whether possession/distribution of materials should be a crime, independent of their production I really don't see a question here. If making it is against the law, of course possession should be as well. Only a defense lawyer would question it whether there's a difference or not - the two are only seperated by motives (maybe), but if we assume the harmed party here is a child, then both are in violation. I suppose a drug user vs drug dealer analogy could be made here, but it all just sounds like an excuse to me.
To some extent you have a point, but possession of something that required a crime to create is not always illegal. The idea often brought out here on Slashdot is a video of a murder is not illegal to possess, just look at the video of the Kennedy assassination to know that. Now, you may point out that in those cases, the video was not commisioned/sponsored/created by the criminal, but was incidental. Then we have a potential distinction. But My understanding is that the law makes no distinction between material that managed to get captured on a security camera, and those that the child molester made himself/herself.
going bakc to the age of consent part, that just really needs to be cleaned up. Either we change the law so the age of consent and the age of adulthood (no longer being a minor) are the same (but that would realistically mean lowining the age of adulthood, as raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 (16 is fairly common) would be really really difficult. Alternatively, make child pornography not use the concept of a 'minor' but the concept of 'under the age of consent'. That would probably be an easier change to make. Of course, the whole age of consent thing is still a bit of a mess, but that is a somewhat separate issue.
As for your moral statements of many places not having much of a grey area, that is a reasonable philosophy, but sometimes it is just damn hard to determine what the impact to other people is/will be. Take a look at lawmakers. Of the tiny, tiny minority that are not highly corrupt, you have people who try to do the right thing. But a law that seems like the right thing can often be abused very badly, and completely ruin effectively innocent peoples' lives. But you are right that many cases are fairly clear-cut if view the right way.
I do agree that the fact that a group like NAMBLA can exist openly is extremely concerning. Something is definately not quite right.
Well the so-called "child pornography" controversy covers many areas, some of which have apparently solid reasoning behind them, others of which does not.
Let us start with the simplest case, production of pornographic images involving children, who actively do not consent. Obviously that involves direct exploit of children, and is not acceptable. There is virtually no controversy over that.
But what about the cases of photos taken of minors who are over the age of consent, and in fact do consent. The argument that a child is being exploited here is questionable. Further should it matter if the image taker was one of the consenting individuals? What about 2 individuals who are under the age of consent, who produced the images in question on their own initiative, without any external influence? Are we really claiming that a child can exploit himself or herself? That sounds nearly as absurd as the claims of an underage child "raping" himself/herself under the statutory rape laws. (That has been alleged before, although the circumstances escape me).
Then there are the questions of whether possession/distribution of materials should be a crime, independent of their production. The oldest logic here is the idea of creating new perverts. Obviously that one is highly suspect. The modern theory is that the existence of such images may create a market for them resulting in people exploiting children to create them. A seeming credible theory, although not without problems. After all, scarcity of such images with some level of demand tends to drive the value up. The images having high value may encourage some to take the risk and produce the content in question.
Then there is the issue of simulated content. Obviously that does not involve the actual exploitation of children. The theory though is that it may influence the market in such a way as to encourage additional production of non-simulated content.
So in the end, we have a few real questions. Does the government have any right to attempt to manipulate the market for the relevant content? The answer is probably yes, due to the exploitation of children in production of the real content. The next question is what measures may the government take to manipulate this market? Clearly only some measures are reasonable. Some may perhaps only be reasonable depending on just how effective it is at minimizing the production of the content. Finally, what acceptable measures when taken minimize the production of the (non-simulated content)? That unfortunately is an economics question, and despite our best efforts economics is still not really a hard science. The reality is that there are to many variables to consider them all at the same time, economic systems are always at least somewhat chaotic, and every change in the system produces 2 opposing pressures on each dependent variable, so determining the magnitude of each (or at least the net magnitude) is rather important but is shockingly difficult. The end result means that this is a debate that will go back and forth for centuries. Even if we perfected economics, the question of what measures are appropriate are still subjective, so the debate will likely never end.
