You're ripping apart my comment as if you are desperate to discount my experience that people who stop using Windows are not just reluctant to start using it again, but become physically ill at the very suggestion. "Honestly who cares?" You cared enough to respond to a damned slashdot post.
>Because private companies have done sooooo well with the security for voting machines, credit cards (and credit information in general), etc.[/sarcasm]
Did you miss the point about the ten billion dollar bond?
Apply that to the voting machine folks -- election is shown to be flawed by their machine, they forfeit TEN BILLION DOLLARS, or if they can't pay up, their execs go to prison for life, let's say.
I've had the privilege of knowing people who have switched from Windows to Linux, switched from Windows to OSX, switched from Linux to OSX (myself included), switched from Solaris to Linux (myself included), and these people have one thing in common: When asked if they would like to use a Windows machine again, the reaction is one of horror and/or disgust. I know no one who has been away from Windows for a year, who would choose to return.
"1) The password has probably been around for awhile with no one guessing it. What exactly was wrong with it? Uppercase/lowercase/numbers, combination of multiple words, it is at least moderately strong."
What kind of dictionary attack *wouldn't* find it?
"2) Why the hell are you blaming Fox? You think the entire company sat in a conference room and decided on a security scheme and a password?"
I'm betting the head of IT Security at Fox is on the right side of the salary curve. Wonder if that person reads slashdot?
"3) Why did this deserve front page news? Exploits like this are found on a daily basis, and ones much more humorous/interesting/newsworthy."
Fox is the propaganda arm of the wildly unpopular political party currently in control of the USA. As a political target, it could have the most significant impact of any information system in the world. It seems that nobody there was clueless enough to have something on this webserver that would have implicated anyone in a crime, blown apart a conspiracy, indicated media complicity in a government cover-up, or even, shown something that the news channel chose not to report, or showed different information than was reported. But this is the sort of thing you'd be looking for if you infiltraded Pravda^W Fox News.
>LOL you are like one of those retarded 16 year old street racer wannabes who puts a gigantic spoiler and exhaust >pipes and a hood scoop on their beater 1998 toyota corolla.`
I really, really like LiteStep and CygWin.
The car analogy for this would be more like a 40 year old who gets an FJ Cruiser, paints it a solid color, installs hardcore suspension upgrades, offroad tires, winches and lights, etc., and then uses it for forest fire fighting in the Rocky Mountains.
If you say so. I don't consider auto travel and air travel as comparable. Okay, they are modes of transportation. That's it. It's really just another "car analogy", just like those tried for every other controversial topic. It just happens that in this case, at first glance, a car analogy seems more appropriate, even though it's not (unless cars are going 900 km/h, carrying >100 passengers, loaded with tons of fuel, etc.) Car travel is *not* comparable to air travel, and the fact that people making the analogy do desperate things to make it fit (putting constraints on the statistics like 'miles traveled' or 'hours traveled', why not by 'surface area of windows?' sheesh). should be a giant red flag that there are confounding variables not being considered.
"uhmm arguably you are in control of the vehicle you are driving... but the semi two miles behind you coming your way at 85 mph driver's late has been driving for 12+ hours and is on speed ( don't buy this scenario years ago my friend was run over from behind on the freeway in just such a situation fortunately for him the cab of the truck stop climbing over his rear end when it smushed the rear passenger seats...), or the road rage maniac with a forty-five coming up behind you at 100mph+ (who'll get there first stay tuned!) oh yes then there the black ice on the overpass not to mention the van of illegal alien smugglers driving along on the wrong side of the road at 70mph+..."
"Copyrighted material" includes huge amounts of work that are expressly allowed to be distributed. On this point alone, the rule could be challenged.
But then, somebody whose safety schools took them all the way down to Kansas, and who can't even afford to live off campus *there*, has enough problems.
I've always thought the KDE code was beautiful. Not in terms of stuff like code formatting, but in terms of C++ design. Even if you hate KDE as a user, it might be worth browsing the source.
You cannot be both "disinterested" in something *and* "actively hostile" to it. Disinterested means you don't take a side, and have no stake in an issue. If someone expresses hostility, he's taking a side.
