My thoughts exactly. Well, not exactly. My first thought was that Rosie O'Donnell could now explain to us that it's simple physics: how could there be a hole there, because a vacuum has nothing in it you could make a hole in.
Unless they figure out how to ensure redundancy, they will have reinvented the wheel. The reason the Internet is unreliable is that the last two nodes on the graph have only one connection. Why do we have only one ISP, and why do ISPs only have one upstream provider? Economics. Let's see them solve that one.
Furthermore, we've been about to implement IPv6 for years now.
Even furthermore, their ultra-secure shiny modern internetwork will still have to connect to the kludgy 1980's rustbucket the rest of us use on our Windows-based computers, which means it will be pwned in a few minutes just like the original.
It's the Silver Bullet Syndrome. They think they'll invent a secure network, when all they'll be doing is achieving a bit of obsecurity.
But please, don't get the government involved. They'll bury the Internet providers under a mountain of red tape, until customer service will be the last thing on their minds.
Thanks, AC. I'm sure you won't read this, but maybe someone else will.
I'm no fan of George Bush. I just don't think he's the demon everyone makes him out to be. He's just a guy trying to do a really hard job.
See, I don't think the President has 'trampled all over the Constitution'. If he has broken some rule or another, then the damage has been inadvertent, collateral and temporary, not part of a key piece of some grand dictatorial design.
Actually, your English and logic was correct. The premise that one needs a famous family name and status to get elected is incorrect, though, and I think is generalized from too small a sample.
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
Too bad it isn't difficult to attain because of requirements other than family name and status. So you would rather it were difficult to attain because of requirements other than family name and status?
I think you meant "Too bad it's only difficult to attain for those without family name and status." Right?
Why all the hyperventilating?
From the end of TFA:
The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified. So release the court orders and such.
It's the ACLU's job to be paranoid, but I'm glad they see the value in keeping some things classified. All of these charges that the Bush Administration is trampling over the Constitution and spying on everyone is only helpful to partisans.
I like how you substituted the pejorative word "hate" for the mild phrase "view intellectualism with suspicion." Then you immediately make the connotation between brains and elitism, because obviously if you're smart, you're an elitist, the kind of person a sensible, wise, god-fearing American hero would be bound to hate. Can't blame them for hating hateable people, right?[...] My post, which perhaps you should reread, was about the difference between intellect and elitism. Some intellectuals are elitists, but some are not, and Americans don't hate smart people, but they do hate elitists. That's why elitists don't get elected President.
As far as my use of the word "hate", you said the last two losing presidential candidates were thought to be "know-it-alls, dorks, geeks, namby pamby sissy faggot intellectuals". That's not just viewing something with suspicion.
no, it goes towards their core values, which is VERY influential on issues like which science research to fund. thank guys like this for bans on stem cell research. There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a moratorium on using Federal funds for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cells.
I'm not sure. It appears that you began with a premise, that Americans hate intellectuals, and reasoned to it.
However, I think you're mistaken. Americans don't hate intellectuals or smart people per se. We hate elitists of all stripes. As counterexamples of our supposed disdain for intellectuals, I submit the names Franklin, Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, Edison, Einstein, and Hawking. What do all of these have in common? Great intellect coupled with common humility. Except maybe for Jefferson, but he's rather unique historically.
Granted, they were not all known purely as intellectuals, but they (and many others like them) are in our pantheon of heroes, and not for their pugilism or beauty.
Why do politicians try to outlaw tools used to commit crimes? A tool can be used for evil or for good, and a person out to do evil can turn even the most innocuous object into a tool.
No, I was not looking for a phrase. Whether a person is allowed to fly is like a consumer credit score. It's not that you've been convicted of a crime, but that your circumstances make you an unacceptable risk. I do think it's silly not to have a simple procedure to clear the six-year-olds who happen to be named the same as terrorists, though.
You're right: either let them fly or arrest them. Suspected terrorists should either be shot on sight or ignored completely until they blow something up.
Wait, something's not right. These false dilemmas seem not to work very well.
