1) That's the least-useful Wikipedia page I've ever seen. It doesn't even discuss proposed methodologies for implementing its subject - it just has an extremely short definition.
2) This is a scenario in which the users (the students) have no issue with giving their private keys away to their mates. That's actually the point, in this case. ZKPP is of little value here.
3) Yeah, I know that you brought up ZKPP to respond to the issue with RFID scanning. I'm curious to see how you're going to get the RFID chip to cough up enough information to verify that it knows the private key, without giving away enough information to allow key determination through heuristic analysis anyway. In order for the knowledge exchange to work, the information has to be deterministic - yet, it has to change from query to query, or else I can simply re-transmit whatever the RFID chip last transmitted, and I'm in.
I didn't say it was legal - I said it wasn't destruction. Graffiti is also (generally) not destruction. It's an annoyance, to some, and a prank. Not destruction of property.
Yeah, you have to work on your delivery. Note that you were modded 5, Interesting, and not 5, Yankin'-yer-chain.
Right this second on some discussion forum, an ignorant twit is ranting about the unstoppable-super-neutrino-radiation-killing-force that no one cares about that is killing our kids and OBAMA KNOWS!!!!!
Are you being serious, or are you just trolling? Your entire comment is nonsense.
Trillions of neutrinos pass through you every single day, generated from that enormous ball of radioactive gasses around which we orbit. They react with matter so rarely, that even though so many pass through the earth, we can only detect one or two a day, under the most carefully controlled circumstances deep underground. It's pure luck that we can get one to "transmute matter" enough to prove that it exists.
No, they do not make an attempt to shield the neutrinos that come out of reactors - it would take many times more mass than exists on the Earth to do so. Yes, everyone who has been exposed to neutrinos will die - largely of old age. By your logic, every person who has ever worked in, around, or within several light years of a nuclear reactor should now be dead, since we're not shielding against them.
Yeah, you're right. I got myself spun off on a tangent and lost the point. Your original point was that SSH wasn't sufficient to protect the data in transit - my point is that it is, but I articulated that very poorly. As a result, while mocking your incorrect use of "MD5 Checksum" (sorry, I don't accept that a majority use of an inaccurate term means that it's somehow accurate) I did something very similar.
To reiterate - you're right. Encryption by itself does not protect the data from modification. Actually, nothing short of physical control protects the data from modification - that's also a bad turn of phrase. But with encryption alone you can only tell that the data's been modified by the fact that an application using it no longer recognizes the data format, since you now have essentially random data. This is almost always noticeable, but it's not adequate for data protection, and I shouldn't have implied that it was.
However, the thing that got me started in the first place is the fact that SSH2 also provides a MAC over each data packet, and if the MAC doesn't match, requests that the packet be re-sent. Thus, it provides both data confidentiality via encryption, and data integrity via MAC. When I said that you're guaranteed that the garbage out is the same as the garbage that went in, I was referring to the integrity provided by SSH as a whole, not encryption per se. Then instead of clarifying that, I wandered off and started babbling nonsense.
SSH also claims to provide non-repudiation, since the original handshake involves private/public key pairs, but the whole question of non-repudiation is better left to the lawyers. I believe that SSH2 provides either a SHA1 or MD5 hash over the data packet, which only makes it suitable for non-classified work (I'm assuming the poster's data is unclassified, or his customer would have insisted on encryption already).
[[shrug]] You said checksum - perhaps I made an error in assuming that you meant what you said. I've been building client/server apps that use crypto for 8 years, and I've never once referred to an MD5 hash as a checksum, though I recognize that some might. Of course, MD5 also falls into that category of "useless for assuring data integrity", so that's a moot point.
Not all encryption algorithms break... Show me where it says this...
Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Yes, if data is encrypted, and that data is munged, the encryption breaks, and the decryption fails. That is the nature of encryption. Whether you notice that the decryption fails is another issue, but when decryption fails, it tends to fail spectacularly, and the data that results is truly garbage and recognizable as such, since your application no longer knows what to do with it. I'm curious as to which of the algorithms used by SSH would not result in this behaviour. AES? 3DES? Blowfish? If so, then the Internet is horribly broken, and you should never bank online again.
Poster isn't concerned about whether the data has errors. That's a problem for the data creators. He's worried about it getting screwed up in transmission, either accidentally or maliciously, and encryption absolutely solves that issue. Yes, garbage in returns garbage out, but you're guaranteed (within collision space boundaries) that the garbage that comes out is exactly the same as the garbage that went in. And that's the point here.
