Someone just needs to find an already existing (preferably public domain) song whose notes, when encoded a certain way, have the key in them. Or, as someone mentioned, pi. Or an excerpt of the US constitution. Better yet, use the Bible, because there is no way in hell that the courts will back banning portions of the bible from being distributed. The political shitstorm from that would be of epic proportions.
Rather than a song (despite the deliciousness of the irony!), I propose using a literary work as the source for this. Find an excerpt from the Bible, the Koran, War and Peace, or the DMCA itself which expresses the key (or keys), and can be freely distributed. Bonus points for exerpts which are readable or easily memorable, penalty points for using anything from Wikileaks. Bonus points for using a public domain religious document (such as the King James Bible).
I wonder how one might start a competitor of Wikipedia, which was [u]explicitly inclusionist[/u]? I guess you'd need some sort of provisos for deleting things that are illegal, but otherwise... it's just a matter of disk space whether we keep detailed info on every single Sailor Moon episode or biography pages (and stubs) for every character ever mentioned in the Iliad.
And money, of course. Money to fund the farm, so I can't really help much with that.:(
Ah yes, back when babies slept like hunter-gatherers....;)
I think you're right, though. I know that I am normally a ROCK when it comes to sleeping, but if my baby made weird noises or screamed or I heard Really Weird Shit, I was up in a snap. It was surreal.
What children need to learn in school firstly is to sit down, shut up, listen, and focus.
While that seems to be the norm, I hope it's not the ideal. I'd prefer that children learned in school to learn, ask good questions, and so on. Often that involves sitting down, listening, and focusing, but I don't think those should be the primary educational goals.
Are they beating skilled players, though, or people as bad at poker as I am?:) I imagine that beating scrubs is comparatively easy, even if beating masters is hard.
However, having access to the odds of a play's success would be very useful to those coaches. Imagine two poker players, and one knows more than the other about the odds of particular hands, or the likelihood of the next card being something he needs, and over time games should work out in his favor.
Given that minors can't give informed consent, and such things are normally signed by their parents, I believe the father in this case IS the authority on whether it's OK.
Having a toddler is often at odds with getting out of the house more.:) That said, I agree with the GP. My wife and I have been in hysterics at some of the things my son says, especially when we have to find a reason to explain that certain words are not things he is allowed to say at school or in front of Grandma (even if she and I are not offended by them), and that that word is not a color with which you can paint your boat.
I think the amusement comes from the conflicts in social expectations. We (as parents) know that kids are expected not to say some words, and yet we don't want to characterize them as bad words. They're good words, very descriptive, sometimes the Right Word. (When my son said, "Dammit, that won't work!", he was using it pretty much spot-on correctly.) However, we want to communicate that he's not supposed to say them around other people, etc. We're amused because he's saying something very silly ("I'm going to paint my boat yellow, and orange, and F---. F, F, F, F, F..... ") and nonsensical, and reconciling that with the feeling of "Oh god, he can't say that!!", because we have to question why he shouldn't say it.
All that is just handwaving in an attempt to justify the breath-impairing amusement we feel when our son says something like that. It's funny. Now if only I could find a way to satisfactorily answer him as to why the dinosaurs died.
Please note that that was about what the stereotypes seem to be, at least as I've seen them. There are many Republicans and Democrats (and other flavors) who are open to rational discussion, but there are many who are not.
Democrats and Republicans are very similar political parties, where Democrats tend to support welfare, unions, and "the middle class", whereas Republicans think welfare evil, unions are evil, and that wealth is correlated with... I don't know, being one of the Elect? Both parties are heavily subsidized by the entertainment industries (hence why we have no copyright reform), Republicans tend to support (and be supported by) the military industry, and seem to be backed by the more fundamentalist Christians in our country. Both sides have "leaders" who demonize the other side to the point that rational discussion is nearly impossible by most Americans. (Arguably this may be because many of us are narrow-minded and dumb.)
The "faces" of the Republican party are people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. (I don't know who the "faces" of the Democrats are. I'm not sure what Stephen Colbert and John Stewart consider themselves to be.) Many Republicans think they are the awesomest people ever, and many Democrats ignore them on principle, believing that everything they say is complete shite. Republicans discard anything said by the "liberal" media, and use "liberal" as an insult much as they might say terrorist, communist, socialist, or homosexual -- as a means of discrediting any argument someone might make. The populace in both parties seems (mainly) to get their entire world view filtered by their demagogues of choice, and feel that the other side's demagogues are spouting complete idiocy. Republicans frequently argue as if communism and socialism were the same thing, and treat it as a Universally Accepted Bad Thing -- I'm not sure how Democrats feel about socialism.
