If people are running these TVs in different rooms, you only need the really fast uplink from the media center to the switch, its probably a ton cheaper to simply have 2 NICs in the server. 10GbE runs about $200 per port on the switch, and a ton more for NICs.
I may need to read up on deadly sins, but the idea that the work of Christ is insufficient "in one pass" to account for a particular mortal sin still seems particularly dangerous.
I generally agree with you, but regarding whether they are classified as Christians I guess I am going by "are they following Christ". I would consider "understanding and believing what Christ taught" and "understanding the difference between the law and grace" to be a requirement for that. Otherwise, it seems very difficult to me to distinguish between "liberal christians" who would deny anything supernatural in the bible or in substitutionary atonement; "fundamentalists" who would hold to scriptural integrity, inerrancy, and authority; mormons who would add several new texts and (I believe) deny a number of doctrines regarding man's state before God; etc. I think it is also highly relevant whether someone is merely ignorant, or whether they knowingly reject the idea of "saving grace".
I also do agree that there are almost certainly people "in" the roman church who are truly Christian; I should have been clear that when I speak of "catholocism", I am speaking of the official stance. Because of their stance on infallibility, authority, and tradition, there is indeed an "authoritative" RCC stance on many doctrines, and that is what I am speaking of. (my understanding is that a council making a declaration on doctrinal issues is held to be infallible in the same way that the Pope ex cathedra is)
Of course all of this is opinion; I do not truly know who is and is not saved, but I cant see how to understand the gospel in a way that doesnt draw hard and fast lines where you must be "orthodox" in order to be "Christian".
The RCC has been clear throughout history that it does not consider any who hold to "salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone" to be saved. They made a declaration at the council of trent:
“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12)
In case you are not familiar with the term, anathema is a fairly strong term indicating a lack of saving grace. Meanwhile, the entire thrust of "sola fide" is that believing that savlation is by "grace, plus other stuff" completely undermines that value of Christ's blood and is tantamount to rejecting the cross.
The point is, that the two core doctrines of salvation (the RCC version and the Protestant version) are pretty much opposites. One says that salvation must be by faith alone (though said faith will not be alone), the other says that salvation MUST be accomplished by faith, and other stuff.
It sounds harsh, but this cant be ignored. For all the agreement between RCC and protestant theology, at the two ultimate issues (means of salvation and source of authority), they disagree fundamentally. It would be like debating whether Mormonism is the same as classic christianity; for all that it shares with classic christianity, it disagrees precisely on those issues that matter most (means of salvation, what salvation is, role of the father, identity of the son, what constitutes revelation).
While I'm not a personal fan of the "Seven Deadly Sins" analysis framework, I need a more sophisticated argument than "not a direct quote from the Bible,"
How about "the idea of unforgiveable sins directly contradicts all that the apostles and Jesus himself taught"?
Its fair to say that Catholics would not consider Protestants to be christian, and Protestants would not consider Catholics to be Christian; so perhaps it is better to clarify which group you mean. It is for sure that whichever group is christian, the other is not.
I'd also note that the RCC doesnt define christianity; the church founders do, and none ever made reference to deadly sins, nor did early bishops, nor did the apostles, nor did Jesus, nor did any part of the bible.
Because Christianity isnt about feeling good about what I believe, its about trying to help people avoid the penalty for their misdeeds.
So that you feel the existence of the cosmos and whatnot is interesting, but as a Christian I dont feel a particular thrill simply because you feel something. Im more concerned that you think personal beliefs trump reality in this regard.
With only an 8th grade education, and all of your friends and family belonging to the community, you'd probably stay because you'd fear the total abandonment of the only life you've ever known.
Makes me question how much you actually know of Amish. AFAIK, it is traditional during the teen years for young "amish" to be released from all responsibilities and sent out into the world for a season-- their "Rumspringa". Afterwards, they make a decision as to whether to return to the amish life or not.
So its likely that theyve experienced more that "the world has to offer" than most people posting here on slashdot. IIRC it isnt unusual to find former meth addicts or whatever in amish communities.
I never suggested the length of time required or the amount of skill required. I simply said it could be done.
Right, and the way you said it makes it clear that you arent in a position to make those sorts of declarations. This isnt hollywood, just because something exists doesnt mean that it is possible to crack its security in human timeframes.
The point I was making is if you truly want to break something, you will
Oh OK. Tell that to the governments who were asking Blackberry some way to crack BES (not BIS) traffic, only to be told "it cant be done". Or China, who currently tries to block OpenVPN traffic because its not really breakable. Or any court case where forensics has a truecrypted drive and cant get any further because they dont have the keys.
