The use of IRS audits as a political weapon is nothing new. 'ccording to Nixon's memoirs, he suspected the Kennedys of harrassing him and his family via the IRS. Paula Corbin Jones, despite not having an income that remotely approached the normal thresholds where they become common, was "coincidentally" audited. And so forth...
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton
If they really want to, the security services can probably steam open your envelope quite stealthily, and then reseal and send it back on its somewhat-delayed way...
I'd probably be happier if the reporters and such did *not* feel attachment to the topics they're covering; that marks a lack of objectivity. Harsh, but probably correct... And the fact is, the Kennedys as a clan have had a mutually beneficial relationship with the media for many, many years. Their Washington connections certainly don't hurt their level of influence, either.
That, plus various people seem to feel the need to worship celebrities for whatever bizarre reason...
I *don't* want celebrity puff-pieces. I *don't* really care about inexperienced pilots offing themselves, unless perhaps it's an airliner or there is some other *significance*. I *do* prefer objective news coverage that serves the people, not necessarily those whom the reporters cover...
Well... I can see one possible aspect -- not so much as related to BO2K, but to open-source programs in general.
In a workplace or other shared environment, it is quite possible that the staff do not do code audits. If someone were to, say, take the source code of a common program and modify it with some undesireable feature, the fact that the source exists means that the replacement could be made without needing to code up an entire fascimile in existence. That is, to replace, say, "xterm" with a trojan does not require writing an entirely new xterm-like program; trojaning Notepad would. Insertion would still require (ideally) root compromise on a *nix, or persuading a user to run a particular binary; but you've saved yourself work by building on an existing program and it's nice, familiar, reassuring interface. *That* wasn't directly mentioned by the article, but seemed to have been implied.
Here's a question for ya. How easy would it for a Linux user to learn? (to admin a personal system, that is. I can *use* SunOS, but I admit to never having learned [nor needed to] adminning a Sun box.)
I see that my fellow alum (Declan) does not have good proofreaders ("expert control"?). Oh well, it's _Wired_, not the NY Times... hope he got the details right, anyway. I'll assume he did.
Yes. That bit about removing the export decisions from the jurisdiction of the entire judicial system does seem utterly unconstitutional according to Article III, Section 2.
If they argue that the President's decision does not fall under any jurisdiction because it does not directly fall from a law (as an executive decision; not one encoded by Congress), then I'd be more than happy for the "executive order" process to be completely and utterly destroyed.
Hmm. gv is claiming it can't parse the first page of 99-07-21HR850's "Post Mark Up Release" pdf. On the second page, it does note a few interesting details:
* *All* encryption products proposed for export must undergo a one-time technical review [by whom?]. And what defines an encryption product? For instance, if a program translates English into Sanskrit (for all purposes, incomprehensible to the vast majority of the current population -- and probably unrecognizable) or a similar dead or nearly-so language, is that encryption? Would da Vinci's style of writing left-handed and (backwards?) be considered encryption? If it (reversibly) transforms words into art, is that encryption? How about into a binary stream of 1s and 0's that passes over digital media, ala Ethernet? Is an "MS Word" document file encrypted? And so forth.
* POTUS would have to establish a performance threshold (no license required below it), and review it every 6 mos. At least that's a tacit acknowledgement of obsolescence.
* "Certain sectors" could be established by POTUS that would be subject to "license free treatment of encryption products above the threshold". "Sector" seems to be undefined. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but the word "patronage" comes to mind...
Really? You've never, ever jaywalked? Stolen a pencil? Owned shareware past due date, but not paid the registration fees? Made unfair use of copyrighted material? Fed pigeons in certain city parks? Avoided remitting sales tax (on your own, I might add) to your own state whenever you order products from companies without a nexus in your own? Drank while underaged? Played a Halloween vandalism prank? Damaged land in your backyard, that happened to qualify for federal protection as wetlands?
And, presumably, you are fully acquainted with the entire US Code, and the laws for your state and municipality? And, you read "Congressional Quarterly" and so forth to *stay* up-to-date? Or do you merely *think* you have not violated any laws?
