Let's try that again with proper formatting.
Reads a bit different when you supply your snip, don't it? No... it really doesn't.
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally. So yeah, I think it shows the complete dishonesty of the GGP's post. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest on your part. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political views filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves. They deny truths like the facts that the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
Reads a bit different when you supply your snip, don't it? No... it really doesn't.
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq, and the Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally, yeah, I think it shows the inherent dishonesty of the GGP's post. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest of yourself. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political agenda filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves by denying the truth like the fact the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq Well, that's a surprise for many folks, I imagine. I meant 9-11. Bad typo on my part. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11-01.
No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Quite right. Except for Bush, on 5/1/03:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."...and Cheney, on 9/14/03:
"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." I still don't see them saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. I DO see them saying that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Iraq supported terrorists. Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers. Iraq trained and harbored terrorists. I think that point was made quite clearly in my last post and you did not dispute it. You just tried to change the subject. Bush made it quite clear that we would not only fight terrorists, but the governments that support them. Iraq was one of those countries.
Also, you didn't touch on the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. Tell me, putting why we went into Iraq aside, do you want us to leave Iraq today, effectively surrendering to Al Qaeda in that region?
Tell me, with your head so far up the Administration's ass, how do you get the Kool Aid into your mouth? So because I want America to succeed, I want to see the freedom spread to the people who want it (and the Iraqis want it, trust me, I've been there), and I want to defend those that try to do what is right from those who will lie and twist the truth to meet their political goals, then have my head up this administration's ass? I supported our actions in Bosnia, was my head up that administration's ass too? When people lie in an attempt to make my country look bad, I will call them out on it. I took an oath to defend this country from all who threaten it, foreign and domestic, and I will stand by it.
The later extraction of the truth is boring and not newsworthy. You just need to see how many people still believe in WMD and that Sadddam is an Al Qaeda leader to see that people don't see the truth.
I hate to venture off topic here, but since you brought it up:
First, Iraq had WMD's. What do you think they sprayed all over those Kurds, Mr Clean?
Next WMD'shavebeenfound in Iraq. Just not the enourmous stockpiles that everyone from John Kerry to John Rumsfield said we'd find. Still, there is speculation that they were moved to Syria. So please stop comparing WMD's in Iraq to Santa Clause. It's like saying that we found a little house, an old fat guy in a red suit, his wife and nine flying reindeer at the north pole, but no elves. Therefor, Santa doesn't exist!
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq. No one ever said that except for those on the left that try to say that Bush said it. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. The only thing that was ever said was that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a wanted high ranking Al Qaeda member was being harbored in Iraq. Low and behold, a bombing raid killed him in June of 2006... in IRAQ.
I understand that you think that if you say it enough, it will become true. Of course, why should we let the facts get in the way of your version of "the truth".
Again, whether or not there were WMD's or Al Qaeda in Iraq or not... Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now, with Bin Laden's blessing. Why just today, this came out:
Osama bin Laden scolded his al-Qaida followers in Iraq and other insurgents Monday, saying they have "been lax" for failing to overcome fanatical tribal loyalties and unite in the fight against U.S. troops.
The message of his new audiotape reflected the growing disarray among Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents and bin Laden's client group in the country, both of which are facing heavy U.S. military pressure and an uprising among Sunni tribesmen. So if you agree that we should be fighting al Qaeda and Bin Laden's cronies, then Iraq is the place to be!
Back on topic... It made people aware that there are environmental impacts associated with buying new gizzmos.
So let me see if I understand this. It's OK to lie and fabricate dangers of a product, as long as it is to make people aware of those same dangers of that product? Does that not totally fry your logic center? You'd think that if the danger was real, then Greenpeace wouldn't have to lie about it. Hell, IF those dangers were real, then Greenpeace wouldn't be lying, now would they? Kinda makes you understand why even Greenpeace's founder is against Greenpeace.
Of course, we could also apply your twisted thinking back to Iraq. If it's OK to lie about a company in order to keep a few tons of electronics from hitting landfills (even though all those pocket calculators haven't caused a catastrophe), then it should be OK to lie about WMD's in order to liberate 20 million people from a tyrant.
I think it should have modded funny. Either a moderator is an Apple fanboi and didn't get the joke or they modded it insightful because 'insightful' carries more karma than 'funny'.
My point was that if you get to pick the representatives of religion, Falwell and Roberts, then I get to pick the representatives of atheism. I picked Stalin and Pol Pot. Would you rather me pick Hitler and Castro? How about Attila the Hun? Well, since we are adding up body counts, I figure these guys have done much more killing in the name of atheism than Falwell and Roberts have in the name of God.