Urban areas tend to be dominated by Democrats, suburbs and rural areas by Republicans. Voting trends in New York and California show this very remarkably, where areas like LA, Sacramento, and the Bay Area cities vote blue, and everyone else in the state disagrees.;)
You'll find a more accurate description of the parties' platforms and differences on Wikipedia.
Not to mention that if they truly felt he were such a risk, they could have gotten a warrant to investigate him. They didn't, either out of laziness ("no one will ever know"), or because they felt that this was a form of surveillance that doesn't require a warrant. The central issue here is whether or not they needed a warrant, and determining that (or eliciting a decision about that) is what this lawsuit seems to be aiming for.
If he fits some criteria of a terrorist, enough to warrant investigating more closely, then that sounds like it ought to be a reason to go get a warrant. That's exactly what warrants are for: legally justifying the surveillance or other activities (which would otherwise be illegal) to look for (and gather) evidence of wrongdoing. Warrants do not require the target to be guilty, evil, or a bad person, merely that there be a reason for the investigation.
e.g., if your roommate was found dead, they might get a warrant to investigate your house, even if your alibi seems good.
The FBI believes that this sort of information gathering does NOT require a warrant - probably as it's neither a direct search nor a wiretap? The plaintiff (and many of us) feel that it SHOULD require a warrant, so they're suing to see if they can decide once and for all whether it DOES require a warrant (and then we can legislate accordingly later, in theory).
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, I have to change all my passwords again. :(
Someone just needs to find an already existing (preferably public domain) song whose notes, when encoded a certain way, have the key in them. Or, as someone mentioned, pi. Or an excerpt of the US constitution. Better yet, use the Bible, because there is no way in hell that the courts will back banning portions of the bible from being distributed. The political shitstorm from that would be of epic proportions.
Rather than a song (despite the deliciousness of the irony!), I propose using a literary work as the source for this. Find an excerpt from the Bible, the Koran, War and Peace, or the DMCA itself which expresses the key (or keys), and can be freely distributed. Bonus points for exerpts which are readable or easily memorable, penalty points for using anything from Wikileaks. Bonus points for using a public domain religious document (such as the King James Bible).
I wonder how one might start a competitor of Wikipedia, which was [u]explicitly inclusionist[/u]? I guess you'd need some sort of provisos for deleting things that are illegal, but otherwise ... it's just a matter of disk space whether we keep detailed info on every single Sailor Moon episode or biography pages (and stubs) for every character ever mentioned in the Iliad.
And money, of course. Money to fund the farm, so I can't really help much with that. :(
The combination of your nickname and that post was tremendously funny. :) Hats off to you, sir.
I propose the funding of some medical research ... :)
That's bound to fail. They'd probably just crash into it or something, and then where would you be?
Just tell her that you moved, and get a PO box in another county. That way, even the Google Maps she prints will be incorrect. ;)
Well, all you need then is a jammer detector detector, or perhaps just brute-force it with a jammer-detector-jammer.
Does anyone else find this chain of comments strangely reminiscent of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail credit subtitles?
Ah yes, back when babies slept like hunter-gatherers .... ;)
I think you're right, though. I know that I am normally a ROCK when it comes to sleeping, but if my baby made weird noises or screamed or I heard Really Weird Shit, I was up in a snap. It was surreal.
If your peers are vaccinnated, how are they supposed to have viral infections for you to catch?
That was a surprisingly good movie.
What children need to learn in school firstly is to sit down, shut up, listen, and focus.
While that seems to be the norm, I hope it's not the ideal. I'd prefer that children learned in school to learn, ask good questions, and so on. Often that involves sitting down, listening, and focusing, but I don't think those should be the primary educational goals.
They ARE, but they shouldn't be.
Now that's a clever application of policy. :D
Are they beating skilled players, though, or people as bad at poker as I am? :) I imagine that beating scrubs is comparatively easy, even if beating masters is hard.
However, having access to the odds of a play's success would be very useful to those coaches. Imagine two poker players, and one knows more than the other about the odds of particular hands, or the likelihood of the next card being something he needs, and over time games should work out in his favor.
