There are many contemporary quotes from their papers and other general position papers of the time that I could use in support of my comments, but today - I like this one.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
No, we were not OK with it. We're still not OK with it even with a valid cert. But I'd wager that the number of corporate VIPs and others who use unauthorized e-mail clients like gmail is larger than you'd care to admit. IT rarely wins against the VIPs regardless of policy breaches.
One of the disadvantages of small businesses is that you have to prioritize where your IT budget goes. Every decision is a tradeoff. Going with a self-signed cert in the old days worked and gave our employees some level of security against the direct snooping of credentials and content when on work sites or at home. It wasn't perfect for all the reasons you mentioned, but as a small business was deemed acceptable due to the low probability of any company actually caring enough about us to set up a MITM attack.
The only point I was making was that you can't just use POP3 or IMAP3 as a replacement for POP3S/IMAP3S due to the STARTTLS announcement from most modern e-mail servers.
Yes, actually it does. Our company was getting along nicely with a self-signed cert which we added to all the company devices as a trusted source. One enterprising engineer was using gmail. When they dropped the change on us, he could no longer use gmail and in the spirit of letting VIPs get away with anything they want mostly, we were forced to buy real certs. I'm not against real certs - especially for a company - but you can't just use plain socket access because our server broadcasts STARTTLS as an option for security in credentials - as it should, which google immediately tries to use and rejects due to the self signed cert. I'm sure we could force off the STARTTLS option, but that is actually used as a feature by some of our locations, so it isn't that simple.
It is true that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when none of these existed. But it was also written in the time immediately after the Revolutionary War when we fought for our freedom from England. Every weapon of war was included in their minds when they wrote that amendment. They didn't exclude cannons. They didn't exclude warships. If they'd just wanted people to have guns to hunt with, they would have. They wanted a people who were armed and ready to fight the next war that came along.
The reason they didn't need to worry about Farmer Jones up the road going off with a cannon and firing a shot at the school house is exactly the same reason you don't have to worry about nuclear weapons or cruise missiles or tanks or F-15s parked on your street. The big ordnance was expensive then and it is expensive today. Sheer cost of purchase, maintenance, and operating limited the people who could afford them then, just as now. But you can be assured that if modern weapons had been around then and used to fight off the British, there wouldn't have been an exception for them in the 2nd. Every military weapon was included so a militia could be called up at a moments notice to protect against any and all invaders.
Yes, we have armed forces now. Yes, we have a National Guard now. But a lot of them are elsewhere and are likely to be elsewhere for the long term. They aren't hanging around the U.S. So just because times have changed doesn't mean the risk has. I hope we never have a government go actively against its citizens in the U.S. But it has happened recently in many other countries. I don't like the fact that so many people feel the need to potentially defend themselves against the government at all. I personally don't. But I do respect their positions considering all that has gone on in the world in the last century by supposedly benign governments.
I wish there was no need to worry about crime as well, but the police manifestly cannot be everywhere at once. They mostly react to crimes that go on for a long time (riots for example) or react after a crime has occurred. Both make it necessary for a large portion of the population to wish to have a gun to protect themselves and the bigger the advantage that gun has over what the intruder might have, the better.
I appreciated the comment by seumas. He summed the argument threads up nicely.
All armed guards and checkpoints would do is use up one or two bullets early on in the rampage. The cost to provide bunker like checkpoints and the time it would take to process the kids in and out of them would be prohibitive.
Knife wielding attacker, but then I'd prefer to be armed at the time. I'd also prefer that any teacher that wanted to be armed be armed, and that any student that wanted to be armed be armed.
I don't think the amount of violence perpetrated would change significantly - gang violence in the streets of some big cities is proof that violence against students will occur regardless of whether there are safe gun-"free" zones in schools or not. Open carry, however, might seriously reduce the likelihood of nuts targeting areas where there are likely to be lots of people who would shoot back.
I happen to think the Constitution got it right with the 2nd amendment.
It is impossible to predict what would have happened had the audience been armed - or even a small minority of the audience - but I suspect that like here, there would have been fewer deaths. Possibly not 0, but fewer.
It is completely possible that there would have been 0 deaths there because the gunman wouldn't have picked a spot where he might encounter armed resistance who might be a better shot than he was. It isn't so much the quick draw wild west winner as the deterrent effect of knowing there is likely to be someone around - probably off duty cop, ex cop, active duty military, ex military, who will kill you that would help reduce the crazies. Joe Random Good Citizen probably wouldn't have the psych training to weather the surprise attack well - even if he/she were a good shot. But there are those who could and would. They are the true deterrent effect that would put a stop to the nuts.
The MAD philosophy of the Cold War era worked - even with regimes which were not what we would consider the most stable.
Another way to do this is to stop being the world's policemen. Let war and civil unrest get out of hand again in many of the developing countries and it will be a good reason for US companies to rethink outsourcing.
No. It just means the virus writers have to be a bit more complete in their attack so they sign the e-mail by the computer user. Add a key logger if needed to gather the key password. Then their e-mails look legitimate if originating from hijacked computers.
Spammers who purchase temporary e-mail accounts they know will be shut down would get a signing key with their account. I don't expect the major abused e-mail service providers would do any better checking with the extra level of signing security then than they do now for a simple account.
For an individual - no. For a company or an organization, it does make a big difference.
At our company we automatically grey list or black list sources of spam for a particular amount of time while automatically white listing people our employees send mail to. This is all done at the system level without the user having to do anything. It drops the spam load by an order of magnitude. Once spam is seen by one user - everyone on the corporate mail system automatically benefits.
Some of this can be done using remote black lists and wouldn't be affected. However there are still many messages whose content points to black listed locations where the mail originator hasn't yet been shut down or black listed which we can harvest and block at the system level after letting spam assassin do its job and analyzing its results. While that might be possible if it was pushed to the user level - with the variety of mail clients and devices it would be much more difficult.
Thus allowing all spam bots to automatically encrypt their spam straight to your mailbox without intervention by system spam filters like spamassassin.
The statistics indicate that the majority of them are not.
The first portion of Isa. 14 refers to the restoration of Israel during the Millennium. The verse you refer to is a reference to the Antichrist. Since Satan fills the person who becomes the Antichrist of Daniel and Revelation, Satan / Lucifer is both. It isn't until verse 28 till the time frame switches back to Isaiah's time. The chapter break to 15 should have probably occurred here.
This is part of a long prophetical passage dealing with everything from the birth of the Messiah and his titles in Isa. 9, the immediate king of Assyria and prophecies about him and then the future king of Assyria in 10:20 and following who is also the Antichrist. It goes on to talk about the Millennial reign of Christ in 11 and 12 along with the final regathering of Israel. Chapter 13 switches back and forth between immediate prophecies about the Medes and Persians and future judgments.
There is debate over the translation of the Hebrew name here and there is also debate over why Jerome picked Lucifer as the translation as Satan's possible previous name is not used elsewhere. Few would argue (although this is
As far as past/future is concerned, I think that both are present. Verse 12 is written in the past tense (or at the least translated that way) and verse 15 is clearly a prophecy of his future final downfall.
Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz
