It's one thing to ask, but most of these come with the implication that the current ratios are wrong and need correcting. Sexism is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated, but that goes both ways. Are women really too stupid to figure out what they want to do? I don't think so.
The person who got me into CS is a woman - one of my highschool teachers. Every nerd needs that person that takes the interest and focuses it into something concrete - and she was that person for me. I couldn't have more respect for women in CS, which is why I'm so troubled when people start off with the assumption that women are too afraid to go into a field like CS because of some nebulous fears about the environment or the people in it. It's chivalry all over again, the notion that women can't "handle it" unless they get treated like delicate flowers, lest their uterus were to wither. I'm not implying that telling men "don't be a sexist asshole" is special treatment, but there's a lot of specific material assistance available to women but not men.
If I wanted to be a nurse, I'd be a nurse. I know male nurses, and nobody's agonizing over why there's so few of them, or giving them special assistance to "fix" it. They wanted to be nurses, so they did it.
It shouldn't look any worse than any other 24fps video, unless they're taking advantage of the doubled temporal resolution (which they'd be fools not to). The cameras are just taking an extra frame in the middle of the frames a 24fps camera already does.
The regulations on hams are a good thing, since it protects amateur radio from commercial operators that would otherwise fill up the bands with useless garbage. The regulations don't much affect hams themselves.
I price shop and I think apple laptops are overpriced..
Care to show some examples? Like the GP, I find them to be spot-on when comparing apples to apples. Build quality, OS, and support is well worth the $50-100 premium, if any.
If this girl had been here in the U.S., she'd probably already be charged with some form of terrorism by DHS and thrown in a cell with murderers, rapists, and people that upload HD rips of hit movies to the internet.
C'mon dude, you made a lot of good points, why did you have to spoil it with outrageous hyperbole? It's one of the most obvious rules of trying to prove a point - people judge your argument as a whole, so if you throw in a crapton of obvious nonsense, people don't take the good parts seriously.
I suppose this could be the same thing... lots of people going "I want to make a game like Angry Birds!" who don't really understand the work involved (hours of debugging a missing paren, etc
... this is clearly not my field of knowledge:) but how could making it non-removable double the battery life? were the pre-removable-batteries really THAT bad? And in phones or iPods or wherever else, too?
The amount of, for lack of a better word, infrastructure required to make a battery removable takes up a huge amount of room. Look at the iPhone battery, the iPad battery (the hole is where the 3G modem goes, there's no wasted space), and the new retina MacBook Pro.
Making the battery removable would've made the case thicker and the battery smaller. Furthermore, specifically in the MBP, they can make the battery non-rectangular (which is essentially impossible if it's removable) and take better advantage of the nooks and crannies of free space available. That's where I got my doubling figure from; I get 3.5-4hr on my replaceable-battery MBP if I'm not feeling frisky. But under the same sorts of workloads a newer model non-removable battery MBP gets a no-exaggeration 7 hours. It's clearly a drawback for people who need 12 hours of battery and were previously able to stock 3 batteries, but very few people actually need that kind of battery life (though a lot of people around here felt like they might).
If only they could have just multiplexed a USB over the displayport, or firewire, but no, they had to provide a root access connector that is now standardized across many devices.
You don't have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. You grabbed hold of a few concepts that you apparently don't fully comprehend and then used them to rant about surveillance. A sibling of mine posted the IOMMU thing already, but that wasn't the only howler in your post. Firewire also allows DMA so your purported solution wouldn't work for exactly the wrong reasons you were complaining about Thunderbolt. And even if they were legitimate objections, you're screwed if an attacker has physical access anyway.
That is, unless you can lobby congress more than they can. No? I thought so.
Actually, the amateur lobby is pretty strong. To wit, hams have a nontrivial (but small) amount of some pretty desirable chunks of bandwidth all across the spectrum. Not to mention there's the whole disaster response thing - nobody else matches it. Furthermore, much of that spectrum is internationally allocated - it would be difficult to get away with just selling it off.
Apple's new line is about 20% thinner than that laptop, has a bigger screen, and weighs almost exactly the same despite the larger screen. Not to mention a substantially more powerful processor and a battery life of 7 hours. I don't know how long the battery life on that Samsung is, but they don't say it on the overview, features, or specs page. Oh I finally found it - the press release says 7.8hr, but I don't trust most manufacturer's stated battery life claims, though I meet or exceed Apple's
It's not the laptop for me, mostly because I have a home-built desktop running Linux for anything requiring computational power and I can't justify even half of the expense. But it's not worth pretending that it's not a very very good laptop.
