Adding more guns to the mix isn't going to fix that.
Actually, it seems to do exactly that. Worst crime rate in the US, just about? Washington DC. No guns allowed. So - just like the saying goes - only criminals have guns among the general population, giving them a decided advantage. Areas where almost everyone has firearms... almost no crime.
The fact is, if a criminal thinks I may - or probably do - have a gun - that criminal is not going to try to mug me. If they're pretty certain I'm unarmed; they will.
It is very unfortunate that you gun-fearing types can neither understand simple statistics or think the issue through to its logical conclusion. Scared of guns? Fine. But don't try to transfer your fears to the rest of the population. You just make the place less safe for everyone else. In other words, you're screwing things up. More. Please stop.
If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Too late. Way too late. Laws are rarely un-made. You have no rights now; they can pick you up for any reason, throw you in a cell and wait any amount of time they like to "determine" if you are an enemy combatant. In the interim, you will have no representation, no hearing, no communications, and no record. From the standpoint of anyone who knew you out in the world, you've dissapeared. You may be tortured, transferred out of the country, or be subject to any number of unpleasant and incompatible-with-liberty experiences.
The constitution is no longer in any serious way the document that legitimately "constitutes" the rules for our government. It's over. They like to let us talk about it because it keeps us busy. Same as voting. Doesn't change a thing, but keeps the rank and file under the illusion that they can make a difference.
Except our government can't do any of that if it didn't get a judicial warrant first
That is incorrect. Our [the US] government can do all of that without a warrant, and quite a bit more for that matter.
Recent legislation allows you to be picked up and held without access to lawyer, communications, or hearing before a judge until [some completely open ended period passes] during which the government may [or may not] bestir itself to determine if you are an "enemy combatant."
If they so determine, then you remain in this state. If they determine you are not an enemy combatant, you are now allowed to have a lawyer, etc., but the key issue is there is absolutely no pressure on them to make such a determination. If they don't, you remain imprisoned, isolated, unrepresented, incommunicado.
Not having a judicial warrant precludes any legal action
No. It does not. The government can arrest you and disappear you without a warrant, as I describe above. Habeas corpus is 100% dead. Furthermore, they can break down your door with the very flimsiest of excuses without a warrant, and have been able to do so for years.
This isn't your daddy's USA. And the founders wouldn't even recognize it.
the purpose of a certificate is for a server (or less commonly a client) to "prove" that the public key it's presenting belongs to the entity that its peer intends to communicate with.
It can't "prove" any such thing. A simple security breach, or intended malfeasance on the part of the cert holder, and you're talking to someone else. The idea that it could prove such a thing more than half a second after it is issued is 100% illusion.
If you don't know that you're using the right key, what's the value of encrypting?
The same as it has always been: Limiting exposure of communications to the parties with the ability to decrypt the data. Nothing else. For instance, in the case of e-commerce, it limits the number of parties who get access of your credit card data.
However, a certificate by a known CA is still somewhat more trustworthy than a certificate by some random key about itself.
How so? It doesn't mean the identity is correct; it doesn't mean the location is correct; it doesn't mean ownership is correct; so what does it add? Both get your data encrypted just as well.
Now, if you're talking about adding value because CA certificates aren't subject to the scam where the browser scares the heck out of the client, and where the client is deluded by the marketing of said scams by the CAs, then I agree. That's my point. It's a scam.
As far as I understand, the main trouble for mom'n'pop shops will be the green colored bar
It is far worse than that:
This encourages people to "trust" Internet Explorer, which has not earned that trust in any meaningful sense
This encourages people to "trust" Verisign and others, which have also not earned that trust in any meaningful sense
This discourages customers from checking out an online shop themselves, which is just plain really, really bad
This certificate is an additional expense not just in obvious costs, but in hoop jumping
If a legitimate business is unable to obtain the cert, it will be unfairly damaged by the incorrect presumption of unreliability
Certificates never provide anything more valuable than data security, the "identification" is illusory and worse with these, since they create an "underclass" of nominally "untrusted" sites that have no performance reason to be so classed, which is the very definition of an inaccurate take on who is trustworthy
The idea that "trust" in one corporation can be settled merely by the endorsement of another is logically and realistically false
Browsers, by buying into this corporate scam, have been complicit in hurting the Internet's ability to do business, not in helping it; this is because historically, identification of "who is trusted" has been poorly done by underdoing (in other words, give us a check, we'll give you a cert... just a scam, no ID involved) now we have a scam where it will be overdone, so that perfectly legitimate businesses will be left out in the cold. Again, the idea that a corporation can be trusted to do your due diligence on checking out someone you want to do business with is wrong from its very roots.
In the end, the benefit of SSL is that of encrypted traffic. The data goes from the client to the server, and nowhere else. That's what a certificate actually ensures. Nothing else. Not one blessed thing. The people who built this scam were either miserably uninformed and/or confused, or underhanded types who recognized the money to scooped up from people who could not afford to have a browser inaccurately claim that their business "might be a scam."
This is just one more case where superficial thinking about something is being used as an excuse to generate a large and healthy cash cow over and above the current certificate scam. Nothing can legitimately substitute for you checking for complaints, longevity, experience with the product(s) you are interested in, that sort of thing. Which in turn means that by definition, the foisting off on the consumer that the "browser bar turning green" means "shopping or interaction is OK" is outright illegitimate.
And will any of that stop this from happening? Not a chance. Because it isn't only the consumers that are failing to do due diligence here; it is the browser writers as well, and as per usual, we start with Microsoft who does not have the consumer's best interests at heart.
The attempt is being made here to do something that is impossible. Wy? Because an operation that was trustworthy yesterday can become untrustworthy tomorrow. Likewise, an operation that was controlled by scammers can replace those people. It is a matter of people and goals that no one can see through the veil of the Internet. This is aside from the creation of a "ghetto" of untrusted merchants who cannot get certified, or cannot afford to get certified.
