"Successfully fight[ing] cyber crime" can fairly important when it comes to integrity of data. Unless you decide that fighting cyber crime is really up to network administrators or something like that. In which case we may as well make phishing and hacking and whatnot entirely legal or something... internet theft, etc.
not that I actually support the former FBI agent's idea. actually it seems to be pretty stupid, heh.
Insightful? I'm not sure the Islam-believing terrorists are fighting just to get "us" out of their land. It's a war on infidels, in their lingo, isn't it? An infidel is not one who is in their land "torturing, killing, and oppressing their family members." According to the omniscient Wikipedia: "An infidel (literally, "one without faith") is one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities"
The lie that terrorists exist because the United States is torturing, killing, and oppressing all over the world is just that: a lie. If you're going to be critical about the US, or any country for that matter, at least do it with an understanding of both sides; maybe start with finding out what exactly the terrorists are really fighting.
Not just about lawyers though... the people have to be "money grubbing" too. Unless the lawyers are just really good at getting people to want money when they really DON'T want money... or maybe it's that both parties are greedy.
No, it doesn't mean it will be done in practice. So what? A linux machine can be unsafe, too. It's a tradeoff.
I'm actually of the opinion that part of the reason "Linux boxes" tend to be more secure is that it actually requires a somewhat educated person to use it for anything more than basic web browsing and e-mail. By basic, I mean not even using imbedded quicktime or windows media files.
Linux rocks, but it IS possibly to have a fairly secure Windows box, and it IS possible to have "Linux users [that] are unable to keep their machines secure for a botnet to accomplish this task."
Using Linux neither automatically makes you secure nor automatically makes you a smart, intelligent, safe computer user. Although, I do have to admit that it seems to be harder to be compromised online, probably partially because of the popularity of Windows...
I'm not arguing for EULA's at all, they are ridiculously long at the very, very least... but digital signatures seem to be valid. Besides, anyone can sign my name... the thing is, that's forgery. Anyone can type my name as a signature, too... but that's forgery.
Do credit card companies actually have a copy of your signature that they check other signatures to, or is it more the actual signing process that is important (and thus, if you are signing someone else's name, you are liable to be brought to court for forgery, a felony IIRC)
What about PayPal, or ordering online? Digital signatures? You are actually suggesting that my written signature should be required to make it legal? That'd make some things very, very slow...
I suppose an ISP has a right to do this sort of thing (unless, of course, they have contracted with you not to do it)
I'd imagine some ISP's will respond by offering Ad-Free internet service. Wouldn't this kinda fall under competition, then? Stupid for those ISP's, perhaps, but hey, stupidity can be nice for the consumer now and then.
A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network -- perhaps hundreds of accounts or more -- instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.
Later, F.B.I. officials blamed an "apparent miscommunication" with the unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain for which it served as host. The records were ultimately destroyed, officials said.
The article seems to imply that the mistake was the ISP's. They "mistakenly" turned over too much, which makes it sound like they weren't ordered to do so.
Hmm... but if it's infinitesimally small, it would require an infinite amount of time.
There's an interesting argument that if time/the universe has been existent for an infinite amount of time in the past, we would never have been able to get to this current point in time, because then it would no longer have been an infinite amount of time. I believe it's the Kalam argument.
Yeah, I'm probably the first poster in the history of slashdot that took the time to read the article before posting a comment. I just did it because I like to be contrary.
That was quite entertaining and humorous.
Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's retarded. I haven't really seen a lot of evidence even that some form of extremely basic life could be formed in any sort of atmosphere even resmbling ours (if I remember correctly, there was something about some scientists that was recently able to get proteins to form in very exact and beneficial conditions, but that's about it). Why should I really believe that life could have possibly formed on some remote place like Mars, where the temperature apparently ranges from 27 degrees Celsius to -107 degrees Celsius.
Basically, all evidence that I see points to not having life elsewhere. Infinite possibilities? In order to have infinite possibilities, strictly speaking, the universe would have to have been eternally existent.
As for being too close minded for being a scientist, I would be interested to know exactly how open minded you have to be. It is extremely hard to prove the absence of something entirely, as can be seen in this thread (how do you prove life never existed on Mars?). It seems that the possibility of life being on Mars, even with an infinite universe and an open view of evolution, is significantly less than the possibility of a military transport accidentally dropping a tank on exactly the spot you sit at your computer. So, maybe I should be spending money on making sure my house's roof could withstand a tank falling on top of it, since it's possible?
Of course, the probability of life evolving is a rather big topic. It'd be interesting to try to calculate the probability of the two ideas and see which one is more probable.