This is absolutly true, but I dont have people knoking on my door with Stalinist pamphlets ( not since 1974 at any rate), and I dont see many people on TV persuding me to be a Stalinist. Besides Stalin never pretended to be interested in anyone except Stalin. ( Same is probably true for most TV evangilists except they do pretend. )
I didn't realize that you would equate knocking on your door and handing you a pamphlet to deaths of several million innocences. It's no wonder you feel the way you do about religion.
The "Just adding up the body count " arguments still holds. Stalin was an evil b****d who was proud of his the ability of his armies to inflict and sustain casualties. Attila the Hun trained up a nation as an invading force. Religion claims to be a force for good yet constantly inflicts death and suffering on humanity.
I don't see your point. Stalin kills millions. Attila the Hun killed thousands as he raped and pillaged. The church I go to gives gifts to poor minority kids on Christmas. How "giving gifts to poor kids" kill more than Stalin and Attila? Please, explain you logic.
I find it very difficult to think a world with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson is better than one without them.
Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson do not make up all of Christianity. Just like Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Stalin do not make up all of atheism. But if we were to play by your rules:
I find it very difficult to think a world with Pol Pot and Stalin is better than one without them. For that matter, I think these two have killed more people this century than all of Christianity has in the past 500 years. So, using your logic, it seems to me that the world would be a better place without atheism.
Just adding up the body count should convince anyone that religion is a bad idea for humanity. I think that statement has just been shot to hell!
Technically, there is a difference between dark matter and and matter so dense its dark. Think of dark matter as "matters at hand in the universe in which we're still in the dark." On second though, "terra incognita" is a much better analogy.
Well, I wasn't talking about black holes being made from dark matter, but like you said, matter we were "in the dark" about or matter than we are unable to detect. Well, evidently, we were in the dark of about 75% of the matter than can exist in black holes. It wasn't until recently that we learned of super massive black holes in the center of every galaxy. All this is matter that we were in the dark about. How many more black holes are there that we don't know about? How much larger are they than we thought they could be? How much more stuff is out there that we can't detect that is perfectly reasonable, easily explained and not at all weird or mysterious, for example solar systems where the center body is simply not big enough to start the fusion process and thus remains dark and unknown to us?
I just keep hearing how dark matter is this uber-mysterious stuff that makes up a majority of the universe and we have no idea what it is. Well, maybe it's something simple like the examples I gave above.
I wonder if this is where all that "dark matter" is. Scientist keep talking about how there is so much more matter than what we can detect. Well, we haven't been able to detect this until now. How much more is missing, I wonder.
Imagine a 10Tb HDD built in the classic 3.5" wide form factor, with 256Gb of 1024-bit-wide 150MWord/sec flash memory or MRAM on the controller board acting as cache. The spinning disk becomes a backing store for the flash where data is kept "fresh" by a smart algorithm. The drive spins down intelligently when not needed, saving power and reducing heat dissipation.
I'd rather they be broken into separate drives. I'd like a flash based drive for my OS and maybe a few commonly used applications and a spinning HDD for all my data and backups.
The same is true of tapping my phone lines, it requires a warrant and for good reason. The same is true of requesting my DNA. You do not give the police or any investigating authority any intelligence voluntarily because when they are investigating you they are your enemy. It is estimated based on after the fact DNA testing that 30% of the people in prison are innocent, think about that.
I remember a quote from a police officer who was giving a speech to us soldiers at Ft. Hood about the dangers of drunk driving. While talking about a blood test, he said, "When it's in you body, it's yours. But when it hits God's clean air, it becomes state evidence."
That is particularly naive. They may be looking for terrorism, but they are certainly looking for political dissidents.
This is the laugher of the day! Why would the feds go through all the expense and hassle of reading your email looking for political dissidents when they could just go to the nearest Code Pink rally or raid the offices of MoveOn.org!!!
However, I am worried if we have another Clinton presidency. It is common knowledge that they used the FBI to dig up dirt on political opponents. Now it is coming to light the they intercepted wireless phone calls of political opponents to listen in. At least this administration lets you know they are doing it.
How is the feds going to know any different? Often the only clue is the reciepent is orders@ameritrade.com or Ghadactv8st@gmail.com
The GGP was stating that he would encrypt his email because the gov't may be listening. I said that was a stupid reason and actually counter productive.
Besides, I think the address is a pretty good clue! Also, I think the physical location of the recipient, say, Tora Bora Afghanistan, would be another pretty good clue to go on.
