For white people I'm sure this [considering whether they are being treated differently because of race] almost never enters their thinking . ..
That strikes me as quite an odd statement. As you pointed out yourself, such things depend hugely upon context! In China, in India, in Egypt, in Thailand etc. where white people are just another minority, I should think they do frequently consider that others are treating them differently because of race -- every day, much of the day. And most major cities of Western Europe or North America are ethnically very diverse, so that a city dweller is bound to feel like a bit of an alien at times and in places -- maybe not every day, but pretty often -- regardless of her or his race. Why should white people be any different than anyone else in this regard?
I guess that depends on your definition of the "free world." Personally I am troubled by the corruption I see in America, which was once considered a member of that club. In global terms, the integrity of the American government(s) was ranked 20th by the Global Corruption Report. Judging by your nick, you probably are glad to know Canada is indeed ranked less corrupt. I don't know if the level of American corruption qualifies as "rampant," but it is real and does affect its citizens. Look at the chilling effects of the media-purchased DMCA, the Florida recount debacle of 2000, and the wrist-slaps administered to Microsoft in 2001 and to Sony-BMG in 2005. Microsoft smothered Netscape and WordPerfect in front of everyone's eyes, and where is their punishment? Sony-BMG did on a grand scale the same sort of thing that earned federal prison sentences for the wunderkind hackers of the 1980s. But who in Sony-BMG went to prison? Why is Sony-BMG still permitted to conduct business in the USA? They are just going to do it again someday. Not much justice here bro (or sis). Large scale corruption, we gots that aplenty.
Now, I think know what you mean I guess -- I've lived in some of those countries way below 20th place also, and I've seen plenty of the "usual" brand of corruption too. At least I don't get shaken down for bribes, or outright robbed, by the local police here. But, I also pay much, much higher taxes and the police get much, much higher salaries. Frankly I am not sure that there is any substantial difference in the perniciousness of corruption in the USA compared to the developing world.
didn't the Audio Home Recording Act take care of making copies [of your own CDs] for your own use a while back?
No*, it didn't. The AHRA only authorizes analog copies, not digital ones. I firmly believe that you also have the right to make digital copies for your own use, because it is fair use -- but if you are sued, you might have to go to court to defend your fair use rights.
* That is, unless you one of the very few who are converting back to analog and then recording.
I meant this to be a brief reply -- oh well. The short version is, we disagree about "power" -- with that, you can skip the rest of this post if you want.
First, I am not objecting to your use of any offensive terms in your comment. I detest censorship and I certainly think Slashdot is an appropriate venue to discuss these social and linguistic questions -- ignoring the fact that we are off topic! You didn't offend me, and I don't want to imply otherwise.
Second, I wasn't being rhetorical when I asked, "Do I have some sort of duty to repeat them?" I meant that as a plain question; you said "of course not," but I say it depends on the circumstances. If I were the officer who arrested Gibson, or if I was a witness on the stand, or if I were a sociology professor, or a hundred other situations, I might indeed have such a duty. What I mean is, I don't want nasty speech to be quashed just because it is offensive. There are times for euphemisms, and times to speak plainly.
Words only have the power we give them.
The word "only" here is misleading, but I fervently agree -- and it is for that reason I would handle the sharp ones with special care: we as a society have invested power into them. Many words have centuries of history backing them up, and they will be around for centuries after you and I are dead and forgotten. They have power indeed. Like it or not, some words really hurt other people, and wishing does not make it otherwise. I don't fire guns on the street, in fact I only ever shoot at a range. Likewise I don't shoot my mouth off just anywhere with certain words.
However, I fear I am twisting your intent. I take it you meant something like, "I the individual can choose how I react to a word. I needn't grant any privilege or power to any word to hurt me. It rolls off my back." If I read you aright, that is great if you can really do that. But not everyone is so strong. The power of a word to transmit meaning, suggest images, dredge up memories, and hint at other words is fundamentally a social construction, not an individual decision.
