If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
...
The only difference is that in the current day, and in the U.S. Such things are not as public, this oppresion is happening in our country. We just have a better illusion that these violations do not happen.
...
No, not even close. Great troll though.
There is oppression, however the US has until now used a different way of doing this. The Soviet Union was in-your-face brutal about it but the West does this instead by degrees, through social / financial / legal ruination and then by physical means when the above are not useful. If fear is overused in statecraft it results in loss of productivity through reduced innovation and motivation. The intelligence gathering system is for picking the victims. If this is thwarted, the oppression cannot occur.
Both regimes (US and USSR) had no inhibitions on learning about the limits of the human psyche and testing methods of manipulating the population, and both regimes would employ whatever means each thought necessary and feasible to achieve whatever the aims are.
The only thing preventing outright oppression in the US is that people's stomachs are still full and apathy is rife, in contrast to what was the case in the USSR.
I think they'll even lose their government contracts, as they know there's no honour among thieves. As for SSL and most of the rest of RSA's business, there are better open solutions. Not packaged as nicely, but available.
I bed they don't. They (the NSA) will instead get funding boost to "make reforms".
Yes the size of the blockchain is fast becoming a problem, especially now that enthusiasm about Bitcoins is growing much faster than the technological means to store the blockchain. Also, the size of every block is going to grow explosively as soon as online services everywhere start accepting bitcoins as payment option, and THAt will be much more problematic.
But then, it'll just drive some more division of labor, with people storing the blockchain and verifying transactions getting paid for the service, much like what is happening now in the mining part. There will definitely be growing pains and I can foresee a near-term future where transactions get a LONG time to validate because miners are swamped with transaction volume.
As for your suggestion, it cannot apply to Bitcoin in any way or shape. Reducing the size of the blockchain means making a "summary" of it where all the wallets that are now zero get short-circuited in the transaction history. i.e 'wallet A sends 1 BTC to wallet B which then sends it to wallet C', you shorten it as 'Wallet A sends 1 BTC to wallet C'. But that eschews the hashing process entirely, so it cannot be done trustfully AFAIK.
Can I just ask your opinion, how does this protect someone who buys into Bitcoin from it actually being a Ponzi scheme?
I tried to use it to pay online, but my business partner complained the bills I faxed ain't legal tender.
This is a good point. Credit card companies and banks use promisory notes (credit) and we trust them that the electronic transactions become real at the other end.
The problem with Bitcoin is it is a floating currency and it is prone to price fluctuation that means its meaningfulness as a means of monetary exchange is currently dwarfed by its speculative importance.
And consider this also: Bitcoin mining depends on processing power. Who has most of that? The very people no one trusts anymore (finally!). Money does not just have to be based on a finite resource, but an honest resource. It needs to be off the grid, independent of power companies (no power, no electricity to do your Bitcoin transactions!), telco's (no internet, no Bitcoin). To store value I would still favor metals, and for day to day anonymous purchasing there are better ways.
But what about Bitcoin? It allows you to stow away massive amounts of money in an untouchable way... kind of nice but it's not without its problems. Is it in society's interest that people can move huge amounts of money without them or the government knowing? It can be very much to our detriment, such as being unable to stem the proceeds of crime that flow out of a country into another, unable to check the movement of money by foreign government sponsored subversion, and so forth. I know that nobody has been realistically able to stop the illegal transportation of gold, but why should we make the task of money laundering easier than before?
Less delay in communication devices improves the lives of ordinary citizens.
For example, the gun was an improvement on the bow and arrow, both of which communicate the same message. There are certain uses of this technology that would dramatically improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
EU political leaders are slowly understanding the secure phone they where given is junk, trade negotiations where always 'lost' by their own trusted staff, their nations expensive mil/science and secure crypto efforts where given to a list of other countries for 'free' over decades.
It actually doesn't matter what the EU political leaders understand, but the big change is that they have to find a new way to sell the bullshit ideas that they represent to the public now that the public recognizes said ideas as bullshit.
Is "potentially unwanted programs" the new politicaly correct term for malware? It's OK to call it malware, even if the user technically-allegedly-probablynot signed an EULA allowing it.
If it runs an unauthorized bitcoin miner, stealing your cycles and electricity, it's malware. No exceptions.
I love Bitcoin, it's so honest, so fair, so real, so future-proof.
We're also hitting diminishing returns with game graphics. It used to be generational differences between games was huge but these days can you really tell the different between this years shooter and last years shooter?
Barely.
You mean they might actually start to give a toss about playability?
This means that the near-infra-red emitters and camera have become so cheap as to be mass marketable.
Hold off for six or so months before buying a vein finder for medical use, you could save 90% on the price... or maybe the next generation of smart phones will support this?
It's possible and I'm surprised there wasn't more speculation on this in the discussion here. I have no idea, but it'd be interesting to know if there could have been a motive.
When the telephone was invented, it was obvious to all and sundry that it was prone to eavesdropping. It's the case with all forms of communication. Privacy is never a given, it is something that has to be actively sought and maintained, like any other human "right".
What is insulting is that companies are going out of their way to betray the customer. I am not thinking so much of software giants but Intel which forces you to relinquish your privacy with apparently no way to get around their backdoors.
It takes more than that. You also have to compartmentalize your real and assumed identities so your friends and acquaintances who do not value your privacy do not link them for you.
I find facebook's "is this really X's real name" queries to your social contacts especially dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
The only difference is that in the current day, and in the U.S. Such things are not as public, this oppresion is happening in our country. We just have a better illusion that these violations do not happen.
No, not even close. Great troll though.
There is oppression, however the US has until now used a different way of doing this. The Soviet Union was in-your-face brutal about it but the West does this instead by degrees, through social / financial / legal ruination and then by physical means when the above are not useful. If fear is overused in statecraft it results in loss of productivity through reduced innovation and motivation. The intelligence gathering system is for picking the victims. If this is thwarted, the oppression cannot occur.
Both regimes (US and USSR) had no inhibitions on learning about the limits of the human psyche and testing methods of manipulating the population, and both regimes would employ whatever means each thought necessary and feasible to achieve whatever the aims are.
The only thing preventing outright oppression in the US is that people's stomachs are still full and apathy is rife, in contrast to what was the case in the USSR.
I think they'll even lose their government contracts, as they know there's no honour among thieves. As for SSL and most of the rest of RSA's business, there are better open solutions. Not packaged as nicely, but available.
I bed they don't. They (the NSA) will instead get funding boost to "make reforms".
Microsoft Windows hosts 99.999% of malware.
Windows is malware.
Welcome to half assed computing.
Which half?
This is very cool. They could probably sell tens of thousands to kids (like me) if they need money.
Or you could buy my Paper Aeroplane (TM) for half the price? Just needs a gentle push and will fly for 6 seconds (results may vary).
Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.
You've never cleaned a naval vessel toilet before, I take it? (neither have I, I just thought I'd ask).
Score one for Lamarkian evolution. (And epigenetics). I knew Darwin was wrong...
...
Score one for Lamarkian evolution. (And epigenetics). I knew Darwin was only partly right...
That might be more accurate...
You can pay cash for the card and load it at the counter with cash. No questions asked.
Yes the size of the blockchain is fast becoming a problem, especially now that enthusiasm about Bitcoins is growing much faster than the technological means to store the blockchain. Also, the size of every block is going to grow explosively as soon as online services everywhere start accepting bitcoins as payment option, and THAt will be much more problematic.
But then, it'll just drive some more division of labor, with people storing the blockchain and verifying transactions getting paid for the service, much like what is happening now in the mining part. There will definitely be growing pains and I can foresee a near-term future where transactions get a LONG time to validate because miners are swamped with transaction volume.
As for your suggestion, it cannot apply to Bitcoin in any way or shape. Reducing the size of the blockchain means making a "summary" of it where all the wallets that are now zero get short-circuited in the transaction history. i.e 'wallet A sends 1 BTC to wallet B which then sends it to wallet C', you shorten it as 'Wallet A sends 1 BTC to wallet C'. But that eschews the hashing process entirely, so it cannot be done trustfully AFAIK.
Can I just ask your opinion, how does this protect someone who buys into Bitcoin from it actually being a Ponzi scheme?