Terrorism laws have been used quite frequently to prosecute ordinary crime.
And that I disagree with 100%! Fortunately, I have not heard of a case where terrorism laws have been used to prosecute non-terror related crime. The second that they are, the prosecutor should be tossed out on his ass, not the laws. Punish those that abuse the tools, not the tools themselves.
As for copyright, do you think that its right that the RIAA has more power to spy on you than the federal government? At least the government is elected and has motives are more noble (saving lives as opposed to making Lars more money)
I would rather 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent one.
What if those 10 guilty persons want to kill 1000 innocent ones? Again, we are not talking about arresting people here, but searching for evidence and trying to prevent a crime from happening. Email is not enough to convict. For that matter, I don't think that email read without a warrant is admissible in court at all. (IANAL) The goal is not prosecution, but prevention.
And this part is the key: It could be worth your life to write a letter that might be seen as having the seeds of treason.
George Bush is not going to have you executed if you look like you may be "seeding the seeds of treason". Hell, if that were the case, all he'd have to do is show up at a anti-war rally and shot the people carrying the signs calling for revolution! Why bother paying Comcast? The King of England read mail to keep himself in power. The feds read mail to prevent a terrorist from killing hundreds, thousands or possibly millions of people while crippling the world's economies. One was a group of freedom fighters trying to gain independence and human rights from a dictator. The other is a government trying to save the lives of its population from those who want an oppressive religion based world government. To compare the two really isn't valid.
Also, I could not find that quote you mentioned, although it seems more of an argument for freedom of the press than anything else. A search for the first paragraph only links back to an earlier slashdot post of yours. Although I'll go ahead and take what you say at face value, and it does seem to be something that Hentoff would say, but it seems odd that it's not posted anywhere on the web.
I searched for the author and found this about Nat Hentoff from his Wiki page:
In February 2003, Hentoff signed a letter circulated by Social Democrats, USA advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq on human rights grounds, citing reports detailing Hussein's disregard for fundamental liberties. In March and April of that year Hussein was deposed by a US-led invasion, launching the ongoing Iraq war. In summer 2003, Hentoff wrote a column for the Washington Times in which he supported Tony Blair's humanitarian justifications for the war. He also criticized the Democratic Party for casting doubt on President Bush's pre-war assertions about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction in an election year. So I guess you are pro-life and support our presence in Iraq too?
y stock trades are not incriminating either, but they are not sent plaintext. They are also not sent on my ISP mail servers. Sometimes data security is simply data security to prevent mis-use in the wrong hands. There is nothing incriminating, but my credit card order details is not to be made public.
There is a reason to encrypt some sensitive data. ID theft of credit card information is just one of the many reasons.
Very well put. Personally, I can't say my rights are being violated when nothing in my life has changed.
I use SSH to VNC into my home machines from work, if for no other reason than I don't want my boss to have enough "proof" to fire me. All my banking transactions and bill transactions are also encrypted. But these are different than encrypting your email because you think the Feds might be watching. Trying to stop thieves is a valid reason to encrypt data. Trying to trip up the men and women who are tasked with preventing the next 9-11 is not, IMHO.
There's a strong argument to be made to encrypt specifically because you have nothing to hide. This is similar to the idea that you should not let the cops search your home without a warrant even though you don't have anything illegal inside. The more it becomes assumed that only the "bad guys" that are asserting their rights and/or privacy, the more likely such assertions will be thought of as indicative of bad behavior in and of themselves. If the feds assume I'm a criminal simply because I encrypt my email, then they are not doing their job effectively.
Sure, but that is because having the police enter my house is intrusive. They track mud in, can drop anything anywhere and say that they found it there. That can't be done with email. Also, a warrant specifies exactly what they are looking for. Finally, items found in a house search is enough for prosecution. A quote from an email is not. Besides, these guys are not looking for prosecution, they are looking to identify and bust terrorism cells. They are looking to stop the next terrorist attack. They are looking to intercept supplies such as bomb making materials and replace them with something inert. Yes, an email will be evidence, but when it comes to terrorism, they require a open and shut case with multiple arrests. They don't want to pop you for looking for weed.
If the feds assume I'm a criminal simply because I encrypt my email, then they are not doing their job effectively.
I never said that. I said they would take a close look, wasting their time and doing MORE of what you didn't want them to do in the first place. If they can't get your email, they may listen to your phone calls. They may start tailing you. They may start investigating the people you email. Why? Because you thought it would be super cool spy stuff to encrypt your email to keep the evil G-Men out.
