With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
Basically, if you don't bother counting all the votes, Obama is winning. However, it you do decide that everyone's vote should matter, Hillary is leading the popular vote.
Even if she was leading the popular vote (which by any fair metric she isn't, but that's beside the point), any 5th grade civics student (or Al Gore) can tell you what that's worth in American politics. You can debate whether or not that's just but those are the rules that we are operating under for this cycle.
So after all the whining about Bush and how he didn't win the popular vote
I didn't whine about Bush not winning the popular vote. I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore. Anyone that says that popular vote loss somehow de-legitimized GWB in 2000 never paid attention in civics class.
doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues
I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.
Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.
I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.
It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.
Interesting. I can confirm that I just tried it again and it worked just fine too.
This did not work a few weeks ago -- I was trying to use my G-mail account to backup a handful of important files (mainly financial data/Quicken stuff) and I wanted to encrypt them first. It refused every single encrypted file I attempted to upload -- encrypted zips, PGP encrypted files, etc, etc.
Feel free to mod my other posts down, since I appear to be completely misinformed on this issue. I wonder when it changed?
Do me a favor the next time you feel compelled to call me a liar:
1) Create a zip file. Put whatever you want in it. Encrypt the contents using the encryption feature of your favorite zip program.
2) Attempt to attach that file to an outbound e-mail in G-mail or attempt to e-mail that file to a gmail.com address.
3) Notice that neither one works and that both are blocked.
4) ???
5) Profit!
Go back to 4chan or somewhere else where bullshit is appreciated.
Maybe you should go somewhere else -- I hear there are websites where lacing your posts with profanities and adopting a holier-than-thou attitude are treated as insightful commentary.
Could it be because he has no technical knowledge about the issue and so he checked before he answered? Nah I'm sure it's all more sinister.
Where did I imply that anything sinister was going on? I was merely seeking an explanation for how the Canadian political system works. I know there's more toeing of the party line in a Parliamentary system than in ours -- I was trying to find out just how much.
And your explanation doesn't hold water anyway. If I write my Congressman about Network Neutrality and he doesn't understand it, should he really go to the RNC or DNC for his answer? Might it make more sense to talk with an expert on the subject? Maybe the Congressional Research Service or even a knowledgeable person on his own staff?
Possibly not - when I was interviewing there, the recruiters had "@google.com" and not "@gmail.com"...
And what do you think they are using behind the scenes to read/compose/manage their @google.com accounts? Something tells me that it's probably not Exchange.....
But for the minor fact that G-Mail refuses to let you use encrypted attachments. Dunno if this applies to an encrypted message body but the fact that they won't allow encrypted attachments is a PITA and I have no clue what the justification for that is.
I wanted to strangle my MP, but at least he bothered to call up party HQ and get a reasoned response.
Maybe I don't understand Parliamentary Democracy as well as I understand our Republican system here in the States, but why would your MP need to "call up party HQ" to "get a reasoned response"? Does the party system have so much weight up there that your MP doesn't have opinions of his own on the issues?
For all the anger directed at our two party system here in the States I can think of lots of Democrats and Republicans that don't toe the party line on various issues. Is it not like that up there?
(Sorry to reply twice, missed this point in my original post)
It is a nice idea in theory,but the simple fact is tanks and F22s beat your shotgun any day of the week and them having full kevlar body armor gives them a little bit of an advantage in a fight
You don't need to look that far to see the limitations of tanks and F-22s.
It is a nice idea in theory,but the simple fact is tanks and F22s beat your shotgun any day of the week and them having full kevlar body armor gives them a little bit of an advantage in a fight. But that is my 02c,YMMV
The theory is that if things ever got that bad that some (most? all?) of the guys in the tanks and F-22s would be on our side. The US military doesn't swear a loyalty oath to POTUS as the Wehrmacht did during WW2. They swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
One would hope that given the fact that the Constitution comes before the chain of command and that following orders is limited by regulations/the UCMJ, our military wouldn't go along with a mission that sought to turn the United States into a directorship/police state. In fact, the limited bit of history on this subject suggests that at least some in the military wouldn't go along willingly.
