Free speech is irrelevant with corperations, it only applies to the government.
If I run a website with an open forum, it is my right to censor anything I see fit on that forum. You are also free not to visit that forum on those premises. Free speech simply says that the government may not censor what is on that forum, only I can.
No one is claiming this to be encryption, they are claiming it to be a way of removing legal liability and, in a sense, hiding data within random chaos so that anyone can find that data with the correct key (convienantly located on someone elses server).
There are better forms of Stego, yes, but the problems with any of them is that if the prosecutor knows what to look for (the least signifigant bits of a graphics file, for instance), you are still screwed. The proposed system, in theory, lets me give *everyone* who wants one a copy of DeCSS and, should they be able to find the key to descramble it, they can have their own copy. In the meantime, I don't keep the key to DeCSS anywhere on my machine, only one that turns the same block of random noise into a letter to my girlfriend.
Legally, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone else did not take my "disguised" letter to my girlfriend and create the correct XOR blocks to turn it into DeCSS in an effort to get me into trouble.
Thats all this is, not encryption. I am not a supporter of the system, I think there are too many problems telling people which keyfiles match up to which plaintext files (though it might be hugely successful on a limited basis, perhaps a small community group--have to think about the dynamics of this one), but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand for being "not encryption" when it doesn't even really claim to be crypto.
RTFM. This post, along with several others made, having absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
I've noticed a couple of people going off on one time pads for security &c when, in fact, this has *nothing* to do with either cryptography *nor* security. It has *everything* to do with what is essentially Steganography: concealment, making "illigal" or "contraband" data *appear* as random white noise and not as the data people are looking for. The idea is that neither the person holding the data file nor the person holding the keyfile, could be prosecuted because if the random noise lines up correctly one can make a pad say *anything* (anyone catch the Dilbert on something similar to this recently?)
If I don't have that keyfile on my harddrive, and instead have another keyfile of "random" noise that makes the pad turn into a letter to my SO, IANAL, but I think my argument would be strengthened when they come to prosecute me for owning "contraband" data.
Appologies for the rant everyone, I am getting sick of seeing people who just jumped in without knowing what the proposition was about.
If Apple follows their normal pattern of stability on the release, it will be *very* stable from the first consumer release onward. Apple != Microsoft (where you have to wait for the second service update).
Actually, MacOS classic is extremely stable: yes, one application can bring down the system, however, for me this happens maybe once a month for me and it involves a specific bug between MS Word and Endnote that I know to look for.
-Hartwell
"Don't explain computers to a layman. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin." -- Robert Heinlein
Victory by Definition: Do they use a Mac Development Platform? if yes then they are not a geek; if no then they can be, run subroutine to check.
HTML isn't a programming language in and of itself, but once you start talking PERL, Python, ASP (no flames please), &c then Web Pages can be programmed.
Actually, I was refering to their scientific articles published in journals, such as the double-slit diffraction experiment (A Double-Slit Diffraction Experiment to Investigate Claims of Consciousness-Related Anomalies. J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 4, pp. 543-550, 1998.* [Human/Machine] ). They provide sufficient information to do your own tests.
I refer you to for an example. I do not need the individual data points to do this, just the means, expected means, and sample variances: all of which are provided. More than enough for you to do your own tests on two non-independant random variables.
>Even if the interaction of the mind is able to >affect a random binary phenomena 55% of the time, >that 45% error rate is too high to be useful.
The claim is that the mind affects a random binary phenomena 100% of the time to perhaps a 5% level, not affect it 50% of the time (this comes from misreading of the data). That is easily detectable using standard methods.
The "self-created statistical validation procedures" yield a great deal of useful information and have been shown to be accurate so long as the data going in is accurate (GIGO). These were not created by PEAR, but by statisticians through time. I refer you to *any* good book on statistics. These are particularly valid when used by multiple independant groups in "hard science" field, which gets roughly the same repeat-success ratio as parapsychology.
On a side note, moving the mouse is not truly random, it is deterministic and you can control it directly. The setup that was used in aforementioned experimenst gives true random output.
Yes, you could conceivably *keep* running experiments until you came up with a null-hypothesis, but the question is how many cases of rejecting the null-hyptothesis would you generate around that? Probability says that you will get some right and some wrong just randomnly: what do the Z-tests and T-tests show, what are your p-values? This is the basis of the File Drawer Factor discussed in Meta-analysis.
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
PEAR is hardly a con and seeing an article on the discovery channel does not qualify you to decide on experimenter bias as reporting is intrinsically biased and set to get attention, not provide facts.
Read some of the research that PEAR has done and some of the better meta-analysis (which is a well documented, demonstrated, and researched technique) that has been published on this subject (see my other post for a book referance http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/23/09462 36&threshold=-1&commentsort=3&mode=threa d&pid=43#98)
Further, I do not know the exact number which should have a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when you should fail to reject it), but we are definantly talking about more than 1 out of every 20 experiments having a p-value (probability of having a type-I error) of less than 5% (alpha =.05 is the commonly accepted value in statistics when dealing with scientific phenomena).
