Yup, well regulated, as in a well regulated watch.
I read this as "Because the security if a free state is so important, and because we need to make sure folks can be assembled to protect it (from any threat, internal or external), we need to make sure that folks are familiar with how to use guns".
Inherent in that it is not saying "In orer to protect the current state of government", it explicitly says "free state", and combined with the other writings of the founders, it explicitly provides for self protection against the government, as well as anything else that could destabilize a free government (roving gangs of thugs enforcing their own laws, criminals, etc)
Kinda makes me think of a Toll Road operator that connects two towns complaining that people are taking regular ol' surface streets.
They didn't have to build there, that way, with that model... Browsers aren't required to download or display anything, the whole concept of HTML is to separate content from display, so, by the explicit design of the tools we all use, we're just choosing to display the ad invisibly.
I'd love to see a site set its text size, and then start blocking users that change it, or apply style sheets to make things more readable, etc...
I haven't dabbled on this end in awhile, but even there, if your session ID is stolen, you've got a problem.
I wonder about using unique keys for each pass. That is, during logon, the client and server pass random numbers back and forth. Those are used to seed additional random number generation. If your request doesn't match up with the other's response, then your session has been hijacked and should be cancelled/redirected. If the thief manages to sneak in with a valid set of numbers, then your next request will be invalid.
Though this sort of approach wouldn't cover the case where someone snipes your connection as you walk away from your desk unless you include some sort of keep-alive request, which is anathemous to high load. This also leads to pretty easy DOS, since thief would just have to "Try" to attack to force your connection dead, but mixed with IP tracking, that might alleviate it somewhat. Mix in SSL, and it should get even harder.
Dammit, now I'm going to have to go see how its really done =-)
I dont know their network architecture, but if they connect the remote sites (ie, LAX) to a central site over VPN, and don't distribute the concentrators appropriately, you could have one desktop machine drop every airport off the map at once.
I've seen exactly that happen in a worldwide distributed call center environment.
I've got no problem with the widespread use of the word, I have a problem with folks who don't recognize that it can mean various levels of things, and give it much more strength that they should, before they confirm which version is implied. (Or those who can't determine it form context... "Google is being evil" doesn't mean "Google tortures babies for entertainment", etc)
It's a generalization of my gripe with folks who believe that English should be a static/precise language like those that lawyers, engineers, and programmers use.
"Evil is a crutch to avoid understanding" is a crutch to avoid understanding. The term "Evil" can be such a crutch, but it is something much more. It is a simple way of describing a particular person or activity in shorthand. (And that's the context in which it was intended here, I believe)
I'd go nuts if I couldn't say "Evil people drink milk too", and instead had to say "Among the people who drink milk are those whose childhoods were so difficult they never learned to build supporting relationships and ended up isolating themselves outside the norms of human interaction in such ways that they no longer recognized murder, rape, and torture as things that were in and of themselves bad, as well as those who became so deeply angry because a fundamental belief they had was shown to be invalid that they could not deal with it and had to try to force the rest of the world to conform to their reality, and mimes"
I wonder if rather than codifying "driving like an asshat", asshattish behaviors could be codified? Perhaps, things like "thou shalt stay in thy lane unless thou hast signalled", "thou shalt occupy a lane before signalling to change another lane", "thou shalt not be closer than 2 seconds to the car in front of you for more than 5 seconds", "Thou shalt not occupy the left lane unless thou art passing", "If there are more than 4 vehicles behind you in the left lane, thou shalt pull over to let them pass ", etc...
If you can talk on the phone and follow all those behaviors (since some of them require you to have awareness of what's around you), then more power to you. If you can put on your makeup while doing everything above... them more power to you. Drink and drive? hey, if you can do it all, great... but remember, if you miss one, you're not looking at a ticket for "driving too slow", you're looking at "driving too slow + wreckless endangerment or something since you chose to disable yourself"... I bet that'd keep a similar amount of folks from DUI as the current laws do, if not more.
Or maybe the trick is to treat it like the seat belt laws here used to be... you wouldn't get pulled over for not wearing one, but if you were unbuckled and were ticketed for something else... then you had an additional problem. (I'm really not a fan of the click-it-or-ticket laws though either)
If we could get enough folks to take on the stigma of saying "I support your rights to Drink and Drive" (shock factor), and use that to force a discussion of it, maybe we'd end up able to eventually reclaim a small bit of personal responsibility.
I believe it is in the US as well, but the judges tend to take any sort of tiny bit of evidence as evidence that you were serious... ie, give everyone their fair shake.
