It's actually not a bad way to live if you're young. You can live in and get to know many different places, but once you start to get settled with a family, you can't be uprooting them to move somewhere else every time the company you work for gets bought, "changes strategic direction", or whatever.
If the cable companies used to do this, then why do they pay royalties to the networks nowadays?
Because the television stations sued them and won on the basis that the cable companies were essentially offering a public performance of the television broadcast because they had one antenna and transmitted the input to many users.
Why is Aereo getting sued if they're doing the same thing the cable companies can do?
Cable companies can do it currently because they license the content from the providers (i.e. they pay for the priviledge). Aereo is trying to get around paying the content providers by providing every subscriber with her own personal antenna and saying it's not a public performance. We're just automating what the subscribers could do themselves by erecting their own antenna, attaching it to a tuner and a dvr, and putting the DVR on the internet.
Microsoft was trying to push smartphone before it was popular, but no one wanted or wants what they were or are selling. They have never really had the kind of charismatic salesman that Apple had in Jobs, so they weren't able to create convince people to buy this new thing and create a market. Now that the market's set, and Microsoft essentially isn't part of it, they're done. Just copying Apple or Samsung are doing by having hardware isn't going to make people want Windows Mobile (or whatever they're calling it these days) anymore than they did previously. The Nokia purchase is a huge waste of money. Most people aren't going to buy Microsoft phones. Microsoft needs to spend its resources building something cool (that isn't a phone) and a separate brand for it. That's the kind of gamble that big companies don't take though. There's too much to risk, and it takes a long term vision and commitment that investors don't have.
Don't be fooled by the government! You're discounting the possibility that the NSA used its time machine to travel into the past and implant into the minds of Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen with a weakened version of their own algorithm!
They did. A couple of months ago. The problem is the ROI is so high on this kind of scam that there's always another scumbag setting up all over again.
The fines for businesses that break the law need to be "the revenue earned during the period when the conduct was occurring" that would eliminate the sociopathic calculus that companies use to determine if the potential downside of breaking the law is less than the upside. Stating the penalty as "all revenue" instead of "all profit" would ensure that they lose more than they gain.
Our galaxy is roughly 110,000 light years across. Our largest satellite galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, are less then 200,000 light years away.
You made an excellent point. It made me realize that economically tying the motherboard and the CPU will necessitate less choice.
Right now if there are X motherboards and Y CPUs compatible with those motherboards, a seller needs to stock X + Y items to provide buyers all possible combinations. In the new system if the same degree of flexibility is to be offered a seller would have to stock X * Y items.
There is no way that will happen. We will get less choice if this change becomes a reality unless as others point out someone offers CPU's soldered to something that's socketable that would then be put into a motherboard with a socket (assuming that this is possible and there aren't signal integrity reasons that are forcing Intel to solder the chip to the motherboard).
I'd be interested to know where the proof is that the increase in healthcare costs since AHCAA was passed are due to the act and not just the normal ridiculous growth in healthcare costs.
That said, clearly the provision that denies insurers the ability to deny coverage based on previously existing conditions is going to increase costs because those are individuals are known to have conditions that are going to cost the insurance company something. I guess the provision allowing children to stay on their parents plans might raise costs if the premium for dependents is less and/or the dependent is more likely to need healthcare.
On the savings side, however, there is a percentage of the population that could be paying at least some portion of their healthcare costs instead of waiting until things get so dire that they can't pay for hospitalization and declaring bankruptcy after the fact. Those costs get passed on to the majority of the population that does have insurance by the healthcare providers. There is some evidence from studies involving state run medicaid that having health insurance does in fact reduce the incidence of larger issues, so if that carries forward with AHCAA there will be some savings there too.
Clearly if things pan out in the increased cost or reduced cost category remains to be seen. There are good arguments for both cases. This act will help get people insured. That's a good thing. Insurance is just one part of the overall cost equation. More will probably also need to be done about constraining the cost of the healthcare itself of which the uninsured are just one small part.
