If I knew a big corporation like Diebold was doing something like this in the USA, and I wished to prevent it, I would go to the media, rather than the law. I might of course do both, but realistically, which is going to get results in any kind of timescale that is meaningful.
What do you do? Call the local police? Lot of faith there. Begin procedings yourself? With what financial backing? Go to the government? At the speed they move and when there's a suspicion of complicity (not unreasonable with Diebold's ties)?
If you actually care about democracy, go to the media. Clearly it is the public that is the victim in a vote-rigging, so clearly the public should be told.
Well I live in the EU and if my courts are making judgements, I want to know how they reach them. I have no doubt that Micro$oft are doing this because they think they will benefit. But by my value system, I benefit too, so good on them.
If that white guy was a cop and my cousin, and my entire family are members of the KKK- YES
That's not the question I asked. Are you saying that you think all muslims share the same beliefs and attitudes as those who struck at the World Trade Centre. The above KKK analogy only works if you do. And if so, you should ask yourself why there aren't many thousands of such attacks. But you admit later on that they do not, so my point remains: What you advocate is no different than saying you and your family should be punished for the actions of an unrelated person (in a different country, mind you), who merely happens to share your white skin colour.
Actually, no- the invasion of Iraq had almost nothing to do with 9-11
It had very much to do with it. The majority of US citizens at the time of the invasion thought that Saddam Hussein was resonsible for the 9-11 attacks. Hard to believe that ignorance, but it was there and it provided the climate and excuse the US administration needed to justify the invasion in a way that Euros vs. Dollars would not. Like it or not, the American people are not so greedy that they would countenance invading a country for the sake of their trade defecit. Fear was required.
This is far from the point, I just didn't want to let your shallow examination pass without inspection. Now to return:
At this point, that isn't even a choice- the whites no longer have replacement population growth, and haven't for several decades now.
Why do you think that? The population climbs to a level far far in excess of anything that has existed historically and then it drops slightly and you cry apocalypse? Do you not think that if economic factors changed that this would not right itself quickly? With modern childbirth and healthcare, there is an enormous capacity to expand the population should society wish. And I'm quite capable of finding a partner of any ethnic group if I so choose. Miscegenation works both ways.
human beings are not capable of self-government.
Last five-thousand years not withstanding, of course. And of course the modern world is just a figment of my imagination. Cities, nations, laws and customs mere random happenstance? What planet are you living on?
And I'm convinced we're now at the point that there is nothing in humanity left worth salvaging
Then what are you living for? There must be something that you still care about, even if it's merely the satisfaction of typing in capitals at obnoxious idealists on the Web. And if you care about anything then isn't it worth fighting for? After all - when the alternative you've laid out for yourself is nuclear holocaust, what have you got to lose?
I'm going to call it a day here. I've said everything that needs to be said here and anyone still reading can weigh up both our posts for themselves. But I'd like to answer your ending question:
If you're already Islamic, it seems natural to you to surrender to the Jihad- after all, what are you giving up to
turn the United States into an Islamic Theocracy?
If you're a young modern muslim, interested in science, freedom of expression, to be able to walk and talk openly amongst men for a woman, to be able to talk to a girl if your a man, to listen to the music you want or see the films you wish or to elect who you want to lead your society, then there's plenty to loose. Many modern muslims have as little desire to live under a taliban state as you probably have to live under an Orwellian police state. But when someone advocates such extreme ideas as their murder because of their race or some shared religious tenants, then it naturally provokes an extremism in return.
Or have you forgotten why those bombers flew those planes in the World Trade Centre?
Yes - but not if your name happens to be Abdallah - a rather popular name amongst muslims. Sheesh - talk about alienating a community. Are Yahoo deliberately trying to be anti-islamic, or what?
So when some white guy assaults me, you and your family members should have the crap kicked out of you all to discourage him? What's that? His actions are nothing to do with you? But of course all of the families living in Mecca are responsible for the actions of twenty or thirty people who between them crashed the planes on 11th September, let off the July bombs in London and the train bombing in Madrid. It's that confused and racist thinking (basing your treatment of people on their race rather than their actions), that leads to things like invading Iraq in the "War on Terror" when the great evil Al Quaeda actually were enemies of Saddam's regime. And they were no doubt rejoicing to see him fall and the country (formerly secular for all that it was a dictatorship) opened up to becoming a theocracy and it's people hating the USA.
