Please read all of this post before considering blowing up:)
Hmm I think very few seem to realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Yes I.D. can be said to not be science and many parts (not all) of I.D. definetly isn't science imo but if one says that (and I do and so does a lot of other people at Slashdot (be it in more absolute terms) although I don't think they know of the consequences of saying so) then one has to be intellectually honest enough to admit that a lot (not all) of the theory of evolution isn't science either.
*imagines hordes of Slashdotters going "BOOM" at this point* j/k;)
If it is any consolation many I.D.'ers will probably go "BOOM" too... because, yes, as the parent alluded to many I.D. "groupies" don't get the subject at hand either - just like "Evolution" groupies.
Those who are interested in looking into this rabbit hole (taking the red pill) instead of just continuing the debate without understanding how someone (like me) can actually make such a claim should read the link provided in this Marxist Hacker 42 journal entry: http://slashdot.org/~Marxist%20Hacker%2042/journal /124769
The link in the journal entry goes to an I.D. article which is fairly well written (there are some mistakes but no "show-stoppers") and which tries to argue why I.D. is science or at least should be considered equal to the theories of evolution/descent.
I recommend reading it to anyone who knows or can be bothered to learn (wikipedia will do - it's pretty good on PoS) at least rudimentary Philosophy of Science. Yes it is long, no it is not bullshit (if it seems like bullshit readers should take that as a cue to brush up on their PoS vocabulary/knowledge (yes I know PoS isn't the best of acronyms lol)).
Now contrary to the aim of the article in my opinion it actually shows why neither should be seen as pure science but that's simply my opinon (based on my conviction that one actually can demarcate science from non-science -- not that PoS is "finished" with that yet; if it was this very debate would be non-existent).
Imo people are pissed off (on both sides) because they're more interested in Being Right TM by following whatever their previous opinions would determine/demand than actual discussion. It is enticingly easy to get pissed off that way and has nothing to do with rational thought or science... frustration abounds and everybody find themselves in the trenches.
I have to agree with dan_sdot: most people do not have a clue as to what I.D. actually is or that they're actually portraying themselves as Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists in their supposed rebuttals of I.D.. They usually don't know that I.D. doesn't discard evolution in its entirety and as such isn't anti-evolution (but it is anti-Darwinism). They obviously are unaware that many (if not most) scientists (non-I.D.'ers) are very sceptical towards Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and other forms of "extended" evolutionary views as well as I.D. for pretty much the same reasons: those have slim (some would say non-existent) scientific credentials as a whole (though individual parts of the aforementioned "ideologies" are accepted and do have their scientific credence).
In the end I guess one can only laugh; the whole topic seems to have degenerated into a debacle of two vocal but ignorant groups hitting each other over the head with the same kind of faulty arguments while the rest of the world goes on with its business.
I think a lot of Slashdotters could benefit from reading the parent's link, unless they completely misunderstand it and go apeshit and join the KKK or something like that *shudder*.
With all the ardent selfrighteous and monoconceptual elitism around here it might be just as well to let it all silently slip by... but if "we" do that then we're not much better than those we don't wish to be like.
Use the tags (you create them) for a few weeks and you'll realize that they're almost folders version 2. Imo there are two big differences to folders in most file systems: 1. You have the feature of being able to have the same file in several folders...opps sorry I mean tags... at the same time. 2. You can't have tags inside each other like subfolders. It would be cool if it was possible because it would allow for using hierarchical structures if you need it anywhere (perhaps it is possible and I just haven't figured it out). What's more it would allow for having the same subfolder/subtag in different tags just like the files!
In case noone else has I claim authorship of the idea of subtags in point number two and place it in the public domain by posting this post. Anybody is free to implement it as far as I am concerned.
Oh... now I got an additional idea. With folders you've got/. and/.. functionality but with tags you'ld want an additional/... feature to turn off/on recursive subtag/tree availability independently for each instance of the subtag placement... This is now public domain too as far as I am concerned:)
Google if you're interested in a cronically ill slacker without any qualifications but with the occasional interesting idea (or perhaps these were the last I'll ever have?) track me down (I know you can) and offer me a job (I'll move to the states if you want me to).
This is getting ridiculous you really need to read the page I linked to or people will mistake you for a troll (or worse).
In-band or not the exchange of public keys in for example GPG requires a properly executed check of the signed public key to be correctly executed. If the key is correctly signed by trusted sources (and you are at complete liberty to decide who those are) it is valid and if not it is not valid. As long as the signing is properly validated the transmission medium is irrelevant. Most people will (and should) have their signed public key(s) accessible from multiple sources like home pages, key servers, e-mail (autoreply or if asked), and of course in person, so crosschecking is a good start and of course you might want to have a look at who has added their signature to the public key and actually check as many of their signatures as you want to.
