That said: At least "Linux doesn't work well with Laptop X" would at least be ultimately useful to someone somewhere rather than just being fodder for flame fests.
I know the "never assume" thing in IT, but here, I do assume that
...the dual core CPU reduces speed when idle...
means that he is NOT running BOINC or other numbers-crunching software...
No it doesn't, it means the CPU reduces clock speed when idle. If BOINC or other number crunching app is running, then his CPU isn't really going to be idle. If the CPU is never idle, it will never reduce clock speed - there's no contradiction.
And also there's no law to stop me running open wifi.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll fix that little loophole soon enough, just as soon as the first "criminal" relies on it as a defense.
Where does the burden of proof lie?
Well, that lies with you of course. We haven't had a right to remain silent for a long time, and the government doesn't even bother pretending that we're innocent until proven guilty anymore. Of course, the inconvenient fact that it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't get in their way either.
If the lawyer from a CYA perspective then requires you to keep all compiler versions, compile flags, library sources etc. necessary to prove that you have delivered the corresponding source I can understand how that's a lot of overhead.
Wouldn't any serious, professional software company already capture all of that in their change management system? It seems to me that most companies serious about writing software would already be able to fulfil even that requirement as part of their normal due-diligence/QA processes.
So basically, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"?
That's wrong on so many levels and is basically the reason why governments around the world are becoming more and more draconian in the name of preventing terrorism, or "thinking of the children".
Shouldn't it be standard practice, even in a civil suit, that the very first thing your defence team say to you is "Whatever happens, do not admit liability"?
You haven't changed anything I said, apart from the typo. The thread was talking about EM radiation vs current/mag fields, not current vs mag fields.
You also can't change a slashdot post, so you'll want to read and understand what thread you're replying to.
Well, you made a statement that is provably false, i.e. that a magnetic field is not comparable to EM waves - except, EM is electromagnetic, and you can't have a magnetic field without the electric field to go along with it thereby nicely giving you an electromagnetic field, or EM field.
You also stated that an electromagnetic field cannot have electric charge or a magnetic field, when infact the very definition of an electromagnetic field, or force, is a force with both and electric and magnetic component. That's why it's called electro-magnetic - not just because it sounds cool.
The typo was a cheap shot, I'll give you that, but the rest of your post is just plain wrong.
you'll want to read and understand what thread you're replying to.
The name "electron-magnetic" radiation is a granted a little confusing, but it does not have an electric charge or a magnetic field...
"Electron-magnetic" is indeed a little confusing, especially since it's electromagnetic.
For future reference, electric charge and magnetic fields are two components of the same force. That force is, yes - you've guessed it - electromagnetism. This was all worked out long ago.
Every last magnetic field has an electrical component - even in the absence of an external electrical current. Likewise, every electrical current flow has an accompanying magnetic field. Pretending it isn't so won't make it not so.
A wise man once said "Ye cannae change the laws o' physics" (or something similar)
Can't you see that your counter to tell it when it's got the right one has to be at least 1MB ?
Not only that, but for all practical purposes, that counter would necessarily have to be the desired end state - how else will you know if you have gotten where you want to be, if you don't already know what you want? What better way to know what you want out of the system, than to already have the end result?
Before anybody starts to mention heuristics - that's a whole different kettle of fish, and in my opinion is venturing into genetic algorithm space. GAs will give you what you want without you necessarily knowing exactly what that would look like and you won't know how you got there - that's totally different to just algorithmically generating every possibly 1MB file and hoping you get what you are aiming for.
I don't know of any Linux distro that can legally write to a NTFS formatted partition anyway.
How about, oh, I don't know - all of them?
It doesn't matter what Microsoft would like you to believe, there is nothing illegal in writing to an NTFS formatted partition. Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is expressly permitted by law.
You're right, this isn't the movies. I don't know what happened, but I would expect an armed police officer to be highly trained in the use of their firearm. I would expect a police officer to know how to disarm an assailant using their firearm without necessarily killing them. Ultimately, it's a judgement call - if her partner was unable to mount his own defense, and she felt that by getting close enough to use her baton (which, based on what we've heard above, is the only other weapon we can be sure she had) she would put herself at risk, then shooting the assailant is a valid course of action. She still had a responsibility to minimise the harm she caused, regardless of the situation.
Like I say, it's a judgement call in the heat of the moment. Police officers are trained to make good judgement calls, they are trained to use the force and authority they have been granted responsibly. They are human though, and in the heat of the moment, you react on instinct. I think we agree in principle, but we don't have much information. I've said it on other forums, and I'll say it here - if your life isn't in immediate danger, and you kill someone, then that's excessive force and you need to take responsibility. That's why where there is a law that permits citizens to use force to protect themselves, it usually explicitly defines that force as appropriate, or reasonable force. Once the immediate danger has passed, further use of force moves away from self defense into the realm of assault.
I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).
It doesn't - but as we have both quite rightly stated, the fact is, there are already so many different ways we can demonstrate our identity that the ID card itself is useless and unneccessary.
So, the ID card itself is unneccessary, and the database at the back is such a bad idea, (and also unneccessary), that it doesn't bear thinking about.
They are both there to serve the self-interested goals of the government, not to mention the coffers of the private companies that will be filled at our expense, in exchange for significant risk in terms of privacy, safety, and freedom. Of course, just as with filling in our tax returns online, members of the government, and famous people will be exempt from the requirements for "safety", "privacy", and "freedom" reasons. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.
It's not the ID - it's the linking and data mining of the information at the back end that is the real privacy concern.
Taking the example of your Texan police officer - I suspect (I have no other information than what you state above) that the reason is that as an officer of the law, and as a person trained in the use of firearms and legally given the right to carry that firearm and use it, she is expected to be held to a much higher standard than a regular citizen - and rightly so.
Unfortunately, another blight on our times crept in - political correctness. The authorities are so terrified of offending minorities that things like this happen. Should she have shot the attacker to prevent additional harm to her partner? Probably, yes. Should she have shot and killed him? No. As a police officer, she is given huge power and authority over regular citizens. It is her duty to use that responsibly. I think you'll find that she is held to exactly the same standard as regular citizens. If the man was attacking her, and she shot and killed him, there would likely have not been an issue since her life was in danger. If her partner had been the one to shoot and kill the assailant - again, no problem. Shooting and killing a man attacking someone else, with her life not being in danger - even if it was her partner, is not reasonable force. Shooting and wounding the assailant, however, would have been reasonable force under the circumstances.
Now, don't misunderstand, under the circumstances, I would likely have done the same thing in the heat of the moment, but that does not excuse you from your responsibilities, and those are greater for police officers than other citizens.
The ID card won't - as you say, they already have a huge amount of information on me anyway.
The problem, is that the UK government wants to link each and every database that has information on me together. It is that seemingly innocuous act that makes so much difference. With it, the ID cards goes from a single method of identification to the single way that the government gains all of that power over you. Take for example, the governments use of anti-terror laws to press criminal charges against citizens who put plastic bottles in the normal trash instead of the recycle bin. Or the fact that they used anti-terror laws to sieze the assets of Icelandic banks when their economy collapsed. Precisely how long do you think it's going to be before they start opressing the rest of us once they gain the ability to track every last piece of information about us at the click of a button, in realtime (or at least, near-realtime)? The problem isn't that they can get at the information, the problem is that if they get their way, instead of having to go through due process, and have to track you, they will know exactly where you are going to be and when. The problem is that for all the public condemnation of various communist and dictatorial states, that is precisely where they would love to be - with complete control over the populace. The problem is that they are so dishonest about what they want. They claim it will save us from the boogey man - well, I call shenanigans. Smoking kills more people than Bin Laden. Alcohol kills more. Cars kill more. Cancer kills more. The problem is that the national identity register, and the national ID card programs, are a solution looking for a problem. They will do absolutely nothing for the general public that we don't already have. However, the danger to the public is immense, even assuming we give the government the benefit of the doubt, and trust that there are proper auditing, accounting, and restitution procedures in place to prevent abuse, take the example of the national child register. A huge database of the personal information (including name, date of birth, address, school.....) of every child in Britain. It was put in place to "protect" the children. Again, a threat that is so insignificant compared to other less glamorous threats. This was created at great cost, and the entire database was promptly left on a train, unencrypted on CD that anyone could pop into a computer and read. They couldn't even manage to protect a database of extremely vulnerable people with a fraction of the complexity of what they are proposing - they have no chance at all of protecting the rest of us, even if they have purely altruistic goals, which history has shown is simply not the case.
I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.
I'll adapt a little phrase you might have heard: When freedom is outlawed, only criminals will be free.
Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.
The point is - the security tradeoff of credit cards, passports, driving licenses, etc makes them worth it. You don't say it, but its implied in your standadisation argument, but a national ID card does not give us, the public, anything at all. The only thing an ID card will do is shift the balance of power ever further in the favour of the government. That is not something any free citizen should accept.
Actually, that's still the case, except now you have to click OK before you can install your shiny new malware. Windows 7 is far worse - by default, many MS provided executables bypass UAC with no indication of whats happening. Standard DLL injection techniques mean that any code can run with no UAC prompts at all. This is even worse than XP - at least there was no pretense of protection in XP, with Windows 7 people will assume they are protected when they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the use of "sic" was wrong, even to the point that it was placed in brackets rather than parenthesis
Actually, the brackets are correct - it indicates that it was not part of the original quote, but was added later, by a different author.
That said: At least "Linux doesn't work well with Laptop X" would
at least be ultimately useful to someone somewhere rather than
just being fodder for flame fests.
I think the Linux Laptop Guide might be what you're looking for
I know the "never assume" thing in IT, but here, I do assume that
...the dual core CPU reduces speed when idle...
means that he is NOT running BOINC or other numbers-crunching software...
No it doesn't, it means the CPU reduces clock speed when idle. If BOINC or other number crunching app is running, then his CPU isn't really going to be idle. If the CPU is never idle, it will never reduce clock speed - there's no contradiction.
Except +1 Funny doesn't affect karma.
And also there's no law to stop me running open wifi.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll fix that little loophole soon enough, just as soon as the first "criminal" relies on it as a defense.
Where does the burden of proof lie?
Well, that lies with you of course. We haven't had a right to remain silent for a long time, and the government doesn't even bother pretending that we're innocent until proven guilty anymore. Of course, the inconvenient fact that it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't get in their way either.
But that's his ordinary voice!
If the lawyer from a CYA perspective then requires you to keep all compiler versions, compile flags, library sources etc. necessary to prove that you have delivered the corresponding source I can understand how that's a lot of overhead.
Wouldn't any serious, professional software company already capture all of that in their change management system? It seems to me that most companies serious about writing software would already be able to fulfil even that requirement as part of their normal due-diligence/QA processes.
So basically, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"?
That's wrong on so many levels and is basically the reason why governments around the world are becoming more and more draconian in the name of preventing terrorism, or "thinking of the children".
Except that open source != free (for whatever definition of free you care to use).
A particular open source project may match your definition of free, but that does not mean that any open source project will.
...he's not a lawyer.
No, but his lawyers are.
Shouldn't it be standard practice, even in a civil suit, that the very first thing your defence team say to you is "Whatever happens, do not admit liability"?
You haven't changed anything I said, apart from the typo. The thread was talking about EM radiation vs current/mag fields, not current vs mag fields.
You also can't change a slashdot post, so you'll want to read and understand what thread you're replying to.
Well, you made a statement that is provably false, i.e. that a magnetic field is not comparable to EM waves - except, EM is electromagnetic, and you can't have a magnetic field without the electric field to go along with it thereby nicely giving you an electromagnetic field, or EM field.
