Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.
Umm, dude... look at tfa, there's a list of organizations that signed the petition at the bottom. It's a list of organizations that you can tell are almost certainly squarely on the left side of the US political spectrum just by their names.
Now, to the know-nothings thinking of responding: no, the organizations don't usually explicitly say they're liberal in their names, and some appear at first glance to be single-issue orgs, like "End Rape on Campus", but here's what's going on: the way they want to end rape on campus is probably by gutting the due process rights of those accused of rape (who are members of the patriarchy, so they don't deserve rights) and expelling anyone who makes jokes they don't like ("no means yes, yes means anal"). And for good measure probably also disciplining people who protest by holding up posters of aborted fetuses on the campus lawn for being disruptive -- they're obviously at war with women for doing that -- while allowing protests which involve carrying a mattress with you to all your classes, because that's of course not at all disruptive. These are not nonpartisan things to advocate.
None of this has much to do with actually ending rape on campus -- I'm pretty sure not wanting people to be raped is a nonpartisan cause -- but if you think organizations with names like "End Rape on Campus" aren't liberal, and organizations with names like "True Americans for Growth" and "Patriots for Law and Order" (I just made those up) aren't conservative, you haven't been paying attention to US politics for at least, oh, 10-15 years.
In short, if you can at all hear the dog whistles of US politics, the orgs in the list are all whistling "liberal" very loudly.
Dude, wow. I've used both git and svn, and there's little wrong with svn. git is nicer for extremely distributed projects, yes, but 15 people is not extremely distributed. They'll probably have about 10 people working on the trunk and 1-5 people on experimental branches. That's not a situation that is going to require git's advanced branching/merging capabilities.
And in any case, get a grip. We're talking about version control systems, not insulting your personal honor.
Corporations are extremely paranoid about not offending everyone ever -- well, any liberals ever, anyway; Google came out in support of gay marriage. ANYway...
If you want to read an account of a project handling offense-seekers in exactly the right way, read this: https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
That project tells the vigilante thought police exactly where they can shove it:)
A weakness was that there was shadow control by the Communist party (Politburo) behind the scenes.
No, the "weakness" was that if you tried to run for election without the permission of the Communist Party, you would immediately be arrested, convicted in a show trial, and murdered. Once this stopped being the case, in 1989, the country quickly disintegrated as its political system was not built to withstand the turbulence of democratic elections.
Did Linus say, "I hope you eat dicks and die you fag?"
Did Linus say, "You're a shit programmer for thinking up something like this?"
Did Linus say, "Go to hell you moron?"
No. He did not personally insult the developer in any way. He made a rude comment about a company -- which doesn't have feelings -- to get his point across. The poster of that patch has no reason to be personally offended. The comment was about his work, not him as a human being.
I suggested attempting to help all economically/apathetic-parent disadvantaged children. Is there some reason you want to help only those of certain races?
For a while, until those differences are eroded by attrition over generations. Lots of Irish were brought over as indentured servants. Huge disadvantage. But that was >200 years ago, no one cares now, and no one should care because it worked itself out.
Here's another idea. How about we work on trying to help and help motivate gifted students whose parents, for whatever reason, are not involved in their lives? I don't care if it's a black child or a white child or a Hispanic child or an Asian child: try to help any child who is underperforming due to lack of parental involvement.
There's no reason we need to specifically target black children or Hispanic children with absentee parents. That's just a proxy for "kids who aren't doing as well as they should because their parents are poor / don't care / whatever". And using race as a proxy for some other characteristic is racist.
My objection is to your assertion that acting as if no current cryptography will be safe in 10 years has no cost. If you really act that way, it will cost you quite a lot. You will be unable to take actions you would otherwise be able to take, because, for instance, you have to assume anything you transmit over the Internet, even if you encrypt it, can be intercepted and later read.
Separately, you're also wrong that there is cause to act in such a way, because quantum annealing (the process used to factor 56,153) isn't Shor's Algorithm, doesn't work in the general case, and might not even provide a speedup over classical factorization techniques. It's a parlor trick.
But my objection was to the other part of your risk assessment -- the part that led you to suggest that acting like all crypto is broken has no cost.
And we'll never find the Philosopher's Stone. And astrology won't tell you your future. And bloodletting isn't going to cure your plague. And we'll never discover the Fountain of Youth. And she's not a witch. And your child isn't a changeling. And the Northwest Passage doesn't exist. (Maybe it will one day if we keep turning up the planet's thermostat, but it certainly didn't when we were looking for it.)
