Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site March 05, 2015, 02:04:54 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?

Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.

You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
Your Support Funds this Site: View the Supporter Yearbook.
  Forum Home Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
      View this member's profile 
      donate to someone Donate to this member 
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 414 Next
126  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Programming/Coder humor on: February 05, 2015, 07:18:11 AM
RFC 1925


Network Working Group                                  R. Callon, Editor
Request for Comments: 1925                                          IOOF
Category: Informational                                     1 April 1996

                      The Twelve Networking Truths

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.


   This memo documents the fundamental truths of networking for the
   Internet community. This memo does not specify a standard, except in
   the sense that all standards must implicitly follow the fundamental


   The truths described in this memo result from extensive study over an
   extended period of time by many people, some of whom did not intend
   to contribute to this work. The editor merely has collected these
   truths, and would like to thank the networking community for
   originally illuminating these truths.

1. Introduction

   This Request for Comments (RFC) provides information about the
   fundamental truths underlying all networking. These truths apply to
   networking in general, and are not limited to TCP/IP, the Internet,
   or any other subset of the networking community.

2. The Fundamental Truths

   (1)  It Has To Work.

   (2)  No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
        you can't increase the speed of light.

        (2a) (corollary). No matter how hard you try, you can't make a
             baby in much less than 9 months. Trying to speed this up
             *might* make it slower, but it won't make it happen any

Callon                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 1925            Fundamental Truths of Networking        1 April 1996

   (3)  With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
        not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
        are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
        as they fly overhead.

   (4)  Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
        understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
        networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
        builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational

   (5)  It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems
        into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
        this is a bad idea.

   (6)  It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
        the problem to a different part of the overall network
        architecture) than it is to solve it.

        (6a) (corollary). It is always possible to add another level of

   (7)  It is always something

        (7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't
            have all three).

   (8)  It is more complicated than you think.

   (9)  For all resources, whatever it is, you need more.

       (9a) (corollary) Every networking problem always takes longer to
            solve than it seems like it should.

   (10) One size never fits all.

   (11) Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
        a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.

        (11a) (corollary). See rule 6a.

   (12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
        is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take

Callon                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 1925            Fundamental Truths of Networking        1 April 1996

Security Considerations

   This RFC raises no security issues. However, security protocols are
   subject to the fundamental networking truths.


   The references have been deleted in order to protect the guilty and
   avoid enriching the lawyers.

Author's Address

   Ross Callon
   Internet Order of Old Farts
   c/o Bay Networks
   3 Federal Street
   Billerica, MA  01821

   Phone: 508-436-3936
   EMail: rcallon@baynetworks.com

Callon                       Informational                      [Page 3]

127  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 05, 2015, 06:46:43 AM
@Ren - You're still overlooking the 800lb gorilla in the picture.

If you mean the thugs that call themselves "government" or "government employees", well, no argument that they are the 800lb gorilla. Wink

re: jury nullification

Again, almost always in movies.




R v Morgentaler [1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Jury nullification there. And one of the most important cases in Canadian law.

A paper on it here:


p. 62~64 (screwed formatting)
The unanimous decision in Krieger was written by Justice Fish and it further demonstrates the Supreme Court of Canada‘s willingness to link law and morality, embracing edicts of natural law. The Supreme Courtaffirmed the not guilty verdict which the trial jury would have rendered because they believed more so in the process than the plain meaning interpretation of the statute. Fish states

    It has since then (in 1670, when jurors were fined and imprisoned for a ―not guilty verdict) been well established that under the system of justice we have inherited fromEngland juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the  power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course.

This paragraph is suggestive that the judges of the Supreme Court believe in juries using their own morality. Justice Fish is quick to point out that the process of refusing to apply the law, or nullification is not ― a matter of right but that the power to do so exists, only when it is deemedby that jury to be absolutely necessary. When a jury‘s collective conscience tells them that thereis ―no other course‖ of action this is when nullification is absolutely necessary, as the jury felt in
was the situation in this case. Furthermore, the Court continues into the next paragraph by stating 
case law from 1784 that they have used throughout Canadian jurisprudence as the base for jurynullification:

    It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between Godand their own consciences.