Fair enough. By volume, you still come out very far ahead with even a marginally thinner laptop. And this is a bit more than marginally thinner.
I think most people, including myself, use laptop bags of some sort or another. This is just something to toss in - again, by weight and volume, you still come out better with a thinner laptop + dongle.
I'm by no means a fanboi, but Apple has a funny habit of being about a year ahead of "obvious". They did it with floppy drives, serial ports, physical media with the Air, etc. I have a use for a laptop with a serial port (for embedded work), but I'm not about to pretend that a laptop without one plus a dongle isn't a big improvement. Ethernet is smaller than a serial port, but it's still thicker than they have room for. Even on my 2008 MBP, the GigE jack is only about 2mm shorter than the entire body. It's several mm larger than any other port, and when the entire laptop is less than 2cm, millimeters matter.
It's a basic heuristic - "make the common case best". It applies to algorithms, software, and even hardware. If most people don't use Ethernet most of the time, don't include it. Same goes for the DVDRW drive, Firewire, DVI, and microphone ports - which people seem much less up in arms over.
after the technology no longer serves a majority of their users.
Like an ethernet port?
Actually, probably yes. I make more use of Ethernet than most people I know, and I still only use it once or twice a month.
Seriously, you think all that non-replaceable-battery thing was because they decided that replacing batteries no longer served the majority of their users?
No, the "non-replaceable battery thing" was because they could nearly double the battery life of the computer without sacrificing power. Considering that I just replaced the (removable) battery in my 2008 MBP, not because it was running low but because it was defective and bulging (they gave me a new one free), I don't think most people run the life out of their batteries. Even if you lost half the capacity, you'd still be better off than a new removable battery.
Then buy a Dell or Thinkpad. Oops, except since those are 2-3x as thick as this new laptop, you'd have to carry 15 Ethernet dongles to match their thickness and weight.
It's not for everybody, but don't pretend that it's a "joke"
Well, yes... I was being hyperbolic about SHA-1. The reason JtR is making headway is because the hashes are unsalted, not because the hash has problems. But if I understand it, doesn't salting even help with a weak hash? Given the hash of the password, you can perhaps find a colliding cleartext (is that the name for the input string?) in faster-than-bruteforce time but if you don't know the salt it doesn't help you because you can't completely control the input.
What the hell are you talking about?? The problem wasn't the hashing - SHA1 is perfectly strong - it was the lack of salting, which makes attacks like this one possible. And "unthrottled passwd guessing" might be "incompetant" but preventing it doesn't do you a lick of good if you're testing against a list you downloaded.
Yeah, they screwed up. They shouldn't have allowed the password hashes to be compromised, and they should've salted the hashes so they would be essentially worthless if compromised, but that doesn't negate the value of a strong password.
Let's get these out of the way
on
Emacs 24.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping, it's a great OS but it needs a text editor, etc.
Seriously though, it's really excellent that such a mature project can continue to advance. Not many projects can continue to grow for 36 years
Like anything else about the ethics of war, it all comes down to whether you accept the premise for war, or not. If you don't, you need to believe that human nature will change (and groups of people won't butt heads constantly), or else that things like the UN will become substantially more effective - that is, either people will stop fighting, or people will be content to fight with words. Neither is likely IMHO.
So if you accept the premise of war as at least a necessary evil, it can only be ethical to be better at it - there's no argument that a war that kills the top leaders responsible for the continuation of the war isn't more responsible than one where instead their ordinary soldiers are killed to try and force those leaders to cut it out. Imagine if we'd been able to drone-strike Hitler and Himmler and a few other top guys in 1942 - wouldn't that be not only ethical, but the moral imperative? I think the logic holds up even in more morally ambiguous conflicts as well. Once a war is started, for whatever reason, it's best to be done with it as quickly and cleanly for both sides as possible.
I totally agree with you and I think it's an excellent program, in case that wasn't clear. My objection was more about the 'choice' aspect, which (I'm sure you didn't mean it this way) read a little like "those people are so stupid they don't come even if it's free". There is definitely some of that - a lot of people are poor or sick *because* they are stupid - all I meant was that there might be other reasons.
