No, it's not. IE for the Mac is developed and published by Microsoft. Apple just pre-loads it and ships it with its OS. You can download IE from Microsoft's website, not from Apple's.
If you had published an article on it, or even just made a Usenet post about it, that would constitute prior art, and you could give that information to TiVo so that they can nullify the patent.
Here's a letter I sent last week. I posted this on another thread, but here it is again for those who missed it. I'm allowing anyone to use this letter as a template for their communiques, on the conditition that you modify it so that it doesn't look like it's a complete rip-off.
-------------
Dear Senator/Congressman:
This week, you and all other Congressmen are very busy preparing new laws and modifying existing ones to help the United States combat terrorism. Unfortunately, I fear that some of these laws will do more to restrict loyal Americans than actually stop terrorists. I hope you can take a few minutes out of your schedule to read this letter.
To put it bluntly, restrictions on encryption technology are pointless. There have been reports that the terrorist networks responsible for the World Trade Center attack used encryption technology in their communication. Many people, none of whom truly understands technology, believe that if there had been limits on encryption, it would have hampered the terrorists. This assertion is absurd.
Encryption is nothing more than a field of mathematics, where the data to be encrypted is treated as a bunch of numbers. Placing legal limits on encryption is the same as outlawing certain kinds of math. One of the worst ideas being proposed is to force individuals and companies to use encryption technologies for which the government has "back door" access. That is, the government is in possession of secret keys that can decrypt any data which is encrypted using these particular algorithms. Other encryption algorithms which don't allow for back doors would be outlawed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is impossible to force terrorists to use "approved" technology. We don't even know who or where they are, so how can we force them to do anything?!? The terrorists will simply use "non-approved" encryption technologies while honest American citizens and businesses are forced to sacrifice their privacy. The worst part is that if other countries were to ever obtain these secret keys, they would have access to every piece of encrypted data from the United States.
The truth is, strong encryption protects Americans. With strong encryption, terrorists won't be able to decrypt sensitive corporate data. They won't be able to spy on American citizens. They won't be able to intercept top secret transmissions.
These terrorists were able to strike not because they used encryption, but because our intelligence organizations are incompetent. The FBI is better known for its blunders (e.g. the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the siege at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and the 3000 documents in the McVeigh case) than for its successes. In fact, it's been over a week since the attack, and the best our government can say is, "We're pretty sure that Osama bin Ladin is the prime suspect."
Therefore, I am asking you to reject any bills that place limitations on the use of encryption. Instead, I think you should focus on how to improve our intelligence-gathering organizations. Perhaps in exchange for bailing out the airline industry, federal officials from the intelligence organizations should get free flights for the next ten years. The money saved can be used to fund more operations.
Ok, thanks for all the feedback. I've incorporated all of it, and made a few other changes. Again, anyone is free to copy this letter, provided you make some changes so that at least it appears to be somewhat original. I'm still open to comments and suggestions.
----------
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings is introducing a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill will make it illegal to possess any computer device that allows unrestricted copying of digital data.
I have previously written to you about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a similar law which I believe to be unconstitutional. The DMCA makes it legal for corporations to develop technology that can limit or remove my fair-use rights under copyright law, but makes it illegal for me to use other technology to restore these rights.
The SSSCA takes this unconstitutional practice even further. The SSSCA makes it illegal to own a computer that does not have "security controls". If I purchase a computer, all of the hardware and software in that computer must comply with whatever access controls the media industry has created. Undoubtedly, the restrictions that these access controls impose will not be open for debate by the American public. The corporations will have total control.
The SSSCA effectively criminalizes the development and use of a type of software known as "Open Source." Briefly, programs classified as Open Source are written in such a way as to allow users to examine and, if they wish, modify the inner workings of the programs to suit their purposes. Security controls such as these could not be implemented in Open Source software because any programmer could easily remove them . You may be surprised to learn that a significant portion of the entire Internet runs on Open Source software.