That way they don't end up denying the little guy because they didn't all 17-million forms properly filled out in ancient Sumerian on rice paper, with lines numbered in cuneiform (or rather in Roman numerals depending on what your local court prefers)
Its this "protect the little guy" thing that groups like this take advantage of, since they say "Hey, we're little guys.. and they're trying to take advantage of us"
My city has laws that state firing a fun within its limits is illegal because people are just too densely packed, and there is no reasonable way to be sure that you can fire it safely in general. Firing the gun at all is illegal. (except for immedate grave danger)
In the driving example, driving is not illegal, it's driving like an asshat that is illegal (which it is). Drinking a little doesn't ensure you will drive like an asshat. The only reason DUI is illegal is that people have listened to the same sort of scare tactics that we are witnessing in the war on terror, and letting the hysteria take us beyond solving the original problem.
Within 2 inches of the dividing lines is precise, but if there are no other cars on the road, and the dividing lines aren't clear, accuracy is a problem. If there is a gust of wind, accuracy is a problem.
>Besides, the point of DUI law is to catch impaired drivers before they do the damage.
It is a noble goal, but I really don't like the whole "we're pretty sure that if you really behave like the average models we've developed describe, you would have been at higher risk of causing a problem". I don't like the idea of people dying because of DUI, but if we'd just start reasonably enforcing laws we've had for ages, we might have a shot at it. If we enforce modifiers for actively driving poorly while under the influence of something that could reasonably be expected to impair, maybe people will think twice about the risk. (Except the real problem drinkers... for which there is no possible solution, since they're going to ignore it anyway)
> This is generally regarded as preferable in a country based on the idea of the rule of law
How is that against the rule of law?
The cop should have latitude to decide whether you're driving wrecklessly. There are already laws for that.
Yes, it gets abused, but maybe we can try solving that with requiring them to have video evidence or something... dunno there, but it's been an issue for decades, and isn't significantly worse than before.
That's why I want to see all DUI laws revoked entirely. Same for cell phone laws.
If you get tagged for being an asshat on the road, and it turns out you had an aggravating factor that YOU CHOSE, then go ahead and increase the penalties. This would cover kids, lack of glasses, drinking, cell phones, make up, and trombone playing without getting the government into "well,.08 is drunk for everyone".
It's like they say with children... punish the behavior, not the child.
If you aren't holding your lane position, braking/accelerating erratically, changing lanes suddenly without warning, etc... punish that. If the above happens because of something the person chose to do, then bump it up.
While I appreciate the effort, this really feels like sophistry...
You REQUIRE music because? Why can't you just do without? FM Radio waves don't penetrate your college campus? You can't go to local clubs or performances?
I would suggest you could buy used (that gets you the same product, but without adding money into the RIAA coffers, and ends up helping someone else out in the process), but the same thought process that makes you feel entitled to the music to begin with might also leave you feeling entitled to getting a good song on Day 1 as well.
You definitely are. I don't work for AT&T, but I do work for a very large data carrier, and the "simple" steps as you describe are "extremely non-trivial" when done on a large scale across multiple decades of incompatible frameworks, especially when the folks who actually knew how the real systems really worked have been laid off to save costs.
>It's funny that the people most in favor of civil liberties and freedom from tracking are the people who are probably least likely to commit a crime, like stealing a car....or secede from England... =-D
How about another 12 year old girl who has had to move because she's being hidden from an abusive man who will kidnap/murder her. This guy gets hold of the records, tracks her down, and kills her.
How about the fact that I was at an accountant being used in a divorce case being used as proof that I was hiding funds? Sure, it's only money, until I can no longer afford to pay for rent and such, and can't afford the defense at that point to be able to see my children again.
How about when it turns out I've been by that 12 year old girl's house 20 times in the last month because I like to read at the park nearby, and I get arrested and murdered in jail (they love child molester/killer's in there), before I have a chance to even explain why I was in the area? Maybe you'll say my life is worth that trade... but what about my children's lives after that point?
What about when my car is stolen from work, used to kidnap/murder the girl, and is returned to work before I notice it missing (not hard inside 8 hours)... now I'm really screwed for an explanation... especially if they use GPS records that many cars are keeping on their own now adays.
And this even before we start getting into the inevitable political scenarios... if you don't quiet down about that "incident" with your daughter at the mayor's party you might find your license place at the scene of a murder, with your picture in some security tapes...
I could sit here and come up with a few dozen more off the top of my head, but it's really not worth the effort.