If racists start trying to turn "chocolate" into a slur, they are in the position of every entrepreneur: starting something new, they will probably fail. They have history against them. I will join you in ignoring them. We weren't talking about fresh coinages though, we were talking about well established words.
I agree there is no right not to be offended, and some people are too easily offended. But that doesn't mean I (metaphorically) get to shovel shit in folks' ears and then say "grow up!" when they claim offense. Some words have profound historical and yet vital contemporary associations with hideous forms of injustice. "Nigger" is still just too potent a word to be bandied about in public: it still has way, way too much power; it is still far too hurtful for the six o'clock news. Lots of people still remember lynching; some still fear it. This word is still alive. Only recently did that bastard Strom Thurmond go off to his reward. He was in the Senate! He helped run the country! What does that say about the country, or the Senate, or the rule of law here? This country was absolutely steeped in institutionalized racism for centuries, and it has only been for a few decades, only a few presidents, a couple eyeblinks, that racism is getting frowned upon here and there. The language of those murderous and hateful centuries still has a LOT of baggage, a lot of power, and I respectfully think you are naive to disregard its past and present. I at least won't repeat that language unless the context really demands it.
I say wait 150-200 years and then reconsider whether the n word has faded in power enough for the daily news. Currently it's still too fetid to throw around just anywhere. (Enough said by me -- you can have the last word if you want it.)
I disagree with you. I think I understand your position, which I'd say is based on a firm commitment to the use-mention distinction: that I can repeat any nasty remark by quoting the speaker, and it reflects nothing on me. Frankly I don't agree it is so simple.
I would bet my bottom dollar that you are not a black woman who has suffered under grinding racism and misogyny: words are used to hurt, to oppress, to label and confine, to teach people they are worthless, bad and stupid, to drill in that fact over and over again. The language of oppression uses labels as one-word lessons. So what I am saying is, words have power, and can be tools of oppression. When I hear a word or an image, my mind starts working automatically to think about or picture what I hear. It's involuntary, although most of the time it is no problem. But the words you choose do trigger thoughts in my head, whether I want them or not. Your word choice exercises considerable power.
It is naive to think that just by wrapping up one of these oppressive words in quotation marks that it is made safe. So when someone, say Mel Gibson, says something really hateful and hurtful, I would think twice about repeating it. Do I have some sort of duty to repeat his remarks? Would it serve a good purpose? Would it hurt the people around me? I agree we need to be adults, and keep our eyes open to reality, and there are plenty of occasions when foul words need to be recorded, repeated, and discussed. But in the scenario you describe, there ARE young children listening to the news, much younger than 6th grade. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the newscasters to add a level of indirection and say "n-word" or whatever.
As an aside, your mixtapes were legal, provided you did not sell them. Maybe you already knew that. If not, I think it is an interesting fact that the Audio Home Recording Act permits non-commercial analog copying of music.
You make a valid point and I'm sorry to see you modded as Flamebait. In fact the trend against trustbusting goes back to WWII -- to the grave detriment of the Pharma and Media markets.
The answer to your question is no. Seems like most everyone here agrees they behaved like idiots, and that messing with a pilot's vision is life-threatening, and if the story is all true they probably deserve to be charged and hauled before a judge. But I can't buy your second reason the way you said it:
The second reason is similar: because lasers are damn straight sighting mechanisms . . . and a missle can be targeted on the aircraft . . ..
Maybe you are saying that the pilot and passengers might have thought they were being targeted by anti-aircraft fire, hence losing their heads and crashing due to panic, not due to being struck by any weapon. That's not a bad reason, but it isn't what you said. You said nothing about the laser causing unsafe flying; rather, about the laser causing a missile hit. I would paraphrase your reason as, "Not only is the laser itself disorienting to the pilot, but also this laser technology is used for even worse things: weapons that could have taken down this helicopter!"
Whether or not you meant that, the very same kind of silly reasoning is rampant these days: "This technology can be used for bad things, so the technology itself is bad! Let's suppress the technology, make its name synonymous with its misuse, and assume the worst about anyone who is using it." Hence, "Don't just punish these idiots for their crime, also punish them because they were brandishing the laser half of a laser-guided missle!" In general, since technology X can be used for $VERY_BAD, any offense with technology X deserves extra punishment. Certain analogies are unavoidable.
The same thing happened in Boston when Adult Swim advertised Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the police went berserk over some illegally placed glowing lights -- which I assume is something like a littering offense. Their explanation was that they thought the glowing lights and the visible batteries might have been a bomb -- since, from movies, we know bombs have glowing LEDs on them. So let's prosecute the perps for a hoax bomb on top of littering.
This kind of delusion if taken to its logical conclusion would involve attempted murder charges for, say, a larceny where the robbers tied up the victims with rope. (Rope can be used for hanging someone.) A peeping tom who uses a telescope would be charged the same as a sniper. Sharing mp3s = commercial piracy. And so on.
I daresay that we, the proud members of the Nation of/., oppose this kind of perverse justice. We don't excuse wrongdoing, but we do try to put the wrongdoing in the proper perspective.
Well, the telco wouldn't be liable for breaking the 4th amendment in any case (since stricly speaking it applies only to the Federal government). But they would be liable for breaking the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
Actually the electoral system per se is complicated but not so bad -- not yet at least, while the electronic voting machines have not yet become entrenched. The problem is corruption. The politicians would be less corrupt if we citizens held their feet more to the fire. But we don't, so the rot gallops along. I do what I can.
Too bad someone thought this was flamebait. It's more like chipotle seasoned -- mellow and smoky. Now for my 2 cents, cheers:
"Of the many casualties of those long ago days, some mourn that the tiny, swift protomammal Beos Gasseeis did not in fact survive as a species despite its seeming efficiency compared to its lumbering rivals. The coup de grace was delivered by early megafauna cat Felis Malus, ancestor of today's leopard."
...wait, wait, stop -- does this mean you believe in intelligent design?
Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor.
You are mistaken: the town did indeed sue Google find out who daTruthSquad is, and also find out much, much more. According to the brief, the town of Manalapan wants to discover "the blogger's identity, communication, and 'all other information associated with the account.'" They explicitly request IP address, all emails sent to Google, and all emails daTruthSquad has ever sent via Google. "All information associated with the account" implies access to Gmail, to Google Calendar, Google Finance, Google search history. In other words, the township demanded to know EVERYTHING Google has on daTruthSquad: name, address (IP address, at least), who she or he corresponds with, how much money he or she has, favorite YouTube videos, the whole enchilada.
Not necessarily irresponsible
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1
Just a word in Egerstad's defense: he tried to get some attention for the leaks he found, but no one (except Iran) seemed to be interested -- so he published a sampling, about 10% of his observations. Then people got excited.
This pattern is a familiar dilemma for security researchers: you say, "there is a problem" and no one responds. You demonstrate the problem and you get in trouble. Quite the Kobayashi Maru.
There are huge psychological barriers that hamper medicine being scientific. The drive to preserve health is incredibly strong: doctors want that power as much as patients want the effect. All of science is a human-all-too-human endeavor, as Kuhn and Popper will tell you, and in medicine the forces of irrationality are especially potent:
consequences are often life or death
doctors wield tremendous personal power
big money is at stake
politics are at stake
the phenomenon of health and healing continues to be bafflingly complex
medicine has a long and spotty history
The last point I consider most interesting. Medicine does its science based on the hypotheses it comes up with, and it comes up with new hypotheses based on what it has believed in the past. In other words, it moves in directions influenced as much by history as by science. I saw this clearly when I lived in the former Soviet Union, which lacks the microbe obsession that grips western medicine. It was obvious that both the medical profession and ordinary people did not worry about germs as much as Americans did. Ordinary colds were blamed on drafts, exposure to cold temperatures, wet feet, and the like. People were less nutty about disinfecting and sanitizing, and seemed to be roughly as healthy as Americans. No allergies, either. Initially I was astonished that these people had such backwards notions about the causes of disease; but they were so sure of themselves. It took a little while before I realized that I was equally sure of myself, and that my countrymen were so sure of themselves, with just about as much basis: we were each repeating the story our moms had told us (and with conviction, too). I saw plenty of doctors there who were equally confident about all manner of different things, some doctors contradicting other doctors; western doctors scoffing at local doctors and vice versa. The folklore of previous generations bears some resemblance to peer reviewed studies; perhaps more important is to keep in mind that both can be worthless.
