Yah um well... that was a copy&paste job.... its not my fault that the interaction between the wikipedia text, X11 copy/paste functions and firefox are not cooperating, but its not surprising either.
*YOU* know this is the Internet, where accusations of dishonest arguments and lack of acknowledgment of subtlety, often on purpose, is *par for the course*.
Well I live in the US and its hard to reconcile this odd concept of money "laundering"? How does one launder speech? Silly russians not recognizing that money is speech.!
Whats really interesting about your comment is that, thats exactly what I had seen before and was referencing when I was typing my earlier post. However, When i started hitting up wiki and looking for the reference I saw before, I saw several places where it was claimed that ECC was vulnerable to shor's algorithm, which surprised me (and made me edit that out of my comment before I posted) because it contradicted what I had seen before.
Um.... reducing the keyspace by 1 bit cuts the keyspace in half, it also cuts the time required to brute force in about half, since most of the time spent is in the invocations. How is that not reducing the security level in half? Maybe you are using a definition that I am not familiar with?
In previous discussions it has been pointed out that not all encryption algorithms are susceptible to quantum computers. If I remember right (I am sure someone has a reference that I don't) it only effects RSA and others that rely on the hardness of factoring discrete logarithms.
Anyway...only reference I can find, from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers#Potential ):
However, other existing cryptographic algorithms do not appear to be broken by these algorithms.[11][12] Some public-key algorithms are based on problems other than the integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems to which Shor's algorithm applies, like the McEliece cryptosystem based on a problem in coding theory.[11][13] Lattice based cryptosystems are also not known to be broken by quantum computers, and finding a polynomial time algorithm for solving the dihedral hidden subgroup problem, which would break many lattice based cryptosystems, is a well-studied open problem.[14] It has been proven that applying Grover's algorithm to break a symmetric (secret key) algorithm by brute force requires roughly 2n/2 invocations of the underlying cryptographic algorithm, compared with roughly 2n in the classical case,[15] meaning that symmetric key lengths are effectively halved: AES-256 would have the same security against an attack using Grover's algorithm that AES-128 has against classical brute-force search (see Key size). Quantum cryptography could potentially fulfill some of the functions of public key cryptography.
If one employee acts like a child and hates a manager, even two or three.... sure.
However, most people don't just act like that. I have known and seen places erun by good but tough managers, they are respected as good, even if tough. They don't inspire this sort of response in most people.
A couple of bad apples is on the bad apples. Larger numbers? Thats the manager. Just because you are a hardass doesn't mean you are good at it.
So.... as we can see...pretty nice drop since the early 90s, almost 20 years now.
I am pretty unimpressed by the articles overall treatment of possible reasons, since, I would think that such a long term drop in crime would tend to indicate that sucha spike in one area must have some sort of underlying cause. They mention, for example, the increase in police deaths due to auto accidents and mention distraction but.... none of these numbers are calibrated for the number of police. Realistically, if you were to say.... double the number of police on the road (for example), you would expect a doubling of the numbers that die due to auto accidents. They talk of "slashed budgets" but... are they correlating slashed budgets with deaths? Are they happening in the same places?
How about mexican drug wars? They seem like likely candidates to supply these new "hardened criminals" and are already known for violence.
In any case.... overall violent crime has gone from ~800 incidents per 100,000 people down to under ~500, which is a a per capita decrease of almost 50% so I wasn't "completely wrong". It just so happens, that we have a couple of years where that number was higher.... not enough to really call a trend yet tho.
Not just that, even pot. Once they legalize pot (which, has seen such a demographic shift that I think its likely to be a problem for them big time) well... pot users make up a group more than twice as large as the next 3 major illicit drugs combined. The war on drugs really is a war on pot users more so than anything else.
Once that ends, and more than half of the "problem" is now legalized.... well.... thats an aweful lot of prison gaurds, cops, judges (federal and state), etc who all.... will have little to do but twiddle their thumbs.
Once more proof that there is a real solution to every imaginary problem.
As we have watched violent crime rates plummet, it makes perfect sense to be thinking about how to protect the ever increasing number of police on the streets, from all of the violent crime that would have endangered them 25 years ago when violent crime was a really serious issue, and the crack wars had bullets flying in the cities.