Like the DMCA, the SSSCA does not guarantee that I will be able to exercise all of my fair-use rights with this new "approved" technology. Fair-use is about intent. I can duplicate any copyrighted work I want, provided my intent falls under the guidelines of fair-use. However, it is impossible for any technology to determine what my intent is.
The DMCA and the SSSCA are unnecessary, because the original copyright laws are sufficient for the digital age. They allow individuals to make personal copies of copyrighted works that they've legally obtained, but disallow mass distribution of those works. Unfortunately, the media companies are not interested in targeting only those people who violate copyright law. Instead, it's much easier for them to buy legislation that strips honest consumers of their rights.
I would like to direct your attention to an online news article about Rep. Hollings and the SSSCA. If you can, please pull up your web browser and visit
On this page, you can read how a reporter attempted to get some basic questions about the SSSCA answered from Rep. Hollings, but was instead met with resistance. Not only that, but investigations into the financial supporters of Rep. Hollings show that five of the top twenty soft-money donations come from media companies. These are the same companies that promoted the DMCA and would like nothing more than to completely eliminate the concept of fair-use from copyright law.
Draconian laws such as the DMCA and the SSSCA are getting out of hand. They prove to me that many of our so-called elected officials really answer only to commercial interests. I am opposed to any law that restricts my constitutional rights, and the SSSCA is definitely one of these laws. As an engineer, I feel that my rights are being slowly erased by politicians who don't understand technology. I am confident that you will take the right side on this issue. Don't let commercial media interests defile the constitution.
Dude, what is the point of your post? I made an effort to write a meaningful, insightful letter to my Congressmen, but I needed help, and so I asked for it. Why do you have a problem with that?
I don't even understand what you're talking about. First, you make disparaging and unfounded remarks about me, with respect to my use of Linux. I guess you didn't know that I only use Linux during my day job, because I'm a Linux progammer. I don't even really like Linux that much. But my only concrete example is in the context of Linux, and I know that's not good enough.
Second, you say that as a non-Linux user, you can see what's bad about the SSSCA. That's great. Can you help me explain it to others??? That would do everyone a whole lot more good than the drivel you just wrote.
Thanks for your feedback. I'll still missing something. I would like a concrete example of what exactly I won't be able to do, if the SSSCA is passed, that I should be allowed to do. I tried to explain it in paragraphs three and four, but I just don't think it hammers the point home. Unless my Congresscritters have a keen understanding of Linux, the significane of paragraph four won't mean anything to them.
I've been working on this letter a bit. Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite good enough to send yet. I'm hoping for some feedback. It's not as "coherant" as I'd like. I'm having a hard time pinning down what's REALLY wrong with the SSSCA, in a manner that non-Linux users can understand. Can anyone help?
--------------
Dear Senator/Representative:
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings is introducing a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill will make it illegal to possess any computer device that allows unrestricted copying of digital data.
I have previously written to you about the Digital Millenium Copywright Act, which is a similar law that I believe is unconstitutional. The DMCA makes it legal for corporations to develop technology that can limit or remove my fair use rights under copywright law, but makes it illegal for me to use other technology to restore these rights.
The SSSCA takes this unfair practice even further. The SSSCA makes it illegal to own a computer that does not have "security controls". If I purchase a computer, all of the hardware and software in that computer must comply with whatever access controls the media industry has created. Undoubtably, the restrictions that these access controls impose will not be open for debate by the American public. The corporations will have total control.
The problem with the SSSCA is that it effectively makes Linux and all other Open Source software (software for which the source code is available for free) illegal. There is no point in implementing these security controls in Open Source software, because anyone could easily remove them (that's the benefit of having the source code - you can modify the program as much as you want). Did you know that more than half the Internet runs on Open Source software? What is the government going to do - shut down the Internet because suddenly it's 50% illegal?