This stuff already happens often enough (much like the murder you mention), but with "perfect" records it will happen far more often. Sorry... that one 12 year old girl's life isn't worth endangering my children's lives, nor destroying the basic principles upon which this country was founded (which is protecting a bunch of other 12 year old girls). There are other ways to help prevent and solve these issues that don't involve giving "absolute power" to people who have proven over and over again that they will abuse it in the worst ways imaginable.
Aside from the other reasons, there is a technical one.
There is no common voicemail infrastructure or API, so they had to work with them closely to get Visual Voice Mail working. If you don't have VVM, you can't fully support iPhone.
>So I take it you throw out media to any applications you actually purchase which come on such?
Hehe, no. However, locating the media isn't my first instinct for uninstalling an app in any case.
>It's your fault for getting rid of the installer if that is the way the developer specifies for an uninstall.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying Apple could do a much better job of making uninstalls a thing which can't be my fault. Is it my fault I threw a file away? yes. Can I take it out of the trashcan? yes Is it my fault I overwrote a file I liked? yes. Will Time Machine help relieve me of this responsbility? yes Is it my fault I run a trojan? yes. Does Mac OS X warn me before it does anything "interesting" to my system, helping to protect me? yes.
The OS's entire job is to act as intermediary between me and the hardware. It's already doing so much, why not this little bit more?
>Your step 4 is a breakdown in the application cycle at the user level.
I see no technical reason why it SHOULD be my problem.
>What if you ever had to reinstall that app, you would download it again? What if that specific version didn't exist anymore? Or the entire app was pulled?
That's why I back things up... in case the hardware fails. The OS isn't like to do to terribly much for me if the hardware its running on fails. So I plan for that eventuality.
Why should I have to manage uninstalls? There is no technical reason why I should HAVE to.
Slashdot Mirror
But I will have to "show papers" to travel to points within my own state... Any federay run parks, etc...
> Ever noticed how all those South Americans whose families were murdered by the CIA don't infact blow up U.S. airplanes?
Ever notice how we don't have alot of military bases in South America, or right next to it?
Yup, well regulated, as in a well regulated watch.
I read this as "Because the security if a free state is so important, and because we need to make sure folks can be assembled to protect it (from any threat, internal or external), we need to make sure that folks are familiar with how to use guns".
Inherent in that it is not saying "In orer to protect the current state of government", it explicitly says "free state", and combined with the other writings of the founders, it explicitly provides for self protection against the government, as well as anything else that could destabilize a free government (roving gangs of thugs enforcing their own laws, criminals, etc)
Kinda makes me think of a Toll Road operator that connects two towns complaining that people are taking regular ol' surface streets.
They didn't have to build there, that way, with that model... Browsers aren't required to download or display anything, the whole concept of HTML is to separate content from display, so, by the explicit design of the tools we all use, we're just choosing to display the ad invisibly.
I'd love to see a site set its text size, and then start blocking users that change it, or apply style sheets to make things more readable, etc...
sheesh
Duh, thought it was sounding familiar =-)
I haven't dabbled on this end in awhile, but even there, if your session ID is stolen, you've got a problem.
I wonder about using unique keys for each pass. That is, during logon, the client and server pass random numbers back and forth. Those are used to seed additional random number generation. If your request doesn't match up with the other's response, then your session has been hijacked and should be cancelled/redirected.
If the thief manages to sneak in with a valid set of numbers, then your next request will be invalid.
Though this sort of approach wouldn't cover the case where someone snipes your connection as you walk away from your desk unless you include some sort of keep-alive request, which is anathemous to high load.
This also leads to pretty easy DOS, since thief would just have to "Try" to attack to force your connection dead, but mixed with IP tracking, that might alleviate it somewhat.
Mix in SSL, and it should get even harder.
Dammit, now I'm going to have to go see how its really done =-)
I dont know their network architecture, but if they connect the remote sites (ie, LAX) to a central site over VPN, and don't distribute the concentrators appropriately, you could have one desktop machine drop every airport off the map at once.
I've seen exactly that happen in a worldwide distributed call center environment.
I've got no problem with the widespread use of the word, I have a problem with folks who don't recognize that it can mean various levels of things, and give it much more strength that they should, before they confirm which version is implied. (Or those who can't determine it form context... "Google is being evil" doesn't mean "Google tortures babies for entertainment", etc)
It's a generalization of my gripe with folks who believe that English should be a static/precise language like those that lawyers, engineers, and programmers use.
Evil is a crutch to avoid understanding
"Evil is a crutch to avoid understanding" is a crutch to avoid understanding.