Starting a comment off by explaining that you're not familiar enough with the subject matter to intelligently comment is a very handy flag, and I appreciate your warning the rest of us that what you were saying was going to be wrong;)
BTW, checksum hasn't been considered a trustworthy means of ensuring data integrity for more than a decade. I invite you to have a discussion with Google regarding checksum collisions.
>>"What I explicitly meant to say is that the Bible is a difficult book to understand and requires a scholarly approach to parse appropriately."
Respectfully, I disagree. I've read it, cover to cover, several times, and it's very straightforward. To me, it seems that those who tell me that it's more complex are simply trying to build a reason for it to be something more than it is.
Still, we're speaking around the original question. The bible was presented, by those who started the various churches, as being the true, unadulterated word of god. That includes Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. I've been told by new Christians that this is not so, that the stories told in those books are merely parables, fables, fictions told to represent a greater truth. It can't be both ways - and why is your opinion more correct than the men who created the tome? You both can't be right, and you're re-interpreting the work long after it was originally put together.
>>"Homosexuality is the same as any other sexual sin in the bible, like adultery."
I'm not supposed to hate those who sin? By the way, here's the King James version of an appropriate passage - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." That doesn't sound like hate to you?
>>"The bible does not advocate killing people of other religions."
"Suffer ye not..." Also, read Deuteronomy 13. True, this is more focused towards killing anyone (and their families, and the people around them) who tried to seduce you away from that god, but the point is still pretty clear.
Your last two paragraphs actually speak clearly to my point - the bible, as it exists today, is almost impossible to be taken literally, or as a godly truth. The problem is that many still do, and are willing to enact violence on those who do not. And you haven't spoken to my underlying point: If parts of the bible are not true, which are and which are not? And more to the point, why do you put any credence in this tome at all if you're convinced that it is at least partially inaccurate?
>>"Beating your wife is not recommended either." Okay, I'll give you that one. Sometimes, it's tough to remember which of the many violences that occurred in the name of god came directly from this bible, or were merely inspired by it.
>>"The Canaanites slaughtered their own children for sexual gratification during ceremonies designed to inspire ecstatic communion with their deity. Pederasty was a practice of their religion as well. They held human sacrifice of innocents as a sacred part of their worship orgies. They practiced a policy of genocide against other tribes weaker than themselves and practiced cultural subversion against those stronger to bring them down. Violence, debauchery, and lasciviousness were the norm for their culture and those that practiced them abundantly were rewarded."
Could you please provide history evidence for these statements?
I'm sorry, but your answer is simply too... simplistic. These stories have been presented as _fact_ for thousands of years. Long before they were bound together in a book, they were told to children and adults alike - yes, as a moral lesson, but as if they really, truly happened. That's the ongoing battle today; many, many, many people are being taught that those stories are the true, unadulterated word of a god. Suddenly, the new Christians are realizing that there's actually no way to pack 2 (or 7) of every type of creature into a boat? I'm sorry (truly), but I'm not buying it. The genocide of the Caananites isn't a parable, or an example of how you should act. The torture of Job is a very bad life lesson (remain loyal to your god even if he tortures you on a bet? That's messed up.) Most of the stories in the old testament were about showing what happens when you disobey god, or examples of those who obeyed god even under extreme circumstances. For that to have relevance, you have to know who that god is, and that is defined in the same tome. Which parts are true, and which are parables? Which parts should show us the right path for modern times, and which are examples of the horrors that were considered normal in that age (killing your child for disobeying?).
No, this viewpoint doesn't work for me. If the book is a work of truth, and I should be living my life by its words, I'm going to have to do things and think things that are repugnant to me as a human being. I don't hate the gays, I don't think people who belong to other religions should be killed, I don't want to beat my wife, regardless of the size of the rod. It seems to me that you're picking the truths that fit your view of modern humanity, when it seems to me that the laws created by a god who is omnipotent and omniscient should not change with the whims of human culture. I do not believe that you get to have it both ways.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Judge not, lest ye be not judged" are the only two things I've ever found in that book that seem relevant to reality; I already believed those before I opened the pages.
There are many religious people who value the bible yet don't consider it to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works.
And there are others who are willing to kill you for believing that it's not meant to be taken literally.
Personally, I have to wonder what value you see in the bible as a religious document if you don't believe that what it says is the truth. That statement truly is not meant as a flame or an attack - as a lifelong student of religion, I simply do not understand the new line that's being take by those who seek to create this new, happier Christianity. The idea seems to be to believe in the idea of the god defined in the bible, while not believing stories that define that god's dogma and motivations, and which seek to explain its actions.