I seem to remember that one jailbreak actually required soldering a point inside the Phones board.
The only way to get that level of access in a car is to disassemble the whole thing. Once you have done that "breaking into the car" is sort of irrelevant.
Not to be harsh but you really dont know what you are talking about. You are speculating and making statements about things that you have only the most rudimentary knowledge about.
The author fails to take some things into account however, and Im not totally convinced because of the holes in his reasoning. For example:
One of the most common critiques of my theory was this - maybe there were questions with only 3 or 4 mark intervals in all subjects making certain marks mathematically unattainable. My counterargument? All numbers from 94 to 100 are attainable and have been attained. What does this mean? It means that increments of 1 to 6 are attainable. By extension, all numbers from 0 to 100 are achievable.... If 99 and 98 were definitely achievable with deductions of 1 and 2 respectively, this means one of two cases - there is a question A worth 1 mark that made 99 occur, and a question B worth 2 maks that made 98 occur, which meant getting A and B both wrong would mean 97 could occur.
Unless, of course, there are 2 1-point questions on the test, and all the rest are 4-point questions, in which case a 99, 98, and 96 would be attainable, but 97 would not. Perhaps the majority of questions were multi-part, worth multiple points, and getting a part wrong meant getting the whole wrong.
It definately looks wierd and he may be on to something, but you cant go from "I found some data, and I dont know if its all of the data or a subset, but man does it look wierd --> everyone must be cheating". The results are indeed odd but the number of assumptions this guy made was staggering. He apparently doesnt know that much about the test, nor about the website he pulled data from, or whether he got all of the data, or why the school codes are different depending on the test, or whether there might be non-sequential student IDs.... but he sure is ready to start doing statistical analysis.
Half of the problem is that Slashdot sucks at making non-hysterical headlines.
0 sick or with a minutely increased chance of cancer sounds a bit low,
Not if you actually looked at the radiation dose recieved by the few workers (~3?) who got the highest doses.
IIRC it was between 150-300mSv for most of the workers, which is generally "you should probably let a hospital check you out, but youre gonna be fine".
So they had it set to a high level of encryption like maybe 256.
There is so much wrong with that statement I dont even know where to begin.
"Encryption" isnt the word you want for this, since sending a static, encrypted message would be highly vulnerable to a replay attack. You want "authentication", which if its using a rolling code can be highly secure. But assuming youre talking about a 256-bit key, thats still not something you can just throw out as a "we can crack this". How fast you can brute-force it depends on how long it takes to attempt one key; any sane system would limit it to 1 attempt per 0.5 seconds or something, which would make it utterly infeasible to brute-force.
It was never hard to break in for someone skilled. It was time consuming.
Technically all computer security is "easy" if you have an infinite length of time to work with, but we're talking about time scales in the billions of years with a lot of modern computer security. We have the ability to have perfectly secure systems, the flaws are often in the implementation. With simple systems (ie, only access through an RF signal), your chances of getting security right are a lot higher.
Most of the things you listed are irrelevant. You are the owner of the device in all of those examples, so you must necessarily have all of the keys to access the content in question. Accessing a car is different; you need more than access to "the car" to break in unless you feel like disassembling the car, disassembling the internal computer, and reverse engineering the ROM chip inside.
The world is complex enough that multiple people can be at fault. If the Ferrari gets broken into, you are at fault for being naieve and foolish, and the thief is at fault for being a leech on society.
Who gets the blame? Both of them. Is the thief the bigger part of the problem? Sure he is, and the largest portion of the blame goes to him. But you still are responsible insofar as your foolishness left you wide open to being victimized and creating an opportunity for a crime that any reasonable individual could have predicted.
If I recall, the proper thing to do when there is neither a timeline nor a patch in a reasonable timeframe is to post the PoC to force the vendor to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are running these TVs in different rooms, you only need the really fast uplink from the media center to the switch, its probably a ton cheaper to simply have 2 NICs in the server. 10GbE runs about $200 per port on the switch, and a ton more for NICs.
I may need to read up on deadly sins, but the idea that the work of Christ is insufficient "in one pass" to account for a particular mortal sin still seems particularly dangerous.
I generally agree with you, but regarding whether they are classified as Christians I guess I am going by "are they following Christ". I would consider "understanding and believing what Christ taught" and "understanding the difference between the law and grace" to be a requirement for that. Otherwise, it seems very difficult to me to distinguish between "liberal christians" who would deny anything supernatural in the bible or in substitutionary atonement; "fundamentalists" who would hold to scriptural integrity, inerrancy, and authority; mormons who would add several new texts and (I believe) deny a number of doctrines regarding man's state before God; etc. I think it is also highly relevant whether someone is merely ignorant, or whether they knowingly reject the idea of "saving grace".
