Slashback: Passports, Microscopes, IQ Points

Slashback tonight with updates and clarifications on recent Slashdot stories (and story arcs), including a downright Operatic end to Jon S. von Tetzchner's cross-oceanic attempt (or was that just in fun?), the status of post-death email privacy, minimizing the dangers of RFID passports, and more - read on for the details.

Actually, it's taking tests that reduces IQ. The guys at Mind Hacks have dissected the widely reported story that 'email destroys the mind faster than marijuana' [Posted on Slashdot a few days ago -- T.] and found that it is more spin than science. The results show simply that people do worse at IQ tests when distracted, although Hewlett-Packard are not releasing details of the experiment, so others cannot even evaluate if the research is sound. The use of psychobabble for marketing marches on.

One day this will all be commemorated as ... an opera. GreyPoopon writes "It looks like Jon's attempt at swimming the Atlantic has ended in early failure. Taking the blame once again is is PR Manager, Eskil Sivertsen. The raft he was using was somehow punctured this morning, and Jon had to abondon his trek to perform a heroic rescue. Perhaps someone should take on the task of sending our downtrodden adventurer a cup of Mom's hot chocolate."

PCP theorem simplified, still way over my head. Stridar writes "Sanjeev Arora's proof of the PCP theorem was a great acheivement. This theorem, a reduction of NP to PCP, allowed for many striking results on the difficulty of finding approximate solutions to NP-Hard problems. However, his original proof is long and technical, focusing on the arithmetization of booelan formulas. It has long been an open problem to simplify this result. Now Irit Dinur , a mathematician at the Hebrew University, has given a purely combinatorial proof of the PCP theorem, in her exciting paper "The PCP Theorem by Gap Amplification" ."

I think several other things end at death, too. microbee writes "The Register reports that Yahoo has complied with a court order to give a dead soldier's email account to his parents. It's not clear to me from the news whether they got direct access to the actual mail box, or just hard copy of those emails. If the former, it's a bit funny to read "the family complain they have only got emails received by Justin, not those he wrote." People have to wonder whether their privacy ends at death."

Haven't they ever seen The Killing Fields? valdean writes "Following up on past Slashdot stories, Wired News reports that the State Department is now considering adding a password to the new RFID passports, in response to 'criticism from computer security professionals and civil libertarians.' According to the article, 'The data... would be locked and unavailable to any reader that doesn't know a secret key or password to unlock the data. To obtain the key, a passport officer would need to physically scan the machine-readable text that's printed on the passport page beneath the photo... The reader would then hash the data to create a unique key that could be used to authenticate the reader and unlock the data on the RFID chip.'"

Anything with LEDs in it makes me happy. HunterD writes "Apparently a company called DigitalBlue purchased the rights to the Intel Play series, which included the Intel QX3 microscope. Well, DigitalBlue has released an upgrade called the QX5 that features an Ultrabright LED, a better camera, and a number of other upgrades."

Comments

PCP Theorem

[BandwidthHog]

If, after checking your email while doing bonghits you can still count to one, proving theorems on PCP oughta do the trick.

Re:PCP Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

PHP, however, remains the ultimate mindfsck.

Re:PCP Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

PSP is what gets me, though.

Re:PCP Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to remember (heavy email day) but didn't Reagan have PCP outlawed in the 80's?

Re:PCP Theorem

[juan2074]

I have a theory about PCP -- that shit fucks up your brain.

MJ?

[Ugodown]

I don't think that anyone says that marijuana destroys the brain besides the US governmnet, and these guys.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

except for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10772599&dopt=Citatio n

and

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.sc iencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5321/1967%3Fck%3 Dnck

and

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.nc bi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve% 26db%3Dpubmed%26list_uids%3D8606480%26dopt%3DCitat ion

and

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.nc bi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve% 26db%3DPubMed%26list_uids%3D8811260%26dopt%3DCitat ion

for example

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't so much directed at the parent but at the set of arguments surrounding MJ.

Seriously, anyone who has tried marijuana or observed many stoners will testify that it lessens mental agility.

Now mental agility is not the sum of intelligence.

Comparing IQ scores and intelligence are like comparing a weight lifter to a boxer, in some raw abstract test the weight lifter out-performs the boxer. But in every other case, fitness, agility, the boxer kicks his ass (literally also).

Now, while I can appreciate some smokers of the green will say that there is an intelligence there, that you gain new perspectives on things, this is nothing that cannot be achieved by reading an interesting book.

The bottom line is, it lowers your mental agility and in certain portions of the population is causes (or exacerbates) mild mental health problems.

On the whole, while I appreciate the libertarian argument that you should be able to smoke whatever the fuck you want, it's not a particularily good thing. So why the big deal over it?

In fact it's fucking boring, and most of the people who use it aren't quick enough to make interesting conversation or make interesting jokes. And while I appreciate that the mundate household items are now hilarious, I prefer my comedy to be a little subtler and a little faster, no?

I am sorry, but smoking the green is one of the biggest wastes of money, time and often nice people. And yes, people who get into green do often go on to try other drugs, I would imagine they are the type of people to try other drugs without having first tried MJ, but the fact remains it is still somewhat of a gateway drug (yes, I speak from experience).

to sum:
libertarian and "legalise it to stop the criminal elements" arguments considered, it might well be better off legal... but it's hardly the pressing issue of our times. There are many other unfair and unjust laws and relations of power etc. that abound. That someone would care enough about MJ to make it their first political priority is evidence of how far they have fallen. It's lame, it steals a certain edge/quickness from your mind (much more than it's supposed "benefits" - do a philosophy course and tell me which one "expanded your mind" more).

On the whole it's fucking boring and I wish the middle class whingers would stop complaining in the face of the science that ANY type of smoking is bad for your lungs (I pity the fool who tries to dispute that, yes you can eat it), and that MJ is bad for your intelligence (there is evidence of this), bad for some people's mental health (there is evidence of this) and on the whole there are some convincing arguments that it's bad for society.

Stoners will probably mod me down for this "he's an angsty ex-smoker". But you know I am right. Fuck em if they can't take a joke.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot or do you simply play one on Slashdot? One of your links requires a logon to access. Another says this:

CONCLUSIONS: Heavy marijuana use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects even after a day of supervised abstinence from the drug. However, the question remains open as to whether this impairment is due to a residue of drug in the brain, a withdrawal effect from the drug, or a frank neurotoxic effect of the drug.

Hardly a claim that marijuana destroys the brain.

Chronic, heavy marijuana use is almost certainly bad for you. But casual use doesn't seem to have any significant effects, and use in general is certainly safer than alcohol use.

Re:MJ?

[kalakala]

did you read any of these? none of them says "marijuana destroys your brain" they said "some times" "it's probable" "maybe" and stuff like that the only one who has a real conclusion is the one about using marijuana before 17years

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

...use in general is certainly safer than alcohol use.

If you don't consider the ill effects of spending time in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
Doesn't reality suck, Captain Herbal-life?

Re:MJ?

[jgold03]

"Tobacco will kill you. Drugs will ruin your life. But Alcohol... gets you laid!" - Jon Stewart I give marijuana a few decades before it's legalized.

Re:MJ?

[BLAG-blast]

I notice those links end up at a .gov site, which I think was covered by the "other than US gov" clause.

From one of the links I see:

There is no evidence of irreversible cerebral damage resulting from its use

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chronic, heavy marijuana use is almost certainly bad for you.

DUDE! Chronic is assume stuff!

Re:MJ?

[Ugodown]

It's a consensus that no brain cells are killed from the ingestion of marijuana, it will impare learning, but what do you expect when you're stoned? After a period of time of not using it, IQ levels and intelligence goes right back to normal levels. The only emperical evidence of brain damage comes from an experiment with monkeys where they were administered with 200x the normal amount. Check this out: http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_08_1095.html it has sources

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, while I can appreciate some smokers of the green will say that there is an intelligence there, that you gain new perspectives on things, this is nothing that cannot be achieved by reading an interesting book.

Comparing ganja and book reading or doing a philosophy course is like comparing a weight lifter to a boxer, in some raw abstract test the weight lifter out-performs the boxer. But in every other case, fitness, agility, the boxer kicks his ass (not literally since boxers don't kick, kickboxers kick).

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although there was a billboard put up in Tampa that said 'People smoking marijuana will forget seeing this sign after 20 seconds' or something to that effect.

But I still remember that it was next to I-275, and occasionally gave directions using the billboard as a landmark or starting point.

If they still don't get it, I switch to using the nearest Hooters as the starting point for driving directions.

Re:MJ?

[Husgaard]

I give marijuana a few decades before it's legalized.

I wouldn't bet on it, even though I think it makes sense to legalize marijuana.

Think of the economics, and the number of people earning their income from the current prohibition:

• Prisons and prison personnel, who hold convicted marijuana consumers and dealers.
• Police and police officers, who investigate marijuana "crimes".
• Judges, court personnel and public procutors, who judge marijuana "criminals"
• Marijuana dealers, who can sell their marijuana at a higher price because of the prohibition.

All of these groups will strongly oppose legalization of marijuana, as it threathens their income.

Re:MJ?

[stanleypane]

The question is regarding long-term damage done to the brain. Not short-term. Read your own reports:

CONCLUSIONS: Heavy marijuana use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects even after a day of supervised abstinence from the drug. However, the question remains open as to whether this impairment is due to a residue of drug in the brain, a withdrawal effect from the drug, or a frank neurotoxic effect of the drug. from marijuana

I'd like to see a comparison done against alcohol, also. I am quite certain that marijuana pales in comparison to the detrimental effects brought on from alcohol abuse.

Bottom line, read all the reports you want, it'll never justify the criminalization currently assoicated with marijuana. Christ, half the OTC medications you can buy at the grocery store would do more harm to your brain than marijuana if used on a regular basis.

Re:MJ?

[adam1234]

Judging by the coherence of your reply, it's clear that marijuana has already gotten to your brain.

Re:MJ?

[Ugodown]

This is perhaps the case in the US where a significant portion of the legal system is occupied by marijuana offences. In Canada, however, where there is less marijuana related prosecution, the government stands to gain huge sums from the legalization and taxing of it. But you're right, the main reason why it is still illegal is because of economics. The lobbying done by alchohol, oil and forestry groups is where most of the US's info about the plant comes from. :P

Re:MJ?

[stanleypane]

You have got to be joking, right? Lets start from the top:

- Prisons: Overcrowded as it is. Our local city lock-up in Baltimore doesn't even have the capacity to process possible *murder* suspects within the required 24 hours. Public defenders are getting people out of lockup EVERYDAY -- without charge -- because of this problem.

- Police: The last time a cop caught me with a joint, he told me to throw it out. The cops around here don't have the time to keep arresting kids for smoking pot. They have more serious problems to worry about.

- Judges: Don't know about your town, but in mine it may takes up to 6 months after being arrested before you even see a judge for a formal hearing. I don't think it is because of all the pot smokers.