The dark matter theory comes from the caculated amount of total matter that should exist. As it is, a significant change in the amount of luminous matter would not change the amount of dark matter needed to reach that total by very much. However, what exactly is that total amount of energy based on? Presumably the amount of matter needed to correct the orbits of large systems. However, this throws distance measurements into doubt. My understanding is that distance measurements are based in part on observed brightness. Distances to objects of known intensity are calculated from the apparent intensity of objects of known actual intensity. However the calculations are surely based on the inverse square law. However the amount of light lost to this dust means that the inverse squares law is not really accurate. That means that the distances to those reference objects have been overestimated. That in turn means the distances to the other objects are incorrect too. If our distance measurements are incorrect, it seems quite reasonable that out calculated orbits are incorrect too. The orbits may be many, many, many times closer to what they should be based on luminous matter alone. That means the total matter needed could drop an enormous amount. If the total amount of matter needed is then quite close to the amount of luminous matter needed, it may be that we do not need to invoke the existence of enormous amounts of exotic matter.
That seems reasonable. It may be that some of the things requiring unusual theories like quantum gravity or gobs of non-baryonic matter, may in fact just be due to inaccurate distance measurements. My understanding is that much of those theories are due to unusual observed movements, that don't seem to correspond to gravity on regular matter. But if are distance calculations are wrong, then perhaps that was all there was too it. The fact that this 20% is only a minuscule fraction of the amount of alleged dark matter existing is immaterial if the calculations for the total amount of mass that should exist are based on significantly flawed numbers. This I would not be shocked to see a major drop in the amount of non-luminous (dark) matter needed if the numbers are re-run.
There have been intermittent problems with the server side components of D2 recently (parts of the template were not getting filled out properly by the Perl scripts). On Friday, D2 was dead for me, as was the related article function. It might that one of the servers has run out of space on a partition. Since multiple servers are probably used, that would explain why the problem is intermittent.
A similar trick I've personally seen used for a sheriff's sale, where a member of that sheriff's department wanted to ensure that he would be the only bidder present, and that the owner would be unable to redeem his property: Legal notice of sale has to be posted in a public place. So... the legal notice was posted on a building at the fairgrounds. Which are technically "public" but in fact were locked and inaccessable for the whole notification period. I'm pretty sure that in those cases any interested party could get the sale reversed as invalid under an equity ruling. The posting may meet the legal requirements, but the posting alone does not make the sale valid. Rather the lack of posting makes the sale invalid. The sale could be contested on the point of not being a public sale, as the public was not capable of being aware of the sale. The notice being posted may however prevent the ability to receive damages beyond the injunction forcing the re-sale.
I'm pretty sure that the United States Postal service does not allow regional differences in these policies. If you attempt to mail through the Post Office postal employee, then insufficent postage would be refused barring your package's size and/or mass changing during shipping (!?), the employee making a mistake in verifying the postage, or not having the chance to inspect each envelope/package (such as if you handed them a large box full of envelopes whose postage needs differ).
I believe residential mailboxes may also be checked as mail is retrieved. However, those large blue mail bins that are sometimes found on street corners, etc, really could not be refused. What would they do? Leave the mail in the blue bin? They could either attempt to deliver it, or attempt to return it to sender. Anything else would legally be theft.
Now my understanding is that a recipient of postage due mail has the option to refuse to pay, at the cost of not receiving the mail in question. Then the post office must attempt to return the mail to sender. Mail returned to sender is another case where postage may be due. I'm not sure if one is allowed to refuse return to sender mail that is postage due.
A negative keyword would be a keyword that if it appears would prevent the advertisement from appearing, regardless of the presence or absence of the normal keywords.
Re:Reminds me of my review of "Moby Dick"
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
The problem with that report is that "he" is ambiguous. Is "he" Ahab, or the whale?
Hmm... I played Half Life (original and expansions) for the story rather than the game it self. I am not much of an FPS fan, but the story itself was interesting enough to me to get e the finish all 3 games. I never played online, as that held absolutely no Interest to me. (Especially since I am not much of an FPS fan).
While I'll agree that I7 is highly readable, I find it far harder to write than the average artificial language like Inform 6. The reason? The syntax/grammar. The syntax/grammar being so close to English it is really tempting to try to just remember the differences from regular English. But in reality there are to many differences from English to keep track of. Therefore I tend to write valid English sentences that follow all the restrictions I have memorized, and it still fails. But trying to remember the entire syntax/grammar from scratch is also a real pain, because the syntax/grammar is actually significantly larger than the syntax/grammar of an artificial language.
Further the language is quite verbose, making it harder to track down the exact location of the code one is looking for. It is all to easy for ones eyes to glaze over when searching through a significant amount of I7 code.
I am however a fan of a few little features that were included where the I7 equivalent would be a bit of a pain, such as the shortest path finding code.
It looks fine on Windows with Firefox and Opera at the very least. However, it requires a specific font (Verdana) which may cause problems with some Linux systems that do not have that font installed.
