I like how he uses "anti-social" behavior as one of the reasons that Governments will demand an end to online anonymity. When did it become a job for Government to deal with "anti-social" behavior? Are there FBI agents trolling through this discussion waiting to pounce on the GNAA?
I rather doubt that would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, given that SCOTUS has an extensive history of upholding the right to anonymous political discourse. I also doubt it would fly in the Scandinavian countries. Not so sure about the rest of the world (the British seem to be competing with themselves to see who can surrender their civil liberties the fastest....) but that's not really my concern as an American.....
PirateBay: Torrent traffic seem to be almost completely blocked.
For the sake of the argument, how would you go about blocking bittorrent traffic? There are trackerless solutions that work just fine. BT itself can be encrypted. I'm not convinced they could block it even if they were inclined to do so.
My employer is located out in the middle of no where. We are too far away to get cable or DSL and can't afford a bonded solution, so we are stuck trying to share a T-1 (1.5mbit/s) with 60 people. There is no way this could work without some sort of traffic prioritization. My QoS scheme looks something like this:
Priority 0: VoIP
Priority 1: "Real-time" packets (DNS, Network Time Protocol, ICMP pings/echos, small ssh packets)
Priority 2: Protocol traffic (TCP ACKs, other ICMP packets)
Priority 3: VPN traffic
Priority 4: HTTP traffic
Priority 5: Bulk traffic (FTP, large ssh packets for scp transfers, etc.)
Priority 6: Idle traffic (bittorrent -- yes, we actually use it here)
How do you identify VOIP packets though? I suppose you could if they are sent in the clear but suppose I want to secure my communications with some encryption? How do you identify them in that case? You can't do it on a port basis because it's too easy to abuse. DPI won't work with encryption and probably wouldn't scale well enough in any event.
Here in the US where the story is taking place (and where Verizon is actually a carrier as opposed to the EU where AFAIK they are not), porting a number is possible but is a pain in the ass
WTF are you talking about? Porting a number is as easy as establishing service with a new carrier and telling them you want to bring the number over.
Take for example the issue my wife and I have with trying to get onto a family plan. I can port my number to her cell company, but I'd still need a separate plan. They can't combine a number with my area code on a plan with a number in her area code.
So vote with your wallet and switch to a provider with a unified billing system. Verizon and T-Mobile both have unified systems. My sister lives in New Mexico (2,500 miles away) in a different area code but is still able to be a part of my family share plan. It's no big deal to do this with VZW or T-Mobile.
The Thruway can't still be tolled, can it? The State Government promised decades ago that it would remove the tolls when the bonds that financed construction were paid off. They were paid off in 1999 and the toll plazas were removed shortly thereafter. There's no way that Albany would turn that into a revenue source to continue soaking the citizens of the Empire State, right?
The influence of the Russian winter has been overstated by history. The autumn rainy season combined with Russia's network of largely unpaved roads did more to upset the timetable than the onset of winter.
Did you miss the part where I posited that they might not view genocide as an acceptable way to conduct war? Since we know absolutely nothing about them or their culture it seems to me that it's at least as realistic as assuming that they are willing to wipe us all out for the sake of lebensraum.
With working spies Germany could've reduced London to rubble
No they couldn't have. The double cross system saved London from more extensive damage but it would not have been possible to reduce London to "rubble" with the V-2s even with a functional spy network. The V-2 was useless as a weapon of war. It's only purpose was as a terror weapon. The resources that went into developing it could have been better used elsewhere.
The US, very specifically, decided to go for evolutionary technological improvements. The Germans were specifically going for revolutionary improvements.
You shouldn't be saying 'US', I was referring to the Allies as a whole. Regarding which side made the right choice, well, who won the war?
The US anti-sub improvements existed
Most of the real ASW leaps came from the Brits, hence why you shouldn't be saying 'US'.....
Small arms? Germans
The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle fielded by any of the major powers. It was developed before war with Germany was even on the horizon. Germany was still arming her troops with bolt action rifles when semi automatic rifles were standard equipment for US formations.
