Yes, your arguments are the point of polarization here:
"Silly, silly liberals."
and
"But hey, it was worth a try... just like how liberals don't like to call people crossing the border improperly "illegal immigrants"... but rather, "undocumented workers". maybe we should call the President's illegal actions "undocumented maneuver"."
I like how you pepper your posts with offhanded slights.
"..then you obviously live in la-la land, and no one can help you there. Hope you get better soon."
I hope the same for you. Perhaps one day we can get away from this labeling scheme that many people (both sides) love to employ. Notice how I haven't mentioned any afilliation?
Hey, way to polarize any opinion on here, it really adds to the plausability of discussion.
Of course, to borrow from you a bit, "You can not use, as an excuse in court, that your actions were not illegal since....", and I add, "your actions cannot be investigated, presented, prosecuted, but are easily defended, in court."
So, if a defendent has the privledge of all evidence against them being deemed "classified", thus inadmissible. It sort of removes the burden associated with conviction, or, in this case, oversight. It helps when supporters believe that is ok.
Are they not valid comparisons? Please tell me why we were in Vietnam vs why we are now in Iraq? I mean, the named goals are a bit different, but are the ideals?
Please don't use the word "spin", because I'm not "spinning" anything. I can tell by your word choice that you watch Fox, as do I, but I don't borrow loaded vocabulary to attempt to denigrate other observations.
Of course the program was classified. I don't term something I don't want people to know about me a "secret" retroactively. You classify something beforehand so people don't have access to it in the future.
But, I'm quite sure that the classification of this particular program was done in a spirit inconsistent with classification methodology; denying access to those who have the job of maintaining any oversight. How do you know what the intention was when "he actually did was implement proper access controls?"
and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.
Are you sure about that? If so, how do you know? If Nixon were to classify activities at Whitewater as "investigations into terrorist activities", would that be more palatable, or more correct, or an attempt at avoiding embarassing surveillance?
When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so.
Yes, this is true, but we're not talking about the declassification of program details, the issue is the inability for a branch of the judicial department to review the legality of a program.
I'm all for the keeping of certain details of the activities of the US classified, but when those actions breech the sanctity of the freedoms that we enjoy as US citizens, I take issue, as should we all, as is our duty as Americans.
"Could you you go without purchasing or even downloading music for 3 months? 6 months? a year? to prove a point?"
Yes, and I have, but not to prove a point. I don't buy anything the RIAA churns out anymore, because my tastes have changed. The majority of music I listen to anymore comes from northern Europe, written by guys on computers and keyboards.
But that's just me. It's not to say I don't listen to anything from the RIAA, but I don't purchase it (not saying that I pirate/infringe/steal/copy/etc). The fact that I boycott RIAA material is an unintentional side effect.
Of course, I have to do work to get my music, often involving writing to musicians/producers as to where I can purchase. If found that this site, and this one (no DRM, a little more then $1 because of exchange rates), are great resources for the type of music I listen to.
Also, streaming audio works quite well for me. Lots of different content, and no adverts (or very few).
Hmmm, I thought that the problem with gambling is that there is a small segment of the population that becomes easily addicted to anyth^^^^gambling. Some lose their entire savings, their livlihoods, effecting their families, loved ones.....etc
Sounds like a modified "..for the Children" argument. How can we give such easy access to vices?
Answer: If we can tax it. Every time money changes hands, the gobment likes to take a cut.
Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see.
Some books, like the Book of Mormon, are very enjoyable, but contain bits I don't wish to read. May I redistribute this edited copy as a version of the Book of Mormon? Of course, denoting that it is an edited version. If the mainstream Mormons want to read those bits, fine, go ahead; my services are not for them. This does not hurt the "copyright holder".
Ok, perhaps I am reading this situation incorrectly, but didn't this guy just tell us what the internets are like/not like? May I assume that the same argument that is being used to guard against the internet being choked with streamed media is then being applied on the same side of the coin for IPTV?
Please tell me if I am approaching this subject incorrectly.
Well, this is absolutley incredible news, but I am curious if some would see it as being a survival mechinism?
Except for Rip Van Winkle, I don't think that a 19 year period of repair and adaption would really lend itself to survival. Not to say that this isn't miraculous, but, I'm sure the recovery time will be significant.
Besides, would you really want to wake up 20 years older, with years of rehabilitation to look forward to? I would be more concerned with the ethics of keeping someone alive for that long.
do you really think that a financial penalty that will "wound the police force for years to come" is appropriate?
Why not? I'm wounded financially when I break a law. Ever get a speeding ticket in NY?
There must be some way to remind those that enforce the law, that there are laws and mandates that are to be followed; that police measures are not ad hoc. Perhaps a small monetary sum, a financial slap on the wrist, as are traffic tickets issued when the citizenry breaks a law.
I don't know, anymore all I play are FPS like BF2.
However, in the past I've played one or two storyline based games. Needles to say, it was a story any freshman in Comp 101 would have laughed at.
I think that, in many ways like movies, more emphasis is placed upon things blowing, huge guns, hell, even celebrity voice overs, title namesake, time to market (console release dates?) are making for crap games, much in the same way that there have recently been a spate of bad movies, IMHO.
I'll use a poor example, Tron. I saw it when I was about 7, and was mistified ever since. The sight of the arcade cabinet still gives me goosebumps. Has anyone played the travesty known as Tron 2.0? It made me cry, especially after the price two months after release was approx 14.99 (during a time when 49.99 was roughly the release price limit, which I paid for that POS). Not even one celebrity voice over (I think Bruce Boxleitner may be cheap these days).
I think that your analogy is a little flawed. The issue is not just the publication of secrets, it is about the publishing of "activities" which are unconstitutional, and thereby, illegal.
The problem with the possible prosecution of reporters is that anything can be deemed "classified", and subject to the secrecies afforded by the privledge of "national security". Then, reporting on anything could be classified as criminal, and whoosh, we then have no governmental oversight, no watchdogs, noone able to track possible violations of your consitutional rights.
Please dont' tell me that you are so trustful of your current civilian leadership that you will assume that they are acting in your best interests. Never should the governement be given that sort of trust. Our freedoms are dependent upon non governmental oversite.
Besides, if I broke into your house in an effort to steal something, and discovered dead bodies in your closet, would you be off the hook? Should that go unrecognized because my breaking in was "illegal"? Of course, this is a somewhat flawed analogy, but I hope that you see the principle involved.
I'm tired of the pornographers whining about the "ghettoization of their free speech." Why don't we just let them sell their goods in the kids' section of a book store?
Wrong question/analogy. The kid's section of a bookstore is for children. The internet is for everyone, no matter what you're particular interest is.
Don't abridge my rights for your children. There is no moral conformity on the internet.
I would say that prosecution of this guy is warrented only if the parties responsible for security administration at the company are also subject to prosecution for letting security flaws go.
For a private sector company, who would you first inform of system vulnerabilities? The company, itself, I would imagine. After that (assuming no action is taken)? Not really my call to make, but there must be some amount of culpability laid at the feet of those responsible for security, particularly if they are made aware of vulnerabilities.
Until there are laws regarding the fixing of flawed security, there should be relaxations of rules for those who, in good faith and effort, inform the possible victims of software vulnerabilities, particularly when the system is engaged in online commerce (makes for a big target).
Not being a lawyer, I still believe in what I'll call "fairness". Given two examples:
#1 Sysadmin/former sysadmin informs customers of possible vulnerabilities or exploitation of personal/financial/medical information = possible jail term
#2 Sysadmin/company is aware of vulnerabilities, but either can not or will not inform customers/fix problems/make anyone outside the company aware of problem = unhappy customer base
I see a disparity here. One example risks the walfare of the company, the other, it's user base.
Shredder? I really don't know if this is common knowledge/thought/attitude, but keep everything with your name and and identifying number on it until you have access to a shredder.