If you're willing to accept the benefits bestowed on you by your forefathers, perhaps you should be willing to accept responsibility for previous generations' injustices.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy into that argument. It's not my fault that my grandparents kicked your grandparents ass. It's not my fault that my grandparents discovered how to effectively use gunpowder before your grandparents did.
If we are willing to bring up claims that old then we might as well prepare for perpetual warfare, because no nation-states borders will be safe. Should we give the United States, Canada, Mexico and Australia back to the Native populations and force all the people of European decent to leave? Should France be able to seek reparations from Italy for the actions of Julius Caesar in Gaul? Should Italy be able to seek reparations from Germany for the actions of the Germanic barbarians? What about Tibet? What about all of the Pacific Islands? What about Northern Ireland? And who gets that disputed strip of land on the Mediterranean currently called Israel? The Jews? The Palestinians? The Romans? The Greeks? The Turks?
I don't think I owe anybody an apology because my forefathers were more successful (sometimes with the checkbook, sometimes with the sword) than your forefathers. And for all the finger-pointing that people love to do at Europeans/people of European descent, history is ripewithexamples of outside powers attempting to conquer Europe. Can we get our reparations check directly deposited please?
but you want to tell everything you know about "P2P traffic shaping for home use" and be useful to more people.
This won't be directly helpful to the submitter (he's working with a WRT54G), but this is how I do it in Linux. Set up the shaping rules with tc. Classify traffic with iptables. Examples follow:
(in/etc/ppp/ip-up -- would likely be rc.local or similar file for a cable modem user who doesn't use ppp)
# ADSL connection is 832,000 bits/s on upload.
#
# We rate limit to 632,320 bits/s (76%) to account for ATM/PPPoE/IP protocol overhead.
#
# This is broken up as follows:
#
# 72,000 bits/s for TCP Acks (keep our downloads fast even if upload is pegged)
# 35,000 bits/s for interactive packets (icmp echo/reply, tcp syns, network time protocol, small ssh packets -- only small ones so we don't prioritize scp transfers)
# 236,500 bits/s for priority traffic (traffic to my work VPN)
# 236,500 bits/s for normal traffic (this is the default)
# 35,000 bits/s for low priority traffic (udp trackers in bittorrent)
# 35,000 bits/s for idle priority traffic (bittorrent uploads)
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev $1 root handle 1: htb default 50
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 632320bit ceil 632320bit
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb prio 1 rate 72000bit ceil 632320bit quantum 1454
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:30 htb prio 2 rate 35000bit ceil 632320bit quantum 1454
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:40 htb prio 3 rate 227660bit ceil 632320bit
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:50 htb prio 4 rate 227660bit ceil 632320bit
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:60 htb prio 5 rate 35000bit ceil 632320bit quantum 1454
/sbin/tc class add dev $1 parent 1:1 classid 1:70 htb prio 6 rate 35000bit ceil 632320bit quantum 1454
In order, those commands establish a htb scheduler with a celing of 632,320bit/s (you have to set this around 70-80% less than your actual upload to force the packets to queue at your box and not the dsl/cable modem), then establishs children underneth it for each class of traffic. The children will get AT LEAST the specified rate and when extra is available will borrow it according to their priority number. Prio 0 gets all extra bandwidth until satisifed or no more exists, then prio 1, prio 2, etc, etc.
The second set of commands attaches a fair queuing algorithm so individual connections within those classes will share the bandwidth (more) fairly.
From there it's just a matter of using iptables to classify the traffic. This example shoves all bittorrent traffic into the lowest queues. We assume that anything coming from 172.25.42.254 is bittorrent traffic because we add that as a second IP address on the client behind NAT and make Azureus bind to that IP (all other traffic goes out on the default IP).
