According to briefing my boss gave me recently, Truecrypt would not help: If they really wanted to see your content they could ask you to show it to them or alternatively confiscate your laptop and decrypt it themselves.
TrueCrypt doesn't just encrypt data, it hides data. You can create a folder on a device, it works with USB Flash drives as well as harddisk drives, when someone opens the folder the folder is empty.
The latter would mean you would probably not see your laptop again.
That is scary.
Let me tell you: As a European scientist I am even more frigthened now to go or even move to the US.
I live in the US and in a few years I'd like to go to Brazil but all the stuff that's going on today makes me wary about trying to get back into the US.
One lesson from an incredibly expensive joke of a "terrorist" case in Australia is that a photograph of a landmark is proof you are going to blow it up. Be careful with those holiday snapshots!
I don't know if there's anything like it in Australia but in the US we have this handbook, "The Photographer's Right", photographers started to carry. In a photography class in college I was taking when 911 happened, we heard about how photographers started to go through questioning when they were taking photos. One student there was working on a class assignment when police or private security personnel tried to confiscate his camera. It was a bizarre tyme for photographers then.
I don't care if you call him a waffle or someone that has finally seen the light, but keep in mind that Barr has refuted a lot of his previous positions. Like the rest of us he has slowly grown sick of the neo-cons in power.
Whether it's because he's waffling or he's seen the light he has changed his positions. I used to hate his positions but for now I'll accept he has changed though I'd still watch his actions. What really surprised me was that he worked with the ACLU on privacy issues. A conservative working with fake or pseudo-liberals, really civil liberals?
I suppose "fake or pseudo-liberals" needs explaining to some. The way "liberal" is used today in the US isn't how is used to be used. The original liberal or Classical Liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, believed in liberty and small government. The political party that comes closest to that meaning today is the Libertarian Party.
Did you really mean to link to an *unclyclopedia* article on Benjamin Franklin?
That link was the first result when I googled "benjamin franklin" torture, there are more than 200,000 other results. Not all of the others on the first page of results are appropriate, such as the second one which is Turkeys: Factory-Farmed Torture. Two others are from PETA, and are also about turkey factory farming. I did include 3 other links I got from other searches I did, one a personal letter one of the Founding Father wrote.
The government wants to promote fear in order to influence the public. Now, what do we call that? Yup, there are terrorists out there after all. And some of them are even hiding in bunkers!
I fear government more than any terrorists. Actually without government support terrorism wouldn't be the problem it is. For instance bin Laden and al qaeda. During the 1980s and early '90s progressive US administrations supported bin Laden and what became al qaeda and the Taliban against the Soviet Union. During the 1970s presidents Nixon and Ford supported coups against democratic governments, such as in Chile, and the invasion of the democratic nation of East Timor by Indonesia. Between 1975 and 1999 when East Timorese voted for independence 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 of the population of Eat Timor, were massacred.
During the 1900s most human atrocities were done by government whether the Holocaust, the 20,000,000 Stalin and the 50,000,000 Mao had killed, the "estimated death toll of 750,000 to 1.7 million (approximately 26% of the population at that time)" caused by Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia. or genocide in Rwanda.
If you think the Republicans are the only ones who'd love to remove your civil liberties, or even the most likely to do it, you're a complete retard.
Both Democrats and Republicans want to take liberty away. Democrats will take economic freedom away and Republicans will take personal freedom away. Actually they both deny personal freedom, both support the fake War on Drugs. Hemp aka marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol but both parties keep hemp illegal. One person that ran for president does support legalizing it though, Ron Paul. He said during the campaign he'd pardon everyone in prison, I believe, for a non-violent drug conviction.
The conclusion is not a fact, it's only a probability. "Joe learned how to make bombs in the army", "Joe is in an anti-war group"
Hay, where do you know me from? How did you get that info?
I suppose if you data mine/. you'll know that. It's true other than I learned to make nitroglycerin in high school. In the army I did learn EOD, Explosive Ordinance Disposal. You can learn to make explosives too, the "Anarchist Cookbook is a good resource (caveat emptor). And I am opposed to the Iraqi war.
