For many practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy is kept secret or not. All you need to do is spread some disinformation and deny that there is a secret. As long as the people that aren't supposed to know A have as much or even more reasons (by evidence, testimony, etc.) to believe not A, you're fine.
Complete secrecy is only needed for information whose validity can be tested independently once it has been obtained---for example passwords, research results, blueprints, etc.
Before I buy one, I'd like to know how strong and how heavy it is, and in which programming languages it has been programmed. I don't want to be accidentally killed by it, because the software is buggy.
That's not a joke, I'm serious about this. Once they start to build heavy robots for home use, they better program them in languages like ADA or Eiffel and run the software through a complete set of test suites, or someone will die sooner or later.
What a shame. If they had hired me for one million dollar, I'd have told them that simply downloading the video is better than streaming it, so they could have saved $21 million.
People don't want to share information with you, and your response is that they aren't very bright.
Perhaps you (and the game developers this thread is about) should take the wishes of their customers more seriously, no matter whether they appear to be rational, smart or neither of that.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like it's Open Source. If it isn't, it's insecure and unusable.
(Any software is insecure that doesn't allow code auditing and being built from the source code by anyone who likes to. The whole package, including all libraries and subcomponents, must be Open Source.)
Assuming that the encryption cannot be broken, what difference does it make when the traffic goes over an additional node run by a malicious attacker? What matters is the first node and the exit node, all other traffic is encrypted and anonymized. AFAIK, the more hops, the better, except that traffic becomes slower. Or am I missing something?
There are other vulnerabilities to TOR's anonymity based on traffic analysis, and of course the most widespread problem is that users don't anonymize their applications or erroneously assume that the exit node is not malicious.
he last thing I want to do now is add more anonymous and uncontrolled hops, which could be to servers in countries that watch the traffic too closely or even ran by such governments. Every hop is an extra chance to MitM attack.
I'm not sure, but as it stands there seems to be an even simpler attack. Mallory, the man in the middle, just makes sure that when Alice establishes the initial, unencrypted connection to Bob, Bob's reply is forged to indicate that he doesn't support encryption. As a result, all traffic will be unencrypted.
Your reply makes no sense. If games are mediocre and just plainly not fun, why are you pirating them? If companies are making games that run on ridiculous hardware that few people have, then why are people pirating them?
...because people are curious and want to have the good feeling of having saved money by not having bought a mediocre game that only runs on ridiculous hardware.
Not all games are shit, but most of them are. And just like the music industry, the gaming industry is pretty lunatic (or hypocritical) when they say they honestly believe that all those crappy games (or shitty music) would actually be bought by the people who get them for free if there only was some working DRM.
Just make an estimate at how many games some kids have on their machine and then take a look at how much money they have to spend a month. Even if they WANTED to buy all that crap, they COULD NEVER afford it.
I have recently bought a game that had very good reviews, probably because all the reviewers had been paid by EA, and I'm afraid the game was very disappointing. It was definitely not worth the money, and as a plus the EA download manager messed up my machine and doesn't even work. I've also bought another game which was advertised as working on Mac OS X and doesn't even startup. Customer service hasn't replied so far after 2 weeks.
Fact is, the vast majority of games nowadays plain suck and aren't even worth half of the price they're sold at, and game advertising is full of fraud. That's why so many people aren't willing to pay for games.
Why not just make good games instead and deliver them with a real handbook and real customer service? Why not make games with randomized scenarios and truly open and non-linear plots?
Some games are so bad that the publishers can even be happy that some kids are willing to play them when the get them for free, let alone paying for them!
Seriously, make good games, and people will pay for them.
I hate to sound like a smartass, but some of their claims are really bullshit. If you can store something on a medium (be it distributed or not) and retrieve it using a key that is much smaller than the data that you've stored, then the medium is obviously a storage medium.
If someone stores copyrighted material on a storage medium and provides a means for others to retrieve it, e.g. by giving away a key or anything else needed for retrieval, then obviously he's distributing copyrighted material.
Parts of copyrighted material are also being transferred when someone retrieves copyrighted material from this filesystem that was previously stored in it.
The makers of this clumsy distributed filesystem also seem to be a bit confused about randomness. Encode some Y as X. Then the following holds: If you can retrieve Y from X plus some retrieval key K (if there is any), and K is not itself large enough to represent Y, then X is not random. It doesn't matter how random X looks, any good encryption algorithm produces random looking cyphertext.
(Well, I guess it has to do with history. Historically, the genocide on native Americans wouldn't have been possible without personal firearms, but this doesn't really make a good argument for personal weapons possession nowadays, does it.)
Sorry, but I cannot recognize anything on the video that even remotely resembles flipping pages of a real book.
Perhaps that's because real books tend to have more than two pages.
As far as I can see, the only reason Macs haven't suffered from trojans and viruses so far is that the user base is not interested in writing them and that the really evil malware writers know nothing about OS X. This can change any day.
Here is a little anecdote to illustrate how serious Apple takes security: It took them almost two years to fix a bug in OS X 10.3 that would allow an attacker to extract the password of a file vault account from the swap file. The bug was fixed in a paid upgrade to 10.4 and all they came up with was encrypted swap, which is not the best solution. Why didn't they lock the memory to prevent it from being swapped in the first place?
