So, what has the empty suit in the white house done different from Bush that can be looked at and defended as a superior action? When he actually does anything, it turns out to be the same position Bush took.
So, repealing don't ask don't tell is indefensible? Reversing Bush's ban on stem cell research?
I hear a lot of sniping at Bush, but not a lot of considered and defended arguments in opposition to his opinions or actions.
I suspect that's because you don't listen for them. Criticism of Bush's policies is legion.
Shhh. you are going to hurt their feelings. I mean putting a man who has achieved so much more then them down can only be looked at as an attempt to feel better about themselves.
Really? Name ONE thing he did that is a meaningful aspiration.
In general it is a good thing. But why not go a bit further. I have the line File/Edit/.../Help and there is a LOT of place right there after that. Perhaps a good place to have the status bar icons from right to left.
I put the search bar and a couple of plugin icons (adblock, noscript, requestpolicy, cookiesafe) there - just right-click on the empty space, choose customize from the menu and drag the search bar and any other icons up there.
It's a great idea. I'd like to see one additional factor added -that through crypotographic means the system would require that the recipient of an unique ID also provide some sort of key unique to that transaction in order for the central database to reverse the unique ID back to the "citizen ID" - that way it would be impossible for anyone with access to the central database to just generate a list of all unique IDs for a specific "citizen ID." That would still serve the purpose of dealing with individual cases of fraud and other crimes but would make globally trawling database for a list of everything the "citizen ID" has been associated with impracticle - much like the way a series of cash transactions is practically impossible to trace back to a single individual without the active help of every party to every transaction.
FWIW, I've been thinking along similar lines for medical records - instead of a centralized database of medical records, we should be looking at systems that keep each person's records on their person - in a smart phone, or a wireless PDA or something like that. If a doctor needs a a record from a patient, he can request it and the patient gets a request notice on their phone for that specific record - they can then confirm or deny and in confirming they can specify max number of copies and an expiration date. The entire system can be enough of a "closed loop" that DRM could actually be used to enforce that stuff - it doesn't need to be perfect (e.g. nothing will stop a person with a camera taking pictures of a monitor screen), just enough to prevent systemic misuse of medical records. In the case of an emergency where the patient is incapacitated, physical access to the phone would enable a single-generation, short-term-expiration copy of any record on the phone.
The similarity with your idea is that in both cases, control rests with the individual and not with the owner of any centralized system - be it the official central database or an ad-hoc centralization like johnhp mistakenly suggested.
Your "full stop" is a product of your imagination, and has no basis within the legal system, only your mind.
What part of "in a sense" did you fail to understand?
This person has no legal basis to hack the account of Sarah Palin.
What part of "the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it" did you fail to understand?
Illegally obtained evidence is usually thrown out.
Illegally obtained evidence is thrown out when it falls afoul of the exclusionary rule - as in it was illegally obtained by the police or someone working under the direction of the police. Independently acquired evidence is plenty admissible.
It is NOT the moral imperative of individuals to do illegal actions in the hopes of catching a criminal.
It is in lots of cases, especially when the criminal is of the group of people that are shepherds of the law. By virtue of that position they have the least moral claim of anyone to a right of privacy to hide their criminal actions.
Really? You are mister semantics now? What happened to "this is a conversation?' I said that on the internet "open" has always meant free and I cited RFCs in general. You cite a couple of RFCs that were extremely weak exceptions to the general example. That doesn't invalidate my original point that on the internet open means free even if that's not the case in other areas but here you are saying "just admit you made a mistake. Congratulations - your focus on trivialities totally brought new insight to the "conversation."
Not even close. I'm not, you're not, and he's not a government employee.
I see you are unable to get past your backwards phrasing of the situation. Politicians are employees of the public, full stop.
You have a right to privacy, so does she. That she was doing evil stuff is not the issue here-- the ends don't justify the means.
Nobody has a right to privacy in order to commit a crime. That he didn't follow official procedure does not change the moral nature of his act. Like you said he is not a government employee, he's not morally bound to follow official procedure. What he did may have been illegal, but the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it.
CIting exceptions doesn't make what he did legal or ethical at all, did it? Was Palin his employer?