Besides, even the SS didn't really need to evesdrop. If they wanted information, they'd kick down your door, torture your little girl until YOU cracked, and put you on a train somewhere with a bunch of people with stars sewn into their clothing.
Nothing incriminating in your email? Not worried about 'them' monitoring your emails? Think again.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
And BTW, encrypting email only takes a few minutes to set up and no (perceptible) time when signing/encrypting a message.
Uh, do you have something better than an overused Ben Franklin quote from over 200 years ago? How about something a bit more current, from someone who understands what we are up against today. Someone like Richard Marcinko, author or Rogue Warrior and founder of the Navy's top-secret counterterrorist unit: Seal Team Six.
"Change hurts. It makes people insecure, confused, and angry. People want things to be the same as they've always been, because that makes life easier. But, if you're a leader, you can't let your people hang on to the past." and
"Popularity is not leadership." Also, most of my emails don't take a minute to write. Why would I take triple the amount of time spent so I can have my wife call me and ask, "what is this crap?" Of course, we won't even talk about the two hours that would need to be spent trying to teach her how to uncompress. And then when I explain why, she would say something like, "I'll print it out and hand it to them before I have to go through this shit again."
While I appreciate the idea and all, why? It's really not worth the time to encrypt my email. Do you think that if the feds are monitoring your line, they are just going to say, "Damn! He's encrypted. Let's move on to the next." I'm going to guess not. If anything, seeing that you email is encrypted might be enough to peak their interest to make you MORE watched, not less. This also takes precious manpower away from the people who are trying to stop the next terror attack in the US. Regardless of you political opinions, I don't see how anyone could think that impeding these guys is a good thing.
Me on the other hand, I don't care. There is nothing incriminating in my email beyond sending stupid YouTube links to a buddy or bitching to the wife about who chooses whats for dinner. I'm really not interesting enough for the Feds to care about. Please take no offense when I say that I doubt anyone else here is either.
They were first, everyone else came later and NEVER got permission.
Uh, I was born here. Those that are coming here illegally were NOT born here. You see, those born in the US are automatically made citizens. So that "they were here first BS" hasn't applied for about 200 years.
It always amazes me that illegal immigrants dare to complain about illegal immigrants just because they been scewing the people who always been there for longer.
Again, in order to be an "illegal" immigrant, you have to have been born somewhere other that the US. How can you say that someone born in Chile has more US citizen rights than someone born in Idaho?
Sure, it's possible to launch such a system, but there were a feasible way to transmit power from space to earth, then the reverse would also be true. Wouldn't we already powering space based systems from earth if this were remotely easy? Wouldn't it be cheaper to power the shuttle by beaming power to a dish rather than sending up all those heavy batteries and fuel cells?
I think launching this system will be the easy part.
That's okay. Rarely do I get negative moderation anyway (I honestly don't recall the last time), so my Karma can handle it. People often complain about the moderation system here, but overall I find it generally works quite well. There are the occasional times it falls down - like the guy calling me a "fucking idiot" getting modded "Informative" (wtf?) - but in general it works okay and I'm hardly going to lose any sleep over it.
I'm 100% in favour of your sig by the way. For that, and the post I'm replying to, you just made my friends list:) (even though I still think it was a crappy joke!;) )
I find it sad that you get down-modded for defending moderation. Someone had it out for you.
I read it as "Bill Gates Denies Vista for Nigeria"
Yeah, me too. Of course, after reading the title correctly, I am left wondering:
Why does Bill Gates need a Visa? Isn't he rich enough to pay with cash? Surely he qualifies for an American Express Card! Master Card, Diners Club, Discover? Visa can't be his only option!
But it's also worth noting that increased government powers provide no guarantee against crime, while limiting its powers *is* an effective protection against abuse.
One could also say
But it's also worth noting that limiting government powers provide no guarantee against abuse, while increasing its powers *is* an effective protection against crime. An example would be a traffic cop does a better job at enforcing speed limits on the Interstate in a Crown Vic than he would on a bicycle.
The police stand a much better chance of finding a stolen car if they are allowed to run license plates against a database (in other words, datamine)
Police stand a much better chance of serving a warrant they are allowed to ask for proof of identification from the citizen who fits the description.
It is also true that retrieving proof of identification can reduce the chance that the person who ONLY fits the description of the suspect is NOT arrested!
So I guess you can guarantee that increasing government powers can cut down on crime. But you are correct that NOTHING can ever eliminate it completely.