The problems you're grappling with are an unstated assumption of a right to air travel and the expectation that a person's status is either clearly "good citizen" or "criminal scum". While we would like that to be the case, with a presumption that a person is a "good citizen" unless proven otherwise, the practicality of keeping the "criminal scum" from blowing up the "good citizens" may not allow it. So there is a gray area, which makes us uncomfortable.
Is a homemade door more or less secure than a professionally installed door? My answer is "it depends on the skills of those involved and the quality of materials".
The real issue is whether the house to which that door allows access is more secure if you publish its plans or not.
That is hard to answer, because you don't know if the homeowner is relying on the secrecy for security, or just wants to sell house plans. If the homeowner thinks his house is safer because no one can open his door without the plans, then he is trusting in security through obscurity.
An inherent flaw in these physical analogies is that they subconsciously tie us to the physical properties of the analogs. Who wants to be replacing doors all the time? I'd rather build it once and not tell anyone how many shims I had to use. But software is generally easier to fix than is a door, relative to their environments, or it should be.
President Bush is a consensus builder. You may not believe it, but watch. He'll try to work with Pelosi and Reid. He may exercise the veto pen once or twice at first, to make sure they're listening, but not after that. He wants to sign things.
How dare they question the Holy Religion of America, as revealed by our Almighty God and his prophet Al Gore!
Repeat after me: There may be global warming.
There is scant evidence, and certainly no proof that it is caused by humans.
And even if it is, there's no need to do anything about it. We (humans) like it warm, and do far better when it's warmer than it has been recently. A good chunk of the Earth's land mass is inhospitable to humans because it's too damn cold.
Polar bears are our competitors. The fewer of them there are, the less likely one will eat your dog, or your kid. The only reason we should regret their extinction is that it may cause a shortage of rugs.
You use the machine, it prints a ballot with your choices in human-readable format. You check what it did, click ok, and it sends in your unofficial vote electronically (but not over the public Internet). You drop the official ballot in the box -- which is the act of voting. The paper remains the officlal ballot. By the time the polls close on the West Coast, the unofficial results can be announced. The official results come out in the next day or so, and if they don't match, bring in the lawyers, reporters, and accountants.
It's lots harder to tamper with two systems that use completely different mechanisms.
Slashdot Mirror
But it only goes up to 12.
Man, the people who figured this stuff out must have been really smart.
My thoughts exactly. Well, not exactly. My first thought was that Rosie O'Donnell could now explain to us that it's simple physics: how could there be a hole there, because a vacuum has nothing in it you could make a hole in.
Unless they figure out how to ensure redundancy, they will have reinvented the wheel. The reason the Internet is unreliable is that the last two nodes on the graph have only one connection. Why do we have only one ISP, and why do ISPs only have one upstream provider? Economics. Let's see them solve that one.
Furthermore, we've been about to implement IPv6 for years now.
Even furthermore, their ultra-secure shiny modern internetwork will still have to connect to the kludgy 1980's rustbucket the rest of us use on our Windows-based computers, which means it will be pwned in a few minutes just like the original.
It's the Silver Bullet Syndrome. They think they'll invent a secure network, when all they'll be doing is achieving a bit of obsecurity.
I mean that if you don't like someone's service, find a competitor or go into business yourself.
Or move.
There currently is only one broadband provider serving my little town. It's Mediacom. It usually works :-|.
But it's a cop-out to say there isn't enough competition. What that means is there isn't enough demand for better service.
However you want to trivialize it by calling it a blastocyst, zygote, or even fetus, the 'it' is a human being.
Find another ISP.
But please, don't get the government involved. They'll bury the Internet providers under a mountain of red tape, until customer service will be the last thing on their minds.
Thanks, AC. I'm sure you won't read this, but maybe someone else will.
I'm no fan of George Bush. I just don't think he's the demon everyone makes him out to be. He's just a guy trying to do a really hard job.
See, I don't think the President has 'trampled all over the Constitution'. If he has broken some rule or another, then the damage has been inadvertent, collateral and temporary, not part of a key piece of some grand dictatorial design.
Actually, your English and logic was correct. The premise that one needs a famous family name and status to get elected is incorrect, though, and I think is generalized from too small a sample.
Too bad it isn't difficult to attain because of requirements other than
family name and status. So you would rather it were difficult to attain because of requirements other than family name and status?
