Everytime someone make A LOT of money they do it by providing to the society something that solves some of societies problems. Unless we are talking about companies that are in the business of dealing drugs (tobaco companies, possibly fast food, etc), whoever created these companies freed up a lot of hastles from a lot of peoples lives so that those people can use that freed up time to take care of their lives. How many lives were saved by car manufacturers? Think about that the next time you drive your granfather to the hospital. Of course, cars also cause deaths, but the end-effect is that they improve lives. That's why people who make cars, medicine, search engines, paper, etc. do indeed save lives. They just do it indirectly -- by creating a world in which we don't live by fighting each other for a piece of bread. Whoever contributes most to the society, get to collect the largest fees in return. If you don't like it, kindly remove from your live all the benefits of modernity.
Give the poor liberals a break. They figured out how to use a video camera (at least Michael Moore did). They don't have time to figure out technology. They are too busy crying about on each other's shoulders about the evils of polution, lack of education, social inequality, lack of healthcare, etc. Figuring out how to use new technology? They can invent it sure (as Al Gore did), but produce it and bring its use to the market? Isn't that a job for those vicious industrialized conservatives?
Well, I could hope that you get modded as flaimbait, but I think it's better to just explain why you are wrong. Complex numbers are routinely used to talk about waves. Which could be relevant when talking about light. If you are not familiar with a concept than don't jump the nerds who talk about at a place which brands itself "news for nerds". We are here because we like ponder the details of how things work. If you don't, let us be or remove yourself.
You are right... mostly. If someone said "complex analysis", they would also be talking about math rather than talking math. The think of it is, when you talk about interpolating and extrapolating partial results that involve wave-form, you are very likely to use complex analysis. If for no other reason that complex numbers describe waves better (I really mean easier, less complicated, to avoid the pun) than the real ones do. So it is entirely possible that the acurate description of the process used to store pictures was to say that some complex (as in "involving sqrt(-1)") mathematics was used. Complex numbers are routinely used when describing waves because a complex number can be used to incororate both amplitude and phase of a wave.
Suffice it to say that anyone who wants to post to slashdot would definately have to register. Aaah... sweet civil disobedience of posting as AC. Won't that just ruin the moderator system?
The wars in the Middle East are supposed to be about reshaping the civlization. The statement about what constitutes ownership of an idea is an essential part of what is a civilization. So, yes, this is actually one of the most telling votes of Joe Biden's career.
This was brilliant. I was actually thinking as I was writting that plumbers is not a very good middle-of-the-way example because plumbing is expected to "just work" by everyone else, too. If you read the article to which the original slashdot article points, then you'll see that his point is essentially that the users expect IT to work as reliably and as transparently as plumbing. Of course, it can't because it is an always moving target, but his analogy with car manufacturers is acurate. But then again so is the post above that mentions that what would happen if people were started bothering mechanics with adjusting their seats. Anyway, I mostly wanted to say that the Gardner quote was absolutely brilliant.
Too many users are proud of their ignorance of technology. You don't see patients being proud of their ignorance what's going on with their body. So doctors feel venerated and act as such. Even plumbers know that their work is appreciated. Since technology works best when it works invisibly, IP workers are often met with the attitude of "what the f**k is wrong with you guys... oh, never mind... don't want to know.. just fix the damn thing". So they get trained to treat users as willful ignoramuses. That's just the nature of environment in which they work. I think it used to be better when computers had to be maintained MORE often. Their maintenance was seen as a noraml think and those who performed were seen as saving the day. So there was mutual respect.
I am saying actually that equality and justice are opposites of each other. Any individual either receives treatment from other individuals (i.e. society) that is a statistical average of the treatment those other individuals give to the rest of individuals (this would be equality) or he/she receives the treatment he deserves (that would be justice). So what I am saying is that in a system of "equality" you would have people of merit not getting their fair share and people lacking merit getting more than their fair share. In a system of justice you would not. I am also saying that a court system is a way correct injustice when it happens. Obviously, no court system can fix injustice completely, but the point of courts is to make steps in that direction. The less courts the system of courts makes steps in the direction of correcting injustice, the more the society must be called "lawless".
