On one hand you state that this research would not be necessary if the USA kept out of other countries' business, yet then you also make mention that it would be a mistake to assume Russia and China are sitting idle. It would be a mistake to assume that if we suddenly stopped interfering with other countries' business that China and Russia would immediately cease development of capabilities to match and exceed our own.
The real trick is to keep the arms race from switching into a 100 yard dash from the indefinite marathon that it currently is. I'd much rather have the major superpowers fighting to keep each other deterred.
In the end, it would be indescribably foolish to simply cease research on the grounds that we should mind our own business. We SHOULD mind our own business, but we also should keep tabs on the latest technology and that of our global neighbors. I hesitate to say even that, since it is extremely simplistic.
Well, judging by a few posts up where the guy made mention that he had some lady's license plate and that she should buy a dog and heavy curtains... I'd say they at least threaten.
Thankfully I have it setup so I get emailed whenever someone replies to my posts. This response was more than is to be expected on the internet and I appreciate it. It seems that like me you take your posts and the responses to those posts seriously and that is to be commended. Hopefully today will be a few shades brighter.
That is true that there are a lot of 'dim' people serving on juries. It is an unfortunate side effect of two things.
1. It is hard to leave a job for a few days to be a juror. If you are lucky, your employer will compensate you, but if you are like me and a salaried employee the result is that you come back to a few days of work that has piled up. And a maxed out voicemail storage.
2. Lawyers actively try to select jurors that they can influence, or are biased to their cause.
I suppose the trick is, because of number 2, the only smart ones that get on the trial are those that are smart and actually trying to get on the jury. I do try to get on the jury, with the hope that if I am ever brought to court, there may be a few people on the jury that like to think.
I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.
Frankly, if you're too stupid to understand that serving on a jury is an obligation of your citizenship in our society then I wonder just what you think you deserve.
Actually it appears that I didn't delete enough of it. Serves me right for trying to verify my post's claims on the fly.
Just delete the part about 'It is well known that string instruments'. I was going to describe how string instruments have a breaking in period, but it was too far off the mark for the original point I was trying to make.
The limits of human hearing isn't the only factor.
Because later down the line we might find that we do care about that missing information that we discarded because it had no obvious value at the time. The Romans didn't measure the temperature on a daily basis, but they did measure crop yields and other factors. From those figures we were able to deduce the average daily temperatures. To the Romans, the daily temperatures weren't useful. To us, it helps us track global climate conditions.
It is well known that string instruments Wouldn't it be interesting to know how a Stradivari sounded when it was only a few months old? We could have compared that information to surviving examples and had a better understanding of how the instruments age.
Granted that is just an off the cuff example, but I'm certain that it is better to preserve as much information as possible when dealing with musical performances.
Why not? You can't expect us to believe that every locksmith on the planet is law abiding/ethical...
That was the point of his analogy. That it is unethical for a locksmith/security researcher to behave in such a manner. And to say that they are teaching a 'skill' is a long stretch of the definition.
I don't know if Customs would be smart enough to catch it, but personally, I'd wonder if your hardware indicated you had a 40 Gig disk but all the partitions I could see added up to only 10 Gig.
Doesn't it show a 40 gig HD? The partitions are hidden.
Thanks for the response. For the record, I would LIKE to be against a national ID, I get the feeling that there is something wrong with it. I simply don't like to be against something, without having facts and rational arguments to back up my position. You have provided me some and I appreciate that.
Oddly enough, I wondered what you were talking about when you referred to name calling, then I checked a few posts down and saw that I was being called a nazi and a moron. Some people just don't understand how a rational discussion works.
I think you identified one of the most important questions to ask is this: What benefit do I, as a singular citizen, receive from having a National ID?
No. You are *not*. If you actually *were*, you would be *100% against* the 'single, national ID': the ultimate expression of the all-powerful state. You are a rule-following toady, and would have been completely at home in Germany in the 1930s.
