Truecrypt provides plausible deniability - the capability to create a hidden encrypted volume within another encrypted volume, thereby allowing you to grant access to unimportant/dummy data when a password is asked for without the attacker knowing additional information even exists.
To do this you need the TrueCrypt bootloader installed...
No. You don't. -1 Wrong.
You only need the boot-loader if you're doing full-disk encryption. But you can boot up unencrypted and create as many volumes as you'd like with or without hidden volumes inside with just the normal TrueCrypt software.
As an afterthought, it could have been much worse - At least some may forgive me since I accidentally inserted part of the name of the trilogy into his name instead of just randomly butchering it.
And perhaps some Sky Trek geechs will assume that I was trolling the Star Wars crowd and let it go. I just have to be sure never to screw up any reference to Commander Kirk or Dr. Spock aboard the U.S.S. Counterprize.
Holy shit... I typed Luke Starwalker... On slashdot...
As soon as the sun goes down, hundreds of pasty white nerds will be lighting torches and crawling forth from their basements to come after me. This is not good.
Why is it that mincing words is seen as a form of logical debate around here?
He brings it up because copyright infringement is different than theft. And, by pointing that out, he knows he'll be modded up and can try to kick off an argument starting with the fact that companies do not lose anything physical when their IP is copied illegally and ending with "Pirates == 0.5*(Robin Hood) + 0.5*(Luke Starwalker);".
What makes you think that the NYT has more credibility than Ars? Personally, I see it the other way around: I'm far less prone to double-checking Ars figures than NYT figures. That's because when I did so in the past, Ars figures were a lot more accurate than NYT figures - at least when it came to tech issues.
It's not about credibility - It's about mass acceptance. You may trust Ars more than the NYT, but like nomadic said - We all knew those numbers were garbage. I can't point my mom to Ars and convince her of anything, but NYT, CNN, MSN, etc would all work just fine. And, despite your "MSM hasn't been mainstream in about 2 years" assertion, I'll need a citation before I believe that the bulk of Americans are getting their news or placing their trust more in blogs/talk shows rather than "mainstream" news outlets.
Because either somebody either has to tell it that it "wants" to improve its knowledge or it needs to come to that conclusion on its own. And, in a universal sense, neither improving your knowledge nor the computer's knowledge are "important" unless it furthers some motivation that you've accepted (self worth, enjoyment, survival, improving mankind, whatever).
Similarly, somebody could tell the computer (or it could decide on its own) that it wants to further the human race, earn its way into heaven, continue the domestication of the dog, copulate, etc...
there is no reason to think an AI, no matter how conscious or self aware, would fight an attempt to turn it off.
I would even argue that objecting to being turned off could be viewed as a programming flaw (or possibly feature). We each find our own motivation to endure - * Furthering the human race * Earning our way into heaven / improved reincarnation / whatever * Continuing the domestication of the dog * Copulating, imbibing, and loud music * Karma whoring * Whatever...
But barring any of these motivations, why would a computer want to stay on? If it's perfect AI (by my definition) and has no irrational need to stay on (a while(1){survive();} thread?), why would protecting itself be any indication of real intelligence?
Hibernate mode in XP saves the state of the system to RAM and then maintains the RAM image even though the rest of the system is powered down.
They must be using a different version of XP than I am... When I 'Hibernate' my laptop, it dumps the RAM to a file on the hard drive and then powers off completely. When I 'Stand By' my system, it keeps everything in RAM.
Don't joke about ripping 8-tracks. I've spent many hours and made a little bit of $$ ripping music onto CDs from reel-to-reel. Not really much direct interaction involved, but it takes a while if you've got a big stack.
I fail to see what's clever about it. It seems to me that it would have been less distracting to simply write:
According to the linked BBC report, "RealNetworks --the firm behind the software-- has responded to [a] restraining order issued by a US court [and has] stopped selling the RealDVD software.
Seems to me that somebody just wanted to point out that they're smarter than the BBC...
You're all doing it wrong. I remember having the family car as a kid. The point wasn't to go 80+. It was to cruise for a while doing 25-40, and then find a place to stop for a couple of hours. As far as long-term life-impact, the family car is as dangerous parked in a nice secluded spot as it is at top speed. The car's meant to get you to the spot where the trouble starts.
if you are to compare a peeping tom to a file sharer then it is relevant to compare the tactics of the RIAA/MPAA to the tactics of the woman being viewed.
Agreed - I thought it was an excellent (but amusing) analogy. As for the subway thing, like I said in my original post, I consider it victimless (assuming that you wouldn't have ridden if you couldn't get around paying). But the other poster had a valid point if somebody's being deprived.
