I don't care in the least whether a hypothetical recreation of TrueCrypt works with Windows at all. Mod me down if it makes you feel good. It's only an personal preference.
If that is indeed the rationale behind his phrasing, then he appears to be crazy. He could just shut the fuck up rather spouting nonsense. Let the forker worry about making sure there are no compromises in the code. The code is not an enigma, for heaven's sake. It is written in a widely used computer language and subject to analysis.
I admit to finding it far-fetched that the feds could ORDER somebody to spout nonsense, rather than muzzling them, but I suppose in the end nothing is impossible.
I'm sure those of us using TrueCrypt on other OS's than Windows would be very illuminated to know why TrueCrypt's POSTULATED tight integration with Windows could possibly affect us.
I'm afraid a fork by definition can't be cleansed so it can't be traced back. What you're looking for is either a clean-room rewrite or a fork plus a middle finger. Yeah, you can do a rewrite without a clean-room, the implication being that you are referring to the original source for reference but not copying any of it, in which case you might have to go to a lot of trouble defending it.
BTW, for a long time now there has been what amounts to a fork. It is called RealCrypt. The sole purpose of it was to remove branding so as not to violate any of the terms of the license on the TrueCrypt source. It's fairly like the way Scientific Linux is built from a straight out fully legal copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux source with the branding removed.
TrueCrypt never sued RealCrypt, maybe because they had no motive to do so and didn't want to look like asses.
You just very succinctly expressed more insight than 99.9% of this discussion page. The only thing I would add is that the cease and desist letter would be very illuminating. It would have to give a face to the anonymous developer group, and give New Guys a chance to sink their teeth into that face in court. Let's see what happens when an NSL muzzle competes with the right to question witnesses in court and have the questions answered truthfully under penalty of perjury.
Of course New Guys might be operating in a jurisdiction where they could just file the cease and desist letter with today's garbage.
Keep in mind, the NSA has no problem sending a missle into your living room.
NSA doesn't do that. NSA does not issue NSLs or court orders either. They gather information.
CIA may send a missile into your living room. The FBI may get court orders, etc. But not the NSA.
This is all rather sad that no one seem to know which parts of the government actually are doing something. And no, I'm not even American and I know these things.
First, mod parent way up for informed thought processes; something that is very very scarce on this particular discussion page.
Second, OTOH, this is quite beside the point. Everywhere on this discussion page where it says "NSA", just assume it says "Feds" instead. Because the Feds are all in cahoots, and they have limitless power without recourse. The only two political parties in the US that matter numerically are in cahoots. All three branches of the US goverrnment are in cahoots. The US media is in cahoots with all of the preceding. Do you really care what bureau or bureaus in the vast bureaucracy was/were involved in the launching of the missile, or the issuance of the NSL, or the knock at the door ending in your arrest? Just know that it is the Feds, and their face is that of a ravening beast.
No I won't take anthropomorphic climate change as an example, and you trying to assert it isn't science is no different than a creationist claiming evolution is a religion.
It depends on the referent of "ACC".
Just in passing, Anthropomorphic climate change is a malapropism.
Anthropogenic climate change is a term. As many terms are. it may be used to refer either to a particular theory of science, or to an imperative which is essentially religious zealotry. The phenomenon of ACC, and in particular ACC caused by CO2 contributed by human activity to the atmosphere, which is specifically what all the fuss is about, is supported by substantial scientific evidence. Let's skip the point that there is also some scientific avidence that refutes it. Let's waive that.
However, the zealotry is about the imperative of taking drastic action and spending vast amounts of treasure to ameliorate the ACC. The problem with the zealots is that they jump to the need for action without connecting the dots to lead to the necessity for, practicality of, and efficacy of, that action. They have not the slightest interest in connecting the dots, because it is a lot of work, and because connecting the dots might lead to an invalidation of their religiously-held imperative.
