You must not be familiar with the democratic process or history.

Except sustainable practices alone won't feed everyone on the planet.

Unless you want to repurpose a substantial amount of the workforce back into agriculture, dramatically increase land for farming (terraforming, bulldozing houses or chopping down forests are your only choices), dramatically raise the price of food,etc. Most farmers do use crop rotation and other sustainable tricks, but also use chemical fertilizers and other "nonsustainable" choices. You do realize that the majority of chemical fertilizers are made from atmospheric nitrogen, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Hopefully farming practices continue to advance. But the organic only, "sustainable" only, no GMO, etc crowd tends not to want to advance farming, but take it back to yeoman level tech. Which is not sustainable unless you dramatically decrease the number of humans on the planet.

Tis why I had my mechanic rig the auto start to shut off the engine if the brake is used without a key physically being in the ignition. You could still get into the car, sure. If a thief could hotwire a car, he can open a door anyways. Just don't keep anything exceedingly valuable in the car.

Also, properly positioned flood lights are your friend. The difference between my testimony convicting a a car thief and the guy not even being suspected in the first place was spending a couple extra bucks on good motion lighting and proper positioning.

Having seen civil wars overseas, I'm quite glad that folks think very long and hard before resorting to violence. Especially when you have no guarantee that the successor government will be better than the one you have now.

I very much prefer the current situation to any utopia envisioned by the far left and far right wings of our political environment.

And we're very glad for our stupid anachronistic and downright dangerous Bill of Rights. There is a mechanism for removing or changing the Constitution. It is intentionally not trivial and not subject to a 50% plus one person vote. If a large enough majority wanted to remove any part of the Bill of Rights, they could do so.

I'm quite happy that it is very difficult to remove Constitutional protections from its citizenry. Otherwise "stupid anachronistic and downright dangerous" provisions such as needing warrants, due process, etc would be stripped before they'd strip the First or Second Amendments. Don't get me wrong, judges rule against the Bill of Rights all day long. But there's still enough honest judges to ensure that our government doesn't get its way every time.

Temporary Restraining Order is not a permanent restraining order. It's usually meant to give a chance for the legal system to hear arguments before a permanent solution is implemented. Similar to say, the difference between arrests and convictions. It's a routine thing, it was solely the timing that was a scumbag tactic.

http://www.revdisk.net/gal/Defcon16/MTA01.jpg

I was in the audience at the time of that presentation. The presentation WITH ALL THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION was on the disk that was handed out to all of the audience. Instead of the presentation, the EFF did a presentation. Hackers raised funds for the students, gave EFF lawyers secure internet access, found expert witnesses, etc. The judge agreed with the EFF and the students, and refused to extend the restraining order. Yes, the timing sucked, but they did actually win on First Amendment grounds.

So, yes, judges do on occasion (IMHO often unlawfully) infringe on the First Amendment, it's still better than the alternative of not having it. Also, someone else independently gave a similar presentation with largely the same info. It was very very well attended. Good times. See y'all at Defcon this weekend.

No, legally it does help. The original poster committed a crime if he posted unencrypted ITAR data to DropBox. If it was encrypted (and did not share the key with any foreign national), he did not commit a crime.

The government sees encryption as they see walls, safes, locks or other access control mechanisms. You can legally have foreign nationals at a facility with ITAR material. RFID controlled doors are pretty common for that. There just has to be comprehensive access controls, which should be in the Export Control Plan and Technology Control Plan.

ITAR is a not a security clearance classification. It's an export control classification.

This is more than a little important because it means no "foreign persons" can access the data. Inside or outside the US. You can let a US person in France see the data, for example. Foreign persons is defined in 120.16 of ITAR. Check http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/2012/ITAR_Part_120.pdf (listed as Page 467)

Basically, you can't give any ITAR data to any foreign person. If the foreign person could access the data, even if they do not, you're still breaking the law. There's a presumption of guilt if you say, leave ITAR data on a public share in your company, where foreign nationals could have accessed it. Do not put ITAR data on any disk you don't control unless it's reasonable that the provider cannot access it (ie encrypted).

If DropBox has or had one foreign national that could access your account (which is likely) and the files were unencrypted, you already committed a federal crime and should give a voluntary disclosure to DDTC They'll likely give you a slap on the wrist or more likely do nothing, especially if voluntarily disclose and implement a solution to fix the problem. You personally will not get hit with anything. Try to cover it up, and you may personally be held responsible for a) knowingly breaking the law and b) knowingly trying to cover it up. You as an individual, in addition to your company.

Back on the original topic, use a VPN (preferred) or self-host an app on a web server you control. I'd just use VPN and rsync. As a best practice, if a user is going overseas, send them with a clean laptop and tell them not to locally save any files.

Disclaimer: I worked for Export Control at a Very Large Defense Contractor (they needed a geek, I got the short straw). I am however not YOUR export control representative. While the above is correct, it is only for reference and should not be taken as legal or binding advice. Seriously, order everything you can from Society for International Affairs and attend some conferences, or your business will be shut down by DDTC for ITAR violations. You can email me using my nick at my nick dot org if you have any other ITAR questions. I used to laugh when Department of State folks said "Please don't frame the question in terms of any felonies", now I just repeat it.

Basically this. It's unnecessary "accessory" that doesn't help functionality and may hinder operation. It's too new to be trusted. The most popular semi automatic rifles in the US are derivatives of the AR15 and AK47.