Now that is some interesting logic. To prefer a smaller government, I must be 100% against a national ID? I did not realize that things were that black and white. Actually it is worse than that. I never realized that because I'm not 100% of your definition of what a conservative is, then that makes me a nazi.
And that is why I am currently opposed to the national ID. I was wondering if they did limit its use to specific situations, what would be some of the concerns?
The term 'papers please' always gets thrown into it, but that never answers the question of what actually is wrong.
I'm actually curious about this. What is 'wrong' with having a single, national ID? I am very conservative (small government conservative, not religious), but I do see the merits of having a national ID. There is nothing wrong with someone asking you to confirm that you are the person you claim to be. However, it seems that the biggest concerns about the national ID, isn't what it is, but rather what it could be. I think we could remove a lot of the opposition to this plan by adding a few restrictions.
1. Enumerate exactly when you can be requested to present your ID. 2. Declare that outside of those specific enumerated instances, you cannot discriminate against a person who declines to display their ID.
Lets use this as an example
Times when ID is required: Entering a court Entering the country Confirming your identity to a police officer (yes a bone of contention for some, but lets include it for arguement's sake)
If a cell phone company were to request your national ID number, you could refuse them, or allow them. But regardless of your decision, they could not deny you, or hinder you from entering into a contract with them.
I can't come up with a good list of when you should be required to present ID. But would it not be a good idea to specifically identify when you would be required, and make all other instances non-prejudicially optional?
I voted for Ron Paul as a fuck you to the other republican candidates. I don't really care for Ron Paul, but the more it irks the others that he is there snagging votes, the better.
Now, if we could get someone who could speak like Huckabee, wanted to cut the bloat of the federal government, and didn't come across as a manchurian candidate of the evangelical christians...
Without getting into the finer details of what is a state of the US and its powers vs that of the federal government...
You can get a non-drivers license ID. It looks almost the same as the drivers license, and serves no other purpose than to be an ID. It is much more common in cities where you don't always have to drive. But in the US, since it is almost a necessity to be able to drive to survive here, most of us just have driver's licenses.
My Social Security card says, in bold capital letters just under the signature, "for social security and tax purposes - not for identification".
Go get a new one. They don't say that anymore.
I was forced to produce a SS card when I tried to get my license in NY. A fucking blue piece of cardboard printed up by a typewriter. And I shit you not, when I asked why, the ditz at the desk told me "9/11".
Here is the ID that I did have on me at the time, all not-expired:
Drivers License "PA" Military ID Birth Certificate US Passport Bank ID Work ID Tax return Home insurance and a freaking Concealed Weapons Permit.
No, those were not sufficient. They needed that little blue piece of paper that previously said 'not to be used as identification'.
The slippery slope is not a universal logical fallacy. When applied to political agendas it is often a valid arguement. Incremental steps are used all the time by interest groups to get their way in the end.
The problem is that people are calling the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy based on its context as a mathematical/scientific proof.
But it is a common practice (for good or ill) to try and reach a goal through incremental steps. Many see medical marijuana as a step to reaching the full legalization of the drug. When slavery was banned in the UK, it didn't happen overnight, it took a lot of little steps and pressures (like attacking the profits of the slave traders rather than the slave trade).
But it also works in the other direction. Maybe not a slippery slope, but a stepladder to tyrrany. Just because the term is associated with a mathematical logical fallacy, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The behaviour of human beings doesn't mean they will recognize that they are 'falling' for a logical fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine six 9-11's
I tried to, but I couldn't figure out what part of the pentagon the 6th would hit.
On one hand you state that this research would not be necessary if the USA kept out of other countries' business, yet then you also make mention that it would be a mistake to assume Russia and China are sitting idle. It would be a mistake to assume that if we suddenly stopped interfering with other countries' business that China and Russia would immediately cease development of capabilities to match and exceed our own.
The real trick is to keep the arms race from switching into a 100 yard dash from the indefinite marathon that it currently is. I'd much rather have the major superpowers fighting to keep each other deterred.