I could go on, but the point is that it's not the tools that should be banned, but the abuse, and the abuse is banned already! True, it may happen, but someone is also going to be killed by construction worker wielding a hammer. Does that mean we should ban construction workers from using hammers?
Slashdot Mirror
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally. So yeah, I think it shows the complete dishonesty of the GGP's post. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest on your part. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political views filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves. They deny truths like the facts that the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq, and the Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally, yeah, I think it shows the inherent dishonesty of the GGP's post. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest of yourself. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political agenda filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves by denying the truth like the fact the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." I still don't see them saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. I DO see them saying that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Iraq supported terrorists. Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers. Iraq trained and harbored terrorists. I think that point was made quite clearly in my last post and you did not dispute it. You just tried to change the subject. Bush made it quite clear that we would not only fight terrorists, but the governments that support them. Iraq was one of those countries.
Also, you didn't touch on the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. Tell me, putting why we went into Iraq aside, do you want us to leave Iraq today, effectively surrendering to Al Qaeda in that region? Tell me, with your head so far up the Administration's ass, how do you get the Kool Aid into your mouth? So because I want America to succeed, I want to see the freedom spread to the people who want it (and the Iraqis want it, trust me, I've been there), and I want to defend those that try to do what is right from those who will lie and twist the truth to meet their political goals, then have my head up this administration's ass? I supported our actions in Bosnia, was my head up that administration's ass too? When people lie in an attempt to make my country look bad, I will call them out on it. I took an oath to defend this country from all who threaten it, foreign and domestic, and I will stand by it.
I hate to venture off topic here, but since you brought it up:
First, Iraq had WMD's. What do you think they sprayed all over those Kurds, Mr Clean?
Next WMD's have been found in Iraq. Just not the enourmous stockpiles that everyone from John Kerry to John Rumsfield said we'd find. Still, there is speculation that they were moved to Syria. So please stop comparing WMD's in Iraq to Santa Clause. It's like saying that we found a little house, an old fat guy in a red suit, his wife and nine flying reindeer at the north pole, but no elves. Therefor, Santa doesn't exist!
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq. No one ever said that except for those on the left that try to say that Bush said it. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. The only thing that was ever said was that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a wanted high ranking Al Qaeda member was being harbored in Iraq. Low and behold, a bombing raid killed him in June of 2006... in IRAQ.
I understand that you think that if you say it enough, it will become true. Of course, why should we let the facts get in the way of your version of "the truth".
Again, whether or not there were WMD's or Al Qaeda in Iraq or not... Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now, with Bin Laden's blessing. Why just today, this came out: Osama bin Laden scolded his al-Qaida followers in Iraq and other insurgents Monday, saying they have "been lax" for failing to overcome fanatical tribal loyalties and unite in the fight against U.S. troops.
The message of his new audiotape reflected the growing disarray among Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents and bin Laden's client group in the country, both of which are facing heavy U.S. military pressure and an uprising among Sunni tribesmen. So if you agree that we should be fighting al Qaeda and Bin Laden's cronies, then Iraq is the place to be!
Back on topic...
It made people aware that there are environmental impacts associated with buying new gizzmos.
So let me see if I understand this. It's OK to lie and fabricate dangers of a product, as long as it is to make people aware of those same dangers of that product? Does that not totally fry your logic center? You'd think that if the danger was real, then Greenpeace wouldn't have to lie about it. Hell, IF those dangers were real, then Greenpeace wouldn't be lying, now would they? Kinda makes you understand why even Greenpeace's founder is against Greenpeace.
Of course, we could also apply your twisted thinking back to Iraq. If it's OK to lie about a company in order to keep a few tons of electronics from hitting landfills (even though all those pocket calculators haven't caused a catastrophe), then it should be OK to lie about WMD's in order to liberate 20 million people from a tyrant.
I think it should have modded funny. Either a moderator is an Apple fanboi and didn't get the joke or they modded it insightful because 'insightful' carries more karma than 'funny'.
My point was that if you get to pick the representatives of religion, Falwell and Roberts, then I get to pick the representatives of atheism. I picked Stalin and Pol Pot. Would you rather me pick Hitler and Castro? How about Attila the Hun? Well, since we are adding up body counts, I figure these guys have done much more killing in the name of atheism than Falwell and Roberts have in the name of God.
This is absolutly true, but I dont have people knoking on my door with Stalinist pamphlets ( not since 1974 at any rate), and I dont see many people on TV persuding me to be a Stalinist. Besides Stalin never pretended to be interested in anyone except Stalin. ( Same is probably true for most TV evangilists except they do pretend. )
I didn't realize that you would equate knocking on your door and handing you a pamphlet to deaths of several million innocences. It's no wonder you feel the way you do about religion.