Given that minors can't give informed consent, and such things are normally signed by their parents, I believe the father in this case IS the authority on whether it's OK.
Having a toddler is often at odds with getting out of the house more. :) That said, I agree with the GP. My wife and I have been in hysterics at some of the things my son says, especially when we have to find a reason to explain that certain words are not things he is allowed to say at school or in front of Grandma (even if she and I are not offended by them), and that that word is not a color with which you can paint your boat.
I think the amusement comes from the conflicts in social expectations. We (as parents) know that kids are expected not to say some words, and yet we don't want to characterize them as bad words. They're good words, very descriptive, sometimes the Right Word. (When my son said, "Dammit, that won't work!", he was using it pretty much spot-on correctly.) However, we want to communicate that he's not supposed to say them around other people, etc. We're amused because he's saying something very silly ("I'm going to paint my boat yellow, and orange, and F---. F, F, F, F, F ..... ") and nonsensical, and reconciling that with the feeling of "Oh god, he can't say that!!", because we have to question why he shouldn't say it.
All that is just handwaving in an attempt to justify the breath-impairing amusement we feel when our son says something like that. It's funny. Now if only I could find a way to satisfactorily answer him as to why the dinosaurs died.
And because he can measure things like average sentence length and so on. I'd LOVE to have this kind of data...though I'd hate to sift through it all.
It was piracy when someone gave it to you, though, right? (By the colloquial meaning, not the seagoing-assault one)
Please note that that was about what the stereotypes seem to be, at least as I've seen them. There are many Republicans and Democrats (and other flavors) who are open to rational discussion, but there are many who are not.
Democrats and Republicans are very similar political parties, where Democrats tend to support welfare, unions, and "the middle class", whereas Republicans think welfare evil, unions are evil, and that wealth is correlated with ... I don't know, being one of the Elect? Both parties are heavily subsidized by the entertainment industries (hence why we have no copyright reform), Republicans tend to support (and be supported by) the military industry, and seem to be backed by the more fundamentalist Christians in our country. Both sides have "leaders" who demonize the other side to the point that rational discussion is nearly impossible by most Americans. (Arguably this may be because many of us are narrow-minded and dumb.)
The "faces" of the Republican party are people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. (I don't know who the "faces" of the Democrats are. I'm not sure what Stephen Colbert and John Stewart consider themselves to be.) Many Republicans think they are the awesomest people ever, and many Democrats ignore them on principle, believing that everything they say is complete shite. Republicans discard anything said by the "liberal" media, and use "liberal" as an insult much as they might say terrorist, communist, socialist, or homosexual -- as a means of discrediting any argument someone might make. The populace in both parties seems (mainly) to get their entire world view filtered by their demagogues of choice, and feel that the other side's demagogues are spouting complete idiocy. Republicans frequently argue as if communism and socialism were the same thing, and treat it as a Universally Accepted Bad Thing -- I'm not sure how Democrats feel about socialism.
Urban areas tend to be dominated by Democrats, suburbs and rural areas by Republicans. Voting trends in New York and California show this very remarkably, where areas like LA, Sacramento, and the Bay Area cities vote blue, and everyone else in the state disagrees. ;)
You'll find a more accurate description of the parties' platforms and differences on Wikipedia.
Not to mention that if they truly felt he were such a risk, they could have gotten a warrant to investigate him. They didn't, either out of laziness ("no one will ever know"), or because they felt that this was a form of surveillance that doesn't require a warrant. The central issue here is whether or not they needed a warrant, and determining that (or eliciting a decision about that) is what this lawsuit seems to be aiming for.
If he fits some criteria of a terrorist, enough to warrant investigating more closely, then that sounds like it ought to be a reason to go get a warrant. That's exactly what warrants are for: legally justifying the surveillance or other activities (which would otherwise be illegal) to look for (and gather) evidence of wrongdoing. Warrants do not require the target to be guilty, evil, or a bad person, merely that there be a reason for the investigation.
e.g., if your roommate was found dead, they might get a warrant to investigate your house, even if your alibi seems good.
The FBI believes that this sort of information gathering does NOT require a warrant - probably as it's neither a direct search nor a wiretap?
The plaintiff (and many of us) feel that it SHOULD require a warrant, so they're suing to see if they can decide once and for all whether it DOES require a warrant (and then we can legislate accordingly later, in theory).