$ host honda.com honda.com A 164.109.25.194 honda.com A 207.130.95.62
164.109.25.194 responds to telnet on 80 but it does not serve any web pages (which is clearly visible from your own "rebuttal" where you are bailing out with the telnet escape sequence after it timed out on you). Show the complete HTTP sequence. Or even get an HTTP error 400 to your request like you got with the actual honda site.
207.130.95.62 persistently times out even connecting, which you made sure to avoid showing.
Neither of the honda.com hosts is actually hosting a viable HTTP service (or they might be restricted to Japan based on IP ranges or some such).
$host www.honda.com www.honda.com A 164.109.25.248
$host honda.com honda.com A 207.130.95.62 honda.com A 164.109.25.194
That's all I am going to say to that rant. You figure it out.
Re:Try Some Reading Comprehension
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 1
Its about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
My religion is that there is no conclusive evidence of God existing, or otherwise.
I win. You lose.
Oops. It would seem just declared a jihad on me. So much for the "freedom of religion" bullshit. Its "any religion as long as it is my religion" kind of "freedom" you believe in, isn't it?
It's also one thing to fire all US attys at the start of a term and replace them with competent personnel. They fired these folks selectively, in mid-term, and replaced them with a bunch of Bible-spouting fruitloops from Jerry Falwell's "law school."
No argument here. I tried to cover that with the "pretense of competence" bit. But you are probably correct, the time to be diplomatic is quite past. "Fruitloops" does sount just about right.
Of course they had ties, they are middle easterners.. they all have ties as they are all the same at their core.
If you don't see that you are delusional, and dangerous.
Aaahh. Gut gut. Ve like your zinking. All middle östlich peoples are very bad. All brau and dirty und speak unzivilized sprachen. And zey hav all ze money. Ze money zey take from gut hard working German peoples. German peoples vho believe an gut Gott und Christ. Unlike zem middle östlich peoples. Bad peoples. Untermenschen.
But feer not, Der Führer haz all in hand. Zoon ve vill hav our day. Ve vill hav der final zolution for zem middle östlich untermenschen vho do not knov zeir place. Just vait.
I am surprised that we are investigating a 100% legal firing of attorneys. President Clinton fired ALL of them when he came into office. Aren't any of you disgusted by the waste of resources on a non-issue?
There is a major difference. It goes to intent.
It is one thing to fire them all at the beginning of one's term, indiscrimnately, which many presidents have done, to "start fresh" (although prior to the Patriot Act all such appointments had to go be approved by the Senate and as such required at least pretense of competence).
It is quite another to fire them only when they start conducting "inconvenient" investigations. Say Nixon's attempt at firing the prosecutor who decided to look too closely at Watergate. Or if Clinton had somehow tried to fire Kenneth Starr.
If any sort of this nonsensical "Intellectual Property" will become the standard way of producing research results (as opposed to old-fashioned attribution, to which the students have full rights and the University a moral obligation to protect) then this will mean the death of acedemic science. Period.
If every piece of every half-baked paper will cost $50 to read it, a typical researcher will end up with no viable access to any sort of external research.
But of course the further escalation of "Intellectual Property"-related stupidities is only bound to increase in pace, given how hell bent the "opinion makers" are on introducing greed "motivators" where they were never needed or wanted in order to divide and parcel out the body of human knowledge amongst the "worthy" mega-corporations and billionaires who will become the de-facto gate-keepers to that knowledge and subsequently, for all practical purposes, Lords and Masters of the rest of the humanity.
And that is the crux of the matter. RMS has his ideology, no doubt, but those principles do not seem to be wired together with violent loathing and base hate of all the other ways of doing things.
So he also tends to attract people who are of similar mindset.
For the record, even though I find extreme libertarians amusingly and hopelessly misguided, I wish them and all the ideologically related projects, such as BSD, all the luck (not in small part because I think they'll need it). As long of course as they do not attempt to conduct outright warfare on all those "heathen unbelievers" around them in the name of "personal responsibility" or "objectivist values".
So RMS is a conniving, underhanded, scheming commie overlord who spreads his powers via mind-control rays because... people happen to agree with him (as I do) while he also somehow manages to avoid getting into psychotic episodes and tantrums on every mailing list? And the FSF is a dastardly smokescreen to hide those massive "inherent logical flaws in his ideology itself" from the poor, innocent, beffudled public, no? Could you enumerate some of those "flaws" so that we can see the horror in its full, horrific glory? Don't be shy!
Then Theo is "not pretending" and "fights his own battles" because he personally flies off the handle at the slightest provocation, viciously growling and barking at everybody who dares to go near his "turf", no? Which of course (unlike RMSs devious civility) is a "respectable" (according to you) activity... resulting in the BSD project being relegated to the fringes of FOSS. Because Theo is ideologially "pure" "victim" of RMS's soon-to-be October Revolution, part deux, no doubt..