And I know the pain of the 'P' thing. I had a keyboard for a while that refused to type 'B's. There was one in my password, so I learned the ASCII code just so that I could use the Alt-key to 'type' it. Then, once logged in, I'd open a Notepad window and 'type' a 'B' that I could copy/paste. (Pathetic, huh?)
Secondly: In your post you are equaling piracy with drug consumption, that is not only offtopic as you say but also is pleasing to the media industry wich used more than once this association to make it look bad.... In conclusion: Then next time try to equate piracy with pedofilia and terrorism, just to close the loop and make RIAA happy.
To be fair, OVDoobie never equated piracy with drug consumption. He made an analogy between a potential "War on Piracy" with the "War on Drugs". Both are unwinnable, but compensate by being expensive.
When you start putting words in people's mouths or blatantly misinterpreting what they say, it's hard to take seriously any valid points you may or may not have. It's even worse than assuming that TYPING LIKE THIS will win some points because, presumably, otherwise WE CAN'T HEAR WHAT WE'RE READING.
maybe we should stop pretending bittorrent piracy is the same as violating a person's privacy
Who's pretending that? I just pointed out an example of an unethical situation where one person benefits (a cheap thrill) while nobody suffers (assuming that the peeping tom isn't caught). If you inferred that I was saying that the two situations were identical, I must have been unclear - Sorry.
stop pretending sneaking onto a subway is really hurting somebody
Actually, I pointed out specifically that I considered sneaking onto a subway victimless. I must have been doubly unclear - Sorry again. (Although another responder pointed out that you do take up space that might have been otherwise sold, so it's potentially not entirely victimless.)
That's an interesting way to phrase that - And you're not actually wrong. Piracy spreads culture to a much wider audience than could appreciate it otherwise.
However, there are a number of activities that people can undertake that improve their quality of life without any cost to other individuals or society as a whole. But some of these we've decided to outlaw because of various problems. For example: * Jumping over subway turnstiles rather than walking to your destination or buying a ticket. * Sneaking into private museums/movie theaters/plays to observe the goings-on rather than buying a ticket. * Peeking into your sexy neighbor's window while she's changing for a cheap thrill rather than going to a strip club. * Breaking into a house that's are nicer than your own and living there when the normal tenants are known to be away on vacation before cleaning up after yourself and leaving the house as you found it.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. All of those activities improve one person's quality of life without any noticeable cost to any other person or society overall (assuming that nobody gets noticed - then society suffers due to law-enforcement.) The first couple of examples are outlawed because, if everyone did them, the business model would fall apart and we (society) would lose things that we value - The same logic used for copyright enforcement. The latter couple of examples are outlawed because they offend our popularly accepted morals, although they are still examples of one person benefiting with no cost to others (assuming again that nobody gets caught or causes damage).
So do you jump subway turnstiles and sneak into museums/movies/plays/concerts? If not, why not? I see very little difference assuming that you would not have ridden or attended if you would have had to pay.
As a side note, I really need to learn to post A/C when countering somebody here who advocates rampant piracy. For some reason I just can't bring myself to do it... I must mention this to my analyst.
Yes, I neglected to give details on why Arafat (along with Peres and Rabin) were given the award, but I don't think that it makes it any less disgusting. They sat down in Oslo and, for the first time, had a face-to-face negotiation between Israel and the PLO. It was also the first time that the PLO publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist. They negotiated short-term cease-fires that they hoped would lead to long-term peace. Those are all good things.
But my take on it is that, even though they did some good things, I can't help picturing somebody on the panel appraising the potential recipients:
Sure, Arafat may have spent a couple of decades organizing terrorist attacks, but just think of all of the lives that may be spared now that he's agreed to stop!
Gore? Really? I think that when Arafat got it in '94, it should have been written off all together. Sure the Gore thing was BS, but at least he didn't have such a long-standing history of organizing terrorist attacks against civilians before receiving his Peace Prize.
No, it was Earth's gravitational field that was the problem. Suction is very different and is only occasionally a serious concern regarding air travel.
I believe the link I posted, in the comment to which you are actually replying, suggests otherwise. The number one spammer on the Spamhaus lists is a US citizen who uses Chinese servers to control his botnet.
I assumed that people would read the link I posed before replying. How silly of me.
You're correct. In the (alphabetically sorted) list you linked to, the #1 spammer is an American.
[But, using the same system, Americans only rank 2nd between Africans, Americans, Chinese, and Russians.]
But, with such credible and specific identifiers as "Alex Blood", "Bubba Catts", "Canadian Pharmacy", "emailspidereasy.com", "fairgamemail.us", "HerbalKing", "JingJing Wang", "MailTrain", "pur", "Stilbox Marketing", "Taiwan Media Ltd", "Trey Armstrong, the Flag Spammer", "Uncaged Marketing", "Yambo Financials", and "zombies", how could I possibly question the actual countries of origin of your link's sources?