Some of the dots are: * What is the quantitative extent and timing of the ACC if it runs its course? There exists much disagreement. * What would the outcome be? Not just "OMG change bad", but what are the favorable and unfavorable points specifically? * In short, what would the cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life be if it runs its course? * What exactly is the proposed strategy of amelioration? * In comparison, what would the cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life be if the proposed strategy of amelioration is adopted?
You won't find much discussion in those terms. Without belaboring all of the myriad of points which suggest themselves, just consider the truism. Making energy scarcer and more expensive has a cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life.
Note: if you see yourself as having a genuine interest in exploring ACC, not one of the ACC religious zealots, then none of this can be taken as insulting you in any way. But if you deny that ACC zealotry exists in great preponderance and must be denied seizing the future hostage, then we do have a fundamental difference. If, on the other hand, you contend that anti-ACC zealotry also exists, I think we have a point of agreement.
I learned that the United Kingdom was short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in turn Great Britain encompassed England, Scotland, and Wales - i.e., the largest island of the British Isles.
Is this conceptualization completely obsolete, or have the terms just become fuzzy as usage devolves over the years?
Jeezum cripes! 20-30 MINUTES? You have a really good system. Mine takes 20-30 HOURS! In 20-30 minutes there might be a handful of slots just starting to populate. It's as if somebody is loading a paper tape on a 110 baud TTY to send me the guide data.
What possible recourse does a judge have ? Hell, what recourse does congress have ?
It is true that enforcement does not take orders from judicial. They are constitutionally in executive's pocket.
Better to ask what recourse do The People have? Only the one which no power on earth can take away from them. That recourse which makes the blood run cold in government and people alike. The recourse of rebellion. If the grievances run deep enough, the scum will not succeed in defeating the rebellion when it finally comes.
Better for all if we can turn this around peacefully through grass roots upheaval in the political process.
Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting.
It is not for anyone to be disgusted by the low regard in which the people hold ALL the branches of the government. It is for everyone to be disgusted at the actual problem, which is that the entire apparatus is riddled with corruption and arrgogant, contemptuous scheming and violation of the public interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Our schools are instruments of BRAINWASHING and of relentlessly stamping out the embers of thirst to know what, why, and how.
You want to know what I think is an abomination? Yeah, I know, nobody wants to know that, but I'm going to say it anyway. The requirement that one must have "standing" in order to challenge a law in court. That is BULLSHIT. Challenging laws should be EASY. Making them should be hard.
The no-fly list. the TSA checking everyone before they board the plane to make sure they are not carrying means to do harm.
Pick one. One or the other is STUPID. It is pointless to have both.
Agree it is pointless and stupid, but ...
What about the many people on the list who are US citizens already residing in the US? They don't NEED visas. The list really does provide a framework to infringe, utterly without due process, the rights of people including US citizens. There is absolutely nothing preventing whoever puts people on the list from adding the names of EVERYONE ON THE PLANET whom they can identify.
I would modify that slightly. For "disprove", substitute "support or oppose". The solar eclipse observational experiments of Campbell, Eddington and others were undertaken in a thirst for knowledge to FIND OUT if one phenomenon predicted by general relativity was actually evident; not really to try to prove or disprove general relativity. If the measurements of positions of stars near the disk of the sun indicated departures that the theory predicted, the theory was supported. If the measurements did not so confirm, the theory would become doubted. The former turned out to be the case.
One itsy bitsy correction if you don't mind. That's not 10^36, 10^33, and 10^32 seconds. It's 10^-36, 10^-33, and 10^-32 seconds. It makes the difference between the big bang lasting far longer than the present estimated age of the universe, and the fraction of a billionth of a trillionth of a picoseond which it actually lasted.
Inflation was raging, crazy quick. It makes a nuclear explosion seem glacially slow.
Pssst. This is a bill of APPROPRIATIONS. As such, like any other appropriations bill, it does not tell anyone what they may or may not do. It furnishes them money to be used for specified functions and purposes. This particular bill says none of the money being furnished can be used for warrantless surveillance and for programs that force companies to create backdoors in their products.