AES is based on a subsitution-permutation network. DKIM is based on the RSA signature algorithm which relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers. Elliptic curve public key cryptography is based on the difficulty of solving a discrete logarithm problem.
The difference in the size of keys between one type of algorithm or another is an expression of the difficulty in solving the underlying problem. Factoring a large integer of X bits (RSA) is relatively easy compared to working through the substitutions and permuations of X bits of AES.
"Windows RT (formerly known as Windows on ARM) will be a version of the Windows 8 operating system for ARM devices such as tablets. It will officially only run software available through the Windows Store or included in Windows RT. Among the applications included with Windows RT"
As others have pointed out all over, what you're suggesting isn't feasible. What is feasible is that the sensor acts like a secure key store. When a finger is swiped that matches an enrolled finger, the sensor releases a key associated with that enrollment.
What else could we be spending our money on? Projects like the James Webb Space Telescope or sending to humans to Mars would have certain benefits to humanity while spending money on SETI is likely to be a waste of money. If there were plenty of money to go around then I would have no problem spending the relatively meager 2 million USD on it. However, with things like they are, let's shelve SETI and direct our resources elsewhere.
Is there life on other planets in the galaxy? Probably. Is there intelligent life on other planets in the galaxy? Maybe. There will be a lot more planets with only bacteria than there are planets with sentient beings. Will we be able to detect planets with intelligent life? Even less likely. If we find intelligent life then what? Presumably we're going to try to engage in a dialog. Is that really a good idea at this point in human development?
Your statement assumes infinite resources not finite resources. Steps 2 and 3 require energy which is not available in infinite quantities.
A limited amount of work can be done at any time. Work is limited by the number of people and machines available to do the work, the rate at which those entities can utilize energy, and the rate at which energy can be collected or extracted.
This is my problem with item 3. If it costs more to improve something than people are willing to pay, then you can not increase wealth by doing it. So there are practical limits on improvement.
Furthermore your item 4 is false. Wealth implies value, but something can be improved or better without being more valued. For example, a weapon capable of killing 10 billion people that costs twice as much to make as a weapon that kills 9 billion people. Producing such a weapon is not going to make you more wealthy because it is unnecessary even though it is improved. You should talk about value not improvement.
Buying stock rarely benefits the company the stock represents directly because the stocks are usually purchased from third parties. Strong demand in a stock will increase its market capitalization which will lead to the company having more power to borrow or to generate income through the sale of newly issued stock (at the detriment of current stock holders), but that ability to increase cash on hand is only useful if used. Many companies are already sitting on record hordes of cash but can't find useful ways to spend it.
The people who benefit most from the purchase and sale of stock are disproportionately people who already have so much money that they don't have to worry about how much money their teenage daughter is spending on Lady Ga Ga albums.
The person that wrote that post can't get basic facts about stars right. I wouldn't trust them to interpret anything he or she heard correctly.
From the original article "So the really lucky folks (for whom Betelgeuse is only visible at night) will get 24 hour days, everybody else will get at least some time with two suns in the sky." Here's the deal. A given star isn't visible at night to one person and visible during the day to another. Now if a star is visible to people at the same longitude can depend on their latitudes. If the Earth is between Betelgeuse and the Sun, then it's visible at night to everyone who can see it from their latitude. In that case everyone is going to have longer days. It might turn out to not be full daylight for 24 hours depending on the angles. We could get brighter days and shorter nights.
My guess is either the person is making it up, or their lack of basic astronomical knowledge led to them misunderstanding something that was being said about when Betelgeuse dies.
The energy required to hold on to the stick and rotate at a rate so that the velocity at the end of the stick faster than the speed of light would be infinite.
So, no. The ship wouldn't move faster than the speed of light because you wouldn't be able to generate the force required to make it do so.
I suspected that was your point, but it is not what you said.