I'm not saying science is helpless in the face of these historical tendencies, I'm just saying that science has a mighty tough row to hoe in this sphere, and it has its own built-in weaknesses.
Actually no: then you are on to the next problem, the one after that, etc. You are certainly right about guarding your private keys, but there is more to data security than that. Obviously if you store your messages on a box that has a rootkit or is a zombie, or is otherwise hacked, you have no security. Supposedly the FBI has done this. If you read the messages on an unshielded CRT monitor, that's a security hole, since the images on the monitor can be picked up remotely. Then there are the new "sneak-and-peek" searches. And on and on. Those who really are into drug trafficking face a truly difficult security problem, because the FBI has quite a bit of resources to spend on getting into their business.
As you correctly noted, the crypto that is freely available these days is plenty strong enough provided you use it properly. I think it was Bruce Schneier who used the image of crypto being like the lock on the door, whereas security is the whole house: not only the lock on the door must be sound, but the whole building (door, hinges, walls, foundation). Crypto doesn't solve all your problems: it solves one of your many problems.
Sipser is a great place to start -- and if that whets your appetite, go farther.
His arguments are quite intuitive and approachable, which is great for introducing the subject, but by deliberately keeping the proofs friendly and short, they are not really ``rigorous'' -- and if you want to do research in this area, you've got to learn rigor somewhere else. I learned a lot from Sipser's book, and then I learned a lot more from Hopcroft, Motwani and Ullman's Intro to Automata Theory. (I'd be happy to tell you what, but I don't want to turn this post into a slashvertisment.)
My roommate called me a WUS, so I said, "It takes one to know one!" Then we played a game of Bowling on our game console, the one with motion sensing . . . ach, what is it called???
Slashdot Mirror
- - - joke - - > (moving)
(space here)
your head (stationary)
Well that's only your theory. I however believe in "intelligent distortion" (ID) and that's what I teach my kids thank you very much.
That strikes me as quite an odd statement. As you pointed out yourself, such things depend hugely upon context! In China, in India, in Egypt, in Thailand etc. where white people are just another minority, I should think they do frequently consider that others are treating them differently because of race -- every day, much of the day. And most major cities of Western Europe or North America are ethnically very diverse, so that a city dweller is bound to feel like a bit of an alien at times and in places -- maybe not every day, but pretty often -- regardless of her or his race. Why should white people be any different than anyone else in this regard?
I guess that depends on your definition of the "free world." Personally I am troubled by the corruption I see in America, which was once considered a member of that club. In global terms, the integrity of the American government(s) was ranked 20th by the Global Corruption Report. Judging by your nick, you probably are glad to know Canada is indeed ranked less corrupt. I don't know if the level of American corruption qualifies as "rampant," but it is real and does affect its citizens. Look at the chilling effects of the media-purchased DMCA, the Florida recount debacle of 2000, and the wrist-slaps administered to Microsoft in 2001 and to Sony-BMG in 2005. Microsoft smothered Netscape and WordPerfect in front of everyone's eyes, and where is their punishment? Sony-BMG did on a grand scale the same sort of thing that earned federal prison sentences for the wunderkind hackers of the 1980s. But who in Sony-BMG went to prison? Why is Sony-BMG still permitted to conduct business in the USA? They are just going to do it again someday. Not much justice here bro (or sis). Large scale corruption, we gots that aplenty.
Now, I think know what you mean I guess -- I've lived in some of those countries way below 20th place also, and I've seen plenty of the "usual" brand of corruption too. At least I don't get shaken down for bribes, or outright robbed, by the local police here. But, I also pay much, much higher taxes and the police get much, much higher salaries. Frankly I am not sure that there is any substantial difference in the perniciousness of corruption in the USA compared to the developing world.
