Generally we recommend against using PGP in its simplest form, since the traffic is easily detected and provides proof of intention to conceal, which depending on the context may pose a significant difficulty. - emph mine
Gut reaction to that statement makes me feel a bit queasy.
Yes, that was my gut reaction in my original post. And I believe it is the more logical way of doing it. But further thought made it easy for me to understand how it could work the other way around. Draw a frame, and the picture fills the frame, which fills the screen. I believe some mapping software or Autocad does it that way. Can't remember. Screen size could have a lot to do with it. The debate is far from resolved. Play around with your flight simulator, for example. Is it easier to fly it from inside the plane, or viewing it from behind? I suppose the simplest way to settle any argument would be to offer the option to do it either way.
Instead of attacking those who make libelous statements, or speak of breaking the law, it's better to go after those who act on them. Words are not deeds. Jeeze, I wish I didn't have to repeat this all the time.
...unless they are willing to deal with criminals...
The authorities use criminals all the time to catch other criminals. Most snitches are criminals themselves looking for a way to stay out of prison. It shouldn't surprise you at all if they employ Russian/Chinese hackers. And I consider their surveillance and authoritarian enforcement actions to be pretty efficient. If you want to break them down, you need to get the authoritarians to go after each other. Use the same methods that work so well on us.
Actually, maybe not. If you think of it as pinching or stretching the "frame", it doesn't sound so illogical. Especially if it shows the frame on the screen until you let go. Then, moving both fingers together could move the frame. I think some programs operate in that fashion.
So a campaign of re-regulation, a campaign of corporate executive culpability and liability, a campaign of not only protecting what we have but also taking back what has already by stolen via corporate corruption of the political system.
...the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it.
You know that yours is the only post that mentions the word "vote"? (before mine anyway) At least someone maintains a semblance of reason while all about you is losing theirs. Less than 1% is showing any objection by voting the bums out. Wake me when it reaches 51%. Then if they don't vacate the office, they can cry about not having their guns. The people have spoken, and they don't care how intrusive the government gets. In fact they seem to like it. They feel safe. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Sometimes a local municipality, or even entire states will award the franchise to only one company. You could be stuck with whoever paid the most to your local councilman/woman to vote their way and lock all others out. It is very rare to see it awarded based on technical merit. If the constitution actually had any force, I'm sure this practice run up against some commerce cause or another.
Copyright and patent law. If you want me to quit harping on that, at the very least roll it back to its original and damn near logical duration of 15 years.
Merely pointing out that if you rear end somebody it's your fault no matter what... other than equipment failure of course. Those who try to justify it with lame excuses such "slamming on the brakes" or "too short yellows" are out of their minds. It's the only reason I brought it up. Because the original poster tried to justify rear ending somebody. And I am telling them, and you apparently that there is no justification. (You would have to prove malicious intent from the person in front for me cut any slack.) Even if they eliminate the yellow altogether. I am not arguing that fiddling with the timing of the yellow light is not a miscarriage of justice. That issue seems to be a bit more than obvious. But nobody in this world can tell me that it can cause rear end collisions. Only a tailgater can do that no matter how quickly the person in front of them comes to a stop for any reason, expected or not. If you're operating a machine as dangerous as a car is, you should always expect the unexpected.
It's a huge consolation, then, when you have a wrecked car and whiplash that it wasn't your fault?
Only to the extent that the medical expenses and repairs will, or should come out of the offenders pocket, and not mine.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "nice try".
A response to, "Yet another holier-than-thou driver rant." Tailgating is the single biggest cause of freeway traffic jams and a big cause of accidents in general. "sudden stops" is their lame excuse in an attempt to weasel out of a ticket. And the cops and insurance companies shouldn't fall for it. Tailgaters are highway trolls.
I was responding to the assertion that one can be rear ended because of a short yellow. So it wasn't entirely off-topic. As for your assertion, I don't care if I hit a brick wall. If I get rear ended, it is because the idiot behind me was following too close, and that is his fault. Plain and simple. 3 seconds is the minimum to prevent it. You need at least one second just to get your foot on the brakes. Even if you use your left foot, which is dumb as hell. But nice try.
Maybe some day we'll live in Jefferson's utopia. But now we live in a world run by lawless pirates. Which may have led to some peoples' perverted definition of property and resulting "hate". So the "social programs" may be the baby steps that lead us all to said utopia. I also remember reading the the ultimate goal of communism was for the government to whither away and die. Leading to true anarchism. It just may have to go down that way. I, for one, am perfectly willing to take from those who enable the pirates.
Slashdot Mirror
...information is only as trustworthy as the source.
I believe the saying goes, "Trust no one but yourself."
Generally we recommend against using PGP in its simplest form, since the traffic is easily detected and provides proof of intention to conceal, which depending on the context may pose a significant difficulty. - emph mine
Gut reaction to that statement makes me feel a bit queasy.