- Marijuana dealers: I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll leave it alone.

That being said; I don't know if I think marijuana will be legalized in my lifetime, but I wouldn't be surprised if cops started treating it more and more like underaged drinking. Similar to, "OK, start dumpin 'em out, kid."

Re:MJ?

[LnxAddct]

Perhaps you should read up on nerves and plasticity. Where as tobacco technically doesnt mess with your brain, it just causes a whole bunch of physical ailments, weed is kind of the opposite. Weed will slow down mental thoughts, make them blurry (or completely gone), make facts distorted (everything from elementary facts like 2+2 = 4 all the way to your very own name and the laws of physics), and causes many other mental problems. Weed won't kill you, it'll just make you stupid as hell and because of the nature of nerve cells, unless there are some major advances in science, you can't reverse the effects of weed. Now some people enjoy being stupid, so more power to them, but me personally, I'm all about trying to advance humanity. Anyway, smoking weed is one of those dumb things that high school kids do, its barely even smoked at the college level anymore, I can't even remember the last time I saw it.
Regards,
Steve

Re:MJ?

[stanleypane]

Barely smoked at college anymore? Maybe not in your crowd. In my town, kids come from the campuses hoping to buy it from the locals. In droves. I could line people up and sell the shit 24/7 if I wanted.

Re:MJ?

[supmylO]

They can get jobs at the new plants that process and package marijuana. People can become network admins for the new businesses that are profiting off of marijuana, NOT drug dealers. The minute marijuana becomes legalized it becomes safer for everyone. No need to get your pot from a shady dealer, or worry if it's laced or not. Go to the store, you know what you're getting and your money is going to a business and not someone who is a criminal. I think the police will still have jobs if marijuana is legalized, the legalization will just create more jobs. Also, imagine how this will help the fast food industry revenues.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, they aren't sure if it is the withdrawal from the marijuana is the cause, or whether it is the marijuana itself that is the cause, or whether it is because of a residue of the marijuana itself. Hmmm... can you read? Or have you been taking so much of that substance that you find it hard to understand written text?

Re:MJ?

[flink]

You left out the biggest one: seized assets of drug dealers. When someone gets convicted, federal laws allow all their drug-related assets (cars, bank accounts, houses, bling, etc.) to go to the state. This is a huge revenue stream for local law enforcement agencies and is probably the single largest unspoken reason why you won't see legalization anytime soon.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to mod you down, but I'm going to disagree with your attitude and some of your claims.

1st: Yes, there are insights and perspectives which can be gained from smoking which cannot be gained from reading an interesting book. The converse is true. Yes, I speak from experience (of both). If you really think that stoned people don't ever accomplish anything that a sober one wouldn't have eventually gotten around to, then (as the immortal Bill Hicks points out) you oughta go burn your CD's, because all those artists who created all that wonderful music you love... were REAL fuckin' stoned when they did it.

You can present plenty of counterexamples, I'm sure; Mozart, Celine Dion, others. But Celine sucks ass anyway. Most of what I consider good from the last 40 years or so was strongly influenced by some sort of intoxicant.

2nd: yes, there are elements of the population for whom MJ exacerbates or causes negative mental health effects. There are also people for whom the opposite is true. I know several.

3rd: libertarian thing. Yes, I should be able to smoke pot if I want. Your argument that it isn't a completely positive experience for every single person who tries it, or that it's not a big deal, simply doesn't trump the fact that there isn't any good reason to make it universally illegal, and many for making it legal. My personal liberty is just one of the latter.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should all spend all day stoned out of our minds. I certainly don't think going to work baked is any more appropriate than going to work drunk, or coked up, or schizo from going 3 days without sleep. From a recreational point of view, though, pot is certainly no worse or more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Give me moderation in all things, including moderation. Hear me, mods?

4th: You prefer your comedy faster and more subtle. Good for you. Glad you enjoy it that way. Which part of that means that I shouldn't be allowed to get baked and watch Scooby Doo, and think it's funny? Oh, yeah - none. Your taste in comedy is irrelevant. It certainly isn't a suitable basis for deciding whether or not pot should be legalized.

5th: I think you got the "angsty ex-smoker part" exactly right. Sorry it didn't work out for you. That's not sufficient reason to deny the rest of us. Many people have plenty of perfectly positive experiences with pot, without suffering harm to their lives or pocketbooks. I know more people who've damaged their lives with gambling than with cannabis.

Best part is that the mental effects are temporary. Sure, you get a little less nimble mentally - so what? It's also fun, there ARE enhancements to creativity and insight, and next day there aren't any ill effects. Sounds damn near perfect to me.

Your attitude seems to boil down to, "I tried it, I couldn't control myself, and so it's lame and useless. Anyone who says different must be stupid or stoned". Oh, and "middle class". Fuck you, too.

And yes, I've taken philosophy courses. They were boring. The people who DID enjoy those classes were, almost every one of them, obnoxious self-centered pricks who thought taking a philosophy course made them insightful and intellectual, and yet weren't any smarter than me (yes, I can back that up). To paraphrase: Philosophy majors will probably mod me down for this "he's an angsty anti-intellectual". But you know I am right. Fuck em if they can't take a joke.

There's plenty of room for a rational policy on marijuana use. There's no good reason to make it universally illegal (unless you're William Randolph Hearst and have financial incentive for criminalizing it), and decriminalization really would solve a lot of problems (crime reduction being among the more obvious). The fact that there are other problems is irrelevant, too - we can work to solve more than one at a time.

In short, sir, you present no compelling arguments AT ALL that we should abandon the efforts to decriminalize marijuana, but instead present only self-centered rationalizations and insults. If the issue of marijuana's legality is so irrelevant, then why don't you ignore this whole story and SHUT THE FUCK UP about it?

Oh, and have a nice day.

Re:MJ?

[jgold03]

Also, imagine how this will help the fast food industry revenues.

haha. I read that as I was taking a drink, and sprayed my keyboard.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You did an amazing job of missing the ones that are actually in a position to influence the law :).

• The tobacco industry, who cannot simply retool their industry for marijuana because marijuana is easily and cheaply grown and prepared for personal consumption, unlike tobacco.
  
• The liquor industry, for much the same reasons as the tobacco industry.
  
• the government, at both the federal and state level, as the billions in tax revenue from the two aforementioned industries would disappear overnight if people were to grow marijuana for untaxed private use.

Re:MJ?

[Metapsyborg]

libertarian and "legalise it to stop the criminal elements" arguments considered, it might well be better off legal... but it's hardly the pressing issue of our times. There are many other unfair and unjust laws and relations of power etc. that abound. That someone would care enough about MJ to make it their first political priority is evidence of how far they have fallen. It's lame, it steals a certain edge/quickness from your mind (much more than it's supposed "benefits" - do a philosophy course and tell me which one "expanded your mind" more).

On the whole it's fucking boring and I wish the middle class whingers would stop complaining in the face of the science that ANY type of smoking is bad for your lungs (I pity the fool who tries to dispute that, yes you can eat it), and that MJ is bad for your intelligence (there is evidence of this), bad for some people's mental health (there is evidence of this) and on the whole there are some convincing arguments that it's bad for society.

While I agree with some of the "facts" you state, I think you completely miss the point. From your arguments and the way you perceive the issue, it is apparent to me that you are a very pragmatic person: "it's bad for you, don't do it."

Just think about what you are throwing out when you say, "many stoners will testify that it lessens mental agility" or "On the whole it's fucking boring and I wish the middle class whingers would stop complaining in the face of the science." You relegate the entire realm of art, sprituality and philosophy (yes philosophy) to some substandard realm because it does not produce anything useful.

Have you considered that the lessening of "mental agility" is exactly the state that spiritual beings the world over attempt to capture - it's called a lucid state, and is the goal of many meditations, including yoga. I know for a fact that if you ask a monk in meditation what 485 X 391 is, they aren't going to spit out the answer instantaneously. Does that make them lesser entities? I don't think so, and I'm willing to wager that they far surpass our petty intellects in many profound ways.

What about all manner of art? Do you think that "mental agility" or even straight-up IQ have anything to do with that? I think you'll find that many artists, both contemporary and historical, have not had enormous IQs or were not even "mentally agile." Many artists are documented as having used drugs, especially in modern arts such as music.

Philosophy is a subject that does not require a genius IQ, it requires an expanisiveness of consciousness that can look at things from a very broad perspective. The true concepts of philosophy - realism (materialism) vs idealism vs dualism, teleology, morality - these things require, above all, a willingness to release yourself from the daily understanding of reality and look at human existance in a much more grandiose fashion.

Where you get the notion that wanting legalized weed is libertarian is beyond me. At this point the issue, ironically, transcends any political system. You could have legal weed in any governmental system, the only reason it's illegal in ours (usian) is because of social factors.

As for your own experiences with the drug, let me give you mine. I've smoked for many years, and I did explore other drugs - shrooms, acid, ecstasy, coke, crack, heroin, 2cb, liquid g, meth, K, and others. I've partied in heaven with 5,000 of my closest friends until the next morning, and I've been drunk and stoned for hours experiencing the deepest spiritual experiences listening to music by myself. Bad experiences? I've had one or two. And now, now I work in an office 40 hrs a week, I am responsible and fulfill my role in society while looking to possibilities for the future and reminiscing about the past. For me it's been a spiritual, beautiful experience that transcends mere words.

I'll leave you with the words of the father of pragmatism himself, william james:

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll note that by 'long-term' this study means, literally, the next 1-2 days. Hell, I can guarantee you that if you down some straight everclear or 151 you'll notice some 'neuropsychological effects' in that same time period :p.

Re:MJ?

[odano]

I think you will find that the majority of people who sell marijuana are not "criminals," they are normally just users of the drug that like to buy in bulk and sell it to offset the costs for themselves. A great deal of the marijuana sold in this country is homegrown nearby where it is sold, so there is hardly a huge smuggling and criminal network behind marijuana. It is often just one big homegrower selling it to a few friends, who further partition it down to a few more dealers, who then sell it to the common people. Although the police make a big deal out of getting the people at the top of the chain, most are hardly criminals at all, just everyday people who are willing to offset the risk of the penalties for the huge financial rewards of growing a plant in their home.

The majority of the "criminals" that the public thinks of related to drugs sell harder drugs for a much bigger profit. The kind of drugs that actually have to be smuggled around and processed in order to get them onto the street.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

- Marijuana dealers: I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll leave it alone.

Drug dealers at least somewhere in the chain have huge jackass potential regardless of the drug because of the money involved. Or maybe you missed this

Re:MJ?

[ozmanjusri]

Weed won't kill you, it'll just make you stupid as hell and because of the nature of nerve cells, unless there are some major advances in science, you can't reverse the effects of weed.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Nicotine does mess with your brain, and is an addictive chemical. On the other hand, THC works by affecting serotonin levels, not by killing brain cells. The effects will wear off as soon as levels return to normal.