You're attitude is ultimately an all or nothing extermination of other races. And if that were ever achieved. The remaining callous survivors would surely find some other way to divide themselves into groups that can go to war against each other. Because if a few minor physiological differences are sufficient to justify lumping millions of people into the same category, then I'm sure there are other genetic differences that could be used. It's all about power. And if the whole world became white, that need to be in control wouldn't vanish because racial unity only exists in the presence of other races. So the same cycle begins again.
Only this time, there's a bit less of the World, and bit less cultural variety to be wiped out, 'cause it's already been nuked or exterminated.
By the way, if you think your "us and them" division isn't racial, but is based on religious belief and is only co-inicidentally racist for historical reasons, then you really need to get to know more muslims. "They" are not a they, anymore than you and Bush or Putin or Britney or Hitler or Trotsky are a homogenous group of believers.
Just wait until "trusted" computing is the default everywhere. Then when the government want to reclassify a document that has copies everywhere, they'll just start revoking licences. Simeple, eh?
I say you should post it. I expect that some will use it for perverted entertainment or humour. But I suspect many more people in the US just don't have much idea what is really happening out there. People can't form valid opinions with nothing to form them from.
I can't off any videos (for which I'm thankful), but if you want good factual reporting from non "embedded" reporters, I can recommend the Indpendent. If you google through their site for Iraq or Robert Fisk (their correspondent), you'll find plenty. Here.
That piece of crap. A company I worked for paid ten grand for it (despite being in financial trouble), to prevent half-a-dozen software engineers who were working very hard from abusing the Internet connection. Insulted everyone and motivated one of the more pissed off employees to quit working so hard and reconsider just how much loyalty he actually owed the company.
And I was pissed off when it blocked a maths site I viewed on my lunchbreak as "games". The company isn't there anymore. Good!
Why is "nigger" an insult? It's meaningless. If I call someone stupid, or a liar, or ugly, these can be insults. But if nigger means black then it's just a description of fact. There's no more anything wrong with being black than there is right about being Eskimo, so why should it cause offense?
As clerkes be full subtle and full quaint.
And privily he caught her by the queint (cunt)
Now I'm at a loss as to why such an important part of the anatomy (or any part really), should be regarded as an insult, but profanity? The origin of fuck, cunt, and a couple of others as vulgar language goes back to when the Normans invaded Britain. Fuck and cunt are traditional english words, whereas the educated and powerful were all speaking old french at the time. To use these english words was to show how common you were. Basically, it's a class thing. So if you like, you can proudly show your rebellious streak to the Normans with every fuck and cunt you say.
Being British (not to steretype here), I probably swear more casually than most americans... not necessarily more, but with less emphasis because I don't regard it as a big deal. I don't usually say cunt, simply because it seems such a odd thing to be an insult. I thought guys liked cunts?
Personally, I think the word has been used as an insult so much by now, that it's going to be hard to reclaim it. Vagina sounds far too clinical so I'd like to propose a new word for it. From now on, I'd like everyone to call it a "wooha" (emphasis on second syllable, like Bruce Lee is hitting someone). I think that it would be impossible to use this as an insult, and yet it still conveys a sense of fun.
Yes, you got your Funny mod points, but "hookers" do not necessarily sell a few hours of their time. There are Eastern European girls in London and Bristol that have been forced to have sex with over a hundred men in a week.
I'll admit that I deliberately set aside any super-high expectations before I saw the film. Ironically that damning review by DNA's biographer helped me enjoy it all the more. But I don't think much in the film was dumbed down. Things are ommitted, that's true, and some of those things were things that were intelligent, but the thing is that they didn't just remove the intelligent parts and strip it down to the stupid stuff - what remains was also fairly intelligent.
There were a couple of things that were really bad - the bad joke with Marvin's arm jarred badly with the characters as we knew them and wasn't funny either. And Stephen Fry really truly gets on my tits.