Remember to cushion your letter with a nice bundle of crisp $1000 bills. Mail not adequately protected by cash tends to get illegible in transit.
I hope you have a Delorean that can do 88MPH because $1000 bills haven't been printed since 1945 and the circulation of them was halted in 1969 by Executive Order.
Granted that's better than gulags but you're ignoring things like:
I didn't ignore them. I specifically remember stating that prison rape is a serious problem but that notwithstanding you still can't make a comparison between forced-labor camps where people are worked to death and US prisons with cable TV and law libraries.
Where does the constitution say we can't file share? Rights not specifically mentioned are automatically reserved to the people.
Actually they are reserved to the States or to the people.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch. I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out.
There isn't a right to share files but I'm pretty sure there's a right to free speech in there somewhere and a ban on "unauthorized information exchanges" doesn't seem very Constitutional to me.
No western country currently in existence wants to be seen as a place where even one percent of their population may be tossed in jail for something that was not previously a crime.
Moreover the US gulag system is unique in the western world.
Ya know, you really make yourself look stupid when you make comparisons like that. I have some serious problems with our (starting with prison rape) but your comparison is just downright moronic.
Let's review US Prisons:
* Freedom to worship as you choose
* Access to legal counsel
* Freedom to pursue educational/academic goals (available in most situations, even for those serving life sentences)
* Basic health and dietary needs are provided for (in all situations)
* Other services that aren't exactly a requirement of life (TV comes to mind)
I'd like to see just how well that compares to a Soviet gulag where the prisoners are living off rats (and each other) while being worked to death by the NKVD guards.
0.6 thousand $ and 0.00 years in jail over here now in Nevada for a first offense.
It's even less than that here in New York. $100 fine and no criminal record. Not all of us are lucky enough to live in the saner states though. I'll use Pennsylvania as the example -- in PA they have a "drugged driving" law that basically says if you have ANY detectable drug metabolites (not the drug itself) in your system that it's basically the same as a DWI. If you smoked a joint two weeks ago you could be convicted of driving under the influence and lose your license and even your freedom. WTF is wrong with that picture?
And we used to have the most draconian drug laws - wonder if Wiki-joke-pedia will fix that no longer true statement.
I don't know how it's generally done, but in this case I expect they told a judge about him decking a co-worker.
So if a buddy of mine decks a co-worker my company can prohibit me from ever having any contact with him ever again? That doesn't seem right to me.
He didn't.
Oh I'm sure this person is a complete asshole based on your story. I just question why a third party could obtain a restraining order preventing someone from having contact with me. Freedom of association and all that, ya know?
Try and do that in a month or two instead of a year and I'll bet you get their attention...:)
If my connection was fast enough to upload 1.3 terabytes in a month I'd be a pretty happy camper;) That works out to about 4Mbits -- so I suppose you could actually achieve this on one of those symmetrical FiOS connections. I honestly doubt they'd notice or say anything about it though -- anyone with FiOS and a penchant for consuming bandwidth care to comment?
He called security, thinking it was just a bad card, and they came down with a box full of the contents of his desk, and a restraining order that banned him from the premises, and from contacting any of his former colleagues.
How does a company obtain a restraining ordering preventing you from contacting it's employees? Aren't they two separate things? If he had friends within that company would he then be prohibited from communicating with them?
Slashdot Mirror
With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
Even if she was leading the popular vote (which by any fair metric she isn't, but that's beside the point), any 5th grade civics student (or Al Gore) can tell you what that's worth in American politics. You can debate whether or not that's just but those are the rules that we are operating under for this cycle.
So after all the whining about Bush and how he didn't win the popular voteI didn't whine about Bush not winning the popular vote. I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore. Anyone that says that popular vote loss somehow de-legitimized GWB in 2000 never paid attention in civics class.
I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.
Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.
It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.
Interesting. I can confirm that I just tried it again and it worked just fine too.