I saw a comment elsewhere here by some moron who was pontificating about how "if some business cannot afford $500 for this cert, I would not trust them, etc. ad nauseam." The fact is, some businesses are striving on the edge and that money is important to them. Seeing as how it does nothing for them but keep them from being creamed by this new scam - meaning, it doesn't add value to what they do, just brings them back to a status quo
I believe you just described the basics of the copyright system!.. "As long as both parties understand what it is they are exchanging."
At that level, I wish I had. Unfortunately, neither the manufacturers nor the citizen at large seems to understand, or agree with, the copyright laws as they stand today. But I also should say that when the system restricts the seller in what they may offer as far as what that agreement might be, I am inclined to go along with the inclination of the seller if they should decide that pursuing the sale of creative works isn't worth it, after all. And (until they can read our minds and *take* our ideas) that decision still rests with the creator of the work, no matter what the laws might like to impose upon them.
And, if you don't happen to like the "deal" that public negotiations come out with, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from going to the IP owner and attempting to make your own deal.
Right. But there are a lot of "stops" for content creators. I object to these for a number of reasons, some practical, some ethical. I can elaborate, if you are interested. Which is not, of course, to say that I think the system works other than it does, I simply object, as in, I don't think it is ethically correct. Like a lot of law. Also like a lot of law, as a citizen, there is little effect I can have upon the situation, and that doesn't make me happy, either.
Now you argue that copyright nullifies the author's ability to make a deal with you that benefits both yourself and the author.
No. I don't argue that. I argue that copyright forces the author to make a deal on terms that they may not wish to involve themselves with, specifically that "society" gets the produced content, idea, etc., after a specific amount of time. There are quite a few reasons why this can be a very poor deal indeed for the author. Slow sales are one obvious example; an idea produced before its time is another. In these cases, the "product" goes to public ownership before a reasonable benefit, or let's say a benefit commensurate with its value to society, has been returned to the creator of the product. This is not always the case, however, sometimes it definitely is.
I'm actually somewhat familiar with copyright law; I own a literary agency, so we deal with it every day. I just don't *agree* with it.
Patents follow the same ideal since you brought them up -- they grant a blanket restriction to an inventor against the unauthorized production of his invention, but does not prevent him from authorizing another party to produce the invention.
Well, no. They do what you describe for the first warm body to reach the patent office. Which is not the same thing at all as "the inventor(s)" Which in turn means that many inventors, just as legitimate as the patent holder in terms of intellectual effort, research and so on, are left out in the cold. Or worse, subject to prosecution at law for implementing their own ideas. I don't agree that this is a reasonable course of action. Though again, I recognize that it is the law.
The trouble with copyright (and patents) is the extent to which they are currently granted.
Well, that's one trouble with them, at least. Although I think you and I are at opposite poles as to why that's a problem. I'm not a fan of anyone telling anyone else what terms of any kind they may make a sale of something they have produced. Although I have objections to the circumstances under which they are granted as well in many cases.
DRM is simply a method to enforce the author's copyrights given that traditional law enforcement has failed miserably at doing so in the age of the internet.
Actually, as near as I can tell, DRM is an attempt by
You have a reading comprehension problem, as well as a very poor communications style. If you would like to read for what I said, and respond to it, I'll engage in discussion with you. If you're going to be rude and/or erect straw-men, I won't. When you re-read, pay attention to my phrasing. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, and that means you need to try harder. I was very careful about what I said.
Does having liberty and acknowledging the other person's liberty mean to allow him to take away yours?
You are, I think (correct me if I'm wrong, you weren't very specific) saying that "my" liberty is the liberty do... something... with some intellectual creation of yours.
Let me make a few general observations about intellectual productions and copyright:
I wasn't there when copyright was crafted and made into law. I wasn't represented, my input was not sought, and in fact, I do not agree with certain of the precepts that underlie the idea. To the extent that copyright affects me, it is a matter of coercion - use of force and the threat of violence to make me comply with ideas I don't agree with. So my liberty, such as it is, suffers questionable aegis at the very least.
Intellectual productions, initially, are 100% under the creator's control. Specifically, I can create something, be it song, poetry, physical concept and so forth, and simply decide not to say a word to anyone. At conception, then, this "property", to use the vernacular, is 100% mine and society and its individual citizens have zero ability to get it out of me. They don't even know I have done this thing, whatever it is.
Copyright is that act of society that says that as soon as you wish to expose your idea to us, we will give you X, and take Y. If, that is, you follow these certain procedures. Otherwise, we'll just take Y, period.
I maintain that as the idea was the creator's in the first place, it is not ethically reasonable to then say that it becomes everyone else's because some people who specifically do not represent the creator said so. This is my basis for saying that it should be the artist, or creator's, choice as to whether DRM is part of the production.
So in the end, if I wish to sell a production - let's say it is a song, since I am in fact a musician - that "expires" in 30 days to you, it seems to me that there are a few basics to follow that ensures this process is fair, ethically speaking, meaning actually fair, as opposed to "legislatively" fair: First, I have to be honest and up front with you: This thing will work for thirty days, after which it will not work. I want $Q in order to provide you with my expiring work. You, in turn, have to think about this, and say to yourself, "Is the thirty days of use commensurate, or better, with the value of $Q to me? If the answer is yes, and it is otherwise convenient and interesting to you, then perhaps you will elect to purchase said commodity — and as far as I can see, this transaction is just as legitimate as the one where the creator says, for $Q, I will sell you this thing which offers unlimited use, etc. As long as both parties understand what it is they are exchanging.
I do not support the idea that because I came up with an idea or a product, that you cannot go ahead and come up with it on your own. In other words, most of the patent system is anathema to me. Copyright isn't a whole lot better; though at least people considered parody and quoting for the purpose of review, commentary and so forth.
So, to the extent that DRM is applied without the artist or creator's consent, I don't support it. To the extent that the artist or creator gets to decide exactly what it is they wish to sell (or give away, for that matter), I do support it. Because I don't support the idea that I get to define what it is you are allowed to present for sale or consumption otherwise. I have a creator-centric view of value and distribution choices and mechanisms. The consumer always has the option to "vote with their wallet", that is, not support the creator in their approach, which in turn will at least not recompense the creator for an idea that won't "fit" with society, and may even cause them to revamp their ideas to something that does fit better. These pressures are brought about by choices on both sides, rather than coercion appli
Sure, I support the ability to use DRM. That should be the artist's choice. But not a blanket enforcement of it. Why? Because there are some people who make audio productions who do not charge and do not restrict distribution. As long as that is still possible, and those people don't have to pay some arbitrary group for a "license" or other enabling mechanism to distribute their "stuff" for free, I'd be all for it.