Shred anything with more then one piece of identifying information on it. Examples: Name and address (junk mail), Name andSSN (should know this by now), Name and phone# (yeah, it's in phone book, but don't let it float around). There are tons of combinations. I'd go so far as to shred directions from and to a destination, or even ATM receipts.
You'd be suprised how much seemingly worthless information can be compiled to gain terrific insight into people.
At the expense of sounding paranoid, I even shred my baggage check tickets (Name+flight#+someID#).
For me and my state, adding that $.08 to cigarette tax would be much more productive. I wish they would do that instead.
Not an economist, are you? How would removing the tax from one good, placing it upon another, would cause an increase in "productivity"? What kind of productivity? Agricultural? Manufacturing?
Actually, to maintain a tax on one good and introduce a tax on another would create (to a degree) an increase in tax revenue. Shifting tax from one good to another creates a marginal increase/decrease, if any, in tax revenue.
For some reason, my state feels the need to collect on content that didn't originate in the state,...
Taxable goods do not have to originate in the state in which they are taxed, to be taxed. My cigarettes, or the tobacco in them, do not come from NY. You can bet I get taxed.
Of course, I can assume from the last line in your insightful post that you don't smoke. You have one of those "lets tax the bad people who...." don't consume what you consume. Luckily, you're not writing tax codes. If you want some element of fairness, lets have a greater gasoline tax. WHAT??!! I don't drink, let's instead shift this $.08 tax of yours to alcohol sales.
Besides, your little $.08 isn't going to stop you from purchasing more iTunes music, will it? So pay the tax, don't shift it to your neighbor who smokes, that doesn't use iTunes. Or vote with your wallet, and don't use iTunes. Or use a substitue good, of sorts.
But don't jump to the old defense of "tax the X!!!! instead", it's not fair to people of similar economic footing.
The rice racers and 60's/70's muscle cars have one thing in common.
They are annoying. There's little difference between the high pitched whiney mufflers and thundering engines of either.
The looks that you get are not of admiration, they are of anger. There's nothing that makes one's balls bigger then pissing everyone off. There's nothing gained when the thoughts of everyone "looking" at you is STFU.
Give me a BMW M5, and I'll smoke any ricer/muscle car. BTW, this is directed at the reponders to parent.
It would appear that eye candy is a necessity, but only with the idea that there are different levels of eye candy, that the eye candy can easily be made to go away/less sweetening, and that it will work well with an average hardware base.
That last idea would be the difficult to figure out. However, how much is decided by the user when they see screenshots, what is the coolness factor when icons appear to be crystal/brushed aluminum/iridecent blue/etc? How great is it when windows will shuffle like pages in a book, or are transparent?
No matter how pragmatic the average/.er might be, there is something to be said about design and usability. How else would you explain the popularity of the iPod? Otherwise we'd all be driving one of these around.
Of course my latest and greatest hardware is circa 2001, I don't know what people consider hardware hogs to be. I can still run BF2 on my PIII 1.4.
Or, let the gov't take care of your every need, and don't worry about things like self reliance, or civic responsibility.
Or, many of the things which you mentioned as "quick solutions", people actually do. I know people who do their own policing (militias, bear arms, abide by societal laws), do their own health care (holisitic health/healing), do their own education (home schooling), do their own banking (getting off their ass to go to the bank and do crazy things like save their money). Your other suggestions are illegal in many instances, however, people would do had they the opportunity.
Are you saying it's unwise to do your own taxes? Or that it's not our responsibility as citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your arguments are the point of polarization here:
"Silly, silly liberals."
and
"But hey, it was worth a try... just like how liberals don't like to call people crossing the border improperly "illegal immigrants"... but rather, "undocumented workers". maybe we should call the President's illegal actions "undocumented maneuver"."
I like how you pepper your posts with offhanded slights.
"..then you obviously live in la-la land, and no one can help you there. Hope you get better soon."
I hope the same for you. Perhaps one day we can get away from this labeling scheme that many people (both sides) love to employ. Notice how I haven't mentioned any afilliation?