I am developing a strong suspicion that you are one of those anti-GPL zealots who see Theo as a prominent presence in the pantheon of libertarian saints. Subsequently no possible action of his can result the loss of your "respect" for him. Conversly RMS is the Evil Incarnate, sent here by the Satan himself, in order to lead the innocent but ignorant flock away their straight, "natural" and "obvious" destiny of Libertopia (where all software is either 100% commercial or BSD).
The GP is insinuating that one can "always" go to the 2nd level domain instead to its "www" sub-domain and get to the website. I merely pointed out that in many configurations (specially large, multi-lingual sites) that is not true. If you alias the virtual sites you still haven't avoided the problem because only one of those can be aliased to "mydomain.com" (which in case of such large sites usually goes to the "Wold-wide" site which then asks you to select your country and then redirects onto "uk.mydomain.com" or what not).
All of this is further complicated by use of JavaScript on such sites which accesses all sorts of back-end URLs.
No...it's just that the guy who wrote the GPL is a raving megalomaniac, who also enjoys falsely leading people into thinking that he's actually the complete opposite.
I am not arguing that RMS is bereft of a sizable ego. But he was not involved in this, or as a matter of fact in most of the GPL/BSD-related flamewars. Unlike Theo who somehow seems to find his way into every single one of them.
Some of us tend to have issues with such people; it's part of the whole "extreme libertarianism" thing, you understand.
And therefore you don't have "issues" with Theo? Then I believe your stance has a name. It is called: hypocritical.
Err, but this will not work if the web server on that host is using virtual website configuration, that is it has multiple sites tied to one (or group of) IP addresses. In many such cases the virtual sites are associated with the a full URL, such as "www.asus.com". So by going to "asus.com" you are not only not guaranteed to get the same site but even if you do the first link on that site might turn out to be an absolute one. And back you go to the broken "www" subdomain.
Arguing about the BSD license should not mean arguing about BSD in its entirety.
Of course. But I am not sure if that is how Theo preceives things. Shall we say that the size of his ego is somewhat less then the size of the known universe?
The BSD project, just like Linux and various other GPL/MIT/Mozilla/WhatNot licensed ones attract all sorts of individuals for all sorts of reasons. Some ideological, some practical. So it would be indeed unfair to paint all BSD developers and the BSD project as a whole with one brush.
But you gotta admit that Theo is doing his damnest to always position himself front and center if any BSD-project or BSD-license related controversy.
Subsequently many people end up associating the whole of BSD with Theo's antics.
He (and many extreme libertarians who congregate around him) see GPL as a Communist plot. We are out to get their precious bodily fluids contaminated or some such.
Subsequently any action on the part of BSD developers (including wholesale code stealing) is automatically justified (or a mere "mistake" when caught) and if a GPL project asks for something to be dual-licensed... oh whoa! Quote theo: "OVER MY DEAD BODY".
To further illustrate your point, people should look at the source code some of those companies are forced to release, either before going belly up or due to some other circumstances.
My favourite example is the supreme abomination which is the evily hacked up Zaurus kernel (as released by SHARP). The thing "compiles" with about 500+ warnings to begin with. And that is only an early outside indication of the rot within. Its like a vile smell on a corpse trying to warn the unwary away.
For spectacularly and obviously misguided closed source code take look at how Samsung concocted their printer/scanner drivers for Linux. Its frightening.
And of course, just like you, I did work with closed source corporate projects. That stuff can give one nightmares.
You must have great friends, because going up against a corporate isn't cheap. I used to work for a top tier law firm, and there'd have to be very good cause to consider taking such a case on pro bono.
Young, up and coming lawyers looking to make a name for themselves. Plus there would be a good chance of a settlement substantial enough to make it worthwile. And they know that I would let them have whatever they could kick out of these scumbuckets.
Actually these idiots are lucky that I am not in their area of service and that I did not go up to sign up any of my customers for that EVDO plan based on Verison's "unlimited" access claims.
Most of my clients use Terminal Services based Application Servers and that is the only reason for them to use anything like EVDO in a business context. Which of course would immediately result in me running afoul Verison's lies when confronted with the service contract.
Next stop: court. Crooked mega-corporate assholes like Verison do push my buttons in the wrong way and I do happen to have access to pro-bono corporate lawyering. They would have been outta luck in a short order.
What really surprises me that they have not gotten their asses sued off yet. I am sure that there are many, many people in my position and with similar resources in Verison's area of service.
Or perheaps they did get sued and innevietably lost but managed to negotiate non-disclosure agreements in exchange for increased monetary settlement. Who knows?
So in other words the stupid idiots forbid access to any server hosted application with a steady data flow. On an "unlimited" plan marketed to business people.
Looks like the Verison imbeciles wish to have "business" customers who would fork money over for these EVDO accounts and then use them to... browse static or nearly static corporate web pages. But watch out for AJAX or anything that actually transmits... oh horrors!... data back and forth!
"Verison EVDO! The first network designed just for Pointy-hair Bosses! Sign up now and you will get a coupon for 50% off the price of your Lobotomy!"