But... our history is that once we close the doors, we lock people out based upon income or other arbitrary factors that really have no bearing on the subject at hand, except perhaps as prejudice or a money-making scheme. Radio station licenses are a racket. Product bar codes are a racket. Liquor licenses are a racket. Marriage licenses are a racket. The whole "top-40" thing is a racket. The list is long and depressing. My expectation is that if a DRM scheme is settled upon, the only model supported will be commercial and involve money and/or equipment that the little guy just won't be able to afford. Cynical? You bet. But based on past performance.
We've seen this begin to happen already. Vista will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, created or put in place by software that hasn't got some kind of deal going with Microsoft. This is bad on every level — models like this only hurt the little person.
We're better off without DRM, I'm afraid, because the proponents of it are uniformly commercial, as are their goals... but the world is not.
I don't quite follow you here, although I agree about the DRM.
I don't support DRM, but I do support Apple. Why? Because they made it easy - even trivial - to not go the DRM route. Just like.Mac, you can use it, or not -- your choice. I simply buy CDs, import them into iTunes, and then I have the songs I want, in high fidelity, unprotected (I can copy them anywhere, and I do -- into my Palm, into my PSP, onto my other computers), and managed by iTunes which is a great audio library management system as well as a decent playback machine.
The DRM that Apple supports is consumer chosen and if anyone has a beef, it is with the fact that consumers are not as well informed as they should be about the issues. But Apple does not force anyone to use DRM. That's a gold-plated fact.
Now, you compare this behavior with Microsoft. As a musician, my concerns about fidelity and rights and restrictions are fairly wide-ranging. Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft. So I can create high fidelity works, try t play them back in Vista, and it will intentionally screw them up on playback. Now that is the kind of rights-related behavior we should be concerned about.
Don't support Apple's model for selling tracks? Simple: Don't buy from them. No one is making you do so, and opting out of the Apple music store in no way inconveniences you, in no way degrades your experience in audio terms, in no way limits how you can use the iTunes software. The fact is, if no one buys protected tracks (just follow my lead, I don't!) then the iTunes store will change or disappear. Until or unless Apple forces some restriction (or more than one) on non-protected tracks, these complaints are mostly pointless harping on a company that is letting you do it your way. Unlike Microsoft.
Warranty - and safety - are also the reasons I went with a Kia Sportage. Manufacturer support counts for a lot, the sense that they will stand behind their product. That's also why I've been an OSX user for the last few years. Microsoft would have to make huge changes for me to go back. Apple simply does a better job. There's a bonus, too; old Windows machines make great linux-based servers.:)
You haven't discussed the possibility of an accidental shooting of a passenger anywhere You haven't discussed the possibility of an accidental shooting of a passenger anywhere
Well, I didn't discuss the *obvious*, because I didn't think anyone needed to have it discussed. Accidents happen. They happen everywhere. They'd happen in these circumstances. Unfortunate, but the price of liberty. Cheaper, in the end, than having some religious retard fly the aircraft into a well populated building. Better a few single human being accidents than even one 3000 person immolation. Are you math-impaired?
fired. How do you know whom to shoot?
The same way you know how to do everything else dangerous in society, such as drive on the correct side of the road and look before they cross the street; you are simply trained to handle weapons as a part of your socialization. You are taught to look for the first cause. Look, people carry weapons in many places. Do they run around shooting each other? No. How often do undercover cops shoot each other? hardly ever. Why? Training. The problem you imagine (everybody randomly shooting each other), and I emphasize imagine, has not reared its head in similar situations. In the situation I postulate, carrying arms would be normal, as would training. We'd be taking responsibility for ourselves again. The cowardly and dysfunctional restricting of weapons to a very few empowered people delegated to take care of everyone else would stop, and criminals of ALL types would know that to get out of line is to be immediately stopped instead of just bringing a cop around later to fill out some paperwork and annoy the victims.
what if the vigilante missed the shooter and hit your child? Are you just going to sit there and take it?
Certainly. I won't be happy, but I won't be vengeful, either. In the case of hostages, they are already casualties unless they are very, very lucky. This is true on several levels. First of all, most hostages are killed, because they are an informational and logistical liability. Second, hostages represent blackmail of the worst kind: Third, every time you let someone succeed in this, more people are encouraged to try it. That's why negotiating or otherwise coddling hostage takers is a terrible idea: You magnify the use of hostage taking. You should never respond to the fact that a hostage has been taken. If they are being used as "human shields", you should get a high enough power weapon to shoot right through them. This reduces the positive value of taking a hostage to zero, and given the inherent and unavoidable liabilities, logistical and informational, hostage taking will no longer be done. And of course to this, one should add a huge social penalty for such an act. Being pinned to a cross for a few weeks while your guts are slowly ripped out and you genitals sliced off in strips with drugs to keep you wide awake and extra-sensitive might be a good starting point.
You know, when Robert Heinlein played with the idea of a fully armed citizenry, he had the very good sense to incorporate a duelling code, loosely based on historical models. The suggestion of "let's take this fight outside, sir" was a necessary practical part of armed societies. It's tricky to replicate on a plane.
Dueling between mutually agreed adult parties, I have no problem with. In fact, I have no problem with almost anything if it is between mutually agreed adult parties. Of course, dueling is not practical on an aircraft, just as you say. However, it does not follow that one should therefore sit there like a Buddhist at a bug smashing contest; when there is a threat, it needs to be dealt with before the aircraft becomes an aimed kinetic energy weapon.
I advocate an armed, informed, educated and trained society. Others advocate a
You need to place two fingers on the track pad and click.
I'm well aware of the shortcuts, including the two-finger right-click trick. However, this does not provide the same functionality.
