This isn't a new position, but was held by the venerable C.S. Lewis.
7 posts • joined 29 May 2007
They can force you to turn over the password. Same as forcing you to unlock a file cabinet or safe. You aren't incriminating yourself by said actions. At least in the eyes of the law.
Now, you could go to jail for a misdemeanor (1-2 years) by refusing the key or for a long time for providing the key (assuming you have something to hide for real).
Personally, I will consider encrypting non-incriminating data just to give them a hard time. Probably with a password like: hax0r. :-) Mostly to annoy them and make a point. Not too much cause I don't want to be fingered EVERY time I fly. Then again, with this new electronic fingering that scans me behind for screeners.... I guess I'll get fingered anyway.
/Snarl. I only fly these days if I absolutely have too.
I completely agree: "Anon cos... well... free expression is only for minorities these days." Seems like the only unprotected group are young white Christian males....
I don't hate Muslims. I hate being subjected to their religion by threat or law. They want to live in my country? Fine, you live by our rules. Don't like western civilization? Go home.
We accept people from all faiths, but not terrorists or nut jobs. We have plenty of that on our own, thank you. You crazies are not welcome. Oh, and if a movie about your terroristic faith offends you, do yourself a favor: don't prove the author's point by acting out his film. The least you could do is ignore it and pretend that its not true. Not saying much for you if you don't have the brains to see this.
So, I used this tool. What I found was that it was beta. Yup. Those numbers are from a beta product (a product that I like - FYI). Sometimes it would tell me that Windows was not patched. So, I downloaded the appropriate patch and ran it. The patch told me that I was already patched and consequently quit. To the best of my understanding, the Secunia tool was looking for patch numbers and didn't recognize that some patches were unnecessary due to more recent patches.
Other "unpatched" at-risk software came from old-unsupported versions of software. For example: My DVD burner came with Nero. Nero has since moved to a new version and is no longer supporting the specific version that I have installed. OK. Big deal. But, because Nero has moved on, Secunia says that my computer is insecure. Oh well. I just ignore that.
And don't get me started on their Java detection junk. They tell me that I am using an older version of Java. They offer me a link to a new version (their link even has appropriate version numbers etc...). I follow the link and the version that is presented to me is the same version that I already had. No new versions were available.
I could deal with all of this because the app was free and more or less useful. It reminded me to update my various seldom-used programs.
BUT, to make this sort of analysis from a beta tool is not only premature, but potentially foolhardy.
Let me make one or two comments for thought.
While I was raised in a conservative religious tradition that taught that God created in 6 days, I have chosen to challenge all of those beliefs. I have read the comments and ideas by evolutionists. I have read the biblical interpretations by those who see the Bible as a fairy tale. Yet, I keep returning to the truths that I was taught (mostly).
Neither creationism nor evolution are science. They are philosophies upon which we interpret our scientific data. An evolutionist will approach an experiment from one perspective and will ask himself a certain set of questions. The creationist can approach the same experiment, perform it differently and ask different questions. The reason? They have different basis' for their understanding of the facts.
So is one more or less scientific than the other? No. Neither is scientific. Both are philosophical structures. (And I am creationist and I recognize that evolutionists have greatly impacted science for good.)
When it is all said and done, I believe that neither view can prove their case beyond "a shadow of a doubt." Both will require faith at some point to make up for the gaps in our knowledge. It is my belief that creationism answers the evidence around us more effectively.
And for all the snide comments on both sides of the debate? Both groups fail to respect the other. That is cruel (besides, it makes you look unintelligent). Learn to disagree peacefully and to foster beneficial conversation. You could learn from the other side (and it doesn't require changing you core beliefs).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021