The idea of lists like these is not to stop stupid asshats who are planning attacks. They are intended to induce fear in the public.
Yes they are intended to propagate fear, at least that's my belief. However it' not fear of government, it's fear of protesters. People who fear government may overthrow that government but people who fear protesters are more likely to allow government to lock them up or otherwise deny them their rights.
the only real way to defeat terrorism is to make it much more profitable socially as well as financially for these people to join a different social group
This can be a real big problem if the economy gets worse or stays bad for too long.
Unfortunately the US system is geared towards a two party system.
Actually I don't think the system is geared towards two parties, instead people are geared towards two parties. Many people are upset over both major parties but they won't put the energy into supporting and voting for other parties. Without the energy needed it's become the "least bad" syndrome. I fell for that in 2000, instead of voting for whom I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush.
In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.
Benjamin Franklin was almost tortured. James Madison opposed judicially sanctioned impalements and being drawn and quartered in public squares. His "cruel and unusual punishment" is embodied in the Constitution's 8th amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. George Washington captured more than a thousand Hessian mercenaries at the battle of Trenton on Dec. 25, 1776 and ordered his troops to treat them with "respect and dignity and they will suffer no abuse or torture". Chairman of the Board of War and Ordinance John Adams wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams on 27 April 1777 of a "strong a light as the barbarity and impiety of Briton, in this persecuting war." The USA's Founding Fathers knew of torture and opposed it. It's such a shame the Bush admin has gone out of it's way to justify torture.
Where does the info that fabbing for AMD will be less profitable than fabbing for other chip designers?
It's kind of implied. Otherwise why would AMD have any reason to use it's own fab spinoff as opposed to contracting it out to the lowest bidder?
AMD fab would be able to fab for other designers. I don't know for sure but I imagine currently AMD only fabricates for AMD. An independent fab can contract with other designers to fabricate their chips thus potentially boosting their revenue.
You are right about property tax. I always thought payroll tax is paid by employees (it is in my country).
I don't what your country is but in the US employers pay a payroll tax as well as Social Security and Medicaid or Medicare.
The payroll tax is substracted by the company but it comes of the employees salary.
Ultimately yes, if employers didn't have to pay these taxes they could pay employees more.
Another thing is that employers get tax breaks for offering employees fringe benefits such as health insurance but people who buy their own health insurance don't get a tax break. So there's no free market in health insurance, a free market would require everyone to get the same breaks.
In the US presidential elections that's one thing where I prefer McCain over Obama, McCain wants to give everyone the same tax breaks for insurance whereas Obama wants socialized medicine. Elsewhere though I can't support McCain, whereas with Obama there's hope McCain scares me with his chest thumping. But because Obama pushes for socialism, at least for health insurance, and because he sold out to big businesses like the telecoms that cooperated with the Bush admin to spy on people in the US I can't support him either. Luckily I don't have to vote for either one, instead I'm voting for Bob Barr.
Government intervention is preventing the invisible hand of capitalism from working.
I agree, there shouldn't be a bailout. However because there was one, government should have bailed out those who are being foreclosed on. By giving a fraction of $850 billion to them they could have made their payments to mortgage companies. This would benefit banks too because they would be getting paid.
If the economy wasn't so reliant on banks, I'd let them die a death from a 1000, er 1,000,000 cuts. And to think, Wall Street tanked again after the bailout was approved and signed.
A key characteristic of a monopoly is the lack of, or willful institution by a company of barriers to entry to, viable substitutes.
Copyright does not prevent you from writing your own song so it is not a monopoly. All copyright does is prevent a person from taking another person's work and using it without their permission.
In this way, your argument fails the litmus test of a "monopoly" definition twice.
Nothing prevents me from writing my own songs so you fail.
1) There are sufficient independent, major, and minor record label alternatives to a given artist's work. The songs may not be identical but if you really want to argue that one grunge song doesn't provide the entertainment value equivalent to any other grunge song, then we're going to sit here all year arguing about the monopoly over 12 inch long, neon pink toilet scrubbers with black handles made in China on Thursdays.