Also, people don't use Wi-Fi as a substitute for cable.
really? I'll bet you $100US that MOST home networks are wireless and not wired. Buffy and Joe Sixpack are too lazy and undereducated to run Cat5 all over the house. They buy a Wireless router, plug it in, and then use the wireless for their PERMANENT network wiring in the home. hell MOST brand new homes built today do NOT have any networking wires in them unless the owner asks for it to be installed. (most new home wiring is so half assed it's not funny, but that's a pet-peeve of mine.)
Yes MOST people do this, the non techies outnumber those of you that even know what a Cat5 Cable is 600 to 1. You have some good points. I'll first argue that most people probably still have only one computer, a desktop, so use neither (except perhaps a short stretch of cat5 to connect the DSL or cable modem (when it is not a USB model)). Then when 2 or more computers are in the same room, cat5 is probably more common. However, when their are laptops involved, or longer distances, Wifi does seem likely. Personally, I prefer everything stationary to be wired, and anything mobile to use Wifi. (The stationary items mentioned do include docking stations. Well the closest thing to docking stations they sell anymore, as they rarely ever fully dock anymore.)
AFAICT, what he is doing is placing a call from the grand central address book. Google then calls your phone (or in this case the SIPphone (GIZMO) account). When you pick up, Google then dials the party you selected, and connects the two calls. I'm guessing there is some reason why he is using a sipphone (GIZMO) account rather than a regular phone. I'm not sure what the reason is. But the point is Google is making two phone calls, (only one routed over POTS though), and thus is the one footing the bill for the call (as the caller always pays under the US system, except for "toll-free" calls, third-party billing, or collect calls).
100 MPG is highly deceptive when the vehicle is a plug-in hybrid. Much of the power would not come from the fuel, so 100 MPG would only be applicable on short trips. Unless that number does in fact come from non-plug-in testing. I mean sure it is still more practical than an all electric car, as the internal combustion engine eliminates the range limit, but what about the use of Lithium Ion batteries? Is that safe? My understanding is that these batteries can explode under certain circumstances. Might not an automobile accident be sufficient to cause such an explosion?
If you have a death certificate and are next of kin and can reasonably prove the account belongs to who you say it does, they probably do not have a choice. A subpoena could probably compel them to provide you with access.
But that's a lot of "ifs". You forgot this one - "if" that's what a subpoena actually did. From your page:
The official court order for a witness to appear and testify at a specific location, and/or produce documents in his or her possession that may be considered evidence Note the second part. It is rather important.
The Marine Corps can be considered part of the Navy. However, this is true only if the Navy is considered part of the Marine Corps. They are run by the same department, and share resources far more closely than other branches. The Marine Corps primarily relies on the Navy for transportation, just as the Navy primarily relies on the Corps for their ground forces. One could not really argue that one is a subset of the other, but neither completely stands alone.
The ideal to me would be fixed printheads intended to last for the life of the printer, but that are user-replaceable in the event that a problem should arise. Apparently most current cannon printers have this. Ideally the printhead would be inexpensive enough and long lasting enough to not contribute significantly to the cost per page of printing.
Then have the printer use fixed ink tanks intended to be refilled by the user. Buying ink in 8oz bottles can result in a price/oz-of-ink of 1/30 the price/oz-of-ink of cartridges. I'm not sure about the quality of said inks, but I'm quite confident a manufacture could sell ink in 8-oz at something like 1/10 the cost/oz of current carts if they were willing to. Obviously though the costs of printers using that ink could not be subsided by the ink costs, but even with that caveat, such a model would be a significant win for the consumer. Decreasing the cost per page to 1/5 the current costs would be a real possibility.
Actually, I suspect beta testing is nearly finished. Most of the remaining time is likely for porting spore to non-pc platforms, and developing the other products in the Spore franchise. (Like the DS game).
What is it with the Slashdot crowd and PGP? What's wrong with S/MIME?
I can say with some authority, having been evaluating and testing it for my company for some months now, that it is natively supported by current versions of the 3 major email clients (Outlook, Thunderbird, and Apple Mail), and that their implementations are, by and large, compatible.
So...are there any particular issues with S/MIME that make PGP a significantly more desirable solution?