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong wrong wrong.

Federal law allows seizure of assets of people suspected of drug crimes.

Huge difference. Suspicion sufficient for asset seizure can be generated by anonymous sources. And heaven help you if you are a landlord and your tenant is caught for a drug crime--they can seize the landlord's property. It's seriously messed up.

Poke around, do some research. What you will find is one of the greatest perversions of the U.S. Constitution to come down the pike ever.

Re:MJ?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

At least in civilized countries law enforcement agencies have very little say in legalization of anything... Something to do with Montesquieu, I heard.

Re:MJ?

[some guy I know]

[links to studies purporting to show that marijuana has detrimental long-term effects on humans.]

Oh, like, wow, man, you are such a downer.
Don't be, like, a such square, OK?
Dude!
Oh, like, hee-hee-hee!
I need a pizza.
Where are the Fritos?
Hee-hee-hee!
What time is it?
Far out!
Shit, I think I hear Dad coming! Crack a window, OK?
Is the pizza here yet?
Hee-hee-hee!
Oh, like, wow, man!
Groovy!

Re:MJ?

[LnxAddct]

When referring to the brain I more or less meant the higher functions of the brain such as thought and motor skills, which to my knowledge is not significantly affected by nicotine, but is severly affected by weed. Also, the effects of weed do *not* completely disappear over time. Like I said, because of nerve plasticity everytime you smoke weed you are making your self more stupid and you're making it permanent to some degree. It's akin in some ways to listening to loud music all of the time. Immediately after removing the headphones for a while, your hearing will get back to expected levels. Over some years of continuously listening to loud music you will lose your hearing or have it significantly impacted (Hearing loss is almost always caused by desensitizing nerves and having the nerves "save" their state through plasticity or some other means, very similar to the brain and weed).
Regards,
Steve

Re:MJ?

[Monty_Lovering]

Having actually done some research for my degree on this, I do think you should have left your opinion where you pulled it from.

Your colon must feel strangely empty...

But what's the point replying to an Anonymous Coward who has decided in advance that anyone disagreeing with them will do so for reasons not related to the actual validity of the claims you make?

Yes, you are right. Now go away. 8-)-~

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you missed this

The guy was a cop-hating nutbar, and the police were there to reposess a truck. It had jack to do with the drugs they also found there. Among other things, he seemed to be running a chop-shop: time for a War on Autos!

Re:MJ?

[gl4ss]

if you're on a 200x high and a monkey...

well.

it just sounds like a good retirement plan, fuck the braincells.

Re:MJ?

[alexhohio]

FYI- In Ohio, which is middle of the road with respect for Mary-Wanna laws, possesion of under an ounce is a Minor Misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine. Any Pair-a-fan-ale-ya is a felony however. (Sometimes, they charge you with a Minor Misdemeanor for the Maywanja, and a felony for the baggie). The only reason i hate Marijuana- People who take half a toke and then start laughing and saying they are hungry, like, your cool man, because you smoked some doobage. If you enjoy it fine, but don't make it part of your image (Did someone say white guy with dreads?)

Re:MJ?

[deimors]

You're confusing pot with hard, expensive drugs.

All of the distributors of marijuana I've happenened to meet are about as well off as the rest of us working crappy day jobs (unless they're selling something either than pot).

Albeit, the growers make a fair living, and the cops have a great time going after them, but that's only a small number of individuals at the top of the hierarchy of things.

Re:MJ?

[CFTM]

You raise some valid points but I honestly believe that the issue isn't that it is bad for you; yes it is bad for you. It will damage your lungs, it can cause dementia if you're in a risk-group, it can be a gateway drug. None of that matters though, because alcohol and tobacco are no different.

In my mind, we [the US, I apologize to all your foreigners on here because I'm being a typical American :)] live in a society that operates on the premise that it is free. We are free to make our own decisions and the consequences of those decisions are our responibility to deal with; this is the attitude that we have towards tobacco and towards alcohol. The government has a right to regulate a substance and tax the hell out of a substance but I do not feel it has a right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm not a fan of Marijuana but I believe I should have the right to legally smoke if I so choose.

Some argue that the government has a responibility to maintain a certain level of order within a society thus has every right to ban certain substance; there is a fundamental flaw in this logic though, human nature trumps everything. Regardless of what the government says, people are going to partake in illicit and dangerous activities. The best thing for a government to do is to regulate as opposed to prohibit...prohibition didn't workin the 20's and it isn't working today. If people want to get fucked up, they are going to do so; in fact I have ancedotal evidence of this phenomona. I went to college in the LA area and I graduated last year; recently my university has been cracking down on drinking on campus. This year, according to people who still go there, there was a lot less drinking on campus but the use of coccaine went up dramatically. People want to have their fun and will have it regardless of what the authorities attempt to do; crack down on one vice and people turn to another...personally I think Marijuana is less damaging than cocaine but maybe I'm in the minority...

Re:MJ?

[CFTM]

Uh maybe it's not used at Drexel but I'd say 70% of the people who went to my school used it at least once in college.

Re:MJ?

[LnxAddct]

Ouch, in the Philadelphia area I hang out with folks from Drexel, Temple, University Of Pennsylvania, PennState, LaSalle, and a few other smaller colleges and out of 50 or 60 people that I'm thinking of just off the top of my head I know about 3 or 4 who are pot heads. I guess percentage wise it's still pretty signifacnt but in highschool damn near everyone did it, I'd guess around 80%. It's true that all of those 50-60 people (except 5 or so) have all at one point smoked pot but hardly anyone does anymore. Maybe its just a dying trend in this area, I actually started having some hope for humanity again though ;)
Regards,
Steve

Re:MJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously know nothing of neuroscience. Of course, neither do I, but I have talked to groups of neuroscientists on this topic on multiple occasions -- over joints.

Re:MJ?

[kennyj449]

There is some merit to this argument, but don't forget that if MJ is legalized, it will (as with tobacco and alcohol) be very heavily taxed. The consumer will likely find comparable pricing to today (dramatically reduced overhead in production may cancel out the tax overhead) but the legalization enables more sales to occur. So, what would be drug company profit instead becomes USA government profit, without the need for risky, expensive seizure.

Re:MJ?

[iminplaya]

- Prisons:...

That's where the private prison industry will take over. In case you haven't noticed, it's a booming enterprise, and a good investment for those without a conscience.

- Police:

Well, of course they're not messing with small time possession. The reasons are obvious.If you were driving your brand new Suburban, it might be a different story, what with RICO and all.

The present situation is the most profitable. Because of the lack of processing needed to use the drug, there would be no middlemen to rake in huge profits like there is with alcohol or tobacco, and would be with other drugs like herion, coke, meth, etc. There would be packagers and re-sellers for the lazy, but that would be a small market. Even without widespread enforcement, prohibition will remain on the books in order to give the authorities the ability to arrest or round up "undesirables". See above link.

Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips? And no, not having to replace worn out passports is does not take priority over privacy and security, most people don't use their passports more than a dozen times a year anyway, I use my debit card every day and the chip is fine, theres no excuse to use RFID.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[geminidomino]

Hell, I use my credit card just about every day and IT'S fine, and its the kind with the strip.

Seriously, how often do they think these people are gonna be swiping these things? A full tour of Europe in a day (not actually stopping to SEE anything) would be what, 30-40 swipes?

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[uberdave]

You have a chip in your debit card? Mine just has a mag strip.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[WillAffleckUW]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips?

Shh. We're not allowed to think in America. It's unpatriotic ...

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, how often do they think these people are gonna be swiping these things? A full tour of Europe in a day (not actually stopping to SEE anything) would be what, 30-40 swipes?

A full tour of Europe would involve at most 2 swipes - one to enter the EU - and one to leave. Travel between France, England, Germany, Spain, and all the rest of Europe involves ZERO uses of one's passport, although you still have to leave it at your hotel when you stay in Paris, so let's say maybe 4 or 5 swipes for a typical vacation if they're overly zealous.

Some days my ATM card gets more use than such a passport would ...

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Speak for yourself, buddy. I had to get more pages added to mine, because over a year I filled out the initial 20 pages. Waiting in huge lines to go in and out of immigration is not fun. If they can reduce the passport-stamping time from 1 minute per person to 15-30 seconds, that's a huge win, as it halves the amount of time you spend in line.

Magstripes are easy to reproduce. Part of the reason they're going to RFID is to put Abdul's E-Z Forged Passport Drive-Thru out of business.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

although you still have to leave it at your hotel when you stay in Paris

Wow...never been to Paris (though I've been in the area in Holland/Belgium/Germany) and that's one major reason not to. My passport doesn't leave my possession ever and it certainly doesn't remain in anyone else's possession for any period of time.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh. Didn't anyone tell you that speaking the truth is unpatriotic too.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[aaarrrgggh]

So did you live in Thailand too? One page used up per month on "visa runs."

Just got new passport to beat the RFID implementation... it seems so goofy to have a thin little 24-page passport again!

I don't believe RFIDs will improve pass-through time at immigration. Usually they spend the time to see how you react to questions more than anything else. Scanning only takes 3 seconds max with machine-readable passports.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Travel between France, England, Germany, Spain, and all the rest of Europe involves ZERO uses of one's passport

Actually, the UK isn't a Schengen country, so you will still need your passport to enter and leave the country (an Identity card of an EU member state is also acceptable, but obviously Americans won't have these).

The same applies if you want to enter most coutries in Eastern Europe. Only Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden are Schengen states.

more information here

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can reduce the passport-stamping time from 1 minute per person to 15-30 seconds, that's a huge win, as it halves the amount of time you spend in line.

That will not happen. If they can reduce the passport-stamping time, they will also reduce the number of lines you can get your passport stamped in. It will still take just as long to get through the line.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[El Pollo Loco]

No, you still need your passport. Trying crossing country lines on a train( I did it in July). They still want your passport. But it's a quick look, and they move on.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be a very new policy, since I did just that last year. I rode a train from Germany to Holland. The next week I rode a train from Holland to Belgium. There wasn't really any indication I had crossed into a new country, it was about as dramatic as taking a train between US states. There was certainly no one wanting my passport for a "quick look" or otherwise.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Daengbo]

I Thailand, it doesn't much matter, because you have to "report" every three months in country and get a passport stamp showing the date that you reported, or face a fine. Even using type "O" and "B" visas (not needing normal visa runs), I filled twenty pages in about three years. Digusting. Now I'm on 48 pages and about full at 5 1/2 years.

I would just like some countries to get smaller visas and smaller stamps, so that those of us who travel through Asia often can keep our passports for more than a couple of years.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Thailand? Hell no. Too many loser whoremonger foreigners there.

I was going back and forth between the factory in China and my place in Japan. Half a page for the Japanese re-entry permit (my visa status didn't qualify for multiple-reentry, I got real used to the fastest way to reach the garbage incinerator in Shinagawa), and a full page for the four entry/exit stamps. Plus a full page whenever my Chinese visa needed renewing.

I really should get a new passport before the RFID thing comes along, but my current one is so nicely battered, it's tough to give it up.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[IWannaBeAnAC]

They wanted to see your identity card. If you are not a citizen of an EU country that has identity cards, then (and only then) you must show your passport.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips?

Several reasons:

• Increased security. The main reason for going to a chip of some sort is to both make the passports harder to forge and to add biometrics in order to better authenticate the holder. Biometric templates are often large, and they also need to be cryptographically signed by the issuer. That means that tens of kilobytes of data storage are required. Note that some magnetic and optical stripes could partially fulfill this requirement, but aren't as secure as a chip.
• Reliability/Durability. A contact-type chip is problematic for a passport because of the booklet form factor. Where do you put the contact plate? At the very least you'd have to make part of the booklet out of rigid plastic so that the contact plate would slot into the right place. Non-standard readers would have to be designed and built, also. Existing smart card readers expect a card form factor, obviously.
• Convenience. Contactless is quicker and easier to use. Not much, but enough to matter when you're trying to move large numbers of people through quickly. The immigration agent does not have to spend time putting the correct corner of the passport into the correct location in the correct way.
• Speed. Strange as it may seem, it's a fact that off-the-shelf RF technology achieves *much* higher data rates than contact smart card technology. Contact chips communicate at between 9.9bps and 115kbps, contactless chips talk at either 400kbps or 800kbps. In practice, contact chips rarely run at over 9.9kbps, which means that data moves at less then 1KBps. It's expected that many of these passports will store 20-40KB of data, so the high data rate will be important.

The first plan by the state dept. was terrible; they took absolutely no precautions to protect the passport holder's privacy. I wrote to them to complain. The latest announcement, however, shows that they have listened and fixed all of the problems.

They've made three changes to the plans:

1. The chip will not divulge any data without an appropriate cryptographic authentication. The key used to perform the authentication is derived from data printed inside the passport.
2. All communications with the chip will be encrypted using a session key so that no one can eavesdrop when the passport is being read.
3. The passport cover will incorporate RF shielding, so that when the passport is closed the chip cannot be activated. This is to prevent an attacker from being able to identify who is carrying a passport by scanning them, as well as a few more difficult attacks.

With these changes, there are no additional security risk as long as passport holders are careful to keep their passports closed when not being checked.

The other concern that will no doubt be raised by some slashdotters is whether or not someone who gets hold of your passport can get your biometric data. They can, but it doesn't do any good. The data stored is in the form of a pre-processed template, not an image. It's not possible to reconstruct the original fingerprint/iris/whatever image because the template construction process discards data. It is possible to construct a *different* image which will match when compared to the template, but the constructed image will not really look like the person's biometric.

That said, I think there are legitimate privacy arguments against the use of biometrics. The contactless smart card chip, however, poses no security risks to the passport holder, and offers improves security and convenience -- not for the holder, but for the government who issued the passport.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[aaarrrgggh]

About the same... 48 pages in 5 years. What ever happened to the big passports?

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Target smart card VISA, Amex blue, gift cards from any one of a number of merchants... yeah, a debit card with a chip is quite possible.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[dspacemonkey]

Doesn't
'The chip will not divulge any data without an appropriate cryptographic authentication. The key used to perform the authentication is derived from data printed inside the passport.'
completely bugger up
'Contactless is quicker and easier to use. Not much, but enough to matter when you're trying to move large numbers of people through quickly. The immigration agent does not have to spend time putting the correct corner of the passport into the correct location in the correct way.'?

You're going to have to open up the passport to find said key.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[stephenbooth]

Pretty much every credit, debit or charge card in the UK now has a chip as well as the mag strip (for those places that haven't moved to chip and pin authentication). Even some of the store loyalty cards use a chip instead of a mag strip.

Stephen

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[DaveHowe]

Or how about just NOT using RFID in passports and instead using tried and tested chips or strips?

• There are lots of good reasons for not using barcodes or magnetic strips; for example
• Chips have much, much higher storage capacity
• Chips can have onboard processing ability - so could be updated with a digital passport stamp to show what countries have been visited lately, or upload changes to the passport without having to send in and obtain a new one.
• Passwords can be short enough the customs officer can manually type it from the printed barcode if he can't get it to read; retyping several K of biometric info would be awkward.
• Once *one* station has acquired the passphrase, it can be passed digitally to other stations along the chain - so it is feasible to have a couple of minimum-wage employees whose only job is to scan the barcode on a passport, and that code can then be used further downstream without having to be rescanned.
• getting a clean read from a large 2D barcode is a major pain - on some shipping labels it can take several minutes. plain old barcodes are readable using children's toys, reliably and with a damaged/dirty bar to scan; similar restrictions apply to dense magnetic strips.

Problem is - this solves one problem, but moves it downstream; before, the RFIDs could be read by anyone, at any time; now they have to arrange for the barcode "passphrase" to be available too (which will of course happen wherever the RFID is being legitimately accessed - so imagine someone using a RFID-Rifle aimed at (say) a hotel inprocessing desk, and picking up both the transmissions from the desk (thus giving them the code) but also the reply (thus giving them the data entirely passively, without a tracable query transmission). The contactless aspect of the chip is another matter though. contact style chips are now in common use (credit cards, employee cards, tv decoder cards...) and there would be nothing stopping the digital aspect of the card being a contact chip placed an inch or so from the edge of the data page (which would then have to be in addition the back cover, for ease of use), and read by sliding that entire page into a reader, which then displays a scanned image of the data page, the digital data, and any recommendation the computer system makes about that particular user. I don't want a passport check to be a case of waving a passport (or a repeater disguised as a passport) at a bored custom official, I want one customs officer to be looking at the one passport the person in front of them just handed over.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[makomk]

It is possible to construct a *different* image which will match when compared to the template, but the constructed image will not really look like the person's biometric.

Which, presumably, will be enough to validate you fingerprint against the passport, bringing you one step closer to being able to use a stolen passport.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[timster]

Isn't the infamous "worst case" to live in Japan, work in China, have a British wife, and eat American food? Sounds like you're at least halfway there.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

'1 inch' wireless technology is never 1 inch, thats akin to assuming the titanic is unsinkable, hell even contact-based chips could theoretically be accessed by some complex induction in the future but thats pretty much the best we can do. Even if it was 1 inch thats still enough to brush past someone with a reader.

This proposed system of 'scanning' the passport to get the key and then wirelessly linking is just insane, they're just using this technology because contractors told them it was 'hot' and showed them a powerpoint slide - we all know how these things work.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

Sounds like an improvement but its simply shocking that they screwed this up so bad the first time. Although i disagree with biometrics - a photo is acceptable but iris and finger prints don't have me convinced. There are only two ways to steal a finger-print: lift it off a table/cup, or cut someones finger off, i guarantee both of those will become more common in the near future, same with eyes, and when high enough resolution imaging becomes a reality you'll be able to steal that with ease too (not to mention the minority report method..) The other issue is the opposite of stealing: destroying someones ability to identify themselves (maybe to stop them leaving the country?) i'll leave out the grisly scenarios. In short i just don't think we have such a problem that we need to replace current passports - 'terrorists' are generally not stupid enough to enter illegally or be on wanted lists, these passports WILL be faked its just a matter of time and when it happens there will be a delay before people accept that the system is broken. Current anti-forgery techniques in passports seem to work - faking a real object is often much harder than computer data. And lastly, passports already have computer-readable data at the bottom!

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

magstripes yes, but smart-cards (i chips with metal contacts) no. RFID is basically taking a smart-card and getting rid of the contacts for no reason. I can stick a card in a reader in a second, and by what they're saying here, you'll need to scan your passport to read the code on the page and then it will talk wirelessly, we all know how reliable image scanning is, this is just over the top.

no matter what sort of encryption or pass-key system you use or how 'short range' it is: RFID is inherently less secure than contact-chips just like guns are inherently less safe than night-sticks. (thats not bait for a gun flame)

I think they need to just issue a second type of passport with a thick wad of pages for frequent travellers, but for most people its just a few times a year.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[t_allardyce]

I swipe/insert some sort of card probably about 10 times on an average day out. There are these stupid wireless cards on the train (optional) but that requires getting your wallet out and wiping it over a pad which lets face it is hardly a great difference to opening your wallet and taking something out.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

Not really. I expect the agent will have to flip the passport open and drop it face down on a flat optical scanner. The scanner can read the text regardless of the orientation. Putting it on the optical scanner also brings it within range of the contactless chip reader, which will transfer the full contents of the chip in a few seconds. Very quick and convenient. Not as convenient as not having to open the passport, but that was never going to happen anyway. The agent will open it to look at your picture and then (sometimes) to place a stamp in the booklet.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

Which, presumably, will be enough to validate you fingerprint against the passport, bringing you one step closer to being able to use a stolen passport.

Right, as long as the agent doesn't notice that you're wearing a gummy finger. And a mask. The passport holder's photo is also stored on the chip to be displayed on the agent's screen. I think the expectation is that long-term, multiple biometrics will be incorporated. You'll have to place your finger on a scanner while looking into a camera that will perform face recognition and iris matching. The agent will also be comparing your face (people are far better at it than computers), as well as looking for gummy fingers, iris-altering contacts (I don't know if those would be detectable) and masks.

Nothing is perfect, of course, but this system makes using someone else's passport very hard. Vastly harder than it is now.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

There are only two ways to steal a finger-print: lift it off a table/cup, or cut someones finger off, i guarantee both of those will become more common in the near future, same with eyes,

While cut-off body parts is a concern for other uses of biometrics, I don't think they're really an issue here, because passport verification is attended. The immigration agent would have to be pretty stupid to fail to notice when you whip a dead finger or eyeball out of your pocket and place it on the scanner. In reality, you'd have to cut just the skin off the finger and then place that over yours. It's actually easier to make a gummy finger.

Further, most biometric sensors have some "liveness" detection built in, and they're incorporating more all the time. Nothing is perfect, of course, but they do make the attacker's job harder, which is the goal. Iris scanning technology has a built-in advantage here, because a dead eye changes its shape and degrades very quickly. Retina scanning is even better that way; once the blood vessels are deflated there's nothing to scan. But retina scanning is annoying to use.

The other issue is the opposite of stealing: destroying someones ability to identify themselves (maybe to stop them leaving the country?)

Wouldn't work. Keep in mind that there will be many people who simply don't have fingers, eyes, etc., to use to authenticate themselves. Plus there's always the possibility of false negatives (perhaps due to poor enrollment), broken chips, etc., so there will always have to be an "exception process" to deal with such things. Cutting off someone's fingers and removing their eyes would only delay them from leaving, not stop them. It would be easier and more effective to kidnap them and keep them lockded up. The criminal penalties would be lighter, too, in case you got caught.