Another anecdote - I had an enormous patient with diabetes and a blood sugar pushing 600 (which is about 400 above the normal range). She was all messed up, because she had been pounding sodas all day. When I asked her why on earth she had drunk a half-dozen sodas if she has diabetes, she said "The doctor told me to stay hydrated". And yes, she did know that diabetics shouldn't have a lot of sugar - but she didn't want to drink water because soda tasted better. Then she wanted to know if she'd be able to make her 8AM flight to Acapulco - this was at about 3AM.
No, I want to live somewhere that makes it legal for ER's to turn people away.
We had that for a long time, and we as a society thought it was sick to just let people die in the streets. Which is why we passed a law saying you couldn't do that.
On top of that, I hope that ER's figure out some way to accept people without money, perhaps through some kind of charity or through charging paying customers slightly more, think one laptop per child pricing. You buy one kidney transplant for yourself and cover part of the costs for someone needy.
Yeah right. Even if that would ever happen, homeless people would just live in the places where hospitals could afford to do that, which wouldn't be most or even many of them. The other ones would die out (literally). Those few hospitals would have their costs would balloon like crazy because they'd have an increasing number of poor folk migrating to them. That is, unless they had some sort of quota, like "we can only treat so many poor people per month", in which case you'd have some sort of sick game where people were killing each other or something to be part of that magic group that could continue to survive.
I'd rather live in a world where we fix the broken universal healthcare system we already have; namely, allowing everybody to go to the doctor for routine checkups and things so you neither see somebody for the first time with a $20k heart attack, nor turn him away and let him die in the gutter.
Are you sure they know it's free, and they won't get slapped with a huge bill? How actively does the hospital make it known that it's a free screening, no tricks?
I do EMS and I routinely have people who have been in car accidents or something and are so terrified of getting a massive healthcare bill that they don't want us to even assess them. We're a volunteer agency and we don't charge, so they usually change their mind. But more often than not, even if we find a potentially-nasty problem that's not severe enough that we can compel them to go (like a head injury), they don't want to. One of them died later that night from pericardial tamponade, which we suspected and were really nervous about (nasty bruise on the chest, and chest pain) but they couldn't afford a hospital visit - no matter how much we tried to convince them that they were very likely going to die, we can't compel them to go unless they're mentally incompetent to refuse (drunk, unconscious, having a stroke, etc). He understood the risk, but he was willing to gamble because he was so afraid of the bill. The point being that the fear of a multi-thousand dollar bill to these people can be literally on par with the self-preservation instinct. And that's just sick.
Not to mention the dozens of patients I've had who are having a heart attack, but are too poor to afford statins, or the doctor visit and bloodwork required to get the prescription. Frankly, I'd rather pay for his 20 years of statins than his one heart attack, and I know I'll be paying for one of them - via insurance premiums which are raised because hospitals charge insured patients more because they have to cover increasing unpaid costs.
Assuming you're talking about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its amendments (18 USC 1030), it only applies to "protected computers" which are:
- exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or - which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States
In other words, the laws only concern themselves with computers in the US, or outside but used by US entities but only if the intrusion affected them. It's hard to argue that a bunch of process computers in the Middle East meets either definition. Furthermore, it specifically exempts intelligence activities:
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
It's an illegal activity, whether done by governments or by the mob.
So if the government murders (we call it war) or kidnaps (we call it arrest), is it also illegal? I understand and sympathize with a lot of the "fuck da man" libertarianism around here, but nobody's ever seriously argued that the government shouldn't have more power to affect a person than the average person. The trade-off is all the accountability they're supposed to have. We don't let your neighbor tie you up and lock you in his house, but we let the police - if they can justify it.
XP absolutely has a GUI to do it. Network properties, install, protocol, v6. Works great, but I've only tested with stateless autoconfig so if you need some wacky DHCPv6 you might have problems.
Not a great analogy. If the miners were complaining about having to go underground and get ores out of the ground, they should've been fired. But they were complaining about how the work was unsafe because the employer was being irresponsible because they could get away with it. The analogy would be more like if these women were being groped and the managers weren't doing anything about it delibrately. AFAICT that's not happening here.
Though to be fair, the women don't really seem to be complaining about the work so much as how it's kind of a boring job that makes their feet hurt. Not "I signed up to show off my body and they're making me show it off!", which seems to be what a bunch of people here are imagining.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to ask, but most of these come with the implication that the current ratios are wrong and need correcting. Sexism is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated, but that goes both ways. Are women really too stupid to figure out what they want to do? I don't think so.
