Unless they're installing their software on the computers used by members of congress, they're not lobbying by blocking pro-gun sites.
That's one of the stupidest thingss I've seen so far in this topic. If citizens are masked from seeing a site for a lobby, that lobby IS being stifled. Lobbies come from the people. Keep them from seeing it, and it DOES lose power through lowered membership. Now, that being said, this still isn't a bill of rights issue as long as this product from Symantec isn't being forced into some public access point. So long as it's a private company making a product for private individuals, it's not illegal for it to censor. It would become a problem only if a government rule mandated that it be installed somewhere like, say, a public library. (As happened with the CDA a few years back.) And even then, the problem is NOT that commercial software exists that has a bias. The unconstitutional action would be the use of it on government sponsored computers.
The government has nukes, we have Colt.45s. The American people are way too lazy and stupid to ever try to overthrow this government. All this talk of keeping our guns in case the government gets out of hand is pure bullshit.
While I don't agree with most of the arguments of the pro-gun side, this one actually works. Because even if the government was pure evil incarnate, they still wouldn't want to destroy the country they are trying to rule. There'd be no point in nuking your own citizens if you want to remain in charge of a powerful country. (If you nuke your own country, you will be in charge of a weak, helpless country - so even someone interested only in personal power still wouldn't want to do that.) Small arms are not effective at taking over territory, but they are effective at making it impossible for the better-armed victor to maintain order in territory he has taken. (Look at what a few iraqis are doing with meager amounts of arms to see what I mean.)
For some real second amendment fun, folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves.
Yeah, that's right - all ideas in Germany under the nazis must be thrown out because everything that they did was related to the fact that they were evil. Let's ban all things even remotely related to the nazi regime, like a national freeway system, and rockets. And nobody should ever buy anything from Volkswagon.
And while we're at it, lets go back even further and destroy all public waterworks, since that was an idea dreamed up by the roman empire.
Yes, but when you consider that a well-armed population could have prevented the tragedy, that particular law becomes much more disturbing.
In the parellel universe where there were throngs of normal Germans wanting to rush to the defense of the Jews, that might have been the case. But here in the real world where the rest of us live, we know that the populace was largely ignorant of what was really being done to the Jews, and of those that had figured it out, many didn't care enough to stick their necks out and do something about it. In a situation like that, them being armed wouldn't have helped.
Your statement is irrelevant since there's an even bigger reason for the ACLU to not get involved, and it's a simple enough reason that even a Conservative could understand it: Repeat after me: "Symantec is not the government. Symantec is a private company. The bill of rights only applies to government." There. End of story.
Basically anybody who I can predict what they are going to say before they open their mouth (Charles Heston or Michael Moore) just bores the shit out of me.
If you are opposed to consistency in a person, then you are opposed to rational thought. I have far more disdain for those who's positions are NOT predictable, because the usual reason they aren't predictable is that they are hypocrites going against their own ideals whenever they feel like it. I have far more respect for someone who consistently adheres to an ideal I disagree with than someone who occasionally adheres to an ideal I agree with, when it suits his whim.
there are common computer themes, such as clicking on an 'x' in the corner to close, in programs ctrl-c is copy, ctrl-v is paste, ctrl-z undo etc. etc.. anything that doesn't follow these causes trouble.
There are also common computer themes like using "!" to mean a shell escape, using ":" to get to the command-line, and using hjkl to move the cursor (if you don't feel like taking the time to move your hand over to the arrow keys), using ctrl-L to redraw the screen, using ctrl-V to make the next keypress literal (for example, 'stick a backspace character in the text here, instead of actually deleting text when I hit it') These are also common computer conventions - IN the unix world where vi was created. And if you object by saying "but, those are only conventions because Vi did it that way", you'd be right - JUST LIKE ctrl-X, ctrl-C, and ctrl-V became conventions in Windows only because Word did them that way. There is nothing intuative whatsoever about ctrl-V meaning paste. Nothing. It's just that it's a convention you've already learned. Just like the conventions in VI are conventions unix people have already learned.
command line in program? kate edit two files? ANY editor, using multiple windows, desktops allows effectively infinite documents
You obviously missed the part where he said it was over a slow remote connection.