I would like to direct your attention to an online news article about Rep. Hollings and the SSSCA. If you can, please pull up your web browser and visit
On this page, you can read how a reporter attempted to get some basic questions about the SSSCA answered from Rep. Hollings, but was instead met with extreme resistance. Not only that, but investigations into the financial supporters of Rep. Hollings show that five of the top twenty soft-money donations come from media companies. These are the same companies that promoted the DMCA and would like nothing more than to completely eliminate the concept of fair use from copyright law.
These draconian laws are getting out of hand. To me, they are proof positive that our so-called elected officials have really been purchased by giant corporations. I am opposed to any law that restricts my constitutional rights. I am opposed to extending the duration of patents and copyrights (such as the Sonny Bono copyright extension law that was passed just for Disney). Your track record in such matters has been unacceptable to me, and I will be voting against you in the next election if that doesn't change. Issues such as the budget, Social Security, the military, taxation, and abortion mean little to me. As an engineer, I feel that my rights are being slowly erased by politicians who don't understand technology.
Dmitry wasn't selling anything in the U.S. His company wasn't selling anything in the U.S. A distributor was reselling the product in the U.S. The reseller is the one who should have been arrested, if anyone.
Just because you don't like the GPL doesn't mean that it's not a good license, or that no one should use it. In the world of free software, the GPL is just as necessary as the BSD license. Many people would not be writing free software if they knew that their efforts could be used to support a closed, proprietary product. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If I am going to spend hours, days, weeks, or months writing free software, why should I not be given the right to ensure that my efforts are only used to promote free software?
Is the GPL parasitic and restrictive? Yes! So what?!?!?! If you don't like GPL software, don't use it!
Have you written any free software? If not, then you really don't have any right to criticise the GPL. The GPL is designed to protect both the creators and the users of free software evenly.
This week, you and all other Congressmen are very busy preparing new laws and modifying existing ones to help the United States combat terrorism. Unfortunately, I fear that some of these laws will do more to restrict loyal Americans than actually stop terrorists. I hope you can take a few minutes out of your schedule to read this letter.
To put it bluntly, restrictions on encryption technology are pointless. There have been reports that the terrorist networks responsible for the World Trade Center attack used encryption technology in their communication. Many people, none of whom truly understands technology, believe that if there had been limits on encryption, it would have hampered the terrorists. This assertion is absurd.
Encryption is nothing more than a field of mathematics, where the data to be encrypted is treated as a bunch of numbers. Placing legal limits on encryption is the same as outlawing certain kinds of math. One of the worst ideas being proposed is to force individuals and companies to use encryption technologies for which the government has "back door" access. That is, the government is in possession of secret keys that can decrypt any data which is encrypted using these particular algorithms. Other encryption algorithms which don't allow for back doors would be outlawed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is impossible to force terrorists to use "approved" technology. We don't even know who or where they are, so how can we force them to do anything?!? The terrorists will simply use "non-approved" encryption technologies while honest American citizens and businesses are forced to sacrifice their privacy. The worst part is that if other countries were to ever obtain these secret keys, they would have access to every piece of encrypted data from the United States.
The truth is, strong encryption protects Americans. With strong encryption, terrorists won't be able to decrypt sensitive corporate data. They won't be able to spy on American citizens. They won't be able to intercept top secret transmissions.
These terrorists were able to strike not because they used encryption, but because our intelligence organizations are incompetent. The FBI is better known for its blunders (e.g. the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the siege at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and the 3000 documents in the McVeigh case) than for its successes. In fact, it's been over a week since the attack, and the best our government can say is, "We're pretty sure that Osama bin Ladin is the prime suspect."
Therefore, I am asking you to reject any bills that place limitations on the use of encryption. Instead, I think you should focus on how to improve our intelligence-gathering organizations. Perhaps in exchange for bailing out the airline industry, federal officials from the intelligence organizations should get free flights for the next ten years. The money saved can be used to fund more operations.
I thought the whole point behind going to a specific doctor for a procedure was that he's far more knowledgeable about it than anyone nearby. Removing a gall bladder isn't exactly cutting-edge medicine.