You said (my emphasis) "Here's the difference. You can buy OS X and install it on any machine you want. Apple won't stop you; however, don't expect Apple to support it as it runs on non-Apple hardware. Now the moment you create a business to start selling it, you become a re-seller. As a re-seller, Apple can dictate what you can and cannot do."
My point (of which you're probably aware) was that Apple actually does try to dictate to everyone that OS X may only be installed on Apple hardware. However, unlike the RIAA, they don't seem to think it's worth it to sue each individual user. Though that view doesn't stop them from trying to use the DMCA to keep the information from users http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/02/17/apple_serves_dmca_notice_to_osx86_project.html. The only difference between an individual and a group to Apple is how much effort they are willing to expend to stop you from using OS X in violation of the EULA.
Projects such as OSx86 have succeeded in allowing the Intel-based version of Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware largely by bypassing the TPM in software.
The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)
In building your "Hackintosh" however, you may want to keep as close to the hardware configuration of Intel-based Macs for the best compatibility. Intel Macs use (or have used) either a Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, or Xeon processor. For graphics cards, Intel Macs have seen Intel's GMA950; ATI's Mobility Radeon X1600, Radeon X1600, and Radeon X1900 XT; and nVidia's GeForce 7300GT, 7600GT, 8600M GT or Quadro FX4500. . . . . .
I went to the Carbonite website to see what these people have to say. I like what they have to say about "How does Carbonite Online Backup keep my data secure?" It reads (my emphasis in the quoted text):
"Carbonite uses a combination of encryption techniques, similar to those used by banks, to safeguard your data. Files are encrypted twice before they leave your PC and remain encrypted on our servers, making it virtually impossible for anyone to access your files without your secret password. Users are also given the option to manage their own encryption key."
Clearly these are the kind of people you can trust to not put in a backdoor, mine your data, and sell it.
Although you're right that using the fingerprint itself for encryption is not realisitic, the solution that a good fingerprint system will use to provide the same basic functionality is to match the fingerprint in hardware. If the fingerprint swipe matches, then the hardware will release the decryption key. This way you get to do the fuzzy match, but get a fixed result.
Disclaimer: I work for a major fingerprint sensor manufacturer.
The problem with these particular devices isn't in the fingerprint sensors but with the way the security system was setup on the USB chip. The attacks shown used in the article don't have anything to do with the fingerprint sensors. Heise did a similar review of similarly flawed "fingerprint protected" hard drives recently. I think I saw that link from Bruce Schnier's site originally.
This is not to say that fingerprint sensors are perfect. However, creating a spoof for a good fingerprint sensor requires more time and skill than creating a duplicate key for a traditional lock, for example. The sensor mentioned breathing on was probably a sensor that is a few generations old when the technology for just getting an image was not yet mature. They hadn't yet begun to deal with spoofs. You'll find the sensors included on modern laptops, for example, to be much better devices.
Fingerprint sensors are tradeoffs between security and convinience. I keep a password vault protected by a fingerprint sensor. In it, I have a different randomly generated password (using as the maximum number of characters chosen from the widest range of characters allowed by the account) for each website, computer, program that I use. If I was a more capable human being, I would simply remember those passwords for the best security available (at least via passwords). If I wasn't using the password vault, I would certainly have fewer and less complex passwords, and I would the passwords less frequently.
So, in this case. Mock the engineers that designed these storage devices. They failed to design their devices properly. What's sad is that these sensors look to be fairly modern, and someone could probably design a storage device with fairly good security around them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly right.
It's actually not a bad way to live if you're young. You can live in and get to know many different places, but once you start to get settled with a family, you can't be uprooting them to move somewhere else every time the company you work for gets bought, "changes strategic direction", or whatever.
Microsoft did watches long before Apple.
http://www.smartwatchnews.org/...
If the cable companies used to do this, then why do they pay royalties to the networks nowadays?
Because the television stations sued them and won on the basis that the cable companies were essentially offering a public performance of the television broadcast because they had one antenna and transmitted the input to many users.
