Wouldn't that be protected under the right against self-incrimination?
You have the right not to be forced to give self-incriminating testimony. But evidence is not testimony, and an encryption key is evidence, not testimony, so they can obtain a warrant or subpoena for it just like they could with a physical key. Specific documents that you have encrypted may still be protected - but not the key used to encrypt them. Similar to how some papers in a drawer might be protected, but not the key used to lock the drawer. (An interesting hypothetical would be if you used an incriminating phrase as your passphrase!)
I'm not sure whether you could take the 5th in response to a request to divulge your key, in the United States.
Almost certainly not. The Fifth Amendment privileges a person from having to testify against oneself, not "provide evidence" against oneself. An encryption key is not testimony under any plausible definition of the word, and so it would be seizable under the Fourth Amendment like any other evidence you might have in your possession. A similar case involved whether the Fifth Amendment privileged a man from having a sample of his blood seized, and there too the Courts held that a blood sample is evidence, not testimony.
This was based on my own experience - I opened up a new tab, visited some pages, and the memory usage went up around 5 MB, but when I closed the tab, only a couple of hundred KB was freed.
No, it is not. "Censorship" would be actually preventing or punishing display and distribution of said cartoon. Expressing disapproval of someone else's speech is itself a subset of free speech (not that the Government technically has First Amendment rights, but the principal applies.)
I don't think I have presented "emotional" reasoning -- merely said "hey, several scientists believe this. Maybe it has some merit."
I apologize that I projected that argument onto you. I've looked at these things before, and I just haven't seen any hard evidence, or any plasusible causal explanations - at least, none more plausible than the two I posted above. Rather, I suspect that this is faith-based pseudoscience, not all that much different from creationists, that starts with the unproved assumption that marriage must be good and beneifical, and so creates results to fit that hypothesis. Nobody really wants to challenge it, because it's not very popular to be against marriage.
I agree that the correlation does at least show that a healthy marriage is not bad. But of course, the majority of marriages are not healthy, and not because people intend to enter unhealthy marriages. It's because they make decisions based on their emotions instead of actually thinking it through like I advocate.
What makes you think I am living in terror? I would argue that, if anything, deliberately blinding oneself to the cold reality of facts indicates terror.
Why on earth are you trying to apply a logic test to human relationships?
I'm not at all, I'm applying it to a legal commitment. I don't know where you got the idea that you have to marry someone to have a relationship with them.
If people applied economics to relationships they'd never dateI agree - I propose no such thing. It's not as if I deny the value of emotions. They are valuable, and necessary. But marriage is not an emotion. It is a legal contract. That's all. I'm not arguing against love, sex, or relationships. Just legal entanglements.
Wow, this is such a great example of how correlation is not causation. Rather than believe that a legal agreement magically bestows long life, wealth, and sexual gratification, what about the hypothesis that couples smart enough and happy enough to have long, successful marriages tend to be successful at other things as well, like budgeting and having a healthy lifestyle? Or how about the hypthesis that it's much easier to have a successful marriage when you're rich, healthy, and sexually compatible? Of course, that would ruin your magical fantasy because it implies that a successful marriage is a result - not the cause - of the factors you listed.
I'm not saying marriage is always wrong. But I am against this kind of emotional reasoning, which is no different than religious faith, but can have huge negative consequences.
Maybe one or both of you _want_ to be married - it may be a worthless piece of paper to you but some people like the tradition & commitment.
It is not a rational commitment, and acting in accordance with a tradition that has become illogical is also irrational. In your case, the citizenship factor certainly is rational benefit that is not relevant for most people, but I don't know enough about that to know whether it would outweigh the enormous liability risks.
I'm sure when you present that argument to a girlfriend, she gets all *tingly* inside knowing that objectivity trumps emotion.
There is a time and place for emotions - life certainly would be empty without them. However, I do not believe that making lifelong legal commitment decisions is one of those times or places. Love is an emotion, and it is a relevant consideration, but it is not itself a source of knowledge, truth, or wisdom.
STEVE BALLMER: Dan, we need you to work on customizing these Linux installations.
DANIEL: Sure thing Steve, right after I get done working on this.NET program.
STEVE: Yeah. See, the thing is, you're kind of behind, and we have some tests we need to run. So...yeah. If you could work on that, that would be great.
(ONE HOUR LATER)
STEVE: So, Dan, how are those Linux tests coming?
DANIEL: Yeah, good news, I'm almost started. Check out this.NET object-oriented Outlook clone I've been working on. It uses GTK# and even runs in Mono! Isn't that super?
STEVE: Can you stand up for a second? I need to use your chair.
Sure, maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but noone is requiring you to get married, or even live with someone.
I understand nobody is forcing it, but I am making a stronger argument than that it doesn't make sense to me. I am saying that many people choose to do it when it doesn't make sense, objectively. I am not distrustful, just skeptical. And I am definitely not embittered. But I am rational, and there is little or no rational justification for many marriages.
Unless you're planning to have children, there is no good reason to get married, especially if you are a man. Why would you? You only expose yourself to huge liabilities and risk financial ruin. If you are happy together, that ought to be enough.
Supporting Real's products is not Apple's perogative nor does blocking it make them "anti-comeditive".
You can't be serious. Apple owns around 85-90% of the PMP market, and you don't think it's anti-competitive of them to use legal threates to prevent other companies from interoperating with their devices? If that's not anti-competitive, what would be? How is that any different than allegations of Microsoft deliberately breaking third-party software on Windows?
While I'm not a fan of discounting everything the man does, you have to admit that for him to present science awards is a bit like Microsoft handing out awards for open source development.
No, it's not. Like it or not, as the President, he is the representative of the United States in these kinds of matters. The duty falls to him personally but to the office.