I'm almost certain this is going to be a flamebait post now, but that's ok - can I quote Carl Sagan, then, in arguing against the atheistic argument about the non-existence of god? (interestingly, Sagan had a very strange view of what he apparently thought believers in God thought that He is.... very, very strange ideas, in fact)
Which is true. Just like you'd say "Ah, they aren't real evolutionists" or "they aren't real scientists."
But the point was... there WAS a huge outcry against it. And it was pretty much stopped, interestingly enough.
(I always find it interesting that, when it comes down to it, many people think that they know what a "Christian" is better than "Christians," and that if anyone claims they are "Christian," then they are a good spokesman for all "Christians.")
Religion is a mental illness, it's not a human right but a human tragedy...
Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way. What you're telling me, is that it's a tragedy if I believe something that you don't...
Somehow, I am disinclined to believe that your worldview is right or better than mine. Although, I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.
I guess I would agree that "terrorism" can be misused/used as propaganda, and I agree about communism as well (IMO, it would never work because of what humans are); however, I think modern day terrorists are a real threat and does justify action... and while people might disagree about exactly what action is necessary, I don't think we should dismiss it as though it were unimportant or not a thread (nor do I personally think that peaceful diplomacy will do a whole lot, simply because of why these particular terrorists are terrorists).
As for Britain, the off topic historical question, I would argue that they would not have called them terrorists so much as "rebels." Sort of like how the Union viewed the Confederacy. Terrorism and rebellion are significantly different, if only that rebellion takes place in your own country, whereas terrorism seems to be against another country... which is why, for example, in Iraq, Iraqi "terrorism" (Iraqi extremists committing terrorist acts in Iraq) is called insurrection... an armed rebellion, if you will.
Ah, I believe this is very historically false. Revolution, civil war, and coup are not all necessarily acts of terrorism. Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war. It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain; Britain sent military force to subdue their "colonies," and the "US" fought back. That's very different from various peoples usually adhering to a certain religious idea (radical Islam, for example) simply trying to create fear and destruction because they oppose what another country stands for.
"Terrorist" is the new "Nazi." Except even the Nazis at least somewhat openly declared war, and were associated with a nation. The problem with modern-day terrorists is that they come from an ideological view without officially being tied to a country; if all these terrorists that blow up various western civilizations (yes, they have it out for western civilization and non-Muslims, not just the US or Britain) were really officially the Iran National Army, I doubt Iran would last very long. However, whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unofficially or secretly helping terrorists is a lot harder to figure out.
I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.
Another example. Let's say that a variety of Americans began bombing all sorts Eastern civilizations, various places. Terrorism, basically, but this time Western going for the East. That'd be a big deal, and it'd be hard to fight against.
There's the problem. How do you stop independent (seemingly, at any rate, it's hard to tell) citizens from acts of terrorism? In the case of Islamic terrorists, should we go after countries that apparently knowingly harbor/support them? Reverse the tables; if American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?
Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight; it's another to try to maintain an official peace while letting its citizens (without much apparent concern for it, if not actually supporting the activity) commit acts of terrorism from a purely ideological and religious standpoint.
One last note... I'm not sure communism is a "boogey-man" word. Tell some Korean or Vietnamese people that communism is really just a boogey-man. You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.
IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein. We even still have the freedom to criticize presidents. Without getting killed.
I'm not exactly sure if you're referring to just the current or recent wars of the US, or if you're talking about any war whatsoever...
But what utopia do you live in, may I ask? I'm sorry, but war is sometimes necessary. I'm not defending any particular war of any particular nation, but only saying that war is sometimes necessary. If someone is out to blow *your* country to bits, it doesn't do much good to talk to them or give them a philosophical (and well thought out, too) argument about why killing you would really just incite more killing, etc. There are even people that simply enjoy the carnage.
As long as life exists, there is going to be anger, hate, and malice; and as long as anger, hate, and malice exist, there's going to be bloodshed.
I'm all for peace and not war, but it is an unfortunate necessity at some points, in order to save life from those who WANT to destroy it for whatever reasons. It is from those "wanting to be guilty of murder and death" that more moral nations and armies are to protect the innocent.
I think I misinterpreted "developed" for "produced." It takes quite a while to actually produce (i.e., manufacture)... and even the development stage is going to take a much longer time than computer software or hardware people are used to, I'd imagine, since there can be exactly zero bugs in something like a supersonic fighter jet.