Current anti-forgery techniques in passports seem to work.

Hehehe. Current techniques work? Get an experienced immigration official drunk and listen to the stories.

faking a real object is often much harder than computer data

This is most definitely not true when the data in question is digitally signed. A signature with a 2048-bit key that is generated inside and never leaves a hardware crypto coprocessor that is itself under very high physical security is actually harder to forge than anything else humans know how to make.

Barring major cryptanalytic breakthroughs, of course.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[babyrat]

2. All communications with the chip will be encrypted using a session key so that no one can eavesdrop when the passport is being read.

I think you meant to say it is encrypted with a session key so that eavesdropping will be more difficult, at least with current technology.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[WillAffleckUW]

No, you still need your passport. Trying crossing country lines on a train( I did it in July). They still want your passport. But it's a quick look, and they move on.

My current passports are all machine-readable.

They don't swipe it, they just look at it.

If i had an ID card from Spain, they'd just look at it.

You can live in Fear if you want to, but I'm not going along.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[swillden]

I think you meant to say it is encrypted with a session key so that eavesdropping will be more difficult, at least with current technology.

Well, a mathematician would call it "difficult", but mathematicians routinely refer to long-unsolved and perhaps insoluble problems as "hard". In practice, without the key material, it's impossible. Unless you know something about current ciphers that is not widely known?

To what are you referring?

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[juan2074]

If you enter through Italy, they may not even look at your passport.

I went from there to Turkey (where my passport was scanned twice on entry and another two times when I left). On arrival back in Italy, I think they read the cover of my passport that time.

The only person who checked my passport when I left from Spain was the airline ticket agent.

On other trips, my passport was checked (but not stamped) when crossing in and out of the Czech Republic, but that was eight years ago.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[iminplaya]

...theres no excuse to use RFID.

Of course there is!

1)???
2)???
3)Profit!

Whoever makes these things wil be the next Halliburton...if they haven't invested in it already.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[DNS-and-BIND]

No, you slashdot moron. Heaven is a Japanese wife, Chinese food, a British salary and an American house. Hell is a Japanese house, Chinese salary, British food and an American wife.

Re:Yes a novel solution...

[siriuskase]

My Target Smart card expires in May so I just got a replacement in the mail. Looks the same, except that it doesn't have the chip. I assume they quit with whatever it was they were trying to do with it.

Mac Drivers!!!!eleven!!!1!!

[BandwidthHog]

This page linked from the blog entry has Mac OS X downloads ($12 shareware) for both the original Intel scope and the new QX5. I have neither, so can't test it, but it's suddenly an appealing way to blow a hundred bucks!

They list the capabilities thusly:

miXscope QX5 is a Mac OS X application written specifically for the USB QX5 Computer Microscope. The software allows you to capture images, create time-lapse movies, add a text comment, add a time stamp, add an image overlay, make a measurement, apply realtime frame averaging, or add a special effect.

Of course, I just spotted the fact that Digital Blue are also the fine folks who brought us the American Idol Digital Camcorder, so that does temper my enthusiasm for handing them cash just a wee bit. But still...

Privacy at death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I can't say I'd care once I'm dead.

Re:Privacy at death?

[GloomE]

Others with whom you've corresponded may do tho'.

Re:Privacy at death?

[fallendove]

Would you care whether or not anyone came to your funeral? After all, you're dead.

The PCP Theorem

[cpeikert]

The PCP theorem is a beautiful piece of computer science and mathematics. What's it good for? Well, for starters:

• One can use it to show that not only are some problems very hard to get exact answers to, they are very hard to even get approximate answers to! In the most extreme case, it's hard to tell whether a graph has an enormous clique (taking up almost all the vertices), or just a very small one.
• PCPs can be used to build very low-communication zero-knowledge proofs. So you can prove a mathematical statement to someone, using much less communication than it takes to even write down that statement, and giving her no idea why the statement is true, even though she will be absolutely convinced that it really is true!
• PCPs can also be used to write down a (long) proof of a mathematical theorem, so that to check the theorem only requires you to look in a few random places. If the theorem is false, you'll detect it, otherwise you'll be convinced that it's true. It's as if there was a huge book of mathematics, and you opened to a random page, read a few characters, and said, "yep, it's definitely all true."

In short: amazing!

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all very interesting. But honestly I don't really understand or grasp what you're saying. I can study math, get perfect or near perfect scores on exams... but I guess I'm really stupid. Just another know-nothing dork with nothing to do. Smile and nod. I don't really know the significance of what it means, or why I should care, much less why I should be excited or inclined to look into it further. Despite your efforts to explain it in non-technical, accessible terms.

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Nitish]

Well, you don't need to feel bad about not understanding the PCP theorem. It's a difficult concept to grasp. For example, you could be an extremely intelligent and motivated high school student who can't "get it" even if you try, because you just haven't studied all the pre-requisite material you need. Though perhaps you can't go to the PCP theorem from where you are now, you might be able to understand it once you have all the background knowledge.

The original poster described the PCP theorem well, but it might not make a lot of sense to people who haven't studied algorithms or complexity theory. This might help:
A lot of problems people want to solve in practice are "optimization" problems. That is, given a problem, we want to find the optimum (minimum or maximum, as the case may be) solution. For example, if you have to travel to several cities, you might want to know the cost of the cheapest tour that visits all of them. Or you might want to know what the most efficient way of scheduling jobs on a machine is. These (and several other) problems, are what we call NP-Hard. That has a technical meaning, but in short, it takes a *really* long time (far more than is practical) to compute the best solutions for these problems. And so if you wanted a solution, instead of spending forever to find the best tour, you might settle for a tour that cost only 1% more, if you could find it quickly. Algorithms which do this are called approximation algorithms; they don't always find the best solution, but they approximate it - the solution they find is nearly as good... perhaps just a little more expensive or less inefficient.

Approximation algorithms are useful because people are often satisfied with solutions that are "good enough", even if not perfect. So for a hard problem, it's worth spending time trying to find a good approximate solution.

Enter the PCP theorem! You can use it to show that some problems can't even be approximately solved in a reasonable amount of time, and that's what the original poster was talking about.

Besides this, the theorem is important and loved because not only is it useful, it's non-obvious and beautiful

Re:The PCP Theorem

[taniwha]

I think what s/he's saying is that with PCP your prof only has to ask you a few random questions so see if you really know the stuff rather than give you lots of exams :-)

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, somebody patent it!

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Yep, mathematics is so fast that professionals will say the EXACT same thing as the grandparent post when they look at their peers' work.

Mathematician A: I have a proof for blab blah blah
Mathematician B: I don't get it!

That's because math is so vast and people specialize in small areas. This PCP theorem result is important because it applies to a lot of things, but even those studying things it applies to might not necessarily understand it without a lot of work.

Re:The PCP Theorem

[pipingguy]

Enter the PCP theorem! You can use it to show that some problems can't even be approximately solved in a reasonable amount of time, and that's what the original poster was talking about.

Reality intrudes, annoyingly:

I can approximately estimate when I'll arrive at the office tomorrow, but I have no idea of when the system I am designing will be completed by the welders or if the ambient temperature will be suitable for welding, or if..

Oh, wait, you were talking about theoretical stuff.

Re:The PCP Theorem

[po8]

...are what we call NP-Hard. That has a technical meaning, but in short, it takes a *really* long time (far more than is practical) to compute the best solutions for these problems.

...unless P=NP. Almost no one thinks P=NP is true, but no one has yet proven it false.

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Pseudonym]

It gets worse than patents...

When Adi Shamir (the "S" of "RSA") discovered zero-knowledge proof systems, the US millitary tried to suppress all of his work on it, including all copies of the journal in which he published. Needless to say, the mathematical establishment was unhappy with this. They relented only when they realised that they couldn't do it to an Israeli citizen.

Re:The PCP Theorem

[cpeikert]

When Adi Shamir (the "S" of "RSA") discovered zero-knowledge proof systems, the US millitary tried to suppress all of his work on it

Do you have any evidence for this? Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff discovered zero-knowledge proof systems. And while it took awhile for their paper to be published, it wasn't due to censorship -- it was because they had trouble convincing anybody that these would be of any use.

I think parent is a troll...

Re:The PCP Theorem

[Pseudonym]

On further investigation, you're right that Shamir didn't discover ZKPs. What he did write was a paper which introduced a ZKP system which was suitable for making unforgeable identity cards.

Since you were after evidence, the best I could find was this column from the Journal of Algorithms in 1988. It notes that "the US Army briefly tried to classify" the paper, citing a New York Times article from 1987 by James Gleick. Sorry, I don't have anything which has more of the story than that. (I originally read a fuller account it in a Martin Gardner article from Scientific American 15 odd years ago.)

new QX5 not supported by Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

- i emailed the QX5 folks, but recv'd a reply that only a Mac OS X client would be *soon* available...

- so much for Linux support? :-(

Re:new QX5 not supported by Linux?

[tsalaroth]

I bet there will be a FreeBSD version, first..

also....

[cpeikert]

By the way, the original proof of the PCP theorem wasn't just due to Sanjeev Arora. It spanned a long sequence of works, and a ton of people were involved in proving it.... more than I can remember or list here.

The Passport Password

[WillAffleckUW]

will most likely be easily guessed and posted at most border security offices in a way that even a slightly curious person could find it out with social engineering.

And will be available for $10 in any city or small town in Asia and the Middle East within five days.

Time to buy a farraday cage for your passport ...

Re:The Passport Password

[BandwidthHog]

Time to buy a farraday cage for your passport...

Gives new meaning to the old expression "Keep it under your [tinfoil] hat."

Re:The Passport Password

[wcdw]

Next time, try READING the article before posting.

To obtain the key, a passport officer would need to physically scan the machine-readable text that's printed on the passport page beneath the photo...

Idiot.

Re:The Passport Password

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is that said idiot doesn't realise that each passport would have a *different* password.

He seems to be of the opinion that every passport would have the same password. And he probably works in the IT industry, which is a scary thought.

Re:The Passport Password

[wcdw]

Yes, because said idiot did not READ the article before posting. Which part of that didn't you understand?

Re:The Passport Password

[porcupine8]

I think... Maybe... It might have been a joke.

Re:The Passport Password

[marianne1017]

I'm awaiting with baited breath EFF's analysis, but I'm willing to bet this password protection is about as good your average password prompt on a web page. Will deflect your Mom. Will not deflect someone bent on breaking it. I agree that the question is, what problem is being solved here? Surprising to me that you young people (under 25 :-)) (Ok, under 44) don't have a problem with it. You need to watch more old movies. If the US gov't wanted to protect privacy, it could encrypt the data. But it doesn't want to "share our encryption technology" with those rogue states. (I admit, encrypting/decrypting might require more power but ... in the scenario the State Dept describes, power would hardly be a concern. And the chips will be 64KB so data size is also not a factor.)

Story Arcs?

[ari_j]

Yeah, there have been a few legitimate arcs, I guess. But when you show the same episode every Saturday for a month, it's called "reruns," not an "arc." ;-D

Re:Story Arcs?

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you show the same episode every Saturday for a month, it's called "reruns,"...

Over here we call them "dupes".

I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Ciderx]

...after my death.

If you knew you were going to die soon, I'd have a sent mail list which would be great and populated with loads of fake emails that said things like:

"Look, Adriana. I don't care how many other Victoria's Secrets models you're going to bring, I'm NOT going to sleep with you. And, BTW, what you suggested is (a) a waste of whipped cream and (b) isn't that a rather large vegetable for something like that?"

and, of course

"Oh, I figured out how to cure cancer and the key to world peace. I'll email you in a few days with the details..."

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[antifoidulus]

What about the people you exchanged email with? Email is not like a journal, there are at least 2 parties involved and the privacy of those people is equally as important of the privacy of the soldier. My solution would be that if the people with whom the deceased communicated with should decide whether or not they want to forward the email on to the parents.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[HD Webdev]

If you knew you were going to die soon, I'd have a sent mail list which would be great and populated with loads of fake emails that said things like:

Put a EULA in there as well. It works for shrinkwrapped products: "Anyone who obtained a court order to violate my privacy and reads my personal email agrees to pay $10,000 USD per email to PETA".

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[RedWizzard]

Are you also suggesting that any paper letters the soldier received should be destroyed?

This seems pretty simple to me: the emails, like everything else the soldier owned is part of his estate, which is now owned by his parents. If he didn't want them to inherit his email account, he should have said so, or at least deleted any email he didn't want them to see.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[NanoGator]

"Look, Adriana. I don't care how many other Victoria's Secrets models you're going to bring, I'm NOT going to sleep with you."

Too bad your credibility would take a hit when over 3,000 emails titled "Slashdot] Reply to ..." came up.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Backspin]

IANTOP (original poster). However...

Are you also suggesting that any paper letters the soldier received should be destroyed?

No. But neither could the parents insist that any paper letters that the soldier sent to others be given to the them. Aside from the obvious -- the recipient may simply say no or refuse to acknowledge that such a letter even exists, or even claim that it was destroyed -- the parents wouldn't necessarily know that a particular letter was ever sent. Ditto for e-mail, if there is no copy in "Sent" or equivalent.

This seems pretty simple to me: the emails, like everything else the soldier owned is part of his estate, which is now owned by his parents. If he didn't want them to inherit his email account, he should have said so, or at least deleted any email he didn't want them to see.

Perhaps he did; probably not, though. How many have the foresight to destroy such items, electronic or otherwise? But you're right; these things are a part of his estate, and therefore now belong to his parents.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[RedWizzard]

No. But neither could the parents insist that any paper letters that the soldier sent to others be given to the them. Aside from the obvious -- the recipient may simply say no or refuse to acknowledge that such a letter even exists, or even claim that it was destroyed -- the parents wouldn't necessarily know that a particular letter was ever sent. Ditto for e-mail, if there is no copy in "Sent" or equivalent.

I agree with that, but they're not asking for copies from recipients. They're asking for the copy the soldier made himself (or at least the copy the system automatically made for him) a.k.a the "sent" folder. It's possible it doesn't exist - maybe the soldier deleted the "sent" folder's contents. But that seems unlikely.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Backspin]

I agree with that, but they're not asking for copies from recipients. They're asking for the copy the soldier made himself (or at least the copy the system automatically made for him) a.k.a the "sent" folder. It's possible it doesn't exist - maybe the soldier deleted the "sent" folder's contents. But that seems unlikely.

I guess if it was still in the "sent" folder, then they wouldn't have to ask for it, right? Assuming they got access to the account and not just hard copies. (although I find the latter hard to believe)

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people you exchanged email with?

I'm dead, what do I care?

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[RedWizzard]

I think that's the whole story, basically: the courts said they could have his emails, Yahoo complied, but they've only delivered the "inbox" and not the "sent" folder. Of course the article isn't detailed enough to be sure that I have an accurate idea of the situation, but that's what it sounds like.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[evilviper]

Email is sent in clear-text over public networks. If you expect e-mail to have ANY privacy, you're crazy. If you want e-mail to be private, you MUST encrypt it with PGP, SKEY or something similar.

When they sent their e-mails without encrypting them, they had already decided privacy wasn't at all important.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[PsiPsiStar]

Of you could just stick with the classics. Mail a copy of Fermat's theorum and include the just the note "Fantastic proof..."

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[PsiPsiStar]

There's a difference between your government reading your email and your neighibor doing it.

People will gladly tell strangers things that they would never tell close friends.

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[Anonymous Coward]

PETA???

Ewww....

Re:I like the idea of Emails being made public

[evilviper]

We aren't talking about just the government... We are talking about any idiot with a packet sniffer.

E-mail has no protections, and there are an incredibly large number of people with the ability to intercept any single e-mail you may send.

E-mail has NO privacy at all. Not from the government, not from friends, enemies, strangers, etc.

I knew he'd Chicken Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched that story for 2 days, and knew that as soon as Opera got close, he'd pose for some pictures and that'd be the end of that.

I especially liked the "Stop for Hot Chocolate" spin.

I want to say Pansy, but I won't.

Re:I knew he'd Chicken Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to say Pansy, but I won't.

But you just did. Hmmm, what should I say to you? I would say stupid idiot, or ugly troll, or dogs breath, but I won't. I'll just say period.

isn't that kinda pointless?

[oneishy]

So, if it has to read "machine readable data" from in the passport before it can "unlock" the data on the rfid chip, what is the point?

Why not just read the machine readable data like they do now and skip all the security / privacy implications of RFID tags that might be secure now, and might be insecure tomorrow.

Re:isn't that kinda pointless?

[minion]

So, if it has to read "machine readable data" from in the passport before it can "unlock" the data on the rfid chip, what is the point?

Why not just read the machine readable data like they do now and skip all the security / privacy implications of RFID tags that might be secure now, and might be insecure tomorrow.

I'm sorry, you still don't know why the government wants a passport that is readable from a distance?

Re:isn't that kinda pointless?

[rtz]

Because the RFID chip will contain much more information (biometric data etc) than could practically be stored in OCR form or transferered over a half bent, oxidized copper contact.

I guess I don't get what the advantage of RFID is.

[Future Man 3000]

I thought the point was to be able to "read" the card without having to dig it out. But if you have to dig it out to read a key, the technology doesn't buy you anything.

It would help if they explained what the advantages of using RFID in cards would be -- i.e., what do they expect to do with it. I think it'd be helpful to make sure you pass through various checkpoints instead of loitering or sneaking around them, but is it possible if you have to authenticate access to the card?

And by "this morning," they mean a few days ago

[Noksagt]

The National Business review reported the sea recue on the 26th.

Opera swim

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like the whole thing was a farce. The CEO never had any intention of swimming anywhere.

If he had, I'd be using Opera now, but NO LONGER.

Limited value in IQ tests.

[jellomizer]

IQ tests are only relevant when someone scores well below average or Well above average. These difference in points like the rise you get when listening to Mozart or the drop you get from Reading emails, while may be statically significant in reality means very little. A person with an IQ of 95 vs. a Person with an IQ of 130 Will not see any difference ones ability to learn. And other factors such as the ability to pay more attention during classes or better memory, better self organization, will to learn the information, ability to manage distractions. Sure people with low IQs have to work very hard to learn information and people with High IQ learn information very quickly. But small difference doesn't really prove anything.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[Xtifr]

> Sure people with low IQs have to work very hard to learn information and people with High IQ learn information very quickly.

Actually, people with low IQs have to work very hard to pass tests, and people with high IQs can pass tests very quickly. There is probably some correlation between the ability to learn and the ability to pass tests, but it is certainly not 100% - although how much less is a controversial topic.

Of course, this only serves to emphasize your main point even more strongly.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[Anonymous Coward]

130-95=35. The standard deviation for IQ is 15. So the difference is more than two standard deviations. That is a pretty substantial difference! The person with a 130 is in the top 20% of the population while the person with a 95 is in the bottom half.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[porcupine8]

Actually, 95 to 130 is quite a big difference in how people learn. People with IQs of 130 don't just learn faster, they deal better with abstraction and complexity. Adults with an IQ of 130 are generally able to gather and synthesize information independently, while people with an IQ of 95 generally need more hands-on, concrete instruction.

Now, 95 to 110, not such a huge difference. Most studies that say things lower or raise IQ are only dealing with a few points, which no, those don't make a difference. The margin of error is about +- 3-5 points anyhow.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[porcupine8]

Actually, 130 is the top 3%. Which just emphasizes your point.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[fafalone]

And just what kind of learning are you referring to? Sophiscated symbolic learning, inferential learning, and overall conceptual learning are very different from dry fact learning, and there is a *vast* difference between below average (95) and gifted (130) in their ability to do higher learning. This is generally at the very highest levels of skill; IQ is more a measure of potential mental capability. There's some overlap with harder work on something leading to more skills than high IQ and slacking, but when pushed to the limits the 130 IQ can go much farther than the 95 IQ. Also consider that a person with a 130 IQ is 2 full standard deviations above the mean, with their mental ability in the top 97th percentile of the population, if you're claiming someone in the 37th percentile has the same ability to learn... I'd be highly suspect of your coursework in psychology.
35 points is a HUGE difference. Now, a few points all within one standard deviation is a small difference. But a few points between scores both more than 3 standard deviations is also a huge difference. I really get tired of people thinking IQ tests are jokes, there's extensive research into it, tons and tons of science going into making each professional test. IQ is a very scientifically sound concept, if you doubt this you need to study psychology some more (as in, college courses, not mainstream therapy-only junk).

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[porcupine8]

The sad thing is, even a lot of college courses get it wrong.

I'm getting a master's in gifted ed. I've learned a LOT about IQ in the past couple of years. Right now I'm in a crappy low-level psychoeducational assessment class that I just need to graduate, and yesterday I had to sit through an awful lecture on IQ tests. It was obvious that I'd read more of the research than this (adjunct) professor has. I would go into all the half-truths and myths she spouted, but it'll just piss me off again.

And this is a GRADUATE program, at a fairly good school of ed (not top 10, but top 50 - and one of the best in gifted ed in the country, which is the whole reason I'm there). I know there are a lot of faculty there who could get it right (hell, one has even written IQ tests), but they were not teaching this class. Bah.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[pipingguy]

Is there a study somewhere indicating where typical, 35-40 year-old marketing/advertising type professionals rank? If it's low, I might be convinced to beleive in IQ scores.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[Chris Snook]

Mean is 100. 15 points per standard deviation. There's a huge difference between 130 and 95.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[Backspin]

Actually, a person with an IQ of 130 has a percentile rank of 96.96, i.e. in the top 3%

Huh? Wouldn't a percentile rank of 96.96 put that person just outside of the top 3%? I suppose you could argue that since the next highest rank (that for 131) is 97.37, most of those 130s would in fact be in the top 3%. You didn't mention that in your post, although perhaps you thought of it. I certainly can't read minds. (if I could, I'd quit my day job!) Most is not all, but since all 130s are basically the same, it's both ambiguous and arbitrary.