And of course mobile online gamers or any other "non-business" user with 1/2 a clue who would need an "unlimited" account is the mortal enemy. Such a bastard might actually want to get what they advertised to lure him to Verison.
Mouth breathing, slack jawed, spittle spewing cretins indeed. Greed rotted their brains to the core.
Like throwing up unrelated argument after unrelated argument as each one proves to be nonsense? If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have to keep throwing out random pieces of the bill - you'd just state the problematic one and that would be that.
Yes I can imagine that to someone with a comprehension disorder any sort of reasoning more nuanced and complicated then finding a passage in some law stating "We grant ourselves all powers, nyah, nyah" results in a string of "unrelated arguments".
Funnier yet, I did state the problematic section but my enumeration of its problems flew over your head.
I will spell it out again, so that you have yet another opportunity for this information achieving orbital velocity over your cranium: the Bill C-416 contains passages which define "authorized persons" in contradictory ways and it also contains passages which create purposeful ambiguity of the precedence of "regulations" versus the word of the Minister, CSIS personell, etc. And those are only two areas which become patently obvious to anyone reading that dreck even casually. I am sure there is more where that came from.
That is so because people who crafted this bill were clearly counting on the public performing your kind of numbskulled "analysis" while being intent on creating clever loopholes and ambiguous interpretations to accomodate their ulterior motives while also affording themselves plausible deniability.
All of which of course is tad more complicated then your modest request for me to find a passage stating "... and then we rule all with impunity" or something to that effect.
You didn't. You couldn't.
Not only I could, I did so in more then one way.
Hence, you've proved[1] quite clearly that you don't understand the bill - and that you don't give a damn about your ignorance
One can only marvel at this. So your desperation at being unable to present any coherent counter argument goes by the name of "proof" in your delusional universe while your opponent's ability to produce inconvenient to you arguments is called "ignorance".
- so there's no further point in arguing with you.
Ah yes, the oldest one in the book: "We, our Royal Majesty, are so clever and you the peon are so beneath Our Infinite Wisdom that We simply will not be bothered with all that refutation and logic stuff... We declare Ourselves Victorious. So there. Be gone peasant, your presence offends Us!"
And thus I accept your concession of this argument.
Your self-imposed delusions are stronger than my patience for fixing them.
The only thing requiring "fixing" here is your ego-impeded arrogance-drunk "thought process". If you did not start this argument with the presumption of your own superiority, you would not have to engage in such pathetic rethoric and tortured logic to somehow attempt to "save face". So your patience is running out because (unlike many other people) I am not going to be intimidated by your self-assured, smug attitude. Which, judging from your increasingly unhinged rantings, came as a shock to you.
The simple fact is that bill C-74, which is identical to this one, has already been examined by privacy advocates and found to not allow warrantless wiretaps.
This particular logical fallacy (a great favourite of yours which you have attempted to use multiple times) is called "argumentum ad verecundiam".
Whatever your personal grudge against governments, they're simply not being as evil as you're claiming, in this particular instance. Get over it.
Governments are not evil. It is the individual people within them who are. History demonstrates many, many times what happens when such individuals manage to manipulate the voters, the legislators and the gove
Rich people (especially smart rich people) are more important than everyone else. What's so hard about that to understand?
It is hard to understand for those of us who -- based upon careful analysis of empirical evidence and the theoretical foundations of the seemingly unquestionably accepted economic and social phillosphies -- came to the conclusion that the supposed corellation of wealth and "merit to the society" (and thus by implication the "importance" of an individual to the rest of us) is one of those Big Lies which some of the more infamous politicians of old were so fond of.
Once you realize that, the "importance" of such people and that of two-bit feudal thugs with a band of henchmen -- also known as the Nobility -- becomes essentially one and the same, with the provision that the method of acquisition of "importance" has "improved" from that involving rusty swords and blunt objects to more intellectual manipulation of those being rendered less "important" -- on average that is.
However, the old and true methodology is still applied with glee by some practitioners. For more information see: Haliburton, Blackwater, Unocal, KBR, Carlyle Group etc.
Your original claim was that crypto is "effectively outlawed" in the UK.
No, my claim was that, quote: "these regulations already exist", which was in reference to my earler (sarcastic) post about the wants and desires of various Psycho Authoritarians.
Specifically I later enumerated France (which you are studiously ignoring) and Britain as examples of regulations passing dealing with demands on escrow keys, restricting or outright banning encryption. Both of which examples are correct, Britan being however less restrictive then France, which situation the Home Office is desperately attempting to "remedy".
That claim was wrong, for the simple reason that part 3 of this Act is not the law! (At least insofar as law enforcement officers' options are concerned.)
Again, the bill was passed as a whole. The internal meanderings of the government were the only thing which saved the population from the Section 3 being activated. The whims of some governmental functionaries are not equivalent to the "law". The authorization was given, these functionaries simply chose not to act on it. True, the effect was that the officers in the field could not use that portion of the bill in practice, but this is not what I claimed. I only indicated that the "regulations already exist". And they did.