This did not work a few weeks ago -- I was trying to use my G-mail account to backup a handful of important files (mainly financial data/Quicken stuff) and I wanted to encrypt them first. It refused every single encrypted file I attempted to upload -- encrypted zips, PGP encrypted files, etc, etc.
Feel free to mod my other posts down, since I appear to be completely misinformed on this issue. I wonder when it changed?
Do me a favor the next time you feel compelled to call me a liar:
1) Create a zip file. Put whatever you want in it. Encrypt the contents using the encryption feature of your favorite zip program.
Go back to 4chan or somewhere else where bullshit is appreciated.2) Attempt to attach that file to an outbound e-mail in G-mail or attempt to e-mail that file to a gmail.com address.
3) Notice that neither one works and that both are blocked.
4) ???
5) Profit!
Maybe you should go somewhere else -- I hear there are websites where lacing your posts with profanities and adopting a holier-than-thou attitude are treated as insightful commentary.
Where did I imply that anything sinister was going on? I was merely seeking an explanation for how the Canadian political system works. I know there's more toeing of the party line in a Parliamentary system than in ours -- I was trying to find out just how much.
And your explanation doesn't hold water anyway. If I write my Congressman about Network Neutrality and he doesn't understand it, should he really go to the RNC or DNC for his answer? Might it make more sense to talk with an expert on the subject? Maybe the Congressional Research Service or even a knowledgeable person on his own staff?
And what do you think they are using behind the scenes to read/compose/manage their @google.com accounts? Something tells me that it's probably not Exchange.....
But for the minor fact that G-Mail refuses to let you use encrypted attachments. Dunno if this applies to an encrypted message body but the fact that they won't allow encrypted attachments is a PITA and I have no clue what the justification for that is.
Maybe I don't understand Parliamentary Democracy as well as I understand our Republican system here in the States, but why would your MP need to "call up party HQ" to "get a reasoned response"? Does the party system have so much weight up there that your MP doesn't have opinions of his own on the issues?
For all the anger directed at our two party system here in the States I can think of lots of Democrats and Republicans that don't toe the party line on various issues. Is it not like that up there?
(Sorry to reply twice, missed this point in my original post)
It is a nice idea in theory,but the simple fact is tanks and F22s beat your shotgun any day of the week and them having full kevlar body armor gives them a little bit of an advantage in a fightYou don't need to look that far to see the limitations of tanks and F-22s.
The theory is that if things ever got that bad that some (most? all?) of the guys in the tanks and F-22s would be on our side. The US military doesn't swear a loyalty oath to POTUS as the Wehrmacht did during WW2. They swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
One would hope that given the fact that the Constitution comes before the chain of command and that following orders is limited by regulations/the UCMJ, our military wouldn't go along with a mission that sought to turn the United States into a directorship/police state. In fact, the limited bit of history on this subject suggests that at least some in the military wouldn't go along willingly.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy into that argument. It's not my fault that my grandparents kicked your grandparents ass. It's not my fault that my grandparents discovered how to effectively use gunpowder before your grandparents did.
If we are willing to bring up claims that old then we might as well prepare for perpetual warfare, because no nation-states borders will be safe. Should we give the United States, Canada, Mexico and Australia back to the Native populations and force all the people of European decent to leave? Should France be able to seek reparations from Italy for the actions of Julius Caesar in Gaul? Should Italy be able to seek reparations from Germany for the actions of the Germanic barbarians? What about Tibet? What about all of the Pacific Islands? What about Northern Ireland? And who gets that disputed strip of land on the Mediterranean currently called Israel? The Jews? The Palestinians? The Romans? The Greeks? The Turks?
I don't think I owe anybody an apology because my forefathers were more successful (sometimes with the checkbook, sometimes with the sword) than your forefathers. And for all the finger-pointing that people love to do at Europeans/people of European descent, history is ripe with examples of outside powers attempting to conquer Europe. Can we get our reparations check directly deposited please?
but you want to tell everything you know about "P2P traffic shaping for home use" and be useful to more people.