The person who got me into CS is a woman - one of my highschool teachers. Every nerd needs that person that takes the interest and focuses it into something concrete - and she was that person for me. I couldn't have more respect for women in CS, which is why I'm so troubled when people start off with the assumption that women are too afraid to go into a field like CS because of some nebulous fears about the environment or the people in it. It's chivalry all over again, the notion that women can't "handle it" unless they get treated like delicate flowers, lest their uterus were to wither. I'm not implying that telling men "don't be a sexist asshole" is special treatment, but there's a lot of specific material assistance available to women but not men.
If I wanted to be a nurse, I'd be a nurse. I know male nurses, and nobody's agonizing over why there's so few of them, or giving them special assistance to "fix" it. They wanted to be nurses, so they did it.
It shouldn't look any worse than any other 24fps video, unless they're taking advantage of the doubled temporal resolution (which they'd be fools not to). The cameras are just taking an extra frame in the middle of the frames a 24fps camera already does.
The regulations on hams are a good thing, since it protects amateur radio from commercial operators that would otherwise fill up the bands with useless garbage. The regulations don't much affect hams themselves.
73, KC2YWE
I price shop and I think apple laptops are overpriced..
Care to show some examples? Like the GP, I find them to be spot-on when comparing apples to apples. Build quality, OS, and support is well worth the $50-100 premium, if any.
If this girl had been here in the U.S., she'd probably already be charged with some form of terrorism by DHS and thrown in a cell with murderers, rapists, and people that upload HD rips of hit movies to the internet.
C'mon dude, you made a lot of good points, why did you have to spoil it with outrageous hyperbole? It's one of the most obvious rules of trying to prove a point - people judge your argument as a whole, so if you throw in a crapton of obvious nonsense, people don't take the good parts seriously.
I suppose this could be the same thing... lots of people going "I want to make a game like Angry Birds!" who don't really understand the work involved (hours of debugging a missing paren, etc
)
Am I missing something, or is this roughly the equivalent of people saying "I want to be a fireman when I grow up!"?
Still, I suppose it's encouraging that software dev is seen as reasonably classy. Even just a few years ago it was all "but I'm not a sweaty nerd!"
... this is clearly not my field of knowledge :) but how could making it non-removable double the battery life? were the pre-removable-batteries really THAT bad? And in phones or iPods or wherever else, too?
The amount of, for lack of a better word, infrastructure required to make a battery removable takes up a huge amount of room. Look at the iPhone battery, the iPad battery (the hole is where the 3G modem goes, there's no wasted space), and the new retina MacBook Pro.
Making the battery removable would've made the case thicker and the battery smaller. Furthermore, specifically in the MBP, they can make the battery non-rectangular (which is essentially impossible if it's removable) and take better advantage of the nooks and crannies of free space available. That's where I got my doubling figure from; I get 3.5-4hr on my replaceable-battery MBP if I'm not feeling frisky. But under the same sorts of workloads a newer model non-removable battery MBP gets a no-exaggeration 7 hours. It's clearly a drawback for people who need 12 hours of battery and were previously able to stock 3 batteries, but very few people actually need that kind of battery life (though a lot of people around here felt like they might).
If only they could have just multiplexed a USB over the displayport, or firewire, but no, they had to provide a root access connector that is now standardized across many devices.
You don't have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. You grabbed hold of a few concepts that you apparently don't fully comprehend and then used them to rant about surveillance. A sibling of mine posted the IOMMU thing already, but that wasn't the only howler in your post. Firewire also allows DMA so your purported solution wouldn't work for exactly the wrong reasons you were complaining about Thunderbolt. And even if they were legitimate objections, you're screwed if an attacker has physical access anyway.
That is, unless you can lobby congress more than they can. No? I thought so.
Actually, the amateur lobby is pretty strong. To wit, hams have a nontrivial (but small) amount of some pretty desirable chunks of bandwidth all across the spectrum. Not to mention there's the whole disaster response thing - nobody else matches it. Furthermore, much of that spectrum is internationally allocated - it would be difficult to get away with just selling it off.
Apple's new line is about 20% thinner than that laptop, has a bigger screen, and weighs almost exactly the same despite the larger screen. Not to mention a substantially more powerful processor and a battery life of 7 hours. I don't know how long the battery life on that Samsung is, but they don't say it on the overview, features, or specs page. Oh I finally found it - the press release says 7.8hr, but I don't trust most manufacturer's stated battery life claims, though I meet or exceed Apple's
It's not the laptop for me, mostly because I have a home-built desktop running Linux for anything requiring computational power and I can't justify even half of the expense. But it's not worth pretending that it's not a very very good laptop.