Police in the UK have no way to compel you to turn over your encryption key. Whether this changes in the future as a result of part 3 being brought into force is cause for speculation and even concern, but the simple fact remains that something which might happen is not the same as something that has happened.
This of course is a strawman, since the only one who is claiming that the ordinary British police had such power in practice is you. I only claimed that the "regulation was passed", which it was. Authorization to the government was given. Again, the government chose not to act on that authorisation and subsequently its low-level functionaries, such as the police, were not able to use it to put people in jail.
Moreover, you're extra-wrong, due to the fact that "crypto is outlawed" is a far cry from "can be compelled to turn over encryption keys". The most obvious difference is that if crypto is truly outlawed, the government can observe everyone's communications, all the time. By contrast, if you're forced to turn over an encryption key, you know the government is observing those communication channels, making it only useful as a post-hoc means of collecting evidence. Very different.
And now you are engaging in sad sophistry. So an ability of government to have all communications intercepted in clear text at any time is not paramount to banning encryption from the hands of citizens in relation to the government?! You are sinking lower and lower in your desperate attempts to somehow show yourself being "right" no matter what. Watch it, your ego is showing. Its unseemly.
15. (6) An order made by the Minister under subsection (1) prevails over any orders made by the Governor in Council under section 30 and over the regulations, to the extent of any inconsistency.
Note the words prevails over... the regulations
And what is the "subsection (1)"?
15. (1) The Minister may, if in the Minister's opinion it is necessary to do so, order a telecommunications service provider
(a) to comply with any obligation under subsection 6(1) in a manner or within a time that the Minister specifies;
And section 6(1)?
6. (1) Telecommunications service providers, in connection with the interception of a communication, shall, in accordance with any regulations, have the capability to do -- and, when requested to do so by an authorized person or by that person's authority, do -- the following:
Get it? A word of the Minister overrides any regulations dealing with "interception of transmissions".
Explicitely.
i.e., "authorized" means "authorized under existing laws" means has a warrant.
Except at the whim of the Minister, anybody "authorized" from CSIS etc.
a) The website in question was linked to in the submission. RTFA.
Which of course guarantees its unchallengable accuracy, renders the contents therein the Truth And Only Truth and otherwise puts it beyond the realm of any criticism, right?
b) I have "mangled" nothing, and show all my sources. RTFA.
You have only despertately attempted to use other people's opinions, re-interpretted by you as the Holy Dictum by which everyone should obide. Then you quoted those people's opinions as "proof".
c) The website chosen by the submitter notes that bill C-74 is not merely "related" but identical.
And I already told you that I did not analyse bill C-74 because it being defeated and long gone makes it wholly irrelevant to any new pending legislation. Furthermore, my doubt about its "identical" status stemmed from the obvious inacuracy of the iterpretation of Bill C-416 by one of your Holy Unquestionable Sources you quoted.
If you're going to rant and be abusive, at least try to be right.
All the ranting here is done by you. And being wrong. Which renders this bit of "advice" quite hilarious.
I have not looked at bill C-74 in detail, since it is long defeated -- as opposed to Bill C-416 which is the topic of this Slashdot submission -- but that website which you keep quoting (instead of the bill in question) contradicts itself in its own FAQ. Bill C-416 clearly does not require a warrant for interception of communications to occur:
Obligations Concerning INTERCEPTIONS
6. (1) Telecommunications service providers, in connection with the interception of a communication, shall, in accordance with any regulations, have the capability to do -- and, when requested to do so by AN AUTHORIZED PERSON or by that person's authority, do -- the following:
(a) provide the intercepted communication to the AUTHORIZED PERSONS;
(b) if the intercepted communication is encoded, compressed, encrypted or otherwise treated
... and then it goes on about the measures required to decrypt the intercepted data
This is not merely about "IP addresses and names".
The reason I quoted the definition of the "authorized person" is because all sections of the bill use that definition! That is why the lack of any warrant requirement in all sections of the bill is so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The word "warrant" does not even appear in the bill once. Words "court order" appear only once in one paragraph of the "Miscellaneous" section (23 - dealing with simple enumeration of services provided to the subject under surveilance) where they were apparently forgotten to be deleted.
Why are you so insistent on mischaracterizing what this bill is about? There are valid privacy concerns regarding the "IP address from name" provision without you pretending the bill is something it's not.
Why are you insisting that we keep our heads in the sand, as you do? Why are you so insistent on misconstruding what the bill C-416 says and demanding that we take a (mangled by you) word of some website (or unrelated bill C-74) over what's in the bill C-416 itself? Indeed, your kind of nonsense just makes you look foolish, and undercuts the efforts of people concerned about the ecroaching powers of police by your desperate attempts at creating an illusion that serious assaults on our liberty are of a far lesser scope then they really are, solely so that you can satisfy your over-inflated ego.