But I would never go for this. Part of the advantage of having such a capable physician is that if anything goes wrong, he can take care of it. The robot arms restrict his options and make it more difficult to work in an emergency.
Not only that, but this involves a reliable high-speed connection. The only time this technology would be truly useful is if you were in the middle of nowhere and needed an operation. But if you're in the middle of nowhere, you'll never be able to get a reliable high-speed connection!
Linus may already be allowing them to use the term "RTLinux". Some companies allow others to use their trademarked terms in certain circumstances. This does not dilute the trademark.
I don't think Linus has to worry about the term "Linux" being diluted. RTLinux is based on Linux and is under the GPL, so it's not like Linux is being used as a term to describe any operating system.
From MacCentral: An Apple spokesperson confirmed for MacCentral today the company would donate $1 million dollars to the families of rescue workers that lost their lives in the attacks on two American cities last week.
Apple will also be donating an iBook to each of these families with children.
Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla
on
Mozilla 0.9.4 Released
·
· Score: 2
Can you tell me where this feature is available? I can't find it anywhere. The above prefs.js settings don't work, because they disable javascript-opened windows on a mouse click, which is a bad thing.
However, there is a difference in the interpretation of "Jihad" between sunni and shia muslims, isn't there...?
Frankly, I have no idea. My impression is that the various sects of Islam are quite different. I once met a woman who said she was a Muslim, but followed one of the sects. I can't remember what it was called, but when she described it to me, I didn't recognize anything about it! It was like a completely different relgion.
These quotations are about self defense. Let me address each one:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
This one says that you should fight as Allah wants you to fight, with your fellow soldiers, but only as much as necessary. There are certain rules in the Koran that say how and how not to fight (for instance, you can't kill any camels).
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
This one is taken a bit out of context. Basically, it's saying to fight to take back what the invaders have taken from you, but whatever you do, don't attack anyone in a Mosque, unless you were there first and they charged in to attack you.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
This says that you should stop fighting as soon as they stop.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
This basically says the same thing. Fighting should be in self-defense, to rid your homeland of invaders and oppressors, but you should never "counter-invade" once you've driven them out.
Granted, technically Islam does allow killing, but only in the most restricted instance of self-defense. Perhaps you expect Islam to say that it's much better to have your entire family slaughtered by invaders than to kill the invader?
Also, one thing that many people don't realize is that the words "Holy War" do not exist in the Koran. Jihad means "to struggle and to improve yourself". It's just another example of people twisting the truth and making Islam look bad.
Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla
on
Mozilla 0.9.4 Released
·
· Score: 2
This doesn't exactly work like intended. It also kills popups that are created when you click on a Javascript link. In other words, it completely kills the ability for Javascript to create a window. Unfortunately, the includes more than just "popups".
Slashdot Mirror
The new season of E:FC is starting this week.
No, it's not. IE for the Mac is developed and published by Microsoft. Apple just pre-loads it and ships it with its OS. You can download IE from Microsoft's website, not from Apple's.
If you had published an article on it, or even just made a Usenet post about it, that would constitute prior art, and you could give that information to TiVo so that they can nullify the patent.
I don't see any electronic or techno music in the listings.
-------------
Dear Senator/Congressman:
This week, you and all other Congressmen are very busy preparing new laws and modifying existing ones to help the United States combat terrorism. Unfortunately, I fear that some of these laws will do more to restrict loyal Americans than actually stop terrorists. I hope you can take a few minutes out of your schedule to read this letter.
To put it bluntly, restrictions on encryption technology are pointless. There have been reports that the terrorist networks responsible for the World Trade Center attack used encryption technology in their communication. Many people, none of whom truly understands technology, believe that if there had been limits on encryption, it would have hampered the terrorists. This assertion is absurd.