No, but as a public official she was in a sense his employee. His intent was to find evidence of criminal and ethical violations - which he did. He found and posted evidence of Palin conducting government business (correspondence with other public officials) via a private email account that was not subject to public archival. She was even charged as a result, but she was found not guilty due to the law in alaska being too vague.
I think they should be required by law to only process non-evil bits. The implementation is trivial: just add an extra "evil" bit to every bit.
We can do better.
Add a couple of bits and use them for ECC - Evil Cleansing Code - that way you can make sure that if any evil ever gets in to the system it is automatically cleaned out.
I'm not saying it is or isn't the right choice for your circumstances - I'm saying its amazing an entire department of people have put up with it, especially without burning out - either bad morale leading to the don't-give-a-shits or just plain mental exhaustion.
The TFA says it's better because it uses visible light rather than magnetic radio waves. It doesn't give any reasons why thats better.
Because it doesn't require special shielding to prevent snooping from outside the room. Each iteration of Wifi encryption is inevitably shown to be too weak.
Eh, more like the same role that a chauffeur is responsible to fill in preventing the use of it's driven vehicles as getaway cars from scenes of crimes.
After all, once Ford makes a car they're done, right? EC2 is continually crunching numbers until it's cracked.
I say they should be the equivalent of a common-carrier. Let the government get a warrant if they want to snoop on the work someone does or to force amazon to cut them off. Otherwise keep on crunching just like the phone company keeps on connecting phone calls of drug dealers.
However, they are providing us high quality lunch and dinner at our desks. The crew is mostly senior resources (35 to 50 years old) with 12+ years experience).
That's it? Nice meals? No over-time? No bonus? No extra paid vacation days? Nothing else? I can see a bunch of 20-somethings out of college putting up with that. But most people 35-50 have a family life and have seen a death-march or two before and wouldn't be willing to throw away a year in the life of their kids for nothing.
Like you decided to redefine what a "Request For Comments" is?
Classic nube mistake to take the name literally. RFCs are part of a process that produces standards - not just defacto standards, but actual standards too. See rfc1796 for a discussion of the process.
In addition, Bill the Engineer's citations are off the mark - RFC 2281 - Cisco HSRP - is informational only. In the case of RFC3984 - RTP Payload Format for H.264 - there is no patent encumbrance on the standard described. It's just a description of how to packetize an h264 datastream but no patents are required to implement that packetization. Arguing that it does require patent licensing would be like arguing that HTTP requires patent licensing because h264 can be streamed over HTTP.
So I stand by my original assertion with a minor modification - the RFCs on which the internet have been built are fully free to implement.
The requirement to be free to implement is a relatively new addition to the definition (within the last 10-15 years).
And yet the requirement of being free to implement has been at the core of the internet since the 1960s when RFC0001, defining the protocol for IMP host communications, was published. ISO's involvement in the internet didn't really come until they published the dead-on-arrival OSI protocol suite in the early 80s.
So a requirement of being free to implement is 100% in line with historical precedent for internet related standards.
That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point?
Because it fudges the profit numbers. Firing people doesn't hurt the revenue stream until a few quarters or even years down the road. But it significantly reduces costs which can provide a temporary bump in profitability. Buyout candidates have been doing this for longer than I've been alive and for some reason it still seems to fool potential buyers.
So what? If you don't like closed content, just don't use it!
That only works if you don't like closed content for purely selfish reasons. If you believe, as many do, that the DRM is inherently bad for society in general, then it is important to go far beyond simply avoiding it yourself. It is necessary to convince as many others as possible about the problems DRM creates for us all.
Slashdot Mirror
Err....how did he get into Harvard Law with a 3.3?
Must have been a legacy.
You think I'm making a joke about Bush getting into Yale, but actually Obama's father got his masters at Harvard.
So, what has the empty suit in the white house done different from Bush that can be looked at and defended as a superior action? When he actually does anything, it turns out to be the same position Bush took.
So, repealing don't ask don't tell is indefensible? Reversing Bush's ban on stem cell research?
I hear a lot of sniping at Bush, but not a lot of considered and defended arguments in opposition to his opinions or actions.
I suspect that's because you don't listen for them. Criticism of Bush's policies is legion.
Shhh. you are going to hurt their feelings. I mean putting a man who has achieved so much more then them down can only be looked at as an attempt to feel better about themselves.
