You could add a 'write random crap to RAM' thing to your shutdown procedure, but that won't help if they simply power the machine off.
Actually, one thing that might help would be a "Decrypt then wipe RAM" scheme, where the program decrypts a file, moves the file contents into some form of buffer, then wipes the RAM location where the decryption key was stored (and if necessary, wipe the paging file). It would leave that specific file exposed, but that's a heck of a lot better than leaving the key in RAM.
I had actually forgotten about that. It's certainly possible the two are related. Time Warner could be telling the truth about their reasons. They could also be using the "suggestion" to stop hosting some Usenet as an excuse / opportunity to stop hosting all of it.
I'll admit to enough cynicism at this point to highly suspect it was the arm-twisting... but I also have to confess to enough cynicism that I may be allowing my prejudices to run away with me. Either way, I wish ISPs had been granted Common Carrier status--I could switch to another ISP, despite the "last mile" monopoly.
I don't know if you'd accept this as evidence, but Time Warner/RoadRunner recently stopped carrying ANY Usenet content. They claimed this was due to "low subscriber usage," but it came out almost immediately after Cuomo's armtwisting.
"Volcano" is, indeed, a stronger algorithm than "fire", but it's also much coarser-grained. Further research shows that the decrypted portions were not completely encrypted, merely provided with a partially-encrypted wrapper.
We can also discuss the even more advanced "Thermonuclear ground-zero" algorithm, but the ultimate form of this type of encryption (matter-antimatter annihilation) is only theoretically possible with our current technology.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
It's a bit of a nonsense argument to just say, 'computers will get smarter and figure out how to fool your test/eventually/'.
That's actually not my argument (and I agree that it's not a good argument at all). My argument is that CAPTCHA specifically is already broken, that adding layers of complexity is nothing but a short-term cure, and that the "Turing-test security" concept may not be a sound theory.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
CAPTCHA is broken: it's not just various implementations that are compromised, but the entire theory.
The turing test theory to identify humans from machines is broken?
I would have to say yes--because (in the case of automated sign-ups) it is implemented by computers to computers.
The only thing your example does is add a layer of complexity. Standard CAPTCHA techniques rely on a single dimension of perception--the ability to recognize and reproduce text. Your examples rely on multiple channels of perception (recognition of text and comprehension of language), and as such adds a layer of complexity to the issue--one that's currently not within a computer's capability, but is theoretically possible.
Any process that can be automated will eventually be developed as an algorithm: currently, computers are capable of recognizing CAPTCHAed text (within a certain failure percentage). Computers currently cannot reliably understand complex phrases in natural language... but they can understand simple phrases, and complex phrases are only an additional layer of complexity.
I'm not saying that the theory is unsound (though I suspect it is--I simply don't have enough proof to make the argument). What I'm saying is that the test cannot be automated--and adding layers of complexity is not the cure.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 5, Informative
CAPTCHA is broken: it's not just various implementations that are compromised, but the entire theory.
This was probably inevitable, but it's a shame to see Psystar brought down.
It's both a shame, and inevitable. I can see Jobs' argument--that Psystar dilutes the Apple "brand"--even though I have some disagreements with how far the concept of "branding" has gone.
OSx86 demonstrates that Apple's not completely alone in the "Runs OSX" crowd, though it's certainly not a project I'd give to my wife or my non-geekish friends.
This in and of itself could be a good foundational precedent towards net neutrality. Martin's recommendation is precedent--combine that with Comcast's statement that issues with P2P throttling have "been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, an administrative agency whose authority to regulate Internet broadband access companies' services is well-established."
IANAL, but it looks like Comcast has hoisted itself on its own legal petard.
Presenting children--children, mind you--with a lie is wrong. Creationism and ID are not "sides of an argument," they are lies: lies originated in dishonesty, propagated in (at best) good faith ignorance, and perpetuated by superstition.
Advocating for a lie to be taught in schools is not something I'd want to sign my name to, either.
I understand what you're saying, and I quite agree that the person who innocently propagates a lie that they received in good faith is not lying. However, if Person A makes a knowingly false statement (a lie), and Person B repeats it in good faith, Person B is not lying--but the statement is still a lie.
I place no moral onus on Person B--they are repeating something they heard and accepted in good faith. The moral onus for lying falls solely on Person A.
Short argument? Because it depends on deliberate omission, distortion, or outright fabrication of facts.
have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone?
Do not attempt to shift the burden to me, personally. No person in science operates alone: that's the whole point of the "peer review" portion of the scientific method.
while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
And this is the first--and one of the largest--lies that creationists will tell to well-meaning, well-intended people like you.
Evolution has already been proven as fact. The general broad framework of evolution has been well established at least since the 1960s or so. The specific mechanisms, the process, the intermediate steps... some of these things have been well established, some of them are still not completely understood. But even if we do not understand all aspects of how evolution occurs, we have witnessed it occurring again and again--in the fossil records, in the lab, and even in the field.
The frequent assertion made by Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, and their ilk that "evolution has never been proven" is the foundational lie to their argument.
A good point, and good to remember, but ZDnet and Tech-On both used the term as well. Maybe the automatic assumption of "geek = IT" is more widespread than/.
Slashdot Mirror
Security versus convenience. If you have no files (or relatively few files) that require this level of security, use a more convenient method.
You could add a 'write random crap to RAM' thing to your shutdown procedure, but that won't help if they simply power the machine off.
Actually, one thing that might help would be a "Decrypt then wipe RAM" scheme, where the program decrypts a file, moves the file contents into some form of buffer, then wipes the RAM location where the decryption key was stored (and if necessary, wipe the paging file). It would leave that specific file exposed, but that's a heck of a lot better than leaving the key in RAM.
