"...an oil-rig type structure in the sea". Pretty much. It's a "Maunsell fort", which is one of these. I'd be surprised if a mighty fleet were required to take it. There's more about sea forts here, and about unrecognised little island states, if you're interested.
Alright, I've put on my asbestos overcoat, so here goes. I have been to WAVE America and it all seems fairly reasonable and non-repressive stuff (and no, obviously they wouldn't say "We want to compile sinister profiles" even if they were). It suggests people should talk to their parents or teachers if someone displays early signs of violence (some of which make sense: such as "Hits or bullies others", "Has unlawful possession and use of firearms", "Uses drugs or alcohol on campus" or "Makes threats", and some of which strike me as overreactions: "Has excessive feelings of isolation and/or rejection", "Suddenly has bad grades or little interest in school"), but to ring their toll-free number if someone displays signs of imminent violence (including "Severe destruction of property", "Serious physical fighting with peers or family members" and "Other self-injurious behaviors or threats of suicide"). So what? "Tell a teacher if someone hits you" and "ring 911 if someone's brought a gun into school" is hardly controversial advice. Their "warning signs" do not include "wearing black clothes" or "listening to strange music" or "playing computer games". And if you root about a bit on their (horribly difficult to navigate) website you find they even have advice about how to deal with signs and urges of self-harm.
So in short it appears to me to be a campaign to let people know how do deal with being bullyed, get them to not bully others and generally get through adolescence undamaged. The "Big Brother" bit seems to be spin by suspicious journalists. Here in Britain there's a (gasp) toll-free number called ChildLine for kids to ring to report abuse, bullying etc etc. Dark Instrument of the state's Legions of Terror? Hardly. By all accounts it 's been very useful for child victims of violence.
Now don't get me wrong, this might be true and if it is it's a Very Bad Thing, but what exactly is the source of the story? Any school press releases? Anything from Pinkerton's? Or has someone just made it all up? The WorldNet report doesn't link to any external material apart from another WorldNet report (recurvise journalism). Hard facts welcome.
I suppose so: if the agreement with Mattel was on the condition that Jansson and Skala were "the sole proprietors of all rights", and they weren't, then that agreement presumably gets torn up and they find themselves back in the firing line. Skala will have to give Mattel their $1 back as well. What an unholy mess...
According to http://www.mattel.com/corporate/company/about/inde x.asp?section=contact...
"Please direct general inquiries to Mattel's main phone number, which is (310) 252-2000. Written correspondence may be sent to the company's headquarters address listed below:
Mattel, Inc. 333 Continental Boulevard, El Segundo, CA 90245-5012"
Agh, I hope I've not broken their copyright and damagingly stolen their intellectual property by copying their website contents like that.
Well, after people figure out how duped they've been, they'll buy little software, few monitors, and lots of books! Funny.
But how do I get to Amazon if I've thrown away my computer in disgust? Have to go to high street instead (paying in cash of course, and wearing false mustache to thwart video surveillance)....
"...putting a recording device between the input and the screen, recording the encrypted signal, and then sending exactly the same encrypted signal to the screen again?"
Now THAT's a good point. Wish I'd thought of it. But according to the company behind it (linked to from the eetimes.com story) their business certainly is "protecting commercial entertainment content".
The motivation is to make it impossible to grab a copy of your favourite video by tapping the stream between the player and display (I don't know how that is currently do-able but I reckon it must be do-able). In reality I predict two effects: lots of people have to buy new displays and get very annoyed, and then the piraters either break the encryption or just move even further downstream. The site linked to from the article (http://www.digital-cp.com) explains the company's business: "This organization licenses technologies for protecting commercial entertainment content".
The useful application (from a corporate viewpoint) is, as you suggest, to stop you from recording the decrypted content en-route to the monitor and getting round copy protection that way. I suppose that in principle it could hamper a remote eavesdropper (but not foil them completely?). And as a side effect you'd have a buy new CopyProtect monitor if you want to watch even a single video carrying this protection. Oh well, I suppose that's "progress"...