What truth do you glean from a document that is not the truth? And why believe in the (apparently arbitrary) values that you've decided that the bible REALLY means, rather than those that are explicitly stated?
Again - not a flame, though I expect many will take it as such. I simply do not understand the mindset.
That's not really a backup strategy, unless you have many, many hard drives. It's not just a matter of backing up today's data, but also of being able to access yesterday's data if something got accidentally deleted today. You also need to be able to access last week's data, in case something got trashed the day before yesterday and no one noticed until today. Swapping in new hard drives every day just isn't going to cut it.
Tape drives are cheap - tape cassettes are cheaper yet. Software to automate your backup scheme is a little more expensive, but it's a one-time expense that you can use for a very long time. Over time, a tape backup system is a lot cheaper than swapping in new drives every so often, and as a bonus, it's also more reliable.
I'm actually a little surprised here. I'd have assumed that the amount of bullshit you produce in a given day would decrease as the day goes on, but it appears to be increasing instead. You might want to get that checked out.
I know what the definition of slavery is. I also know that you're using that specific word purely for the power you think it brings to your argument, and that you're a jackass for doing so. Piling more words around your bullshit argument it isn't going to change the stink.
So, when someone wakes up in the morning and is facing 40, or 50, or 1, or 1000 hours of uncompensated labor for someone else - and will face legal consequences for not performing it - what do you call it?
Depends on the situation. Therein we have the largest difference between you and I. I accept that few situation are purely black or white, that there are shades of grey amongst the hard lines that you see. No, I do not believe that having a teenager do 50 hours of community service as part of his/her education is slavery. It boggles my mind that you'd make that association, and seem to have such a serious attachment to the idea. Personally, I think that you're an idiot.
Both are specifically seen as a denial of liberty as a consequence for bad acts.
That's completely false. One is the denial of liberty, the other is reparation to the society that they've harmed, in lieu of incarceration. And no, I don't think that school children have harmed our society - but then, I don't see the 50 hours as punishment, either, so that doesn't play in this discussion.
I clean up trash along roads and parks. Just like convicts do.
Not "just like", no. You clean up trash along roads and parks. Convicts sometimes clean up trash along roads and parks. You then go home. They often go back to jail. Which of you are being punished by performing that task? My answer is "neither". For the convict, it's a chance to get out of their cells, or the way in which they pay for their crime instead of going into a cell. But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your self-imposed "slavery". Thank god you're fighting so hard to keep children from having to go through the hell you're suffering in.
You prefer the force option. And you're confused about the moral problems presented by that?
I prefer the force option? You can kiss my ass. I'd love it if every person recognized that we sometimes need to put the care and feeding of our society before our own needs and wants. They don't. Many never realize that it's even an option, or understand that that option is so painless. This is an opportunity for our kids to see just how easy it is, and what joy can be gleaned from it. This is an opportunity for charities and community groups to get a lot more done for their neighborhoods. You choose to put yourself first, and take the bullshit course of trying to paint the argument as a choice between "slavery" and "freedom". That's the worst thing here - that you're willing to take a subject as real and and horrific as human slavery and somehow try to make this part of that fight. The reality is, it's not nearly that big. It's a tiny sliver of their time to pay back some of the benefits that they derive from living in our society. If they refuse, they won't go to jail, they'll just have to settle for a GED instead of a diploma. If they'd rather do that than give a little something back, that's their choice.
Is your ability to inspire someone to volunteer really so weak that you require a bureaucracy to trot out legal sanctions for those people that don't go along, or don't see such student conscription to be appropriate?
Why, yes. I'm what we call an "ordinary person" without magical powers of inspiration or persuasion. You, obviously, have been able to bring your fellow slaves ou
So, that cause - which you consider so noble - is beyond you, in this age of massively internetworking and media, to persuasively illustrate? You need to prove your compassion by making slaves?
I honestly have no idea what your point is in this paragraph. How do you illustrate a cause? What I do see clearly, however, is that you just compared 50 hours of community service to slavery. Fuck you.
There are just a few differences between those two concepts. Here are a few things you get with slavery, that you don't get with community service:
Beatings
Chains
Physical mutilations
Ripping families apart
Being bought and sold like cattle
A 24 hour work day
Lasts your entire life, rather than 50 hours
Could I buy some perspective here? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
What do the cops do when the kids refuse to comply?