If you *can* honestly say you do, then congratulations. You're probably a lawyer who's well off and can afford not to be constantly trying cases. Otherwise, your statement seems a tad disingenuous, particularly in light of Gov'ts that tend to inexorably restrict legally permissible behavior.
It was not harmless if you value information -- or have you forgotten that it was capable of sending whatever document you were working on, along with itself? That could have resulted in rather unfortunate information leakage.
That, plus it *did* hamper mail servers.
Ideally, MS would tone down their macro language capabilities or provide a security model where one could run them in a sandbox-like environment, but eh.
a) What is AOL's policy? I would think that the subscribers have to abide by some form of agreement stating what rights they can expect, and what conduct (on either part) is acceptable. If it specifically names illegal conduct as unacceptable -- as such an agreement probably would -- then AOL might be free to tip off the authorities, legally. I'm not sure that they could on their own, unless they monitor all involved mail, however.
b) If somebody states to another person, in uncertain terms, a *credible* intent to murder -- and it actually happens, then might not coming forward with said evidence constitute accessory?
c) Using an AOL handle might be considered more of a "vanity plate" deal instead of guaranteed anonymity. We drive partly anonymously, in the sense that our automobiles are generally not prominently labelled with our names; however, police may note a plate and get the state DMV to cough up our names. This might be a fair comparison, from AOL's POV.
Re:Yeah, but one problem...
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 1
Java is not that close to C++, semantically. Among other aspects,
* C and C++ allow pointers, including function pointers. This allows, say, saner GUI development where you don't need classes willy-nilly all over the place. I'll write XForms applications far, far faster than an equivalent Java GUI, partly because I can reuse the same callback with different arguments, w/o messing with a class hierarchy. You can also simulate some higher-order functions this way, although it's not terribly pleasant.
* Java *forces* a class hierarchy. It does allow interfaces, though, which are a tad saner than frequent usage of C++-style multiple inheritance.
* Java's type system is stronger than C/C++, where if I feel like it, I can cast a pointer to an object as a (char *), and that to a pointer of a completely unrelated structure. And so forth.
Slashdot Mirror
The use of IRS audits as a political weapon is nothing new. 'ccording to Nixon's memoirs, he suspected the Kennedys of harrassing him and his family via the IRS. Paula Corbin Jones, despite not having an income that remotely approached the normal thresholds where they become common, was "coincidentally" audited. And so forth...
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton
If your (true) algorithm doesn't change the byte count, you *could* claim you were using an OTP, and have the suitable key already prepared...
If they really want to, the security services can probably steam open your envelope quite stealthily, and then reseal and send it back on its somewhat-delayed way...
(Strong) crypto isn't *nearly* as easy for 'em.
I'd probably be happier if the reporters and such did *not* feel attachment to the topics they're covering; that marks a lack of objectivity. Harsh, but probably correct... And the fact is, the Kennedys as a clan have had a mutually beneficial relationship with the media for many, many years. Their Washington connections certainly don't hurt their level of influence, either.
That, plus various people seem to feel the need to worship celebrities for whatever bizarre reason...
I *don't* want celebrity puff-pieces. I *don't* really care about inexperienced pilots offing themselves, unless perhaps it's an airliner or there is some other *significance*. I *do* prefer objective news coverage that serves the people, not necessarily those whom the reporters cover...
Well... I can see one possible aspect -- not so much as related to BO2K, but to open-source programs in general.
In a workplace or other shared environment, it is quite possible that the staff do not do code audits. If someone were to, say, take the source code of a common program and modify it with some undesireable feature, the fact that the source exists means that the replacement could be made without needing to code up an entire fascimile in existence. That is, to replace, say, "xterm" with a trojan does not require writing an entirely new xterm-like program; trojaning Notepad would. Insertion would still require (ideally) root compromise on a *nix, or persuading a user to run a particular binary; but you've saved yourself work by building on an existing program and it's nice, familiar, reassuring interface. *That* wasn't directly mentioned by the article, but seemed to have been implied.
Here's a question for ya. How easy would it for a Linux user to learn? (to admin a personal system, that is. I can *use* SunOS, but I admit to never having learned [nor needed to] adminning a Sun box.)
Idly curious...