For instance, you can't right-click-and-drag an object, which is an operation used in some graphics software about every third or fourth time you do something, quite distinct from left-click-and-drag.
The only thing that will solve this is an actual right button. Until it is added, I have to use a mouse, which is annoying on a laptop I spent $2,700.00 for, not to mention requiring an entirely different kind of space - you can't use it as a laptop, it becomes a de-facto desktop, because you have to put the mouse somewhere it will behave properly.
But right now - and I think you're seriously underestimating the significance of the iPhone introduction on the players of the phone industry - the iPhone is *it*. It really is what is worth talking about right now.
Oh, I'm not underestimating it, go back and read - I said it'd do well and that people would like it - just that I wasn't thrilled. Not only do I not like phones, I can't imagine trying to use an LCD device in full sunlight.:) But I am sure they'll make a ton of money with it. I just don't really care for the product, and am interested in computers instead. Looking for Leopard, I guess.
I'm sure the iPhone is going to be a lovely product for phone users; me, I'm not too hot on cellphones (or any kind of phone, for that matter. I never did like being interrupted.) I do have an iPod, but I don't use the Apple store (because I prefer not to buy DRM'd materials. I just buy CDs and put tracks into the iPod from there.) So my main connection with Apple is their computers.
I noticed that (aside from the fact that the iPhone runs OSX) there really weren't any "computer" announcements today. Intel announced quad-core CPUs yesterday, and the rumor mill was mumbling about a dual-chip (hence 8-core) Mac desktop; likewise, the mini could use some attention in the graphics area, and the macbook pro still needs (and still has room for) a full keyboard and numeric pad, not to mention a second button on the trackpad.
The iTV / Apple TV... well, aside from the fact that you won't be able to get one for a little while yet, I'm not sure what it'd do for me that I can't already do. Apparently, the marketing went right over my head. Anyone have a summary of why this is an interesting product in a world of tivos, dvrs, frontrow, hi-def dvd and xbox and ps3 and so on? Aside from giving Apple a vector to sell DRM'd movies?
While I'm sure expanding into phones will be a great moneymaker for Apple, I can't help feeling disappointed. Just my.02
Personally, I take it that his ego has to be ignored; it definitely infects the writing style. However, the ideas are new, quite elegant, and very, very basic. I don't think they're a rehash, though there are topics (cellular automata) that have had some work done on them. He's not just talking about cellular automata themselves, he's talking about the way the universe works and he actually shows the same mechanisms underlying large portions of math that underlie everything from shell growth to turing machines. Not the other way around. He then turns some ideas over about how we think, reason... I wouldn't sell the book short if I were you. If its too spendy (about $50, I think) get your library to get a copy or just read it online.
I read it somewhat online, then decided I wanted it in my library and bought it, then I started over and read it to the end. I really, really enjoyed it.
None of those are "popular science" books. Wolfram's is literally the groundwork for a new science, Dawkins is a brilliantly (and deeply) reasoned reproach to theists everywhere, and the third title is a "replacement" science, as I indicated, probably no more than crack-pottery, though worth reading for the exercise you get in dealing with the cold water it attempts to throw on the conventional thinking.
You won't find any of them "at a local university." Besides which, most adults, while they may have time to noodle through a book, can't spare the time for a(nother) degree. Families, mortgages, you know. Grown-up stuff. Books allow for time shifting and just about any subject you prefer to chase; unlike both predigested pap you get on TV and the limited set of courses you can choose from at a university. Knowledge is not about degrees, anyway. Degrees mean something else, mainly that you can take direction for a few years and you're probably not bone-stupid.
Better yet, turn the TV off, and read something like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", Dawkins "The God Delusion" or even something off the wall like McCutcheon's "The Final Theory", which will make you at least re-think what you know, though in the end you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did, which is, he's a crackpot. But a really clever one, especially if you read the whole book!:)
PBS... well, it isn't going to teach you any significant amount of science. It's 99.9% a complete waste of time, just like all the other pre-digested gee-whiz shows. If you want entertainment, by all means, head for the TV. But don't kid yourself that a TV show split over multiple subjects is going to be illuminating. It's just drool-fodder.
If you want to look like you're making reasonable comments, read the entire thread that depends from the comment you're replying to before you sally forth. Then you'll see when all your points have already been addressed, and you won't look like such a silly person. And maybe you can even come up with a reasonable point! No promises, of course.:)
I suspect what it will actually do is reduce the number of scuffles to near zero. I would assert that the very reason people get out of hand on aircraft is that they are under the sincere impression that nothing serious will happen to them. Start shooting them, make it national news, and people will settle right down.
That goes for a lot of the rest of our social problems, too. If burglars know they're going to be shot at, there will be a considerable reduction in burglaries. Again, the stats show it: Wherever the populace is well armed, crime is reduced by a great deal; where the populace is disarmed (ex, Washington DC), crime rises to unprecedented heights.
No problem - but you still need to consider the cost.
I did, elsewhere in the thread. "Homeland security" accounts for forty seven billion dollarsin a single year. These are new costs since 9/11. We can armor the entire fleet and issue frangible bullets and guns for a fraction of that.
Really and truly, armoring the plane is not a problem if it is the alternative to what we have. And let me be very clear, I'm not suggesting it as a "do this too" kind of solution. My original post was about the government being on the wrong track. Not adding a new one.
And what happens in the event of a medical emergency? Say someone has a heart attack 10 mins after takeoff on a transatlantic flight.
The same thing that happens if someone has a heart attack in my car halfway between here and Billings, Montana; they wait hours until we get to the destination. Though I suppose you could put a doctor and an infirmary on a flight; I can't fit one in my car. In other words, stuff happens; I would ask you in return, why do you think it is OK for one person's malady to redirect an entire flight of people? We all die, you know. It is just a question of when. If you're really a bleeding heart, give the flight attendants a button to push that lights up "please land at the nearest airport" in the cockpit, and limit communications to that. Ok? That still precludes hijacking.
Probably feasible, though perhaps expensive.