I don't mind copy-protection. What I mind is that copy-protection is always ALSO a form of proprietary player protection, becasue the only way to enforce it is to never allow anyone outside those who've signed an NDA to fiddle with the code.
It's True! When I was just a foot and a half tall, I didn't get a dime. I just sat around crying and being cared for by mom. Now I'm a lot taller, and Hey! I earn more too!
Grrr, no! There is still friction from the tines on the fork.
You didn't properly read what I typed. I never implied there was no friction. Not Once. I implied that it isn't going to be enough friction unless it exceeds the friction experienced when the food was stabbed. (Because there's just as much problem trying to decellerate the food quickly as there was in trying to make sure you stabbed it fast enough to spear it.)
Actually, as I think on it more, it would work would if the friction was equal both directions, provided you stabbed the food in such a manner that you slowed it down more gently than you stabbed it.
But wouldn't you then need a fork that had more friction one direction than the other? (So that it takes more force to pull it out than it did to stick it in - perhaps it's serrated.) Otherwise although you'd succeed at piercing the meat, the momentum you gave it from the hard hit would make it slide right off the tines and keep travelling forward.
They kept them separate specifically to avoid that debate. Even if your system is more secure than the other, it still is important to know what the top vulnerabilities in your system are, so you know wher e to concentrate your efforts locking things down.
It's why Liberals need to listen to Rush now and then.
Lots of Liberals listen to Rush quite a bit. They've got a lot of catchy songs, and there's that whole Candian thing they've got going that Liberals like so much.
The problem is that programming and design are NOT seperate jobs. Asking someone who can't program to be a designer results in designs that always take a brute-force simpleton approach when the right answer might be more elegant than that. And if you're doing a waterfall method, the coders who know better can't do a damn thing to fix the design. The common business practice is to take someone who programs and "promote" him to do nothing but high-level design documents and never again touch a compiler. After about 10 years you are left with a designer who doesn't know how to code anymore and is still trying to design as if for COBOL when the language actually being used is C (as an example). The idea that someone can be a good designer without occasionally dropping down into the 'gruntwork' of coding is like saying someone can be a good physicist without ever doing any math.
When you ask for a DNS name->address translation you don't give the service (port) you are looking for.
Yet DNS *does* have a way of telling you what the e-mail server for a domain is. It does have some protocol-aware stuff built in, although I'm aware that it isn't much.
The point is this: If they can't do it for just port 80, then they have no business redirecting it to what is basically JUST a website server.
If Verisign was *Really* trying to do this the right way, they'd only redirect web hits to their site. If they had done that, everything would have been fine. But instead they redirect at a very low level , in the namespace, so you can no longer tell if a.com address is valid in software. (which is why spam went way up when Verisign did this switch - mail servers can no longer tell when a return address is a bogus hostname.)
Sure the egg shell is unbroken, but the inside is not exactly stable, so the yolk is banging around in there.
Basic college physics (even high school physics) is enough to tell you that the way these contests work is by reducing the impulse on the egg. The reason things break when they hit hard surfaces is that hard surfaces decellerate them to zero over a very tiny distance, and it takes a tremendous amount of force to do that - force that the object can't withstand. Soft objects don't break things as much, because they allow the impact to occur over a distance, thus reducing the size of the force they are experiencing while they do it. even a small distance makes a huge difference. The difference between an impact that takes place over one millimeter versus one that takes place over 2 centimeters is that the longer impact takes 20 times less force to accomplish. Thus it can make a huge difference if you pad a laptop case, just like anything else.
Yes, the case is capable of handing more force than the components inside are, and thus it is possible to have enough padding to protect the case and still not enough to save the components, but that doesn't mean the idea can't work - it just means they're shooting for the wrong target and need to test against what the real problem is, which requires a little more padding.
Which brings me to my question. I've heard that in the US, there is the concept of the right to a speedy trial.
That only applies to cases where the government is the plantiff (criminal cases). That rule is part of the constitution, which is merely a limit on what the government can do, not on what individuals or companies can do. So in a civil case, the plantiff can drag its feet for a long time.
Most elephants weigh north of 5 tons At least I was still using the right kinds of units of measure. "north of 5 tons"??? Isn't that a bit like "heavier than 5 kilometers" or "stronger than 3 litres"?