We disagree on a fundamental point: When the system breaks its own rules, it becomes impossible to determine that someone is "obviously guilty" to any meaningful standard. If subjective determinations such as "obviously guilty" are allowed, why have a system in the first place? I agree that for a given case, an arbitrary group of people may be able to bring their prejudice to an agreement, but that's still very subjective and could easily be used for tyranny instead of justice.
"Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free."
As it should be. The justice system has an overarching responsiblity to follow its own rules consistently, and in particular, to not abridge the rights of the accused -- illegal search and seizure being very high among those rights that shall not be abridged. The consequences for failing to meet this basic obligation are *dire* -- they may indeed find themselves letting a criminal go free. This alone should be sufficient to cause police and prosecutors and courts to follow their own rules to the razor's edge. It's not only that a criminal might go free or an innocent person might get convicted or a person may have rights that are abridged, but also, the reputations and careers of police, attorneys, judges, administrators, *should* be on the line and *should* be forfeit if mistakes like the ones you complain about are made.
You seem to regard "killer goes free" as the net effect, or the most serious consequence, but I do not. There is a more serious breakdown of the system that is *causing* "killer to go free".
I don't know why, but it seems to be hard for some people to accept that on balance, the rights of the people, and the integrity of the system as a whole, are far more important factors than any particular case -- even when your strawman brings up a particularly frightening case such as "killer goes free."
By the way, can you actually cite one case where "killer went free" because of procedural error or on grounds such as illegal search and seizure or Miranda warnings, or something of that nature? Or are you just trying to scare people?
>The thing is, in the past reporters tended to at least do some other digging to corroborate the information from the anonymous sources.
Then, as now, some do, most don't.
People like Bob Woodward are famous today because they stood out then as people willing to take exceptional risks to dig for the truth. Through the lens of history thirty years from now, the view of the news reporting may be quite different from what we as contemporaries see.
What I get from the story is that President is a far more powerful position than Presidential Appointee.
I would have been impressed had the Surgeon General declared, the FIRST time he objected, that he would be resigning the post and entering into private practice. (Aside from giving up a couple of years of the Federal retirement package, he would have greatly increased his earning power.)
But no. Republicans waited until it was too late to *do* anything about it, to start turning coat. Now that the soon-to-be-former Bush Administration will be exiting before any real action against it can churn through the slow process, what's the point?
Yes, I agree, but whenever people try to make the case on legal doctrine, with the evidence available, it doesn't quite work.
You can't bring him to trial citing vague "war crimes," you have to be specific. YOU may be persuaded by your unmade argument, but it doesn't look like you're ready to go up on the podium, pass your evidence around the room, look a Congressional committee in the eye and expect to convice them to stake their reputations on your case.
So far, the arguments that war crimes were committed, have plausible defenses that the President is entitled to raise.
It's "obvious" that Bush is a criminal and a war profiteer. Personally I agree. But to make the legal case, based on law and applicable doctrine, and to support that case with specific evidence, in a way that overwhelms the defense, and to a degree necessary to persuade the one body that must be persuaded, is quite another matter entirely.
You think the House of Representatives hasn't heard the claim that Bush committed war crimes? You think they don't realize that "everybody believes" he should be impeached?
Yet nobody comes forth with the case that takes Bush from "impeachable" to "must be impeached".
>What else has to happen before serious discussions over Bush's impeachment occur?
Somebody has to testify before Congress, to articulate a case that is supported by evidence, that Bush has committed a serious crime. This argument must be made to a degree sufficient to persuade one or more Members of Congresst to act by introducing an Article of Impeachment. It really is that simple. For all the talk among people who have convinced themselves the case is open and shut, a foregone conclusion, none of them has an argument that will persuade Congress.
To persuade the average American, as opposed to Congressional Representatives, it is merely necessary to state a case that is easily and immediately recognized as something you get fired for. "Having sex in the office" resonated wildly among the lowest common denominator - pretty much everybody agrees that if you get caught doing that, you get fired for it (getting caught being the crime, not necessarily the act!) Breaking into a hotel -- there you go! If Joe Blow's Brother-in-Law got caught breaking into hotels and Joe got caught pawning the TV they stole -- Joe knows that he'd probably go to jail.