Really? Name ONE thing he did that is a meaningful aspiration.
Would it have been so hard for the Mozilla developers to just add a config option to pick where the status bar display goes?
I'm fully expecting an add-on to do it any day now.
Seems like it should be dead simple to implement.
In general it is a good thing. But why not go a bit further. I have the line File/Edit/.../Help and there is a LOT of place right there after that. Perhaps a good place to have the status bar icons from right to left.
I put the search bar and a couple of plugin icons (adblock, noscript, requestpolicy, cookiesafe) there - just right-click on the empty space, choose customize from the menu and drag the search bar and any other icons up there.
It's a great idea. I'd like to see one additional factor added -that through crypotographic means the system would require that the recipient of an unique ID also provide some sort of key unique to that transaction in order for the central database to reverse the unique ID back to the "citizen ID" - that way it would be impossible for anyone with access to the central database to just generate a list of all unique IDs for a specific "citizen ID." That would still serve the purpose of dealing with individual cases of fraud and other crimes but would make globally trawling database for a list of everything the "citizen ID" has been associated with impracticle - much like the way a series of cash transactions is practically impossible to trace back to a single individual without the active help of every party to every transaction.
FWIW, I've been thinking along similar lines for medical records - instead of a centralized database of medical records, we should be looking at systems that keep each person's records on their person - in a smart phone, or a wireless PDA or something like that. If a doctor needs a a record from a patient, he can request it and the patient gets a request notice on their phone for that specific record - they can then confirm or deny and in confirming they can specify max number of copies and an expiration date. The entire system can be enough of a "closed loop" that DRM could actually be used to enforce that stuff - it doesn't need to be perfect (e.g. nothing will stop a person with a camera taking pictures of a monitor screen), just enough to prevent systemic misuse of medical records. In the case of an emergency where the patient is incapacitated, physical access to the phone would enable a single-generation, short-term-expiration copy of any record on the phone.
The similarity with your idea is that in both cases, control rests with the individual and not with the owner of any centralized system - be it the official central database or an ad-hoc centralization like johnhp mistakenly suggested.
One of many. You should really read up on this stuff.
OK. Go ahead, make a fool of me, show me 5 RFCs that have achieved STD status that contain not-free-to-implement technology.
Hell, show me ONE.
Whatever.
Yes, just like my teenage daughter - when faced with the failure of your own logic, just pretend not to understand and dismiss it with "whatever."
Your "full stop" is a product of your imagination, and has no basis within the legal system, only your mind.
What part of "in a sense" did you fail to understand?
This person has no legal basis to hack the account of Sarah Palin.
What part of "the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it" did you fail to understand?
Illegally obtained evidence is usually thrown out.
Illegally obtained evidence is thrown out when it falls afoul of the exclusionary rule - as in it was illegally obtained by the police or someone working under the direction of the police. Independently acquired evidence is plenty admissible.
It is NOT the moral imperative of individuals to do illegal actions in the hopes of catching a criminal.
It is in lots of cases, especially when the criminal is of the group of people that are shepherds of the law. By virtue of that position they have the least moral claim of anyone to a right of privacy to hide their criminal actions.
Which part of my conversation did I say that?
Really? You are mister semantics now? What happened to "this is a conversation?'
I said that on the internet "open" has always meant free and I cited RFCs in general.
You cite a couple of RFCs that were extremely weak exceptions to the general example.
That doesn't invalidate my original point that on the internet open means free even if that's not the case in other areas but here you are saying "just admit you made a mistake.
Congratulations - your focus on trivialities totally brought new insight to the "conversation."
Not even close. I'm not, you're not, and he's not a government employee.
I see you are unable to get past your backwards phrasing of the situation.
Politicians are employees of the public, full stop.
You have a right to privacy, so does she. That she was doing evil stuff is not the issue here-- the ends don't justify the means.
Nobody has a right to privacy in order to commit a crime. That he didn't follow official procedure does not change the moral nature of his act. Like you said he is not a government employee, he's not morally bound to follow official procedure. What he did may have been illegal, but the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it.
CIting exceptions doesn't make what he did legal or ethical at all, did it? Was Palin his employer?