Since this incident, I personally believe that they intentionally leave security holes open.
Yeah, I don't think we disagree much, but still there is some points I want to add instead of working;)
Current battle robots aren't intelligent. Once they are intelligent, they will at one point or another have to find out by their own reasoning whether they ought to kill a human or not---for example, kill one human to prevent a thousand other humans being killed, and all this blabla.
Of course, you can hard-code something like Asimov's laws, but notwithstanding the resulting dilemmas known from the Sci-Fi literature, the "intelligent" robots built by the military will probably not have any built-in never kill any human switch.
From their overview paper:
- an implementation of a LISP-like language called Combo This is symptomatic for the state of contemporary AI research. A purportedly "integrated" environment for developing AI implementations that uses its own, home-brewn language instead of, say, CommonLisp or PLT Scheme.
I must say that by far the biggest problem is the lack of standards, reasonable documentation, and software maintenance in combination with ad-hoc languages and implementations. If researchers stopped reinventing the wheel all the time, AI research would be in a much better state than it is now.
All trial-and-error, general intelligences learn to behave through a motivational mechanism based on reward and punishment. Why should anybody build and raise an AI and motivate it to kick its master's ass? We humans are stupid but not that stupid
You're naivity is hilarious, given the fact that some of the most advanced robot technology we have nowadays has been developed for the explicit purpose of killing people.
Intelligence is neither required nor desirable in military applications.
That being said, I have been working on some rock-solid, cutting edge AI code for detecting enemy combatants for some years now, and I'm willing to share the first beta here:
10 print "Are you friend or foe?"
20 input a$
30 if a$="foe" then goto 50
40 goto 10
50 shoot at target
Unfortunately, the code is still a bit buggy, and we desparately need some funding.
...and put Ubuntu 8.04 on it. I'm using it everyday for work and have never been so satisfied with a computer before. (And that's after I've been using Macs for 15 years.)
I'd say it's definitelty worth instead of some el cheapo laptop. However, I don't think it replaces any of the new netbooks, as they are much smaller, lighter, a bit faster and come with SSD.
BTW, Thinkpads are very well supported under Ubuntu. Actually mine boots as fast as OS X on my 2Ghz Dual Core iMac and the GUI feels snapier.
...but net neutrality is really a political matter and not a matter of network efficiency. The motives are political on both sides. Some parties and lobbyists are highly interested in effectively making certain kind of services unusable or infeasible.
Decentralized p2p networks, bittorrent, etc. will be crippled. Anything without central control over the content will be crippled.
Streaming down TV with lots of advertisements as part of your ISPs "net TV" package will still be possible and you won't have problems with getting Time Warner movies on a pay-per-view basis over "official" channels.
It's all about who has the control over the content you get and which network applications you can use effectively---your choice or your ISP's?
Indeed a strange comment. (Can you mary? Oh c'mon...)
You can look up the regulations from the web pages and make a dossier of the things you need to do. In some countries, there is also some free or low-fee migration help by non-profit organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
For many practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy is kept secret or not. All you need to do is spread some disinformation and deny that there is a secret. As long as the people that aren't supposed to know A have as much or even more reasons (by evidence, testimony, etc.) to believe not A, you're fine.
Complete secrecy is only needed for information whose validity can be tested independently once it has been obtained---for example passwords, research results, blueprints, etc.
Before I buy one, I'd like to know how strong and how heavy it is, and in which programming languages it has been programmed. I don't want to be accidentally killed by it, because the software is buggy.
That's not a joke, I'm serious about this. Once they start to build heavy robots for home use, they better program them in languages like ADA or Eiffel and run the software through a complete set of test suites, or someone will die sooner or later.
What a shame. If they had hired me for one million dollar, I'd have told them that simply downloading the video is better than streaming it, so they could have saved $21 million.
Perhaps you (and the game developers this thread is about) should take the wishes of their customers more seriously, no matter whether they appear to be rational, smart or neither of that.
(Any software is insecure that doesn't allow code auditing and being built from the source code by anyone who likes to. The whole package, including all libraries and subcomponents, must be Open Source.)
Exactly what kind of MitM attack on a TOR network based on controlling an intermediate node did you have in mind?
Or am I missing something?
Yes.
There are other vulnerabilities to TOR's anonymity based on traffic analysis, and of course the most widespread problem is that users don't anonymize their applications or erroneously assume that the exit node is not malicious.
he last thing I want to do now is add more anonymous and uncontrolled hops, which could be to servers in countries that watch the traffic too closely or even ran by such governments. Every hop is an extra chance to MitM attack.
Or is there something I have missed?
I'm not sure, but as it stands there seems to be an even simpler attack. Mallory, the man in the middle, just makes sure that when Alice establishes the initial, unencrypted connection to Bob, Bob's reply is forged to indicate that he doesn't support encryption. As a result, all traffic will be unencrypted.
Your reply makes no sense. If games are mediocre and just plainly not fun, why are you pirating them? If companies are making games that run on ridiculous hardware that few people have, then why are people pirating them?