I also do agree that there are almost certainly people "in" the roman church who are truly Christian; I should have been clear that when I speak of "catholocism", I am speaking of the official stance. Because of their stance on infallibility, authority, and tradition, there is indeed an "authoritative" RCC stance on many doctrines, and that is what I am speaking of. (my understanding is that a council making a declaration on doctrinal issues is held to be infallible in the same way that the Pope ex cathedra is)
Of course all of this is opinion; I do not truly know who is and is not saved, but I cant see how to understand the gospel in a way that doesnt draw hard and fast lines where you must be "orthodox" in order to be "Christian".
The RCC has been clear throughout history that it does not consider any who hold to "salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone" to be saved. They made a declaration at the council of trent:
“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12)
(Pulled from http://www.wayoflife.org/database/romedeniesgrace.html)
In case you are not familiar with the term, anathema is a fairly strong term indicating a lack of saving grace.
Meanwhile, the entire thrust of "sola fide" is that believing that savlation is by "grace, plus other stuff" completely undermines that value of Christ's blood and is tantamount to rejecting the cross.
The point is, that the two core doctrines of salvation (the RCC version and the Protestant version) are pretty much opposites. One says that salvation must be by faith alone (though said faith will not be alone), the other says that salvation MUST be accomplished by faith, and other stuff.
It sounds harsh, but this cant be ignored. For all the agreement between RCC and protestant theology, at the two ultimate issues (means of salvation and source of authority), they disagree fundamentally. It would be like debating whether Mormonism is the same as classic christianity; for all that it shares with classic christianity, it disagrees precisely on those issues that matter most (means of salvation, what salvation is, role of the father, identity of the son, what constitutes revelation).
While I'm not a personal fan of the "Seven Deadly Sins" analysis framework, I need a more sophisticated argument than "not a direct quote from the Bible,"
How about "the idea of unforgiveable sins directly contradicts all that the apostles and Jesus himself taught"?
Its fair to say that Catholics would not consider Protestants to be christian, and Protestants would not consider Catholics to be Christian; so perhaps it is better to clarify which group you mean. It is for sure that whichever group is christian, the other is not.
I'd also note that the RCC doesnt define christianity; the church founders do, and none ever made reference to deadly sins, nor did early bishops, nor did the apostles, nor did Jesus, nor did any part of the bible.
Because Christianity isnt about feeling good about what I believe, its about trying to help people avoid the penalty for their misdeeds.
So that you feel the existence of the cosmos and whatnot is interesting, but as a Christian I dont feel a particular thrill simply because you feel something. Im more concerned that you think personal beliefs trump reality in this regard.
If you wanted to have a serious discussion on this, you could google to find the huge number of (fairly simple) explanations for why that is.
Here, Ill even do the difficult work for you:
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=why+do+christians+follow+parts+of+the+old+testament+laws
http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals
If you really wish for further clarification please let me know.
With only an 8th grade education, and all of your friends and family belonging to the community, you'd probably stay because you'd fear the total abandonment of the only life you've ever known.
Makes me question how much you actually know of Amish. AFAIK, it is traditional during the teen years for young "amish" to be released from all responsibilities and sent out into the world for a season-- their "Rumspringa". Afterwards, they make a decision as to whether to return to the amish life or not.
So its likely that theyve experienced more that "the world has to offer" than most people posting here on slashdot. IIRC it isnt unusual to find former meth addicts or whatever in amish communities.
On the other hand, the fact that you think there are deadly sins doesnt speak highly of your knowledge of Christianity.
It is generally true however that folks on TV trying to sell a message are generally not what you would consider "solid christians".
Who controls the British crown, Who keeps the metric system down,
We do, we do.
People who care about creating rather than simply consuming?
You can have my blackberry when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
I never suggested the length of time required or the amount of skill required. I simply said it could be done.
Right, and the way you said it makes it clear that you arent in a position to make those sorts of declarations. This isnt hollywood, just because something exists doesnt mean that it is possible to crack its security in human timeframes.
The point I was making is if you truly want to break something, you will
Oh OK. Tell that to the governments who were asking Blackberry some way to crack BES (not BIS) traffic, only to be told "it cant be done". Or China, who currently tries to block OpenVPN traffic because its not really breakable. Or any court case where forensics has a truecrypted drive and cant get any further because they dont have the keys.
I seem to remember that one jailbreak actually required soldering a point inside the Phones board.
The only way to get that level of access in a car is to disassemble the whole thing. Once you have done that "breaking into the car" is sort of irrelevant.