All these convoluted, complicated arguments that require more than a few seconds to explain, and all these crimes that *only* would be a problem a President would have, resonate as close to Joe Blow as the problems of a King in a Shakespeare Play -- that is, not at all -- Joe Blow neither has nor understands the problems of a King.
So what's on the table for impeachment? Lies to justify War? Too complicated, too credible of defenses, and people are too willing to equate opposition to the war with surrender and abandonment of the troops. (I suspect few people in the dialog today remember Vietnam). What else? Geneva Conventions? This is a problem only a King has. People are not nearly as convinced that Geneva Conventions have been violated, and in any case, there is plausible defense against this argument. What else? Illegal wiretaps? Catch-22 or not, nobody has come forward with evidence that his "wire" was illegally "tapped" (I'm aware of the difficulty of obtaining that evidence, but, that's the way the system works).
The whole Bush Administration is staffed with incompetent crooks from top to bottom, don't get me wrong -- but the case for impeachment has not yet been made.
Instead of being frustrated that it hasn't been done already, get to work on the case. You need to make the case for Congress based on a legitimate legal argument and evidence, and it will be most helpful if you can also make the case in a dozen words or less, based on something that the average Joe on the subnormal half of the bell curve can recognize as something he himself would get arrested or fired for doing.
Slashdot Mirror
You're ripping apart my comment as if you are desperate to discount my experience that people who stop using Windows are not just reluctant to start using it again, but become physically ill at the very suggestion. "Honestly who cares?" You cared enough to respond to a damned slashdot post.
>Because private companies have done sooooo well with the security for voting machines, credit cards (and credit information in general), etc.[/sarcasm]
Did you miss the point about the ten billion dollar bond?
Apply that to the voting machine folks -- election is shown to be flawed by their machine, they forfeit TEN BILLION DOLLARS, or if they can't pay up, their execs go to prison for life, let's say.
Fully working power management was the primary reason I switched from Linux to OSX for laptop use.
I have tried *many* notebooks, and have never seen fully functional power management.
Every time I read that Linux has failed on the desktop, I check my Linux desktop. Nope. Working just fine here.
"So now you want us to believe that there are no more iterations of Blade Runner or Legend of Kyrandia because of PIRACY?"
I never said the reason was "Piracy", but I still say that many genres are dead for various reasons.
I especially think there's no market anymore for smaller, more abstract games.
I've had the privilege of knowing people who have switched from Windows to Linux, switched from Windows to OSX, switched from Linux to OSX (myself included), switched from Solaris to Linux (myself included), and these people have one thing in common: When asked if they would like to use a Windows machine again, the reaction is one of horror and/or disgust. I know no one who has been away from Windows for a year, who would choose to return.
>Yet somehow PC games have managed to survive all of the doom and gloom.
Have they really? I only see a few remaining genres.
"1) The password has probably been around for awhile with no one guessing it. What exactly was wrong with it? Uppercase/lowercase/numbers, combination of multiple words, it is at least moderately strong."
What kind of dictionary attack *wouldn't* find it?
"2) Why the hell are you blaming Fox? You think the entire company sat in a conference room and decided on a security scheme and a password?"
I'm betting the head of IT Security at Fox is on the right side of the salary curve. Wonder if that person reads slashdot?
"3) Why did this deserve front page news? Exploits like this are found on a daily basis, and ones much more humorous/interesting/newsworthy."
Fox is the propaganda arm of the wildly unpopular political party currently in control of the USA. As a political target, it could have the most significant impact of any information system in the world. It seems that nobody there was clueless enough to have something on this webserver that would have implicated anyone in a crime, blown apart a conspiracy, indicated media complicity in a government cover-up, or even, shown something that the news channel chose not to report, or showed different information than was reported. But this is the sort of thing you'd be looking for if you infiltraded Pravda^W Fox News.
>LOL you are like one of those retarded 16 year old street racer wannabes who puts a gigantic spoiler and exhaust >pipes and a hood scoop on their beater 1998 toyota corolla.`
I really, really like LiteStep and CygWin.
The car analogy for this would be more like a 40 year old who gets an FJ Cruiser, paints it a solid color, installs hardcore suspension upgrades, offroad tires, winches and lights, etc., and then uses it for forest fire fighting in the Rocky Mountains.