It is exactly because of the opposite of an overly strong sense of security that one does this. If one feels the use of signed public keys is not up to the task one uses one-time pads delivered in person. If one feels one-time pads aren't enough one shuts up;)
Whoever doesn't believe that any government spies on absolutely anyone (citizens or not) it feels a need to spy on are totally naive and complete morons. It's not paranoia (I'm not saying they spy on me; and if they do I kinda feel sorry for them cause it's gotta be boring) it's called being realistic.
Whoever thinks that it has to be either a solely good or bad thing are also totally naive and complete morons.
Yes, right now I probably offended something like 60% of Slashdot and it doesn't matter:)
As stated IANACE (I Am Not A Cryptography Expert).
I read the original post before my initial reply. It seems to me you equate "We begin the call in the clear. We tell each other our public encryption key." (in the original) with doing so without Alice & Bob actually having any reason to trust each others identity/keys. Alice & Bob would never do that unless they were completely ignorant of the purpose of what they are doing and the original poster does not say that they do it in such a flawed way. It is inherently assumed that one does the exchange correctly and it's simply a non-issue.
I apologize if that feels personal, it's not intended as such, but it's hard to not speak up when ones sees a concept turned completely on its head and modded up.
You know I'm not really sure what you wanted to say was but it reminded me of why so much (not all -- important caveat) of the noise about stuff like this is completely idiotic as I'm sure datamining of publicly available material (and there's lots of it) like Slashdot or similar forums would/should/could be much more scary for those shouting on the top of their lungs about civil liberties than any wiretap.
As usual I'm left with the impression that the "opposition" whatever form it takes is as usual extremely (and loudly) busy with fighting a labyrinth of imagined windmills (and any, if there are any, truly important views and issues completely disappear beneath all the noise).
Perhaps something to think about for those it may concern (everybody).
...of public keys: that the public keys have been signed by numerous third parties (signing parties, trusted individuals, etc.) or handed over in person from the owner of the public key.
Afaik (IANACE) the above totally removes the possibility of the specific man in the middle attack you described and is basic knowledge about using for example GPG or PGP public key encryption: http://www.cryptnet.net/fdp/crypto/gpg-party.html# ss1.2
Nothing personal but it's pretty sad to see your claim modded up -- it shouldn't be hard to realize who did so (people without knowledge) and why (it made the puzzle of their worldview go "click!" and suddenly all the delusions made more sense to them).
p.s. such an obvious joke and still someone didn't get it, hope you get modded up p.p.s. I almost never receive modpoints to hand out otherwise I would have done it
"The ridiculous thing is that there is plenty of room for evolution in the Christian faith."
Of course there is and it applies to any religion I know of (including my own personal beliefs). And now for the shocker: there is even plenty of room for evolution in I.D.!
It speaks volumes about the public debate about I.D. that people are talking about I.D. as if it aims to disprove any and all kinds of evolution as it does not. What it does however is criticize widely accepted and large portions of the scientific theory of evolution . What I.D. is saying can be, in a very simplified manner, described as the theory of evolution not being enough to scientifically explain all that it seeks to explain. Yes there is more but that is a large part of what I.D. is about.
So why has it become a debate about religion vs. science? Well it takes two to fight and imo it's because of droves of unintelligent sheep flocking to two additional sides: creationists and ultra-materialists, and these two sides are trying to use the scientific controversy to their own political gains (and in the process fucking everybody over several times as well as science).
"Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution.""
No it's the other way around I.D. is based on one point of view among biologists trying to find how something as complex as for example a flagellum could evolve. In their opinon they did not find any satisfactory answers within the confines of the theory (in the scientific sense of the word) of evolution. They also think there are other scientific flaws within the theory of evolution or at least in how it is being backed up and taught. Of course other scientists disagree with them and that's fine.
I.D. doesn't say that evolution doesn't occur, it is saying that evolution does not provide enough explanation and that there are parts of the theory of evolution that are simply wrong and even larger parts which are on very shaky ground scientifically. But not all of it.
"Their is a conundrum here when ID proponents say these supposedly "enormously" complex structures couldn't possibly have spontaneously sprung in to existence on their own."
I'm sure some of them, or more precisely some adherents of them, put it this way but the point of the matter is as explained above. You wouldn't say that someone who manufactured a car or similar just made it "spring into existence" would you?
"The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness."
Sorry but that is easily a straw man argument as a lot of religious people believe god is eternal in both directions. I'm religous myself (no organised religion though and I don't see either I.D. or evolution as having anything to do with religion) and I consider the idea of a god having to spring into existence totally absurd (I could go into a scorching rant and use worse words) as imo god is not confined by time/space-time.
Since the rest of your post is your conclusion from the above quotes it shouldn't be necessary to reply to.
Now, I.D. might be totally wrong or completely right or somewhat right/wrong (imo the last is the case) but why not try to get going a real discussion about the topics instead of the illinformed inflamed opinions that dominate Slashdot on these subjects?
Btw here's a link to a page by Michael Behe http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html who is probably the most recognized scientist among those who are behind I.D.. It doesn't directly concern I.D. and it might give a more nuanced impression of the scientist. Imo a lot of people on both sides desperately need that.