Do you have any idea what our beloved government has spent on "homeland security", and how that compares with refitting the active fleet of aircraft? Let me enlighten you: Forty seven billion dollarsin one year!!!!! We would save so much money if we went with armor and handguns it'd be astonishing.
No-one will shoot cos they might hit the hostage
Nonsense. I'd shoot instantly. So would anyone else with a clear head. Hostages don't have any assurance of surviving anyway. Just ask those people who got flown into the WTC. Oh, wait. OK, ask those people who swarmed the terrorists with an open cockpit and crashed into Pennsylvania. Um, no, wait. Ok, ask those people who were over Lockerbie, Scotland, and... uh... hmmm.
I guess you can't ask any of those people. For some reason. I'll figure it out in a minute... um... I've got it! IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL DEAD!
The assurance is, there would be at least some people in the aircraft who would shoot, even if a kid is grabbed. Is it better for a kid to die in a terrorist's arms, or to be part of a kinetic weapon that kills thousands of his or her countrymen? Me, I'd just shoot, because I know the answer to that question already perfectly well. I wouldn't need to think it out on an aircraft, faced with a threat.
No, it wouldn't. [work]
Yes, it would. Here's where we are at this point: I've provided many reasons to show why it would; you have provided none to directly show it would not, and none that defeat any reason I've posted. The fact is, it'd work perfectly. There would be no more hijackings. None. People would get shot, I readily admit. But they do anyway. Or flown into buildings, or into the ground, or otherwise abused. I'm simply advocating assaulting any terrorist and taking them down immediately before they accomplish any serious part of their agenda. It beats the heck out of the current situation, which curtails many of our freedoms and yet these religio-crackpots can still hijack the damned planes.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it seems to do exactly that. Worst crime rate in the US, just about? Washington DC. No guns allowed. So - just like the saying goes - only criminals have guns among the general population, giving them a decided advantage. Areas where almost everyone has firearms... almost no crime.
The fact is, if a criminal thinks I may - or probably do - have a gun - that criminal is not going to try to mug me. If they're pretty certain I'm unarmed; they will.
It is very unfortunate that you gun-fearing types can neither understand simple statistics or think the issue through to its logical conclusion. Scared of guns? Fine. But don't try to transfer your fears to the rest of the population. You just make the place less safe for everyone else. In other words, you're screwing things up. More. Please stop.
Too late. Way too late. Laws are rarely un-made. You have no rights now; they can pick you up for any reason, throw you in a cell and wait any amount of time they like to "determine" if you are an enemy combatant. In the interim, you will have no representation, no hearing, no communications, and no record. From the standpoint of anyone who knew you out in the world, you've dissapeared. You may be tortured, transferred out of the country, or be subject to any number of unpleasant and incompatible-with-liberty experiences.
The constitution is no longer in any serious way the document that legitimately "constitutes" the rules for our government. It's over. They like to let us talk about it because it keeps us busy. Same as voting. Doesn't change a thing, but keeps the rank and file under the illusion that they can make a difference.
Point taken, sir, point taken.
That is incorrect. Our [the US] government can do all of that without a warrant, and quite a bit more for that matter.
Recent legislation allows you to be picked up and held without access to lawyer, communications, or hearing before a judge until [some completely open ended period passes] during which the government may [or may not] bestir itself to determine if you are an "enemy combatant."
If they so determine, then you remain in this state. If they determine you are not an enemy combatant, you are now allowed to have a lawyer, etc., but the key issue is there is absolutely no pressure on them to make such a determination. If they don't, you remain imprisoned, isolated, unrepresented, incommunicado.
No. It does not. The government can arrest you and disappear you without a warrant, as I describe above. Habeas corpus is 100% dead. Furthermore, they can break down your door with the very flimsiest of excuses without a warrant, and have been able to do so for years.
This isn't your daddy's USA. And the founders wouldn't even recognize it.
It can't "prove" any such thing. A simple security breach, or intended malfeasance on the part of the cert holder, and you're talking to someone else. The idea that it could prove such a thing more than half a second after it is issued is 100% illusion.
The same as it has always been: Limiting exposure of communications to the parties with the ability to decrypt the data. Nothing else. For instance, in the case of e-commerce, it limits the number of parties who get access of your credit card data.
How so? It doesn't mean the identity is correct; it doesn't mean the location is correct; it doesn't mean ownership is correct; so what does it add? Both get your data encrypted just as well.
Now, if you're talking about adding value because CA certificates aren't subject to the scam where the browser scares the heck out of the client, and where the client is deluded by the marketing of said scams by the CAs, then I agree. That's my point. It's a scam.
It is far worse than that:
In the end, the benefit of SSL is that of encrypted traffic. The data goes from the client to the server, and nowhere else. That's what a certificate actually ensures. Nothing else. Not one blessed thing. The people who built this scam were either miserably uninformed and/or confused, or underhanded types who recognized the money to scooped up from people who could not afford to have a browser inaccurately claim that their business "might be a scam."
This is just one more case where superficial thinking about something is being used as an excuse to generate a large and healthy cash cow over and above the current certificate scam. Nothing can legitimately substitute for you checking for complaints, longevity, experience with the product(s) you are interested in, that sort of thing. Which in turn means that by definition, the foisting off on the consumer that the "browser bar turning green" means "shopping or interaction is OK" is outright illegitimate.
And will any of that stop this from happening? Not a chance. Because it isn't only the consumers that are failing to do due diligence here; it is the browser writers as well, and as per usual, we start with Microsoft who does not have the consumer's best interests at heart.
The attempt is being made here to do something that is impossible. Wy? Because an operation that was trustworthy yesterday can become untrustworthy tomorrow. Likewise, an operation that was controlled by scammers can replace those people. It is a matter of people and goals that no one can see through the veil of the Internet. This is aside from the creation of a "ghetto" of untrusted merchants who cannot get certified, or cannot afford to get certified.