If you say so. I don't consider auto travel and air travel as comparable. Okay, they are modes of transportation. That's it. It's really just another "car analogy", just like those tried for every other controversial topic. It just happens that in this case, at first glance, a car analogy seems more appropriate, even though it's not (unless cars are going 900 km/h, carrying >100 passengers, loaded with tons of fuel, etc.) Car travel is *not* comparable to air travel, and the fact that people making the analogy do desperate things to make it fit (putting constraints on the statistics like 'miles traveled' or 'hours traveled', why not by 'surface area of windows?' sheesh). should be a giant red flag that there are confounding variables not being considered.
"uhmm arguably you are in control of the vehicle you are driving... but the semi two miles behind you coming your way at 85 mph driver's late has been driving for 12+ hours and is on speed ( don't buy this scenario years ago my friend was run over from behind on the freeway in just such a situation fortunately for him the cab of the truck stop climbing over his rear end when it smushed the rear passenger seats...), or the road rage maniac with a forty-five coming up behind you at 100mph+ (who'll get there first stay tuned!) oh yes then there the black ice on the overpass not to mention the van of illegal alien smugglers driving along on the wrong side of the road at 70mph+..."
I'll take Bigoted Clichés for Four Hundred, Alex.
Do you have any data to support that claim? That is, do you have accident data that is limited to cab rides en route to airports?
"Copyrighted material" includes huge amounts of work that are expressly allowed to be distributed. On this point alone, the rule could be challenged.
But then, somebody whose safety schools took them all the way down to Kansas, and who can't even afford to live off campus *there*, has enough problems.
I've always thought the KDE code was beautiful. Not in terms of stuff like code formatting, but in terms of C++ design. Even if you hate KDE as a user, it might be worth browsing the source.
The real problem is that this level of pollution is acceptable to Federal law, and to International law apparently.
You cannot be both "disinterested" in something *and* "actively hostile" to it. Disinterested means you don't take a side, and have no stake in an issue. If someone expresses hostility, he's taking a side.
We disagree on a fundamental point: When the system breaks its own rules, it becomes impossible to determine that someone is "obviously guilty" to any meaningful standard. If subjective determinations such as "obviously guilty" are allowed, why have a system in the first place? I agree that for a given case, an arbitrary group of people may be able to bring their prejudice to an agreement, but that's still very subjective and could easily be used for tyranny instead of justice.
"Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free."
As it should be. The justice system has an overarching responsiblity to follow its own rules consistently, and in particular, to not abridge the rights of the accused -- illegal search and seizure being very high among those rights that shall not be abridged. The consequences for failing to meet this basic obligation are *dire* -- they may indeed find themselves letting a criminal go free. This alone should be sufficient to cause police and prosecutors and courts to follow their own rules to the razor's edge. It's not only that a criminal might go free or an innocent person might get convicted or a person may have rights that are abridged, but also, the reputations and careers of police, attorneys, judges, administrators, *should* be on the line and *should* be forfeit if mistakes like the ones you complain about are made.
You seem to regard "killer goes free" as the net effect, or the most serious consequence, but I do not. There is a more serious breakdown of the system that is *causing* "killer to go free".
I don't know why, but it seems to be hard for some people to accept that on balance, the rights of the people, and the integrity of the system as a whole, are far more important factors than any particular case -- even when your strawman brings up a particularly frightening case such as "killer goes free."
By the way, can you actually cite one case where "killer went free" because of procedural error or on grounds such as illegal search and seizure or Miranda warnings, or something of that nature? Or are you just trying to scare people?
>The thing is, in the past reporters tended to at least do some other digging to corroborate the information from the anonymous sources.
Then, as now, some do, most don't.
People like Bob Woodward are famous today because they stood out then as people willing to take exceptional risks to dig for the truth.
Through the lens of history thirty years from now, the view of the news reporting may be quite different from what we as contemporaries see.
What I get from the story is that President is a far more powerful position than Presidential Appointee.
I would have been impressed had the Surgeon General declared, the FIRST time he objected, that he would be resigning the post and entering into private practice. (Aside from giving up a couple of years of the Federal retirement package, he would have greatly increased his earning power.)