Dan Aris
I think many Slashdot poster prefer OpenPGP encryption to S/MIME because OpenPGP is not email specific, and having 2 different keys (an S/MIME email key, and a PGP key) is not ideal. Further I suspect the PGP Web of Trust model is preferred by many of us to the CA model. Of course, there are ways around both things, but it may be slightly easier to use PGP for email than to deal with those issues. However, for your uses (depending on what they are), S/MIME may indeed be the best solution.
You're the first that I can think of to suggest (and you did say it out right) that MS Windows might actually have a better security model than Unix. Can you direct me to follow up your train of thought? Well, my guess is that Windows NT being surprisingly Unix like at the lowest level may have something to do with this. The everything is a file model of Unix exists in NT, although the Win32 API hides this. However, one notable difference is that the kernel's internal file system has had full ACL support for just about everything for far longer than most UNIX's have. Most Unices are still stuck with the file has 1 owner, 1 owning group, and a total of 9 security bits. also consider that the NT system makes no assumption about some form of superuser account existing. Any account can be granted any of the "superuser" style rights it needs independently of any other. (Obviously, some such rights, such as direct read/write access to kernel memory may open up privilege escalation vectors, but that is a bit of a given.) Those sorts of things.
If it does, then it will lose, simple as that
So, we're back to you being OK with a structure wherein the only thing protecting covert activities, the people asked to risk their lives performing them, and the delicate relationships that realy upon them from disclosure in court is the unlikeliness that someone will sue? Are you even hearing yourself, here? I hear your objection. However, I sincerely doubt that a court having knowledge of the identity of a covert operative would put them in danger. Both side's lawyers are part of the court. They became officers of that court the moment the court accepted them as barristers. The court could still refuse to divulge information to one of its officers if the court felt said officer could not be trusted with the information, but that should be a very rare case. Considering the government lawyers are part of the government and can be trusted with secret information (or at least the government obviously has lawyers who could be trusted), I see only one possible area of problem. A litigant who sues the government with the intention of learning the identity of a covert operative, with the desire to use said information for other purposes. However, in order for the case to progress far enough for a litigant to gain access to such information they would need to have a plausibly valid case in which the identity in question is a relevant piece of evidence. That seems quite unlikely. The court upholding state secret privilege in that case may be necessary, but the vast majority of the time, the evidence being filed under seal and appropriate gag orders to prevent discussion of said evidence outside the case seems perfectly sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
To some extent you have a point, but possession of something that required a crime to create is not always illegal. The idea often brought out here on Slashdot is a video of a murder is not illegal to possess, just look at the video of the Kennedy assassination to know that. Now, you may point out that in those cases, the video was not commisioned/sponsored/created by the criminal, but was incidental. Then we have a potential distinction. But My understanding is that the law makes no distinction between material that managed to get captured on a security camera, and those that the child molester made himself/herself.
going bakc to the age of consent part, that just really needs to be cleaned up. Either we change the law so the age of consent and the age of adulthood (no longer being a minor) are the same (but that would realistically mean lowining the age of adulthood, as raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 (16 is fairly common) would be really really difficult. Alternatively, make child pornography not use the concept of a 'minor' but the concept of 'under the age of consent'. That would probably be an easier change to make. Of course, the whole age of consent thing is still a bit of a mess, but that is a somewhat separate issue.
As for your moral statements of many places not having much of a grey area, that is a reasonable philosophy, but sometimes it is just damn hard to determine what the impact to other people is/will be. Take a look at lawmakers. Of the tiny, tiny minority that are not highly corrupt, you have people who try to do the right thing. But a law that seems like the right thing can often be abused very badly, and completely ruin effectively innocent peoples' lives. But you are right that many cases are fairly clear-cut if view the right way.
I do agree that the fact that a group like NAMBLA can exist openly is extremely concerning. Something is definately not quite right.
Well the so-called "child pornography" controversy covers many areas, some of which have apparently solid reasoning behind them, others of which does not.
Let us start with the simplest case, production of pornographic images involving children, who actively do not consent. Obviously that involves direct exploit of children, and is not acceptable. There is virtually no controversy over that.
But what about the cases of photos taken of minors who are over the age of consent, and in fact do consent. The argument that a child is being exploited here is questionable. Further should it matter if the image taker was one of the consenting individuals? What about 2 individuals who are under the age of consent, who produced the images in question on their own initiative, without any external influence? Are we really claiming that a child can exploit himself or herself? That sounds nearly as absurd as the claims of an underage child "raping" himself/herself under the statutory rape laws. (That has been alleged before, although the circumstances escape me).