Appropriations bills are very powerful when used to achieve denial because the Constitution says that they must originate in the House. Other kinds of bills may originate in the Senate, but appropriations bills, no. The House, all of which stands for election every two years, is therefore the most responsive of the branches to the people. If you can't get appropriations for something, you have to resort to the black budget, which is far smaller than the open budget.
Appropriations bills still have to pass the Senate and the White Houise before becoming effective law of the land, but the thing to note about appropriations bills is that they are enabling, not disabling.
If the House chooses to HAVE BALLS in the matter, the rogue administration is screwed trying to fund what the House doesn't want funded. Yeah, the Senate can amend the bill and send it back for reconsideration, but then the House can just give them the finger and say "sorry, denied, no candy, if you want funding at all you can take what we said in the first place, otherwise you're screwed". They could have done this with the ACA and they made a lot of noise that they would do it, but the rogue regime stamped its foot and said it would shut down arbitrarily selected functions of the government until it got its way. Instead of calling them on this tantrum, the House folded like a jellyfish and complied with everything the rogue regime wanted. And they could do so again in this case, but the point is, THEY DO HAVE THE POWER.
If instead the House chose to introduce a bill outright banning the undesired functions from being undertaken, they could certainly do so; the NSA is nominally subject to laws just like everybody else. But the Senate or White House could just outright ignore the bill and let it die, and the bill is stillborn. It could never become law. That is the problem with normal bills that are enabling (in this case, enabling of limits).
Please, please mod parent up.
What evidence, if I may ask?
Frankly, nothing could concern me less than making it work well with Windows. I am only interested in using it with an open source OS. I don't care in the least whether a hypothetical recreation of TrueCrypt works with Windows at all. Mod me down if it makes you feel good. It's only an personal preference.
If that is indeed the rationale behind his phrasing, then he appears to be crazy. He could just shut the fuck up rather spouting nonsense. Let the forker worry about making sure there are no compromises in the code. The code is not an enigma, for heaven's sake. It is written in a widely used computer language and subject to analysis.
I admit to finding it far-fetched that the feds could ORDER somebody to spout nonsense, rather than muzzling them, but I suppose in the end nothing is impossible.
I'm sure those of us using TrueCrypt on other OS's than Windows would be very illuminated to know why TrueCrypt's POSTULATED tight integration with Windows could possibly affect us.
I daresay you could also state "on-disk structures completely interoperable with TrueCrypt".
And how can he prove this?
I'm afraid a fork by definition can't be cleansed so it can't be traced back. What you're looking for is either a clean-room rewrite or a fork plus a middle finger. Yeah, you can do a rewrite without a clean-room, the implication being that you are referring to the original source for reference but not copying any of it, in which case you might have to go to a lot of trouble defending it.
BTW, for a long time now there has been what amounts to a fork. It is called RealCrypt. The sole purpose of it was to remove branding so as not to violate any of the terms of the license on the TrueCrypt source. It's fairly like the way Scientific Linux is built from a straight out fully legal copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux source with the branding removed.
TrueCrypt never sued RealCrypt, maybe because they had no motive to do so and didn't want to look like asses.
You just very succinctly expressed more insight than 99.9% of this discussion page. The only thing I would add is that the cease and desist letter would be very illuminating. It would have to give a face to the anonymous developer group, and give New Guys a chance to sink their teeth into that face in court. Let's see what happens when an NSL muzzle competes with the right to question witnesses in court and have the questions answered truthfully under penalty of perjury.
Of course New Guys might be operating in a jurisdiction where they could just file the cease and desist letter with today's garbage.
First, mod parent way up for informed thought processes; something that is very very scarce on this particular discussion page.