Justice Fish indicates that while the Court has decided in this case and going forward that trial judges should not instruct jurors on how to find, that judges should still instruct jurors on what is the most appropriate legal course of action, or how to ―do right. Whether or not a jury chooses to abide by that course of action is, as the Supreme Court decided in this case, up to them.

Fish is here:


Cached here (I couldn't load it):


Just one important snippet from there:

The trial judge deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a trial by jury when he directed the jury to find the accused guilty as charged.  The trial judge’s direction was not a “slip of the tongue” to be evaluated in the context of the charge as a whole; nor is this a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations.  His purpose and words were clear.  In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court.

A kind of important point there. 

Attorneys are expected to argue for the law as it applies to the case, and the facts as presented. It's generally been seen as a violation of an attorney's oath (as an officer of the court) for one to ask a jury to ignore the law as it exists when considering their verdict.

Juries are perfectly free to ignore the law. That's the point. Talking about the "officer of the court" being paid to railroad people and ensure that the jury is ignorant of their rights, and flat out deceived about them... that's another matter.

And there's also a great deal of legal precedent that says that even though juries may choose to nullify, the courts are under no obligation to tell them they can - or - to allow an attorney on either side to so inform them. And that opinion goes back a number of years, and was the determination made in several different rulings on the subject of jury nullification.

Not to be snotty or anything, but I'm not sure whether you're trying to be deliberately beligerent or whether you just don't know that the judge in this case explicitly banned the defense from mentioning it (see below re: 1st amendment). (Are you just screwing with me for kicks? I can't say as I'd blame you -- it can be fun trolling sometimes, and I'm a good target. smiley tongue )

For a judge to forbid someone to defend themself is beyond unconscionable.

I really don't understand how you don't see this.

Just to be clear... the judge **threatened** the defense and explicitly forbade the defense from using jury nullification in their defense.

So while it may seem like a cool idea for juries to take the initiative and override a law they disagree with when reaching a verdict (and they legally can do just that under US law) it's a dangerous road to go down. Because if it becomes commonplace, the entire legal system goes out the door and you have a small-scale version of mob rule in effect. Which means it's not the law, or the facts in a case, but rather the jury selection that becomes the deciding factor in obtaining a judgement. Which is ripe for abuse by both the prosecution and the defence.

Any country with common law. Canada, Australia, etc.

And, uh, no. Not a bad road at all. Wink

Remember... the next box is the cartridge box... Best to avoid that. Wink

Jury nullification is not "setting murderers free". Jury nullification is a judgement against a law.

e.g. Tomorrow possessing ginger ale is made illegal, and the police show up to arrest me (I just bottled another batch earlier today). It goes to trial. The jury votes "not guilty" knowing damn well that I had ginger ale.

That's not a statement about me -- it's a statement that the law is wrong.

i.e. "He had ginger ale. So what? Stupid law. Not guilty of anything that should be punishable."

It is very different from cases like that fellow in Florida in the late 80s who killed his wife, but got off with the defense "justifiable homicide". Very big difference. The laws against murder weren't nullified there.

This (proscribing jury nullification as a defense) is a BLATANT violation of the first amendment to the US Constitution in limiting what someone can say.

There's no wiggle room here. None. Zero. Nadda. Zilch. Zippo. Done. That's all she wrote.

The US Constitution, as other national constitutions, is meant to limit or set forth the power of the government, and banning speech is not one of the powers granted to the US government. In fact, it is explicitly forbidden.

Laws that violate the constitution are not valid laws. We have a special word for them: "unconstitutional". smiley

But, but, but, but...

No. Read the first amendment. Wink

But, but, but, but...

The first amendment. Wink

Jury nullification is NOT open for abuse like you make it out to be.