I agree Creationism isn't science and do not belong in a science (class)room but I do believe the scepticism towards macroevolution and other prescisely formulated challenges to the theory of evolution that I.D. carries absolutely do belong in a science classroom.
What science is left in science if there's not room for controversial challenges to the perceived notion of truth? Some challenges will be flawed and some wont but it's not scientific to browbeat such challenges rather than scientifically respond to them. Such argument should be a godsend (sorry) for any intelligent teacher as an excellent tool for showing students how science is meant to work through an "eternal" cycle of bickering (aka discussion about facts and their interpretation).
At least it would be if instead of the "pro-scientists" running crying to the courts they'd take on the "battle" by explaining why I.D.'s challenges are wrong without browbeating and ridiculing their opponents while commiting just about every "logical" fallacy under the sun:) (not that it means they're the only ones).
Well actually... now that I think of it to browbeat opponents would be typical of scientists and has always happened, to the detriment of science because one has to wait for stubborn people to die before a new idea or view of things can be dealt with without bias and tons of selfesteem on the line. It happened to Darwin too.
Sorry to be blunt but that bit about "no amount of training" is pure bs and I don't care who says it be it admins, back-seat driving admins or anybody else. Yes social engineering will always exist and some people will fall for it, deservedly or not, but for your own sake the issue is not to eradicate social engineering: the issue is to make it too costly/inefficient for whoever does it. Stopping phising scams is simple: treat every link in any unencrypted email as a scam and be careful about encrypted ones as well; you must trust the encryption for it to have any value at all.
This means: never ever use a link from any email no matter how supposedly "right" that link is for anything involving money or confidential information like passwords or even user names. There actually isn't any real reason to use links like that to provide any kind of information no matter how "worthless", even clicking on a link provides a bit of information to a would-be scammer because it takes you somewhere (they'll get a traceback in some form).
If a company that you have a (private or otherwise) business relationship with sends you an offer by solicited email then do not use that email to take advantage of said offer but instead contact said company about the offer through other means like going directly to their main website page or more sensibly (at least if we're talking about other stuff than buying a book at a discount etc.) by making a call.
In case the offer is only available through the email: 1: the likelihood of it being a scam is close to 100% (and please note that the inverse does not hold true and in addition is irrelevant: don't click or in any way use that link) 2: the business is stating that they do not want you as their customer for that offer - disregard it and if you care you can tell them about the adverse effects of acting in such a way
And of course if it is an unsolicited mail then instead just treat it as spam.
Would any user conduct any sort of business by sending postcards? That is what unecrypted mail is and if explained to a user as such anyone with a modicum of intelligence will get it.
When they get the postcard comparison then tell them that it's a special postcard that automatically includes knowledge of their actions (when, where, and how you wrote that postcard and possibly more) to a greater detail (and with a lot more uses) than any normal postcard would do. In addition this "postcard" is accessible to a lot more people than would usually get access to a real postcard (and that number is already quite high).
Anyway all this is just the tip of the iceberg: most companies (or people, governments, and other organisations) do not use encryption of either internal or external email and it's begging for disasters. The worst of it is that it is not hard to avoid those disasters and start using encryption.
Afaik the chances of that happening are 100% when you have a rickety moderation system where one can "reuse" or hoard mod points and combine it with some Slashdotters being overly touchy in any direction (left, right, wacko, loon, or anti-laugh).
At least that's what I think when it happens to me:)
p.s. I might be wrong about the "reuse" & hoard stuff - I just think/hope it's the most likely explanation.
I do agree but I want to embellish it with what I think it's about (no guarantee that this is the "correct" view, think and decide for yourselves).
Does it mean that rich people shouldn't donate? No Does it mean we shouldn't encourage rich people to donate? No Does it mean that we shouldn't be happy when rich people donate? No
What it means is that we shouldn't scoff at those who donate the little they have just because they're poor and can't give "much" dollar-for-dollar.
What it means is that we should applaud those people who have little but still give as much as they can, some of them even give everything they have.
I'm sure there are some rich persons who have given away everything too but even then it is how much they give the next day when they're poor which will really be comparable to the "widow".
What it means is that we shouldn't be full of pride for what we do, that we gave so-and-so much, because how many people notice those "widows" giving everything they've got? They never make any fuss over it themselves.
So it is a teaching about sacrifice and humility.
But we should also applaud something which is more widespread among the rich in the US than anywhere else (it's slowly catching on in Europe -- at least in Norway -- and hopefully around the world (I'm hearing about good efforts from Jackie Chan)): philantrophy.
I'd like to congratulate Bill, Melinda & Bono because they are trying. No, they will never reach the level of the poor widow in the temple (few of any of us do, at least I don't) but they are far far less hypocrites than many rich people (and average people) who do even less than them percentage-wise.