I never claimed otherwise. Actually that's my point, nobody can prevent anyone else from writing their own song so there's no monopoly on writing songs.
In both cases, copyright protections do not fit the definition of a monopoly.
Now you're arguing my point, there is no monopoly, except for a specific work.
What you're claiming is that the federal recognition of the rights of a creator of a work, or rights of an owner of a work made for hire, have somehow led to the way things are at present.
No where have I said that. I have repeatedly stated copyrights are not rights. They are limited monopolies on the distribution of copyrighted art yes, but they are not rights.
how is copyright the problem?
Copyright is not a problem, the problem is in the terms of copyrights. Copyright terms no longer encourage creation, if anything they discourage creation, and that's the problem.
As a photographer, I'm not certain that you have compulsory license.... In your case, the reason compulsory license is not required is because you cannot protect scene compositions that are extremely generic... say, a photograph of an apple in a bowl.
First you admit you don't know if compulsory license exists in photography then you say the reason compulsory license is not required is because "you cannot protect scene compositions that are extremely generic".
Anyone can photograph an apple in a bowl and wouldn't in principle be violating an original idea.
The same can be said about songs. Anyone can string together words and notes of a song, that's how they are created.
Article I of the US Constitution defines it as a right
Except rights are not granted. Because congress can grant copyrights they are not rights. A right is something government can not deny, they are unalienable not something government grants.
You cannot out one side of your mouth suggest that government has no business in protecting one's inherent right to their own ideas, and at the same time suggest that it is imperative that record companies must give everyone a crack at being the next Britney Spears.
Now where did this come from? Give me my specific quotes. Remember I have repeatedly said, which you ignore when it suits you, copyrights are not rights. Ooh, that's right you believe congress can deny rights.
You deem the transaction to be unfair
What transact?
your argument is that copyright is the source of the monopoly
Perhaps your comprehension of what I've said is lacking. Then again perhaps I could have used better wording, which I'll attempt to here. There is no monopoly on song writing itself, only on the combination of lyrics and or musical notes. Copying someone else's work without their permission is bad if the copyright term is short.
A design firm plus a foundry does not equal an integrated semiconductor powerhouse.
There is no need for an "integrated semiconductor powerhouse".
Who is left to compete with Intel now?
AMD. Because AMD doesn't have to waste money spending it on an idle fab plant or one that's not running at capacity they can spend more money on research. Meanwhile the fab business can make more money by contracting the fabrication of chips for other design businesses. Both businesses can benefit.
You have to make a profit before you can pay taxes... I doubt that AMD is doing this because of taxes.:(
You have to pay taxes whether you make a profit or not, you just don't have to pay income tax if you're not profitable. You still have to pay at least property and payroll taxes.
The less profitable business can stay afloat on business from its former sibling divisions while the stockholders unload their stock in it.
However the chip fab business will be owned by Advanced Technology Investment Co. (ATIC), "which is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates" and AMD. If nothing else because ATIC is owned by an oil rich government there's no pressure to satisfy stockholders. And because the new business isn't tied to AMD it can contract to fabricate other businesses' chips.
To be fair, ARM and MIPS don't need cutting-edge performance. They are fabbed on whatever slightly older, absolutely dirt-cheap process is available. They're so small and low power already that a process shrink or two doesn't noticeably affect the overall performance of the embedded device.
But the DEC Alpha did need cutting-edge performance. Originally DEC fabricated the chips but they contracted out the fab to the Korean business Samsung.
Slashdot Mirror
According to briefing my boss gave me recently, Truecrypt would not help: If they really wanted to see your content they could ask you to show it to them or alternatively confiscate your laptop and decrypt it themselves.
TrueCrypt doesn't just encrypt data, it hides data. You can create a folder on a device, it works with USB Flash drives as well as harddisk drives, when someone opens the folder the folder is empty.
The latter would mean you would probably not see your laptop again.
That is scary.
Let me tell you: As a European scientist I am even more frigthened now to go or even move to the US.