Germans had superior aircraft (really until 1944)
Which aircraft in particular are you thinking about?
rocketry
I already acknowledged that, though it made no real impact on the war and the resources that went into it could have been better used elsewhere.
and even missiles
Again, what did they accomplish with them? To the best of my knowledge they sank a few merchant ships during the Invasion of Italy and damaged a warship or two. Hardly a game changer.
Let's not forget German's superior armor
It's only superior if you look at it in a vacuum. The Sherman was no Tiger but it was cheaper to produce and easier to maintain. What's more useful? A M4 on the battle line or a Tiger in the shop for repairs?
And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.
The war with Russia was the whole point from the get-go. Everything else was a means to this end. I assume you've read Mein Kampf?
Depending on the battle and allowed engagement range, it took up to 6:1 of the US' tanks to kill one German tank.
The Sherman wasn't designed to engage German tanks. US doctrine at the time called for using tank destroyers in that role.
And many a tank crew paid for the technology imbalance with their lives.
Many more Germans paid for design decisions than did Americans. Tank designs that were easier to produce and keep running might have made all the difference during key battles -- Kursk comes to mind.
I think the significance of German WW2 technology has been overstated by history. They experimented with some neat stuff and had the Allies bested in a few areas (rocketry) but ultimately they wasted resources that could have been put to more productive uses. The Allies managed to best them technologically in key areas -- anti-submarine warfare, small arms, nuclear technology, computing, radar, etc. Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.
Citation needed on the stealth aircraft claim. They certainly had experimental jet aircraft and even a flying wing (the Ho 229) but I've not seen any evidence that they seriously experimented with stealth technology. The Ho 229 supposedly included RCS reduction but that claim was debunked when the design was tested a few years ago. Northrop concluded that it wouldn't have defeated the Chain Home radar system, much less the more advanced ones developed later in the war.
allowing beings such as ours to evolve naturally is a waste of resources
Maybe we don't have any resources that are of value to them? Maybe they don't believe in genocide and would rather not get bogged down in their version of the Vietnam war for the next hundred years? Maybe they are already among us and regard us as mostly harmless?
Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution, which uses as an implicit premise that God doesn't really exist, it was just all random chance, we're all just a bunch of molecules
Why is a belief in God/higher-power and evolution incompatible? $Deity could have established the laws of nature and allowed nature to run its course. Mind you, I'm not a particularly religious person (though I'm no atheist either) but this seems like a perfectly acceptable way to reconcile the two, IMHO anyway.....
It's cute that you are blaming the GOP for the failure to close Gitmo when many Democrats are also opposed to the idea, particularly when the alternative to Gitmo is housing the prisoners in their districts.
If the USA invaded Canada and I fought back without a uniform because I'm not a member of the military, would I also be an unarmed combatant
According to international law, yes, you would be an unlawful combatant. But let's not mince words -- the people we are fighting are deliberately hiding amongst civilians and using them as shields. If the US or Canadian military did that the soldiers involved would be guilty of war crimes. Under a strict reading of the Geneva conventions they would be held as unlawful combatants, not POWs.
The USA declared war on an ideal not a country
First off, it's not "The USA", it's most of the NATO Alliance. Second, what "ideal" did we declare war on? We didn't declare war on Islam or even Fundamentalist Islam. We declared war on those that seek to use terror as a political weapon. One can argue the wisdom of our current adventure in Afghanistan (I think it's doomed to failure myself) but please don't twist the truth by implying that we went to war against their ideals, way of life, or what have you.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.
Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books if GWB had appointed her?
The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....
The U.S. could always just create some new law, like the USA PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org], that can bypass the constitution
Acts of Congress can't "bypass" the constitution, I presume you've heard of judicial review?
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care?
Universal health care does not reduce personal liberty. A mandate that I give my money to a private company on the other hand......
If you aren't paranoid about your privacy then why don't you register for an account under your real name instead of posting as an anonymous coward?