Hey, way to polarize any opinion on here, it really adds to the plausability of discussion.
Of course, to borrow from you a bit, "You can not use, as an excuse in court, that your actions were not illegal since....", and I add, "your actions cannot be investigated, presented, prosecuted, but are easily defended, in court."
So, if a defendent has the privledge of all evidence against them being deemed "classified", thus inadmissible. It sort of removes the burden associated with conviction, or, in this case, oversight. It helps when supporters believe that is ok.
If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.
:/
You must be new he....
Nevermind, I just saw your ID
Are they not valid comparisons? Please tell me why we were in Vietnam vs why we are now in Iraq? I mean, the named goals are a bit different, but are the ideals?
Please don't use the word "spin", because I'm not "spinning" anything. I can tell by your word choice that you watch Fox, as do I, but I don't borrow loaded vocabulary to attempt to denigrate other observations.
Of course the program was classified. I don't term something I don't want people to know about me a "secret" retroactively. You classify something beforehand so people don't have access to it in the future.
But, I'm quite sure that the classification of this particular program was done in a spirit inconsistent with classification methodology; denying access to those who have the job of maintaining any oversight. How do you know what the intention was when "he actually did was implement proper access controls?"
and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.
Are you sure about that? If so, how do you know? If Nixon were to classify activities at Whitewater as "investigations into terrorist activities", would that be more palatable, or more correct, or an attempt at avoiding embarassing surveillance?
When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so.
Yes, this is true, but we're not talking about the declassification of program details, the issue is the inability for a branch of the judicial department to review the legality of a program.
I'm all for the keeping of certain details of the activities of the US classified, but when those actions breech the sanctity of the freedoms that we enjoy as US citizens, I take issue, as should we all, as is our duty as Americans.
"Could you you go without purchasing or even downloading music for 3 months? 6 months? a year? to prove a point?"
Yes, and I have, but not to prove a point. I don't buy anything the RIAA churns out anymore, because my tastes have changed. The majority of music I listen to anymore comes from northern Europe, written by guys on computers and keyboards.
But that's just me. It's not to say I don't listen to anything from the RIAA, but I don't purchase it (not saying that I pirate/infringe/steal/copy/etc). The fact that I boycott RIAA material is an unintentional side effect.
Of course, I have to do work to get my music, often involving writing to musicians/producers as to where I can purchase. If found that this site, and this one (no DRM, a little more then $1 because of exchange rates), are great resources for the type of music I listen to.
Also, streaming audio works quite well for me. Lots of different content, and no adverts (or very few).
Hmmm, I thought that the problem with gambling is that there is a small segment of the population that becomes easily addicted to anyth^^^^gambling. Some lose their entire savings, their livlihoods, effecting their families, loved ones.....etc
Sounds like a modified "..for the Children" argument. How can we give such easy access to vices?
Answer: If we can tax it. Every time money changes hands, the gobment likes to take a cut.
Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see.
Some books, like the Book of Mormon, are very enjoyable, but contain bits I don't wish to read. May I redistribute this edited copy as a version of the Book of Mormon? Of course, denoting that it is an edited version. If the mainstream Mormons want to read those bits, fine, go ahead; my services are not for them. This does not hurt the "copyright holder".
Would it affect you?
...copyright holders do not have a right to force me to view it the way they want me to
Odd, where is it that you are being "forced" to watch anything?
I watched Pulp Fiction once. It wasn't my kind of movie. Should I expect to be able to find a copy of this movie to fit my tastes?
I should have to right to view it however I want,
You do, it's called the fast forward/chapter skip button. Look at the remote, it's right there.
Ok, perhaps I am reading this situation incorrectly, but didn't this guy just tell us what the internets are like/not like? May I assume that the same argument that is being used to guard against the internet being choked with streamed media is then being applied on the same side of the coin for IPTV?
Please tell me if I am approaching this subject incorrectly.
Well, this is absolutley incredible news, but I am curious if some would see it as being a survival mechinism?