I think you meant "Too bad it's only difficult to attain for those without family name and status." Right?
Adult cells are not affected by the moratorium.
Existing lines of embryonic cells are not affected.
As far as my use of the word "hate", you said the last two losing presidential candidates were thought to be "know-it-alls, dorks, geeks, namby pamby sissy faggot intellectuals". That's not just viewing something with suspicion.
I'm not sure. It appears that you began with a premise, that Americans hate intellectuals, and reasoned to it.
However, I think you're mistaken. Americans don't hate intellectuals or smart people per se. We hate elitists of all stripes. As counterexamples of our supposed disdain for intellectuals, I submit the names Franklin, Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, Edison, Einstein, and Hawking. What do all of these have in common? Great intellect coupled with common humility. Except maybe for Jefferson, but he's rather unique historically.
Granted, they were not all known purely as intellectuals, but they (and many others like them) are in our pantheon of heroes, and not for their pugilism or beauty.
We've been doing that kind of stuff at Illinois for a while.
Why do politicians try to outlaw tools used to commit crimes? A tool can be used for evil or for good, and a person out to do evil can turn even the most innocuous object into a tool.
No, I was not looking for a phrase. Whether a person is allowed to fly is like a consumer credit score. It's not that you've been convicted of a crime, but that your circumstances make you an unacceptable risk. I do think it's silly not to have a simple procedure to clear the six-year-olds who happen to be named the same as terrorists, though.
You're right: either let them fly or arrest them. Suspected terrorists should either be shot on sight or ignored completely until they blow something up.
Wait, something's not right. These false dilemmas seem not to work very well.
The problems you're grappling with are an unstated assumption of a right to air travel and the expectation that a person's status is either clearly "good citizen" or "criminal scum". While we would like that to be the case, with a presumption that a person is a "good citizen" unless proven otherwise, the practicality of keeping the "criminal scum" from blowing up the "good citizens" may not allow it. So there is a gray area, which makes us uncomfortable.
Is a homemade door more or less secure than a professionally installed door? My answer is "it depends on the skills of those involved and the quality of materials".
The real issue is whether the house to which that door allows access is more secure if you publish its plans or not.
That is hard to answer, because you don't know if the homeowner is relying on the secrecy for security, or just wants to sell house plans. If the homeowner thinks his house is safer because no one can open his door without the plans, then he is trusting in security through obscurity.
An inherent flaw in these physical analogies is that they subconsciously tie us to the physical properties of the analogs. Who wants to be replacing doors all the time? I'd rather build it once and not tell anyone how many shims I had to use. But software is generally easier to fix than is a door, relative to their environments, or it should be.
My beach-front property on Baffin Bay will probably start to draw American and Ottawan tourists, with their pasty-white skin and bottled water.
... I will be wealthy beyond imagining!
But wait! I will corner the market on suntan oil and insect repellent before the wave of pale Southerners hits
President Bush is a consensus builder. You may not believe it, but watch. He'll try to work with Pelosi and Reid. He may exercise the veto pen once or twice at first, to make sure they're listening, but not after that. He wants to sign things.
How dare they question the Holy Religion of America, as revealed by our Almighty God and his prophet Al Gore!
Repeat after me: There may be global warming.
There is scant evidence, and certainly no proof that it is caused by humans.
And even if it is, there's no need to do anything about it. We (humans) like it warm, and do far better when it's warmer than it has been recently. A good chunk of the Earth's land mass is inhospitable to humans because it's too damn cold.
Polar bears are our competitors. The fewer of them there are, the less likely one will eat your dog, or your kid. The only reason we should regret their extinction is that it may cause a shortage of rugs.
Running out of Fish.
The comments are hilarious, yet insightful.
Not only is the sky falling, the oceans are just emptying right out, too.
You use the machine, it prints a ballot with your choices in human-readable format. You check what it did, click ok, and it sends in your unofficial vote electronically (but not over the public Internet). You drop the official ballot in the box -- which is the act of voting. The paper remains the officlal ballot. By the time the polls close on the West Coast, the unofficial results can be announced. The official results come out in the next day or so, and if they don't match, bring in the lawyers, reporters, and accountants.
It's lots harder to tamper with two systems that use completely different mechanisms.