But, if you can explain just how a finding of "not guilty" can benefit the prosecution, well, I'll be damn impressed! Grin

As for the issue of jury selection... c'mon... Really?

The prosecution gets an UNLIMITED number of dismissals. The defense has a limited number. Jury selection is (INFINITELY) HEAVILY weighted in favour of the prosecution already, so trying to confuse the issue of jury nullification with jury selection just doesn't hold water. The prosecution already has an INFINITE advantage there. What more do they need? Infinity + 1? An infinite set of infinities? C'mon... We both know that Cantor's Theorem doesn't apply here. Wink

This case was a joke from the start.

128  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Digg still exists, and they're hiring :P on: February 04, 2015, 10:01:26 PM


For realz. Grin

And "bankruptcy lawyer/accountant" isn't on the job list! tongue
129  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 04, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
Ulbricht's lawyer was desperate. The judge wouldn't let them have any defence at all. He took what was left after the judge explicitly banned him from using several other defences.

That was no less a show trial than any you'd expect in North Korea.

Being overly kind, this:

The kangaroo also banned any mention of jury nullification.
130  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 04, 2015, 07:12:43 PM
Verdict: Guilty.  Cry

So, if anyone does anything on your web site that is illegal, you can go to prison for it. Nice.

Insert freedom:

131  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 04, 2015, 06:21:49 PM
You can teach a man to fish...

132  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Show us a picture of your.. CAR!!! on: February 04, 2015, 02:59:19 AM
The Elio looks pretty slick. I don't think I'd get one as a primary/commuter car, but that's because of weather concerns - I'm not really sold on a car that small performing well enough during Canadian winters.
133  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me! on: February 04, 2015, 02:42:59 AM
Perhaps interesting for some:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk</a>

I saw that at a bar during a layover in KL. I wasn't sure if it was some kind of retro or old song that I missed or whether it was new. I only listen to news radio in the car, and we don't have a TV. For some reason it reminded me of something from a long time ago. My first thought was "Baby Got Back" for visuals, but not sure.
134  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 03, 2015, 08:12:56 AM
Not silly, but seriously twisted & sick humour...

135  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Internet of Things thread (IoT) on: February 03, 2015, 05:19:15 AM
I suppose that it's about time to start this thread. We can all see it coming anyways.


The Useless Home Gadgets That Tell Us Not to Think For Ourselves

X-ray specs, Sea Monkeys, Crypto-rings, Whoopee Cushions, Black Eye Telescopes. I loved the comic ads that were used to entice children to part with their pocket money back in the day. They were fun, they were gimmicks, and most importantly, they were cheap and throw away. These days we have the equivalent in a much more adult form in the shape of consumer goods that are billed as wearables or the Internet of Things (or 'Everything' as some people like to say to evoke epic visions of the world seamlessly interconnected).

Well, it seems like the Internet of Things is really gaining momentum thanks to the simple things for the home like Nest Thermostats and Smoke Detectors and the suchlike. It's not just going to be a fad, it will be HUGE. Intel estimates over 200 billion connected devices by 2020 and this will usher in some real uses that aid us in healthcare, business, retail security and transportation.

That's all worth waiting for but right now we have many manufacturers creating gimmicky, nonsensical and seemingly useless gadgets, that are connected to our smartphones and tablets, and portrayed as helping our lives.

More at the link.

It's mostly a rant about crappy gadgets, but the author seems to miss what IoT is about, or perhaps he's just romanticising it as some sort of techno-wonder to solve all our problems. I think he'll be surprised when it happens (and not pleasantly so), and realises what it really is.
136  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Interview with John McAfee on: February 01, 2015, 09:58:49 PM
The techno-wildman is interviewed by Jeff Berwick.

John tells some of the story of how he escaped from Belize, and talks about privacy.