See, now you're talking about that line between "truant" and "punk". Hopefully, they smack the punk on the head and make him sit in a cell until his parents come to get him. If you think that's a bad thing, then please don't raise a child. Society has met its quota of punks already, and we don't need more.
Christ. Is your resistance to this based on pure fucking laziness? It's 50 hours out of a kid's life. They'll be ok, I promise. It's good for them, it's good for the community. My kids both did 80 hours, and enjoyed it.
Just for the fun of it, I'll grant you your "forced labor" point. It certainly is. The law may mandate that a kid get off his ass for 50 hours and do something useful in his neighborhood. Oh, the humanity! Oh, the horror! Surely this is the horrific future brave souls have been struggling to prevent for generations! What ever will we do? Possibly raise a generation of Americans who have actually seen firsthand that they can help others?
He did, however, break campaign promises while he was campaigning by voting for the FISA bill that got passed.
Agreed. And he also lied about accepting public funding. I'm not a Obama-bot, I'm just sick of those who attack him using old, tired lies in their attacks. Valid points are accepted and welcomed to the debate.
Generally, cops punish truancy by taking the kids back to school, and letting the parents know that their kids were skipping.
But you enjoy your little fantasy world in which cops get to taze citizens all willy-nilly. Meanwhile, you may want to ask yourself why, when our new President is taking steps to try and get the youth more involved in their communities, your only thought is that it's somehow going to lead to a police state and violence. Just like all of those other social programs have led to the U.S. being a police state, right?
Do you have any idea how pathetic you look right now? It's not even worth bringing up that the lies on those fronts haven't been his; you know that perfectly well, but are still playing this sad game of misinformation and bullshit. You lost. Get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
2) This is a scenario in which the users (the students) have no issue with giving their private keys away to their mates. That's actually the point, in this case. ZKPP is of little value here.
3) Yeah, I know that you brought up ZKPP to respond to the issue with RFID scanning. I'm curious to see how you're going to get the RFID chip to cough up enough information to verify that it knows the private key, without giving away enough information to allow key determination through heuristic analysis anyway. In order for the knowledge exchange to work, the information has to be deterministic - yet, it has to change from query to query, or else I can simply re-transmit whatever the RFID chip last transmitted, and I'm in.
What? They don't have the right to make suggestions to Congress because they're organized into a business?
I didn't say it was legal - I said it wasn't destruction. Graffiti is also (generally) not destruction. It's an annoyance, to some, and a prank. Not destruction of property.
Hardly destruction - reverting the jailbroken iPhone back to its factory default state is trivial.
Right this second on some discussion forum, an ignorant twit is ranting about the unstoppable-super-neutrino-radiation-killing-force that no one cares about that is killing our kids and OBAMA KNOWS!!!!!
And it's your fault. Just sayin'
;)
Trillions of neutrinos pass through you every single day, generated from that enormous ball of radioactive gasses around which we orbit. They react with matter so rarely, that even though so many pass through the earth, we can only detect one or two a day, under the most carefully controlled circumstances deep underground. It's pure luck that we can get one to "transmute matter" enough to prove that it exists.
No, they do not make an attempt to shield the neutrinos that come out of reactors - it would take many times more mass than exists on the Earth to do so. Yes, everyone who has been exposed to neutrinos will die - largely of old age. By your logic, every person who has ever worked in, around, or within several light years of a nuclear reactor should now be dead, since we're not shielding against them.
Where you see the word cyber, there is an idiot nearby waiting to waste your money.
Hmmmm... I see your point. ^^^^^^ But I'm not going to give you my money, if you're just going to waste it!
To reiterate - you're right. Encryption by itself does not protect the data from modification. Actually, nothing short of physical control protects the data from modification - that's also a bad turn of phrase. But with encryption alone you can only tell that the data's been modified by the fact that an application using it no longer recognizes the data format, since you now have essentially random data. This is almost always noticeable, but it's not adequate for data protection, and I shouldn't have implied that it was.
However, the thing that got me started in the first place is the fact that SSH2 also provides a MAC over each data packet, and if the MAC doesn't match, requests that the packet be re-sent. Thus, it provides both data confidentiality via encryption, and data integrity via MAC. When I said that you're guaranteed that the garbage out is the same as the garbage that went in, I was referring to the integrity provided by SSH as a whole, not encryption per se. Then instead of clarifying that, I wandered off and started babbling nonsense.