But compared to most films that come out, it was very far from stupid. Unless you see many other films this year featuring a plot that sophisticated with characters that original in a setting that rich. Batman Begins just isn't its intellectual equal.
Funny - it reads like he crammed it into eighty. By which I mean even though the first book was something like 600 pages, it still felt like I was rushing through something that would normally have been five times the length. I think these books are fantastic - can't recommend them enough. I dissassociate them from Cryptonomicon which I found very dull, but if that was necessary for him to get to the Baroque Cycle, I forgive every page.
I've tried to describe his writing style to other people and mostly failed. I hope no-one ever does try and cram them into 2-hours. I'd like to turn them into a year-long epic TV series for the BBC. They deserve no less.:)
(And if anyone ever does an adaptation that doesn't include the utterly insane musical number in the middle of Quicksilver, they should be truly truly ashamed of themselves).
Yep - me too. Enjoyed the book, enjoyed the film. Ford was brilliant and so was everyone else. I'm happy to complain about good books being butchered by people who just think the name has marketing value, but THHGTTG film was THHGTTG. Abridged slightly and with an added character that was still very Adamsy, but nevertheless, still THHGTTG.
I don't think we are disagreeing on much (other than NSA versus public technology). You're just looking at this security issue from a more practical observable position that may prove to very well be a better business decision for your particular clients (depending on who they are).
No, we're not disagreeing on much other than how far ahead the NSA might be, and I haven't ruled that out. Your Manhattan analogy is a good one, though I still think the NSA having super-code cracking capabilities is very unlikely. Regarding my clients however, in this instance my client is society. When you agreed that your methods required effort and resources, I think you misunderstood me. I had meant effort on the part of the eavesdropper. The subject I'm addressing is not personal privacy, per se, but data mining as with this Google Desktop. Wide spread uptake of email encryption and anonymous browsing kyboshes widespread snooping. It ends the free party that the NSA, GCHQ, et al. have been enjoying society started using the Internet for communication.
Com'mon that's a cheap shot.
No offence was meant - it was intended as a joke and I apologise for any inadverant insult. I think we both understand each other's point of view and that's sufficient for me. I can't prove you wrong on the NSA secret omniscience thing, and you can't prove you're right without getting arrested;)
Okay, you highlight a number of ways in which an individual's security can be overcome. If you re-read my post you'll see that the point I made was that this security prevents mass, automated surveillance. All of your methods require expenditure of a considerable amount of effort. This can't be applied to an entire society that routinely uses encryption which is what I proposed.
Regarding the possibility that the NSA (or anyone else) has Quantum computers doing code cracking in short-time, I think this is unlikely because it would put the NSA considerably ahead of the level of technology in the Academic and business sectors, both of which we would think to have a headstart in low-level physics and chemistry over a spy-department of the US government. There are other reasons, too. Hopefully, this will free you up to worry about some of the things we know the US government agencies are doing.
Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination
Do you want to go into more detail on this? The EFF certainly seem quite confidant in TOR's security and as I understand the technology, the concept is sound. Encrypted connection to a TOR peer, onion routing to your destination through an unknown number of intermediate peers (similarly encrypted) before reaching destination address. The destination sees only the TOR peer that is talking to it with no information in the packet as to where it will go after that. And likewise for each of the peers in the intermediate phase. All of which prevents the mass data-tapping / searching which I was addressing in my post.
Given that you state your profession is security for the seriously paranoid, perhaps you'd like to give more detail on where everyone else is going wrong?
Whether or not you believe the NSA can decrypt a 1024-bit key in any reasonable timescale (and for reference, I do not), the point that I was addressing was the possible widespread mass-scanning of emails. Neither the NSA nor anyone else on this planet can perform mass-scanning if emails are predominantly encrypted.
Regardless of whether or not intelligence agencies are tapping universally or not, everyone here has the power to stop them using simple privacy measures such as encrypting email and using networks like Tor. If they want to read your email, make them ask!
Slashdot Mirror
If I knew a big corporation like Diebold was doing something like this in the USA, and I wished to prevent it, I would go to the media, rather than the law. I might of course do both, but realistically, which is going to get results in any kind of timescale that is meaningful.
