This is a little off topic, but your comment about Ebonics struck a nerve with me. Ebonics contains rigid syntactic rules followed by all speakers, just as American English does. It is a misconception that Ebonics is "bad English". This just isn't true. On close examination Ebonics contains grammatical rules which are followed by all speakers. If you break those rules, native speakers will pick up on them. It is the same as with any dialect. Your comment illustrates a Bourgeois attitude towards segregated societies, and that offends me.
This is a bad review for two reasons- 1) The reviewer does not give any direct passages from the text. How can we trust his interpretation to be the author's intent? What are the reviewers credentials in this field?
2) The reviewer seems to be simplifying the author's views to a point that allows the reviewer to ascribe his own meaning to the author's view.
The reviewer seems to be using definitions freely and out of context. He is also following the assumption that the human mind is itself a symbol manipulator.
You bring up a very good point. One that I believe many people are beginning to lose sight of. It is not the act, in and of itself, that must be punished, but rather the effects of the act. This is a more general attitude which I believe should be followed. Also, one must consider the motivation behind the act. For instance, if one means to kill a bunch of people in a hospital by means of a computer virus, then a higher charge is in order. But if it just happened to be passed on to the hospital by some unfortunate chain of events, we are looking at something like reckless endangerment.
By the way, I am not a lawyer... this is just my opinion.
All I have to day about this is that I have had an iPod for about three years, and I have had three different cell phones in that time period. What happens when you switch cell phone service and need a new model? Also, on a more privacy-related note, do you really want to store all of your mp3s on a device with closed, embedded software? Soon you will be getting calls from the IRAA.
I think at this point it is useful for playing around with buddies or planning a surprise birthday. The point is, with technological advances of recent, DES is now suseptable to brute force attacks, which is a very bad thing for sensitive data.
Could anyone explain why EC systems are not adopted as a standard? From what I have studied, one can use a smaller numbers and get encryption just as strong as RSA or Diffie-Hellman. And it is a lot easier to implement than DES or AES.
So, in other words, unsigned musicians and amateur video editors are SOTL. Well, ain't that nice. Sounds like the IRAA has a second agenda - to record music legally, one must be signed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a little off topic, but your comment about Ebonics struck a nerve with me. Ebonics contains rigid syntactic rules followed by all speakers, just as American English does. It is a misconception that Ebonics is "bad English". This just isn't true. On close examination Ebonics contains grammatical rules which are followed by all speakers. If you break those rules, native speakers will pick up on them. It is the same as with any dialect. Your comment illustrates a Bourgeois attitude towards segregated societies, and that offends me.
This is a bad review for two reasons-
1) The reviewer does not give any direct passages from the text. How can we trust his interpretation to be the author's intent? What are the reviewers credentials in this field?
2) The reviewer seems to be simplifying the author's views to a point that allows the reviewer to ascribe his own meaning to the author's view.
The reviewer seems to be using definitions freely and out of context. He is also following the assumption that the human mind is itself a symbol manipulator.
Be careful which assumptions you attack.
You bring up a very good point. One that I believe many people are beginning to lose sight of. It is not the act, in and of itself, that must be punished, but rather the effects of the act. This is a more general attitude which I believe should be followed. Also, one must consider the motivation behind the act. For instance, if one means to kill a bunch of people in a hospital by means of a computer virus, then a higher charge is in order. But if it just happened to be passed on to the hospital by some unfortunate chain of events, we are looking at something like reckless endangerment.
By the way, I am not a lawyer... this is just my opinion.
All I have to day about this is that I have had an iPod for about three years, and I have had three different cell phones in that time period. What happens when you switch cell phone service and need a new model? Also, on a more privacy-related note, do you really want to store all of your mp3s on a device with closed, embedded software? Soon you will be getting calls from the IRAA.
Sorry, I meant the discrete logarithm cipher similar to RSA. El Gamal, I believe? Thank you for the feedback, though.
Oh yeah, that is an important fact I forgot about. Thank you.
I think at this point it is useful for playing around with buddies or planning a surprise birthday. The point is, with technological advances of recent, DES is now suseptable to brute force attacks, which is a very bad thing for sensitive data.
Could anyone explain why EC systems are not adopted as a standard? From what I have studied, one can use a smaller numbers and get encryption just as strong as RSA or Diffie-Hellman. And it is a lot easier to implement than DES or AES.
So, in other words, unsigned musicians and amateur video editors are SOTL. Well, ain't that nice. Sounds like the IRAA has a second agenda - to record music legally, one must be signed.