You also stated that an electromagnetic field cannot have electric charge or a magnetic field, when infact the very definition of an electromagnetic field, or force, is a force with both and electric and magnetic component. That's why it's called electro-magnetic - not just because it sounds cool.
The typo was a cheap shot, I'll give you that, but the rest of your post is just plain wrong.
you'll want to read and understand what thread you're replying to.
Right back at ya!
The name "electron-magnetic" radiation is a granted a little confusing, but it does not have an electric charge or a magnetic field...
"Electron-magnetic" is indeed a little confusing, especially since it's electromagnetic.
For future reference, electric charge and magnetic fields are two components of the same force. That force is, yes - you've guessed it - electromagnetism. This was all worked out long ago.
Every last magnetic field has an electrical component - even in the absence of an external electrical current. Likewise, every electrical current flow has an accompanying magnetic field. Pretending it isn't so won't make it not so.
A wise man once said "Ye cannae change the laws o' physics" (or something similar)
Can't you see that your counter to tell it when it's got the right one has to be at least 1MB ?
Not only that, but for all practical purposes, that counter would necessarily have to be the desired end state - how else will you know if you have gotten where you want to be, if you don't already know what you want? What better way to know what you want out of the system, than to already have the end result?
Before anybody starts to mention heuristics - that's a whole different kettle of fish, and in my opinion is venturing into genetic algorithm space. GAs will give you what you want without you necessarily knowing exactly what that would look like and you won't know how you got there - that's totally different to just algorithmically generating every possibly 1MB file and hoping you get what you are aiming for.
I don't know of any Linux distro that can legally write to a NTFS formatted partition anyway.
How about, oh, I don't know - all of them?
It doesn't matter what Microsoft would like you to believe, there is nothing illegal in writing to an NTFS formatted partition. Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is expressly permitted by law.
You're right, this isn't the movies. I don't know what happened, but I would expect an armed police officer to be highly trained in the use of their firearm. I would expect a police officer to know how to disarm an assailant using their firearm without necessarily killing them. Ultimately, it's a judgement call - if her partner was unable to mount his own defense, and she felt that by getting close enough to use her baton (which, based on what we've heard above, is the only other weapon we can be sure she had) she would put herself at risk, then shooting the assailant is a valid course of action. She still had a responsibility to minimise the harm she caused, regardless of the situation.
Like I say, it's a judgement call in the heat of the moment. Police officers are trained to make good judgement calls, they are trained to use the force and authority they have been granted responsibly. They are human though, and in the heat of the moment, you react on instinct. I think we agree in principle, but we don't have much information. I've said it on other forums, and I'll say it here - if your life isn't in immediate danger, and you kill someone, then that's excessive force and you need to take responsibility. That's why where there is a law that permits citizens to use force to protect themselves, it usually explicitly defines that force as appropriate, or reasonable force. Once the immediate danger has passed, further use of force moves away from self defense into the realm of assault.
I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).
It doesn't - but as we have both quite rightly stated, the fact is, there are already so many different ways we can demonstrate our identity that the ID card itself is useless and unneccessary.
So, the ID card itself is unneccessary, and the database at the back is such a bad idea, (and also unneccessary), that it doesn't bear thinking about.
They are both there to serve the self-interested goals of the government, not to mention the coffers of the private companies that will be filled at our expense, in exchange for significant risk in terms of privacy, safety, and freedom. Of course, just as with filling in our tax returns online, members of the government, and famous people will be exempt from the requirements for "safety", "privacy", and "freedom" reasons. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.
It's not the ID - it's the linking and data mining of the information at the back end that is the real privacy concern.
Taking the example of your Texan police officer - I suspect (I have no other information than what you state above) that the reason is that as an officer of the law, and as a person trained in the use of firearms and legally given the right to carry that firearm and use it, she is expected to be held to a much higher standard than a regular citizen - and rightly so.