What do you do? Call the local police? Lot of faith there. Begin procedings yourself? With what financial backing? Go to the government? At the speed they move and when there's a suspicion of complicity (not unreasonable with Diebold's ties)?
If you actually care about democracy, go to the media. Clearly it is the public that is the victim in a vote-rigging, so clearly the public should be told.
If you get angry enough, I find you can stop at number 2.
Well I live in the EU and if my courts are making judgements, I want to know how they reach them. I have no doubt that Micro$oft are doing this because they think they will benefit. But by my value system, I benefit too, so good on them.
If that white guy was a cop and my cousin, and my entire family are members of the KKK- YES
That's not the question I asked. Are you saying that you think all muslims share the same beliefs and attitudes as those who struck at the World Trade Centre. The above KKK analogy only works if you do. And if so, you should ask yourself why there aren't many thousands of such attacks. But you admit later on that they do not, so my point remains: What you advocate is no different than saying you and your family should be punished for the actions of an unrelated person (in a different country, mind you), who merely happens to share your white skin colour.
Actually, no- the invasion of Iraq had almost nothing to do with 9-11
It had very much to do with it. The majority of US citizens at the time of the invasion thought that Saddam Hussein was resonsible for the 9-11 attacks. Hard to believe that ignorance, but it was there and it provided the climate and excuse the US administration needed to justify the invasion in a way that Euros vs. Dollars would not. Like it or not, the American people are not so greedy that they would countenance invading a country for the sake of their trade defecit. Fear was required.
This is far from the point, I just didn't want to let your shallow examination pass without inspection. Now to return:
At this point, that isn't even a choice- the whites no longer have replacement population growth, and haven't for several decades now.
Why do you think that? The population climbs to a level far far in excess of anything that has existed historically and then it drops slightly and you cry apocalypse? Do you not think that if economic factors changed that this would not right itself quickly? With modern childbirth and healthcare, there is an enormous capacity to expand the population should society wish. And I'm quite capable of finding a partner of any ethnic group if I so choose. Miscegenation works both ways.
human beings are not capable of self-government.
Last five-thousand years not withstanding, of course. And of course the modern world is just a figment of my imagination. Cities, nations, laws and customs mere random happenstance? What planet are you living on?
And I'm convinced we're now at the point that there is nothing in humanity left worth salvaging
Then what are you living for? There must be something that you still care about, even if it's merely the satisfaction of typing in capitals at obnoxious idealists on the Web. And if you care about anything then isn't it worth fighting for? After all - when the alternative you've laid out for yourself is nuclear holocaust, what have you got to lose?
I'm going to call it a day here. I've said everything that needs to be said here and anyone still reading can weigh up both our posts for themselves. But I'd like to answer your ending question:
If you're already Islamic, it seems natural to you to surrender to the Jihad- after all, what are you giving up to turn the United States into an Islamic Theocracy?
If you're a young modern muslim, interested in science, freedom of expression, to be able to walk and talk openly amongst men for a woman, to be able to talk to a girl if your a man, to listen to the music you want or see the films you wish or to elect who you want to lead your society, then there's plenty to loose. Many modern muslims have as little desire to live under a taliban state as you probably have to live under an Orwellian police state. But when someone advocates such extreme ideas as their murder because of their race or some shared religious tenants, then it naturally provokes an extremism in return.
Or have you forgotten why those bombers flew those planes in the World Trade Centre?
Yes - but not if your name happens to be Abdallah - a rather popular name amongst muslims. Sheesh - talk about alienating a community. Are Yahoo deliberately trying to be anti-islamic, or what?
So when some white guy assaults me, you and your family members should have the crap kicked out of you all to discourage him? What's that? His actions are nothing to do with you? But of course all of the families living in Mecca are responsible for the actions of twenty or thirty people who between them crashed the planes on 11th September, let off the July bombs in London and the train bombing in Madrid. It's that confused and racist thinking (basing your treatment of people on their race rather than their actions), that leads to things like invading Iraq in the "War on Terror" when the great evil Al Quaeda actually were enemies of Saddam's regime. And they were no doubt rejoicing to see him fall and the country (formerly secular for all that it was a dictatorship) opened up to becoming a theocracy and it's people hating the USA.