I saw a comment elsewhere here by some moron who was pontificating about how "if some business cannot afford $500 for this cert, I would not trust them, etc. ad nauseam." The fact is, some businesses are striving on the edge and that money is important to them. Seeing as how it does nothing for them but keep them from being creamed by this new scam - meaning, it doesn't add value to what they do, just brings them back to a status quo
At that level, I wish I had. Unfortunately, neither the manufacturers nor the citizen at large seems to understand, or agree with, the copyright laws as they stand today. But I also should say that when the system restricts the seller in what they may offer as far as what that agreement might be, I am inclined to go along with the inclination of the seller if they should decide that pursuing the sale of creative works isn't worth it, after all. And (until they can read our minds and *take* our ideas) that decision still rests with the creator of the work, no matter what the laws might like to impose upon them.
Right. But there are a lot of "stops" for content creators. I object to these for a number of reasons, some practical, some ethical. I can elaborate, if you are interested. Which is not, of course, to say that I think the system works other than it does, I simply object, as in, I don't think it is ethically correct. Like a lot of law. Also like a lot of law, as a citizen, there is little effect I can have upon the situation, and that doesn't make me happy, either.
No. I don't argue that. I argue that copyright forces the author to make a deal on terms that they may not wish to involve themselves with, specifically that "society" gets the produced content, idea, etc., after a specific amount of time. There are quite a few reasons why this can be a very poor deal indeed for the author. Slow sales are one obvious example; an idea produced before its time is another. In these cases, the "product" goes to public ownership before a reasonable benefit, or let's say a benefit commensurate with its value to society, has been returned to the creator of the product. This is not always the case, however, sometimes it definitely is.
I'm actually somewhat familiar with copyright law; I own a literary agency, so we deal with it every day. I just don't *agree* with it.
Well, no. They do what you describe for the first warm body to reach the patent office. Which is not the same thing at all as "the inventor(s)" Which in turn means that many inventors, just as legitimate as the patent holder in terms of intellectual effort, research and so on, are left out in the cold. Or worse, subject to prosecution at law for implementing their own ideas. I don't agree that this is a reasonable course of action. Though again, I recognize that it is the law.
Well, that's one trouble with them, at least. Although I think you and I are at opposite poles as to why that's a problem. I'm not a fan of anyone telling anyone else what terms of any kind they may make a sale of something they have produced. Although I have objections to the circumstances under which they are granted as well in many cases.
Actually, as near as I can tell, DRM is an attempt by
You have a reading comprehension problem, as well as a very poor communications style. If you would like to read for what I said, and respond to it, I'll engage in discussion with you. If you're going to be rude and/or erect straw-men, I won't. When you re-read, pay attention to my phrasing. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, and that means you need to try harder. I was very careful about what I said.
You are, I think (correct me if I'm wrong, you weren't very specific) saying that "my" liberty is the liberty do... something... with some intellectual creation of yours.
Let me make a few general observations about intellectual productions and copyright:
I wasn't there when copyright was crafted and made into law. I wasn't represented, my input was not sought, and in fact, I do not agree with certain of the precepts that underlie the idea. To the extent that copyright affects me, it is a matter of coercion - use of force and the threat of violence to make me comply with ideas I don't agree with. So my liberty, such as it is, suffers questionable aegis at the very least.
Intellectual productions, initially, are 100% under the creator's control. Specifically, I can create something, be it song, poetry, physical concept and so forth, and simply decide not to say a word to anyone. At conception, then, this "property", to use the vernacular, is 100% mine and society and its individual citizens have zero ability to get it out of me. They don't even know I have done this thing, whatever it is.
Copyright is that act of society that says that as soon as you wish to expose your idea to us, we will give you X, and take Y. If, that is, you follow these certain procedures. Otherwise, we'll just take Y, period.
I maintain that as the idea was the creator's in the first place, it is not ethically reasonable to then say that it becomes everyone else's because some people who specifically do not represent the creator said so. This is my basis for saying that it should be the artist, or creator's, choice as to whether DRM is part of the production.
So in the end, if I wish to sell a production - let's say it is a song, since I am in fact a musician - that "expires" in 30 days to you, it seems to me that there are a few basics to follow that ensures this process is fair, ethically speaking, meaning actually fair, as opposed to "legislatively" fair: First, I have to be honest and up front with you: This thing will work for thirty days, after which it will not work. I want $Q in order to provide you with my expiring work. You, in turn, have to think about this, and say to yourself, "Is the thirty days of use commensurate, or better, with the value of $Q to me? If the answer is yes, and it is otherwise convenient and interesting to you, then perhaps you will elect to purchase said commodity — and as far as I can see, this transaction is just as legitimate as the one where the creator says, for $Q, I will sell you this thing which offers unlimited use, etc. As long as both parties understand what it is they are exchanging.
I do not support the idea that because I came up with an idea or a product, that you cannot go ahead and come up with it on your own. In other words, most of the patent system is anathema to me. Copyright isn't a whole lot better; though at least people considered parody and quoting for the purpose of review, commentary and so forth.
So, to the extent that DRM is applied without the artist or creator's consent, I don't support it. To the extent that the artist or creator gets to decide exactly what it is they wish to sell (or give away, for that matter), I do support it. Because I don't support the idea that I get to define what it is you are allowed to present for sale or consumption otherwise. I have a creator-centric view of value and distribution choices and mechanisms. The consumer always has the option to "vote with their wallet", that is, not support the creator in their approach, which in turn will at least not recompense the creator for an idea that won't "fit" with society, and may even cause them to revamp their ideas to something that does fit better. These pressures are brought about by choices on both sides, rather than coercion appli
Sure, I support the ability to use DRM. That should be the artist's choice. But not a blanket enforcement of it. Why? Because there are some people who make audio productions who do not charge and do not restrict distribution. As long as that is still possible, and those people don't have to pay some arbitrary group for a "license" or other enabling mechanism to distribute their "stuff" for free, I'd be all for it.
But... our history is that once we close the doors, we lock people out based upon income or other arbitrary factors that really have no bearing on the subject at hand, except perhaps as prejudice or a money-making scheme. Radio station licenses are a racket. Product bar codes are a racket. Liquor licenses are a racket. Marriage licenses are a racket. The whole "top-40" thing is a racket. The list is long and depressing. My expectation is that if a DRM scheme is settled upon, the only model supported will be commercial and involve money and/or equipment that the little guy just won't be able to afford. Cynical? You bet. But based on past performance.