The "Just adding up the body count " arguments still holds. Stalin was an evil b****d who was proud of his the ability of his armies to inflict and sustain casualties. Attila the Hun trained up a nation as an invading force. Religion claims to be a force for good yet constantly inflicts death and suffering on humanity.
I don't see your point. Stalin kills millions. Attila the Hun killed thousands as he raped and pillaged. The church I go to gives gifts to poor minority kids on Christmas. How "giving gifts to poor kids" kill more than Stalin and Attila? Please, explain you logic.
Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson do not make up all of Christianity. Just like Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Stalin do not make up all of atheism. But if we were to play by your rules: I find it very difficult to think a world with Pol Pot and Stalin is better than one without them. For that matter, I think these two have killed more people this century than all of Christianity has in the past 500 years. So, using your logic, it seems to me that the world would be a better place without atheism.
Just adding up the body count should convince anyone that religion is a bad idea for humanity.
I think that statement has just been shot to hell!
Technically, there is a difference between dark matter and and matter so dense its dark. Think of dark matter as "matters at hand in the universe in which we're still in the dark." On second though, "terra incognita" is a much better analogy.
Well, I wasn't talking about black holes being made from dark matter, but like you said, matter we were "in the dark" about or matter than we are unable to detect. Well, evidently, we were in the dark of about 75% of the matter than can exist in black holes. It wasn't until recently that we learned of super massive black holes in the center of every galaxy. All this is matter that we were in the dark about. How many more black holes are there that we don't know about? How much larger are they than we thought they could be? How much more stuff is out there that we can't detect that is perfectly reasonable, easily explained and not at all weird or mysterious, for example solar systems where the center body is simply not big enough to start the fusion process and thus remains dark and unknown to us?
I just keep hearing how dark matter is this uber-mysterious stuff that makes up a majority of the universe and we have no idea what it is. Well, maybe it's something simple like the examples I gave above.
I wonder if this is where all that "dark matter" is. Scientist keep talking about how there is so much more matter than what we can detect. Well, we haven't been able to detect this until now. How much more is missing, I wonder.
It amazes me at how much we DON'T know.
Imagine a 10Tb HDD built in the classic 3.5" wide form factor, with 256Gb of 1024-bit-wide 150MWord/sec flash memory or MRAM on the controller board acting as cache. The spinning disk becomes a backing store for the flash where data is kept "fresh" by a smart algorithm. The drive spins down intelligently when not needed, saving power and reducing heat dissipation.
I'd rather they be broken into separate drives. I'd like a flash based drive for my OS and maybe a few commonly used applications and a spinning HDD for all my data and backups.
The same is true of tapping my phone lines, it requires a warrant and for good reason. The same is true of requesting my DNA. You do not give the police or any investigating authority any intelligence voluntarily because when they are investigating you they are your enemy. It is estimated based on after the fact DNA testing that 30% of the people in prison are innocent, think about that.
I remember a quote from a police officer who was giving a speech to us soldiers at Ft. Hood about the dangers of drunk driving. While talking about a blood test, he said, "When it's in you body, it's yours. But when it hits God's clean air, it becomes state evidence."
That is particularly naive. They may be looking for terrorism, but they are certainly looking for political dissidents.
This is the laugher of the day! Why would the feds go through all the expense and hassle of reading your email looking for political dissidents when they could just go to the nearest Code Pink rally or raid the offices of MoveOn.org!!!
However, I am worried if we have another Clinton presidency. It is common knowledge that they used the FBI to dig up dirt on political opponents. Now it is coming to light the they intercepted wireless phone calls of political opponents to listen in. At least this administration lets you know they are doing it.
How is the feds going to know any different? Often the only clue is the reciepent is orders@ameritrade.com or Ghadactv8st@gmail.com
The GGP was stating that he would encrypt his email because the gov't may be listening. I said that was a stupid reason and actually counter productive.
Besides, I think the address is a pretty good clue! Also, I think the physical location of the recipient, say, Tora Bora Afghanistan, would be another pretty good clue to go on.
Terrorism laws have been used quite frequently to prosecute ordinary crime.
And that I disagree with 100%! Fortunately, I have not heard of a case where terrorism laws have been used to prosecute non-terror related crime. The second that they are, the prosecutor should be tossed out on his ass, not the laws. Punish those that abuse the tools, not the tools themselves.