But no. Republicans waited until it was too late to *do* anything about it, to start turning coat. Now that the soon-to-be-former Bush Administration will be exiting before any real action against it can churn through the slow process, what's the point?
>War Crimes
Yes, I agree, but whenever people try to make the case on legal doctrine, with the evidence available, it doesn't quite work.
You can't bring him to trial citing vague "war crimes," you have to be specific. YOU may be persuaded by your unmade argument, but it doesn't look like you're ready to go up on the podium, pass your evidence around the room, look a Congressional committee in the eye and expect to convice them to stake their reputations on your case.
So far, the arguments that war crimes were committed, have plausible defenses that the President is entitled to raise.
It's "obvious" that Bush is a criminal and a war profiteer. Personally I agree. But to make the legal case, based on law and applicable doctrine, and to support that case with specific evidence, in a way that overwhelms the defense, and to a degree necessary to persuade the one body that must be persuaded, is quite another matter entirely.
You think the House of Representatives hasn't heard the claim that Bush committed war crimes? You think they don't realize that "everybody believes" he should be impeached?
Yet nobody comes forth with the case that takes Bush from "impeachable" to "must be impeached".
>But the people that need to make that call are ON HIS SIDE.
I asked for a compelling argument, supported by evidence -- not more excuses. I've heard all the excuses and conspiracy theories. Not good enough.
>What else has to happen before serious discussions over Bush's impeachment occur?
Somebody has to testify before Congress, to articulate a case that is supported by evidence, that Bush has committed a serious crime. This argument must be made to a degree sufficient to persuade one or more Members of Congresst to act by introducing an Article of Impeachment. It really is that simple. For all the talk among people who have convinced themselves the case is open and shut, a foregone conclusion, none of them has an argument that will persuade Congress.
To persuade the average American, as opposed to Congressional Representatives, it is merely necessary to state a case that is easily and immediately recognized as something you get fired for. "Having sex in the office" resonated wildly among the lowest common denominator - pretty much everybody agrees that if you get caught doing that, you get fired for it (getting caught being the crime, not necessarily the act!) Breaking into a hotel -- there you go! If Joe Blow's Brother-in-Law got caught breaking into hotels and Joe got caught pawning the TV they stole -- Joe knows that he'd probably go to jail.
All these convoluted, complicated arguments that require more than a few seconds to explain, and all these crimes that *only* would be a problem a President would have, resonate as close to Joe Blow as the problems of a King in a Shakespeare Play -- that is, not at all -- Joe Blow neither has nor understands the problems of a King.
So what's on the table for impeachment? Lies to justify War? Too complicated, too credible of defenses, and people are too willing to equate opposition to the war with surrender and abandonment of the troops. (I suspect few people in the dialog today remember Vietnam). What else? Geneva Conventions? This is a problem only a King has. People are not nearly as convinced that Geneva Conventions have been violated, and in any case, there is plausible defense against this argument. What else? Illegal wiretaps? Catch-22 or not, nobody has come forward with evidence that his "wire" was illegally "tapped" (I'm aware of the difficulty of obtaining that evidence, but, that's the way the system works).
The whole Bush Administration is staffed with incompetent crooks from top to bottom, don't get me wrong -- but the case for impeachment has not yet been made.
Instead of being frustrated that it hasn't been done already, get to work on the case. You need to make the case for Congress based on a legitimate legal argument and evidence, and it will be most helpful if you can also make the case in a dozen words or less, based on something that the average Joe on the subnormal half of the bell curve can recognize as something he himself would get arrested or fired for doing.
Simple, eh?
>Why not? Intelligence is normally distributed, isn't it? The mean and median should be close enough as makes no >difference.
Divide the curve horizontally, and notice where 50% of the values fall.
Dividing it vertically is just silly. Of *course* half the curve is to the left of the maximum -- it's a normal curve.
But that wasn't my main point.
My main point was that it was a Catholic school, one literally inside a monastery, that taught evolution in Life Science class.
">50% of the population has above-average intelligence."
>Is this OK for everybody else ? I have to ask how is the average calculated to get this result ?
It's more meaningful to divide the bell curve horizontally than vertically.
When you do that, you'll realize that most people are near average intelligence.