Yes, yet another brilliant solution to a totally nonexistent problem. Now that we have a police force that primarily goes around directing traffic on details, pulling people over for the most minor infractions of the letter of the driving rules, and spending copious amounts of time sitting by the side of the road gabbing on their cell phones, or texting (the most common activities that I see cops working diligently at), its clear that we need such devices to protect them from the nearly infinite numbers of bullets which are not flying towards them.
There was a point, and you took a wide berth around it.
I never said there was no victim when that specific law is broken. To recap, the question of legality came up with a specific action which was, not murder.
The observation that the law only matters if you get caught is hardly revolutionary or new. It hardly constitutes an endorsement of all lawbreaking, simply a consideration in this instance, or any instance, where legality must be considered.
If you need the law, or the threat of being caught by the law to stop you from considering murder. If you feel the law should always be inviolate, then I hope to never be stuck behind you in traffic.
When I read the story title I was sure that it was a description of the backstory of a new Doom title. I must admit, bit of a dissappointment. Not even a double barrel shotty
Nah, firebombs are too impersonal, and then you need a message sent out of band...messy.
Far better to do it up Cartel style...find them... leave them hanging from bridges, with the word "Spammer" cut crudely into their flesh.
It may be tempting to scrap "OPT OUT" followed by your email address... but this is not recommended for reasons that are left as an exercise for the reader.
Which is not to say the former action is recommended, mind you. However, I am pretty sure that I wouldn't cry over the brutal loss of a few spammers....and such action would amuse me greatly.
I have done this once or twice. Its amazing how much people don't get it when you call up complaining about their advertising practices.
Generally the people willing to advertise with spam are of the opinion that, if you don't want their service, you should just hit delete, and not call them.
Why should it matter what plants? It was done with their own hands and resources, and sold to consenting adults who wanted it. May as well have been watermelons.
This isn't about her deciding later that it was rape. This is about an alleged (and I have to say that as, I do think the whole thing stinks, but for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the allegations are, as stated, true)
Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
Now.... I was thinking "what a dirtball" right up until he had "'done something' with the condom". That sets off my red flags, big time.... based on what? What made her so sure he did something or even knew that the condom has broken? Too much detail missing, but it sounds fishy as hell. That said... we are assuming that it is true, as stated. So he "did something".
Well... what is that? She explicitly gave conditional consent, and he subverted the conditions of her consent? its clear action in bad faith. In fact, even if he didn't "do something", if he was aware that the condom had broken, shouldn't her insistence on the use of one indicated that he should immediately replace it or at least consult her again? Do you really think thats ok?
Note...we are not even considering the, very real, possibility that he wasn't aware at the time, since that is not what is being alleged. (or the very real possibility that she is full of shit, being paid, etc.)
Now... I also have to retract some statements I have made...as I find this line in the article: "The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A."
So we can disregard the other incident entirely, and not get into how sleazy it is (alleged unofficially, and also probably BS) to have someone wake up to having unprotected sex with you, after having repeatedly refused to and insisted on condoms at every previous encounter.... even though she did, finally, consent.
Given that this is the actual topic, I can't say that this is a scenario that really I would categorize as "any sex". The allegations paint a picture of an individual who has shown extreme disregard for the personal safety and boundaries of others.
That, btw is an interesting aspect of it.... look at what Manning told that shit-head rat Lamo. Claims that Assange would refuse to work with people who were careless. He setup his own system to protect his sources from even him knowing their real identities. It doesn't fit.
Which is not the case here at all, not even the alleged case.
If consent is conditional, and that condition is not met, then consent is not given. I don't see where this issue of "consent revoked after the fact" even comes in.
If a kid asks to use the car to go to the library, and is told ok, but only to go to the library and back, would you then defend the kid as "having had consent to use the car" when it is found out that he went to the movies instead? Because that is much closer to what we are talking about. Or at least, what the allegations are, whether he did it or not is another story (actually I am highly doubtful that he did it).
Then perhaps you would like to address the comment of him being "lowered in personally". Why would a manager or other non-technical person be personally lowered into a reactor building to work on it?