Second, OTOH, this is quite beside the point. Everywhere on this discussion page where it says "NSA", just assume it says "Feds" instead. Because the Feds are all in cahoots, and they have limitless power without recourse. The only two political parties in the US that matter numerically are in cahoots. All three branches of the US goverrnment are in cahoots. The US media is in cahoots with all of the preceding. Do you really care what bureau or bureaus in the vast bureaucracy was/were involved in the launching of the missile, or the issuance of the NSL, or the knock at the door ending in your arrest? Just know that it is the Feds, and their face is that of a ravening beast.
It depends on the referent of "ACC".
Just in passing, Anthropomorphic climate change is a malapropism.
Anthropogenic climate change is a term. As many terms are. it may be used to refer either to a particular theory of science, or to an imperative which is essentially religious zealotry. The phenomenon of ACC, and in particular ACC caused by CO2 contributed by human activity to the atmosphere, which is specifically what all the fuss is about, is supported by substantial scientific evidence. Let's skip the point that there is also some scientific avidence that refutes it. Let's waive that.
However, the zealotry is about the imperative of taking drastic action and spending vast amounts of treasure to ameliorate the ACC. The problem with the zealots is that they jump to the need for action without connecting the dots to lead to the necessity for, practicality of, and efficacy of, that action. They have not the slightest interest in connecting the dots, because it is a lot of work, and because connecting the dots might lead to an invalidation of their religiously-held imperative.
Some of the dots are:
* What is the quantitative extent and timing of the ACC if it runs its course? There exists much disagreement.
* What would the outcome be? Not just "OMG change bad", but what are the favorable and unfavorable points specifically?
* In short, what would the cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life be if it runs its course?
* What exactly is the proposed strategy of amelioration?
* In comparison, what would the cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life be if the proposed strategy of amelioration is adopted?
You won't find much discussion in those terms. Without belaboring all of the myriad of points which suggest themselves, just consider the truism. Making energy scarcer and more expensive has a cost in treasure, human lives, and quality of life.
Note: if you see yourself as having a genuine interest in exploring ACC, not one of the ACC religious zealots, then none of this can be taken as insulting you in any way. But if you deny that ACC zealotry exists in great preponderance and must be denied seizing the future hostage, then we do have a fundamental difference. If, on the other hand, you contend that anti-ACC zealotry also exists, I think we have a point of agreement.
I learned that the United Kingdom was short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in turn Great Britain encompassed England, Scotland, and Wales - i.e., the largest island of the British Isles.
Is this conceptualization completely obsolete, or have the terms just become fuzzy as usage devolves over the years?
Jeezum cripes! 20-30 MINUTES? You have a really good system. Mine takes 20-30 HOURS! In 20-30 minutes there might be a handful of slots just starting to populate. It's as if somebody is loading a paper tape on a 110 baud TTY to send me the guide data.
Insightful? Really?
1) This is really embarrassing, because 1 amp times 120 V = 120 W, not 12 W
2) Turning a Motorola cable box on or off is just a decoration. The lights go out, but the power drain is essentially the same whether on or off.
Failures were correlated with the amount of time the disk was spun up, so you should idle a drive not in active use.
That makes no logical sense unless the statement is missing a "not" somewhere, or unless you WANT failures.
It is true that enforcement does not take orders from judicial. They are constitutionally in executive's pocket.
Better to ask what recourse do The People have? Only the one which no power on earth can take away from them. That recourse which makes the blood run cold in government and people alike. The recourse of rebellion. If the grievances run deep enough, the scum will not succeed in defeating the rebellion when it finally comes.
Better for all if we can turn this around peacefully through grass roots upheaval in the political process.
It is not for anyone to be disgusted by the low regard in which the people hold ALL the branches of the government. It is for everyone to be disgusted at the actual problem, which is that the entire apparatus is riddled with corruption and arrgogant, contemptuous scheming and violation of the public interest.
And how many military divisions has the judicial branch? (apologies to Stalin) And the same question can be applied to the legislative branch.
Enforcement is assigned to the executive branch.
So yes, judicial can determine who has gone off the rails where, and it can find them in violation, but it can't send the police to arrest them.