This won't be directly helpful to the submitter (he's working with a WRT54G), but this is how I do it in Linux. Set up the shaping rules with tc. Classify traffic with iptables. Examples follow:
In order, those commands establish a htb scheduler with a celing of 632,320bit/s (you have to set this around 70-80% less than your actual upload to force the packets to queue at your box and not the dsl/cable modem), then establishs children underneth it for each class of traffic. The children will get AT LEAST the specified rate and when extra is available will borrow it according to their priority number. Prio 0 gets all extra bandwidth until satisifed or no more exists, then prio 1, prio 2, etc, etc.
The second set of commands attaches a fair queuing algorithm so individual connections within those classes will share the bandwidth (more) fairly.
From there it's just a matter of using iptables to classify the traffic. This example shoves all bittorrent traffic into the lowest queues. We assume that anything coming from 172.25.42.254 is bittorrent traffic because we add that as a second IP address on the client behind NAT and make Azureus bind to that IP (all other traffic goes out on the default IP).
Those commands
I hope you have a Delorean that can do 88MPH because $1000 bills haven't been printed since 1945 and the circulation of them was halted in 1969 by Executive Order.
Just nitpicking, ya know? ;)
I didn't ignore them. I specifically remember stating that prison rape is a serious problem but that notwithstanding you still can't make a comparison between forced-labor camps where people are worked to death and US prisons with cable TV and law libraries.
Actually they are reserved to the States or to the people.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There isn't a right to share files but I'm pretty sure there's a right to free speech in there somewhere and a ban on "unauthorized information exchanges" doesn't seem very Constitutional to me.
Are you sure about that?
Ya know, you really make yourself look stupid when you make comparisons like that. I have some serious problems with our (starting with prison rape) but your comparison is just downright moronic.
Let's review US Prisons:
* Freedom to worship as you choose
* Access to legal counsel
* Freedom to pursue educational/academic goals (available in most situations, even for those serving life sentences)
* Basic health and dietary needs are provided for (in all situations)
* Other services that aren't exactly a requirement of life (TV comes to mind)
I'd like to see just how well that compares to a Soviet gulag where the prisoners are living off rats (and each other) while being worked to death by the NKVD guards.
Sure you can. There's nothing stopping me from taking the Linux kernel and slapping DRM on it and redistributing it.
Of course I'd have to make the full source code available upon request, which would kind of defeat the point of the DRM wouldn't it? ;)
It's even less than that here in New York. $100 fine and no criminal record. Not all of us are lucky enough to live in the saner states though. I'll use Pennsylvania as the example -- in PA they have a "drugged driving" law that basically says if you have ANY detectable drug metabolites (not the drug itself) in your system that it's basically the same as a DWI. If you smoked a joint two weeks ago you could be convicted of driving under the influence and lose your license and even your freedom. WTF is wrong with that picture?
And we used to have the most draconian drug laws - wonder if Wiki-joke-pedia will fix that no longer true statement.NORML has a handy section on their website where you can see the different state laws regarding marijuana.
So if a buddy of mine decks a co-worker my company can prohibit me from ever having any contact with him ever again? That doesn't seem right to me.
He didn't.Oh I'm sure this person is a complete asshole based on your story. I just question why a third party could obtain a restraining order preventing someone from having contact with me. Freedom of association and all that, ya know?
If my connection was fast enough to upload 1.3 terabytes in a month I'd be a pretty happy camper ;) That works out to about 4Mbits -- so I suppose you could actually achieve this on one of those symmetrical FiOS connections. I honestly doubt they'd notice or say anything about it though -- anyone with FiOS and a penchant for consuming bandwidth care to comment?
How does a company obtain a restraining ordering preventing you from contacting it's employees? Aren't they two separate things? If he had friends within that company would he then be prohibited from communicating with them?