"no reward for OGR"? But you do get the chance to contribute however fractionally to the sum total of human knowledge, and may even get mentioned in the footnote of some obscure maths journal. That's enough for me. Besides, any mathematician with a big white beard as impressive as Dr Golomb's is deserving of support.
Of course it's up to you, but I'll be chipping in my free cycles.
The underlying technical (ahem) argument in the article seems to be "...the source code, that provides outsiders with the ability to insert this [malicious] code and attack Solaris and Linux systems, has been posted on the Internet for some time, making it easy accessible by anyone." Whereas MS source is locked away ergo MS systems are unattackable. Now that's what I call QUALITY JOURNALISM!
So how exactly does someone editing their copy of the source code have any impact on my executables??? And of course Windows machines are well-known for their invulnerabilty to viruses and trojans, right guys?
"McGrath said yesterday she has decided to remove another provision in the bill that would have required residence hall administrators to conduct random monthly inspections of all residents' rooms for prohibited items". Well thankyou ma'am, how grateful they all must feel.
I think (but do not know) that UK law says anyone can sell any sort of eavesdropping equipment to anyone else, and anyone can own said eavesdropping equipment, but it's illegal to use it to eavesdrop on something you're not a part of. Still, so much for UK law: this in the US, and we all know they're a strange lot over there:o)
Isn't there quite a market in the States for secret cameras for keeping an eye on child-minders ("nanny cams") and such. Are those legal? Maybe so if you plant the camera in your own house.
You are right. Of course, the only tiny problem with one time pads is key distribution. How does the person sending you the message also send you the required pad? Economising by using the same pad over again produces the ideal toehold for an attacker. Quantum crypto solves exactly that problem, but it's still very much in development.
Until then we'll have to stick with good old fashioned public/private key pairs.
First of all: I am no authority on any country's legal system, just a reasonably well informed British citizen. As such, what follows may be wrong but is my understanding of the system.
If someone isn't being tried by jury then they're being tried in a Magistrate's Court. The trial is conducted before at least two magistrates. The magistrates decide guilt or innocence, and pass sentence (up to £2000 fine or 6 months jail).
A Judge is only involved in cases at Crown Court, which are heard before a jury. The jury decides guilt or innocence. The judge acts as general "moderator" throughout the trial and decides the sentence if the jury convict.
...at http://www.nsa.gov:8080/about_nsa/mission.html they are in the business of "The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications -- a capability in which the United States leads the world -- gives our nation a unique advantage." So now we know.
I may be totally wrong... but if it's a crime to refuse to surrender the key to an encrypted message then I'd have thought the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a message was encrypted and you possess the key. This is rather different from being jailed simply because you don't produce the key to some random message which you may have been sent. If the burden of proof really is being thrown onto the accused then I agree that's completely unjustified and a very dangerous move.
Slashdot Mirror
"...an oil-rig type structure in the sea". Pretty much. It's a "Maunsell fort", which is one of these. I'd be surprised if a mighty fleet were required to take it. There's more about sea forts here, and about unrecognised little island states, if you're interested.
So in short it appears to me to be a campaign to let people know how do deal with being bullyed, get them to not bully others and generally get through adolescence undamaged. The "Big Brother" bit seems to be spin by suspicious journalists. Here in Britain there's a (gasp) toll-free number called ChildLine for kids to ring to report abuse, bullying etc etc. Dark Instrument of the state's Legions of Terror? Hardly. By all accounts it 's been very useful for child victims of violence.
Now don't get me wrong, this might be true and if it is it's a Very Bad Thing, but what exactly is the source of the story? Any school press releases? Anything from Pinkerton's? Or has someone just made it all up? The WorldNet report doesn't link to any external material apart from another WorldNet report (recurvise journalism). Hard facts welcome.
I suppose so: if the agreement with Mattel was on the condition that Jansson and Skala were "the sole proprietors of all rights", and they weren't, then that agreement presumably gets torn up and they find themselves back in the firing line. Skala will have to give Mattel their $1 back as well. What an unholy mess...