As for copyright, do you think that its right that the RIAA has more power to spy on you than the federal government? At least the government is elected and has motives are more noble (saving lives as opposed to making Lars more money)
I would rather 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent one.
What if those 10 guilty persons want to kill 1000 innocent ones? Again, we are not talking about arresting people here, but searching for evidence and trying to prevent a crime from happening. Email is not enough to convict. For that matter, I don't think that email read without a warrant is admissible in court at all. (IANAL) The goal is not prosecution, but prevention.
It could be worth your life to write a letter that might be seen as having the seeds of treason.
George Bush is not going to have you executed if you look like you may be "seeding the seeds of treason". Hell, if that were the case, all he'd have to do is show up at a anti-war rally and shot the people carrying the signs calling for revolution! Why bother paying Comcast? The King of England read mail to keep himself in power. The feds read mail to prevent a terrorist from killing hundreds, thousands or possibly millions of people while crippling the world's economies. One was a group of freedom fighters trying to gain independence and human rights from a dictator. The other is a government trying to save the lives of its population from those who want an oppressive religion based world government. To compare the two really isn't valid.
Also, I could not find that quote you mentioned, although it seems more of an argument for freedom of the press than anything else. A search for the first paragraph only links back to an earlier slashdot post of yours. Although I'll go ahead and take what you say at face value, and it does seem to be something that Hentoff would say, but it seems odd that it's not posted anywhere on the web.
I searched for the author and found this about Nat Hentoff from his Wiki page: In February 2003, Hentoff signed a letter circulated by Social Democrats, USA advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq on human rights grounds, citing reports detailing Hussein's disregard for fundamental liberties. In March and April of that year Hussein was deposed by a US-led invasion, launching the ongoing Iraq war. In summer 2003, Hentoff wrote a column for the Washington Times in which he supported Tony Blair's humanitarian justifications for the war. He also criticized the Democratic Party for casting doubt on President Bush's pre-war assertions about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction in an election year. So I guess you are pro-life and support our presence in Iraq too?
y stock trades are not incriminating either, but they are not sent plaintext. They are also not sent on my ISP mail servers. Sometimes data security is simply data security to prevent mis-use in the wrong hands. There is nothing incriminating, but my credit card order details is not to be made public.
There is a reason to encrypt some sensitive data. ID theft of credit card information is just one of the many reasons.
Very well put. Personally, I can't say my rights are being violated when nothing in my life has changed.
I use SSH to VNC into my home machines from work, if for no other reason than I don't want my boss to have enough "proof" to fire me. All my banking transactions and bill transactions are also encrypted. But these are different than encrypting your email because you think the Feds might be watching. Trying to stop thieves is a valid reason to encrypt data. Trying to trip up the men and women who are tasked with preventing the next 9-11 is not, IMHO.
There's a strong argument to be made to encrypt specifically because you have nothing to hide.
This is similar to the idea that you should not let the cops search your home without a warrant even though you don't have anything illegal inside. The more it becomes assumed that only the "bad guys" that are asserting their rights and/or privacy, the more likely such assertions will be thought of as indicative of bad behavior in and of themselves. If the feds assume I'm a criminal simply because I encrypt my email, then they are not doing their job effectively.
Sure, but that is because having the police enter my house is intrusive. They track mud in, can drop anything anywhere and say that they found it there. That can't be done with email. Also, a warrant specifies exactly what they are looking for. Finally, items found in a house search is enough for prosecution. A quote from an email is not. Besides, these guys are not looking for prosecution, they are looking to identify and bust terrorism cells. They are looking to stop the next terrorist attack. They are looking to intercept supplies such as bomb making materials and replace them with something inert. Yes, an email will be evidence, but when it comes to terrorism, they require a open and shut case with multiple arrests. They don't want to pop you for looking for weed.
If the feds assume I'm a criminal simply because I encrypt my email, then they are not doing their job effectively.
I never said that. I said they would take a close look, wasting their time and doing MORE of what you didn't want them to do in the first place. If they can't get your email, they may listen to your phone calls. They may start tailing you. They may start investigating the people you email. Why? Because you thought it would be super cool spy stuff to encrypt your email to keep the evil G-Men out.
Besides, even the SS didn't really need to evesdrop. If they wanted information, they'd kick down your door, torture your little girl until YOU cracked, and put you on a train somewhere with a bunch of people with stars sewn into their clothing.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Ben Franklin
And BTW, encrypting email only takes a few minutes to set up and no (perceptible) time when signing/encrypting a message.