However, if you come in 10th out of 99, I posit that you cannot claim to be in the top 10%.

Re:Limited value in IQ tests.

[avandesande]

You have it backwards. IQ tests mean less at the far ends of the scale.

Richard Feynman has an IQ of 125.

Truly Operatic end?

[serutan]

Pretty obvious that this is a joke. I'm surprised nobody has commented on it yet. Check out the guy in the dinky raft, supposedly the support vessel. Classic.

"A local farmer spotted the drama from his kitchen window and took surprisingly sharp photos with a remarkably powerful telescopic lens."

And all the while he was milking a goat! Remarkable indeed!

Re:Truly Operatic end?

[gkuz]

Pretty obvious that this is a joke. I'm surprised nobody has commented on it yet.

Maybe nobody has commented precisely because it is so obvious.

Re:Truly Operatic end?

[Eternally optimistic]

Well, I did submit a little news story about it, but the editors kept it pending until they had this one written up.

Re:Thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ik ben een kat.

RF Sniping

[billstr78]

Wouldn't someone with a reverse engineered reader and a zoom lens photo of the "machine readable" text on the passport still be able to "snipe" the information from a passport? I guess this would be more secure that what we have now, which divulges all information if the passport is physically viewed.

Re:RF Sniping

[TheSHAD0W]

Never mind trying to snipe the information contained within the passport. Whether or not the information is decoded or not, it'll still be constant, which means the passport (and its holder) can be tracked remotely -- which IMO is the only reason they want to use RFID rather than a smartcard-type system.

Way to not get the joke, Einstein.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, DUH!

I bet you're one of those people who always says shit like, "Hey, that's not funny you guys, my cousin is retarded or died of that!"...

Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[darkonc]

If you're physically scanning the passport, you no longer have any of the advantages of RFID over, say, magstripe or 2D barcodes.

In the meantime, You can still confirm someone's identity uniquely by the transmissions of their passport -- Who they are needs to be determined separately, but you don't need to decode an RFID to use it for tracking. -- it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[billstr78]

This is true. The RFID is being reduced to a smartchip; something that requries physical contact to transfer data. Both are more resistant to counterfitting than thier paper equivalents. That's the more immediate problem they are trying to solve anyway. Tracking your every movement to within 30ft accuracy and storing it in a large centeral DB comes later with the national ID. That's where the real power of RFID kicks in :)

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[evanh23]

well, my first thought would be that if you are only thinking about using the passport at ONE workstation/checkpoint, you are absolutely correct. However, if you scan the barcode with the key for decryption at the first checkpoint and use a secure network (to transmit the decryption key to other nodes on the network), then the RFID can be read anywhere on this network.

Think about scanning your passport when you check in at the airport, then not having to show ID to get through the metal detector or at customs. There could be good value there.

OTOH, if you are only scanning the passport at the metal detector, then yes, it seems like quite a waste.

You really have to analyze a solution in relation its problem before you can make any judgement as to its utility.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[munpfazy]

>In the meantime, You can still confirm someone's identity uniquely by the
>transmissions of their passport -- Who they are needs to be determined
>separately, but you don't need to decode an RFID to use it for tracking.
> -- it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful
> enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.

A very good point.

How long do you think it will be before some police agency somewhere decides to scan the crowd at a street protest in order to make a table of known "trouble-makers?" Whether or not they can retrieve your name doesn't matter - they can get that from you later on.

Giving people a unique, broadcast ID may thwart some of the more obvious opportunities for identity theft, but it does nothing to address privacy concerns.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[swillden]

it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.

The shielded cover produces a Faraday cage. The only way to "get through" is to generate so much power that the mesh burns up. That will destroy the chip, of course, and lots of other stuff.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[darkonc]

You don't have to send anything other than a hash on the raw data and/or the decoded data itself. The data in the RFID tag (encrypted or not) is it's own identifier. If all I want to do is track where you are, I don't even need to be able to decode the data. If I need the decoded data off of the card, I get it on the first read.

In any case, even if you give the chip adequate protection to prevent at-distance reading, then all of the advantages of the tag (vs smart-chip) go away -- but you still have the risk that (sophisticated) criminals will find ways to do distance readings... especially with changes in technology.

The problem with distance readings is multiple:

• If I know who you are, and I can scan your passport, that data will now identify you (reverse replay attack -- no need to decode).
• If cards of a given country have recognizable features, I may be able to identify someone carrying (say) a US passport.
• People with passports, generally, are likely to be 'juicy' (foreign) targets. Responding to a scan means you're carying a passport.
• There are various 'social engineering' methods to obtain the pasword. Obtaining the RFID data and the password can be done at completely unrelated times and location. Depepending on what's on them, this could be very useful for identity theft.
• Some crooks will simply obtain/trade libraries of password data, and use that in dictionary attacks against a similar bank of encrypted RFID data. (script kiddie approach)

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[swillden]

If you're physically scanning the passport, you no longer have any of the advantages of RFID over, say, magstripe or 2D barcodes.

Yes, you do, actually. Two major advantages. The first is that the chip can authenticate itself cryptographically, making forgery vastly more difficult. The second is data volumes. You could hold enough data on a magnetic stripe (though it would have to be both much larger and far more dense -- and correspondingly less reliable -- than a credit card stripe) but you'd have a hard time getting a 2D barcode that stores 40KB of data. Also, the 2D barcode can't be updated without reprinting, whereas the chip can have data added at any time, including dynamic data, like electronic passport stamps.

A magnetic stripe almost does the job, but is less secure. A 2D barcode is simply inadequate.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[darkonc]

The 'cage' will probably be incomplete. It will leak. This will make life hard on 'normal' RF readers, but special-build units may be able to read a passport at distance even despite the foil cover. In a worst case, you might even be able to take advantages of errors in it's design to make reading easier.

Re:Sol, if you're scanning the passport

[swillden]

The 'cage' will probably be incomplete. It will leak. This will make life hard on 'normal' RF readers, but special-build units may be able to read a passport at distance even despite the foil cover.

Perhaps. However, keep in mind that normal readers can only get a response from the card when it's within 2 inches. Special-built, illegal units that generate dangerously high power levels can push this out to as much as 30 inches, with very careful orientation of passport and reader antenna. Add some shielding in, and even if it's imperfect you're going to significantly reduce the range of all of the readers. Tests will have to be done, of course, but it's reasonable to expect that shielding will drop the range by two orders of magnitude.

Further, keep in mind that even if a scanner can get a detectable response from the card, the only thing that has been shown is that there is a card present. As far as I know (and I do know quite a bit about it) there's no way of knowing for certain that it is even a passport, much less which country issued it (the US is not the only country that is going to be issuing these -- it's an international standard). The secure messaging protocol used is a standard one (Global Platform, Google it) so nothing in the card's initial responses would provide any clue that it's a passport, and the card won't respond to any other commands until it is in secure mode. Perhaps you could fire commands used by other common contactless card applications at it and verify that it doesn't respond to any of those, but even then you wouldn't be sure it is a passport.

Of course, all of that assumes that the shielding leaks enough, you're able to get close enough, and that there is some value in determining if people nearby are carrying passports.

Operatic end

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm truly shocked at the depravity of Jon's acts, this was clearly a huge scam. Truly shocked.

I urge all downloaders to demand a refund ... err... no, I urge you all to return your copy of the downloaded browser to Opera (by e-mail, of course).

Re:Operatic end

[Ashtead]

Operatic... hmm, well, as it is said: "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings." Actually, I've heard that the original saying comes from pool, where "it ain't over 'till the fat lady sinks", and the "fat lady sinking" referred to the 8-ball going into one of the pockets. Unfortunately, the website where this was noted is gone, and most places, including Google, has the fat lady singing. So this might be apocryphal.

Though not really questioning Tetschner and his travelling companion's sex or girth, it seems that the pool version with "sinks" really was most applicable here. :)

Re:Operatic end

[Danuvius]

I'm truly shocked at the depravity of Jon's acts, this was clearly a huge scam. Truly shocked.

I urge all downloaders to demand a refund ... err... no, I urge you all to return your copy of the downloaded browser to Opera (by e-mail, of course).

What a truly excellent, excellent idea!!

But do I send 300 emails, or just one big one with the split rars containing all 300 copies?

Re:I guess I don't get what the advantage of RFID

[87C751]

I thought the point was to be able to "read" the card without having to dig it out. But if you have to dig it out to read a key, the technology doesn't buy you anything.

Depends on who's buying. An unencrypted RFID passport is a wide-open invitation to identity theft. If encrypted, it merely serves as a beacon ID'ing you as American (or, as they say in some countries, a "target").

better soldier email story

[cosmol]

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/ebiz/yahoo-sol dier-email-ellsworth-42518.html

Don't you think that if the soldier wanted the family to have a given email he would have sent it to them?

Re:better soldier email story

[ars]

Uh, no I don't.

Are you really going to spend lots of time going through every email and sending it to family - just in case you die?

No, he probably expected that they would have simple access to it in probate. Which is eventually what happened.

Re:better soldier email story

[cosmol]

Whatever expecations he might or might not have had, the terms of service of his acccount stated that the account would not be transferable in the event of death. The fact that yahoo didn't fight the order only shows that they were afraid that it would turn out the be bad PR. I say shame on them for violating their own service agreement and the privacy of their users.

Are you really going to spend lots of time going through every email and sending it to family - just in case you die?

no, because you probably don't want the family to have every email. Is there an expectation that upon someones death all letters they have sent to another party should become available to next of kin?

This case will set a precedent which will make my own privacy more likely to be violated.

Re:better soldier email story

[ars]

Not all the letters that were sent, all letters that were received!

And who cares what yahoo wrote in it's TOS, it's contrary to established law that is centuries old.

Privacy after death?

[Anonymous Coward]

People have to wonder whether their privacy ends at death.

Why? YOU'RE DEAD! Are you really going to care?

Re:Privacy after death?

[Scud]

Really, it's not like you're going to be holding an open-house event in your casket.

The Mind Hacks analysis

[wka]

Sine it does not seem to be posted above, here is a link to the Mind Hacks analysis of the IQ study.

My Resume #2

[eander315]

Dear Opera,

I recently applied for the soon-to-be opened positions of CEO and PR Manager at your company. My sole qualification of actually being alive has been nullified, apparently, due to the failure of Mr Sivertsen's raft within swimming distance of the Norwegian coast. In light of that event, I would like to revise my previous job request to include "raft support technician" or "sr. wetsuit admin", as these positions are now apparently available.