When a high priority change comes in, does your boss personally check out the source code and get to work on it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yah um well... that was a copy&paste job.... its not my fault that the interaction between the wikipedia text, X11 copy/paste functions and firefox are not cooperating, but its not surprising either.
*YOU* know this is the Internet, where accusations of dishonest arguments and lack of acknowledgment of subtlety, often on purpose, is *par for the course*.
"I learned it from watching YOU!"
Parents who are holier than thou have children who are holier than thou.
This message brought you by the Partnership for a Arrogance Free America.
Well met. I guess in terms of bitchslaps from the final boss of the Internet, I should consider myself lucky.
Well I live in the US and its hard to reconcile this odd concept of money "laundering"? How does one launder speech? Silly russians not recognizing that money is speech.!
Whats really interesting about your comment is that, thats exactly what I had seen before and was referencing when I was typing my earlier post. However, When i started hitting up wiki and looking for the reference I saw before, I saw several places where it was claimed that ECC was vulnerable to shor's algorithm, which surprised me (and made me edit that out of my comment before I posted) because it contradicted what I had seen before.
Um.... reducing the keyspace by 1 bit cuts the keyspace in half, it also cuts the time required to brute force in about half, since most of the time spent is in the invocations. How is that not reducing the security level in half? Maybe you are using a definition that I am not familiar with?
Um.... I have expanded every comment posted to this article so far, above and below, and yours is the only that contains the string "1978".
In previous discussions it has been pointed out that not all encryption algorithms are susceptible to quantum computers. If I remember right (I am sure someone has a reference that I don't) it only effects RSA and others that rely on the hardness of factoring discrete logarithms.
Anyway...only reference I can find, from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers#Potential ):
If one employee acts like a child and hates a manager, even two or three.... sure.
However, most people don't just act like that. I have known and seen places erun by good but tough managers, they are respected as good, even if tough. They don't inspire this sort of response in most people.
A couple of bad apples is on the bad apples. Larger numbers? Thats the manager. Just because you are a hardass doesn't mean you are good at it.
Ok, however, I said overall violent crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
So.... as we can see...pretty nice drop since the early 90s, almost 20 years now.
I am pretty unimpressed by the articles overall treatment of possible reasons, since, I would think that such a long term drop in crime would tend to indicate that sucha spike in one area must have some sort of underlying cause. They mention, for example, the increase in police deaths due to auto accidents and mention distraction but.... none of these numbers are calibrated for the number of police. Realistically, if you were to say.... double the number of police on the road (for example), you would expect a doubling of the numbers that die due to auto accidents. They talk of "slashed budgets" but... are they correlating slashed budgets with deaths? Are they happening in the same places?
How about mexican drug wars? They seem like likely candidates to supply these new "hardened criminals" and are already known for violence.
In any case.... overall violent crime has gone from ~800 incidents per 100,000 people down to under ~500, which is a a per capita decrease of almost 50% so I wasn't "completely wrong". It just so happens, that we have a couple of years where that number was higher.... not enough to really call a trend yet tho.
Not just that, even pot. Once they legalize pot (which, has seen such a demographic shift that I think its likely to be a problem for them big time) well... pot users make up a group more than twice as large as the next 3 major illicit drugs combined. The war on drugs really is a war on pot users more so than anything else.
Once that ends, and more than half of the "problem" is now legalized.... well.... thats an aweful lot of prison gaurds, cops, judges (federal and state), etc who all.... will have little to do but twiddle their thumbs.
Once more proof that there is a real solution to every imaginary problem.
As we have watched violent crime rates plummet, it makes perfect sense to be thinking about how to protect the ever increasing number of police on the streets, from all of the violent crime that would have endangered them 25 years ago when violent crime was a really serious issue, and the crack wars had bullets flying in the cities.
Yes, yet another brilliant solution to a totally nonexistent problem. Now that we have a police force that primarily goes around directing traffic on details, pulling people over for the most minor infractions of the letter of the driving rules, and spending copious amounts of time sitting by the side of the road gabbing on their cell phones, or texting (the most common activities that I see cops working diligently at), its clear that we need such devices to protect them from the nearly infinite numbers of bullets which are not flying towards them.