Your obsession with slippery-slope fallacious bullshit has earned you a spot on my Foes list. Grow a brain.
Says an Anonymous Coward. If I am to be a foe of every idiot AC who would keep on whining about me talking about "slippery slopes" all the way to cheerfully getting his ass injected with a biometric RFID chip for "his own protection", then I do welcome it gladly. It's a badge of honour.
You do know that "monitoring" can be rather benign, don't you? As far as I know, it's perfectly legal for the police to keep an eye on your house from public property, or watch where you go in public.
That is what the NKVD, Gestapo and the Stasi insisted on too.
Actually no, following you around based on your suspicious "speach" (such as your distaste for some politician) is precisely something the KGB would do. In real Constitutional Democracies the police has very restricted set of tasks, none of which include mass surveilance and following people around based on what they say. The fact that most so-called "democracies" have been slipping into police states for a very long time, up to the point that some goofuses start to think that such surveilance is "legal" and "normal" is a sad testimony to power of the most destructive anti-democratic weapon: the sheep-like nature of the citizenry of these places. I fear that we will have to go through some really dark ages of state terror and tyranny before a new Enlightenment comes about when the assorted knuckleheads realize that being able to watch the idiot box and gorging oneself at McDonalds is not worth being a worthless serf with no rights.
That is, if you said "I want to assassinate Mr. X!" they could watch your movements, and warn Mr. X's bodyguards if you put on what appeared to be body armour and started racing to a conference he was holding.
And that is how fascism takes hold. What if you said "Down with Mr. X!"? Nothing wrong then with 24/7 surveilance of you, your spouse, your kids? What about if you go to a rally of 100,000 people who shouted "Off with Mr.X's Head!"? 100,000 targets for surveilance, no? How about cameras on every corner? Or better yet some new snazzy device called the "two-way-telescreen"? That would solve this "problem" in no time, woundn't it?
The police have only the right to stop you should you show up with a gun aimed at Mr. X. Then they can investigate you. Great evil comes from attempts by Psychopatic Authoritarians of all stripes to conduct pre-emptive surveilance and "predictive" crime-fighting. Because for those to work, we have to accept complete loss of privacy, thought-police and outright tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
You are such a phony.
164.109.25.194 responds to telnet on 80 but it does not serve any web pages (which is clearly visible from your own "rebuttal" where you are bailing out with the telnet escape sequence after it timed out on you). Show the complete HTTP sequence. Or even get an HTTP error 400 to your request like you got with the actual honda site.
207.130.95.62 persistently times out even connecting, which you made sure to avoid showing.
Neither of the honda.com hosts is actually hosting a viable HTTP service (or they might be restricted to Japan based on IP ranges or some such).
Sigh.
That's all I am going to say to that rant. You figure it out.
My religion is that there is no conclusive evidence of God existing, or otherwise.
Oops. It would seem just declared a jihad on me. So much for the "freedom of religion" bullshit. Its "any religion as long as it is my religion" kind of "freedom" you believe in, isn't it?
Bigot.
No argument here. I tried to cover that with the "pretense of competence" bit. But you are probably correct, the time to be diplomatic is quite past. "Fruitloops" does sount just about right.
Aaahh. Gut gut. Ve like your zinking. All middle östlich peoples are very bad. All brau and dirty und speak unzivilized sprachen. And zey hav all ze money. Ze money zey take from gut hard working German peoples. German peoples vho believe an gut Gott und Christ. Unlike zem middle östlich peoples. Bad peoples. Untermenschen.
But feer not, Der Führer haz all in hand. Zoon ve vill hav our day. Ve vill hav der final zolution for zem middle östlich untermenschen vho do not knov zeir place. Just vait.
Um. You did meen zem Juden, ja?
There is a major difference. It goes to intent.
It is one thing to fire them all at the beginning of one's term, indiscrimnately, which many presidents have done, to "start fresh" (although prior to the Patriot Act all such appointments had to go be approved by the Senate and as such required at least pretense of competence).
It is quite another to fire them only when they start conducting "inconvenient" investigations. Say Nixon's attempt at firing the prosecutor who decided to look too closely at Watergate. Or if Clinton had somehow tried to fire Kenneth Starr.
If any sort of this nonsensical "Intellectual Property" will become the standard way of producing research results (as opposed to old-fashioned attribution, to which the students have full rights and the University a moral obligation to protect) then this will mean the death of acedemic science. Period.
If every piece of every half-baked paper will cost $50 to read it, a typical researcher will end up with no viable access to any sort of external research.
But of course the further escalation of "Intellectual Property"-related stupidities is only bound to increase in pace, given how hell bent the "opinion makers" are on introducing greed "motivators" where they were never needed or wanted in order to divide and parcel out the body of human knowledge amongst the "worthy" mega-corporations and billionaires who will become the de-facto gate-keepers to that knowledge and subsequently, for all practical purposes, Lords and Masters of the rest of the humanity.
I foresee troubled waters ahead.
