So then you're saying that it's not a matter of actually implementing secure communications, but adjusting expectations so that whatever we have is seen as secure by the people using it.

Everyone has and uses cell phones, but the encryption is weak and the implementation isn't end-to-end. Cell phones are emphatically not a medium for secure communications. If that's the stick by which we measure successfully deployed secure communications systems, then let's just declare Facebook to be secure and move on.

It's really nice to see some amateur experimenters releasing the schematics for their designs again. Ever since I've been playing with radios, the scene has been very concerned with keeping designs secret. So much of the ham software is non-free (both libre and gratis), and the developers end up retiring, dying, or abandoning their work without ever releasing the code. Finding schematics for hardware is even more difficult and I've spent much of my time redesigning circuits (or reverse-engineering them from bought products or web pictures when I get stumped!).

Bruce, in your slides you mention that "The platform should be as close to Open Source and Open Hardware as possible without allowing Chinese cloners to eat our lunch – or we won't be motivated to make it." How much is this going to affect what is shared with the amateur community? Are you more concerned with making money off a product than pushing the state of the art in amateur radio. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a special circle of hell for people that see Open Source as a marketing term. Which doesn't seem to apply to you at all, Bruce, but it may still apply to this venture.)

One of the things that is holding back wider adoption of SDR is that SDR equipment from the new wave of manufacturers is often outrageously expensive for what is contained in the box. Will this be another $2000 SDR radio with $15 worth of parts inside it? (I know development costs money, but why must hams always charge for their hobby?)

For an SSL centered project, I find it odd that convergence.io, where you're supposed to actually obtain the plugin, defaults to no TLS and if forced, has a certificate name mismatch.

That, in addition to Convergence being the next big thing ! ! !, followed shortly thereafter by it being completely abandoned, makes the whole thing seem amateurish.

And, of course, the whole thing is dependent on fixed servers which Moxie claims aren't easily replaced. Just like TextSecure on Android depends on Google's servers to function.

So the advantage over GPG is that the entire communication process can't be abstracted onto any other communication protocol (GPG on email/SMS/paper slips/etc), but depends on rickety infrastructure provided by somebody else. Progress!

It's a passive agressive way of showing disregard for others. It seems to be coupled with a self-absorbed expectation that others will get the fuck out of your way if they know what's good for them. Around here, about 80% of the cars that don't ever signal (even over multiple lane changes) are luxury sedans and high end SUVs.

The other 20% seems to be divided between people who can't signal because one hand is holding a cell phone and those people who are obviously oblivious to the other cars around them.

By the time you've been driving for a year, signaling is muscle memory. It happens too often and too consistently to be attributed to people forgetting.

So who is the "we" in all of this, and by what process do "we" actually do all of these things?

What you're describing is what we had prior to Marbury v. Madison, which is why the Supreme Court took it upon itself to actually carry out the actions you describe (except for the part where legislators that pass unconstitutional laws are punished).

We don't need a vague demand for justice, but an actual accountable process for determining and doing away with unconstitutional laws.

That's quite the one-sided viewpoint. The Constitution is a contract between the citizens of the US and the government. If the interpretation of that contract as held by the government and the citizens diverge too much, it ceases to be valid.

Ultimately, "your (and my, and any individual citizen's) personal interpretation of the Constitution" is the only absolute measure, because the US government only exists at the behest of the people. It entirely and completely derives its authority from the people.

I'm not sure how else to explain my position without repeating myself, so I guess I'll just let it drop. I think I've made my case better than just indicating that I want to undermine the government because I'm sore about an ancient court case, but if that's all thats getting through then I'm just wasting my time here.

Cheers.

Have you seen the guy? This is one case where he might be using the term correctly!

Oh, I totally agree with you there. The driver behind the intermediate cartridges was logistics, carry weight, and overall handling. Decreased lethality is only ever cited as a rationalization or consolation. In practice, it only works out to be a disadvantage. Even if the switch did carry some advantages, that's not one of them.

That's somewhat of a stretch to say, considering that the language in Article III isn't as explicit as you claim and even Jefferson disagreed with the court's original claim on that power. (It's even quite ironic that the court claimed the power of judicial review in a case that centered on the limited Article III powers of the court!)

I emphatically agree that judicial review is necessary. Judicial review, as it is currently stands however, allows four people to renegotiate (or reinterpret) the terms of the contract between the government and the citizens in a way which would require a constitutional amendment (deliberately the most arduous undertaking in our system of government) to reverse. This gives the court vastly more power than intended (as supported by Jefferson's words on the case) and has no effective check in any other branch (which makes it stand out as suspect anyway).

Instead of just crying about the current implementation being a fait accompli, what should be done is defining a more balanced judicial review process that has proper checks. Of course, I know that I'm way too idealistic and there's no way that our current government (or even the citizens) would do anything to fix this situation. So it is the de facto law of the land, even though its constitutionality is questionable.

My entry into this conversation started by me saying that the "law of the land" is on pretty shaky ground, constitutionally, to which you quipped that it is the de facto law of the land (non sequitur much?). In the same post, I specifically conceded that the Supreme Court is probably best suited for judicial review, though certain cases make me skeptical. We appear to be arguing past each other.

My entire argument is that judicial review, as it is, is not constitutional. As such, the framework surrounding it is not adequately designed and the power is not properly checked. Certain cases illustrate that well, where the only real check would be a constitutional amendment which could be further misinterpreted.

Your entire argument seems to be that the Constitution should have no bearing on the powers claimed by our government. It sure seems that's the case in practice, but if so we're no longer a constitutional state.

Well, an actual mouse is using a great deal of its resources controlling its mouse body. He wasn't talking about shoving an actual mouse brain into a car, but using something with the overall computing capabilities of a mouse to pilot the car.

Animals deal poorly with unfamiliar situations because they are highly adapted to, and trained on, specific situations. You wouldn't expect an actual mouse to be able to drive a car anymore than you'd expect a word processing program to drive a car. Yet, an actual mouse brain has more raw computing capability than the computers that are currently driving the self-driving cars.

I'm convinced that people do this on purpose, not out of forgetfulness.

It's the Hague Convention of 1899 that prohibited expanding bullets.

Jacketing, and FMJ, was implemented before that to allow for higher velocity bullets that don't quickly foul the barrels.

The constitutionality of judicial review isn't determined by the degree of contest from other branches of government, but from the powers delegated by the Constitution. If your argument is that any power usurped by the government that isn't contested by that same government is the law of the land, then you're no longer discussing a constitutional state.

To bring this back on topic, I think that the zany antics displayed in Wickard v. Filburn, and the near complete absence of a check on that sort of topsy-turvy decision, pretty clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court is not really suited to handle judicial review.

The public discussion of judicial review is pretty sparse, partly because it's been around for so long that most people genuinely think that it's an enumerated power (an easily corrected mistake that is pretty pathetic in its own right), but that doesn't mean that the process is universally accepted. Of course the government, which is benefitting greatly by not being bound by a constitution, isn't debating the validity of the process. They get to claim the validity of being a constitutional state while simultaneously acting free from any well defined constitutional rules. What's to complain about?