As for Time and their opinions I couldn't care less, the common journalists are among the biggest (if not the biggest) hypocrites in any way you can find anywhere, and the whole idea of nominating a person(s) of the year is to increase profit (which is not bad in itself unless it becomes the sole aim of the journalism and I dare say that it is in this case).
Last but not least let's not forget all the things lots of people do/give that doesn't involve money at all be it various volunteer work, open source or even donating spare CPU cycles: it all counts.
Suddenly I find myself appreciating seals even more than before (apologies to rich people owning boats but you guys are probably rich enough to buy another one, not to speak of insurance money...).
However on a slightly more serious note: won't anybody please. ple-e-e-ease, think of THE FISH and lift the protection on californian seals?;)
First of all nice post, I see your point of view and share a wish for polar bears and animals (and plants) in general to survive but I'm way more concerned about effects of pollution on animals (and humans for that matter) than anything else including loss of habitat --only to a certain level of course: they all need "enough" habitat.
I don't see the link between drowning (which may or may not happen often and may or may not be a new thing) and extinction since polar bears live in plenty of areas that aren't made up of freefloating ice but actually ice and snow on land.
I can see how it might split up polar bears and decrease their numbers and so on, but not extinction. Polar bears are perfectly capable of surviving without large expanses of floating ice or for that matter cold and winter (although that would have a greater effect).
Places that comes to mind as excellent polar bear country, which has significant landmass, and in which they've already established themselves are: Greenland (huge) parts of Siberia (huge) parts of Canada (huge) Spitsbergen/Svalbard (a small place though so it doesn't necessarily count and too far away for a swim to northern Norway (we don't actually have polar bears walking in the streets on the mainland:) )
As far as I can understand any climate change would have to be even more drastic and sulfurfilled than the worst fantasies of fanatically religious environmentalists to make polar bears extinct. To my knowledge most climate scientists say that global warming will lead to colder weather at the poles and more precipitation (snow). Not that that's an argument in any way as they all seem to be talking out of their asses giving totally divergent and contradicting "predictions", I'll instead give credence to NASA measurements and real empirical meteorologist rather than simulation-addicted environmentalists (oops this turned into a rant, sorry about that:) ).
Anyway I might be wrong, so if you or anyone else can fill in the gaps between the drowning and the extinction please do so.
Disclaimer: I'm very sceptical towards the idea of human-triggered climate changes (be it warming or cooling or both and anything) as well as the strong tendency for crisis-maximizing by any and all environmental scientists (be it from honest alarm or securing funds).
I know this M1 link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Helmet states that: "Many men thought that when a bomb went off etc., the chinstrap would snap their neck when the helmet wold be blown off their head. This was also a disproved theory."
"During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of 15 pounds or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944".
However I was erroneously taught that yes unless one wears the helmet correctly (chin strap on the chin not under it) you could get your neck snapped... and at that even from small caliber fire like the AG-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG-3... all of which is plainly wrong but I don't mind: it's typical of the numerous reasons why I didn't go for a career in the norwegian armed forces (some of which actually have a clue; no disrespect to them).
Whichever way one looks at it it becomes obvious that it's not enough to simply stop the bullet; one has to engineer personal armor and helmets to also absorb and dissipate as much as possible of the energy, or actually break/release if needed to.
Oh and the M1 sucked and was a pain in the ass to wear and according to the combatreform link the PASGT hasn't been much better. It's no use having a helmet if it constantly falls off/drops down into your field of vision, makes it hard to hear stuff, chafes and limits head movement significantly... no wonder a lot people simply didn't wear it (I wouldn't either).
It's better transposed. If you think a bit about it (in a cause-effect way) you should instead say:
Peace is War - we're at war but most citizens live in peace, there has been war in peace since 1945 and it will never end because mostly it removes the necessity for largescale physical war
Slavery is Freedom - earning a living no matter to what degree prepoposes more or less voluntary slavery, to have freedom you must "enslave" yourself to the basic tenets of whatever society you live in (has always been the case but scales naturally along with population size and maximum density/average density)
Strength is ignorance - two parts; if you're strong (economic, military, or political might on a personal or national level) you have the ability to be more ignorant without overly adverse effects, and if you predominantly believe in strenght at the cost of other things you are increasingly likely to be ignorant (applies to both economic and military strenght as well as "the mob" of political wannabees at every level ranting for their "cause").
Not exactly what Orwell intended and thought about when writing 1984 but more descriptive and correct for the present situation than repeating Orwell.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read all of this post before considering blowing up :)
;)
l /124769
Hmm I think very few seem to realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Yes I.D. can be said to not be science and many parts (not all) of I.D. definetly isn't science imo but if one says that (and I do and so does a lot of other people at Slashdot (be it in more absolute terms) although I don't think they know of the consequences of saying so) then one has to be intellectually honest enough to admit that a lot (not all) of the theory of evolution isn't science either.
*imagines hordes of Slashdotters going "BOOM" at this point* j/k
If it is any consolation many I.D.'ers will probably go "BOOM" too... because, yes, as the parent alluded to many I.D. "groupies" don't get the subject at hand either - just like "Evolution" groupies.