I live in the US and in a few years I'd like to go to Brazil but all the stuff that's going on today makes me wary about trying to get back into the US.
Falcon
One lesson from an incredibly expensive joke of a "terrorist" case in Australia is that a photograph of a landmark is proof you are going to blow it up. Be careful with those holiday snapshots!
I don't know if there's anything like it in Australia but in the US we have this handbook, "The Photographer's Right", photographers started to carry. In a photography class in college I was taking when 911 happened, we heard about how photographers started to go through questioning when they were taking photos. One student there was working on a class assignment when police or private security personnel tried to confiscate his camera. It was a bizarre tyme for photographers then.
Falcon
I don't care if you call him a waffle or someone that has finally seen the light, but keep in mind that Barr has refuted a lot of his previous positions. Like the rest of us he has slowly grown sick of the neo-cons in power.
Whether it's because he's waffling or he's seen the light he has changed his positions. I used to hate his positions but for now I'll accept he has changed though I'd still watch his actions. What really surprised me was that he worked with the ACLU on privacy issues. A conservative working with fake or pseudo-liberals, really civil liberals?
I suppose "fake or pseudo-liberals" needs explaining to some. The way "liberal" is used today in the US isn't how is used to be used. The original liberal or Classical Liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, believed in liberty and small government. The political party that comes closest to that meaning today is the Libertarian Party.
Falcon
Did you really mean to link to an *unclyclopedia* article on Benjamin Franklin?
That link was the first result when I googled "benjamin franklin" torture, there are more than 200,000 other results. Not all of the others on the first page of results are appropriate, such as the second one which is Turkeys: Factory-Farmed Torture. Two others are from PETA, and are also about turkey factory farming. I did include 3 other links I got from other searches I did, one a personal letter one of the Founding Father wrote.
Falcon
The government wants to promote fear in order to influence the public. Now, what do we call that? Yup, there are terrorists out there after all. And some of them are even hiding in bunkers!
I fear government more than any terrorists. Actually without government support terrorism wouldn't be the problem it is. For instance bin Laden and al qaeda. During the 1980s and early '90s progressive US administrations supported bin Laden and what became al qaeda and the Taliban against the Soviet Union. During the 1970s presidents Nixon and Ford supported coups against democratic governments, such as in Chile, and the invasion of the democratic nation of East Timor by Indonesia. Between 1975 and 1999 when East Timorese voted for independence 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 of the population of Eat Timor, were massacred.
During the 1900s most human atrocities were done by government whether the Holocaust, the 20,000,000 Stalin and the 50,000,000 Mao had killed, the "estimated death toll of 750,000 to 1.7 million (approximately 26% of the population at that time)" caused by Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia. or genocide in Rwanda.
Falcon
If you think the Republicans are the only ones who'd love to remove your civil liberties, or even the most likely to do it, you're a complete retard.
Both Democrats and Republicans want to take liberty away. Democrats will take economic freedom away and Republicans will take personal freedom away. Actually they both deny personal freedom, both support the fake War on Drugs. Hemp aka marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol but both parties keep hemp illegal. One person that ran for president does support legalizing it though, Ron Paul. He said during the campaign he'd pardon everyone in prison, I believe, for a non-violent drug conviction.
Falcon
Just don't threaten the president or the chain of succession for president, it's illegal.
Falcon
The conclusion is not a fact, it's only a probability. "Joe learned how to make bombs in the army", "Joe is in an anti-war group"
Hay, where do you know me from? How did you get that info?
I suppose if you data mine /. you'll know that. It's true other than I learned to make nitroglycerin in high school. In the army I did learn EOD, Explosive Ordinance Disposal. You can learn to make explosives too, the "Anarchist Cookbook is a good resource (caveat emptor). And I am opposed to the Iraqi war.
Falcon
No they're not, these cops are not just, "of moral excellence", or any of the other adjectives enumerated. Nor are they any of the adverbs listed.
Falcon
The idea of lists like these is not to stop stupid asshats who are planning attacks. They are intended to induce fear in the public.
