You are indeed underinformed, but that's typical of/.ers these days. The packets are filtered but then pursuant to the actual court order and normal Title III wiretap regulations the non-pertinent traffic is not retained "sitting on the FBI's computer" [sic] for later use. The irrelevant traffic must be discarded at the time of filtering.
Your obviously polemic (and clearly incorrect) comments at the end of your post don't even bear up to the slightest modicum of common sense. Do yourself a favor and don't believe everything you read or hear. Remember that the news media is a BUSINESS, not a public service. They have no motivation to report truth, especially when it doesn't generate good ratings.
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore. I'm surprised to see such technological illiteracy on/. but I have learned to lower my expectations over the last couple of years.
The Supreme Court decision concerns surveillance of an intrusive nature that gives police access to information they would not otherwise have been able to gain without physical access. Carnivore has absolutely nothing to do with such kinds of surveillance. Carnivore is nothing more than a glorified packet sniffer.
As such, it picks up (pursuant to lawfully obtained search warrants) information that is sent OUTSIDE any area that could be reasonably considered private. When you send e-mail or browse the Web, you are submitting information on a public network, and as such, police are perfectly entitled to perform surveillance there, provided they have the appropriate judicial permission (in the form of a warrant).
This will probably be extremely unpopular but it needs to be said.
I was Sean when I was in school, up to and including high school. I attended public school through graduation. During that time I was occasionally (at the time it seemed constantly) teased, mocked, and subjected to verbal and sometimes physical cruelty, due to my intelligence, my short stature (at the time), and anything else that would differentiate me from those dealing out the unhappiness. I was a gifted student, played RPG's, was into computers, music, science fiction, and any other staples of geekdom that you can care to dream up.
I only got in a few physical altercations at the time, and I never threatened anyone with a handgun. (I had access to them; since my father was a law enforcement officer, he kept several in the house.) I lived through it all, enjoyed myself far more at college, and proceeded to have a fairly normal life free of the petty cruelties of high school, complete with beer, sex, and friends both geek and non-geek. (Now I'm married with a little girl.)
I guess my point is, these type of insults and taunting are part of growing up geeky -- is there a reason that Sean couldn't just put up with it and then tell someone in authority? In this time of extreme paranoia, why even talk in a way that threatens gun violence? If Sean's so guldurned smart, he must have known that his comments were going to be targets for over-reaction.
I am getting concerned that in the business of keeping our kids healthy, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak). Disagreements or downright altercations with other people are part of growing up and you have to learn to deal with them properly -- without resorting to, or even talking about, using a gun.
Actions have consequences, and Sean is now learning that. Have the other kids learned that? Perhaps, but since Sean resorted to stupidity in order to respond to their taunting, he doesn't have even the benefit of satisfaction in knowing that he responded like a superior intellect should. Let this be a lesson to all the young turks: The best revenge is living through it with dignity. Anything else is a waste of your time and your mind. Remember there's a life beyond high school; don't let it cloud your thinking.
To Sean's father: Do your kid a real favor and keep this out of the courts. Teach him that sometimes you have to roll with the punches -- there's a true life lesson. Send him to private school, and look at it as the price you pay for not being able to teach him how to deal with his frustration constructively.
Thank you, Mo, finally a voice of reason. (And to answer your question, it was probably around 250,000.) Notable example: Dr. Fred Cohen, who works at the Sandia National Laboratories, is very likely in possession of classification levels whose very names are classified, and is also one of the most outspoken critics of Carnivore and the FBI in general.
Once again, Slashdot showing the fact that just because you have a forum doesn't make you an expert in, well... anything. (I don't claim to be one either for that matter, just an informed amateur.)
See also the brilliant "Maus" series by Art Spiegelman. A greater graphic novel has not, to my knowledge, been produced.
Empathy, Imagination, and Dread
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Many of the comments I have read, including this one, seem to be from people who lack the ability to convey any sense of empathy. Empathy is a requirement NOT of "horror," which is more concerned with shocking the sensibilities of the viewer/reader with vivid or violent detail, but of "dread," which does so by forcing us down an inevitable path that leads to a sort of "unspeakable" climax which we cannot help but allow our minds to enumerate, at once against, and by, our own will.