I tried to use it to pay online, but my business partner complained the bills I faxed ain't legal tender.
This is a good point. Credit card companies and banks use promisory notes (credit) and we trust them that the electronic transactions become real at the other end.
The problem with Bitcoin is it is a floating currency and it is prone to price fluctuation that means its meaningfulness as a means of monetary exchange is currently dwarfed by its speculative importance.
And consider this also: Bitcoin mining depends on processing power. Who has most of that? The very people no one trusts anymore (finally!). Money does not just have to be based on a finite resource, but an honest resource. It needs to be off the grid, independent of power companies (no power, no electricity to do your Bitcoin transactions!), telco's (no internet, no Bitcoin). To store value I would still favor metals, and for day to day anonymous purchasing there are better ways.
We need a way to move money anonymously, and we need it right this minute.
1. Cash
2. Barter
3. Disposable credit cards purchased with cash
But what about Bitcoin? It allows you to stow away massive amounts of money in an untouchable way... kind of nice but it's not without its problems. Is it in society's interest that people can move huge amounts of money without them or the government knowing? It can be very much to our detriment, such as being unable to stem the proceeds of crime that flow out of a country into another, unable to check the movement of money by foreign government sponsored subversion, and so forth. I know that nobody has been realistically able to stop the illegal transportation of gold, but why should we make the task of money laundering easier than before?
Less delay in communication devices improves the lives of ordinary citizens.
For example, the gun was an improvement on the bow and arrow, both of which communicate the same message. There are certain uses of this technology that would dramatically improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
here you'd expect the customers to care most about it:
Yeah, and what customers? Electronic trading supercomputers.
None of this makes a difference to honest trading except to ensure its loss making properties.
EU political leaders are slowly understanding the secure phone they where given is junk, trade negotiations where always 'lost' by their own trusted staff, their nations expensive mil/science and secure crypto efforts where given to a list of other countries for 'free' over decades.
It actually doesn't matter what the EU political leaders understand, but the big change is that they have to find a new way to sell the bullshit ideas that they represent to the public now that the public recognizes said ideas as bullshit.
Is "potentially unwanted programs" the new politicaly correct term for malware? It's OK to call it malware, even if the user technically-allegedly-probablynot signed an EULA allowing it.
If it runs an unauthorized bitcoin miner, stealing your cycles and electricity, it's malware. No exceptions.
I love Bitcoin, it's so honest, so fair, so real, so future-proof.
We're also hitting diminishing returns with game graphics. It used to be generational differences between games was huge but these days can you really tell the different between this years shooter and last years shooter?
Barely.
You mean they might actually start to give a toss about playability?
Interesting. The more expensive product though gives stereoscopic depth perception of the vein which is an advance.
Too late: http://evenamed.com/products/glasses
Yeah but it's still way overpriced, that's my point.
This means that the near-infra-red emitters and camera have become so cheap as to be mass marketable. Hold off for six or so months before buying a vein finder for medical use, you could save 90% on the price ... or maybe the next generation of smart phones will support this?
This is just an opinion piece, not even remotely news.
And is it "stuff that matters"? Not to me it isn't.
It's possible and I'm surprised there wasn't more speculation on this in the discussion here. I have no idea, but it'd be interesting to know if there could have been a motive.
When the telephone was invented, it was obvious to all and sundry that it was prone to eavesdropping. It's the case with all forms of communication. Privacy is never a given, it is something that has to be actively sought and maintained, like any other human "right". What is insulting is that companies are going out of their way to betray the customer. I am not thinking so much of software giants but Intel which forces you to relinquish your privacy with apparently no way to get around their backdoors.
My expectation is that this will be used for political infighting, much like the genocide it purports to try to head off.
I rather think this will be used to weed out political dissent among the population.
It takes more than that. You also have to compartmentalize your real and assumed identities so your friends and acquaintances who do not value your privacy do not link them for you. I find facebook's "is this really X's real name" queries to your social contacts especially dangerous.
Facebook is an intel organization's dream.
Article is a forum post from 2008 talking about things we knew before then.
Why was this posted?
Extra slow news day?