Yes they are intended to propagate fear, at least that's my belief. However it' not fear of government, it's fear of protesters. People who fear government may overthrow that government but people who fear protesters are more likely to allow government to lock them up or otherwise deny them their rights.
the only real way to defeat terrorism is to make it much more profitable socially as well as financially for these people to join a different social group
This can be a real big problem if the economy gets worse or stays bad for too long.
Fslcon
Unfortunately the US system is geared towards a two party system.
Actually I don't think the system is geared towards two parties, instead people are geared towards two parties. Many people are upset over both major parties but they won't put the energy into supporting and voting for other parties. Without the energy needed it's become the "least bad" syndrome. I fell for that in 2000, instead of voting for whom I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush.
Falcon
In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.
Benjamin Franklin was almost tortured. James Madison opposed judicially sanctioned impalements and being drawn and quartered in public squares. His "cruel and unusual punishment" is embodied in the Constitution's 8th amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. George Washington captured more than a thousand Hessian mercenaries at the battle of Trenton on Dec. 25, 1776 and ordered his troops to treat them with "respect and dignity and they will suffer no abuse or torture". Chairman of the Board of War and Ordinance John Adams wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams on 27 April 1777 of a "strong a light as the barbarity and impiety of Briton, in this persecuting war." The USA's Founding Fathers knew of torture and opposed it. It's such a shame the Bush admin has gone out of it's way to justify torture.
I wish Ron Paul would've come up with his own party rather than running as a Republican.
Ron Paul ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for President in 1988.
Falcon
How so?
Though Bob Barr and John McCain share some positions on some issues on others they hold different positions.
Falcon
more closely resembling the original plan of government for the U.S.
The candidate that comes closest to fitting that is Bob Barr.
Falcon
Where does the info that fabbing for AMD will be less profitable than fabbing for other chip designers?
It's kind of implied. Otherwise why would AMD have any reason to use it's own fab spinoff as opposed to contracting it out to the lowest bidder?
AMD fab would be able to fab for other designers. I don't know for sure but I imagine currently AMD only fabricates for AMD. An independent fab can contract with other designers to fabricate their chips thus potentially boosting their revenue.
Falcon
You are right about property tax. I always thought payroll tax is paid by employees (it is in my country).
I don't what your country is but in the US employers pay a payroll tax as well as Social Security and Medicaid or Medicare.
The payroll tax is substracted by the company but it comes of the employees salary.
Ultimately yes, if employers didn't have to pay these taxes they could pay employees more.
Another thing is that employers get tax breaks for offering employees fringe benefits such as health insurance but people who buy their own health insurance don't get a tax break. So there's no free market in health insurance, a free market would require everyone to get the same breaks.
In the US presidential elections that's one thing where I prefer McCain over Obama, McCain wants to give everyone the same tax breaks for insurance whereas Obama wants socialized medicine. Elsewhere though I can't support McCain, whereas with Obama there's hope McCain scares me with his chest thumping. But because Obama pushes for socialism, at least for health insurance, and because he sold out to big businesses like the telecoms that cooperated with the Bush admin to spy on people in the US I can't support him either. Luckily I don't have to vote for either one, instead I'm voting for Bob Barr.
Falcon
Government intervention is preventing the invisible hand of capitalism from working.
I agree, there shouldn't be a bailout. However because there was one, government should have bailed out those who are being foreclosed on. By giving a fraction of $850 billion to them they could have made their payments to mortgage companies. This would benefit banks too because they would be getting paid.
If the economy wasn't so reliant on banks, I'd let them die a death from a 1000, er 1,000,000 cuts. And to think, Wall Street tanked again after the bailout was approved and signed.
Falcon
A key characteristic of a monopoly is the lack of, or willful institution by a company of barriers to entry to, viable substitutes.
Copyright does not prevent you from writing your own song so it is not a monopoly. All copyright does is prevent a person from taking another person's work and using it without their permission.
In this way, your argument fails the litmus test of a "monopoly" definition twice.
Nothing prevents me from writing my own songs so you fail.