That brings to mind another question - WHY IS PORTSCANNING CONSIDERED CRACKING? WHY? It's a legitimate way to see what services are running on a machine, as in, "Oh, I guess I can't use talk with him, he doesn't have a talkd running." Yes, it is ALSO a tool used by crackers, but then again so is the keyboard, and you don't see anyone complaining about that.
If you were running a publically accessible webserver, or a publically accessible windows share, it would warn you and turn off the connection etc.
Stop. I need read no further. The system is already stupid RIGHT THERE. Just because I'm running a webserver doesn't mean it's holding illegally copyrighted content, NOR does it mean it's getting a lot of hits with a lot of bandwith on it. That implicit assumption on the part of the person who designed this system is technologically ignorant.
YES! (I'd mod you up, but I already posted in this thread).
The exact problem with this whole idiocy in the ISP industry these days (and the university's decision is along the same lines) is that the guilt doesn't get proven by someone with the competence to know the difference. Some program automatically flags a problem and you get cut off. When you try to look into it and see what happened, you can't get past the first line of phone operators who know only what's written on their scripts. This creates extra hassle for anyone with the audacity to be running something other than the status quo (and thus his situation doesn't fit the ill-designed script the phone support guy is reading.)
It's *that* that causes the guilty-until-proven-innocent problem.
I would love a system where people could be booted for wasting bandwith on p2p piracy, if it was possible to make it impossible for the system to generate false positives. But this is the real world, where such a system takes effort to make - more effort than the ISPs are willing to put into it.
It's intellectually dishonest to assume that use of a certain port number equates to high bandwith, or to copyright violation. That's the kind of idiocy that leads to rules like "don't run a webserver on our network because we don't have the bandwith" - when a webserver may or may not be high traffic - depending. And it's made even stupider by the fact that tools do exist to log the bandwith usage, so the fair and honest metric COULD be used if they wanted to.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they're installing their software on the computers used by members of congress, they're not lobbying by blocking pro-gun sites.
That's one of the stupidest thingss I've seen so far in this topic. If citizens are masked from seeing a site for a lobby, that lobby IS being stifled. Lobbies come from the people. Keep them from seeing it, and it DOES lose power through lowered membership. Now, that being said, this still isn't a bill of rights issue as long as this product from Symantec isn't being forced into some public access point. So long as it's a private company making a product for private individuals, it's not illegal for it to censor. It would become a problem only if a government rule mandated that it be installed somewhere like, say, a public library. (As happened with the CDA a few years back.) And even then, the problem is NOT that commercial software exists that has a bias. The unconstitutional action would be the use of it on government sponsored computers.
The government has nukes, we have Colt
While I don't agree with most of the arguments of the pro-gun side, this one actually works. Because even if the government was pure evil incarnate, they still wouldn't want to destroy the country they are trying to rule. There'd be no point in nuking your own citizens if you want to remain in charge of a powerful country. (If you nuke your own country, you will be in charge of a weak, helpless country - so even someone interested only in personal power still wouldn't want to do that.) Small arms are not effective at taking over territory, but they are effective at making it impossible for the better-armed victor to maintain order in territory he has taken. (Look at what a few iraqis are doing with meager amounts of arms to see what I mean.)
For some real second amendment fun, folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves.
Yeah, that's right - all ideas in Germany under the nazis must be thrown out because everything that they did was related to the fact that they were evil. Let's ban all things even remotely related to the nazi regime, like a national freeway system, and rockets. And nobody should ever buy anything from Volkswagon.
And while we're at it, lets go back even further and destroy all public waterworks, since that was an idea dreamed up by the roman empire.
Yes, but when you consider that a well-armed population could have prevented the tragedy, that particular law becomes much more disturbing.
In the parellel universe where there were throngs of normal Germans wanting to rush to the defense of the Jews, that might have been the case. But here in the real world where the rest of us live, we know that the populace was largely ignorant of what was really being done to the Jews, and of those that had figured it out, many didn't care enough to stick their necks out and do something about it. In a situation like that, them being armed wouldn't have helped.