And that is the crux of the matter. RMS has his ideology, no doubt, but those principles do not seem to be wired together with violent loathing and base hate of all the other ways of doing things.
So he also tends to attract people who are of similar mindset.
For the record, even though I find extreme libertarians amusingly and hopelessly misguided, I wish them and all the ideologically related projects, such as BSD, all the luck (not in small part because I think they'll need it). As long of course as they do not attempt to conduct outright warfare on all those "heathen unbelievers" around them in the name of "personal responsibility" or "objectivist values".
Wait, let me get this straight...
So RMS is a conniving, underhanded, scheming commie overlord who spreads his powers via mind-control rays because ... people happen to agree with him (as I do) while he also somehow manages to avoid getting into psychotic episodes and tantrums on every mailing list? And the FSF is a dastardly smokescreen to hide those massive "inherent logical flaws in his ideology itself" from the poor, innocent, beffudled public, no? Could you enumerate some of those "flaws" so that we can see the horror in its full, horrific glory? Don't be shy!
Then Theo is "not pretending" and "fights his own battles" because he personally flies off the handle at the slightest provocation, viciously growling and barking at everybody who dares to go near his "turf", no? Which of course (unlike RMSs devious civility) is a "respectable" (according to you) activity ... resulting in the BSD project being relegated to the fringes of FOSS. Because Theo is ideologially "pure" "victim" of RMS's soon-to-be October Revolution, part deux, no doubt..
I am developing a strong suspicion that you are one of those anti-GPL zealots who see Theo as a prominent presence in the pantheon of libertarian saints. Subsequently no possible action of his can result the loss of your "respect" for him. Conversly RMS is the Evil Incarnate, sent here by the Satan himself, in order to lead the innocent but ignorant flock away their straight, "natural" and "obvious" destiny of Libertopia (where all software is either 100% commercial or BSD).
That does not matter in this case.
The GP is insinuating that one can "always" go to the 2nd level domain instead to its "www" sub-domain and get to the website. I merely pointed out that in many configurations (specially large, multi-lingual sites) that is not true. If you alias the virtual sites you still haven't avoided the problem because only one of those can be aliased to "mydomain.com" (which in case of such large sites usually goes to the "Wold-wide" site which then asks you to select your country and then redirects onto "uk.mydomain.com" or what not).
All of this is further complicated by use of JavaScript on such sites which accesses all sorts of back-end URLs.
I am not arguing that RMS is bereft of a sizable ego. But he was not involved in this, or as a matter of fact in most of the GPL/BSD-related flamewars. Unlike Theo who somehow seems to find his way into every single one of them.
And therefore you don't have "issues" with Theo? Then I believe your stance has a name. It is called: hypocritical.
Err, but this will not work if the web server on that host is using virtual website configuration, that is it has multiple sites tied to one (or group of) IP addresses. In many such cases the virtual sites are associated with the a full URL, such as "www.asus.com". So by going to "asus.com" you are not only not guaranteed to get the same site but even if you do the first link on that site might turn out to be an absolute one. And back you go to the broken "www" subdomain.
Of course. But I am not sure if that is how Theo preceives things. Shall we say that the size of his ego is somewhat less then the size of the known universe?
The BSD project, just like Linux and various other GPL/MIT/Mozilla/WhatNot licensed ones attract all sorts of individuals for all sorts of reasons. Some ideological, some practical. So it would be indeed unfair to paint all BSD developers and the BSD project as a whole with one brush.
But you gotta admit that Theo is doing his damnest to always position himself front and center if any BSD-project or BSD-license related controversy.
Subsequently many people end up associating the whole of BSD with Theo's antics.
That's only to be expected of Theo.
He (and many extreme libertarians who congregate around him) see GPL as a Communist plot. We are out to get their precious bodily fluids contaminated or some such.
Subsequently any action on the part of BSD developers (including wholesale code stealing) is automatically justified (or a mere "mistake" when caught) and if a GPL project asks for something to be dual-licensed ... oh whoa! Quote theo: "OVER MY DEAD BODY".
The man is a lunatic.
I wholeheartedly concur.
To further illustrate your point, people should look at the source code some of those companies are forced to release, either before going belly up or due to some other circumstances.
My favourite example is the supreme abomination which is the evily hacked up Zaurus kernel (as released by SHARP). The thing "compiles" with about 500+ warnings to begin with. And that is only an early outside indication of the rot within. Its like a vile smell on a corpse trying to warn the unwary away.
For spectacularly and obviously misguided closed source code take look at how Samsung concocted their printer/scanner drivers for Linux. Its frightening.
And of course, just like you, I did work with closed source corporate projects. That stuff can give one nightmares.
Young, up and coming lawyers looking to make a name for themselves. Plus there would be a good chance of a settlement substantial enough to make it worthwile. And they know that I would let them have whatever they could kick out of these scumbuckets.
Actually these idiots are lucky that I am not in their area of service and that I did not go up to sign up any of my customers for that EVDO plan based on Verison's "unlimited" access claims.