SSH also claims to provide non-repudiation, since the original handshake involves private/public key pairs, but the whole question of non-repudiation is better left to the lawyers. I believe that SSH2 provides either a SHA1 or MD5 hash over the data packet, which only makes it suitable for non-classified work (I'm assuming the poster's data is unclassified, or his customer would have insisted on encryption already).
Not all encryption algorithms break... Show me where it says this...
Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Yes, if data is encrypted, and that data is munged, the encryption breaks, and the decryption fails. That is the nature of encryption. Whether you notice that the decryption fails is another issue, but when decryption fails, it tends to fail spectacularly, and the data that results is truly garbage and recognizable as such, since your application no longer knows what to do with it. I'm curious as to which of the algorithms used by SSH would not result in this behaviour. AES? 3DES? Blowfish? If so, then the Internet is horribly broken, and you should never bank online again.
Starting a comment off by explaining that you're not familiar enough with the subject matter to intelligently comment is a very handy flag, and I appreciate your warning the rest of us that what you were saying was going to be wrong ;)
BTW, checksum hasn't been considered a trustworthy means of ensuring data integrity for more than a decade. I invite you to have a discussion with Google regarding checksum collisions.
Respectfully, I disagree. I've read it, cover to cover, several times, and it's very straightforward. To me, it seems that those who tell me that it's more complex are simply trying to build a reason for it to be something more than it is.
Still, we're speaking around the original question. The bible was presented, by those who started the various churches, as being the true, unadulterated word of god. That includes Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. I've been told by new Christians that this is not so, that the stories told in those books are merely parables, fables, fictions told to represent a greater truth. It can't be both ways - and why is your opinion more correct than the men who created the tome? You both can't be right, and you're re-interpreting the work long after it was originally put together.
I'm not supposed to hate those who sin? By the way, here's the King James version of an appropriate passage - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." That doesn't sound like hate to you?
>>"The bible does not advocate killing people of other religions."
"Suffer ye not..." Also, read Deuteronomy 13. True, this is more focused towards killing anyone (and their families, and the people around them) who tried to seduce you away from that god, but the point is still pretty clear.
Your last two paragraphs actually speak clearly to my point - the bible, as it exists today, is almost impossible to be taken literally, or as a godly truth. The problem is that many still do, and are willing to enact violence on those who do not. And you haven't spoken to my underlying point: If parts of the bible are not true, which are and which are not? And more to the point, why do you put any credence in this tome at all if you're convinced that it is at least partially inaccurate?
>>"Beating your wife is not recommended either." Okay, I'll give you that one. Sometimes, it's tough to remember which of the many violences that occurred in the name of god came directly from this bible, or were merely inspired by it.
Could you please provide history evidence for these statements?
No, this viewpoint doesn't work for me. If the book is a work of truth, and I should be living my life by its words, I'm going to have to do things and think things that are repugnant to me as a human being. I don't hate the gays, I don't think people who belong to other religions should be killed, I don't want to beat my wife, regardless of the size of the rod. It seems to me that you're picking the truths that fit your view of modern humanity, when it seems to me that the laws created by a god who is omnipotent and omniscient should not change with the whims of human culture. I do not believe that you get to have it both ways.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Judge not, lest ye be not judged" are the only two things I've ever found in that book that seem relevant to reality; I already believed those before I opened the pages.
There are many religious people who value the bible yet don't consider it to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works.
And there are others who are willing to kill you for believing that it's not meant to be taken literally.
Personally, I have to wonder what value you see in the bible as a religious document if you don't believe that what it says is the truth. That statement truly is not meant as a flame or an attack - as a lifelong student of religion, I simply do not understand the new line that's being take by those who seek to create this new, happier Christianity. The idea seems to be to believe in the idea of the god defined in the bible, while not believing stories that define that god's dogma and motivations, and which seek to explain its actions.
What truth do you glean from a document that is not the truth? And why believe in the (apparently arbitrary) values that you've decided that the bible REALLY means, rather than those that are explicitly stated?
Again - not a flame, though I expect many will take it as such. I simply do not understand the mindset.
Tape drives are cheap - tape cassettes are cheaper yet. Software to automate your backup scheme is a little more expensive, but it's a one-time expense that you can use for a very long time. Over time, a tape backup system is a lot cheaper than swapping in new drives every so often, and as a bonus, it's also more reliable.
I know what the definition of slavery is. I also know that you're using that specific word purely for the power you think it brings to your argument, and that you're a jackass for doing so. Piling more words around your bullshit argument it isn't going to change the stink.