"Please direct general inquiries to Mattel's main phone number, which is (310) 252-2000. Written correspondence may be sent to the company's headquarters address listed below:
Mattel, Inc. 333 Continental Boulevard, El Segundo, CA 90245-5012"
Agh, I hope I've not broken their copyright and damagingly stolen their intellectual property by copying their website contents like that.
I always thought 22nd July (22/7) was Pi Approximation Day.
Is here (http://linuxtoday.com/stories/12846.html).
Look no further than the MP finder, and then send a good old-fashioned letter to them at House of Commons, Westminster, SW1A 0AA .
But how do I get to Amazon if I've thrown away my computer in disgust? Have to go to high street instead (paying in cash of course, and wearing false mustache to thwart video surveillance)....
Now THAT's a good point. Wish I'd thought of it. But according to the company behind it (linked to from the eetimes.com story) their business certainly is "protecting commercial entertainment content".
The motivation is to make it impossible to grab a copy of your favourite video by tapping the stream between the player and display (I don't know how that is currently do-able but I reckon it must be do-able). In reality I predict two effects: lots of people have to buy new displays and get very annoyed, and then the piraters either break the encryption or just move even further downstream. The site linked to from the article (http://www.digital-cp.com) explains the company's business: "This organization licenses technologies for protecting commercial entertainment content".
The useful application (from a corporate viewpoint) is, as you suggest, to stop you from recording the decrypted content en-route to the monitor and getting round copy protection that way. I suppose that in principle it could hamper a remote eavesdropper (but not foil them completely?). And as a side effect you'd have a buy new CopyProtect monitor if you want to watch even a single video carrying this protection. Oh well, I suppose that's "progress"...
Of course it's up to you, but I'll be chipping in my free cycles.
I second Mr. Slippery's "Ha!", with my own "Pah!". No viruses or trojans ever found on any Windows system ever, no siree, not ever.
So how exactly does someone editing their copy of the source code have any impact on my executables??? And of course Windows machines are well-known for their invulnerabilty to viruses and trojans, right guys?
Quick Home Office summary, with Part 3 relating to the crypto stuff.
Full text of Bill as introduced to parliament (Part 3).
Of course it's all written in that sort of legalese which ought to win the International Obfurscated English Contest...
Would you care to elaborate on that opinion?
"McGrath said yesterday she has decided to remove another provision in the bill that would have required residence hall administrators to conduct random monthly inspections of all residents' rooms for prohibited items". Well thankyou ma'am, how grateful they all must feel.
Why, throught the air-conditioning ducts of course! Don't tell me you haven't seen Mission: Impossible.
Isn't there quite a market in the States for secret cameras for keeping an eye on child-minders ("nanny cams") and such. Are those legal? Maybe so if you plant the camera in your own house.
With all this millenial list-making going on, has anyone produced a list of the top 10 lists? A "meta-list", if you like.
Until then we'll have to stick with good old fashioned public/private key pairs.
If someone isn't being tried by jury then they're being tried in a Magistrate's Court. The trial is conducted before at least two magistrates. The magistrates decide guilt or innocence, and pass sentence (up to £2000 fine or 6 months jail).
A Judge is only involved in cases at Crown Court, which are heard before a jury. The jury decides guilt or innocence. The judge acts as general "moderator" throughout the trial and decides the sentence if the jury convict.
...at http://www.nsa.gov:8080/about_nsa/mission .html they are in the business of "The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications -- a capability in which the United States leads the world -- gives our nation a unique advantage." So now we know.
I may be totally wrong... but if it's a crime to refuse to surrender the key to an encrypted message then I'd have thought the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a message was encrypted and you possess the key. This is rather different from being jailed simply because you don't produce the key to some random message which you may have been sent. If the burden of proof really is being thrown onto the accused then I agree that's completely unjustified and a very dangerous move.