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
Actually. It has been duplicated many many times independantly by multiple groups. We are looking at an astronomically small probability that we have made a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true) with the sheer volume of data that has been collected on this subject.
I refer you to Dean Radin's/The Concious Universe/, which is an examination, written for the public, of the evidence which has been collected. Noted statistician I.J. Good was unable to discover any overall problems with the data presented in the book. (http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/badgood.html has both links to both the original article and the ensuing argument regarding Good's own bias)
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
>Plus, you should consider that no virus or bug has >managed to be 100% lethal to humans. Shure, a very >rare few wipe out 80% of the population, but we >are not talking extinction as a wore case senario >here people.
A small correction.
Ebola-Zaire has a 98% mortality rate, which is fairly close to 100% and there is a class of viruses known as Prions or TSEs which have several members that are 100% lethal when given sufficient time.
Further, those which have a lethality of 80% when they go untreated is signifigantly higher than such when they are treated.
It wouldn't take too many modifications to any of these strains to make them more lethal or more contagious when released along the appropriate vectors. I would actively fear any form of Kuru or Ebola-Zaire which could be airborne.
First: Beta was superior in video quality &c, HOWEVER, as I recall the length of a BetaMax movie was limited to 90 minutes while VHS at the time could stretch on to 4 or even 6 hours. Beta was never truly accepted by the movie industry while the DVD has a rapidly growing acceptance. Further, reading the article it seems that this technology will be very difficult to make into a writeable or re-writeable form and may very well *not* be reverse compatible with DVDs or CDs. If so, that would automatically hinder its acceptance. To top it off, if the reader was designed to read 8 layers it would probobly very difficult to make that same reader read 16 layers, should such technology come out. It should be noted that this is just a rough guess based on what I know about lasters from Physics II. Finally, DVD is already fairly well entrenched. Most computers today now ship with DVD as a option and DVDs are beginning to see acceptance by movie rental groups and home buyers. The new technology is probobly going to encounter "not sufficiently better, soon enough" ---------------------- "There is only one thing that will make them stop hating you. And that's being so good at what you do that they can't ignore you. I told them you were the best. Now you damn well better be." -- Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Re:LinuxPPC be acknowledged in other places by App
on
PPCLinux.Apple.Com
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it took a minimal of tweaking (I just had to change the sizes) to get it to work correctly for me, it already had all of the partitions I needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Free speech is irrelevant with corperations, it only applies to the government.
If I run a website with an open forum, it is my right to censor anything I see fit on that forum. You are also free not to visit that forum on those premises. Free speech simply says that the government may not censor what is on that forum, only I can.
No, when I do this while I have coders block I just tend to get writers block, then I'm just screwed.
More seriously though: this is a common approach to software engineering and is widely employed as part of the design process.
Nah, nature is based completely on unproved postulates that are accepted on faith, mathematics is simply an observation of that effect.
The particle doesn't fall because the equations say it will, the equations predict the motion but do not control it.
This is an expansion on another comment.
No one is claiming this to be encryption, they are claiming it to be a way of removing legal liability and, in a sense, hiding data within random chaos so that anyone can find that data with the correct key (convienantly located on someone elses server).
There are better forms of Stego, yes, but the problems with any of them is that if the prosecutor knows what to look for (the least signifigant bits of a graphics file, for instance), you are still screwed. The proposed system, in theory, lets me give *everyone* who wants one a copy of DeCSS and, should they be able to find the key to descramble it, they can have their own copy. In the meantime, I don't keep the key to DeCSS anywhere on my machine, only one that turns the same block of random noise into a letter to my girlfriend.
Legally, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone else did not take my "disguised" letter to my girlfriend and create the correct XOR blocks to turn it into DeCSS in an effort to get me into trouble.
Thats all this is, not encryption. I am not a supporter of the system, I think there are too many problems telling people which keyfiles match up to which plaintext files (though it might be hugely successful on a limited basis, perhaps a small community group--have to think about the dynamics of this one), but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand for being "not encryption" when it doesn't even really claim to be crypto.
#ifdef __RANT__
#include
RTFM. This post, along with several others made, having absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
I've noticed a couple of people going off on one time pads for security &c when, in fact, this has *nothing* to do with either cryptography *nor* security. It has *everything* to do with what is essentially Steganography: concealment, making "illigal" or "contraband" data *appear* as random white noise and not as the data people are looking for. The idea is that neither the person holding the data file nor the person holding the keyfile, could be prosecuted because if the random noise lines up correctly one can make a pad say *anything* (anyone catch the Dilbert on something similar to this recently?)
If I don't have that keyfile on my harddrive, and instead have another keyfile of "random" noise that makes the pad turn into a letter to my SO, IANAL, but I think my argument would be strengthened when they come to prosecute me for owning "contraband" data.
Appologies for the rant everyone, I am getting sick of seeing people who just jumped in without knowing what the proposition was about.
#endif __RANT__
If Apple follows their normal pattern of stability on the release, it will be *very* stable from the first consumer release onward. Apple != Microsoft (where you have to wait for the second service update).
Actually, MacOS classic is extremely stable: yes, one application can bring down the system, however, for me this happens maybe once a month for me and it involves a specific bug between MS Word and Endnote that I know to look for.