There was a point, and you took a wide berth around it.
I never said there was no victim when that specific law is broken. To recap, the question of legality came up with a specific action which was, not murder.
The observation that the law only matters if you get caught is hardly revolutionary or new. It hardly constitutes an endorsement of all lawbreaking, simply a consideration in this instance, or any instance, where legality must be considered.
If you need the law, or the threat of being caught by the law to stop you from considering murder. If you feel the law should always be inviolate, then I hope to never be stuck behind you in traffic.
When I read the story title I was sure that it was a description of the backstory of a new Doom title. I must admit, bit of a dissappointment. Not even a double barrel shotty
Nah, firebombs are too impersonal, and then you need a message sent out of band...messy.
Far better to do it up Cartel style...find them... leave them hanging from bridges, with the word "Spammer" cut crudely into their flesh.
It may be tempting to scrap "OPT OUT" followed by your email address... but this is not recommended for reasons that are left as an exercise for the reader.
Which is not to say the former action is recommended, mind you. However, I am pretty sure that I wouldn't cry over the brutal loss of a few spammers....and such action would amuse me greatly.
I have done this once or twice. Its amazing how much people don't get it when you call up complaining about their advertising practices.
Generally the people willing to advertise with spam are of the opinion that, if you don't want their service, you should just hit delete, and not call them.
So don't get caught. You didn't break the law if you didn't get convicted.
I wouldn't want to forgive a pig for 'following orders'
Given that the game of "Asshole" contains a "mulligan", I am not so sure how well that holds true.
Why should it matter what plants? It was done with their own hands and resources, and sold to consenting adults who wanted it. May as well have been watermelons.
What? no. I think you are missing the point.
This isn't about her deciding later that it was rape. This is about an alleged (and I have to say that as, I do think the whole thing stinks, but for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the allegations are, as stated, true)
I am basing this on this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Lets start here:
Now.... I was thinking "what a dirtball" right up until he had "'done something' with the condom". That sets off my red flags, big time.... based on what? What made her so sure he did something or even knew that the condom has broken? Too much detail missing, but it sounds fishy as hell. That said... we are assuming that it is true, as stated. So he "did something".
Well... what is that? She explicitly gave conditional consent, and he subverted the conditions of her consent? its clear action in bad faith. In fact, even if he didn't "do something", if he was aware that the condom had broken, shouldn't her insistence on the use of one indicated that he should immediately replace it or at least consult her again? Do you really think thats ok?
Note...we are not even considering the, very real, possibility that he wasn't aware at the time, since that is not what is being alleged. (or the very real possibility that she is full of shit, being paid, etc.)
Now... I also have to retract some statements I have made...as I find this line in the article:
"The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A."
So we can disregard the other incident entirely, and not get into how sleazy it is (alleged unofficially, and also probably BS) to have someone wake up to having unprotected sex with you, after having repeatedly refused to and insisted on condoms at every previous encounter.... even though she did, finally, consent.
Given that this is the actual topic, I can't say that this is a scenario that really I would categorize as "any sex". The allegations paint a picture of an individual who has shown extreme disregard for the personal safety and boundaries of others.
That, btw is an interesting aspect of it.... look at what Manning told that shit-head rat Lamo. Claims that Assange would refuse to work with people who were careless. He setup his own system to protect his sources from even him knowing their real identities. It doesn't fit.
Which is not the case here at all, not even the alleged case.
If consent is conditional, and that condition is not met, then consent is not given. I don't see where this issue of "consent revoked after the fact" even comes in.
If a kid asks to use the car to go to the library, and is told ok, but only to go to the library and back, would you then defend the kid as "having had consent to use the car" when it is found out that he went to the movies instead? Because that is much closer to what we are talking about. Or at least, what the allegations are, whether he did it or not is another story (actually I am highly doubtful that he did it).
Then perhaps you would like to address the comment of him being "lowered in personally". Why would a manager or other non-technical person be personally lowered into a reactor building to work on it?
When a high priority change comes in, does your boss personally check out the source code and get to work on it?
Any mirrors?
As I said, I hadn't had time to look more into it and the article which I posted the link to mentioned that there was such evidence.