1) There are sufficient independent, major, and minor record label alternatives to a given artist's work. The songs may not be identical but if you really want to argue that one grunge song doesn't provide the entertainment value equivalent to any other grunge song, then we're going to sit here all year arguing about the monopoly over 12 inch long, neon pink toilet scrubbers with black handles made in China on Thursdays.
I never claimed otherwise. Actually that's my point, nobody can prevent anyone else from writing their own song so there's no monopoly on writing songs.
In both cases, copyright protections do not fit the definition of a monopoly.
Now you're arguing my point, there is no monopoly, except for a specific work.
What you're claiming is that the federal recognition of the rights of a creator of a work, or rights of an owner of a work made for hire, have somehow led to the way things are at present.
No where have I said that. I have repeatedly stated copyrights are not rights. They are limited monopolies on the distribution of copyrighted art yes, but they are not rights.
how is copyright the problem?
Copyright is not a problem, the problem is in the terms of copyrights. Copyright terms no longer encourage creation, if anything they discourage creation, and that's the problem.
As a photographer, I'm not certain that you have compulsory license.... In your case, the reason compulsory license is not required is because you cannot protect scene compositions that are extremely generic... say, a photograph of an apple in a bowl.
First you admit you don't know if compulsory license exists in photography then you say the reason compulsory license is not required is because "you cannot protect scene compositions that are extremely generic".
Anyone can photograph an apple in a bowl and wouldn't in principle be violating an original idea.
The same can be said about songs. Anyone can string together words and notes of a song, that's how they are created.
Article I of the US Constitution defines it as a right
Except rights are not granted. Because congress can grant copyrights they are not rights. A right is something government can not deny, they are unalienable not something government grants.
You cannot out one side of your mouth suggest that government has no business in protecting one's inherent right to their own ideas, and at the same time suggest that it is imperative that record companies must give everyone a crack at being the next Britney Spears.
Now where did this come from? Give me my specific quotes. Remember I have repeatedly said, which you ignore when it suits you, copyrights are not rights. Ooh, that's right you believe congress can deny rights.
You deem the transaction to be unfair
What transact?
your argument is that copyright is the source of the monopoly
Perhaps your comprehension of what I've said is lacking. Then again perhaps I could have used better wording, which I'll attempt to here. There is no monopoly on song writing itself, only on the combination of lyrics and or musical notes. Copying someone else's work without their permission is bad if the copyright term is short.
Falcon
2) Intel/VIA/TMSC/IBM buys AMD Fabs.
Who are they buying it from?
Falcon
A design firm plus a foundry does not equal an integrated semiconductor powerhouse.
There is no need for an "integrated semiconductor powerhouse".
Who is left to compete with Intel now?
AMD. Because AMD doesn't have to waste money spending it on an idle fab plant or one that's not running at capacity they can spend more money on research. Meanwhile the fab business can make more money by contracting the fabrication of chips for other design businesses. Both businesses can benefit.
Falcon
You have to make a profit before you can pay taxes... I doubt that AMD is doing this because of taxes. :(
You have to pay taxes whether you make a profit or not, you just don't have to pay income tax if you're not profitable. You still have to pay at least property and payroll taxes.
Falcon
Does the fab fill the (probably less profitable) AMD orders, or the (probably more profitable) outside orders first?
Where does the info that fabbing for AMD will be less profitable than fabbing for other chip designers?
Falcon
The less profitable business can stay afloat on business from its former sibling divisions while the stockholders unload their stock in it.
However the chip fab business will be owned by Advanced Technology Investment Co. (ATIC), "which is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates" and AMD. If nothing else because ATIC is owned by an oil rich government there's no pressure to satisfy stockholders. And because the new business isn't tied to AMD it can contract to fabricate other businesses' chips.
Falcon
To be fair, ARM and MIPS don't need cutting-edge performance. They are fabbed on whatever slightly older, absolutely dirt-cheap process is available. They're so small and low power already that a process shrink or two doesn't noticeably affect the overall performance of the embedded device.
But the DEC Alpha did need cutting-edge performance. Originally DEC fabricated the chips but they contracted out the fab to the Korean business Samsung.
Falcon