Your statement is irrelevant since there's an even bigger reason for the ACLU to not get involved, and it's a simple enough reason that even a Conservative could understand it: Repeat after me: "Symantec is not the government. Symantec is a private company. The bill of rights only applies to government." There. End of story.
Basically anybody who I can predict what they are going to say before they open their mouth (Charles Heston or Michael Moore) just bores the shit out of me.
If you are opposed to consistency in a person, then you are opposed to rational thought. I have far more disdain for those who's positions are NOT predictable, because the usual reason they aren't predictable is that they are hypocrites going against their own ideals whenever they feel like it. I have far more respect for someone who consistently adheres to an ideal I disagree with than someone who occasionally adheres to an ideal I agree with, when it suits his whim.
The parent didn't say "wait 3 seconds". It said "wait LESS THAN 3 seconds". 0m0.020s certainly fits that description just fine.
there are common computer themes, such as clicking on an 'x' in the corner to close, in programs ctrl-c is copy, ctrl-v is paste, ctrl-z undo etc. etc.. anything that doesn't follow these causes trouble.
There are also common computer themes like using "!" to mean a shell escape, using ":" to get to the command-line, and using hjkl to move the cursor (if you don't feel like taking the time to move your hand over to the arrow keys), using ctrl-L to redraw the screen, using ctrl-V to make the next keypress literal (for example, 'stick a backspace character in the text here, instead of actually deleting text when I hit it') These are also common computer conventions - IN the unix world where vi was created. And if you object by saying "but, those are only conventions because Vi did it that way", you'd be right - JUST LIKE ctrl-X, ctrl-C, and ctrl-V became conventions in Windows only because Word did them that way. There is nothing intuative whatsoever about ctrl-V meaning paste. Nothing. It's just that it's a convention you've already learned. Just like the conventions in VI are conventions unix people have already learned.
command line in program? kate
edit two files? ANY editor, using multiple windows, desktops allows effectively infinite documents
You obviously missed the part where he said it was over a slow remote connection.
I don't mind copy-protection. What I mind is that copy-protection is always ALSO a form of proprietary player protection, becasue the only way to enforce it is to never allow anyone outside those who've signed an NDA to fiddle with the code.
It's True!
When I was just a foot and a half tall, I didn't get a dime. I just sat around crying and being cared for by mom. Now I'm a lot taller, and Hey! I earn more too!
Grrr, no! There is still friction from the tines on the fork.
You didn't properly read what I typed. I never implied there was no friction. Not Once. I implied that it isn't going to be enough friction unless it exceeds the friction experienced when the food was stabbed. (Because there's just as much problem trying to decellerate the food quickly as there was in trying to make sure you stabbed it fast enough to spear it.)
Actually, as I think on it more, it would work would if the friction was equal both directions, provided you stabbed the food in such a manner that you slowed it down more gently than you stabbed it.
But wouldn't you then need a fork that had more friction one direction than the other? (So that it takes more force to pull it out than it did to stick it in - perhaps it's serrated.) Otherwise although you'd succeed at piercing the meat, the momentum you gave it from the hard hit would make it slide right off the tines and keep travelling forward.
They kept them separate specifically to avoid that debate. Even if your system is more secure than the other, it still is important to know what the top vulnerabilities in your system are, so you know wher e to concentrate your efforts locking things down.
It's why Liberals need to listen to Rush now and then.
Lots of Liberals listen to Rush quite a bit. They've got a lot of catchy songs, and there's that whole Candian thing they've got going that Liberals like so much.
The problem is that programming and design are NOT seperate jobs. Asking someone who can't program to be a designer results in designs that always take a brute-force simpleton approach when the right answer might be more elegant than that. And if you're doing a waterfall method, the coders who know better can't do a damn thing to fix the design. The common business practice is to take someone who programs and "promote" him to do nothing but high-level design documents and never again touch a compiler. After about 10 years you are left with a designer who doesn't know how to code anymore and is still trying to design as if for COBOL when the language actually being used is C (as an example). The idea that someone can be a good designer without occasionally dropping down into the 'gruntwork' of coding is like saying someone can be a good physicist without ever doing any math.
When you ask for a DNS name->address translation you don't give the service (port) you are looking for.