And Reagan's Star Wars was a joke.
And you're not getting headaches because of the WiFi.
And Moore's Law won't continue forever; eventually physics will bite us. (It actually already has.)
And there are enough fundamental problems with building a practical quantum computer that Shor's Algorithm will in all probability never be more than a theoretical curiosity.
Maybe the final one is true; maybe not. Everything I've read says that quantum decoherence is really hard to avoid, and adiabatic quantum computers can't do Shor's Algorithm. In any case, you haven't made an argument.
You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise.
That's cute, but you're missing something big. He can reject your definitions if he wants to, and, as long as he's consistent with his own definitions, he has the right to do that.
I can call the night sky white if I want to -- just so long as I don't also call my printer paper white. If I do both of those things, then and only then can you complain.
Are you sure? I've been to China multiple times. Some observations: - OpenVPN connections are killed at the handshake. Workaround is hide the handshake; there are multiple ways to do this. - SSH (allows tunneling) worked fine when I was there this summer. One time, in 2014, it seemed to degrade over time. But this probably was just been my imagination, because of the following:
CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL PEERING SUCKS ASS. It doesn't matter if you have a T1 at home: international connections are going to be slow as molasses. A lot of people say China "degrades VPNs", but my observation is more that the country just has bad peering to other countries. You can get fast domestic Internet access, but international sites and servers -- the ones that aren't blocked -- are going to be slow and unreliable, because the upstream peering is running at something like 200% capacity, and your packets are going to get frequently dropped.
Now, an interesting question is whether their international peering sucks on purpose as an extension of their censorship. Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you can get an uncensored proxy out very easily, but expect some slowness and unpleasantness. Not because they're using some super-duper magic proxy-degrading technology, though. That's probably not happening. If they catch you, they'll probably just cut you off, not slow you down. What's probably happening is that China's international peering sucks, and you're running into the congestion.
No, Gumbercules. I don't now about Australia, but the vast majority of US criminal laws do not apply extraterritorially. It's not just that the US doesn't bother prosecuting people who use drugs outside of the US; they couldn't even if they wanted to. US law applies in US territory, and not elsewhere, except in certain limited cases.
One exception I'm aware of is that US citizens or permanent residents who have sex with child prostitutes in other countries can be tried in the US, and most likely treason or similar crimes would apply to US citizens overseas, but that's me speculating.
However, almost all other US laws apply only in the US. Extraterritorial laws are the rare exception and not the rule. If you smoke pot in Amsterdam, that's between you and Amsterdam. If you are 18 and get drunk in Puerto Rico (where it is legal), your home state won't go after you.
And, taken to the extreme, even serious crimes like murder are typically only crimes under the jurisdiction in which the murder occurs. If you go kill someone in Mexico, it's Mexico whose law you have violated and Mexico who will punish you. Now, if you go to the US after murdering someone in Mexico, the US will arrest you and send you to Mexico to face justice under Mexico's laws -- but only if Mexico asks. Extradition is not the same as extraterritorial application of law.
Here's a document with information on US extraterritorial application of law, considering it from constitutional, statutory, international law, and lots of other perspectives. Piracy (real piracy; guys on ships with guns or other "stateless vessels") is an extraterritorial application of law that had slipped my mind in my first comment. A few other cases seem to be things like, if you kill the President (or another high-ranking federal official) when he's in Japan, the US will have some beef with you even if Japan doesn't care. But these tend to be limited. Also, it's almost all federal criminal laws that apply extraterritorially; state criminal laws (which are the vast majority of criminal laws in the US) almost never do.
That's more than a little messed up, and the US does not follow Australia's example on this, with the sole example (afaik -- maybe not sole but if not there are VERY few others) of hiring overseas child prostitutes. If you go to Amsterdam and get high, the US won't lock you up when you come back.
And that's as it should be: applying laws to your citizens when they're not in your territory is a problematic concept. You can be a citizen of a country without even knowing it, for a recent example Ted Cruz was a dual Canadian citizen from birth until very recently when he renounced his citizenship, and he didn't know he was until some members of the press discovered it when he started campaigning for President.
It's a hard problem. My only contention is that the solution is not "do the recall only if we expect lawsuits would cost more". Some people affected wouldn't know to file suit, the victims' lawyers would take a cut of the proceeds, human life is impossible to value monetarily and attempts to do so necessarily fall short, etc.