The term "Evil" can be such a crutch, but it is something much more. It is a simple way of describing a particular person or activity in shorthand. (And that's the context in which it was intended here, I believe)
I'd go nuts if I couldn't say "Evil people drink milk too", and instead had to say "Among the people who drink milk are those whose childhoods were so difficult they never learned to build supporting relationships and ended up isolating themselves outside the norms of human interaction in such ways that they no longer recognized murder, rape, and torture as things that were in and of themselves bad, as well as those who became so deeply angry because a fundamental belief they had was shown to be invalid that they could not deal with it and had to try to force the rest of the world to conform to their reality, and mimes"
I can say how I personally took it, and it took me a good chunk of effort to even see how someone could take it as condescending:
I thought he was agreeing with the OP.
"Hot day, huh?"
"Yeah, it's amazing just how hot it can feel sometimes"
I wonder if rather than codifying "driving like an asshat", asshattish behaviors could be codified? Perhaps, things like "thou shalt stay in thy lane unless thou hast signalled", "thou shalt occupy a lane before signalling to change another lane", "thou shalt not be closer than 2 seconds to the car in front of you for more than 5 seconds", "Thou shalt not occupy the left lane unless thou art passing", "If there are more than 4 vehicles behind you in the left lane, thou shalt pull over to let them pass ", etc...
If you can talk on the phone and follow all those behaviors (since some of them require you to have awareness of what's around you), then more power to you. If you can put on your makeup while doing everything above... them more power to you. Drink and drive? hey, if you can do it all, great... but remember, if you miss one, you're not looking at a ticket for "driving too slow", you're looking at "driving too slow + wreckless endangerment or something since you chose to disable yourself"... I bet that'd keep a similar amount of folks from DUI as the current laws do, if not more.
Or maybe the trick is to treat it like the seat belt laws here used to be... you wouldn't get pulled over for not wearing one, but if you were unbuckled and were ticketed for something else... then you had an additional problem. (I'm really not a fan of the click-it-or-ticket laws though either)
If we could get enough folks to take on the stigma of saying "I support your rights to Drink and Drive" (shock factor), and use that to force a discussion of it, maybe we'd end up able to eventually reclaim a small bit of personal responsibility.
Have you ever tried to troubleshoot a protocol issue when the protocol itself is encrypted?
I believe it is in the US as well, but the judges tend to take any sort of tiny bit of evidence as evidence that you were serious... ie, give everyone their fair shake.
That way they don't end up denying the little guy because they didn't all 17-million forms properly filled out in ancient Sumerian on rice paper, with lines numbered in cuneiform (or rather in Roman numerals depending on what your local court prefers)
Its this "protect the little guy" thing that groups like this take advantage of, since they say "Hey, we're little guys.. and they're trying to take advantage of us"
Not at all.
My city has laws that state firing a fun within its limits is illegal because people are just too densely packed, and there is no reasonable way to be sure that you can fire it safely in general. Firing the gun at all is illegal. (except for immedate grave danger)
In the driving example, driving is not illegal, it's driving like an asshat that is illegal (which it is). Drinking a little doesn't ensure you will drive like an asshat.
The only reason DUI is illegal is that people have listened to the same sort of scare tactics that we are witnessing in the war on terror, and letting the hysteria take us beyond solving the original problem.
But that's not a problem, its a feature.
Within 2 inches of the dividing lines is precise, but if there are no other cars on the road, and the dividing lines aren't clear, accuracy is a problem.
If there is a gust of wind, accuracy is a problem.
>Besides, the point of DUI law is to catch impaired drivers before they do the damage.
It is a noble goal, but I really don't like the whole "we're pretty sure that if you really behave like the average models we've developed describe, you would have been at higher risk of causing a problem". I don't like the idea of people dying because of DUI, but if we'd just start reasonably enforcing laws we've had for ages, we might have a shot at it. If we enforce modifiers for actively driving poorly while under the influence of something that could reasonably be expected to impair, maybe people will think twice about the risk. (Except the real problem drinkers... for which there is no possible solution, since they're going to ignore it anyway)
> This is generally regarded as preferable in a country based on the idea of the rule of law
How is that against the rule of law?
The cop should have latitude to decide whether you're driving wrecklessly. There are already laws for that.
Yes, it gets abused, but maybe we can try solving that with requiring them to have video evidence or something... dunno there, but it's been an issue for decades, and isn't significantly worse than before.
Agreed.
.08 is drunk for everyone".
That's why I want to see all DUI laws revoked entirely. Same for cell phone laws.