You're attitude is ultimately an all or nothing extermination of other races. And if that were ever achieved. The remaining callous survivors would surely find some other way to divide themselves into groups that can go to war against each other. Because if a few minor physiological differences are sufficient to justify lumping millions of people into the same category, then I'm sure there are other genetic differences that could be used. It's all about power. And if the whole world became white, that need to be in control wouldn't vanish because racial unity only exists in the presence of other races. So the same cycle begins again.
Only this time, there's a bit less of the World, and bit less cultural variety to be wiped out, 'cause it's already been nuked or exterminated.
By the way, if you think your "us and them" division isn't racial, but is based on religious belief and is only co-inicidentally racist for historical reasons, then you really need to get to know more muslims. "They" are not a they, anymore than you and Bush or Putin or Britney or Hitler or Trotsky are a homogenous group of believers.
H.
Just wait until "trusted" computing is the default everywhere. Then when the government want to reclassify a document that has copies everywhere, they'll just start revoking licences. Simeple, eh?
I say you should post it. I expect that some will use it for perverted entertainment or humour. But I suspect many more people in the US just don't have much idea what is really happening out there. People can't form valid opinions with nothing to form them from.
I can't off any videos (for which I'm thankful), but if you want good factual reporting from non "embedded" reporters, I can recommend the Indpendent. If you google through their site for Iraq or Robert Fisk (their correspondent), you'll find plenty. Here.
Unless you're British.
That piece of crap. A company I worked for paid ten grand for it (despite being in financial trouble), to prevent half-a-dozen software engineers who were working very hard from abusing the Internet connection. Insulted everyone and motivated one of the more pissed off employees to quit working so hard and reconsider just how much loyalty he actually owed the company.
And I was pissed off when it blocked a maths site I viewed on my lunchbreak as "games". The company isn't there anymore. Good!
I have TOURETTES you fucking insensitive shitty buggering cunt!
Why is "nigger" an insult? It's meaningless. If I call someone stupid, or a liar, or ugly, these can be insults. But if nigger means black then it's just a description of fact. There's no more anything wrong with being black than there is right about being Eskimo, so why should it cause offense?
Well, it was good enough for Chaucer.
Now I'm at a loss as to why such an important part of the anatomy (or any part really), should be regarded as an insult, but profanity? The origin of fuck, cunt, and a couple of others as vulgar language goes back to when the Normans invaded Britain. Fuck and cunt are traditional english words, whereas the educated and powerful were all speaking old french at the time. To use these english words was to show how common you were. Basically, it's a class thing. So if you like, you can proudly show your rebellious streak to the Normans with every fuck and cunt you say.
Being British (not to steretype here), I probably swear more casually than most americans... not necessarily more, but with less emphasis because I don't regard it as a big deal. I don't usually say cunt, simply because it seems such a odd thing to be an insult. I thought guys liked cunts?
Personally, I think the word has been used as an insult so much by now, that it's going to be hard to reclaim it. Vagina sounds far too clinical so I'd like to propose a new word for it. From now on, I'd like everyone to call it a "wooha" (emphasis on second syllable, like Bruce Lee is hitting someone). I think that it would be impossible to use this as an insult, and yet it still conveys a sense of fun.
What do you think?
Yes, you got your Funny mod points, but "hookers" do not necessarily sell a few hours of their time. There are Eastern European girls in London and Bristol that have been forced to have sex with over a hundred men in a week.
And it's still happening.
I'll admit that I deliberately set aside any super-high expectations before I saw the film. Ironically that damning review by DNA's biographer helped me enjoy it all the more. But I don't think much in the film was dumbed down. Things are ommitted, that's true, and some of those things were things that were intelligent, but the thing is that they didn't just remove the intelligent parts and strip it down to the stupid stuff - what remains was also fairly intelligent.
There were a couple of things that were really bad - the bad joke with Marvin's arm jarred badly with the characters as we knew them and wasn't funny either. And Stephen Fry really truly gets on my tits.