Yes, that was my gut reaction in my original post. And I believe it is the more logical way of doing it. But further thought made it easy for me to understand how it could work the other way around. Draw a frame, and the picture fills the frame, which fills the screen. I believe some mapping software or Autocad does it that way. Can't remember. Screen size could have a lot to do with it. The debate is far from resolved. Play around with your flight simulator, for example. Is it easier to fly it from inside the plane, or viewing it from behind? I suppose the simplest way to settle any argument would be to offer the option to do it either way.
Instead of attacking those who make libelous statements, or speak of breaking the law, it's better to go after those who act on them. Words are not deeds. Jeeze, I wish I didn't have to repeat this all the time.
...unless they are willing to deal with criminals...
The authorities use criminals all the time to catch other criminals. Most snitches are criminals themselves looking for a way to stay out of prison. It shouldn't surprise you at all if they employ Russian/Chinese hackers. And I consider their surveillance and authoritarian enforcement actions to be pretty efficient. If you want to break them down, you need to get the authoritarians to go after each other. Use the same methods that work so well on us.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Actually, maybe not. If you think of it as pinching or stretching the "frame", it doesn't sound so illogical. Especially if it shows the frame on the screen until you let go. Then, moving both fingers together could move the frame. I think some programs operate in that fashion.
That seems so backwards. Eh, whaddo I know? I hate trackpads.
:-) Sorry, I forgot...
What time is it on Earth?
They're yours
Correction -- They were yours
That's a priceless Steinway---Not any more!
So a campaign of re-regulation, a campaign of corporate executive culpability and liability, a campaign of not only protecting what we have but also taking back what has already by stolen via corporate corruption of the political system.
Are you now or have you ever been a... communist?
Won't somebody please, think of the authorities? Jackboots aren't free, you know.
I take it that you're directing that question to the RIAA...right? Peace, baby.
...the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it.
You know that yours is the only post that mentions the word "vote"? (before mine anyway) At least someone maintains a semblance of reason while all about you is losing theirs. Less than 1% is showing any objection by voting the bums out. Wake me when it reaches 51%. Then if they don't vacate the office, they can cry about not having their guns. The people have spoken, and they don't care how intrusive the government gets. In fact they seem to like it. They feel safe. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
...making criminals of all the people...
That's the idea...an empty prison cell doesn't pay the bills
Sometimes a local municipality, or even entire states will award the franchise to only one company. You could be stuck with whoever paid the most to your local councilman/woman to vote their way and lock all others out. It is very rare to see it awarded based on technical merit. If the constitution actually had any force, I'm sure this practice run up against some commerce cause or another.
Copyright and patent law. If you want me to quit harping on that, at the very least roll it back to its original and damn near logical duration of 15 years.
Two boat anchors fall twice as fast.
And they'll cut twice as many cables
Next thing you know your door is kicked in because the police got a "tip" you were buying drugs.
Waddya mean "next"?
Is there still an advantage in the UK?
Well, yeah...If you need a triple bypass there sure is.
Merely pointing out that if you rear end somebody it's your fault no matter what... other than equipment failure of course. Those who try to justify it with lame excuses such "slamming on the brakes" or "too short yellows" are out of their minds. It's the only reason I brought it up. Because the original poster tried to justify rear ending somebody. And I am telling them, and you apparently that there is no justification. (You would have to prove malicious intent from the person in front for me cut any slack.) Even if they eliminate the yellow altogether. I am not arguing that fiddling with the timing of the yellow light is not a miscarriage of justice. That issue seems to be a bit more than obvious. But nobody in this world can tell me that it can cause rear end collisions. Only a tailgater can do that no matter how quickly the person in front of them comes to a stop for any reason, expected or not. If you're operating a machine as dangerous as a car is, you should always expect the unexpected.
It's a huge consolation, then, when you have a wrecked car and whiplash that it wasn't your fault?
Only to the extent that the medical expenses and repairs will, or should come out of the offenders pocket, and not mine.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "nice try".
A response to, "Yet another holier-than-thou driver rant." Tailgating is the single biggest cause of freeway traffic jams and a big cause of accidents in general. "sudden stops" is their lame excuse in an attempt to weasel out of a ticket. And the cops and insurance companies shouldn't fall for it. Tailgaters are highway trolls.
I was responding to the assertion that one can be rear ended because of a short yellow. So it wasn't entirely off-topic. As for your assertion, I don't care if I hit a brick wall. If I get rear ended, it is because the idiot behind me was following too close, and that is his fault. Plain and simple. 3 seconds is the minimum to prevent it. You need at least one second just to get your foot on the brakes. Even if you use your left foot, which is dumb as hell. But nice try.
is pretty much the same as the old guy? Eh, so much for that...
with the "7 second delay" on live programming.
...all of it is based on the concept that YOU OWN YOURSELF!
"The real foundation of the natural right to property is not rights over things, but self-ownership." (caution: pdf) twisty turny interesting read.
Maybe some day we'll live in Jefferson's utopia. But now we live in a world run by lawless pirates. Which may have led to some peoples' perverted definition of property and resulting "hate". So the "social programs" may be the baby steps that lead us all to said utopia. I also remember reading the the ultimate goal of communism was for the government to whither away and die. Leading to true anarchism. It just may have to go down that way. I, for one, am perfectly willing to take from those who enable the pirates.