Most of my clients use Terminal Services based Application Servers and that is the only reason for them to use anything like EVDO in a business context. Which of course would immediately result in me running afoul Verison's lies when confronted with the service contract.
Next stop: court. Crooked mega-corporate assholes like Verison do push my buttons in the wrong way and I do happen to have access to pro-bono corporate lawyering. They would have been outta luck in a short order.
What really surprises me that they have not gotten their asses sued off yet. I am sure that there are many, many people in my position and with similar resources in Verison's area of service.
Or perheaps they did get sued and innevietably lost but managed to negotiate non-disclosure agreements in exchange for increased monetary settlement. Who knows?
So in other words the stupid idiots forbid access to any server hosted application with a steady data flow. On an "unlimited" plan marketed to business people.
Looks like the Verison imbeciles wish to have "business" customers who would fork money over for these EVDO accounts and then use them to ... browse static or nearly static corporate web pages. But watch out for AJAX or anything that actually transmits ... oh horrors! ... data back and forth!
"Verison EVDO! The first network designed just for Pointy-hair Bosses! Sign up now and you will get a coupon for 50% off the price of your Lobotomy!"
And of course mobile online gamers or any other "non-business" user with 1/2 a clue who would need an "unlimited" account is the mortal enemy. Such a bastard might actually want to get what they advertised to lure him to Verison.
Mouth breathing, slack jawed, spittle spewing cretins indeed. Greed rotted their brains to the core.
Yes I can imagine that to someone with a comprehension disorder any sort of reasoning more nuanced and complicated then finding a passage in some law stating "We grant ourselves all powers, nyah, nyah" results in a string of "unrelated arguments".
Funnier yet, I did state the problematic section but my enumeration of its problems flew over your head.
I will spell it out again, so that you have yet another opportunity for this information achieving orbital velocity over your cranium: the Bill C-416 contains passages which define "authorized persons" in contradictory ways and it also contains passages which create purposeful ambiguity of the precedence of "regulations" versus the word of the Minister, CSIS personell, etc. And those are only two areas which become patently obvious to anyone reading that dreck even casually. I am sure there is more where that came from.
That is so because people who crafted this bill were clearly counting on the public performing your kind of numbskulled "analysis" while being intent on creating clever loopholes and ambiguous interpretations to accomodate their ulterior motives while also affording themselves plausible deniability.
All of which of course is tad more complicated then your modest request for me to find a passage stating "... and then we rule all with impunity" or something to that effect.
Not only I could, I did so in more then one way.
One can only marvel at this. So your desperation at being unable to present any coherent counter argument goes by the name of "proof" in your delusional universe while your opponent's ability to produce inconvenient to you arguments is called "ignorance".
Ah yes, the oldest one in the book: "We, our Royal Majesty, are so clever and you the peon are so beneath Our Infinite Wisdom that We simply will not be bothered with all that refutation and logic stuff ... We declare Ourselves Victorious. So there. Be gone peasant, your presence offends Us!"
And thus I accept your concession of this argument.
The only thing requiring "fixing" here is your ego-impeded arrogance-drunk "thought process". If you did not start this argument with the presumption of your own superiority, you would not have to engage in such pathetic rethoric and tortured logic to somehow attempt to "save face". So your patience is running out because (unlike many other people) I am not going to be intimidated by your self-assured, smug attitude. Which, judging from your increasingly unhinged rantings, came as a shock to you.
This particular logical fallacy (a great favourite of yours which you have attempted to use multiple times) is called "argumentum ad verecundiam".
Governments are not evil. It is the individual people within them who are. History demonstrates many, many times what happens when such individuals manage to manipulate the voters, the legislators and the gove
It is hard to understand for those of us who -- based upon careful analysis of empirical evidence and the theoretical foundations of the seemingly unquestionably accepted economic and social phillosphies -- came to the conclusion that the supposed corellation of wealth and "merit to the society" (and thus by implication the "importance" of an individual to the rest of us) is one of those Big Lies which some of the more infamous politicians of old were so fond of.
Once you realize that, the "importance" of such people and that of two-bit feudal thugs with a band of henchmen -- also known as the Nobility -- becomes essentially one and the same, with the provision that the method of acquisition of "importance" has "improved" from that involving rusty swords and blunt objects to more intellectual manipulation of those being rendered less "important" -- on average that is.
However, the old and true methodology is still applied with glee by some practitioners. For more information see: Haliburton, Blackwater, Unocal, KBR, Carlyle Group etc.
No, my claim was that, quote: "these regulations already exist", which was in reference to my earler (sarcastic) post about the wants and desires of various Psycho Authoritarians.
Specifically I later enumerated France (which you are studiously ignoring) and Britain as examples of regulations passing dealing with demands on escrow keys, restricting or outright banning encryption. Both of which examples are correct, Britan being however less restrictive then France, which situation the Home Office is desperately attempting to "remedy".