Those who are interested in looking into this rabbit hole (taking the red pill) instead of just continuing the debate without understanding how someone (like me) can actually make such a claim should read the link provided in this Marxist Hacker 42 journal entry: http://slashdot.org/~Marxist%20Hacker%2042/journa
The link in the journal entry goes to an I.D. article which is fairly well written (there are some mistakes but no "show-stoppers") and which tries to argue why I.D. is science or at least should be considered equal to the theories of evolution/descent.
I recommend reading it to anyone who knows or can be bothered to learn (wikipedia will do - it's pretty good on PoS) at least rudimentary Philosophy of Science. Yes it is long, no it is not bullshit (if it seems like bullshit readers should take that as a cue to brush up on their PoS vocabulary/knowledge (yes I know PoS isn't the best of acronyms lol)).
Now contrary to the aim of the article in my opinion it actually shows why neither should be seen as pure science but that's simply my opinon (based on my conviction that one actually can demarcate science from non-science -- not that PoS is "finished" with that yet; if it was this very debate would be non-existent).
Imo people are pissed off (on both sides) because they're more interested in Being Right TM by following whatever their previous opinions would determine/demand than actual discussion. It is enticingly easy to get pissed off that way and has nothing to do with rational thought or science... frustration abounds and everybody find themselves in the trenches.
I have to agree with dan_sdot: most people do not have a clue as to what I.D. actually is or that they're actually portraying themselves as Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists in their supposed rebuttals of I.D.. They usually don't know that I.D. doesn't discard evolution in its entirety and as such isn't anti-evolution (but it is anti-Darwinism). They obviously are unaware that many (if not most) scientists (non-I.D.'ers) are very sceptical towards Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and other forms of "extended" evolutionary views as well as I.D. for pretty much the same reasons: those have slim (some would say non-existent) scientific credentials as a whole (though individual parts of the aforementioned "ideologies" are accepted and do have their scientific credence).
In the end I guess one can only laugh; the whole topic seems to have degenerated into a debacle of two vocal but ignorant groups hitting each other over the head with the same kind of faulty arguments while the rest of the world goes on with its business.
Or perhaps not... could be a paradox.
:S
I think a lot of Slashdotters could benefit from reading the parent's link, unless they completely misunderstand it and go apeshit and join the KKK or something like that *shudder*.
With all the ardent selfrighteous and monoconceptual elitism around here it might be just as well to let it all silently slip by... but if "we" do that then we're not much better than those we don't wish to be like.
I guess it's a toss-up
Use the tags (you create them) for a few weeks and you'll realize that they're almost folders version 2. Imo there are two big differences to folders in most file systems: ...opps sorry I mean tags... at the same time.
/. and /.. functionality but with tags you'ld want an additional /... feature to turn off/on recursive subtag/tree availability independently for each instance of the subtag placement... This is now public domain too as far as I am concerned :)
1. You have the feature of being able to have the same file in several folders
2. You can't have tags inside each other like subfolders. It would be cool if it was possible because it would allow for using hierarchical structures if you need it anywhere (perhaps it is possible and I just haven't figured it out). What's more it would allow for having the same subfolder/subtag in different tags just like the files!
In case noone else has I claim authorship of the idea of subtags in point number two and place it in the public domain by posting this post. Anybody is free to implement it as far as I am concerned.
Oh... now I got an additional idea. With folders you've got
Google if you're interested in a cronically ill slacker without any qualifications but with the occasional interesting idea (or perhaps these were the last I'll ever have?) track me down (I know you can) and offer me a job (I'll move to the states if you want me to).
This is getting ridiculous you really need to read the page I linked to or people will mistake you for a troll (or worse).
;)
:)
In-band or not the exchange of public keys in for example GPG requires a properly executed check of the signed public key to be correctly executed. If the key is correctly signed by trusted sources (and you are at complete liberty to decide who those are) it is valid and if not it is not valid. As long as the signing is properly validated the transmission medium is irrelevant. Most people will (and should) have their signed public key(s) accessible from multiple sources like home pages, key servers, e-mail (autoreply or if asked), and of course in person, so crosschecking is a good start and of course you might want to have a look at who has added their signature to the public key and actually check as many of their signatures as you want to.
It is exactly because of the opposite of an overly strong sense of security that one does this. If one feels the use of signed public keys is not up to the task one uses one-time pads delivered in person. If one feels one-time pads aren't enough one shuts up
Whoever doesn't believe that any government spies on absolutely anyone (citizens or not) it feels a need to spy on are totally naive and complete morons. It's not paranoia (I'm not saying they spy on me; and if they do I kinda feel sorry for them cause it's gotta be boring) it's called being realistic.
Whoever thinks that it has to be either a solely good or bad thing are also totally naive and complete morons.
Yes, right now I probably offended something like 60% of Slashdot and it doesn't matter
As stated IANACE (I Am Not A Cryptography Expert).