Equality is not right. People seem to confuse equality with justice. Everyone one should get what they deserve. In a crime-free society that would be ideally accomplished with exchange through trade of willing individuals. The problem with modern American society is not inequality. It is injustice. America no longer has a legal system. Access to courts is to expensive to be afforable for reasonable matters. Corporations blatantly screw consumers because consumers have no recourse. Insurance is mandatory for cars (in most states) and for doctors so insured have very little recourse against insurance companies (the causility here is not direct, but you can fill in the blanks), etc. Until a system is re-established in which everyone who breaks the law gets what they deserve (as opposed to say sitting on death row for 20 years) lawlessness will continue.
Yes, I have. And I agree with the previous poster. I've spent a great deal of time in the "brick city". And the poor living there have muuuch better living conditions than the UPPER middle class did in the former Soviet Union. These are both first hand accounts.
You are giving too much of a benefit of the doubt to the RIAA "experts". I bet you they are pretty sloppy since they are used to speaking from the position of power.
1. What measures will be taken to safeguard the integrity of the data and the data storage devices. You don't want your property destroyed in the process of investigation.
2. Ask for extensive access to all the equipment that will be used during the investigation to verify that the said equipment may not accidently harm your devices and data.
3. Ask for a comprehensive review of all the privacy-safeguarding mechanisms that the plaintiffs have in place for the retrieved data. Further, ask for an audit of the feasibility of the privacy safeguards as well as their effectiveness in actually protecting the privacy of the data.
This might have something to do with
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
how bad Suse has been lately. Despite all the deals they made with MS (recent news) they have a bigger problem. Suse has become fundamentally bad. 9.3 was great. 10.0 was ok (but much worse than 9.3). 10.1 can only be described as unbearable (wouldn't even install half the time). And 10.2 tried but couldn't really to improve on 10.1. FYI, it does install now... after days of synchonizing package information with suse website. Google search for "suse 10.1 sucks" yeielded more hits than I cared to count. Debian is having internal infighting. Until the dust settles, RedHat is all that's left.
I am going to just assume that it is your bias as someone who works in the security industry that makes you not understand that revealing any information (even as trivial as an encryption keys) cannot be demanded of you until you have been proven guilty of a crime. It doesn't matter if police needs a warrant for it. Short of matters of life and death (meaning investing an ongoing crime as opposed to a crime that already took place) investigators should not be able to demand your encryption keys. Once they have that right, you right to not self-incriminate is effectively gone. This law is invasive. I insist by my originat assertion that it is indicative of the newly-adapted british mentality of the need for an all-seeing state. I also insist that it is not only indicative of this mentality but is actually part of the system of all-seeing government. As "my" irrational fears, I was stating extreme examples of other people. These extreme examples were stated to demonstrate the basic psycological need that occurs to a much milder degree in all humans. Obviously, you have a vested interest in having an easier time to do your job and you would rather not give a hoot about people's psychological comfort while they are walking around in public places.
Since you decided to question my facts, I'll go ahead and point to my sources. Perhaps, I'll also use this opportunity to buttress the arguments. Not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public places is not indicative of criminal behavior. Again, you are in a public place. Privacy (or at least the feeling or privacy) is a basic psychologic need. There is a reason that people feel nervous when they are on stage. Many teenagers feel embarrased when they in public. There is other evidence to point out to the fact that lack of privacy causes distress. Knowing that you will be constantly recorded increases this level of distress. Why should the people who comitted no crimes feel this level of discomfort in public places? They are not on someone else's property. Being in public in a free society means that you are in a space which you partially own. Why should that come with distress. As for the "you would only want to hide information that is criminial from the investigators" argument, you should always have the freedom not to testify against yourself. The information could embarassing rather than incriminating. You should have the right to make a statement that you are assumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is not on you. Hiding your encryption keys would be one of the ways to make that statement. Ok... now for the references:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/20 24242http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/16 50256http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/04/17 50246http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/165 9233
The last one specifically mentions a BBC reference that shows that it is illegal to deny investigators access to you encrypted information (i.e., to deny them decryption keys). Are we still arguing?