Again, the bill was passed as a whole. The internal meanderings of the government were the only thing which saved the population from the Section 3 being activated. The whims of some governmental functionaries are not equivalent to the "law". The authorization was given, these functionaries simply chose not to act on it. True, the effect was that the officers in the field could not use that portion of the bill in practice, but this is not what I claimed. I only indicated that the "regulations already exist". And they did.
This of course is a strawman, since the only one who is claiming that the ordinary British police had such power in practice is you. I only claimed that the "regulation was passed", which it was. Authorization to the government was given. Again, the government chose not to act on that authorisation and subsequently its low-level functionaries, such as the police, were not able to use it to put people in jail.
And now you are engaging in sad sophistry. So an ability of government to have all communications intercepted in clear text at any time is not paramount to banning encryption from the hands of citizens in relation to the government?! You are sinking lower and lower in your desperate attempts to somehow show yourself being "right" no matter what. Watch it, your ego is showing. Its unseemly.
Oh give this bullshit up already.
From the bill C-416:
Note the words prevails over ... the regulations
And what is the "subsection (1)"?
And section 6(1)?
Get it? A word of the Minister overrides any regulations dealing with "interception of transmissions".
Explicitely.
Except at the whim of the Minister, anybody "authorized" from CSIS etc.
Which of course guarantees its unchallengable accuracy, renders the contents therein the Truth And Only Truth and otherwise puts it beyond the realm of any criticism, right?
You have only despertately attempted to use other people's opinions, re-interpretted by you as the Holy Dictum by which everyone should obide. Then you quoted those people's opinions as "proof".
And I already told you that I did not analyse bill C-74 because it being defeated and long gone makes it wholly irrelevant to any new pending legislation. Furthermore, my doubt about its "identical" status stemmed from the obvious inacuracy of the iterpretation of Bill C-416 by one of your Holy Unquestionable Sources you quoted.
All the ranting here is done by you. And being wrong. Which renders this bit of "advice" quite hilarious.
I have not looked at bill C-74 in detail, since it is long defeated -- as opposed to Bill C-416 which is the topic of this Slashdot submission -- but that website which you keep quoting (instead of the bill in question) contradicts itself in its own FAQ. Bill C-416 clearly does not require a warrant for interception of communications to occur:
... and then it goes on about the measures required to decrypt the intercepted data
This is not merely about "IP addresses and names".
The reason I quoted the definition of the "authorized person" is because all sections of the bill use that definition! That is why the lack of any warrant requirement in all sections of the bill is so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The word "warrant" does not even appear in the bill once. Words "court order" appear only once in one paragraph of the "Miscellaneous" section (23 - dealing with simple enumeration of services provided to the subject under surveilance) where they were apparently forgotten to be deleted.
Why are you insisting that we keep our heads in the sand, as you do? Why are you so insistent on misconstruding what the bill C-416 says and demanding that we take a (mangled by you) word of some website (or unrelated bill C-74) over what's in the bill C-416 itself? Indeed, your kind of nonsense just makes you look foolish, and undercuts the efforts of people concerned about the ecroaching powers of police by your desperate attempts at creating an illusion that serious assaults on our liberty are of a far lesser scope then they really are, solely so that you can satisfy your over-inflated ego.
Says an Anonymous Coward. If I am to be a foe of every idiot AC who would keep on whining about me talking about "slippery slopes" all the way to cheerfully getting his ass injected with a biometric RFID chip for "his own protection", then I do welcome it gladly. It's a badge of honour.
That is what the NKVD, Gestapo and the Stasi insisted on too.
Actually no, following you around based on your suspicious "speach" (such as your distaste for some politician) is precisely something the KGB would do. In real Constitutional Democracies the police has very restricted set of tasks, none of which include mass surveilance and following people around based on what they say. The fact that most so-called "democracies" have been slipping into police states for a very long time, up to the point that some goofuses start to think that such surveilance is "legal" and "normal" is a sad testimony to power of the most destructive anti-democratic weapon: the sheep-like nature of the citizenry of these places. I fear that we will have to go through some really dark ages of state terror and tyranny before a new Enlightenment comes about when the assorted knuckleheads realize that being able to watch the idiot box and gorging oneself at McDonalds is not worth being a worthless serf with no rights.
And that is how fascism takes hold. What if you said "Down with Mr. X!"? Nothing wrong then with 24/7 surveilance of you, your spouse, your kids? What about if you go to a rally of 100,000 people who shouted "Off with Mr.X's Head!"? 100,000 targets for surveilance, no? How about cameras on every corner? Or better yet some new snazzy device called the "two-way-telescreen"? That would solve this "problem" in no time, woundn't it?
The police have only the right to stop you should you show up with a gun aimed at Mr. X. Then they can investigate you. Great evil comes from attempts by Psychopatic Authoritarians of all stripes to conduct pre-emptive surveilance and "predictive" crime-fighting. Because for those to work, we have to accept complete loss of privacy, thought-police and outright tyranny.