We have regulatory agencies which sometimes force car companies to initiate recalls. They are the ones ultimately in charge of making that judgement call. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach.
However, there's a difference between inevitable engineering tolerance failures and flaws in the design or construction. If there's a known flaw in the vehicle's construction, because the wrong materials were used, etc., and the company doesn't initiate a recall because they think they can "get away with it" and have to pay less by not doing the recall, that's different, and many could consider that sociopathic/evil.
Not your point (not sure what is, precisely), but high sugar intake doesn't cause diabetes. That's an urban legend. There are multiple risk factors; obesity is probably the biggest one that people can do much about.
There are some very recent studies that seem to indicate a relation between extremely high sugar intake and diabetes, but even that is uncertain.
Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action. Hillary Clinton is not politically dead; she will get the Democratic nomination for President and there's probably a greater than 50% chance she'll win the general election.
Sending someone to prison for receiving emails is necessarily making that person a political prisoner. Political imprisonment is injustice per se. Perhaps it's best that everyone in important executive branch offices is usually of the same political party; the temptation to make political prisoners out of people is less that way.
There was always going to be a political scandal involving Hillary Clinton, because of the media. No, not because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", because "Hillary Clinton still is a shoe-in for the nomination" is not a story and the media likes stories. So they have to go, "OMG Bernie Sanders MIGHT WIN!" and "OMG SCANDAL WILL IT MAKE HILLARY FALL???".
There's nothing, or at most very little, substance to the email thing.
It's a shame Pamela Jones shuttered Groklaw... her insight into this case would have been invaluable.
We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted before it becomes as much a bane on software as software patents were before Alice vs. CLS Bank.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.
Umm, dude ... look at tfa, there's a list of organizations that signed the petition at the bottom. It's a list of organizations that you can tell are almost certainly squarely on the left side of the US political spectrum just by their names.
Now, to the know-nothings thinking of responding: no, the organizations don't usually explicitly say they're liberal in their names, and some appear at first glance to be single-issue orgs, like "End Rape on Campus", but here's what's going on: the way they want to end rape on campus is probably by gutting the due process rights of those accused of rape (who are members of the patriarchy, so they don't deserve rights) and expelling anyone who makes jokes they don't like ("no means yes, yes means anal"). And for good measure probably also disciplining people who protest by holding up posters of aborted fetuses on the campus lawn for being disruptive -- they're obviously at war with women for doing that -- while allowing protests which involve carrying a mattress with you to all your classes, because that's of course not at all disruptive. These are not nonpartisan things to advocate.
None of this has much to do with actually ending rape on campus -- I'm pretty sure not wanting people to be raped is a nonpartisan cause -- but if you think organizations with names like "End Rape on Campus" aren't liberal, and organizations with names like "True Americans for Growth" and "Patriots for Law and Order" (I just made those up) aren't conservative, you haven't been paying attention to US politics for at least, oh, 10-15 years.
In short, if you can at all hear the dog whistles of US politics, the orgs in the list are all whistling "liberal" very loudly.
Assuming you're not just spouting bullshit, most likely you witnessed a dictionary attack against a weak password.
Dude, wow. I've used both git and svn, and there's little wrong with svn. git is nicer for extremely distributed projects, yes, but 15 people is not extremely distributed. They'll probably have about 10 people working on the trunk and 1-5 people on experimental branches. That's not a situation that is going to require git's advanced branching/merging capabilities.
And in any case, get a grip. We're talking about version control systems, not insulting your personal honor.
Corporations are extremely paranoid about not offending everyone ever -- well, any liberals ever, anyway; Google came out in support of gay marriage. ANYway...
If you want to read an account of a project handling offense-seekers in exactly the right way, read this: https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
That project tells the vigilante thought police exactly where they can shove it :)
A weakness was that there was shadow control by the Communist party (Politburo) behind the scenes.
No, the "weakness" was that if you tried to run for election without the permission of the Communist Party, you would immediately be arrested, convicted in a show trial, and murdered. Once this stopped being the case, in 1989, the country quickly disintegrated as its political system was not built to withstand the turbulence of democratic elections.
You are incorrect.
Did Linus say, "I hope you eat dicks and die you fag?"
Did Linus say, "You're a shit programmer for thinking up something like this?"
Did Linus say, "Go to hell you moron?"
No. He did not personally insult the developer in any way. He made a rude comment about a company -- which doesn't have feelings -- to get his point across. The poster of that patch has no reason to be personally offended. The comment was about his work, not him as a human being.