Then there are the questions of whether possession/distribution of materials should be a crime, independent of their production. The oldest logic here is the idea of creating new perverts. Obviously that one is highly suspect. The modern theory is that the existence of such images may create a market for them resulting in people exploiting children to create them. A seeming credible theory, although not without problems. After all, scarcity of such images with some level of demand tends to drive the value up. The images having high value may encourage some to take the risk and produce the content in question.
Then there is the issue of simulated content. Obviously that does not involve the actual exploitation of children. The theory though is that it may influence the market in such a way as to encourage additional production of non-simulated content.
So in the end, we have a few real questions. Does the government have any right to attempt to manipulate the market for the relevant content? The answer is probably yes, due to the exploitation of children in production of the real content. The next question is what measures may the government take to manipulate this market? Clearly only some measures are reasonable. Some may perhaps only be reasonable depending on just how effective it is at minimizing the production of the content. Finally, what acceptable measures when taken minimize the production of the (non-simulated content)? That unfortunately is an economics question, and despite our best efforts economics is still not really a hard science. The reality is that there are to many variables to consider them all at the same time, economic systems are always at least somewhat chaotic, and every change in the system produces 2 opposing pressures on each dependent variable, so determining the magnitude of each (or at least the net magnitude) is rather important but is shockingly difficult. The end result means that this is a debate that will go back and forth for centuries. Even if we perfected economics, the question of what measures are appropriate are still subjective, so the debate will likely never end.
The dark matter theory comes from the caculated amount of total matter that should exist. As it is, a significant change in the amount of luminous matter would not change the amount of dark matter needed to reach that total by very much. However, what exactly is that total amount of energy based on? Presumably the amount of matter needed to correct the orbits of large systems. However, this throws distance measurements into doubt. My understanding is that distance measurements are based in part on observed brightness. Distances to objects of known intensity are calculated from the apparent intensity of objects of known actual intensity. However the calculations are surely based on the inverse square law. However the amount of light lost to this dust means that the inverse squares law is not really accurate. That means that the distances to those reference objects have been overestimated. That in turn means the distances to the other objects are incorrect too. If our distance measurements are incorrect, it seems quite reasonable that out calculated orbits are incorrect too. The orbits may be many, many, many times closer to what they should be based on luminous matter alone. That means the total matter needed could drop an enormous amount. If the total amount of matter needed is then quite close to the amount of luminous matter needed, it may be that we do not need to invoke the existence of enormous amounts of exotic matter.
That seems reasonable. It may be that some of the things requiring unusual theories like quantum gravity or gobs of non-baryonic matter, may in fact just be due to inaccurate distance measurements. My understanding is that much of those theories are due to unusual observed movements, that don't seem to correspond to gravity on regular matter. But if are distance calculations are wrong, then perhaps that was all there was too it. The fact that this 20% is only a minuscule fraction of the amount of alleged dark matter existing is immaterial if the calculations for the total amount of mass that should exist are based on significantly flawed numbers. This I would not be shocked to see a major drop in the amount of non-luminous (dark) matter needed if the numbers are re-run.
There have been intermittent problems with the server side components of D2 recently (parts of the template were not getting filled out properly by the Perl scripts). On Friday, D2 was dead for me, as was the related article function. It might that one of the servers has run out of space on a partition. Since multiple servers are probably used, that would explain why the problem is intermittent.
I'm pretty sure that the United States Postal service does not allow regional differences in these policies. If you attempt to mail through the Post Office postal employee, then insufficent postage would be refused barring your package's size and/or mass changing during shipping (!?), the employee making a mistake in verifying the postage, or not having the chance to inspect each envelope/package (such as if you handed them a large box full of envelopes whose postage needs differ).
I believe residential mailboxes may also be checked as mail is retrieved. However, those large blue mail bins that are sometimes found on street corners, etc, really could not be refused. What would they do? Leave the mail in the blue bin? They could either attempt to deliver it, or attempt to return it to sender. Anything else would legally be theft.
Now my understanding is that a recipient of postage due mail has the option to refuse to pay, at the cost of not receiving the mail in question. Then the post office must attempt to return the mail to sender. Mail returned to sender is another case where postage may be due. I'm not sure if one is allowed to refuse return to sender mail that is postage due.
A negative keyword would be a keyword that if it appears would prevent the advertisement from appearing, regardless of the presence or absence of the normal keywords.
The problem with that report is that "he" is ambiguous. Is "he" Ahab, or the whale?