Depends on the situation. Therein we have the largest difference between you and I. I accept that few situation are purely black or white, that there are shades of grey amongst the hard lines that you see. No, I do not believe that having a teenager do 50 hours of community service as part of his/her education is slavery. It boggles my mind that you'd make that association, and seem to have such a serious attachment to the idea. Personally, I think that you're an idiot.
That's completely false. One is the denial of liberty, the other is reparation to the society that they've harmed, in lieu of incarceration. And no, I don't think that school children have harmed our society - but then, I don't see the 50 hours as punishment, either, so that doesn't play in this discussion.
Not "just like", no. You clean up trash along roads and parks. Convicts sometimes clean up trash along roads and parks. You then go home. They often go back to jail. Which of you are being punished by performing that task? My answer is "neither". For the convict, it's a chance to get out of their cells, or the way in which they pay for their crime instead of going into a cell. But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your self-imposed "slavery". Thank god you're fighting so hard to keep children from having to go through the hell you're suffering in.
I prefer the force option? You can kiss my ass. I'd love it if every person recognized that we sometimes need to put the care and feeding of our society before our own needs and wants. They don't. Many never realize that it's even an option, or understand that that option is so painless. This is an opportunity for our kids to see just how easy it is, and what joy can be gleaned from it. This is an opportunity for charities and community groups to get a lot more done for their neighborhoods. You choose to put yourself first, and take the bullshit course of trying to paint the argument as a choice between "slavery" and "freedom". That's the worst thing here - that you're willing to take a subject as real and and horrific as human slavery and somehow try to make this part of that fight. The reality is, it's not nearly that big. It's a tiny sliver of their time to pay back some of the benefits that they derive from living in our society. If they refuse, they won't go to jail, they'll just have to settle for a GED instead of a diploma. If they'd rather do that than give a little something back, that's their choice.
Why, yes. I'm what we call an "ordinary person" without magical powers of inspiration or persuasion. You, obviously, have been able to bring your fellow slaves ou
I honestly have no idea what your point is in this paragraph. How do you illustrate a cause? What I do see clearly, however, is that you just compared 50 hours of community service to slavery. Fuck you.
There are just a few differences between those two concepts. Here are a few things you get with slavery, that you don't get with community service:
Beatings
Chains
Physical mutilations
Ripping families apart
Being bought and sold like cattle
A 24 hour work day
Lasts your entire life, rather than 50 hours
Could I buy some perspective here? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
See, now you're talking about that line between "truant" and "punk". Hopefully, they smack the punk on the head and make him sit in a cell until his parents come to get him. If you think that's a bad thing, then please don't raise a child. Society has met its quota of punks already, and we don't need more.
Christ. Is your resistance to this based on pure fucking laziness? It's 50 hours out of a kid's life. They'll be ok, I promise. It's good for them, it's good for the community. My kids both did 80 hours, and enjoyed it.
Just for the fun of it, I'll grant you your "forced labor" point. It certainly is. The law may mandate that a kid get off his ass for 50 hours and do something useful in his neighborhood. Oh, the humanity! Oh, the horror! Surely this is the horrific future brave souls have been struggling to prevent for generations! What ever will we do? Possibly raise a generation of Americans who have actually seen firsthand that they can help others?
Yeah, that'd suck.
Agreed. And he also lied about accepting public funding. I'm not a Obama-bot, I'm just sick of those who attack him using old, tired lies in their attacks. Valid points are accepted and welcomed to the debate.
Generally, cops punish truancy by taking the kids back to school, and letting the parents know that their kids were skipping.
But you enjoy your little fantasy world in which cops get to taze citizens all willy-nilly. Meanwhile, you may want to ask yourself why, when our new President is taking steps to try and get the youth more involved in their communities, your only thought is that it's somehow going to lead to a police state and violence. Just like all of those other social programs have led to the U.S. being a police state, right?
You're equating a few hours of Civil Service with being placed in front of a firing squad? You're a sad, sad human being.
Do you have any idea how pathetic you look right now? It's not even worth bringing up that the lies on those fronts haven't been his; you know that perfectly well, but are still playing this sad game of misinformation and bullshit. You lost. Get over it.
I don't think that means what you think it means
In sort - INCONCEIVABLE!
My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process.
Nothing personal, but posts like this make me wish for a mod of "-1 I Call BullSh!t"
If it's not, you really, really need to fire your IT guy. He's installing viruses on your computers.