But compared to most films that come out, it was very far from stupid. Unless you see many other films this year featuring a plot that sophisticated with characters that original in a setting that rich. Batman Begins just isn't its intellectual equal.
Bwahahahahahahaaha! *snort*
Funny - it reads like he crammed it into eighty. By which I mean even though the first book was something like 600 pages, it still felt like I was rushing through something that would normally have been five times the length. I think these books are fantastic - can't recommend them enough. I dissassociate them from Cryptonomicon which I found very dull, but if that was necessary for him to get to the Baroque Cycle, I forgive every page.
I've tried to describe his writing style to other people and mostly failed. I hope no-one ever does try and cram them into 2-hours. I'd like to turn them into a year-long epic TV series for the BBC. They deserve no less.
(And if anyone ever does an adaptation that doesn't include the utterly insane musical number in the middle of Quicksilver, they should be truly truly ashamed of themselves).
Yep - me too. Enjoyed the book, enjoyed the film. Ford was brilliant and so was everyone else. I'm happy to complain about good books being butchered by people who just think the name has marketing value, but THHGTTG film was THHGTTG. Abridged slightly and with an added character that was still very Adamsy, but nevertheless, still THHGTTG.
I don't think we are disagreeing on much (other than NSA versus public technology). You're just looking at this security issue from a more practical observable position that may prove to very well be a better business decision for your particular clients (depending on who they are).
No, we're not disagreeing on much other than how far ahead the NSA might be, and I haven't ruled that out. Your Manhattan analogy is a good one, though I still think the NSA having super-code cracking capabilities is very unlikely. Regarding my clients however, in this instance my client is society. When you agreed that your methods required effort and resources, I think you misunderstood me. I had meant effort on the part of the eavesdropper. The subject I'm addressing is not personal privacy, per se, but data mining as with this Google Desktop. Wide spread uptake of email encryption and anonymous browsing kyboshes widespread snooping. It ends the free party that the NSA, GCHQ, et al. have been enjoying society started using the Internet for communication.
Com'mon that's a cheap shot.
No offence was meant - it was intended as a joke and I apologise for any inadverant insult. I think we both understand each other's point of view and that's sufficient for me. I can't prove you wrong on the NSA secret omniscience thing, and you can't prove you're right without getting arrested
Regards,
-H.
Okay, you highlight a number of ways in which an individual's security can be overcome. If you re-read my post you'll see that the point I made was that this security prevents mass, automated surveillance. All of your methods require expenditure of a considerable amount of effort. This can't be applied to an entire society that routinely uses encryption which is what I proposed.
Regarding the possibility that the NSA (or anyone else) has Quantum computers doing code cracking in short-time, I think this is unlikely because it would put the NSA considerably ahead of the level of technology in the Academic and business sectors, both of which we would think to have a headstart in low-level physics and chemistry over a spy-department of the US government. There are other reasons, too. Hopefully, this will free you up to worry about some of the things we know the US government agencies are doing.
Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination
Do you want to go into more detail on this? The EFF certainly seem quite confidant in TOR's security and as I understand the technology, the concept is sound. Encrypted connection to a TOR peer, onion routing to your destination through an unknown number of intermediate peers (similarly encrypted) before reaching destination address. The destination sees only the TOR peer that is talking to it with no information in the packet as to where it will go after that. And likewise for each of the peers in the intermediate phase. All of which prevents the mass data-tapping / searching which I was addressing in my post.
Given that you state your profession is security for the seriously paranoid, perhaps you'd like to give more detail on where everyone else is going wrong?
Whether or not you believe the NSA can decrypt a 1024-bit key in any reasonable timescale (and for reference, I do not), the point that I was addressing was the possible widespread mass-scanning of emails. Neither the NSA nor anyone else on this planet can perform mass-scanning if emails are predominantly encrypted.
Regardless of whether or not intelligence agencies are tapping universally or not, everyone here has the power to stop them using simple privacy measures such as encrypting email and using networks like Tor. If they want to read your email, make them ask!
Ah, depressing.
Personally, I'd invest in lead. We're going to be using a lot of that in the near future.
I'm sure that I'll kick myself for this, but what are we going to be using lead for so much?