The root of dread in a film, short story, novel, etc. that taps the mass unconscious mind is first and foremost its ability to explore and magnify this concept. Dread cannot be appreciated if one is not willing to first empathize beyond the bounds of one's own personal experience. Furthermore, empathy is only gained by testing through extremity. Empathizing with someone on a shopping trip is considerably less substantial than empathizing with someone trapped alone in a stopped elevator with no lights.
I certainly would not be very interested in tracking down an urban myth based on half-baked recollections of a child murderer, or a colonial-era witch. I would not feel drawn to filming a hiking trip as if it were some novel approach to documenting the history of the myth. I certainly wouldn't go hiking in the first place without a number of prior arrangements (and, for pete's sake, a cell phone).
But I can *imagine* what someone who was drawn to do these things would feel like. I can imagine their energy and their enthusiasm for a project they believe in. I can imagine the mounting stress and tension as they realize they have lost control of their situation. I can definitely imagine their terror at things that go bump in the night. (Wait -- don't tell me -- you were never five years old, right?);)
Second, dread relies on our willingness to complete a half-drawn picture with the worst possible details drawn from imagination. If one is unwilling or unable to allow one's imagination to fill in these details, then one will never be truly frightened by a dreadful story (visual or otherwise).
Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Casks of Amontillado" is a perfect example. What frightens us most is not the interment of the narrator behind the wall of brick, but rather, our imagination of the hideous nights of utter darkness, starvation, madness, and ultimate death that await him. None of these elements are described at all by Poe, but they are the most vivid image left by the story.
TBWP is thus a film not of conventional "horror" (which consists usually of a predominant amount of gore and/or special, makeup, and visual effects) but of dread. It is not fairly judged against such films as "Halloween" or "Hellraiser," but rather "Picnic at Hanging Rock" or "Angel Heart."
Actually, "Clerks" was shot over the course of about twenty-some days. Kevin Smith talks about this in the commentary on both the laser disc and the new DVD release. Cheers
Slashdot Mirror
You are indeed underinformed, but that's typical of /.ers these days. The packets are filtered but then pursuant to the actual court order and normal Title III wiretap regulations the non-pertinent traffic is not retained "sitting on the FBI's computer" [sic] for later use. The irrelevant traffic must be discarded at the time of filtering.
Your obviously polemic (and clearly incorrect) comments at the end of your post don't even bear up to the slightest modicum of common sense. Do yourself a favor and don't believe everything you read or hear. Remember that the news media is a BUSINESS, not a public service. They have no motivation to report truth, especially when it doesn't generate good ratings.
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore. I'm surprised to see such technological illiteracy on /. but I have learned to lower my expectations over the last couple of years.
The Supreme Court decision concerns surveillance of an intrusive nature that gives police access to information they would not otherwise have been able to gain without physical access. Carnivore has absolutely nothing to do with such kinds of surveillance. Carnivore is nothing more than a glorified packet sniffer.
As such, it picks up (pursuant to lawfully obtained search warrants) information that is sent OUTSIDE any area that could be reasonably considered private. When you send e-mail or browse the Web, you are submitting information on a public network, and as such, police are perfectly entitled to perform surveillance there, provided they have the appropriate judicial permission (in the form of a warrant).
This will probably be extremely unpopular but it needs to be said.
I was Sean when I was in school, up to and including high school. I attended public school through graduation. During that time I was occasionally (at the time it seemed constantly) teased, mocked, and subjected to verbal and sometimes physical cruelty, due to my intelligence, my short stature (at the time), and anything else that would differentiate me from those dealing out the unhappiness. I was a gifted student, played RPG's, was into computers, music, science fiction, and any other staples of geekdom that you can care to dream up.
I only got in a few physical altercations at the time, and I never threatened anyone with a handgun. (I had access to them; since my father was a law enforcement officer, he kept several in the house.) I lived through it all, enjoyed myself far more at college, and proceeded to have a fairly normal life free of the petty cruelties of high school, complete with beer, sex, and friends both geek and non-geek. (Now I'm married with a little girl.)
I guess my point is, these type of insults and taunting are part of growing up geeky -- is there a reason that Sean couldn't just put up with it and then tell someone in authority? In this time of extreme paranoia, why even talk in a way that threatens gun violence? If Sean's so guldurned smart, he must have known that his comments were going to be targets for over-reaction.