(NSFW language)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_fr2p7054" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_fr2p7054</a>

137  Other Software / Developer's Corner / Re: Would appreciate some feedback on my new logos on: January 31, 2015, 05:45:53 PM
I like #2 best, but #3 is darn close.
138  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Who gets sued next? VLC media player? Mozilla? on: January 31, 2015, 05:21:11 AM
Blog software also has one purpose, but it is not crime related (at least assuming we have freedom of expression).

My guess is that in a few years that will ironically be some kind of unintentionally twisted prescience. smiley


The utter insanity is so bad, that there's a reddit called /r/nottheonion. They're all "The Onion" articles, but real.
139  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: January 30, 2015, 09:05:39 PM
^Yes. But on a certain meta-level, isn't claiming ownership of property - in any way, shape, or form - a specie of theft? tongue

Not in the least. Well, unless you're a communist. And we all know just how awesome communism ends. Wink

About as awesomely as Libertarianism and "Free Market" economics keeps misfiring AFAICT. tongue Wink

I'm not sure where you're getting that. We don't have a free market now. Sure, it's in some way similar, but it's still far from free.

Right now we have governments using Keynesian economics policies, which means creating debt, which bears interest, which compounds, and never gets paid off. Debt slavery ring any bells? smiley

So, to right the wrongs, central banks double-down on this failing strategy and being printing more money (QE). Bond interest rates drop to near zero, so investors and savers look for other places to put their money -- housing, real estate, stocks -- and lo and behold, what do we have? Bubbles in the real estate, housing, and stock markets.

The artificial creation of interest rates by central banks creates malinvestment and bubbles. On the other hand, interest rates that float with the market don't create that sort of crisis waiting to happen.

For the last financial crisis, the only economists that predicted it were Austrian economists.

We'll see if their predictions bear out this time though. Given the price of oil, the drop in copper prices, and pressure on commodities, it looks like cash will be king in the next year or so.

140  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Code Combat! on: January 30, 2015, 08:01:42 PM
Another programming game I stumbled on seems much more focused on hard core or at least more efficiency-minded coders, but is very cool:

Interesting. And yes - very much "hard core". There's no tutorial to get you up to speed, but there is a wiki, so you can study the API, but you're very much just left on your own.

I've been traveling the last week, and had lots of elevators. Funnily enough, I was thinking a few times about elevator algorithms. Some are really good, and others, not so much.
141  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: January 30, 2015, 06:15:19 PM
^Yes. But on a certain meta-level, isn't claiming ownership of property - in any way, shape, or form - a specie of theft? tongue

Not in the least. Well, unless you're a communist. And we all know just how awesome communism ends. Wink

Labour theory of property (Locke)

More on Locke & property

It's a bit ridiculous to claim that "property is theft".
142  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Who gets sued next? VLC media player? Mozilla? on: January 30, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
This isn't the first time for that tactic. Some people are suing a gun manufacturer. Exact same logic (or lack thereof) applied there.

143  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: "Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator" ??! on: January 30, 2015, 06:46:32 AM
^good points. FWIW I'm not a fan of the whole rights approach to the world.

I found "right" repugnant for a very long time until I learned more about the topic.

What might help clear up some (as it did for me) is the difference between negative and positive rights.

e.g. I have a negative right not to be punched in the face by you, and vice versa.

I do not have a positive right to take your property for my own purposes (e.g. taxation).

I do not have a positive right to force you to not say nasty things, and vice versa.

I do have a negative right to not have you (or anyone else) silence me. (free speech)

etc. etc.

Today, people claim all sorts of insane rights. e.g. Free water. Well (pun intended), who is going to clean the water and deliver it? Is their time worth nothing? Should they just be slaves for "my free rightful water"? Obviously nobody has an innate right to free water. Those that claim otherwise are at best being intellectually dishonest.

The same goes for any time someone claims a right to something that they want for free. Healthcare, birth control, water, paved roads, etc. etc.

People often mistake "rights" for "entitlements". e.g. While you have no right to free water, if you have paid for water services (through any method, including taxation), you are entitled to what you have paid for. Sub in "health care" there or whatever.