I see that my fellow alum (Declan) does not have good proofreaders ("expert control"?). Oh well, it's _Wired_, not the NY Times... hope he got the details right, anyway. I'll assume he did.
Yes. That bit about removing the export decisions from the jurisdiction of the entire judicial system does seem utterly unconstitutional according to Article III, Section 2.
If they argue that the President's decision does not fall under any jurisdiction because it does not directly fall from a law (as an executive decision; not one encoded by Congress), then I'd be more than happy for the "executive order" process to be completely and utterly destroyed.
Hmm. gv is claiming it can't parse the first page of 99-07-21HR850's "Post Mark Up Release" pdf. On the second page, it does note a few interesting details:
* *All* encryption products proposed for export must undergo a one-time technical review [by whom?]. And what defines an encryption product? For instance, if a program translates English into Sanskrit (for all purposes, incomprehensible to the vast majority of the current population -- and probably unrecognizable) or a similar dead or nearly-so language, is that encryption? Would da Vinci's style of writing left-handed and (backwards?) be considered encryption? If it (reversibly) transforms words into art, is that encryption? How about into a binary stream of 1s and 0's that passes over digital media, ala Ethernet? Is an "MS Word" document file encrypted? And so forth.
* POTUS would have to establish a performance threshold (no license required below it), and review it every 6 mos. At least that's a tacit acknowledgement of obsolescence.
* "Certain sectors" could be established by POTUS that would be subject to "license free treatment of encryption products above the threshold". "Sector" seems to be undefined. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but the word "patronage" comes to mind...
Really? You've never, ever jaywalked? Stolen a pencil? Owned shareware past due date, but not paid the registration fees? Made unfair use of copyrighted material? Fed pigeons in certain city parks? Avoided remitting sales tax (on your own, I might add) to your own state whenever you order products from companies without a nexus in your own? Drank while underaged? Played a Halloween vandalism prank? Damaged land in your backyard, that happened to qualify for federal protection as wetlands?
And, presumably, you are fully acquainted with the entire US Code, and the laws for your state and municipality? And, you read "Congressional Quarterly" and so forth to *stay* up-to-date? Or do you merely *think* you have not violated any laws?
If you *can* honestly say you do, then congratulations. You're probably a lawyer who's well off and can afford not to be constantly trying cases. Otherwise, your statement seems a tad disingenuous, particularly in light of Gov'ts that tend to inexorably restrict legally permissible behavior.
It was not harmless if you value information -- or have you forgotten that it was capable of sending whatever document you were working on, along with itself? That could have resulted in rather unfortunate information leakage.
That, plus it *did* hamper mail servers.
Ideally, MS would tone down their macro language capabilities or provide a security model where one could run them in a sandbox-like environment, but eh.
Hmmmm.
a) What is AOL's policy? I would think that the subscribers have to abide by some form of agreement stating what rights they can expect, and what conduct (on either part) is acceptable. If it specifically names illegal conduct as unacceptable -- as such an agreement probably would -- then AOL might be free to tip off the authorities, legally. I'm not sure that they could on their own, unless they monitor all involved mail, however.
b) If somebody states to another person, in uncertain terms, a *credible* intent to murder -- and it actually happens, then might not coming forward with said evidence constitute accessory?
c) Using an AOL handle might be considered more of a "vanity plate" deal instead of guaranteed anonymity. We drive partly anonymously, in the sense that our automobiles are generally not prominently labelled with our names; however, police may note a plate and get the state DMV to cough up our names. This might be a fair comparison, from AOL's POV.
Java is not that close to C++, semantically. Among other aspects,
* C and C++ allow pointers, including function pointers. This allows, say, saner GUI development where you don't need classes willy-nilly all over the place. I'll write XForms applications far, far faster than an equivalent Java GUI, partly because I can reuse the same callback with different arguments, w/o messing with a class hierarchy. You can also simulate some higher-order functions this way, although it's not terribly pleasant.
* Java *forces* a class hierarchy. It does allow interfaces, though, which are a tad saner than frequent usage of C++-style multiple inheritance.
* Java's type system is stronger than C/C++, where if I feel like it, I can cast a pointer to an object as a (char *), and that to a pointer of a completely unrelated structure. And so forth.