If you get tagged for being an asshat on the road, and it turns out you had an aggravating factor that YOU CHOSE, then go ahead and increase the penalties.
This would cover kids, lack of glasses, drinking, cell phones, make up, and trombone playing without getting the government into "well,
It's like they say with children... punish the behavior, not the child.
If you aren't holding your lane position, braking/accelerating erratically, changing lanes suddenly without warning, etc... punish that.
If the above happens because of something the person chose to do, then bump it up.
While I appreciate the effort, this really feels like sophistry...
You REQUIRE music because? Why can't you just do without? FM Radio waves don't penetrate your college campus? You can't go to local clubs or performances?
I would suggest you could buy used (that gets you the same product, but without adding money into the RIAA coffers, and ends up helping someone else out in the process), but the same thought process that makes you feel entitled to the music to begin with might also leave you feeling entitled to getting a good song on Day 1 as well.
You definitely are. I don't work for AT&T, but I do work for a very large data carrier, and the "simple" steps as you describe are "extremely non-trivial" when done on a large scale across multiple decades of incompatible frameworks, especially when the folks who actually knew how the real systems really worked have been laid off to save costs.
>It's funny that the people most in favor of civil liberties and freedom from tracking are the people who are probably least likely to commit a crime, like stealing a car. ...or secede from England... =-D
How about another 12 year old girl who has had to move because she's being hidden from an abusive man who will kidnap/murder her.
This guy gets hold of the records, tracks her down, and kills her.
How about the fact that I was at an accountant being used in a divorce case being used as proof that I was hiding funds? Sure, it's only money, until I can no longer afford to pay for rent and such, and can't afford the defense at that point to be able to see my children again.
How about when it turns out I've been by that 12 year old girl's house 20 times in the last month because I like to read at the park nearby, and I get arrested and murdered in jail (they love child molester/killer's in there), before I have a chance to even explain why I was in the area? Maybe you'll say my life is worth that trade... but what about my children's lives after that point?
What about when my car is stolen from work, used to kidnap/murder the girl, and is returned to work before I notice it missing (not hard inside 8 hours)... now I'm really screwed for an explanation... especially if they use GPS records that many cars are keeping on their own now adays.
And this even before we start getting into the inevitable political scenarios... if you don't quiet down about that "incident" with your daughter at the mayor's party you might find your license place at the scene of a murder, with your picture in some security tapes...
I could sit here and come up with a few dozen more off the top of my head, but it's really not worth the effort.
This stuff already happens often enough (much like the murder you mention), but with "perfect" records it will happen far more often.
Sorry... that one 12 year old girl's life isn't worth endangering my children's lives, nor destroying the basic principles upon which this country was founded (which is protecting a bunch of other 12 year old girls). There are other ways to help prevent and solve these issues that don't involve giving "absolute power" to people who have proven over and over again that they will abuse it in the worst ways imaginable.
I hate to say it that callously, but it's true.
Aside from the other reasons, there is a technical one.
There is no common voicemail infrastructure or API, so they had to work with them closely to get Visual Voice Mail working. If you don't have VVM, you can't fully support iPhone.
So they're basically buying a new market,and hoping to get enough other folks into to it to attract customers? Expensive and risky... but very cool.
I know why we'd want it... but I don't undertsand it enough to know why Google would want it if they bought it.
Why would you plunk down a few billion to buy rights to something you have to let everyone use? I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental
>So I take it you throw out media to any applications you actually purchase which come on such?
Hehe, no. However, locating the media isn't my first instinct for uninstalling an app in any case.
>It's your fault for getting rid of the installer if that is the way the developer specifies for an uninstall.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying Apple could do a much better job of making uninstalls a thing which can't be my fault.
Is it my fault I threw a file away? yes. Can I take it out of the trashcan? yes
Is it my fault I overwrote a file I liked? yes. Will Time Machine help relieve me of this responsbility? yes
Is it my fault I run a trojan? yes. Does Mac OS X warn me before it does anything "interesting" to my system, helping to protect me? yes.
The OS's entire job is to act as intermediary between me and the hardware. It's already doing so much, why not this little bit more?
>Your step 4 is a breakdown in the application cycle at the user level.
I see no technical reason why it SHOULD be my problem.
>What if you ever had to reinstall that app, you would download it again? What if that specific version didn't exist anymore? Or the entire app was pulled?
That's why I back things up... in case the hardware fails. The OS isn't like to do to terribly much for me if the hardware its running on fails. So I plan for that eventuality.
Why should I have to manage uninstalls? There is no technical reason why I should HAVE to.