Except for Rip Van Winkle, I don't think that a 19 year period of repair and adaption would really lend itself to survival. Not to say that this isn't miraculous, but, I'm sure the recovery time will be significant.
Besides, would you really want to wake up 20 years older, with years of rehabilitation to look forward to? I would be more concerned with the ethics of keeping someone alive for that long.
do you really think that a financial penalty that will "wound the police force for years to come" is appropriate?
Why not? I'm wounded financially when I break a law. Ever get a speeding ticket in NY?
There must be some way to remind those that enforce the law, that there are laws and mandates that are to be followed; that police measures are not ad hoc. Perhaps a small monetary sum, a financial slap on the wrist, as are traffic tickets issued when the citizenry breaks a law.
"Yes, it runs Linux."
Yes, but the real ques.......Damn!!
"The BBC article is light on the kind of technical details Slashdot readers enjoy...."
You must be new he......oh, you said technical details, never mind.
I don't know, anymore all I play are FPS like BF2.
However, in the past I've played one or two storyline based games. Needles to say, it was a story any freshman in Comp 101 would have laughed at.
I think that, in many ways like movies, more emphasis is placed upon things blowing, huge guns, hell, even celebrity voice overs, title namesake, time to market (console release dates?) are making for crap games, much in the same way that there have recently been a spate of bad movies, IMHO.
I'll use a poor example, Tron. I saw it when I was about 7, and was mistified ever since. The sight of the arcade cabinet still gives me goosebumps. Has anyone played the travesty known as Tron 2.0? It made me cry, especially after the price two months after release was approx 14.99 (during a time when 49.99 was roughly the release price limit, which I paid for that POS). Not even one celebrity voice over (I think Bruce Boxleitner may be cheap these days).
FP?
I think that your analogy is a little flawed. The issue is not just the publication of secrets, it is about the publishing of "activities" which are unconstitutional, and thereby, illegal.
The problem with the possible prosecution of reporters is that anything can be deemed "classified", and subject to the secrecies afforded by the privledge of "national security". Then, reporting on anything could be classified as criminal, and whoosh, we then have no governmental oversight, no watchdogs, noone able to track possible violations of your consitutional rights.
Please dont' tell me that you are so trustful of your current civilian leadership that you will assume that they are acting in your best interests. Never should the governement be given that sort of trust. Our freedoms are dependent upon non governmental oversite.
Besides, if I broke into your house in an effort to steal something, and discovered dead bodies in your closet, would you be off the hook? Should that go unrecognized because my breaking in was "illegal"? Of course, this is a somewhat flawed analogy, but I hope that you see the principle involved.
I'm tired of the pornographers whining about the "ghettoization of their free speech." Why don't we just let them sell their goods in the kids' section of a book store?
Wrong question/analogy. The kid's section of a bookstore is for children. The internet is for everyone, no matter what you're particular interest is.
Don't abridge my rights for your children. There is no moral conformity on the internet.
I would say that prosecution of this guy is warrented only if the parties responsible for security administration at the company are also subject to prosecution for letting security flaws go.
For a private sector company, who would you first inform of system vulnerabilities? The company, itself, I would imagine. After that (assuming no action is taken)? Not really my call to make, but there must be some amount of culpability laid at the feet of those responsible for security, particularly if they are made aware of vulnerabilities.
Until there are laws regarding the fixing of flawed security, there should be relaxations of rules for those who, in good faith and effort, inform the possible victims of software vulnerabilities, particularly when the system is engaged in online commerce (makes for a big target).
Not being a lawyer, I still believe in what I'll call "fairness". Given two examples:
#1 Sysadmin/former sysadmin informs customers of possible vulnerabilities or exploitation of personal/financial/medical information = possible jail term
#2 Sysadmin/company is aware of vulnerabilities, but either can not or will not inform customers/fix problems/make anyone outside the company aware of problem = unhappy customer base
I see a disparity here. One example risks the walfare of the company, the other, it's user base.