I read the original post before my initial reply. It seems to me you equate "We begin the call in the clear. We tell each other our public encryption key." (in the original) with doing so without Alice & Bob actually having any reason to trust each others identity/keys. Alice & Bob would never do that unless they were completely ignorant of the purpose of what they are doing and the original poster does not say that they do it in such a flawed way. It is inherently assumed that one does the exchange correctly and it's simply a non-issue.
I apologize if that feels personal, it's not intended as such, but it's hard to not speak up when ones sees a concept turned completely on its head and modded up.
You know I'm not really sure what you wanted to say was but it reminded me of why so much (not all -- important caveat) of the noise about stuff like this is completely idiotic as I'm sure datamining of publicly available material (and there's lots of it) like Slashdot or similar forums would/should/could be much more scary for those shouting on the top of their lungs about civil liberties than any wiretap.
As usual I'm left with the impression that the "opposition" whatever form it takes is as usual extremely (and loudly) busy with fighting a labyrinth of imagined windmills (and any, if there are any, truly important views and issues completely disappear beneath all the noise).
Perhaps something to think about for those it may concern (everybody).
...of public keys: that the public keys have been signed by numerous third parties (signing parties, trusted individuals, etc.) or handed over in person from the owner of the public key.
# ss1.2
Afaik (IANACE) the above totally removes the possibility of the specific man in the middle attack you described and is basic knowledge about using for example GPG or PGP public key encryption: http://www.cryptnet.net/fdp/crypto/gpg-party.html
Nothing personal but it's pretty sad to see your claim modded up -- it shouldn't be hard to realize who did so (people without knowledge) and why (it made the puzzle of their worldview go "click!" and suddenly all the delusions made more sense to them).
He's got good taste it's a beautiful song :)
It's all porn: infoporn!
infoporn:
information and statistics arranged with seducing graphs, charts, and other eyecandy
Nothing to see here, please move along and use your mod points wisely :)
Lol :)
p.s. such an obvious joke and still someone didn't get it, hope you get modded up
p.p.s. I almost never receive modpoints to hand out otherwise I would have done it
There is no "group-name" for individual thought as having such a name is self-defeating :)
Disclaimer: I agree with you except I think there's something to I.D. as well (I'm not a creationist nor christian).
"The ridiculous thing is that there is plenty of room for evolution in the Christian faith."
Of course there is and it applies to any religion I know of (including my own personal beliefs). And now for the shocker: there is even plenty of room for evolution in I.D.!
It speaks volumes about the public debate about I.D. that people are talking about I.D. as if it aims to disprove any and all kinds of evolution as it does not. What it does however is criticize widely accepted and large portions of the scientific theory of evolution . What I.D. is saying can be, in a very simplified manner, described as the theory of evolution not being enough to scientifically explain all that it seeks to explain. Yes there is more but that is a large part of what I.D. is about.
So why has it become a debate about religion vs. science? Well it takes two to fight and imo it's because of droves of unintelligent sheep flocking to two additional sides: creationists and ultra-materialists, and these two sides are trying to use the scientific controversy to their own political gains (and in the process fucking everybody over several times as well as science).
"Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution.""
No it's the other way around I.D. is based on one point of view among biologists trying to find how something as complex as for example a flagellum could evolve. In their opinon they did not find any satisfactory answers within the confines of the theory (in the scientific sense of the word) of evolution. They also think there are other scientific flaws within the theory of evolution or at least in how it is being backed up and taught. Of course other scientists disagree with them and that's fine.
I.D. doesn't say that evolution doesn't occur, it is saying that evolution does not provide enough explanation and that there are parts of the theory of evolution that are simply wrong and even larger parts which are on very shaky ground scientifically. But not all of it.
"Their is a conundrum here when ID proponents say these supposedly "enormously" complex structures couldn't possibly have spontaneously sprung in to existence on their own."
I'm sure some of them, or more precisely some adherents of them, put it this way but the point of the matter is as explained above. You wouldn't say that someone who manufactured a car or similar just made it "spring into existence" would you?
"The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness."
Sorry but that is easily a straw man argument as a lot of religious people believe god is eternal in both directions. I'm religous myself (no organised religion though and I don't see either I.D. or evolution as having anything to do with religion) and I consider the idea of a god having to spring into existence totally absurd (I could go into a scorching rant and use worse words) as imo god is not confined by time/space-time.
Since the rest of your post is your conclusion from the above quotes it shouldn't be necessary to reply to.
Now, I.D. might be totally wrong or completely right or somewhat right/wrong (imo the last is the case) but why not try to get going a real discussion about the topics instead of the illinformed inflamed opinions that dominate Slashdot on these subjects?
Btw here's a link to a page by Michael Behe http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html who is probably the most recognized scientist among those who are behind I.D.. It doesn't directly concern I.D. and it might give a more nuanced impression of the scientist. Imo a lot of people on both sides desperately need that.