No*, it didn't. The AHRA only authorizes analog copies, not digital ones. I firmly believe that you also have the right to make digital copies for your own use, because it is fair use -- but if you are sued, you might have to go to court to defend your fair use rights.
* That is, unless you one of the very few who are converting back to analog and then recording.
I meant this to be a brief reply -- oh well. The short version is, we disagree about "power" -- with that, you can skip the rest of this post if you want.
First, I am not objecting to your use of any offensive terms in your comment. I detest censorship and I certainly think Slashdot is an appropriate venue to discuss these social and linguistic questions -- ignoring the fact that we are off topic! You didn't offend me, and I don't want to imply otherwise.
Second, I wasn't being rhetorical when I asked, "Do I have some sort of duty to repeat them?" I meant that as a plain question; you said "of course not," but I say it depends on the circumstances. If I were the officer who arrested Gibson, or if I was a witness on the stand, or if I were a sociology professor, or a hundred other situations, I might indeed have such a duty. What I mean is, I don't want nasty speech to be quashed just because it is offensive. There are times for euphemisms, and times to speak plainly.
The word "only" here is misleading, but I fervently agree -- and it is for that reason I would handle the sharp ones with special care: we as a society have invested power into them. Many words have centuries of history backing them up, and they will be around for centuries after you and I are dead and forgotten. They have power indeed. Like it or not, some words really hurt other people, and wishing does not make it otherwise. I don't fire guns on the street, in fact I only ever shoot at a range. Likewise I don't shoot my mouth off just anywhere with certain words.However, I fear I am twisting your intent. I take it you meant something like, "I the individual can choose how I react to a word. I needn't grant any privilege or power to any word to hurt me. It rolls off my back." If I read you aright, that is great if you can really do that. But not everyone is so strong. The power of a word to transmit meaning, suggest images, dredge up memories, and hint at other words is fundamentally a social construction, not an individual decision.
If racists start trying to turn "chocolate" into a slur, they are in the position of every entrepreneur: starting something new, they will probably fail. They have history against them. I will join you in ignoring them. We weren't talking about fresh coinages though, we were talking about well established words.
I agree there is no right not to be offended, and some people are too easily offended. But that doesn't mean I (metaphorically) get to shovel shit in folks' ears and then say "grow up!" when they claim offense. Some words have profound historical and yet vital contemporary associations with hideous forms of injustice. "Nigger" is still just too potent a word to be bandied about in public: it still has way, way too much power; it is still far too hurtful for the six o'clock news. Lots of people still remember lynching; some still fear it. This word is still alive. Only recently did that bastard Strom Thurmond go off to his reward. He was in the Senate! He helped run the country! What does that say about the country, or the Senate, or the rule of law here? This country was absolutely steeped in institutionalized racism for centuries, and it has only been for a few decades, only a few presidents, a couple eyeblinks, that racism is getting frowned upon here and there. The language of those murderous and hateful centuries still has a LOT of baggage, a lot of power, and I respectfully think you are naive to disregard its past and present. I at least won't repeat that language unless the context really demands it.
I say wait 150-200 years and then reconsider whether the n word has faded in power enough for the daily news. Currently it's still too fetid to throw around just anywhere. (Enough said by me -- you can have the last word if you want it.)
I disagree with you. I think I understand your position, which I'd say is based on a firm commitment to the use-mention distinction: that I can repeat any nasty remark by quoting the speaker, and it reflects nothing on me. Frankly I don't agree it is so simple.
I would bet my bottom dollar that you are not a black woman who has suffered under grinding racism and misogyny: words are used to hurt, to oppress, to label and confine, to teach people they are worthless, bad and stupid, to drill in that fact over and over again. The language of oppression uses labels as one-word lessons. So what I am saying is, words have power, and can be tools of oppression. When I hear a word or an image, my mind starts working automatically to think about or picture what I hear. It's involuntary, although most of the time it is no problem. But the words you choose do trigger thoughts in my head, whether I want them or not. Your word choice exercises considerable power.