Hey, OP here. Are you still at Ft Meade? Send me an email, I work on base at the 902nd. I tried to go to your webpage, but it didn't work.
Shredder? I really don't know if this is common knowledge/thought/attitude, but keep everything with your name and and identifying number on it until you have access to a shredder.
Shred anything with more then one piece of identifying information on it. Examples: Name and address (junk mail), Name andSSN (should know this by now), Name and phone# (yeah, it's in phone book, but don't let it float around). There are tons of combinations. I'd go so far as to shred directions from and to a destination, or even ATM receipts.
You'd be suprised how much seemingly worthless information can be compiled to gain terrific insight into people.
At the expense of sounding paranoid, I even shred my baggage check tickets (Name+flight#+someID#).
Well what ARE you more concerned about? Your privacy, or the safety of America's children?
Apples and oranges. What you don't realize is that only one of these is a truely pressing issue, and the other is a scare tactic.
For me and my state, adding that $.08 to cigarette tax would be much more productive. I wish they would do that instead.
Not an economist, are you? How would removing the tax from one good, placing it upon another, would cause an increase in "productivity"? What kind of productivity? Agricultural? Manufacturing?
Actually, to maintain a tax on one good and introduce a tax on another would create (to a degree) an increase in tax revenue. Shifting tax from one good to another creates a marginal increase/decrease, if any, in tax revenue.
For some reason, my state feels the need to collect on content that didn't originate in the state,...
Taxable goods do not have to originate in the state in which they are taxed, to be taxed. My cigarettes, or the tobacco in them, do not come from NY. You can bet I get taxed.
Of course, I can assume from the last line in your insightful post that you don't smoke. You have one of those "lets tax the bad people who...." don't consume what you consume. Luckily, you're not writing tax codes. If you want some element of fairness, lets have a greater gasoline tax. WHAT??!! I don't drink, let's instead shift this $.08 tax of yours to alcohol sales.
Besides, your little $.08 isn't going to stop you from purchasing more iTunes music, will it? So pay the tax, don't shift it to your neighbor who smokes, that doesn't use iTunes. Or vote with your wallet, and don't use iTunes. Or use a substitue good, of sorts.
But don't jump to the old defense of "tax the X!!!! instead", it's not fair to people of similar economic footing.
The rice racers and 60's/70's muscle cars have one thing in common.
They are annoying. There's little difference between the high pitched whiney mufflers and thundering engines of either.
The looks that you get are not of admiration, they are of anger. There's nothing that makes one's balls bigger then pissing everyone off. There's nothing gained when the thoughts of everyone "looking" at you is STFU.
Give me a BMW M5, and I'll smoke any ricer/muscle car. BTW, this is directed at the reponders to parent.
That's ok, the terms "popular" and "right" are completely relative and subjective.
It would appear that eye candy is a necessity, but only with the idea that there are different levels of eye candy, that the eye candy can easily be made to go away/less sweetening, and that it will work well with an average hardware base.
/.er might be, there is something to be said about design and usability. How else would you explain the popularity of the iPod? Otherwise we'd all be driving one of these around.
That last idea would be the difficult to figure out. However, how much is decided by the user when they see screenshots, what is the coolness factor when icons appear to be crystal/brushed aluminum/iridecent blue/etc? How great is it when windows will shuffle like pages in a book, or are transparent?
No matter how pragmatic the average
Of course my latest and greatest hardware is circa 2001, I don't know what people consider hardware hogs to be. I can still run BF2 on my PIII 1.4.
Or, let the gov't take care of your every need, and don't worry about things like self reliance, or civic responsibility.
Or, many of the things which you mentioned as "quick solutions", people actually do. I know people who do their own policing (militias, bear arms, abide by societal laws), do their own health care (holisitic health/healing), do their own education (home schooling), do their own banking (getting off their ass to go to the bank and do crazy things like save their money). Your other suggestions are illegal in many instances, however, people would do had they the opportunity.
Are you saying it's unwise to do your own taxes? Or that it's not our responsibility as citizens.