Why go to all that trouble (setting up and paying for a VPN) when you can simply find an open wi-fi network somewhere?
I like how he uses "anti-social" behavior as one of the reasons that Governments will demand an end to online anonymity. When did it become a job for Government to deal with "anti-social" behavior? Are there FBI agents trolling through this discussion waiting to pounce on the GNAA?
I rather doubt that would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, given that SCOTUS has an extensive history of upholding the right to anonymous political discourse. I also doubt it would fly in the Scandinavian countries. Not so sure about the rest of the world (the British seem to be competing with themselves to see who can surrender their civil liberties the fastest....) but that's not really my concern as an American.....
Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID?
Maybe he lives in New Hampshire and exercised his right to have them delete the photo out of DMVs database after printing his license?
Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....
PirateBay: Torrent traffic seem to be almost completely blocked.
For the sake of the argument, how would you go about blocking bittorrent traffic? There are trackerless solutions that work just fine. BT itself can be encrypted. I'm not convinced they could block it even if they were inclined to do so.
My employer is located out in the middle of no where. We are too far away to get cable or DSL and can't afford a bonded solution, so we are stuck trying to share a T-1 (1.5mbit/s) with 60 people. There is no way this could work without some sort of traffic prioritization. My QoS scheme looks something like this:
Priority 0: VoIP
Priority 1: "Real-time" packets (DNS, Network Time Protocol, ICMP pings/echos, small ssh packets)
Priority 2: Protocol traffic (TCP ACKs, other ICMP packets)
Priority 3: VPN traffic
Priority 4: HTTP traffic
Priority 5: Bulk traffic (FTP, large ssh packets for scp transfers, etc.)
Priority 6: Idle traffic (bittorrent -- yes, we actually use it here)
How do you identify VOIP packets though? I suppose you could if they are sent in the clear but suppose I want to secure my communications with some encryption? How do you identify them in that case? You can't do it on a port basis because it's too easy to abuse. DPI won't work with encryption and probably wouldn't scale well enough in any event.
Here in the US where the story is taking place (and where Verizon is actually a carrier as opposed to the EU where AFAIK they are not), porting a number is possible but is a pain in the ass
WTF are you talking about? Porting a number is as easy as establishing service with a new carrier and telling them you want to bring the number over.
Take for example the issue my wife and I have with trying to get onto a family plan. I can port my number to her cell company, but I'd still need a separate plan. They can't combine a number with my area code on a plan with a number in her area code.
So vote with your wallet and switch to a provider with a unified billing system. Verizon and T-Mobile both have unified systems. My sister lives in New Mexico (2,500 miles away) in a different area code but is still able to be a part of my family share plan. It's no big deal to do this with VZW or T-Mobile.
and then the Annapolis government gets to keep the money to increase spending
Fixed that for you :)
How about New York State Thruway?
The Thruway can't still be tolled, can it? The State Government promised decades ago that it would remove the tolls when the bonds that financed construction were paid off. They were paid off in 1999 and the toll plazas were removed shortly thereafter. There's no way that Albany would turn that into a revenue source to continue soaking the citizens of the Empire State, right?
The influence of the Russian winter has been overstated by history. The autumn rainy season combined with Russia's network of largely unpaved roads did more to upset the timetable than the onset of winter.
Did you miss the part where I posited that they might not view genocide as an acceptable way to conduct war? Since we know absolutely nothing about them or their culture it seems to me that it's at least as realistic as assuming that they are willing to wipe us all out for the sake of lebensraum.
With working spies Germany could've reduced London to rubble
No they couldn't have. The double cross system saved London from more extensive damage but it would not have been possible to reduce London to "rubble" with the V-2s even with a functional spy network. The V-2 was useless as a weapon of war. It's only purpose was as a terror weapon. The resources that went into developing it could have been better used elsewhere.
The US, very specifically, decided to go for evolutionary technological improvements. The Germans were specifically going for revolutionary improvements.
You shouldn't be saying 'US', I was referring to the Allies as a whole. Regarding which side made the right choice, well, who won the war?