That's muddy, but at least in the 'right' direction. smiley

144  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: January 30, 2015, 06:32:35 AM
Regarding "Spin more than one hypothesis," academia is a complete laughingstock. Just look at how doctoral dissertations are done - create a hypothesis, then show it. This is simply idiotic. A thought out and careful hypothesis that proves to be false is also information, i.e. we now know that X is false, or, limiting the scope or field is also a valid assertion. But this doesn't happen when everyone tries to prove that their hypothesis is "true". Certainly, 'true' is sexier, but 'false' can also be useful, especially when we know why it is false.

But, just for kicks, here's a statement for people to mull over for a second, assess, and then click the spoiler. Wink

Statement) There are no studies that show that tobacco causes cancer.

Oh, and just for fun... 1 more...

There are no peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to prove that large caliber bullets shot into the head cause death. tongue

I like to pull that one out for those who are religious about science. They invariably very quickly retreat from their faith just long enough to start calling me names, then they return to their faith just as quickly. I find it probably just as amusing as they find it infuriating. smiley

145  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / What do you want to ask Edward Snowden? Now you can! on: January 30, 2015, 05:42:42 AM
VoL is collecting questions from people for an interview with Ed Snowden.



Ask NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Your Questions

An Epidemic of Truth-Telling with Edward Snowden

Voices of Liberty Proudly Presents:
An Exclusive Session with NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden

In a Voices of Liberty exclusive event, Edward Snowden will reveal his political ideas, positions on issues and provide insight on how to cause an epidemic of truth-telling, as called for by former Congressman Ron Paul.
Be sure to participate in the poll below to show your position on Edward Snowden as a hero or traitor.

Ask Edward Snowden your question!

Today YOU have an opportunity to pose the burning question you’ve always wanted to ask Edward Snowden! We are accepting submissions and will select from among them the questions we will ask Edward Snowden in an upcoming interview. Your question could have a chance to be heard and answered by the famous NSA whistleblower. So what are you waiting for?

I'm curious as to how he'd respond to comments about him (the issues he raises) being a limited hangout.

146  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: January 28, 2015, 07:28:16 PM
^Some years ago, an article in The Harvard Business Review noted the curious phenomena of how many antisocial behaviors and attitudes (that are not normally tolerated in regular society, such as: egotism, unprovoked aggression, intolerance, snap judgement, and a callous disregard for the feelings and opinions of others) are somehow magically elevated to the status of virtues, and considered to be desirable and admirable traits when employed in business and government affairs.

Yup. Kind of like how theft is bad, unless you're government and call it "tax" or "speeding ticket" or "fine" or "civil forfeiture". Theft is theft, even if you have fancy uniforms and titles.
147  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: January 27, 2015, 07:30:20 PM
RB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/
148  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Authorities suspect a shark tried to eat Vietnam's Internet on: January 26, 2015, 02:15:17 AM
And sharks are lawyers... lawyers are Jews... Coincidence? I think not!

I don't know, that shark looked like a Jihadist to me. Is Osama Bin Laden reincarnated after being thrown in the ocean.

Entirely possible. I can well imagine the vengeful spirit of OBL possessing an apex predator like a shark!

Now what I want to see is a video of the OBL shark's head spinning around and projectile vomiting! cheesy And a priest in a scuba suit!
149  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: January 26, 2015, 02:10:10 AM
How do you get 10,000 in?

The truly messed up thing is that in the real world, worse happens.
150  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: The Untold Story of the Invention of the Game Cartridge on: January 25, 2015, 08:13:21 AM
Here's an interesting article about the world before interchangeable game cartridges existed, and how the game cartridge came to be.

That was an excellent read! It was like an action-packed thriller for geeks! smiley

I never had one of those, but we had an Atari 2600. My parents still have it in their basement.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 414 Next
DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.054s | Server load: 0.05 ]