I would argue this. We're not necessarily using stuff developed 20 years ago - no more than we are using "computers that were developed in the 50s." Yeah, the extremely basic concept is pretty old (yeah, our planes still fly and we still call them planes, but they are a far cry from what the Wright brothers were thinking!).
Have you seen the F-22 Raptor? Is that really that old?
Also, frankly, this sort of technology is not cheap, and the typical American seems to not like spending tax money on the military. According to wikipedia, it's about $138 million for a single F-22. And that is not including the huge amounts of money that went into developing and testing the technology.
No wonder somewhat "older" technology is used - you can't use cutting edge technology that isn't very reliable yet. By the time it's reliable enough to put into production, it will probably be considered "old." On the other hand, I personally think the F-22 is pretty crazy and amazing, the thing is awesome, and can take on F-16's like they were butterflies, pretty much.
I wonder if the US is the only one trying to get better military armaments? From the posts so far, one would think the US was the only one building weapons.
Whether or not this particular technology is good to pursue isn't the point of my post, but the idea of developing arms in general.
No one wants another cold war, but no one wants to suddenly be under the military might of China, either, do they? I'm sure all of us slashdotters would love to have the Chinese version of the Internet.
[sarcasm] But of course, our freedom has absolutely nothing to do with military might, because other nations absolutely love the US and really just want to help us become a better and more free nation... [/sarcasm]
Another interesting thought... I wonder if the US military would really release information on the nwest and most advanced arms technology? It seems like that sort of research tends to be fairly classified?
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have "common sense." "Common sense" is quite uncommon among people who haven't grown up with computers. My mom, if it were not for me, would have no clue how to prevent viruses, adware, spyware, etc.
Of course, I remove Norton almost automatically when fixing computers, because it slows it down almost as much as a virus, in my experience.
I'd be interested to hear what you think about Starbucks business practices. Unethical, but legal, IMO.
Yes, the democratic-judicial system is prone to influence, bribery, and special interests, and money goes a long way.
At any rate, I certainly do not agree that MS is a good corporate citizen of its market and country. I personally think of its software is pretty decent, and certainly quite functional, and to argue that it's not that and that nothing good has ever come out of Microsoft is to be blind.
Anyway. True innovation seems to come out regardless of companies like Microsoft. Or... in spite of.
Slashdot Mirror
"Successfully fight[ing] cyber crime" can fairly important when it comes to integrity of data. Unless you decide that fighting cyber crime is really up to network administrators or something like that. In which case we may as well make phishing and hacking and whatnot entirely legal or something... internet theft, etc.
not that I actually support the former FBI agent's idea. actually it seems to be pretty stupid, heh.
Insightful? I'm not sure the Islam-believing terrorists are fighting just to get "us" out of their land. It's a war on infidels, in their lingo, isn't it? An infidel is not one who is in their land "torturing, killing, and oppressing their family members." According to the omniscient Wikipedia: "An infidel (literally, "one without faith") is one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities"
The lie that terrorists exist because the United States is torturing, killing, and oppressing all over the world is just that: a lie. If you're going to be critical about the US, or any country for that matter, at least do it with an understanding of both sides; maybe start with finding out what exactly the terrorists are really fighting.
Not just about lawyers though... the people have to be "money grubbing" too. Unless the lawyers are just really good at getting people to want money when they really DON'T want money... or maybe it's that both parties are greedy.
I'm not sure how big of a difference it would make to you... :)
No, it doesn't mean it will be done in practice. So what? A linux machine can be unsafe, too. It's a tradeoff.
I'm actually of the opinion that part of the reason "Linux boxes" tend to be more secure is that it actually requires a somewhat educated person to use it for anything more than basic web browsing and e-mail. By basic, I mean not even using imbedded quicktime or windows media files.
Linux rocks, but it IS possibly to have a fairly secure Windows box, and it IS possible to have "Linux users [that] are unable to keep their machines secure for a botnet to accomplish this task."
Using Linux neither automatically makes you secure nor automatically makes you a smart, intelligent, safe computer user. Although, I do have to admit that it seems to be harder to be compromised online, probably partially because of the popularity of Windows...
I'm not arguing for EULA's at all, they are ridiculously long at the very, very least... but digital signatures seem to be valid. Besides, anyone can sign my name... the thing is, that's forgery. Anyone can type my name as a signature, too ... but that's forgery.
Do credit card companies actually have a copy of your signature that they check other signatures to, or is it more the actual signing process that is important (and thus, if you are signing someone else's name, you are liable to be brought to court for forgery, a felony IIRC)
What about PayPal, or ordering online? Digital signatures? You are actually suggesting that my written signature should be required to make it legal? That'd make some things very, very slow...