To whoever modded this as troll:
1. Britain has the most public cameras per capita.
2. It is illegal in Britain to refuse to surrender encryption keys to the police if they ask for them.
3. The proposal to jail people who committed crimes is now entering (even if does not pass) the consiousness of the mainstream. In any other "free" country, it would only be considered by the fringes of society.
So was I really trolling? Is pointing out a trend in society trolling? As a comment to THIS article? Really?
Every company is now Microsoft. Microsoft was known in the early 90's for a company that made terrible products but had superb marketing. They kindda still are (nowadays they try to fix the bugs). But every company now spends more money on misleading the consumers in ways that allows them to claim a "misunderstanding", "disagreement", "difference of opinion", etc. The phone companies are very quickly becoming more notorious than the used car dealers. That combined with complete lack of laws (you can't really sue them for your damages) means that we are pretty much back to the 1920's. Consumer beware. The consumer protection laws are out the window. What noone is getting is that this CANNOT be a misunderstanding. This is deliberate. The guy says in his blog that he called 5 different people and they all gave him the same run-around. Jokes aside, there is no way that none of them can do math. Your story is indicative of the same trend. This is not the time scratch your head and ask yourself "how can I explain it to people so that they would get it". This is a time to write a very detailed letter to your congressman outlining a trend of corporate deception. Make sure you don't use words like "greed" in your letter. These corporations are not guilty of greed they are guilty of fraud. Greed is not a crime fraud is. Of course, you should make sure your congressman is not in Verizon's pockets before you write the letter. Otherewise, you'll just be wasting your time.
Who said they were in position of power? The last I heard we all agreed to pay their salaries to protect us from each other. We did not pay them salaries so they could protect themselves from us. DEMAND that police have no right to protect themselves before protecting innocent public or your are being suckered out of your tax money.
Slashdot Mirror
Everytime someone make A LOT of money they do it by providing to the society something that solves some of societies problems. Unless we are talking about companies that are in the business of dealing drugs (tobaco companies, possibly fast food, etc), whoever created these companies freed up a lot of hastles from a lot of peoples lives so that those people can use that freed up time to take care of their lives. How many lives were saved by car manufacturers? Think about that the next time you drive your granfather to the hospital. Of course, cars also cause deaths, but the end-effect is that they improve lives. That's why people who make cars, medicine, search engines, paper, etc. do indeed save lives. They just do it indirectly -- by creating a world in which we don't live by fighting each other for a piece of bread. Whoever contributes most to the society, get to collect the largest fees in return. If you don't like it, kindly remove from your live all the benefits of modernity.
Give the poor liberals a break. They figured out how to use a video camera (at least Michael Moore did). They don't have time to figure out technology. They are too busy crying about on each other's shoulders about the evils of polution, lack of education, social inequality, lack of healthcare, etc. Figuring out how to use new technology? They can invent it sure (as Al Gore did), but produce it and bring its use to the market? Isn't that a job for those vicious industrialized conservatives?
Well, I could hope that you get modded as flaimbait, but I think it's better to just explain why you are wrong. Complex numbers are routinely used to talk about waves. Which could be relevant when talking about light. If you are not familiar with a concept than don't jump the nerds who talk about at a place which brands itself "news for nerds". We are here because we like ponder the details of how things work. If you don't, let us be or remove yourself.
You are right... mostly. If someone said "complex analysis", they would also be talking about math rather than talking math. The think of it is, when you talk about interpolating and extrapolating partial results that involve wave-form, you are very likely to use complex analysis. If for no other reason that complex numbers describe waves better (I really mean easier, less complicated, to avoid the pun) than the real ones do. So it is entirely possible that the acurate description of the process used to store pictures was to say that some complex (as in "involving sqrt(-1)") mathematics was used. Complex numbers are routinely used when describing waves because a complex number can be used to incororate both amplitude and phase of a wave.
Surely, you mean "complicated". Mathematics already has a use for the word "complex".
Suffice it to say that anyone who wants to post to slashdot would definately have to register. Aaah... sweet civil disobedience of posting as AC. Won't that just ruin the moderator system?