I suggested attempting to help all economically/apathetic-parent disadvantaged children. Is there some reason you want to help only those of certain races?
No of course it's not blue it's black with purple clouds! ...wait.
Sorry, I've been playing too much Quake 1. Carry on with your political flamewar.
For a while, until those differences are eroded by attrition over generations. Lots of Irish were brought over as indentured servants. Huge disadvantage. But that was >200 years ago, no one cares now, and no one should care because it worked itself out.
Here's another idea. How about we work on trying to help and help motivate gifted students whose parents, for whatever reason, are not involved in their lives? I don't care if it's a black child or a white child or a Hispanic child or an Asian child: try to help any child who is underperforming due to lack of parental involvement.
There's no reason we need to specifically target black children or Hispanic children with absentee parents. That's just a proxy for "kids who aren't doing as well as they should because their parents are poor / don't care / whatever". And using race as a proxy for some other characteristic is racist.
lol, wow. Okay, I'll spell it out.
My objection is to your assertion that acting as if no current cryptography will be safe in 10 years has no cost. If you really act that way, it will cost you quite a lot. You will be unable to take actions you would otherwise be able to take, because, for instance, you have to assume anything you transmit over the Internet, even if you encrypt it, can be intercepted and later read.
Separately, you're also wrong that there is cause to act in such a way, because quantum annealing (the process used to factor 56,153) isn't Shor's Algorithm, doesn't work in the general case, and might not even provide a speedup over classical factorization techniques. It's a parlor trick.
But my objection was to the other part of your risk assessment -- the part that led you to suggest that acting like all crypto is broken has no cost.
And we'll never find the Philosopher's Stone.
And astrology won't tell you your future.
And bloodletting isn't going to cure your plague.
And we'll never discover the Fountain of Youth.
And she's not a witch.
And your child isn't a changeling.
And the Northwest Passage doesn't exist. (Maybe it will one day if we keep turning up the planet's thermostat, but it certainly didn't when we were looking for it.)
And Reagan's Star Wars was a joke.
And you're not getting headaches because of the WiFi.
And Moore's Law won't continue forever; eventually physics will bite us. (It actually already has.)
And there are enough fundamental problems with building a practical quantum computer that Shor's Algorithm will in all probability never be more than a theoretical curiosity.
Maybe the final one is true; maybe not. Everything I've read says that quantum decoherence is really hard to avoid, and adiabatic quantum computers can't do Shor's Algorithm. In any case, you haven't made an argument.
I'm never going to go outside on Fridays anymore because I think a toilet seat from outer space is going to crash into my head and kill me if I do.
If I'm wrong, no harm done.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(not saying quantum crypto is a movie plot threat, merely another form of dumb -- DLM just worked best for the joke analogy)
You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise.
That's cute, but you're missing something big. He can reject your definitions if he wants to, and, as long as he's consistent with his own definitions, he has the right to do that.
I can call the night sky white if I want to -- just so long as I don't also call my printer paper white. If I do both of those things, then and only then can you complain.
HAND
Are you sure? I've been to China multiple times. Some observations:
- OpenVPN connections are killed at the handshake. Workaround is hide the handshake; there are multiple ways to do this.
- SSH (allows tunneling) worked fine when I was there this summer. One time, in 2014, it seemed to degrade over time. But this probably was just been my imagination, because of the following:
CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL PEERING SUCKS ASS. It doesn't matter if you have a T1 at home: international connections are going to be slow as molasses. A lot of people say China "degrades VPNs", but my observation is more that the country just has bad peering to other countries. You can get fast domestic Internet access, but international sites and servers -- the ones that aren't blocked -- are going to be slow and unreliable, because the upstream peering is running at something like 200% capacity, and your packets are going to get frequently dropped.
Now, an interesting question is whether their international peering sucks on purpose as an extension of their censorship. Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you can get an uncensored proxy out very easily, but expect some slowness and unpleasantness. Not because they're using some super-duper magic proxy-degrading technology, though. That's probably not happening. If they catch you, they'll probably just cut you off, not slow you down. What's probably happening is that China's international peering sucks, and you're running into the congestion.
The real non-dick move would be to rate limit you or even cut you off at 300GB and then allow you to actually choose to pay for the overage.
No, Gumbercules. I don't now about Australia, but the vast majority of US criminal laws do not apply extraterritorially. It's not just that the US doesn't bother prosecuting people who use drugs outside of the US; they couldn't even if they wanted to. US law applies in US territory, and not elsewhere, except in certain limited cases.