I am getting concerned that in the business of keeping our kids healthy, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak). Disagreements or downright altercations with other people are part of growing up and you have to learn to deal with them properly -- without resorting to, or even talking about, using a gun.
Actions have consequences, and Sean is now learning that. Have the other kids learned that? Perhaps, but since Sean resorted to stupidity in order to respond to their taunting, he doesn't have even the benefit of satisfaction in knowing that he responded like a superior intellect should. Let this be a lesson to all the young turks: The best revenge is living through it with dignity. Anything else is a waste of your time and your mind. Remember there's a life beyond high school; don't let it cloud your thinking.
To Sean's father: Do your kid a real favor and keep this out of the courts. Teach him that sometimes you have to roll with the punches -- there's a true life lesson. Send him to private school, and look at it as the price you pay for not being able to teach him how to deal with his frustration constructively.
Thank you, Mo, finally a voice of reason. (And to answer your question, it was probably around 250,000.) Notable example: Dr. Fred Cohen, who works at the Sandia National Laboratories, is very likely in possession of classification levels whose very names are classified, and is also one of the most outspoken critics of Carnivore and the FBI in general.
Once again, Slashdot showing the fact that just because you have a forum doesn't make you an expert in, well... anything. (I don't claim to be one either for that matter, just an informed amateur.)
The best names I ever saw for hosts was at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, which sported two firewalls named Fear and Loathing.
In my office, we have named our systems after cartoon characters -- Warner Brothers only! :)
Porky - RH Linux (of course)
Marvin - Windows NT4 (world domination factor)
Taz - 450MHz Alpha
Droopy - old Sun SPARCstation 5
Speedy - Sun UltraSPARC
Wiley - G3/400 blue-n-white Mac
Slightly off topic, but what the heck:
See also the brilliant "Maus" series by Art Spiegelman. A greater graphic novel has not, to my knowledge, been produced.
Many of the comments I have read, including this one, seem to be from people who lack the ability to convey any sense of empathy. Empathy is a requirement NOT of "horror," which is more concerned with shocking the sensibilities of the viewer/reader with vivid or violent detail, but of "dread," which does so by forcing us down an inevitable path that leads to a sort of "unspeakable" climax which we cannot help but allow our minds to enumerate, at once against, and by, our own will.
The root of dread in a film, short story, novel, etc. that taps the mass unconscious mind is first and foremost its ability to explore and magnify this concept. Dread cannot be appreciated if one is not willing to first empathize beyond the bounds of one's own personal experience. Furthermore, empathy is only gained by testing through extremity. Empathizing with someone on a shopping trip is considerably less substantial than empathizing with someone trapped alone in a stopped elevator with no lights.
I certainly would not be very interested in tracking down an urban myth based on half-baked recollections of a child murderer, or a colonial-era witch. I would not feel drawn to filming a hiking trip as if it were some novel approach to documenting the history of the myth. I certainly wouldn't go hiking in the first place without a number of prior arrangements (and, for pete's sake, a cell phone).
But I can *imagine* what someone who was drawn to do these things would feel like. I can imagine their energy and their enthusiasm for a project they believe in. I can imagine the mounting stress and tension as they realize they have lost control of their situation. I can definitely imagine their terror at things that go bump in the night. (Wait -- don't tell me -- you were never five years old, right?) ;)
Second, dread relies on our willingness to complete a half-drawn picture with the worst possible details drawn from imagination. If one is unwilling or unable to allow one's imagination to fill in these details, then one will never be truly frightened by a dreadful story (visual or otherwise).
Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Casks of Amontillado" is a perfect example. What frightens us most is not the interment of the narrator behind the wall of brick, but rather, our imagination of the hideous nights of utter darkness, starvation, madness, and ultimate death that await him. None of these elements are described at all by Poe, but they are the most vivid image left by the story.
TBWP is thus a film not of conventional "horror" (which consists usually of a predominant amount of gore and/or special, makeup, and visual effects) but of dread. It is not fairly judged against such films as "Halloween" or "Hellraiser," but rather "Picnic at Hanging Rock" or "Angel Heart."
Actually, "Clerks" was shot over the course of about twenty-some days. Kevin Smith talks about this in the commentary on both the laser disc and the new DVD release. Cheers