Encryption is nothing more than a field of mathematics, where the data to be encrypted is treated as a bunch of numbers. Placing legal limits on encryption is the same as outlawing certain kinds of math. One of the worst ideas being proposed is to force individuals and companies to use encryption technologies for which the government has "back door" access. That is, the government is in possession of secret keys that can decrypt any data which is encrypted using these particular algorithms. Other encryption algorithms which don't allow for back doors would be outlawed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is impossible to force terrorists to use "approved" technology. We don't even know who or where they are, so how can we force them to do anything?!? The terrorists will simply use "non-approved" encryption technologies while honest American citizens and businesses are forced to sacrifice their privacy. The worst part is that if other countries were to ever obtain these secret keys, they would have access to every piece of encrypted data from the United States.
The truth is, strong encryption protects Americans. With strong encryption, terrorists won't be able to decrypt sensitive corporate data. They won't be able to spy on American citizens. They won't be able to intercept top secret transmissions.
These terrorists were able to strike not because they used encryption, but because our intelligence organizations are incompetent. The FBI is better known for its blunders (e.g. the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the siege at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and the 3000 documents in the McVeigh case) than for its successes. In fact, it's been over a week since the attack, and the best our government can say is, "We're pretty sure that Osama bin Ladin is the prime suspect."
Therefore, I am asking you to reject any bills that place limitations on the use of encryption. Instead, I think you should focus on how to improve our intelligence-gathering organizations. Perhaps in exchange for bailing out the airline industry, federal officials from the intelligence organizations should get free flights for the next ten years. The money saved can be used to fund more operations.
----------
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings is introducing a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill will make it illegal to possess any computer device that allows unrestricted copying of digital data.
I have previously written to you about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a similar law which I believe to be unconstitutional. The DMCA makes it legal for corporations to develop technology that can limit or remove my fair-use rights under copyright law, but makes it illegal for me to use other technology to restore these rights.
The SSSCA takes this unconstitutional practice even further. The SSSCA makes it illegal to own a computer that does not have "security controls". If I purchase a computer, all of the hardware and software in that computer must comply with whatever access controls the media industry has created. Undoubtedly, the restrictions that these access controls impose will not be open for debate by the American public. The corporations will have total control.
The SSSCA effectively criminalizes the development and use of a type of software known as "Open Source." Briefly, programs classified as Open Source are written in such a way as to allow users to examine and, if they wish, modify the inner workings of the programs to suit their purposes. Security controls such as these could not be implemented in Open Source software because any programmer could easily remove them . You may be surprised to learn that a significant portion of the entire Internet runs on Open Source software.
Like the DMCA, the SSSCA does not guarantee that I will be able to exercise all of my fair-use rights with this new "approved" technology. Fair-use is about intent. I can duplicate any copyrighted work I want, provided my intent falls under the guidelines of fair-use. However, it is impossible for any technology to determine what my intent is.
The DMCA and the SSSCA are unnecessary, because the original copyright laws are sufficient for the digital age. They allow individuals to make personal copies of copyrighted works that they've legally obtained, but disallow mass distribution of those works. Unfortunately, the media companies are not interested in targeting only those people who violate copyright law. Instead, it's much easier for them to buy legislation that strips honest consumers of their rights.
I would like to direct your attention to an online news article about Rep. Hollings and the SSSCA. If you can, please pull up your web browser and visit
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/20/2 047211
On this page, you can read how a reporter attempted to get some basic questions about the SSSCA answered from Rep. Hollings, but was instead met with resistance. Not only that, but investigations into the financial supporters of Rep. Hollings show that five of the top twenty soft-money donations come from media companies. These are the same companies that promoted the DMCA and would like nothing more than to completely eliminate the concept of fair-use from copyright law.
Draconian laws such as the DMCA and the SSSCA are getting out of hand. They prove to me that many of our so-called elected officials really answer only to commercial interests. I am opposed to any law that restricts my constitutional rights, and the SSSCA is definitely one of these laws. As an engineer, I feel that my rights are being slowly erased by politicians who don't understand technology. I am confident that you will take the right side on this issue. Don't let commercial media interests defile the constitution.