Why is Aereo getting sued if they're doing the same thing the cable companies can do?
Cable companies can do it currently because they license the content from the providers (i.e. they pay for the priviledge). Aereo is trying to get around paying the content providers by providing every subscriber with her own personal antenna and saying it's not a public performance. We're just automating what the subscribers could do themselves by erecting their own antenna, attaching it to a tuner and a dvr, and putting the DVR on the internet.
Microsoft was trying to push smartphone before it was popular, but no one wanted or wants what they were or are selling. They have never really had the kind of charismatic salesman that Apple had in Jobs, so they weren't able to create convince people to buy this new thing and create a market. Now that the market's set, and Microsoft essentially isn't part of it, they're done. Just copying Apple or Samsung are doing by having hardware isn't going to make people want Windows Mobile (or whatever they're calling it these days) anymore than they did previously. The Nokia purchase is a huge waste of money. Most people aren't going to buy Microsoft phones. Microsoft needs to spend its resources building something cool (that isn't a phone) and a separate brand for it. That's the kind of gamble that big companies don't take though. There's too much to risk, and it takes a long term vision and commitment that investors don't have.
Don't be fooled by the government! You're discounting the possibility that the NSA used its time machine to travel into the past and implant into the minds of Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen with a weakened version of their own algorithm!
They did. A couple of months ago. The problem is the ROI is so high on this kind of scam that there's always another scumbag setting up all over again.
The fines for businesses that break the law need to be "the revenue earned during the period when the conduct was occurring" that would eliminate the sociopathic calculus that companies use to determine if the potential downside of breaking the law is less than the upside. Stating the penalty as "all revenue" instead of "all profit" would ensure that they lose more than they gain.
The only equipment he needs to read it is a pair of working eyes ...
Actually one eye is sufficient. Even more convenient!
Our galaxy is roughly 110,000 light years across. Our largest satellite galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, are less then 200,000 light years away.
You made an excellent point. It made me realize that economically tying the motherboard and the CPU will necessitate less choice.
Right now if there are X motherboards and Y CPUs compatible with those motherboards, a seller needs to stock X + Y items to provide buyers all possible combinations. In the new system if the same degree of flexibility is to be offered a seller would have to stock X * Y items.
There is no way that will happen. We will get less choice if this change becomes a reality unless as others point out someone offers CPU's soldered to something that's socketable that would then be put into a motherboard with a socket (assuming that this is possible and there aren't signal integrity reasons that are forcing Intel to solder the chip to the motherboard).
I'd be interested to know where the proof is that the increase in healthcare costs since AHCAA was passed are due to the act and not just the normal ridiculous growth in healthcare costs.
That said, clearly the provision that denies insurers the ability to deny coverage based on previously existing conditions is going to increase costs because those are individuals are known to have conditions that are going to cost the insurance company something. I guess the provision allowing children to stay on their parents plans might raise costs if the premium for dependents is less and/or the dependent is more likely to need healthcare.
On the savings side, however, there is a percentage of the population that could be paying at least some portion of their healthcare costs instead of waiting until things get so dire that they can't pay for hospitalization and declaring bankruptcy after the fact. Those costs get passed on to the majority of the population that does have insurance by the healthcare providers. There is some evidence from studies involving state run medicaid that having health insurance does in fact reduce the incidence of larger issues, so if that carries forward with AHCAA there will be some savings there too.
Clearly if things pan out in the increased cost or reduced cost category remains to be seen. There are good arguments for both cases. This act will help get people insured. That's a good thing. Insurance is just one part of the overall cost equation. More will probably also need to be done about constraining the cost of the healthcare itself of which the uninsured are just one small part.
To add more detail to the AC's response.
AES is based on a subsitution-permutation network.
DKIM is based on the RSA signature algorithm which relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers.
Elliptic curve public key cryptography is based on the difficulty of solving a discrete logarithm problem.