In the end, it would be indescribably foolish to simply cease research on the grounds that we should mind our own business. We SHOULD mind our own business, but we also should keep tabs on the latest technology and that of our global neighbors. I hesitate to say even that, since it is extremely simplistic.
Wanna know how to really mess with the guy conducting a lie detector?
Have an irregular heartbeat.
Examiner: Is your name "so and so"?
Thump Thump Thump.. bdmp Thump Thump Thump.. bdmp Thump Thump Thump.
Examiner: err umm...
Happened to me during a polygraph. Every 4th beat skips. The examiner looked like he didn't know if he should call an ambulance or the men in black.
Well, judging by a few posts up where the guy made mention that he had some lady's license plate and that she should buy a dog and heavy curtains... I'd say they at least threaten.
Thankfully I have it setup so I get emailed whenever someone replies to my posts. This response was more than is to be expected on the internet and I appreciate it. It seems that like me you take your posts and the responses to those posts seriously and that is to be commended. Hopefully today will be a few shades brighter.
I do remember marveling at my friend's 486 and how fast those cards bounced off the screen.
That is true that there are a lot of 'dim' people serving on juries. It is an unfortunate side effect of two things.
1. It is hard to leave a job for a few days to be a juror. If you are lucky, your employer will compensate you, but if you are like me and a salaried employee the result is that you come back to a few days of work that has piled up. And a maxed out voicemail storage.
2. Lawyers actively try to select jurors that they can influence, or are biased to their cause.
I suppose the trick is, because of number 2, the only smart ones that get on the trial are those that are smart and actually trying to get on the jury. I do try to get on the jury, with the hope that if I am ever brought to court, there may be a few people on the jury that like to think.
I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.
Frankly, if you're too stupid to understand that serving on a jury is an obligation of your citizenship in our society then I wonder just what you think you deserve.
Actually it appears that I didn't delete enough of it. Serves me right for trying to verify my post's claims on the fly.
Just delete the part about 'It is well known that string instruments'. I was going to describe how string instruments have a breaking in period, but it was too far off the mark for the original point I was trying to make.
The limits of human hearing isn't the only factor.
Because later down the line we might find that we do care about that missing information that we discarded because it had no obvious value at the time. The Romans didn't measure the temperature on a daily basis, but they did measure crop yields and other factors. From those figures we were able to deduce the average daily temperatures. To the Romans, the daily temperatures weren't useful. To us, it helps us track global climate conditions.
It is well known that string instruments Wouldn't it be interesting to know how a Stradivari sounded when it was only a few months old? We could have compared that information to surviving examples and had a better understanding of how the instruments age.
Granted that is just an off the cuff example, but I'm certain that it is better to preserve as much information as possible when dealing with musical performances.
I wouldn't say it is meaningless, it helps to describe the forces involved in bipedal locomotion when compared to other forms of locomotion.
Why not? You can't expect us to believe that every locksmith on the planet is law abiding/ethical...
That was the point of his analogy. That it is unethical for a locksmith/security researcher to behave in such a manner. And to say that they are teaching a 'skill' is a long stretch of the definition.
3 months later, an upset Yahoo Exec was overheard saying,
Tis no man, tis a remorseless eating machine.
I don't know if Customs would be smart enough to catch it, but personally, I'd wonder if your hardware indicated you had a 40 Gig disk but all the partitions I could see added up to only 10 Gig.
Doesn't it show a 40 gig HD? The partitions are hidden.
The cool thing is, if I were God, I could create an alternate universe in which I invented the finglonger.
Thanks for the response. For the record, I would LIKE to be against a national ID, I get the feeling that there is something wrong with it. I simply don't like to be against something, without having facts and rational arguments to back up my position. You have provided me some and I appreciate that.
Oddly enough, I wondered what you were talking about when you referred to name calling, then I checked a few posts down and saw that I was being called a nazi and a moron. Some people just don't understand how a rational discussion works.
I think you identified one of the most important questions to ask is this:
What benefit do I, as a singular citizen, receive from having a National ID?