I don't even understand what you're talking about. First, you make disparaging and unfounded remarks about me, with respect to my use of Linux. I guess you didn't know that I only use Linux during my day job, because I'm a Linux progammer. I don't even really like Linux that much. But my only concrete example is in the context of Linux, and I know that's not good enough.
Second, you say that as a non-Linux user, you can see what's bad about the SSSCA. That's great. Can you help me explain it to others??? That would do everyone a whole lot more good than the drivel you just wrote.
Thanks for your feedback. I'll still missing something. I would like a concrete example of what exactly I won't be able to do, if the SSSCA is passed, that I should be allowed to do. I tried to explain it in paragraphs three and four, but I just don't think it hammers the point home. Unless my Congresscritters have a keen understanding of Linux, the significane of paragraph four won't mean anything to them.
Yes, anyone is free to use my letter, but please make some changes. I don't it to become a form letter of sorts.
--------------
Dear Senator/Representative:
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings is introducing a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill will make it illegal to possess any computer device that allows unrestricted copying of digital data.
I have previously written to you about the Digital Millenium Copywright Act, which is a similar law that I believe is unconstitutional. The DMCA makes it legal for corporations to develop technology that can limit or remove my fair use rights under copywright law, but makes it illegal for me to use other technology to restore these rights.
The SSSCA takes this unfair practice even further. The SSSCA makes it illegal to own a computer that does not have "security controls". If I purchase a computer, all of the hardware and software in that computer must comply with whatever access controls the media industry has created. Undoubtably, the restrictions that these access controls impose will not be open for debate by the American public. The corporations will have total control.
The problem with the SSSCA is that it effectively makes Linux and all other Open Source software (software for which the source code is available for free) illegal. There is no point in implementing these security controls in Open Source software, because anyone could easily remove them (that's the benefit of having the source code - you can modify the program as much as you want). Did you know that more than half the Internet runs on Open Source software? What is the government going to do - shut down the Internet because suddenly it's 50% illegal?
I would like to direct your attention to an online news article about Rep. Hollings and the SSSCA. If you can, please pull up your web browser and visit
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/20/2 047211
On this page, you can read how a reporter attempted to get some basic questions about the SSSCA answered from Rep. Hollings, but was instead met with extreme resistance. Not only that, but investigations into the financial supporters of Rep. Hollings show that five of the top twenty soft-money donations come from media companies. These are the same companies that promoted the DMCA and would like nothing more than to completely eliminate the concept of fair use from copyright law.
These draconian laws are getting out of hand. To me, they are proof positive that our so-called elected officials have really been purchased by giant corporations. I am opposed to any law that restricts my constitutional rights. I am opposed to extending the duration of patents and copyrights (such as the Sonny Bono copyright extension law that was passed just for Disney). Your track record in such matters has been unacceptable to me, and I will be voting against you in the next election if that doesn't change. Issues such as the budget, Social Security, the military, taxation, and abortion mean little to me. As an engineer, I feel that my rights are being slowly erased by politicians who don't understand technology.
Dmitry wasn't selling anything in the U.S. His company wasn't selling anything in the U.S. A distributor was reselling the product in the U.S. The reseller is the one who should have been arrested, if anyone.
Is the GPL parasitic and restrictive? Yes! So what?!?!?! If you don't like GPL software, don't use it!
Have you written any free software? If not, then you really don't have any right to criticise the GPL. The GPL is designed to protect both the creators and the users of free software evenly.
Carnivore can't decrypt documents encoded with 1024-bit keys, so how can it stop a terrorist?
This week, you and all other Congressmen are very busy preparing new laws and modifying existing ones to help the United States combat terrorism. Unfortunately, I fear that some of these laws will do more to restrict loyal Americans than actually stop terrorists. I hope you can take a few minutes out of your schedule to read this letter.
To put it bluntly, restrictions on encryption technology are pointless. There have been reports that the terrorist networks responsible for the World Trade Center attack used encryption technology in their communication. Many people, none of whom truly understands technology, believe that if there had been limits on encryption, it would have hampered the terrorists. This assertion is absurd.