Thank you again for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.

HINT

[That's Unpossible!]

Maybe they have other reasons besides "not wanting to wear out passports"?

If you can't believe that, I have some dollar bills with Bill Clinton on them I'd like to sell you.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Linux QX3 drivers

[jonsmirl]

The CPiA webcam driver supports the QX3 on Linux.
CPiA webcam driver for Linux
Just turn on CONFIG_VIDEO_CPIA=m when you build your kernel. You can even use /proc to turn the microscope lights on and off.

CPiA is not made any more. Maybe the QX5 uses a similar webcam chip.

Old slashdot story about the QX3

I have an excellent yacht I'd be honored to lend

[Anonymous Coward]

to support this transatlantic swim, which I understand would be a historic first.

- Bill Gates

Good point...

[Anonymous Coward]

... though wait till they trying getting past PGP. Not pretty.

Physically Scan

[jeffkjo1]

To obtain the key, a passport officer would need to physically scan the machine-readable text that's printed on the passport page beneath the photo

Ok, at this point, they're already scanning the passport, why not just put all the information on the magnetic strip, rather than waste money on an additional RFID chip?

Re:Physically Scan

[karlowfwb]

Capacity. You can store a lot more information on an RFID chip than you can on a bar code, I am pretty sure even more than on a mag strip. Even if not, I would wager that an RFID chip would hold up better to normal wear and tear than a mag strip.

With more information, more processes can be automated, speeding up processing, and decreasing human error.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you smoking? Comparing to things that are totally unalike is not like comparing things that are somewhat alike.

What's so great about "contactless"?

[TheSHAD0W]

Why use RFID when smartcard technology is just as secure and doesn't have the same information safety concerns? They needn't even encrypt the data on them. Why such a need for sticking RF beacons on everyone?

The Opera Swim...

[mute47]

The day after Jon S. von Tetzchner made the anouncement, one of the icelandic papers (http://www.mbl.is/) had a short interview with his mother. She was apparently stunned about his thoughtfulness, coming to visit her, but said that he could just drive as she has lived in Norway for over 17 years...

Email after death

[Sloppy]

This isn't as much of a privacy invasion as you might think, since even when you were alive, you knew that the email was getting transmitted over a public network where lots of people had an opportunity to see it.

Unless your email is encrypted. If you care about privacy, make sure everyone has your pgp key and uses it.

It is up to users to protect email privacy, not ISPs and not mailbox hosts.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IQ

[Anonymous Coward]

And let us not forget their is also a vast difference in ability to learn, and it depends on the type of IQ test were talking about. If your talking about the stanford test with an whos average is around 100 then 95 is not bad. If your talking about the myers child ratio test then 95 is very good. Also consider that the original IQ tests were put to gother by a french pyschiatrists without any concept of what "good education" was for the government to sort out school kids (I think it's speel Buliard) wich was based on subjective copetencies without on attempts to establish conotations.So if you say 95 I chalenge you as to what and out of how muc using whos scale and whos test? For instance on one version of one called myers davis test I scored 124 on one called a stanford test I scored 133, on a random "subject" based one produced by the american psycholigy institute it was 80 Math 90 English and I forget the other ones. Theirfore just to say 94 vs 130 you must specify what test.Pluss be skeptical of the fact many tests do not account for many important factors including: dyslexic, autistic, sleep patterns interest, knowledge and desire to do well.

Re:IQ

[porcupine8]

Generally, the use of the term "IQ score" implies a standard score, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or 16. Basically all major ability and achievement tests give standard scores.

All psychological assessments are not IQ tests or ability tests. Anything that is subject-based is likely an achievement test, not an ability test. I can't find anything remotely similar to "myers child ratio" or any ability tests involving myers and davis (both with several alternate spellings of myers) in the Mental Measurements Yearbook, so honestly I would have serious doubts about the use of those tests.

I agree about the origins of IQ tests. The first ones were horribly biased and very much knowledge-based. Luckily, there's been a century of solid research since then, I think they may have managed to improve them a bit in that time.

You do make a good point that different IQ tests do measure slightly different things. Most are heavily weighted on a factor known as g, a "general factor of intelligence," but they do have other weightings. Traditional IQ tests tend to be rather verbally weighted, whereas newer nonverbal ones, of course, aren't. So if you're more or less of a verbal person you may score differently on those different types.

The myth of the Software patent Thicket.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1058&context=alea

"The myth of the software patent thicket: An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual property and innovation in software firms."

By default

[tqft]

By default (at least on my yahoo accounts) it doesn't save sent emails automatically.

You have to turn it on.

When I operated under the previous muchg smaller MB limit, I didn't save many sent emails either.

Re:By default

[RedWizzard]

Ah, so there really might not be anything for the parent to have.

It's the drug companies, silly

[periol]

The lobbying done by alchohol, oil and forestry groups is where most of the US's info about the plant comes from.

I don't understand why people forget the biggest culprit in this debate, and the party that has most to lose from the legalization of marijuana: drug companies. Marijuana is superior to most of the pain-killing and/or anti-depressant drugs available, without the crippling side effects that accompany commercial drugs.

Also, don't forget that Marijuana is a MAJOR cash crop. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone. At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.

Re:It's the drug companies, silly

[msdschris]

I don't understand why people forget the biggest culprit in this debate, and the party that has most to lose from the legalization of marijuana: drug companies
You are forgetting the one greater power than the lobbying efforts of the drug companies... The Federal Government. I don't think the monies collected by taxing the source would pale in comparison to being the source.

Re:It's the drug companies, silly

[jc42]

At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.

I suspect that most governments do realize this (in the usual institutional sense). The problem is that, while those taxes would go to the government the pharma bribes go directly to the decision makers' pockets (or campaign funds). This is a lot less money, but it's more effective because it benefits the few people who are in a position to make changes.

This is a hard one to fight effectively.

Re:It's the drug companies, silly

[Fortran IV]

Also, don't forget that Marijuana is a MAJOR cash crop. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone. At some point, governments are going to realize they can make more from taxing the use of marijuana than they receive from the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.

Actually, many years ago the state of Arizona instituted an excise tax against marijuana (and one other illegal drug, perhaps cocaine). If you were caught smuggling a bale of ganja and didn't have the required excise stamps (like the ones on bottles of liquor or packs of cigarettes), then they levied an immediate tax against your weed, something horrid like $500 a pound.

This was supposed to make enforcement of drug laws more profitable and cause immediate financial loss to dealers even before they were prosecuted for possession or intent to sell.

Naturally, all the idiots rose up and protested, "But putting a tax on marijuana makes it sound respectable! This is just the first step in legalizing it! God will turn his face from us!" and similar hysterical babble.

Other states have tried the same thing, although with mixed success. In at least a few cases, the US Supreme Court or state Supreme Courts have decided that such taxes can violate the Constitution's "double jeopardy" protections.

Re:It's the drug companies, silly

[Anonymous Coward]

This was done at the federal level in 1937, the marijuana tax act of 1937. The government required a tax be paid to purchase a stamp, then refuses to issue any, so growing, possession, importation is illegal due to not paying the tax.

QX5 version ???

[Anonymous Coward]

stolen from dabs.co.uk

less features than advertised
reviewed by colin wise. review posted 17/11/2004 23:05:00
after buying this microscope a few days ago,after waiting for it to come into stock,i was pleased with it initially.when i could not find how to opperate some of the features, advertised by digital blue on there web site,i contacted digital blue,who told me the features were not available on all but the newest qx5's,!!! I thought i just bought a new one.!!!! i think questions need to be asked , i did not get what digital blue are advertising as a qx5 on there web site........

now thats not good !
is one persons view enough to sway me ?
yes !

Look for yourself:

[kninja]

It's at the end of this large PDF.

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

A mental scene I didn't need

[CommandLineGuy]

Quoth Opera's PR page "It was cold and wet and horrible and I was really, really scared," says Eskil Sivertsen, Opera's PR Manager who operated the raft. "The night had been crisp and starlit, and we had fallen asleep in the raft to the gentle movement of the waves. In the morning, I gave Jon two chocolate bars and some of those mini carrots he likes so much before he..." Is there something going on between Silvertsen and von Tetzchner? I'm half expecting some sort of talk about them laying on their beds, feet kicking in the air, as they talk on their princess phones to each other while listening to NSync.

don't forget...

[willCode4Beer.com]

...that in many states convicted felons lose their right to vote permanently. Now consider the overwhelming majority of the drug convictions are against african americans. (Last stat I heard was 1 in 3 african americans will be incarcerated in their lifetime) Sounds like a good way to keep down the black vote.

As for the economics, think how much money the drug industry would lose if folks had MJ instead of sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and pain killers. Think how much the alcohol industry would lose if people shose the safer option of using MJ instead of drinking (MJ, no sirosis, no organ damage, no permanent brain damage, you get all of those with alcohol).

even more novel

[willCode4Beer.com]

how about we just get rid of passports and embrace *freedom*. Everybody likes freedom. We always say come here because we have freedom. The president says its about "freedom and liberty" and "liberty and freedom" (as if these were two different things).
Why not let citizens of the planet be free to travel their own planet in their own means.
What happened to freedom of movement?
What happened to criticism of how the Nazis required travel papers to go anywhere?
What happened to criticism of how the Soviets required travel papers to go anywhere?

When will we realize that we are on this planet together and the best way to stop fighting and killing each other is to meet and learn from each other?

Crap, I've gone from libertarian to hippie.
Lets just require retinal scans before you can get on the crosstown bus. YOur retina *will be* your passport.

Ever seen a passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current ones have machine readable text. And it's not a remote security issue.

The text is on the INSIDE of the cover.

So you have to open the passport to scan that text. Now if the covers were also foil lined, that would cut down on the possibility of remotely reading the RFID chip.

Yahoo doesn't save outgoing messages

[Anonymous Coward]

The family can't get the "outgoing" messages because they are not saved by default in Yahoo. I am rather unsurprised that the stupid reporters missed this fact. They probably DON'T EXIST, so you can't send what wasn't saved.

Somebody, Call Jim Cameron!

[robbway]

The raft he was using was somehow punctured this morning, and Jon had to abondon his trek

I think it was a really teeny tiny iceberg. I hope the movie is better than Open Water.

Way to go, "Israeli Math Girl"!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll be sure to go down in history with "Indian Math Guy" and "German Physics Guy".

Mod parent down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's retarded. Just because you're so insecure in your own sexuality that sleeping beside another man when circumstances dictate that you have no other option threaten you, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.

Your comment is not only redundantly stupid, but bordering on homophobic with your final sentence.

RTFA

[cosmol]

A spokeswoman for Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo said the CD should have contained the Marine's outgoing as well as his incoming e-mail messages.