I agree Creationism isn't science and do not belong in a science (class)room but I do believe the scepticism towards macroevolution and other prescisely formulated challenges to the theory of evolution that I.D. carries absolutely do belong in a science classroom.
:) (not that it means they're the only ones).
What science is left in science if there's not room for controversial challenges to the perceived notion of truth? Some challenges will be flawed and some wont but it's not scientific to browbeat such challenges rather than scientifically respond to them. Such argument should be a godsend (sorry) for any intelligent teacher as an excellent tool for showing students how science is meant to work through an "eternal" cycle of bickering (aka discussion about facts and their interpretation).
At least it would be if instead of the "pro-scientists" running crying to the courts they'd take on the "battle" by explaining why I.D.'s challenges are wrong without browbeating and ridiculing their opponents while commiting just about every "logical" fallacy under the sun
Well actually... now that I think of it to browbeat opponents would be typical of scientists and has always happened, to the detriment of science because one has to wait for stubborn people to die before a new idea or view of things can be dealt with without bias and tons of selfesteem on the line. It happened to Darwin too.
Sorry to be blunt but that bit about "no amount of training" is pure bs and I don't care who says it be it admins, back-seat driving admins or anybody else. Yes social engineering will always exist and some people will fall for it, deservedly or not, but for your own sake the issue is not to eradicate social engineering: the issue is to make it too costly/inefficient for whoever does it. Stopping phising scams is simple: treat every link in any unencrypted email as a scam and be careful about encrypted ones as well; you must trust the encryption for it to have any value at all.
This means: never ever use a link from any email no matter how supposedly "right" that link is for anything involving money or confidential information like passwords or even user names. There actually isn't any real reason to use links like that to provide any kind of information no matter how "worthless", even clicking on a link provides a bit of information to a would-be scammer because it takes you somewhere (they'll get a traceback in some form).
If a company that you have a (private or otherwise) business relationship with sends you an offer by solicited email then do not use that email to take advantage of said offer but instead contact said company about the offer through other means like going directly to their main website page or more sensibly (at least if we're talking about other stuff than buying a book at a discount etc.) by making a call.
In case the offer is only available through the email:
1: the likelihood of it being a scam is close to 100% (and please note that the inverse does not hold true and in addition is irrelevant: don't click or in any way use that link)
2: the business is stating that they do not want you as their customer for that offer - disregard it and if you care you can tell them about the adverse effects of acting in such a way
And of course if it is an unsolicited mail then instead just treat it as spam.
Would any user conduct any sort of business by sending postcards? That is what unecrypted mail is and if explained to a user as such anyone with a modicum of intelligence will get it.
When they get the postcard comparison then tell them that it's a special postcard that automatically includes knowledge of their actions (when, where, and how you wrote that postcard and possibly more) to a greater detail (and with a lot more uses) than any normal postcard would do. In addition this "postcard" is accessible to a lot more people than would usually get access to a real postcard (and that number is already quite high).
Anyway all this is just the tip of the iceberg: most companies (or people, governments, and other organisations) do not use encryption of either internal or external email and it's begging for disasters. The worst of it is that it is not hard to avoid those disasters and start using encryption.
Afaik the chances of that happening are 100% when you have a rickety moderation system where one can "reuse" or hoard mod points and combine it with some Slashdotters being overly touchy in any direction (left, right, wacko, loon, or anti-laugh).
:)
At least that's what I think when it happens to me
p.s. I might be wrong about the "reuse" & hoard stuff - I just think/hope it's the most likely explanation.
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict1&Strategy=* &Database=*&Query=Esoteric
:)
Sorry if I missed a joke
I do agree but I want to embellish it with what I think it's about (no guarantee that this is the "correct" view, think and decide for yourselves).
Does it mean that rich people shouldn't donate? No
Does it mean we shouldn't encourage rich people to donate? No
Does it mean that we shouldn't be happy when rich people donate? No
What it means is that we shouldn't scoff at those who donate the little they have just because they're poor and can't give "much" dollar-for-dollar.
What it means is that we should applaud those people who have little but still give as much as they can, some of them even give everything they have.
I'm sure there are some rich persons who have given away everything too but even then it is how much they give the next day when they're poor which will really be comparable to the "widow".
What it means is that we shouldn't be full of pride for what we do, that we gave so-and-so much, because how many people notice those "widows" giving everything they've got? They never make any fuss over it themselves.
So it is a teaching about sacrifice and humility.
But we should also applaud something which is more widespread among the rich in the US than anywhere else (it's slowly catching on in Europe -- at least in Norway -- and hopefully around the world (I'm hearing about good efforts from Jackie Chan)): philantrophy.
I'd like to congratulate Bill, Melinda & Bono because they are trying. No, they will never reach the level of the poor widow in the temple (few of any of us do, at least I don't) but they are far far less hypocrites than many rich people (and average people) who do even less than them percentage-wise.
As for Time and their opinions I couldn't care less, the common journalists are among the biggest (if not the biggest) hypocrites in any way you can find anywhere, and the whole idea of nominating a person(s) of the year is to increase profit (which is not bad in itself unless it becomes the sole aim of the journalism and I dare say that it is in this case).
Last but not least let's not forget all the things lots of people do/give that doesn't involve money at all be it various volunteer work, open source or even donating spare CPU cycles: it all counts.
Lol :)
;)
Suddenly I find myself appreciating seals even more than before (apologies to rich people owning boats but you guys are probably rich enough to buy another one, not to speak of insurance money...).
However on a slightly more serious note: won't anybody please. ple-e-e-ease, think of THE FISH and lift the protection on californian seals?
First of all nice post, I see your point of view and share a wish for polar bears and animals (and plants) in general to survive but I'm way more concerned about effects of pollution on animals (and humans for that matter) than anything else including loss of habitat --only to a certain level of course: they all need "enough" habitat.
:) )
:) ).
I don't see the link between drowning (which may or may not happen often and may or may not be a new thing) and extinction since polar bears live in plenty of areas that aren't made up of freefloating ice but actually ice and snow on land.
I can see how it might split up polar bears and decrease their numbers and so on, but not extinction. Polar bears are perfectly capable of surviving without large expanses of floating ice or for that matter cold and winter (although that would have a greater effect).
Places that comes to mind as excellent polar bear country, which has significant landmass, and in which they've already established themselves are:
Greenland (huge)
parts of Siberia (huge)
parts of Canada (huge)
Spitsbergen/Svalbard (a small place though so it doesn't necessarily count and too far away for a swim to northern Norway (we don't actually have polar bears walking in the streets on the mainland
As far as I can understand any climate change would have to be even more drastic and sulfurfilled than the worst fantasies of fanatically religious environmentalists to make polar bears extinct. To my knowledge most climate scientists say that global warming will lead to colder weather at the poles and more precipitation (snow). Not that that's an argument in any way as they all seem to be talking out of their asses giving totally divergent and contradicting "predictions", I'll instead give credence to NASA measurements and real empirical meteorologist rather than simulation-addicted environmentalists (oops this turned into a rant, sorry about that
Anyway I might be wrong, so if you or anyone else can fill in the gaps between the drowning and the extinction please do so.
Disclaimer: I'm very sceptical towards the idea of human-triggered climate changes (be it warming or cooling or both and anything) as well as the strong tendency for crisis-maximizing by any and all environmental scientists (be it from honest alarm or securing funds).
Yes and no as it depends on the helmet design.
e m_for_Ground_Troops_Helmet
I know this M1 link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Helmet states that:
"Many men thought that when a bomb went off etc., the chinstrap would snap their neck when the helmet wold be blown off their head. This was also a disproved theory."
The above is actually both correct as well as untrue. http://www.combatreform.com/chinstrap.htm states that:
"During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of 15 pounds or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944".
However I was erroneously taught that yes unless one wears the helmet correctly (chin strap on the chin not under it) you could get your neck snapped... and at that even from small caliber fire like the AG-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG-3... all of which is plainly wrong but I don't mind: it's typical of the numerous reasons why I didn't go for a career in the norwegian armed forces (some of which actually have a clue; no disrespect to them).
Whichever way one looks at it it becomes obvious that it's not enough to simply stop the bullet; one has to engineer personal armor and helmets to also absorb and dissipate as much as possible of the energy, or actually break/release if needed to.
Oh and the M1 sucked and was a pain in the ass to wear and according to the combatreform link the PASGT hasn't been much better. It's no use having a helmet if it constantly falls off/drops down into your field of vision, makes it hard to hear stuff, chafes and limits head movement significantly... no wonder a lot people simply didn't wear it (I wouldn't either).
Additional info on PASGT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Armor_Syst
And why didn't you just simply tell anyone interested what you were doing and why?
Don't kid yourself into believing you were investigated for "national security" they just did a "weirdo check" on you.
I'm not saying "they" might not have been unreasonable, but I am saying that it's likely it was mutual...
Touché!
I've read through all your recent comments (I'm not a subscriber to Slashdot and never will be) - keep it up, it's good stuff.
It's better transposed. If you think a bit about it (in a cause-effect way) you should instead say:
Peace is War - we're at war but most citizens live in peace, there has been war in peace since 1945 and it will never end because mostly it removes the necessity for largescale physical war
Slavery is Freedom - earning a living no matter to what degree prepoposes more or less voluntary slavery, to have freedom you must "enslave" yourself to the basic tenets of whatever society you live in (has always been the case but scales naturally along with population size and maximum density/average density)
Strength is ignorance - two parts; if you're strong (economic, military, or political might on a personal or national level) you have the ability to be more ignorant without overly adverse effects, and if you predominantly believe in strenght at the cost of other things you are increasingly likely to be ignorant (applies to both economic and military strenght as well as "the mob" of political wannabees at every level ranting for their "cause").
Not exactly what Orwell intended and thought about when writing 1984 but more descriptive and correct for the present situation than repeating Orwell.