Encryption is nothing more than a field of mathematics, where the data to be encrypted is treated as a bunch of numbers. Placing legal limits on encryption is the same as outlawing certain kinds of math. One of the worst ideas being proposed is to force individuals and companies to use encryption technologies for which the government has "back door" access. That is, the government is in possession of secret keys that can decrypt any data which is encrypted using these particular algorithms. Other encryption algorithms which don't allow for back doors would be outlawed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is impossible to force terrorists to use "approved" technology. We don't even know who or where they are, so how can we force them to do anything?!? The terrorists will simply use "non-approved" encryption technologies while honest American citizens and businesses are forced to sacrifice their privacy. The worst part is that if other countries were to ever obtain these secret keys, they would have access to every piece of encrypted data from the United States.
The truth is, strong encryption protects Americans. With strong encryption, terrorists won't be able to decrypt sensitive corporate data. They won't be able to spy on American citizens. They won't be able to intercept top secret transmissions.
These terrorists were able to strike not because they used encryption, but because our intelligence organizations are incompetent. The FBI is better known for its blunders (e.g. the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the siege at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and the 3000 documents in the McVeigh case) than for its successes. In fact, it's been over a week since the attack, and the best our government can say is, "We're pretty sure that Osama bin Ladin is the prime suspect."
Therefore, I am asking you to reject any bills that place limitations on the use of encryption. Instead, I think you should focus on how to improve our intelligence-gathering organizations. Perhaps in exchange for bailing out the airline industry, federal officials from the intelligence organizations should get free flights for the next ten years. The money saved can be used to fund more operations.
The fact that you even made this assertion proves that you're an idiot. Please, moderators, just mod this guy a troll and let's be done with him.
Yes. But no one would use the Internet for this type of thing anyway.
But I would never go for this. Part of the advantage of having such a capable physician is that if anything goes wrong, he can take care of it. The robot arms restrict his options and make it more difficult to work in an emergency.
Not only that, but this involves a reliable high-speed connection. The only time this technology would be truly useful is if you were in the middle of nowhere and needed an operation. But if you're in the middle of nowhere, you'll never be able to get a reliable high-speed connection!
All you need to do is combine that robot with this thing, and you'll never need a real girlfriend again!
Apple will also be donating an iBook to each of these families with children.
Can you tell me where this feature is available? I can't find it anywhere. The above prefs.js settings don't work, because they disable javascript-opened windows on a mouse click, which is a bad thing.
The Apple Expo was just cancelled.
Frankly, I have no idea. My impression is that the various sects of Islam are quite different. I once met a woman who said she was a Muslim, but followed one of the sects. I can't remember what it was called, but when she described it to me, I didn't recognize anything about it! It was like a completely different relgion.
These quotations are about self defense. Let me address each one:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
This one says that you should fight as Allah wants you to fight, with your fellow soldiers, but only as much as necessary. There are certain rules in the Koran that say how and how not to fight (for instance, you can't kill any camels).
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
This one is taken a bit out of context. Basically, it's saying to fight to take back what the invaders have taken from you, but whatever you do, don't attack anyone in a Mosque, unless you were there first and they charged in to attack you.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
This says that you should stop fighting as soon as they stop.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
This basically says the same thing. Fighting should be in self-defense, to rid your homeland of invaders and oppressors, but you should never "counter-invade" once you've driven them out.
Granted, technically Islam does allow killing, but only in the most restricted instance of self-defense. Perhaps you expect Islam to say that it's much better to have your entire family slaughtered by invaders than to kill the invader?
Also, one thing that many people don't realize is that the words "Holy War" do not exist in the Koran. Jihad means "to struggle and to improve yourself". It's just another example of people twisting the truth and making Islam look bad.
This doesn't exactly work like intended. It also kills popups that are created when you click on a Javascript link. In other words, it completely kills the ability for Javascript to create a window. Unfortunately, the includes more than just "popups".