There are no OS X apps from this company (or any other for that matter) to interface with my iPod
Uh, yeah, that's because of Apple. Apple are the ones who will not license the only protected format that the iPod plays, the format that they control. Do you really think that Napster, Real, Yahoo, are all engaged in a grand conspiracy to lock out iPod owners? No, the reason they don't support the iPod is because Apple will not let them.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the right not to be forced to give self-incriminating testimony. But evidence is not testimony, and an encryption key is evidence, not testimony, so they can obtain a warrant or subpoena for it just like they could with a physical key. Specific documents that you have encrypted may still be protected - but not the key used to encrypt them. Similar to how some papers in a drawer might be protected, but not the key used to lock the drawer. (An interesting hypothetical would be if you used an incriminating phrase as your passphrase!)
Almost certainly not. The Fifth Amendment privileges a person from having to testify against oneself, not "provide evidence" against oneself. An encryption key is not testimony under any plausible definition of the word, and so it would be seizable under the Fourth Amendment like any other evidence you might have in your possession. A similar case involved whether the Fifth Amendment privileged a man from having a sample of his blood seized, and there too the Courts held that a blood sample is evidence, not testimony.
Please, don't post at +2 if you don't know what you are talking about.
This was based on my own experience - I opened up a new tab, visited some pages, and the memory usage went up around 5 MB, but when I closed the tab, only a couple of hundred KB was freed.
Well, if that belief makes you happy, I won't disabuse you of it.
If this is true, then why is so little memory freed after the tab is closed, compared with how much it consumed when it was created?
No, it is not. "Censorship" would be actually preventing or punishing display and distribution of said cartoon. Expressing disapproval of someone else's speech is itself a subset of free speech (not that the Government technically has First Amendment rights, but the principal applies.)
I apologize that I projected that argument onto you. I've looked at these things before, and I just haven't seen any hard evidence, or any plasusible causal explanations - at least, none more plausible than the two I posted above. Rather, I suspect that this is faith-based pseudoscience, not all that much different from creationists, that starts with the unproved assumption that marriage must be good and beneifical, and so creates results to fit that hypothesis. Nobody really wants to challenge it, because it's not very popular to be against marriage.
I agree that the correlation does at least show that a healthy marriage is not bad. But of course, the majority of marriages are not healthy, and not because people intend to enter unhealthy marriages. It's because they make decisions based on their emotions instead of actually thinking it through like I advocate.
What makes you think I am living in terror? I would argue that, if anything, deliberately blinding oneself to the cold reality of facts indicates terror.
I'm not at all, I'm applying it to a legal commitment. I don't know where you got the idea that you have to marry someone to have a relationship with them.
If people applied economics to relationships they'd never dateI agree - I propose no such thing. It's not as if I deny the value of emotions. They are valuable, and necessary. But marriage is not an emotion. It is a legal contract. That's all. I'm not arguing against love, sex, or relationships. Just legal entanglements.
I'm not saying marriage is always wrong. But I am against this kind of emotional reasoning, which is no different than religious faith, but can have huge negative consequences.
It is not a rational commitment, and acting in accordance with a tradition that has become illogical is also irrational. In your case, the citizenship factor certainly is rational benefit that is not relevant for most people, but I don't know enough about that to know whether it would outweigh the enormous liability risks.
There is a time and place for emotions - life certainly would be empty without them. However, I do not believe that making lifelong legal commitment decisions is one of those times or places. Love is an emotion, and it is a relevant consideration, but it is not itself a source of knowledge, truth, or wisdom.
STEVE BALLMER: Dan, we need you to work on customizing these Linux installations. .NET program. .NET object-oriented Outlook clone I've been working on. It uses GTK# and even runs in Mono! Isn't that super?
DANIEL: Sure thing Steve, right after I get done working on this
STEVE: Yeah. See, the thing is, you're kind of behind, and we have some tests we need to run. So...yeah. If you could work on that, that would be great.
(ONE HOUR LATER)
STEVE: So, Dan, how are those Linux tests coming?
DANIEL: Yeah, good news, I'm almost started. Check out this
STEVE: Can you stand up for a second? I need to use your chair.
Command and Conquer blew me away with what you could do on a 486/66. Same thing with Dark Forces.
I understand nobody is forcing it, but I am making a stronger argument than that it doesn't make sense to me. I am saying that many people choose to do it when it doesn't make sense, objectively. I am not distrustful, just skeptical. And I am definitely not embittered. But I am rational, and there is little or no rational justification for many marriages.
Unless you're planning to have children, there is no good reason to get married, especially if you are a man. Why would you? You only expose yourself to huge liabilities and risk financial ruin. If you are happy together, that ought to be enough.
Well, in the case of Picasa, the reason is that they didn't actually write it at all. They bought it.
And anyways, Google didn't write Picasa, they bought it.
Can you provide an example? I was under the impression that netcode was in standard dll API libraries.
You can't be serious. Apple owns around 85-90% of the PMP market, and you don't think it's anti-competitive of them to use legal threates to prevent other companies from interoperating with their devices? If that's not anti-competitive, what would be? How is that any different than allegations of Microsoft deliberately breaking third-party software on Windows?
Don't act so obtuse. It's flamebait because it's a topic that starts flamewars, and it is irrelevant to the TFA.
No, it's not. Like it or not, as the President, he is the representative of the United States in these kinds of matters. The duty falls to him personally but to the office.
Uh, yeah, that's because of Apple. Apple are the ones who will not license the only protected format that the iPod plays, the format that they control. Do you really think that Napster, Real, Yahoo, are all engaged in a grand conspiracy to lock out iPod owners? No, the reason they don't support the iPod is because Apple will not let them.
That would be relevant if ITMS used AAC, but it doesn't. It uses AAC+Fairplay, which Apple has complete and total control over.