Though that Samsung one does look nice.
Fair enough. By volume, you still come out very far ahead with even a marginally thinner laptop. And this is a bit more than marginally thinner.
I think most people, including myself, use laptop bags of some sort or another. This is just something to toss in - again, by weight and volume, you still come out better with a thinner laptop + dongle.
I'm by no means a fanboi, but Apple has a funny habit of being about a year ahead of "obvious". They did it with floppy drives, serial ports, physical media with the Air, etc. I have a use for a laptop with a serial port (for embedded work), but I'm not about to pretend that a laptop without one plus a dongle isn't a big improvement. Ethernet is smaller than a serial port, but it's still thicker than they have room for. Even on my 2008 MBP, the GigE jack is only about 2mm shorter than the entire body. It's several mm larger than any other port, and when the entire laptop is less than 2cm, millimeters matter.
It's a basic heuristic - "make the common case best". It applies to algorithms, software, and even hardware. If most people don't use Ethernet most of the time, don't include it. Same goes for the DVDRW drive, Firewire, DVI, and microphone ports - which people seem much less up in arms over.
after the technology no longer serves a majority of their users.
Like an ethernet port?
Actually, probably yes. I make more use of Ethernet than most people I know, and I still only use it once or twice a month.
Seriously, you think all that non-replaceable-battery thing was because they decided that replacing batteries no longer served the majority of their users?
No, the "non-replaceable battery thing" was because they could nearly double the battery life of the computer without sacrificing power. Considering that I just replaced the (removable) battery in my 2008 MBP, not because it was running low but because it was defective and bulging (they gave me a new one free), I don't think most people run the life out of their batteries. Even if you lost half the capacity, you'd still be better off than a new removable battery.
Then buy a Dell or Thinkpad. Oops, except since those are 2-3x as thick as this new laptop, you'd have to carry 15 Ethernet dongles to match their thickness and weight.
It's not for everybody, but don't pretend that it's a "joke"
Well, yes... I was being hyperbolic about SHA-1. The reason JtR is making headway is because the hashes are unsalted, not because the hash has problems. But if I understand it, doesn't salting even help with a weak hash? Given the hash of the password, you can perhaps find a colliding cleartext (is that the name for the input string?) in faster-than-bruteforce time but if you don't know the salt it doesn't help you because you can't completely control the input.
What the hell are you talking about?? The problem wasn't the hashing - SHA1 is perfectly strong - it was the lack of salting, which makes attacks like this one possible. And "unthrottled passwd guessing" might be "incompetant" but preventing it doesn't do you a lick of good if you're testing against a list you downloaded.
Yeah, they screwed up. They shouldn't have allowed the password hashes to be compromised, and they should've salted the hashes so they would be essentially worthless if compromised, but that doesn't negate the value of a strong password.
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping, it's a great OS but it needs a text editor, etc.
Seriously though, it's really excellent that such a mature project can continue to advance. Not many projects can continue to grow for 36 years
Like anything else about the ethics of war, it all comes down to whether you accept the premise for war, or not. If you don't, you need to believe that human nature will change (and groups of people won't butt heads constantly), or else that things like the UN will become substantially more effective - that is, either people will stop fighting, or people will be content to fight with words. Neither is likely IMHO.
So if you accept the premise of war as at least a necessary evil, it can only be ethical to be better at it - there's no argument that a war that kills the top leaders responsible for the continuation of the war isn't more responsible than one where instead their ordinary soldiers are killed to try and force those leaders to cut it out. Imagine if we'd been able to drone-strike Hitler and Himmler and a few other top guys in 1942 - wouldn't that be not only ethical, but the moral imperative? I think the logic holds up even in more morally ambiguous conflicts as well. Once a war is started, for whatever reason, it's best to be done with it as quickly and cleanly for both sides as possible.
I totally agree with you and I think it's an excellent program, in case that wasn't clear. My objection was more about the 'choice' aspect, which (I'm sure you didn't mean it this way) read a little like "those people are so stupid they don't come even if it's free". There is definitely some of that - a lot of people are poor or sick *because* they are stupid - all I meant was that there might be other reasons.