The US anti-sub improvements existed
Most of the real ASW leaps came from the Brits, hence why you shouldn't be saying 'US'.....
Small arms? Germans
The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle fielded by any of the major powers. It was developed before war with Germany was even on the horizon. Germany was still arming her troops with bolt action rifles when semi automatic rifles were standard equipment for US formations.
Germans had superior aircraft (really until 1944)
Which aircraft in particular are you thinking about?
rocketry
I already acknowledged that, though it made no real impact on the war and the resources that went into it could have been better used elsewhere.
and even missiles
Again, what did they accomplish with them? To the best of my knowledge they sank a few merchant ships during the Invasion of Italy and damaged a warship or two. Hardly a game changer.
Let's not forget German's superior armor
It's only superior if you look at it in a vacuum. The Sherman was no Tiger but it was cheaper to produce and easier to maintain. What's more useful? A M4 on the battle line or a Tiger in the shop for repairs?
And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.
The war with Russia was the whole point from the get-go. Everything else was a means to this end. I assume you've read Mein Kampf?
Depending on the battle and allowed engagement range, it took up to 6:1 of the US' tanks to kill one German tank.
The Sherman wasn't designed to engage German tanks. US doctrine at the time called for using tank destroyers in that role.
And many a tank crew paid for the technology imbalance with their lives.
Many more Germans paid for design decisions than did Americans. Tank designs that were easier to produce and keep running might have made all the difference during key battles -- Kursk comes to mind.
I think the significance of German WW2 technology has been overstated by history. They experimented with some neat stuff and had the Allies bested in a few areas (rocketry) but ultimately they wasted resources that could have been put to more productive uses. The Allies managed to best them technologically in key areas -- anti-submarine warfare, small arms, nuclear technology, computing, radar, etc. Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.
Citation needed on the stealth aircraft claim. They certainly had experimental jet aircraft and even a flying wing (the Ho 229) but I've not seen any evidence that they seriously experimented with stealth technology. The Ho 229 supposedly included RCS reduction but that claim was debunked when the design was tested a few years ago. Northrop concluded that it wouldn't have defeated the Chain Home radar system, much less the more advanced ones developed later in the war.
allowing beings such as ours to evolve naturally is a waste of resources
Maybe we don't have any resources that are of value to them? Maybe they don't believe in genocide and would rather not get bogged down in their version of the Vietnam war for the next hundred years? Maybe they are already among us and regard us as mostly harmless?
Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution, which uses as an implicit premise that God doesn't really exist, it was just all random chance, we're all just a bunch of molecules
Why is a belief in God/higher-power and evolution incompatible? $Deity could have established the laws of nature and allowed nature to run its course. Mind you, I'm not a particularly religious person (though I'm no atheist either) but this seems like a perfectly acceptable way to reconcile the two, IMHO anyway.....
I don't really give a rats ass what you think about my country :)
BTW, those links you provided were lame. You can only name one American who was held at Gitmo before his citizenship was realized? Give me a break.
It's cute that you are blaming the GOP for the failure to close Gitmo when many Democrats are also opposed to the idea, particularly when the alternative to Gitmo is housing the prisoners in their districts.
If the USA invaded Canada and I fought back without a uniform because I'm not a member of the military, would I also be an unarmed combatant
According to international law, yes, you would be an unlawful combatant. But let's not mince words -- the people we are fighting are deliberately hiding amongst civilians and using them as shields. If the US or Canadian military did that the soldiers involved would be guilty of war crimes. Under a strict reading of the Geneva conventions they would be held as unlawful combatants, not POWs.
The USA declared war on an ideal not a country
First off, it's not "The USA", it's most of the NATO Alliance. Second, what "ideal" did we declare war on? We didn't declare war on Islam or even Fundamentalist Islam. We declared war on those that seek to use terror as a political weapon. One can argue the wisdom of our current adventure in Afghanistan (I think it's doomed to failure myself) but please don't twist the truth by implying that we went to war against their ideals, way of life, or what have you.