The AK47 is more than 65 years old.
the AR15 is more than 56 years old.
One of the most common pistols in the US was the 1911, which is 102 years old.
Glock has only recently lost the "new" (unsaid: unproven) mindset at a youthful 31 years old.
The US military (and many, many others) has used the M2 Browning heavy machine gun for 80 years, and likely will continue to use it even when we have flying cars, hover tanks and Skynet.


If Smart Guns were 99.9-99.99% safe, reliable and proven today (they are not), they will become generally acceptable somewhere around 2030. Until smart guns have one malfunction of any kind in 1000, preferably one malfunction in 10000, it is not reliable. When the military and police generally are using smart guns, wait another decade and then it will be probably established.

This isn't a new switch. Any new technology in firearms needs decades to completely flesh out. Most firearms have very very technical innovations. They're merely different sizes, configurations, colors, ergonomics, etc.

I used qmail for a surprisingly long period of time. It's good, but I got the feeling he thought "This is perfect, no updates". Great security, good architecture, not great on diverse functionality. Had to move to postfix to support as many virtual domains as I was running.

I could have modified qmail, but postfix did that I wanted out of the box and just needed the right config files.

So, I wouldn't say licensing alone was the problem with DJB's projects. But that surely did not help. The guy seems very brilliant, and very set in his ways being the best ways so not making much allowances for different ways. Guy does write very secure software, my hat's off to him.

Cute, but when gun owner lists were leaked. And that data was used by criminals to target homes for firearms. Some folks argue this is justification to not allow government entities to gather such information in the first place. All it takes is one activist to leak it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/journal-news-gun-map-might-have-caused-burglary.html http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/second-home-identified-on-journal-news-gun-map-is-burglarized-vandals-steal-gun-safe/ http://pastebin.com/DjU5Km6q

Problem with crowdsourcing is lack of accountability. Suppose I dislike a person and want their house broken into. What would stop me from tagging them as a "dangerous gun owner", that is gone from 7:30AM to 5:30 Monday through Friday, SSN is 123-45-6789, driving such and such a car, no alarm system or dogs, and is regularly visited by XYZ Pool Company which would not raise suspicion? Would UCSD Lecturer Brett Stallbaum mind if he was added to his own list with that sort of information?

This is obviously not about dangerous objects or their owners. It's entirely ideological, and intent on pressuring folks opposed to Mr Stallbaum's opinion on a particular issue. It is interesting that pro firearms activists have not released a responding app for homes of anti firearm activists, which would obviously be easy marks for criminals. Either anti firearm activists would be easily robbed, or embarrassed in public if they used firearms to embarrass themselves. While an easy, effective tactic, it's still obviously wrong, hasn't been done and likely would be denounced by pro firearm owners. Says volumes about the moralities involved, I suppose.

You started off with sense. Then went down the crazy lane. Let's start with the People's Republic of China. Its creation directly and indirectly killed maybe 10 million. But still, it wasn't technically China until they had defeated the nationalists. - Mao's original counterrevolutionary campaign. At least 712,000 people were executed, 1,290,000 were imprisoned in labor camps and 1,200,000 were arrest, harassment, etc. - Great Leap Forward, up to 45 million killed. Maybe up to 2.5 executed or tortured to death. - Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, about a million, give or take several hundred thousand. Stalin? Red Revolution was in the hundreds of thousands. Decossackization was about 300,000. Yezhovshchina had 1,710,000 people were arrested and 724,000 people executed, with 100,000 priests, monks and nuns specifically targeted for execution. NKVD did counterrevolutionary cleansing in the 1930's with 350,000 were arrested and 247,157 were executed. Mongolian Terror was only 20,000-30,000 but largely focused on Buddhist priests. Holodomor killed maybe 4 million via systematic starvation. Mass deportations often had very high death rates, the Crimean Tatars had roughly a third death rate. And the Red Army generally acted like savages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes Not saying America is a picnic, but you sir are WAY off base. Sure, our incarceration rate is through the roof. But we're not starving our prisoners in Alaska, launching numerous massive rape and loot campaigns or forcing entire states to resort to cannibalism from enforced starvation. We wiped out a very large percent of the Native Americans, but mostly through disease. The worst massecre was Trail of Tears, which killed 60,000 of the 130,000 Cherokee, intermarried and accompanying European-Americans, and African-American free blacks and slaves owned by the Cherokee (yes, Native Americans owned slaves). It was not exactly a one way war. Settlers were massacred by Native Americans as well as Native Americans by settlers.

Warheads have a much shorter period. If not maintained, they lose their ability to initiate after a period of time. The exact timing is likely classified, but would be between 10 and 25 years depending on the design. They rely on chemical explosives and some very advanced electric switches, which have limited lifespans.

*blink*

There seem to be plenty of wars between non-nuclear countries. Also, wars predate nuclear weapons.

So I have no idea why you assume reducing nuclear weapons would have any impact on peace.

Na. People have been opposed to sanity since the dawn of humanity. Why be content with your own women, food, and caves when you can smash Throg's head and take his stuff? You may not need it to survive. But it'd be more comfortable and you never did like Throg's attitude anyways.

Nuclear weapons have only been used offensively twice, and most folks think they saved more lives than they cost during that usage. They have a variety of theoretically useful purposes. Not keeping some around is more irrational than keeping some around. Thousands is unnecessary (not likely "insane"), but not keeping a couple dozens or circa hundred around is fairly short sighted. It's highly unlikely any nations will be using them anytime soon.