Not all games are shit, but most of them are. And just like the music industry, the gaming industry is pretty lunatic (or hypocritical) when they say they honestly believe that all those crappy games (or shitty music) would actually be bought by the people who get them for free if there only was some working DRM.
Just make an estimate at how many games some kids have on their machine and then take a look at how much money they have to spend a month. Even if they WANTED to buy all that crap, they COULD NEVER afford it.
Fact is, the vast majority of games nowadays plain suck and aren't even worth half of the price they're sold at, and game advertising is full of fraud. That's why so many people aren't willing to pay for games.
Why not just make good games instead and deliver them with a real handbook and real customer service? Why not make games with randomized scenarios and truly open and non-linear plots?
Some games are so bad that the publishers can even be happy that some kids are willing to play them when the get them for free, let alone paying for them!
Seriously, make good games, and people will pay for them.
Sorry, I'm already working on Web 3.0
If someone stores copyrighted material on a storage medium and provides a means for others to retrieve it, e.g. by giving away a key or anything else needed for retrieval, then obviously he's distributing copyrighted material.
Parts of copyrighted material are also being transferred when someone retrieves copyrighted material from this filesystem that was previously stored in it.
The makers of this clumsy distributed filesystem also seem to be a bit confused about randomness. Encode some Y as X. Then the following holds: If you can retrieve Y from X plus some retrieval key K (if there is any), and K is not itself large enough to represent Y, then X is not random. It doesn't matter how random X looks, any good encryption algorithm produces random looking cyphertext.
(Well, I guess it has to do with history. Historically, the genocide on native Americans wouldn't have been possible without personal firearms, but this doesn't really make a good argument for personal weapons possession nowadays, does it.)
Sorry, but I cannot recognize anything on the video that even remotely resembles flipping pages of a real book. Perhaps that's because real books tend to have more than two pages.
Here is a little anecdote to illustrate how serious Apple takes security: It took them almost two years to fix a bug in OS X 10.3 that would allow an attacker to extract the password of a file vault account from the swap file. The bug was fixed in a paid upgrade to 10.4 and all they came up with was encrypted swap, which is not the best solution. Why didn't they lock the memory to prevent it from being swapped in the first place?
Since this incident, I personally believe that they intentionally leave security holes open.
Current battle robots aren't intelligent. Once they are intelligent, they will at one point or another have to find out by their own reasoning whether they ought to kill a human or not---for example, kill one human to prevent a thousand other humans being killed, and all this blabla.
Of course, you can hard-code something like Asimov's laws, but notwithstanding the resulting dilemmas known from the Sci-Fi literature, the "intelligent" robots built by the military will probably not have any built-in never kill any human switch.
Dynamic Epistemic Logic and related domains (preference upgrade, belief revision, etc.)
I must say that by far the biggest problem is the lack of standards, reasonable documentation, and software maintenance in combination with ad-hoc languages and implementations. If researchers stopped reinventing the wheel all the time, AI research would be in a much better state than it is now.
30 if a$="foe" or rnd>.7 then goto 50
and, for improved performance, add the following line:
60 goto 50
All trial-and-error, general intelligences learn to behave through a motivational mechanism based on reward and punishment. Why should anybody build and raise an AI and motivate it to kick its master's ass? We humans are stupid but not that stupid
You're naivity is hilarious, given the fact that some of the most advanced robot technology we have nowadays has been developed for the explicit purpose of killing people.That being said, I have been working on some rock-solid, cutting edge AI code for detecting enemy combatants for some years now, and I'm willing to share the first beta here:
10 print "Are you friend or foe?"
20 input a$
30 if a$="foe" then goto 50
40 goto 10
50 shoot at target
Unfortunately, the code is still a bit buggy, and we desparately need some funding.
...and put Ubuntu 8.04 on it. I'm using it everyday for work and have never been so satisfied with a computer before. (And that's after I've been using Macs for 15 years.) I'd say it's definitelty worth instead of some el cheapo laptop. However, I don't think it replaces any of the new netbooks, as they are much smaller, lighter, a bit faster and come with SSD. BTW, Thinkpads are very well supported under Ubuntu. Actually mine boots as fast as OS X on my 2Ghz Dual Core iMac and the GUI feels snapier.
What framerate does Crysis have on this machine with all settings maxed out?
...but net neutrality is really a political matter and not a matter of network efficiency. The motives are political on both sides. Some parties and lobbyists are highly interested in effectively making certain kind of services unusable or infeasible. Decentralized p2p networks, bittorrent, etc. will be crippled. Anything without central control over the content will be crippled. Streaming down TV with lots of advertisements as part of your ISPs "net TV" package will still be possible and you won't have problems with getting Time Warner movies on a pay-per-view basis over "official" channels. It's all about who has the control over the content you get and which network applications you can use effectively---your choice or your ISP's?
Indeed a strange comment. (Can you mary? Oh c'mon...) You can look up the regulations from the web pages and make a dossier of the things you need to do. In some countries, there is also some free or low-fee migration help by non-profit organizations.