Unfortunately, another blight on our times crept in - political correctness. The authorities are so terrified of offending minorities that things like this happen. Should she have shot the attacker to prevent additional harm to her partner? Probably, yes. Should she have shot and killed him? No. As a police officer, she is given huge power and authority over regular citizens. It is her duty to use that responsibly. I think you'll find that she is held to exactly the same standard as regular citizens. If the man was attacking her, and she shot and killed him, there would likely have not been an issue since her life was in danger. If her partner had been the one to shoot and kill the assailant - again, no problem. Shooting and killing a man attacking someone else, with her life not being in danger - even if it was her partner, is not reasonable force. Shooting and wounding the assailant, however, would have been reasonable force under the circumstances.
Now, don't misunderstand, under the circumstances, I would likely have done the same thing in the heat of the moment, but that does not excuse you from your responsibilities, and those are greater for police officers than other citizens.
The ID card won't - as you say, they already have a huge amount of information on me anyway.
The problem, is that the UK government wants to link each and every database that has information on me together. It is that seemingly innocuous act that makes so much difference. With it, the ID cards goes from a single method of identification to the single way that the government gains all of that power over you. Take for example, the governments use of anti-terror laws to press criminal charges against citizens who put plastic bottles in the normal trash instead of the recycle bin. Or the fact that they used anti-terror laws to sieze the assets of Icelandic banks when their economy collapsed. Precisely how long do you think it's going to be before they start opressing the rest of us once they gain the ability to track every last piece of information about us at the click of a button, in realtime (or at least, near-realtime)? The problem isn't that they can get at the information, the problem is that if they get their way, instead of having to go through due process, and have to track you, they will know exactly where you are going to be and when. The problem is that for all the public condemnation of various communist and dictatorial states, that is precisely where they would love to be - with complete control over the populace. The problem is that they are so dishonest about what they want. They claim it will save us from the boogey man - well, I call shenanigans. Smoking kills more people than Bin Laden. Alcohol kills more. Cars kill more. Cancer kills more. The problem is that the national identity register, and the national ID card programs, are a solution looking for a problem. They will do absolutely nothing for the general public that we don't already have. However, the danger to the public is immense, even assuming we give the government the benefit of the doubt, and trust that there are proper auditing, accounting, and restitution procedures in place to prevent abuse, take the example of the national child register. A huge database of the personal information (including name, date of birth, address, school.....) of every child in Britain. It was put in place to "protect" the children. Again, a threat that is so insignificant compared to other less glamorous threats. This was created at great cost, and the entire database was promptly left on a train, unencrypted on CD that anyone could pop into a computer and read. They couldn't even manage to protect a database of extremely vulnerable people with a fraction of the complexity of what they are proposing - they have no chance at all of protecting the rest of us, even if they have purely altruistic goals, which history has shown is simply not the case.
I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.
I'll adapt a little phrase you might have heard: When freedom is outlawed, only criminals will be free.
It's what New Labour have called 'joined up government', which translates as join up the relational databases of our suspects .
There you go, fixed that for ya.
The only addition is the biometrics.
Which is precisely the point - there is no need at all for the extra biometrics, or the linking of the databases.
Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.
The point is - the security tradeoff of credit cards, passports, driving licenses, etc makes them worth it. You don't say it, but its implied in your standadisation argument, but a national ID card does not give us, the public, anything at all. The only thing an ID card will do is shift the balance of power ever further in the favour of the government. That is not something any free citizen should accept.
Actually, that's still the case, except now you have to click OK before you can install your shiny new malware. Windows 7 is far worse - by default, many MS provided executables bypass UAC with no indication of whats happening. Standard DLL injection techniques mean that any code can run with no UAC prompts at all. This is even worse than XP - at least there was no pretense of protection in XP, with Windows 7 people will assume they are protected when they are not.
Some things can be done only on Windows, some only on Linux.
Only because it hasn't already been done - not because it can't be done.