That's why it's a test -- not the test.
I'll just let my signature speak for me.
The wars in the Middle East are supposed to be about reshaping the civlization. The statement about what constitutes ownership of an idea is an essential part of what is a civilization. So, yes, this is actually one of the most telling votes of Joe Biden's career.
This was brilliant. I was actually thinking as I was writting that plumbers is not a very good middle-of-the-way example because plumbing is expected to "just work" by everyone else, too. If you read the article to which the original slashdot article points, then you'll see that his point is essentially that the users expect IT to work as reliably and as transparently as plumbing. Of course, it can't because it is an always moving target, but his analogy with car manufacturers is acurate. But then again so is the post above that mentions that what would happen if people were started bothering mechanics with adjusting their seats. Anyway, I mostly wanted to say that the Gardner quote was absolutely brilliant.
Too many users are proud of their ignorance of technology. You don't see patients being proud of their ignorance what's going on with their body. So doctors feel venerated and act as such. Even plumbers know that their work is appreciated. Since technology works best when it works invisibly, IP workers are often met with the attitude of "what the f**k is wrong with you guys... oh, never mind... don't want to know.. just fix the damn thing". So they get trained to treat users as willful ignoramuses. That's just the nature of environment in which they work. I think it used to be better when computers had to be maintained MORE often. Their maintenance was seen as a noraml think and those who performed were seen as saving the day. So there was mutual respect.
I am saying actually that equality and justice are opposites of each other. Any individual either receives treatment from other individuals (i.e. society) that is a statistical average of the treatment those other individuals give to the rest of individuals (this would be equality) or he/she receives the treatment he deserves (that would be justice). So what I am saying is that in a system of "equality" you would have people of merit not getting their fair share and people lacking merit getting more than their fair share. In a system of justice you would not. I am also saying that a court system is a way correct injustice when it happens. Obviously, no court system can fix injustice completely, but the point of courts is to make steps in that direction. The less courts the system of courts makes steps in the direction of correcting injustice, the more the society must be called "lawless".
Equality is not right. People seem to confuse equality with justice. Everyone one should get what they deserve. In a crime-free society that would be ideally accomplished with exchange through trade of willing individuals. The problem with modern American society is not inequality. It is injustice. America no longer has a legal system. Access to courts is to expensive to be afforable for reasonable matters. Corporations blatantly screw consumers because consumers have no recourse. Insurance is mandatory for cars (in most states) and for doctors so insured have very little recourse against insurance companies (the causility here is not direct, but you can fill in the blanks), etc. Until a system is re-established in which everyone who breaks the law gets what they deserve (as opposed to say sitting on death row for 20 years) lawlessness will continue.
Yes, I have. And I agree with the previous poster. I've spent a great deal of time in the "brick city". And the poor living there have muuuch better living conditions than the UPPER middle class did in the former Soviet Union. These are both first hand accounts.
You are giving too much of a benefit of the doubt to the RIAA "experts". I bet you they are pretty sloppy since they are used to speaking from the position of power.
1. What measures will be taken to safeguard the integrity of the data and the data storage devices. You don't want your property destroyed in the process of investigation.
2. Ask for extensive access to all the equipment that will be used during the investigation to verify that the said equipment may not accidently harm your devices and data.
3. Ask for a comprehensive review of all the privacy-safeguarding mechanisms that the plaintiffs have in place for the retrieved data. Further, ask for an audit of the feasibility of the privacy safeguards as well as their effectiveness in actually protecting the privacy of the data.
how bad Suse has been lately. Despite all the deals they made with MS (recent news) they have a bigger problem. Suse has become fundamentally bad. 9.3 was great. 10.0 was ok (but much worse than 9.3). 10.1 can only be described as unbearable (wouldn't even install half the time). And 10.2 tried but couldn't really to improve on 10.1. FYI, it does install now... after days of synchonizing package information with suse website. Google search for "suse 10.1 sucks" yeielded more hits than I cared to count. Debian is having internal infighting. Until the dust settles, RedHat is all that's left.