I suppose an ISP has a right to do this sort of thing (unless, of course, they have contracted with you not to do it)
I'd imagine some ISP's will respond by offering Ad-Free internet service. Wouldn't this kinda fall under competition, then? Stupid for those ISP's, perhaps, but hey, stupidity can be nice for the consumer now and then.
According to the article...
A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network -- perhaps hundreds of accounts or more -- instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.
Later, F.B.I. officials blamed an "apparent miscommunication" with the unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain for which it served as host. The records were ultimately destroyed, officials said.
The article seems to imply that the mistake was the ISP's. They "mistakenly" turned over too much, which makes it sound like they weren't ordered to do so.
Hmm... but if it's infinitesimally small, it would require an infinite amount of time.
There's an interesting argument that if time/the universe has been existent for an infinite amount of time in the past, we would never have been able to get to this current point in time, because then it would no longer have been an infinite amount of time. I believe it's the Kalam argument.
Yeah, I'm probably the first poster in the history of slashdot that took the time to read the article before posting a comment. I just did it because I like to be contrary. That was quite entertaining and humorous.
Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's retarded. I haven't really seen a lot of evidence even that some form of extremely basic life could be formed in any sort of atmosphere even resmbling ours (if I remember correctly, there was something about some scientists that was recently able to get proteins to form in very exact and beneficial conditions, but that's about it). Why should I really believe that life could have possibly formed on some remote place like Mars, where the temperature apparently ranges from 27 degrees Celsius to -107 degrees Celsius.
Basically, all evidence that I see points to not having life elsewhere. Infinite possibilities? In order to have infinite possibilities, strictly speaking, the universe would have to have been eternally existent.
As for being too close minded for being a scientist, I would be interested to know exactly how open minded you have to be. It is extremely hard to prove the absence of something entirely, as can be seen in this thread (how do you prove life never existed on Mars?). It seems that the possibility of life being on Mars, even with an infinite universe and an open view of evolution, is significantly less than the possibility of a military transport accidentally dropping a tank on exactly the spot you sit at your computer. So, maybe I should be spending money on making sure my house's roof could withstand a tank falling on top of it, since it's possible?
Of course, the probability of life evolving is a rather big topic. It'd be interesting to try to calculate the probability of the two ideas and see which one is more probable.
I'm almost certain this is going to be a flamebait post now, but that's ok - can I quote Carl Sagan, then, in arguing against the atheistic argument about the non-existence of god? (interestingly, Sagan had a very strange view of what he apparently thought believers in God thought that He is.... very, very strange ideas, in fact)
Which is true. Just like you'd say "Ah, they aren't real evolutionists" or "they aren't real scientists."
But the point was... there WAS a huge outcry against it. And it was pretty much stopped, interestingly enough.
(I always find it interesting that, when it comes down to it, many people think that they know what a "Christian" is better than "Christians," and that if anyone claims they are "Christian," then they are a good spokesman for all "Christians.")
Religion is a mental illness, it's not a human right but a human tragedy...
Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way. What you're telling me, is that it's a tragedy if I believe something that you don't...
Somehow, I am disinclined to believe that your worldview is right or better than mine. Although, I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.
I guess I would agree that "terrorism" can be misused/used as propaganda, and I agree about communism as well (IMO, it would never work because of what humans are); however, I think modern day terrorists are a real threat and does justify action... and while people might disagree about exactly what action is necessary, I don't think we should dismiss it as though it were unimportant or not a thread (nor do I personally think that peaceful diplomacy will do a whole lot, simply because of why these particular terrorists are terrorists).
As for Britain, the off topic historical question, I would argue that they would not have called them terrorists so much as "rebels." Sort of like how the Union viewed the Confederacy. Terrorism and rebellion are significantly different, if only that rebellion takes place in your own country, whereas terrorism seems to be against another country... which is why, for example, in Iraq, Iraqi "terrorism" (Iraqi extremists committing terrorist acts in Iraq) is called insurrection... an armed rebellion, if you will.
Ah, I believe this is very historically false. Revolution, civil war, and coup are not all necessarily acts of terrorism. Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war. It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain; Britain sent military force to subdue their "colonies," and the "US" fought back. That's very different from various peoples usually adhering to a certain religious idea (radical Islam, for example) simply trying to create fear and destruction because they oppose what another country stands for.
"Terrorist" is the new "Nazi." Except even the Nazis at least somewhat openly declared war, and were associated with a nation. The problem with modern-day terrorists is that they come from an ideological view without officially being tied to a country; if all these terrorists that blow up various western civilizations (yes, they have it out for western civilization and non-Muslims, not just the US or Britain) were really officially the Iran National Army, I doubt Iran would last very long. However, whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unofficially or secretly helping terrorists is a lot harder to figure out.