We've seen this begin to happen already. Vista will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, created or put in place by software that hasn't got some kind of deal going with Microsoft. This is bad on every level — models like this only hurt the little person.
We're better off without DRM, I'm afraid, because the proponents of it are uniformly commercial, as are their goals... but the world is not.
I don't support DRM, but I do support Apple. Why? Because they made it easy - even trivial - to not go the DRM route. Just like .Mac, you can use it, or not -- your choice. I simply buy CDs, import them into iTunes, and then I have the songs I want, in high fidelity, unprotected (I can copy them anywhere, and I do -- into my Palm, into my PSP, onto my other computers), and managed by iTunes which is a great audio library management system as well as a decent playback machine.
The DRM that Apple supports is consumer chosen and if anyone has a beef, it is with the fact that consumers are not as well informed as they should be about the issues. But Apple does not force anyone to use DRM. That's a gold-plated fact.
Now, you compare this behavior with Microsoft. As a musician, my concerns about fidelity and rights and restrictions are fairly wide-ranging. Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft. So I can create high fidelity works, try t play them back in Vista, and it will intentionally screw them up on playback. Now that is the kind of rights-related behavior we should be concerned about.
Don't support Apple's model for selling tracks? Simple: Don't buy from them. No one is making you do so, and opting out of the Apple music store in no way inconveniences you, in no way degrades your experience in audio terms, in no way limits how you can use the iTunes software. The fact is, if no one buys protected tracks (just follow my lead, I don't!) then the iTunes store will change or disappear. Until or unless Apple forces some restriction (or more than one) on non-protected tracks, these complaints are mostly pointless harping on a company that is letting you do it your way. Unlike Microsoft.
Warranty - and safety - are also the reasons I went with a Kia Sportage. Manufacturer support counts for a lot, the sense that they will stand behind their product. That's also why I've been an OSX user for the last few years. Microsoft would have to make huge changes for me to go back. Apple simply does a better job. There's a bonus, too; old Windows machines make great linux-based servers. :)
Well, I didn't discuss the *obvious*, because I didn't think anyone needed to have it discussed. Accidents happen. They happen everywhere. They'd happen in these circumstances. Unfortunate, but the price of liberty. Cheaper, in the end, than having some religious retard fly the aircraft into a well populated building. Better a few single human being accidents than even one 3000 person immolation. Are you math-impaired?
The same way you know how to do everything else dangerous in society, such as drive on the correct side of the road and look before they cross the street; you are simply trained to handle weapons as a part of your socialization. You are taught to look for the first cause. Look, people carry weapons in many places. Do they run around shooting each other? No. How often do undercover cops shoot each other? hardly ever. Why? Training. The problem you imagine (everybody randomly shooting each other), and I emphasize imagine, has not reared its head in similar situations. In the situation I postulate, carrying arms would be normal, as would training. We'd be taking responsibility for ourselves again. The cowardly and dysfunctional restricting of weapons to a very few empowered people delegated to take care of everyone else would stop, and criminals of ALL types would know that to get out of line is to be immediately stopped instead of just bringing a cop around later to fill out some paperwork and annoy the victims.
Certainly. I won't be happy, but I won't be vengeful, either. In the case of hostages, they are already casualties unless they are very, very lucky. This is true on several levels. First of all, most hostages are killed, because they are an informational and logistical liability. Second, hostages represent blackmail of the worst kind: Third, every time you let someone succeed in this, more people are encouraged to try it. That's why negotiating or otherwise coddling hostage takers is a terrible idea: You magnify the use of hostage taking. You should never respond to the fact that a hostage has been taken. If they are being used as "human shields", you should get a high enough power weapon to shoot right through them. This reduces the positive value of taking a hostage to zero, and given the inherent and unavoidable liabilities, logistical and informational, hostage taking will no longer be done. And of course to this, one should add a huge social penalty for such an act. Being pinned to a cross for a few weeks while your guts are slowly ripped out and you genitals sliced off in strips with drugs to keep you wide awake and extra-sensitive might be a good starting point.
Dueling between mutually agreed adult parties, I have no problem with. In fact, I have no problem with almost anything if it is between mutually agreed adult parties. Of course, dueling is not practical on an aircraft, just as you say. However, it does not follow that one should therefore sit there like a Buddhist at a bug smashing contest; when there is a threat, it needs to be dealt with before the aircraft becomes an aimed kinetic energy weapon.
I advocate an armed, informed, educated and trained society. Others advocate a
Just make sure you cook them properly. Humans are like pork; "rare" meals are not advisable. Hence the appellation, "long pork."
Actually, I love kids. They're like slinkies(tm.) You can't help but smile as you see one tumble down the stairs.
I'm well aware of the shortcuts, including the two-finger right-click trick. However, this does not provide the same functionality.
For instance, you can't right-click-and-drag an object, which is an operation used in some graphics software about every third or fourth time you do something, quite distinct from left-click-and-drag.
The only thing that will solve this is an actual right button. Until it is added, I have to use a mouse, which is annoying on a laptop I spent $2,700.00 for, not to mention requiring an entirely different kind of space - you can't use it as a laptop, it becomes a de-facto desktop, because you have to put the mouse somewhere it will behave properly.
Oh, I'm not underestimating it, go back and read - I said it'd do well and that people would like it - just that I wasn't thrilled. Not only do I not like phones, I can't imagine trying to use an LCD device in full sunlight. :) But I am sure they'll make a ton of money with it. I just don't really care for the product, and am interested in computers instead. Looking for Leopard, I guess.
Perhaps. I figured that was just more marketing fluff, but you might just have put your finger on it.
I'm sure the iPhone is going to be a lovely product for phone users; me, I'm not too hot on cellphones (or any kind of phone, for that matter. I never did like being interrupted.) I do have an iPod, but I don't use the Apple store (because I prefer not to buy DRM'd materials. I just buy CDs and put tracks into the iPod from there.) So my main connection with Apple is their computers.