The difference in the size of keys between one type of algorithm or another is an expression of the difficulty in solving the underlying problem. Factoring a large integer of X bits (RSA) is relatively easy compared to working through the substitutions and permuations of X bits of AES.
The link below provides a guideline for comparing the key sizes of AES, EC, RSA/DH.
http://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/elliptic_curve.shtml
I like how you left off the "Not to be confused with Windows RT." from immediately before the text you quoted from the article.
Here's another wiki for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
"Windows RT (formerly known as Windows on ARM) will be a version of the Windows 8 operating system for ARM devices such as tablets. It will officially only run software available through the Windows Store or included in Windows RT. Among the applications included with Windows RT"
As others have pointed out all over, what you're suggesting isn't feasible. What is feasible is that the sensor acts like a secure key store. When a finger is swiped that matches an enrolled finger, the sensor releases a key associated with that enrollment.
What else could we be spending our money on? Projects like the James Webb Space Telescope or sending to humans to Mars would have certain benefits to humanity while spending money on SETI is likely to be a waste of money. If there were plenty of money to go around then I would have no problem spending the relatively meager 2 million USD on it. However, with things like they are, let's shelve SETI and direct our resources elsewhere.
Is there life on other planets in the galaxy? Probably.
Is there intelligent life on other planets in the galaxy? Maybe. There will be a lot more planets with only bacteria than there are planets with sentient beings.
Will we be able to detect planets with intelligent life? Even less likely.
If we find intelligent life then what? Presumably we're going to try to engage in a dialog. Is that really a good idea at this point in human development?
Your statement assumes infinite resources not finite resources. Steps 2 and 3 require energy which is not available in infinite quantities.
A limited amount of work can be done at any time. Work is limited by the number of people and machines available to do the work, the rate at which those entities can utilize energy, and the rate at which energy can be collected or extracted.
This is my problem with item 3. If it costs more to improve something than people are willing to pay, then you can not increase wealth by doing it. So there are practical limits on improvement.
Furthermore your item 4 is false. Wealth implies value, but something can be improved or better without being more valued. For example, a weapon capable of killing 10 billion people that costs twice as much to make as a weapon that kills 9 billion people. Producing such a weapon is not going to make you more wealthy because it is unnecessary even though it is improved. You should talk about value not improvement.
Buying stock rarely benefits the company the stock represents directly because the stocks are usually purchased from third parties. Strong demand in a stock will increase its market capitalization which will lead to the company having more power to borrow or to generate income through the sale of newly issued stock (at the detriment of current stock holders), but that ability to increase cash on hand is only useful if used. Many companies are already sitting on record hordes of cash but can't find useful ways to spend it.
The people who benefit most from the purchase and sale of stock are disproportionately people who already have so much money that they don't have to worry about how much money their teenage daughter is spending on Lady Ga Ga albums.
The person that wrote that post can't get basic facts about stars right. I wouldn't trust them to interpret anything he or she heard correctly.
From the original article "So the really lucky folks (for whom Betelgeuse is only visible at night) will get 24 hour days, everybody else will get at least some time with two suns in the sky." Here's the deal. A given star isn't visible at night to one person and visible during the day to another. Now if a star is visible to people at the same longitude can depend on their latitudes. If the Earth is between Betelgeuse and the Sun, then it's visible at night to everyone who can see it from their latitude. In that case everyone is going to have longer days. It might turn out to not be full daylight for 24 hours depending on the angles. We could get brighter days and shorter nights.
My guess is either the person is making it up, or their lack of basic astronomical knowledge led to them misunderstanding something that was being said about when Betelgeuse dies.
I have an old HP inkjet printer/scanner/copier that will not scan without ink. That was the last HP printer I will ever buy.
The energy required to hold on to the stick and rotate at a rate so that the velocity at the end of the stick faster than the speed of light would be infinite.
So, no. The ship wouldn't move faster than the speed of light because you wouldn't be able to generate the force required to make it do so.