One exception I'm aware of is that US citizens or permanent residents who have sex with child prostitutes in other countries can be tried in the US, and most likely treason or similar crimes would apply to US citizens overseas, but that's me speculating.
However, almost all other US laws apply only in the US. Extraterritorial laws are the rare exception and not the rule. If you smoke pot in Amsterdam, that's between you and Amsterdam. If you are 18 and get drunk in Puerto Rico (where it is legal), your home state won't go after you.
And, taken to the extreme, even serious crimes like murder are typically only crimes under the jurisdiction in which the murder occurs. If you go kill someone in Mexico, it's Mexico whose law you have violated and Mexico who will punish you. Now, if you go to the US after murdering someone in Mexico, the US will arrest you and send you to Mexico to face justice under Mexico's laws -- but only if Mexico asks. Extradition is not the same as extraterritorial application of law.
Here's a document with information on US extraterritorial application of law, considering it from constitutional, statutory, international law, and lots of other perspectives. Piracy (real piracy; guys on ships with guns or other "stateless vessels") is an extraterritorial application of law that had slipped my mind in my first comment. A few other cases seem to be things like, if you kill the President (or another high-ranking federal official) when he's in Japan, the US will have some beef with you even if Japan doesn't care. But these tend to be limited. Also, it's almost all federal criminal laws that apply extraterritorially; state criminal laws (which are the vast majority of criminal laws in the US) almost never do.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...
That's more than a little messed up, and the US does not follow Australia's example on this, with the sole example (afaik -- maybe not sole but if not there are VERY few others) of hiring overseas child prostitutes. If you go to Amsterdam and get high, the US won't lock you up when you come back.
And that's as it should be: applying laws to your citizens when they're not in your territory is a problematic concept. You can be a citizen of a country without even knowing it, for a recent example Ted Cruz was a dual Canadian citizen from birth until very recently when he renounced his citizenship, and he didn't know he was until some members of the press discovered it when he started campaigning for President.
(not legally, but socially it does)
Social conventions are not laws. If you can't understand that distinction, you can't contribute to this conversation.
It's a hard problem. My only contention is that the solution is not "do the recall only if we expect lawsuits would cost more". Some people affected wouldn't know to file suit, the victims' lawyers would take a cut of the proceeds, human life is impossible to value monetarily and attempts to do so necessarily fall short, etc.
We have regulatory agencies which sometimes force car companies to initiate recalls. They are the ones ultimately in charge of making that judgement call. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach.
That's a good point.
However, there's a difference between inevitable engineering tolerance failures and flaws in the design or construction. If there's a known flaw in the vehicle's construction, because the wrong materials were used, etc., and the company doesn't initiate a recall because they think they can "get away with it" and have to pay less by not doing the recall, that's different, and many could consider that sociopathic/evil.
Not your point (not sure what is, precisely), but high sugar intake doesn't cause diabetes. That's an urban legend. There are multiple risk factors; obesity is probably the biggest one that people can do much about.
There are some very recent studies that seem to indicate a relation between extremely high sugar intake and diabetes, but even that is uncertain.
What you said is utter nonsense.
Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action. Hillary Clinton is not politically dead; she will get the Democratic nomination for President and there's probably a greater than 50% chance she'll win the general election.
Sending someone to prison for receiving emails is necessarily making that person a political prisoner. Political imprisonment is injustice per se. Perhaps it's best that everyone in important executive branch offices is usually of the same political party; the temptation to make political prisoners out of people is less that way.
There was always going to be a political scandal involving Hillary Clinton, because of the media. No, not because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", because "Hillary Clinton still is a shoe-in for the nomination" is not a story and the media likes stories. So they have to go, "OMG Bernie Sanders MIGHT WIN!" and "OMG SCANDAL WILL IT MAKE HILLARY FALL???".
There's nothing, or at most very little, substance to the email thing.
It's a shame Pamela Jones shuttered Groklaw ... her insight into this case would have been invaluable.
We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted before it becomes as much a bane on software as software patents were before Alice vs. CLS Bank.
But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.
Umm, according to this, there were fewer than 100 Thalidomide-related birth defects in the US:
http://guides.main.library.emo...
Given the obvious incorrectness of your statement about thalidomide, please forgive my skepticism that you actually cured AIDS.
You really haven't been paying attention it would seem.