No. You are *not*. If you actually *were*, you would be *100% against* the 'single, national ID': the ultimate expression of the all-powerful state. You are a rule-following toady, and would have been completely at home in Germany in the 1930s.
Now that is some interesting logic. To prefer a smaller government, I must be 100% against a national ID? I did not realize that things were that black and white. Actually it is worse than that. I never realized that because I'm not 100% of your definition of what a conservative is, then that makes me a nazi.
The Queen song goes da da da da da da da... my song goes da da da da da da DA
And that is why I am currently opposed to the national ID. I was wondering if they did limit its use to specific situations, what would be some of the concerns?
The term 'papers please' always gets thrown into it, but that never answers the question of what actually is wrong.
I'm actually curious about this. What is 'wrong' with having a single, national ID? I am very conservative (small government conservative, not religious), but I do see the merits of having a national ID. There is nothing wrong with someone asking you to confirm that you are the person you claim to be. However, it seems that the biggest concerns about the national ID, isn't what it is, but rather what it could be. I think we could remove a lot of the opposition to this plan by adding a few restrictions.
1. Enumerate exactly when you can be requested to present your ID.
2. Declare that outside of those specific enumerated instances, you cannot discriminate against a person who declines to display their ID.
Lets use this as an example
Times when ID is required:
Entering a court
Entering the country
Confirming your identity to a police officer (yes a bone of contention for some, but lets include it for arguement's sake)
If a cell phone company were to request your national ID number, you could refuse them, or allow them. But regardless of your decision, they could not deny you, or hinder you from entering into a contract with them.
I can't come up with a good list of when you should be required to present ID. But would it not be a good idea to specifically identify when you would be required, and make all other instances non-prejudicially optional?
I don't think it's hard to see at all. Right now they're competing for who gets the driver's seat and who gets shotgun.
Before Cheney, I would never have considered that statement to be literal.
I voted for Ron Paul as a fuck you to the other republican candidates. I don't really care for Ron Paul, but the more it irks the others that he is there snagging votes, the better.
Now, if we could get someone who could speak like Huckabee, wanted to cut the bloat of the federal government, and didn't come across as a manchurian candidate of the evangelical christians...
Without getting into the finer details of what is a state of the US and its powers vs that of the federal government...
You can get a non-drivers license ID. It looks almost the same as the drivers license, and serves no other purpose than to be an ID. It is much more common in cities where you don't always have to drive. But in the US, since it is almost a necessity to be able to drive to survive here, most of us just have driver's licenses.
My Social Security card says, in bold capital letters just under the signature, "for social security and tax purposes - not for identification".
Go get a new one. They don't say that anymore.
I was forced to produce a SS card when I tried to get my license in NY. A fucking blue piece of cardboard printed up by a typewriter. And I shit you not, when I asked why, the ditz at the desk told me "9/11".
Here is the ID that I did have on me at the time, all not-expired:
Drivers License "PA"
Military ID
Birth Certificate
US Passport
Bank ID
Work ID
Tax return
Home insurance
and a freaking Concealed Weapons Permit.
No, those were not sufficient. They needed that little blue piece of paper that previously said 'not to be used as identification'.
The slippery slope is not a universal logical fallacy. When applied to political agendas it is often a valid arguement. Incremental steps are used all the time by interest groups to get their way in the end.
The problem is that people are calling the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy based on its context as a mathematical/scientific proof.
But it is a common practice (for good or ill) to try and reach a goal through incremental steps. Many see medical marijuana as a step to reaching the full legalization of the drug. When slavery was banned in the UK, it didn't happen overnight, it took a lot of little steps and pressures (like attacking the profits of the slave traders rather than the slave trade).
But it also works in the other direction. Maybe not a slippery slope, but a stepladder to tyrrany. Just because the term is associated with a mathematical logical fallacy, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The behaviour of human beings doesn't mean they will recognize that they are 'falling' for a logical fallacy.