It is naive to think that just by wrapping up one of these oppressive words in quotation marks that it is made safe. So when someone, say Mel Gibson, says something really hateful and hurtful, I would think twice about repeating it. Do I have some sort of duty to repeat his remarks? Would it serve a good purpose? Would it hurt the people around me? I agree we need to be adults, and keep our eyes open to reality, and there are plenty of occasions when foul words need to be recorded, repeated, and discussed. But in the scenario you describe, there ARE young children listening to the news, much younger than 6th grade. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the newscasters to add a level of indirection and say "n-word" or whatever.
As an aside, your mixtapes were legal, provided you did not sell them. Maybe you already knew that. If not, I think it is an interesting fact that the Audio Home Recording Act permits non-commercial analog copying of music.
You make a valid point and I'm sorry to see you modded as Flamebait. In fact the trend against trustbusting goes back to WWII -- to the grave detriment of the Pharma and Media markets.
The answer to your question is no. Seems like most everyone here agrees they behaved like idiots, and that messing with a pilot's vision is life-threatening, and if the story is all true they probably deserve to be charged and hauled before a judge. But I can't buy your second reason the way you said it:
Maybe you are saying that the pilot and passengers might have thought they were being targeted by anti-aircraft fire, hence losing their heads and crashing due to panic, not due to being struck by any weapon. That's not a bad reason, but it isn't what you said. You said nothing about the laser causing unsafe flying; rather, about the laser causing a missile hit. I would paraphrase your reason as, "Not only is the laser itself disorienting to the pilot, but also this laser technology is used for even worse things: weapons that could have taken down this helicopter!"Whether or not you meant that, the very same kind of silly reasoning is rampant these days: "This technology can be used for bad things, so the technology itself is bad! Let's suppress the technology, make its name synonymous with its misuse, and assume the worst about anyone who is using it." Hence, "Don't just punish these idiots for their crime, also punish them because they were brandishing the laser half of a laser-guided missle!" In general, since technology X can be used for $VERY_BAD, any offense with technology X deserves extra punishment. Certain analogies are unavoidable.
The same thing happened in Boston when Adult Swim advertised Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the police went berserk over some illegally placed glowing lights -- which I assume is something like a littering offense. Their explanation was that they thought the glowing lights and the visible batteries might have been a bomb -- since, from movies, we know bombs have glowing LEDs on them. So let's prosecute the perps for a hoax bomb on top of littering.
This kind of delusion if taken to its logical conclusion would involve attempted murder charges for, say, a larceny where the robbers tied up the victims with rope. (Rope can be used for hanging someone.) A peeping tom who uses a telescope would be charged the same as a sniper. Sharing mp3s = commercial piracy. And so on.
I daresay that we, the proud members of the Nation of /., oppose this kind of perverse justice. We don't excuse wrongdoing, but we do try to put the wrongdoing in the proper perspective.
Well, the telco wouldn't be liable for breaking the 4th amendment in any case (since stricly speaking it applies only to the Federal government). But they would be liable for breaking the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
Actually the electoral system per se is complicated but not so bad -- not yet at least, while the electronic voting machines have not yet become entrenched. The problem is corruption. The politicians would be less corrupt if we citizens held their feet more to the fire. But we don't, so the rot gallops along. I do what I can.
Brits: stop Lord Sedley's proposal.
Too bad someone thought this was flamebait. It's more like chipotle seasoned -- mellow and smoky. Now for my 2 cents, cheers:
"Of the many casualties of those long ago days, some mourn that the tiny, swift protomammal Beos Gasseeis did not in fact survive as a species despite its seeming efficiency compared to its lumbering rivals. The coup de grace was delivered by early megafauna cat Felis Malus, ancestor of today's leopard."
...wait, wait, stop -- does this mean you believe in intelligent design?
(Now there's some flamebait, ba da bing!)