No, but as a public official she was in a sense his employee. His intent was to find evidence of criminal and ethical violations - which he did. He found and posted evidence of Palin conducting government business (correspondence with other public officials) via a private email account that was not subject to public archival. She was even charged as a result, but she was found not guilty due to the law in alaska being too vague.
I think they should be required by law to only process non-evil bits. The implementation is trivial: just add an extra "evil" bit to every bit.
We can do better.
Add a couple of bits and use them for ECC - Evil Cleansing Code - that way you can make sure that if any evil ever gets in to the system it is automatically cleaned out.
I'm not saying it is or isn't the right choice for your circumstances - I'm saying its amazing an entire department of people have put up with it, especially without burning out - either bad morale leading to the don't-give-a-shits or just plain mental exhaustion.
The TFA says it's better because it uses visible light rather than magnetic radio waves. It doesn't give any reasons why thats better.
Because it doesn't require special shielding to prevent snooping from outside the room.
Each iteration of Wifi encryption is inevitably shown to be too weak.
Eh, more like the same role that a chauffeur is responsible to fill in preventing the use of it's driven vehicles as getaway cars from scenes of crimes.
After all, once Ford makes a car they're done, right? EC2 is continually crunching numbers until it's cracked.
I say they should be the equivalent of a common-carrier. Let the government get a warrant if they want to snoop on the work someone does or to force amazon to cut them off. Otherwise keep on crunching just like the phone company keeps on connecting phone calls of drug dealers.
However, they are providing us high quality lunch and dinner at our desks. The crew is mostly senior resources (35 to 50 years old) with 12+ years experience).
That's it? Nice meals? No over-time? No bonus? No extra paid vacation days? Nothing else?
I can see a bunch of 20-somethings out of college putting up with that. But most people 35-50 have a family life and have seen a death-march or two before and wouldn't be willing to throw away a year in the life of their kids for nothing.
What? Just admit you were mistaken and move on... It's not a contest, just a conversation.
What? As far as I can tell you are the one who is mistaken.
What part of the internet being built on free to implement standards is new?
Like you decided to redefine what a "Request For Comments" is?
Classic nube mistake to take the name literally. RFCs are part of a process that produces standards - not just defacto standards, but actual standards too. See rfc1796 for a discussion of the process.
In addition, Bill the Engineer's citations are off the mark - RFC 2281 - Cisco HSRP - is informational only. In the case of RFC3984 - RTP Payload Format for H.264 - there is no patent encumbrance on the standard described. It's just a description of how to packetize an h264 datastream but no patents are required to implement that packetization. Arguing that it does require patent licensing would be like arguing that HTTP requires patent licensing because h264 can be streamed over HTTP.
So I stand by my original assertion with a minor modification - the RFCs on which the internet have been built are fully free to implement.
Wrong. Take RFC 2281 (Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol) for example:
Ok, then for the first 30 years they were free to implement. Then somebody decided to redefine what an RFC was.
Open didn't mean free.
On the internet it always has, all RFCs are free to implement.
The requirement to be free to implement is a relatively new addition to the definition (within the last 10-15 years).
And yet the requirement of being free to implement has been at the core of the internet since the 1960s when RFC0001, defining the protocol for IMP host communications, was published. ISO's involvement in the internet didn't really come until they published the dead-on-arrival OSI protocol suite in the early 80s.
So a requirement of being free to implement is 100% in line with historical precedent for internet related standards.
That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point?
Because it fudges the profit numbers. Firing people doesn't hurt the revenue stream until a few quarters or even years down the road. But it significantly reduces costs which can provide a temporary bump in profitability. Buyout candidates have been doing this for longer than I've been alive and for some reason it still seems to fool potential buyers.
So what? If you don't like closed content, just don't use it!
That only works if you don't like closed content for purely selfish reasons.
If you believe, as many do, that the DRM is inherently bad for society in general, then it is important to go far beyond simply avoiding it yourself. It is necessary to convince as many others as possible about the problems DRM creates for us all.
I agree that the similarity of names has caused a lot of confusion, however... although there's squat all that can be done about it now.
Well, we could all refer to it by the ISO designation ECZEMAScript, er, ECMAScript.
it was granted contingent on my returning when requested,
That's fine and dandy for you, but that's not what happened here. There were no contingencies.