I suspected that was your point, but it is not what you said.
You said (my emphasis) "Here's the difference. You can buy OS X and install it on any machine you want. Apple won't stop you; however, don't expect Apple to support it as it runs on non-Apple hardware. Now the moment you create a business to start selling it, you become a re-seller. As a re-seller, Apple can dictate what you can and cannot do."
My point (of which you're probably aware) was that Apple actually does try to dictate to everyone that OS X may only be installed on Apple hardware. However, unlike the RIAA, they don't seem to think it's worth it to sue each individual user. Though that view doesn't stop them from trying to use the DMCA to keep the information from users http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/02/17/apple_serves_dmca_notice_to_osx86_project.html. The only difference between an individual and a group to Apple is how much effort they are willing to expend to stop you from using OS X in violation of the EULA.
Here's the difference. You can buy OS X and install it on any machine you want. Apple won't stop you;
WRONG
OSX contains DRM to stop this type of thing.
From the http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ
Do I need Apple hardware to run Mac OS X?
Not anymore.
Projects such as OSx86 have succeeded in allowing the Intel-based version of Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware largely by bypassing the TPM in software.
The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)
In building your "Hackintosh" however, you may want to keep as close to the hardware configuration of Intel-based Macs for the best compatibility. Intel Macs use (or have used) either a Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, or Xeon processor. For graphics cards, Intel Macs have seen Intel's GMA950; ATI's Mobility Radeon X1600, Radeon X1600, and Radeon X1900 XT; and nVidia's GeForce 7300GT, 7600GT, 8600M GT or Quadro FX4500. . . . . .
I went to the Carbonite website to see what these people have to say. I like what they have to say about "How does Carbonite Online Backup keep my data secure?" It reads (my emphasis in the quoted text):
"Carbonite uses a combination of encryption techniques, similar to those used by banks, to safeguard your data. Files are encrypted twice before they leave your PC and remain encrypted on our servers, making it virtually impossible for anyone to access your files without your secret password. Users are also given the option to manage their own encryption key."
Clearly these are the kind of people you can trust to not put in a backdoor, mine your data, and sell it.
Although you're right that using the fingerprint itself for encryption is not realisitic, the solution that a good fingerprint system will use to provide the same basic functionality is to match the fingerprint in hardware. If the fingerprint swipe matches, then the hardware will release the decryption key. This way you get to do the fuzzy match, but get a fixed result.
Disclaimer: I work for a major fingerprint sensor manufacturer.
The problem with these particular devices isn't in the fingerprint sensors but with the way the security system was setup on the USB chip. The attacks shown used in the article don't have anything to do with the fingerprint sensors. Heise did a similar review of similarly flawed "fingerprint protected" hard drives recently. I think I saw that link from Bruce Schnier's site originally.
This is not to say that fingerprint sensors are perfect. However, creating a spoof for a good fingerprint sensor requires more time and skill than creating a duplicate key for a traditional lock, for example. The sensor mentioned breathing on was probably a sensor that is a few generations old when the technology for just getting an image was not yet mature. They hadn't yet begun to deal with spoofs. You'll find the sensors included on modern laptops, for example, to be much better devices.
Fingerprint sensors are tradeoffs between security and convinience. I keep a password vault protected by a fingerprint sensor. In it, I have a different randomly generated password (using as the maximum number of characters chosen from the widest range of characters allowed by the account) for each website, computer, program that I use. If I was a more capable human being, I would simply remember those passwords for the best security available (at least via passwords). If I wasn't using the password vault, I would certainly have fewer and less complex passwords, and I would the passwords less frequently.
So, in this case. Mock the engineers that designed these storage devices. They failed to design their devices properly. What's sad is that these sensors look to be fairly modern, and someone could probably design a storage device with fairly good security around them.
States have constitutions too. Perhaps he was referring to Costco challenging the laws based on Oregon's and Washington's constitutions.