Another anecdote - I had an enormous patient with diabetes and a blood sugar pushing 600 (which is about 400 above the normal range). She was all messed up, because she had been pounding sodas all day. When I asked her why on earth she had drunk a half-dozen sodas if she has diabetes, she said "The doctor told me to stay hydrated". And yes, she did know that diabetics shouldn't have a lot of sugar - but she didn't want to drink water because soda tasted better. Then she wanted to know if she'd be able to make her 8AM flight to Acapulco - this was at about 3AM.
No, I want to live somewhere that makes it legal for ER's to turn people away.
We had that for a long time, and we as a society thought it was sick to just let people die in the streets. Which is why we passed a law saying you couldn't do that.
On top of that, I hope that ER's figure out some way to accept people without money, perhaps through some kind of charity or through charging paying customers slightly more, think one laptop per child pricing. You buy one kidney transplant for yourself and cover part of the costs for someone needy.
Yeah right. Even if that would ever happen, homeless people would just live in the places where hospitals could afford to do that, which wouldn't be most or even many of them. The other ones would die out (literally). Those few hospitals would have their costs would balloon like crazy because they'd have an increasing number of poor folk migrating to them. That is, unless they had some sort of quota, like "we can only treat so many poor people per month", in which case you'd have some sort of sick game where people were killing each other or something to be part of that magic group that could continue to survive.
I'd rather live in a world where we fix the broken universal healthcare system we already have; namely, allowing everybody to go to the doctor for routine checkups and things so you neither see somebody for the first time with a $20k heart attack, nor turn him away and let him die in the gutter.
Are you sure they know it's free, and they won't get slapped with a huge bill? How actively does the hospital make it known that it's a free screening, no tricks?
I do EMS and I routinely have people who have been in car accidents or something and are so terrified of getting a massive healthcare bill that they don't want us to even assess them. We're a volunteer agency and we don't charge, so they usually change their mind. But more often than not, even if we find a potentially-nasty problem that's not severe enough that we can compel them to go (like a head injury), they don't want to. One of them died later that night from pericardial tamponade, which we suspected and were really nervous about (nasty bruise on the chest, and chest pain) but they couldn't afford a hospital visit - no matter how much we tried to convince them that they were very likely going to die, we can't compel them to go unless they're mentally incompetent to refuse (drunk, unconscious, having a stroke, etc). He understood the risk, but he was willing to gamble because he was so afraid of the bill. The point being that the fear of a multi-thousand dollar bill to these people can be literally on par with the self-preservation instinct. And that's just sick.
Not to mention the dozens of patients I've had who are having a heart attack, but are too poor to afford statins, or the doctor visit and bloodwork required to get the prescription. Frankly, I'd rather pay for his 20 years of statins than his one heart attack, and I know I'll be paying for one of them - via insurance premiums which are raised because hospitals charge insured patients more because they have to cover increasing unpaid costs.
Assuming you're talking about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its amendments (18 USC 1030), it only applies to "protected computers" which are:
- exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
- which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States
In other words, the laws only concern themselves with computers in the US, or outside but used by US entities but only if the intrusion affected them. It's hard to argue that a bunch of process computers in the Middle East meets either definition. Furthermore, it specifically exempts intelligence activities:
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
IANAL, but I think there's your law.
It's an illegal activity, whether done by governments or by the mob.
So if the government murders (we call it war) or kidnaps (we call it arrest), is it also illegal? I understand and sympathize with a lot of the "fuck da man" libertarianism around here, but nobody's ever seriously argued that the government shouldn't have more power to affect a person than the average person. The trade-off is all the accountability they're supposed to have. We don't let your neighbor tie you up and lock you in his house, but we let the police - if they can justify it.
XP absolutely has a GUI to do it. Network properties, install, protocol, v6. Works great, but I've only tested with stateless autoconfig so if you need some wacky DHCPv6 you might have problems.
Not a great analogy. If the miners were complaining about having to go underground and get ores out of the ground, they should've been fired. But they were complaining about how the work was unsafe because the employer was being irresponsible because they could get away with it. The analogy would be more like if these women were being groped and the managers weren't doing anything about it delibrately. AFAICT that's not happening here.
Though to be fair, the women don't really seem to be complaining about the work so much as how it's kind of a boring job that makes their feet hurt. Not "I signed up to show off my body and they're making me show it off!", which seems to be what a bunch of people here are imagining.