Hmm... I played Half Life (original and expansions) for the story rather than the game it self. I am not much of an FPS fan, but the story itself was interesting enough to me to get e the finish all 3 games. I never played online, as that held absolutely no Interest to me. (Especially since I am not much of an FPS fan).
S/I7 equivalent/I6 equivalent/
While I'll agree that I7 is highly readable, I find it far harder to write than the average artificial language like Inform 6. The reason? The syntax/grammar. The syntax/grammar being so close to English it is really tempting to try to just remember the differences from regular English. But in reality there are to many differences from English to keep track of. Therefore I tend to write valid English sentences that follow all the restrictions I have memorized, and it still fails. But trying to remember the entire syntax/grammar from scratch is also a real pain, because the syntax/grammar is actually significantly larger than the syntax/grammar of an artificial language.
Further the language is quite verbose, making it harder to track down the exact location of the code one is looking for. It is all to easy for ones eyes to glaze over when searching through a significant amount of I7 code.
I am however a fan of a few little features that were included where the I7 equivalent would be a bit of a pain, such as the shortest path finding code.
It looks fine on Windows with Firefox and Opera at the very least. However, it requires a specific font (Verdana) which may cause problems with some Linux systems that do not have that font installed.
AFAICT, what he is doing is placing a call from the grand central address book. Google then calls your phone (or in this case the SIPphone (GIZMO) account). When you pick up, Google then dials the party you selected, and connects the two calls. I'm guessing there is some reason why he is using a sipphone (GIZMO) account rather than a regular phone. I'm not sure what the reason is. But the point is Google is making two phone calls, (only one routed over POTS though), and thus is the one footing the bill for the call (as the caller always pays under the US system, except for "toll-free" calls, third-party billing, or collect calls).
No, slasdot is not broken. There was only one post rated 3 or higher at the time of your post. There are only a few more than that at the moment
100 MPG is highly deceptive when the vehicle is a plug-in hybrid. Much of the power would not come from the fuel, so 100 MPG would only be applicable on short trips. Unless that number does in fact come from non-plug-in testing. I mean sure it is still more practical than an all electric car, as the internal combustion engine eliminates the range limit, but what about the use of Lithium Ion batteries? Is that safe? My understanding is that these batteries can explode under certain circumstances. Might not an automobile accident be sufficient to cause such an explosion?
The Marine Corps can be considered part of the Navy. However, this is true only if the Navy is considered part of the Marine Corps. They are run by the same department, and share resources far more closely than other branches. The Marine Corps primarily relies on the Navy for transportation, just as the Navy primarily relies on the Corps for their ground forces. One could not really argue that one is a subset of the other, but neither completely stands alone.
The ideal to me would be fixed printheads intended to last for the life of the printer, but that are user-replaceable in the event that a problem should arise. Apparently most current cannon printers have this. Ideally the printhead would be inexpensive enough and long lasting enough to not contribute significantly to the cost per page of printing.
Then have the printer use fixed ink tanks intended to be refilled by the user. Buying ink in 8oz bottles can result in a price/oz-of-ink of 1/30 the price/oz-of-ink of cartridges. I'm not sure about the quality of said inks, but I'm quite confident a manufacture could sell ink in 8-oz at something like 1/10 the cost/oz of current carts if they were willing to. Obviously though the costs of printers using that ink could not be subsided by the ink costs, but even with that caveat, such a model would be a significant win for the consumer. Decreasing the cost per page to 1/5 the current costs would be a real possibility.
Actually, I suspect beta testing is nearly finished. Most of the remaining time is likely for porting spore to non-pc platforms, and developing the other products in the Spore franchise. (Like the DS game).
What is it with the Slashdot crowd and PGP? What's wrong with S/MIME?
I can say with some authority, having been evaluating and testing it for my company for some months now, that it is natively supported by current versions of the 3 major email clients (Outlook, Thunderbird, and Apple Mail), and that their implementations are, by and large, compatible.
So...are there any particular issues with S/MIME that make PGP a significantly more desirable solution?
Dan Aris
I think many Slashdot poster prefer OpenPGP encryption to S/MIME because OpenPGP is not email specific, and having 2 different keys (an S/MIME email key, and a PGP key) is not ideal. Further I suspect the PGP Web of Trust model is preferred by many of us to the CA model. Of course, there are ways around both things, but it may be slightly easier to use PGP for email than to deal with those issues. However, for your uses (depending on what they are), S/MIME may indeed be the best solution.IIRC there was a gag order in place preventing the defense from mentioning what Sean had confessed to.