Yet DNS *does* have a way of telling you what the e-mail server for a domain is. It does have some protocol-aware stuff built in, although I'm aware that it isn't much.
The point is this: If they can't do it for just port 80, then they have no business redirecting it to what is basically JUST a website server.
If Verisign was *Really* trying to do this the right way, they'd only redirect web hits to their site. If they had done that, everything would have been fine. But instead they redirect at a very low level , in the namespace, so you can no longer tell if a .com address is valid in software. (which is why spam went way up when Verisign did this switch - mail servers can no longer tell when a return address is a bogus hostname.)
Sure the egg shell is unbroken, but the inside is not exactly stable, so the yolk is banging around in there.
Basic college physics (even high school physics) is enough to tell you that the way these contests work is by reducing the impulse on the egg. The reason things break when they hit hard surfaces is that hard surfaces decellerate them to zero over a very tiny distance, and it takes a tremendous amount of force to do that - force that the object can't withstand. Soft objects don't break things as much, because they allow the impact to occur over a distance, thus reducing the size of the force they are experiencing while they do it. even a small distance makes a huge difference. The difference between an impact that takes place over one millimeter versus one that takes place over 2 centimeters is that the longer impact takes 20 times less force to accomplish. Thus it can make a huge difference if you pad a laptop case, just like anything else.
Yes, the case is capable of handing more force than the components inside are, and thus it is possible to have enough padding to protect the case and still not enough to save the components, but that doesn't mean the idea can't work - it just means they're shooting for the wrong target and need to test against what the real problem is,
which requires a little more padding.
Which brings me to my question. I've heard that in the US, there is the concept of the right to a speedy trial.
That only applies to cases where the government is the plantiff (criminal cases). That rule is part of the constitution, which is merely a limit on what the government can do, not on what individuals or companies can do. So in a civil case, the plantiff can drag its feet for a long time.
Most elephants weigh north of 5 tons
At least I was still using the right kinds of units of measure. "north of 5 tons"??? Isn't that a bit like "heavier than 5 kilometers" or "stronger than 3 litres"?
That brings to mind another question - WHY IS PORTSCANNING CONSIDERED CRACKING? WHY? It's a legitimate way to see what services are running on a machine, as in, "Oh, I guess I can't use talk with him, he doesn't have a talkd running." Yes, it is ALSO a tool used by crackers, but then again so is the keyboard, and you don't see anyone complaining about that.
If you were running a publically accessible webserver, or a publically accessible windows share, it would warn you and turn off the connection etc.
Stop. I need read no further. The system is already stupid RIGHT THERE. Just because I'm running a webserver doesn't mean it's holding illegally copyrighted content, NOR does it mean it's getting a lot of hits with a lot of bandwith on it. That implicit assumption on the part of the person who designed this system is technologically ignorant.
YES! (I'd mod you up, but I already posted in this thread).
The exact problem with this whole idiocy in the ISP industry these days (and the university's decision is along the same lines) is that the guilt doesn't get proven by someone with the competence to know the difference. Some program automatically flags a problem and you get cut off. When you try to look into it and see what happened, you can't get past the first line of phone operators who know only what's written on their scripts. This creates extra hassle for anyone with the audacity to be running something other than the status quo (and thus his situation doesn't fit the ill-designed script the phone support guy is reading.)
It's *that* that causes the guilty-until-proven-innocent problem.
I would love a system where people could be booted for wasting bandwith on p2p piracy, if it was possible to make it impossible for the system to generate false positives. But this is the real world, where such a system takes effort to make - more effort than the ISPs are willing to put into it.
It's intellectually dishonest to assume that use of a certain port number equates to high bandwith, or to copyright violation. That's the kind of idiocy that leads to rules like "don't run a webserver on our network because we don't have the bandwith" - when a webserver may or may not be high traffic - depending. And it's made even stupider by the fact that tools do exist to log the bandwith usage, so the fair and honest metric COULD be used if they wanted to.
How is a P2P filesharing app legitimate? It's copyright infringement 99% of the time. It's so they can grab music, porn, and movies off the internet.
So what? Until that figure is 100% rather than 99%, it is still wrong to assume all P2P users are copyright violators and treat them accordingly.