Not to be harsh but you really dont know what you are talking about. You are speculating and making statements about things that you have only the most rudimentary knowledge about.
Thats right, you use those ad hominems.
The author fails to take some things into account however, and Im not totally convinced because of the holes in his reasoning. For example:
One of the most common critiques of my theory was this - maybe there were questions with only 3 or 4 mark intervals in all subjects making certain marks mathematically unattainable. My counterargument? All numbers from 94 to 100 are attainable and have been attained. What does this mean? It means that increments of 1 to 6 are attainable. By extension, all numbers from 0 to 100 are achievable.... If 99 and 98 were definitely achievable with deductions of 1 and 2 respectively, this means one of two cases - there is a question A worth 1 mark that made 99 occur, and a question B worth 2 maks that made 98 occur, which meant getting A and B both wrong would mean 97 could occur.
Unless, of course, there are 2 1-point questions on the test, and all the rest are 4-point questions, in which case a 99, 98, and 96 would be attainable, but 97 would not. Perhaps the majority of questions were multi-part, worth multiple points, and getting a part wrong meant getting the whole wrong.
It definately looks wierd and he may be on to something, but you cant go from "I found some data, and I dont know if its all of the data or a subset, but man does it look wierd --> everyone must be cheating". The results are indeed odd but the number of assumptions this guy made was staggering. He apparently doesnt know that much about the test, nor about the website he pulled data from, or whether he got all of the data, or why the school codes are different depending on the test, or whether there might be non-sequential student IDs.... but he sure is ready to start doing statistical analysis.
Half of the problem is that Slashdot sucks at making non-hysterical headlines.
Conspiracy theorists, unite!
Symantec, in collaboration with the Guild of Calamatious Intent...
MITM works on 2-factor just as well as it does on 1-factor.
Most governments require backdoors,
I believe this is where wikipedia inserts a [citation required], or simply flags it as "Weasel Words".
Thats such an unbelievably vague and broad claim that Im surprised you thought you could get away with it.
Im not an expert, but doesnt cancer from radiation take YEARS to develop?
Sorry, not gonna buy a "i got cancer in two years" narrative.
0 sick or with a minutely increased chance of cancer sounds a bit low,
Not if you actually looked at the radiation dose recieved by the few workers (~3?) who got the highest doses.
IIRC it was between 150-300mSv for most of the workers, which is generally "you should probably let a hospital check you out, but youre gonna be fine".
So they had it set to a high level of encryption like maybe 256.
There is so much wrong with that statement I dont even know where to begin.
"Encryption" isnt the word you want for this, since sending a static, encrypted message would be highly vulnerable to a replay attack. You want "authentication", which if its using a rolling code can be highly secure. But assuming youre talking about a 256-bit key, thats still not something you can just throw out as a "we can crack this". How fast you can brute-force it depends on how long it takes to attempt one key; any sane system would limit it to 1 attempt per 0.5 seconds or something, which would make it utterly infeasible to brute-force.
It was never hard to break in for someone skilled. It was time consuming.
Technically all computer security is "easy" if you have an infinite length of time to work with, but we're talking about time scales in the billions of years with a lot of modern computer security. We have the ability to have perfectly secure systems, the flaws are often in the implementation. With simple systems (ie, only access through an RF signal), your chances of getting security right are a lot higher.
Most of the things you listed are irrelevant. You are the owner of the device in all of those examples, so you must necessarily have all of the keys to access the content in question. Accessing a car is different; you need more than access to "the car" to break in unless you feel like disassembling the car, disassembling the internal computer, and reverse engineering the ROM chip inside.
They have had nightly, beta, and stable forever. I remember tinkering with those channels back in 2005.
The only thing that has changed is that today's geeks apparently have a hangup with any sort of change in version numbering.
The world is complex enough that multiple people can be at fault. If the Ferrari gets broken into, you are at fault for being naieve and foolish, and the thief is at fault for being a leech on society.
Who gets the blame? Both of them. Is the thief the bigger part of the problem? Sure he is, and the largest portion of the blame goes to him. But you still are responsible insofar as your foolishness left you wide open to being victimized and creating an opportunity for a crime that any reasonable individual could have predicted.
Generally user-land viruses will be immediately picked up by antivirus, while a kernel-level exploit can install undetectable keylogger drivers.
He reported the bug back in May.
If I recall, the proper thing to do when there is neither a timeline nor a patch in a reasonable timeframe is to post the PoC to force the vendor to respond.
This is real life, not Call of Duty.
How are you supposing a heartbeat sensor would work?
That was Linksys, not the ISPs.
Assign blame where its due.