I am going to just assume that it is your bias as someone who works in the security industry that makes you not understand that revealing any information (even as trivial as an encryption keys) cannot be demanded of you until you have been proven guilty of a crime. It doesn't matter if police needs a warrant for it. Short of matters of life and death (meaning investing an ongoing crime as opposed to a crime that already took place) investigators should not be able to demand your encryption keys. Once they have that right, you right to not self-incriminate is effectively gone. This law is invasive. I insist by my originat assertion that it is indicative of the newly-adapted british mentality of the need for an all-seeing state. I also insist that it is not only indicative of this mentality but is actually part of the system of all-seeing government. As "my" irrational fears, I was stating extreme examples of other people. These extreme examples were stated to demonstrate the basic psycological need that occurs to a much milder degree in all humans. Obviously, you have a vested interest in having an easier time to do your job and you would rather not give a hoot about people's psychological comfort while they are walking around in public places.
Yes, in my post above I mentioned a number of sources that previously appeared on slashdot. Here's one: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/165 9233
Since you decided to question my facts, I'll go ahead and point to my sources. Perhaps, I'll also use this opportunity to buttress the arguments. Not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public places is not indicative of criminal behavior. Again, you are in a public place. Privacy (or at least the feeling or privacy) is a basic psychologic need. There is a reason that people feel nervous when they are on stage. Many teenagers feel embarrased when they in public. There is other evidence to point out to the fact that lack of privacy causes distress. Knowing that you will be constantly recorded increases this level of distress. Why should the people who comitted no crimes feel this level of discomfort in public places? They are not on someone else's property. Being in public in a free society means that you are in a space which you partially own. Why should that come with distress. As for the "you would only want to hide information that is criminial from the investigators" argument, you should always have the freedom not to testify against yourself. The information could embarassing rather than incriminating. You should have the right to make a statement that you are assumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is not on you. Hiding your encryption keys would be one of the ways to make that statement. Ok... now for the references: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/20 24242
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/16 50256
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/04/17 50246
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/165 9233
The last one specifically mentions a BBC reference that shows that it is illegal to deny investigators access to you encrypted information (i.e., to deny them decryption keys). Are we still arguing?
To whoever modded this as troll: 1. Britain has the most public cameras per capita. 2. It is illegal in Britain to refuse to surrender encryption keys to the police if they ask for them. 3. The proposal to jail people who committed crimes is now entering (even if does not pass) the consiousness of the mainstream. In any other "free" country, it would only be considered by the fringes of society. So was I really trolling? Is pointing out a trend in society trolling? As a comment to THIS article? Really?
to put into practice the most invasive practices of the "free" world.
Every company is now Microsoft. Microsoft was known in the early 90's for a company that made terrible products but had superb marketing. They kindda still are (nowadays they try to fix the bugs). But every company now spends more money on misleading the consumers in ways that allows them to claim a "misunderstanding", "disagreement", "difference of opinion", etc. The phone companies are very quickly becoming more notorious than the used car dealers. That combined with complete lack of laws (you can't really sue them for your damages) means that we are pretty much back to the 1920's. Consumer beware. The consumer protection laws are out the window. What noone is getting is that this CANNOT be a misunderstanding. This is deliberate. The guy says in his blog that he called 5 different people and they all gave him the same run-around. Jokes aside, there is no way that none of them can do math. Your story is indicative of the same trend. This is not the time scratch your head and ask yourself "how can I explain it to people so that they would get it". This is a time to write a very detailed letter to your congressman outlining a trend of corporate deception. Make sure you don't use words like "greed" in your letter. These corporations are not guilty of greed they are guilty of fraud. Greed is not a crime fraud is. Of course, you should make sure your congressman is not in Verizon's pockets before you write the letter. Otherewise, you'll just be wasting your time.
Who said they were in position of power? The last I heard we all agreed to pay their salaries to protect us from each other. We did not pay them salaries so they could protect themselves from us. DEMAND that police have no right to protect themselves before protecting innocent public or your are being suckered out of your tax money.
here's a $100,000,000 bone
the guy sounds like an MS soundbite now