I noticed that (aside from the fact that the iPhone runs OSX) there really weren't any "computer" announcements today. Intel announced quad-core CPUs yesterday, and the rumor mill was mumbling about a dual-chip (hence 8-core) Mac desktop; likewise, the mini could use some attention in the graphics area, and the macbook pro still needs (and still has room for) a full keyboard and numeric pad, not to mention a second button on the trackpad.
The iTV / Apple TV... well, aside from the fact that you won't be able to get one for a little while yet, I'm not sure what it'd do for me that I can't already do. Apparently, the marketing went right over my head. Anyone have a summary of why this is an interesting product in a world of tivos, dvrs, frontrow, hi-def dvd and xbox and ps3 and so on? Aside from giving Apple a vector to sell DRM'd movies?
While I'm sure expanding into phones will be a great moneymaker for Apple, I can't help feeling disappointed. Just my .02
Personally, I take it that his ego has to be ignored; it definitely infects the writing style. However, the ideas are new, quite elegant, and very, very basic. I don't think they're a rehash, though there are topics (cellular automata) that have had some work done on them. He's not just talking about cellular automata themselves, he's talking about the way the universe works and he actually shows the same mechanisms underlying large portions of math that underlie everything from shell growth to turing machines. Not the other way around. He then turns some ideas over about how we think, reason... I wouldn't sell the book short if I were you. If its too spendy (about $50, I think) get your library to get a copy or just read it online.
I read it somewhat online, then decided I wanted it in my library and bought it, then I started over and read it to the end. I really, really enjoyed it.
None of those are "popular science" books. Wolfram's is literally the groundwork for a new science, Dawkins is a brilliantly (and deeply) reasoned reproach to theists everywhere, and the third title is a "replacement" science, as I indicated, probably no more than crack-pottery, though worth reading for the exercise you get in dealing with the cold water it attempts to throw on the conventional thinking.
You won't find any of them "at a local university." Besides which, most adults, while they may have time to noodle through a book, can't spare the time for a(nother) degree. Families, mortgages, you know. Grown-up stuff. Books allow for time shifting and just about any subject you prefer to chase; unlike both predigested pap you get on TV and the limited set of courses you can choose from at a university. Knowledge is not about degrees, anyway. Degrees mean something else, mainly that you can take direction for a few years and you're probably not bone-stupid.
Better yet, turn the TV off, and read something like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", Dawkins "The God Delusion" or even something off the wall like McCutcheon's "The Final Theory", which will make you at least re-think what you know, though in the end you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did, which is, he's a crackpot. But a really clever one, especially if you read the whole book! :)
PBS... well, it isn't going to teach you any significant amount of science. It's 99.9% a complete waste of time, just like all the other pre-digested gee-whiz shows. If you want entertainment, by all means, head for the TV. But don't kid yourself that a TV show split over multiple subjects is going to be illuminating. It's just drool-fodder.
If you want to look like you're making reasonable comments, read the entire thread that depends from the comment you're replying to before you sally forth. Then you'll see when all your points have already been addressed, and you won't look like such a silly person. And maybe you can even come up with a reasonable point! No promises, of course. :)
I suspect what it will actually do is reduce the number of scuffles to near zero. I would assert that the very reason people get out of hand on aircraft is that they are under the sincere impression that nothing serious will happen to them. Start shooting them, make it national news, and people will settle right down.
That goes for a lot of the rest of our social problems, too. If burglars know they're going to be shot at, there will be a considerable reduction in burglaries. Again, the stats show it: Wherever the populace is well armed, crime is reduced by a great deal; where the populace is disarmed (ex, Washington DC), crime rises to unprecedented heights.
I did, elsewhere in the thread. "Homeland security" accounts for forty seven billion dollars in a single year. These are new costs since 9/11. We can armor the entire fleet and issue frangible bullets and guns for a fraction of that.
Really and truly, armoring the plane is not a problem if it is the alternative to what we have. And let me be very clear, I'm not suggesting it as a "do this too" kind of solution. My original post was about the government being on the wrong track. Not adding a new one.
The same thing that happens if someone has a heart attack in my car halfway between here and Billings, Montana; they wait hours until we get to the destination. Though I suppose you could put a doctor and an infirmary on a flight; I can't fit one in my car. In other words, stuff happens; I would ask you in return, why do you think it is OK for one person's malady to redirect an entire flight of people? We all die, you know. It is just a question of when. If you're really a bleeding heart, give the flight attendants a button to push that lights up "please land at the nearest airport" in the cockpit, and limit communications to that. Ok? That still precludes hijacking.
Do you have any idea what our beloved government has spent on "homeland security", and how that compares with refitting the active fleet of aircraft? Let me enlighten you: Forty seven billion dollars in one year!!!!! We would save so much money if we went with armor and handguns it'd be astonishing.
Nonsense. I'd shoot instantly. So would anyone else with a clear head. Hostages don't have any assurance of surviving anyway. Just ask those people who got flown into the WTC. Oh, wait. OK, ask those people who swarmed the terrorists with an open cockpit and crashed into Pennsylvania. Um, no, wait. Ok, ask those people who were over Lockerbie, Scotland, and... uh... hmmm.
I guess you can't ask any of those people. For some reason. I'll figure it out in a minute... um... I've got it! IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL DEAD!
The assurance is, there would be at least some people in the aircraft who would shoot, even if a kid is grabbed. Is it better for a kid to die in a terrorist's arms, or to be part of a kinetic weapon that kills thousands of his or her countrymen? Me, I'd just shoot, because I know the answer to that question already perfectly well. I wouldn't need to think it out on an aircraft, faced with a threat.
Yes, it would. Here's where we are at this point: I've provided many reasons to show why it would; you have provided none to directly show it would not, and none that defeat any reason I've posted. The fact is, it'd work perfectly. There would be no more hijackings. None. People would get shot, I readily admit. But they do anyway. Or flown into buildings, or into the ground, or otherwise abused. I'm simply advocating assaulting any terrorist and taking them down immediately before they accomplish any serious part of their agenda. It beats the heck out of the current situation, which curtails many of our freedoms and yet these religio-crackpots can still hijack the damned planes.