I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.
Another example. Let's say that a variety of Americans began bombing all sorts Eastern civilizations, various places. Terrorism, basically, but this time Western going for the East. That'd be a big deal, and it'd be hard to fight against.
There's the problem. How do you stop independent (seemingly, at any rate, it's hard to tell) citizens from acts of terrorism? In the case of Islamic terrorists, should we go after countries that apparently knowingly harbor/support them? Reverse the tables; if American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?
Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight; it's another to try to maintain an official peace while letting its citizens (without much apparent concern for it, if not actually supporting the activity) commit acts of terrorism from a purely ideological and religious standpoint.
One last note... I'm not sure communism is a "boogey-man" word. Tell some Korean or Vietnamese people that communism is really just a boogey-man. You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.
IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein. We even still have the freedom to criticize presidents. Without getting killed.
I'm not exactly sure if you're referring to just the current or recent wars of the US, or if you're talking about any war whatsoever...
But what utopia do you live in, may I ask? I'm sorry, but war is sometimes necessary. I'm not defending any particular war of any particular nation, but only saying that war is sometimes necessary. If someone is out to blow *your* country to bits, it doesn't do much good to talk to them or give them a philosophical (and well thought out, too) argument about why killing you would really just incite more killing, etc. There are even people that simply enjoy the carnage.
As long as life exists, there is going to be anger, hate, and malice; and as long as anger, hate, and malice exist, there's going to be bloodshed.
I'm all for peace and not war, but it is an unfortunate necessity at some points, in order to save life from those who WANT to destroy it for whatever reasons. It is from those "wanting to be guilty of murder and death" that more moral nations and armies are to protect the innocent.
I think I misinterpreted "developed" for "produced." It takes quite a while to actually produce (i.e., manufacture)... and even the development stage is going to take a much longer time than computer software or hardware people are used to, I'd imagine, since there can be exactly zero bugs in something like a supersonic fighter jet.
I would argue this. We're not necessarily using stuff developed 20 years ago - no more than we are using "computers that were developed in the 50s." Yeah, the extremely basic concept is pretty old (yeah, our planes still fly and we still call them planes, but they are a far cry from what the Wright brothers were thinking!).
Have you seen the F-22 Raptor? Is that really that old?
Also, frankly, this sort of technology is not cheap, and the typical American seems to not like spending tax money on the military. According to wikipedia, it's about $138 million for a single F-22. And that is not including the huge amounts of money that went into developing and testing the technology.
No wonder somewhat "older" technology is used - you can't use cutting edge technology that isn't very reliable yet. By the time it's reliable enough to put into production, it will probably be considered "old." On the other hand, I personally think the F-22 is pretty crazy and amazing, the thing is awesome, and can take on F-16's like they were butterflies, pretty much.
I wonder if the US is the only one trying to get better military armaments? From the posts so far, one would think the US was the only one building weapons.
Whether or not this particular technology is good to pursue isn't the point of my post, but the idea of developing arms in general.
No one wants another cold war, but no one wants to suddenly be under the military might of China, either, do they? I'm sure all of us slashdotters would love to have the Chinese version of the Internet.
[sarcasm] But of course, our freedom has absolutely nothing to do with military might, because other nations absolutely love the US and really just want to help us become a better and more free nation... [/sarcasm]
Another interesting thought... I wonder if the US military would really release information on the nwest and most advanced arms technology? It seems like that sort of research tends to be fairly classified?
I meant "common sense" to refer to common sense regarding computers... but your point is taken nonetheless.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have "common sense." "Common sense" is quite uncommon among people who haven't grown up with computers. My mom, if it were not for me, would have no clue how to prevent viruses, adware, spyware, etc.
Of course, I remove Norton almost automatically when fixing computers, because it slows it down almost as much as a virus, in my experience.
I'd be interested to hear what you think about Starbucks business practices. Unethical, but legal, IMO.
Yes, the democratic-judicial system is prone to influence, bribery, and special interests, and money goes a long way.
At any rate, I certainly do not agree that MS is a good corporate citizen of its market and country. I personally think of its software is pretty decent, and certainly quite functional, and to argue that it's not that and that nothing good has ever come out of Microsoft is to be blind.
Anyway. True innovation seems to come out regardless of companies like Microsoft. Or... in spite of.
I wouldn't know, but KDE 4.0.1 is rather shiny...