I had actually forgotten about that. It's certainly possible the two are related. Time Warner could be telling the truth about their reasons. They could also be using the "suggestion" to stop hosting some Usenet as an excuse / opportunity to stop hosting all of it.
I'll admit to enough cynicism at this point to highly suspect it was the arm-twisting ... but I also have to confess to enough cynicism that I may be allowing my prejudices to run away with me. Either way, I wish ISPs had been granted Common Carrier status--I could switch to another ISP, despite the "last mile" monopoly.
I don't know if you'd accept this as evidence, but Time Warner/RoadRunner recently stopped carrying ANY Usenet content. They claimed this was due to "low subscriber usage," but it came out almost immediately after Cuomo's armtwisting.
It's gone. It's always gone.
Not to mention that it would involve actually doing things correctly.
"Volcano" is, indeed, a stronger algorithm than "fire", but it's also much coarser-grained. Further research shows that the decrypted portions were not completely encrypted, merely provided with a partially-encrypted wrapper.
We can also discuss the even more advanced "Thermonuclear ground-zero" algorithm, but the ultimate form of this type of encryption (matter-antimatter annihilation) is only theoretically possible with our current technology.
It's a bit of a nonsense argument to just say, 'computers will get smarter and figure out how to fool your test /eventually/'.
That's actually not my argument (and I agree that it's not a good argument at all). My argument is that CAPTCHA specifically is already broken, that adding layers of complexity is nothing but a short-term cure, and that the "Turing-test security" concept may not be a sound theory.
CAPTCHA is broken: it's not just various implementations that are compromised, but the entire theory.
The turing test theory to identify humans from machines is broken?
I would have to say yes--because (in the case of automated sign-ups) it is implemented by computers to computers.
The only thing your example does is add a layer of complexity. Standard CAPTCHA techniques rely on a single dimension of perception--the ability to recognize and reproduce text. Your examples rely on multiple channels of perception (recognition of text and comprehension of language), and as such adds a layer of complexity to the issue--one that's currently not within a computer's capability, but is theoretically possible.
Any process that can be automated will eventually be developed as an algorithm: currently, computers are capable of recognizing CAPTCHAed text (within a certain failure percentage). Computers currently cannot reliably understand complex phrases in natural language ... but they can understand simple phrases, and complex phrases are only an additional layer of complexity.
I'm not saying that the theory is unsound (though I suspect it is--I simply don't have enough proof to make the argument). What I'm saying is that the test cannot be automated--and adding layers of complexity is not the cure.
CAPTCHA is broken: it's not just various implementations that are compromised, but the entire theory.
This was probably inevitable, but it's a shame to see Psystar brought down.
It's both a shame, and inevitable. I can see Jobs' argument--that Psystar dilutes the Apple "brand"--even though I have some disagreements with how far the concept of "branding" has gone.
OSx86 demonstrates that Apple's not completely alone in the "Runs OSX" crowd, though it's certainly not a project I'd give to my wife or my non-geekish friends.
Oops--Spun got to it first.
Fact-checking is so pre-Web-2.0.
This in and of itself could be a good foundational precedent towards net neutrality. Martin's recommendation is precedent--combine that with Comcast's statement that issues with P2P throttling have "been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, an administrative agency whose authority to regulate Internet broadband access companies' services is well-established."
IANAL, but it looks like Comcast has hoisted itself on its own legal petard.
Fail. Do not pass go. Do collect negative karma.
Presenting children--children, mind you--with a lie is wrong. Creationism and ID are not "sides of an argument," they are lies: lies originated in dishonesty, propagated in (at best) good faith ignorance, and perpetuated by superstition.
Advocating for a lie to be taught in schools is not something I'd want to sign my name to, either.
I would greatly prefer idealism. Unfortunately, idealists don't normally get into positions of power in the first place.
I understand what you're saying, and I quite agree that the person who innocently propagates a lie that they received in good faith is not lying. However, if Person A makes a knowingly false statement (a lie), and Person B repeats it in good faith, Person B is not lying--but the statement is still a lie.
I place no moral onus on Person B--they are repeating something they heard and accepted in good faith. The moral onus for lying falls solely on Person A.
how do you know it's a lie?
Short argument? Because it depends on deliberate omission, distortion, or outright fabrication of facts.
have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone?
Do not attempt to shift the burden to me, personally. No person in science operates alone: that's the whole point of the "peer review" portion of the scientific method.
while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
And this is the first--and one of the largest--lies that creationists will tell to well-meaning, well-intended people like you.
Evolution has already been proven as fact. The general broad framework of evolution has been well established at least since the 1960s or so. The specific mechanisms, the process, the intermediate steps ... some of these things have been well established, some of them are still not completely understood. But even if we do not understand all aspects of how evolution occurs, we have witnessed it occurring again and again--in the fossil records, in the lab, and even in the field.
The frequent assertion made by Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, and their ilk that "evolution has never been proven" is the foundational lie to their argument.
ID has no "side" in an argument, any more than "It's turtles all the way down" has a side in a discussion about the structure of the solar system.
are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?
Is it "afraid" to not want my children taught an out-and-out lie, which is precisely what creationism and its bastard offspring, ID, are?
I was referring to the PR impact against the Swedish government. Sorry for the confusion.
May not be much of an economic impact, but it's one hell of a PR impact.
A good point, and good to remember, but ZDnet and Tech-On both used the term as well. Maybe the automatic assumption of "geek = IT" is more widespread than /.
That, in itself, is a huge difference. ;)