Uh, do you have something better than an overused Ben Franklin quote from over 200 years ago? How about something a bit more current, from someone who understands what we are up against today. Someone like Richard Marcinko, author or Rogue Warrior and founder of the Navy's top-secret counterterrorist unit: Seal Team Six. "Change hurts. It makes people insecure, confused, and angry. People want things to be the same as they've always been, because that makes life easier. But, if you're a leader, you can't let your people hang on to the past." and "Popularity is not leadership." Also, most of my emails don't take a minute to write. Why would I take triple the amount of time spent so I can have my wife call me and ask, "what is this crap?" Of course, we won't even talk about the two hours that would need to be spent trying to teach her how to uncompress. And then when I explain why, she would say something like, "I'll print it out and hand it to them before I have to go through this shit again."
I'll trot this pony out one more time:
(Mac OS X 10.3+) http://www.joar.com/certificates/
(Windows) http://www.marknoble.com/tutorial/smime/smime.aspx
While I appreciate the idea and all, why? It's really not worth the time to encrypt my email. Do you think that if the feds are monitoring your line, they are just going to say, "Damn! He's encrypted. Let's move on to the next." I'm going to guess not. If anything, seeing that you email is encrypted might be enough to peak their interest to make you MORE watched, not less. This also takes precious manpower away from the people who are trying to stop the next terror attack in the US. Regardless of you political opinions, I don't see how anyone could think that impeding these guys is a good thing.
Me on the other hand, I don't care. There is nothing incriminating in my email beyond sending stupid YouTube links to a buddy or bitching to the wife about who chooses whats for dinner. I'm really not interesting enough for the Feds to care about. Please take no offense when I say that I doubt anyone else here is either.
They were first, everyone else came later and NEVER got permission.
Uh, I was born here. Those that are coming here illegally were NOT born here. You see, those born in the US are automatically made citizens. So that "they were here first BS" hasn't applied for about 200 years.
It always amazes me that illegal immigrants dare to complain about illegal immigrants just because they been scewing the people who always been there for longer.
Again, in order to be an "illegal" immigrant, you have to have been born somewhere other that the US. How can you say that someone born in Chile has more US citizen rights than someone born in Idaho?
I think it is feasible if it plays out right
Sure, it's possible to launch such a system, but there were a feasible way to transmit power from space to earth, then the reverse would also be true. Wouldn't we already powering space based systems from earth if this were remotely easy? Wouldn't it be cheaper to power the shuttle by beaming power to a dish rather than sending up all those heavy batteries and fuel cells?
I think launching this system will be the easy part.
That's okay. Rarely do I get negative moderation anyway (I honestly don't recall the last time), so my Karma can handle it.
:) (even though I still think it was a crappy joke! ;) )
People often complain about the moderation system here, but overall I find it generally works quite well. There are the occasional times it falls down - like the guy calling me a "fucking idiot" getting modded "Informative" (wtf?) - but in general it works okay and I'm hardly going to lose any sleep over it.
I'm 100% in favour of your sig by the way. For that, and the post I'm replying to, you just made my friends list
I find it sad that you get down-modded for defending moderation. Someone had it out for you.
Pro-tip: You *are* a fucking idiot. Go back to Digg, moron.
Spoken as a true coward.
Sorry you got modded down for my poor joke. Only a poor comic blames the audience when they don't get the joke.
I read it as "Bill Gates Denies Vista for Nigeria"
Yeah, me too. Of course, after reading the title correctly, I am left wondering:
Why does Bill Gates need a Visa? Isn't he rich enough to pay with cash? Surely he qualifies for an American Express Card! Master Card, Diners Club, Discover? Visa can't be his only option!
One could also say But it's also worth noting that limiting government powers provide no guarantee against abuse, while increasing its powers *is* an effective protection against crime. An example would be a traffic cop does a better job at enforcing speed limits on the Interstate in a Crown Vic than he would on a bicycle.
The police stand a much better chance of finding a stolen car if they are allowed to run license plates against a database (in other words, datamine)
Police stand a much better chance of serving a warrant they are allowed to ask for proof of identification from the citizen who fits the description.
It is also true that retrieving proof of identification can reduce the chance that the person who ONLY fits the description of the suspect is NOT arrested!
So I guess you can guarantee that increasing government powers can cut down on crime. But you are correct that NOTHING can ever eliminate it completely.
I could go on, but the point is that it's not the tools that should be banned, but the abuse, and the abuse is banned already! True, it may happen, but someone is also going to be killed by construction worker wielding a hammer. Does that mean we should ban construction workers from using hammers?