You are mistaken: the town did indeed sue Google find out who daTruthSquad is, and also find out much, much more. According to the brief, the town of Manalapan wants to discover "the blogger's identity, communication, and 'all other information associated with the account.'" They explicitly request IP address, all emails sent to Google, and all emails daTruthSquad has ever sent via Google. "All information associated with the account" implies access to Gmail, to Google Calendar, Google Finance, Google search history. In other words, the township demanded to know EVERYTHING Google has on daTruthSquad: name, address (IP address, at least), who she or he corresponds with, how much money he or she has, favorite YouTube videos, the whole enchilada.
Just a word in Egerstad's defense: he tried to get some attention for the leaks he found, but no one (except Iran) seemed to be interested -- so he published a sampling, about 10% of his observations. Then people got excited.
This pattern is a familiar dilemma for security researchers: you say, "there is a problem" and no one responds. You demonstrate the problem and you get in trouble. Quite the Kobayashi Maru.
Strunk names a few exceptions to this rule, but none of them apply here.
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but the parent did bring up the subject.
- medicine has a long and spotty history
The last point I consider most interesting. Medicine does its science based on the hypotheses it comes up with, and it comes up with new hypotheses based on what it has believed in the past. In other words, it moves in directions influenced as much by history as by science. I saw this clearly when I lived in the former Soviet Union, which lacks the microbe obsession that grips western medicine. It was obvious that both the medical profession and ordinary people did not worry about germs as much as Americans did. Ordinary colds were blamed on drafts, exposure to cold temperatures, wet feet, and the like. People were less nutty about disinfecting and sanitizing, and seemed to be roughly as healthy as Americans. No allergies, either. Initially I was astonished that these people had such backwards notions about the causes of disease; but they were so sure of themselves. It took a little while before I realized that I was equally sure of myself, and that my countrymen were so sure of themselves, with just about as much basis: we were each repeating the story our moms had told us (and with conviction, too). I saw plenty of doctors there who were equally confident about all manner of different things, some doctors contradicting other doctors; western doctors scoffing at local doctors and vice versa. The folklore of previous generations bears some resemblance to peer reviewed studies; perhaps more important is to keep in mind that both can be worthless.I'm not saying science is helpless in the face of these historical tendencies, I'm just saying that science has a mighty tough row to hoe in this sphere, and it has its own built-in weaknesses.
Actually no: then you are on to the next problem, the one after that, etc. You are certainly right about guarding your private keys, but there is more to data security than that. Obviously if you store your messages on a box that has a rootkit or is a zombie, or is otherwise hacked, you have no security. Supposedly the FBI has done this. If you read the messages on an unshielded CRT monitor, that's a security hole, since the images on the monitor can be picked up remotely. Then there are the new "sneak-and-peek" searches. And on and on. Those who really are into drug trafficking face a truly difficult security problem, because the FBI has quite a bit of resources to spend on getting into their business.
As you correctly noted, the crypto that is freely available these days is plenty strong enough provided you use it properly. I think it was Bruce Schneier who used the image of crypto being like the lock on the door, whereas security is the whole house: not only the lock on the door must be sound, but the whole building (door, hinges, walls, foundation). Crypto doesn't solve all your problems: it solves one of your many problems.
You forgot, "you insensitive clod!"
(or perhaps "nechuvstvyushniy chainik!")
You think "Lena" is ambiguous? It is a common name for a woman, supposedly more frequent than Deanna or Christy, and a few notches below Caroline.
Sipser is a great place to start -- and if that whets your appetite, go farther.
His arguments are quite intuitive and approachable, which is great for introducing the subject, but by deliberately keeping the proofs friendly and short, they are not really ``rigorous'' -- and if you want to do research in this area, you've got to learn rigor somewhere else. I learned a lot from Sipser's book, and then I learned a lot more from Hopcroft, Motwani and Ullman's Intro to Automata Theory. (I'd be happy to tell you what, but I don't want to turn this post into a slashvertisment.)
My roommate called me a WUS, so I said, "It takes one to know one!" Then we played a game of Bowling on our game console, the one with motion sensing . . . ach, what is it called???
I beg to differ. If they broke 18 USC 2511, then they are indeed real law breakers.
Don't paint them as innocent just because someone asked them to break the law.