-Hartwell
"Don't explain computers to a layman. Simpler to explain sex to a
virgin." -- Robert Heinlein
Victory by Definition:
Do they use a Mac Development Platform? if yes then they are not a geek; if no then they can be, run subroutine to check.
HTML isn't a programming language in and of itself, but once you start talking PERL, Python, ASP (no flames please), &c then Web Pages can be programmed.
-Hartwell
I refer you to http://WWW.Princeton.edu/~pear/corr elations.pdf.
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
An infomercial makes it less valid.
Actually, I was refering to their scientific articles published in journals, such as the double-slit diffraction experiment (A Double-Slit Diffraction Experiment to Investigate Claims of Consciousness-Related Anomalies. J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 4, pp. 543-550, 1998.* [Human/Machine] ). They provide sufficient information to do your own tests.
I refer you to for an example. I do not need the individual data points to do this, just the means, expected means, and sample variances: all of which are provided. More than enough for you to do your own tests on two non-independant random variables.
>Even if the interaction of the mind is able to
>affect a random binary phenomena 55% of the time,
>that 45% error rate is too high to be useful.
The claim is that the mind affects a random binary phenomena 100% of the time to perhaps a 5% level, not affect it 50% of the time (this comes from misreading of the data). That is easily detectable using standard methods.
The "self-created statistical validation procedures" yield a great deal of useful information and have been shown to be accurate so long as the data going in is accurate (GIGO). These were not created by PEAR, but by statisticians through time. I refer you to *any* good book on statistics. These are particularly valid when used by multiple independant groups in "hard science" field, which gets roughly the same repeat-success ratio as parapsychology.
On a side note, moving the mouse is not truly random, it is deterministic and you can control it directly. The setup that was used in aforementioned experimenst gives true random output.
Yes, you could conceivably *keep* running experiments until you came up with a null-hypothesis, but the question is how many cases of rejecting the null-hyptothesis would you generate around that? Probability says that you will get some right and some wrong just randomnly: what do the Z-tests and T-tests show, what are your p-values? This is the basis of the File Drawer Factor discussed in Meta-analysis.
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
PEAR is hardly a con and seeing an article on the discovery channel does not qualify you to decide on experimenter bias as reporting is intrinsically biased and set to get attention, not provide facts.
2 36&threshold=-1&commentsort=3&mode=threa d&pid=43#98)
.05 is the commonly accepted value in statistics when dealing with scientific phenomena).
Read some of the research that PEAR has done and some of the better meta-analysis (which is a well documented, demonstrated, and researched technique) that has been published on this subject (see my other post for a book referance http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/23/0946
Further, I do not know the exact number which should have a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when you should fail to reject it), but we are definantly talking about more than 1 out of every 20 experiments having a p-value (probability of having a type-I error) of less than 5% (alpha =
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
Actually. It has been duplicated many many times independantly by multiple groups. We are looking at an astronomically small probability that we have made a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true) with the sheer volume of data that has been collected on this subject.
/The Concious Universe/, which is an examination, written for the public, of the evidence which has been collected. Noted statistician I.J. Good was unable to discover any overall problems with the data presented in the book. (http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/badgood.html has both links to both the original article and the ensuing argument regarding Good's own bias)
I refer you to Dean Radin's
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
>Plus, you should consider that no virus or bug has
>managed to be 100% lethal to humans. Shure, a very
>rare few wipe out 80% of the population, but we
>are not talking extinction as a wore case senario
>here people.
A small correction.
Ebola-Zaire has a 98% mortality rate, which is fairly close to 100% and there is a class of viruses known as Prions or TSEs which have several members that are 100% lethal when given sufficient time.
Further, those which have a lethality of 80% when they go untreated is signifigantly higher than such when they are treated.
It wouldn't take too many modifications to any of these strains to make them more lethal or more contagious when released along the appropriate vectors. I would actively fear any form of Kuru or Ebola-Zaire which could be airborne.
Sincerely,
Hartwell
First: Beta was superior in video quality &c, HOWEVER, as I recall the length of a BetaMax movie was limited to 90 minutes while VHS at the time could stretch on to 4 or even 6 hours. Beta was never truly accepted by the movie industry while the DVD has a rapidly growing acceptance. Further, reading the article it seems that this technology will be very difficult to make into a writeable or re-writeable form and may very well *not* be reverse compatible with DVDs or CDs. If so, that would automatically hinder its acceptance. To top it off, if the reader was designed to read 8 layers it would probobly very difficult to make that same reader read 16 layers, should such technology come out. It should be noted that this is just a rough guess based on what I know about lasters from Physics II. Finally, DVD is already fairly well entrenched. Most computers today now ship with DVD as a option and DVDs are beginning to see acceptance by movie rental groups and home buyers. The new technology is probobly going to encounter "not sufficiently better, soon enough" ---------------------- "There is only one thing that will make them stop hating you. And that's being so good at what you do that they can't ignore you. I told them you were the best. Now you damn well better be." -- Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Actually, it took a minimal of tweaking (I just had to change the sizes) to get it to work correctly for me, it already had all of the partitions I needed.