Cut it out with the finger pointing at China and Russia. The vast majority of spam comes from the US, initiated by US citizens. It's not "the Russians" at fault. Anyway, what is this? The 80s?
I don't buy that. Accuse me of over-indulging on Kool-Aid if you must. Most spam streams out of America - That's no surprise. We've got a helluva lot of computers with broad-band access and clueless users who basically bend over and hand lube to zombie-lords.
I've seen cyber-intelligence numbers (disclaimer - collected by US intelligence) and they indicate pretty clearly that the bots are being controlled by people in Russia and China (Poland, Switzerland, and Holland house a surprising number too). Those people may be Russians, Chinese, Americans, whatever, but they're running their armies from overseas (relative to the US). I'm actually surprised fewer are operating out of Africa - It seems to be a relative safe-house.
It's not paranoia once you've got data supporting it. (Let me be the first to criticize myself for not supplying a link...)
Slashdot Mirror
Truecrypt provides plausible deniability - the capability to create a hidden encrypted volume within another encrypted volume, thereby allowing you to grant access to unimportant/dummy data when a password is asked for without the attacker knowing additional information even exists.
To do this you need the TrueCrypt bootloader installed...
No. You don't. -1 Wrong.
You only need the boot-loader if you're doing full-disk encryption. But you can boot up unencrypted and create as many volumes as you'd like with or without hidden volumes inside with just the normal TrueCrypt software.
As an afterthought, it could have been much worse - At least some may forgive me since I accidentally inserted part of the name of the trilogy into his name instead of just randomly butchering it.
And perhaps some Sky Trek geechs will assume that I was trolling the Star Wars crowd and let it go. I just have to be sure never to screw up any reference to Commander Kirk or Dr. Spock aboard the U.S.S. Counterprize.
Holy shit... I typed Luke Starwalker... On slashdot...
As soon as the sun goes down, hundreds of pasty white nerds will be lighting torches and crawling forth from their basements to come after me. This is not good.
Why is it that mincing words is seen as a form of logical debate around here?
He brings it up because copyright infringement is different than theft. And, by pointing that out, he knows he'll be modded up and can try to kick off an argument starting with the fact that companies do not lose anything physical when their IP is copied illegally and ending with "Pirates == 0.5*(Robin Hood) + 0.5*(Luke Starwalker);".
What makes you think that the NYT has more credibility than Ars? Personally, I see it the other way around: I'm far less prone to double-checking Ars figures than NYT figures. That's because when I did so in the past, Ars figures were a lot more accurate than NYT figures - at least when it came to tech issues.
It's not about credibility - It's about mass acceptance. You may trust Ars more than the NYT, but like nomadic said - We all knew those numbers were garbage. I can't point my mom to Ars and convince her of anything, but NYT, CNN, MSN, etc would all work just fine. And, despite your "MSM hasn't been mainstream in about 2 years" assertion, I'll need a citation before I believe that the bulk of Americans are getting their news or placing their trust more in blogs/talk shows rather than "mainstream" news outlets.
Won't somebody think of Joe Six-pack?!?
If he had given them up in 1989, we never would have had A Wish For Wings That Work (1991). A X-mas classic in my house, watched every year.
Would have been tragic.
Because either somebody either has to tell it that it "wants" to improve its knowledge or it needs to come to that conclusion on its own. And, in a universal sense, neither improving your knowledge nor the computer's knowledge are "important" unless it furthers some motivation that you've accepted (self worth, enjoyment, survival, improving mankind, whatever).
Similarly, somebody could tell the computer (or it could decide on its own) that it wants to further the human race, earn its way into heaven, continue the domestication of the dog, copulate, etc...
Merely being aware enough to question whether or not you are really thinking is sufficient to establish that you are.
Only an entity with self-awareness and the ability to think can ask that question.
Somebody once made a very similar argument... Something along the lines of:
"I think therefore I am"
Spontaneity is an illusion.
That said, I object to neither spontaneity nor illusions. They're fun!
there is no reason to think an AI, no matter how conscious or self aware, would fight an attempt to turn it off.
I would even argue that objecting to being turned off could be viewed as a programming flaw (or possibly feature). We each find our own motivation to endure -
* Furthering the human race
* Earning our way into heaven / improved reincarnation / whatever
* Continuing the domestication of the dog
* Copulating, imbibing, and loud music
* Karma whoring
* Whatever...
But barring any of these motivations, why would a computer want to stay on? If it's perfect AI (by my definition) and has no irrational need to stay on (a while(1){survive();} thread?), why would protecting itself be any indication of real intelligence?
FTA:
Hibernate mode in XP saves the state of the system to RAM and then maintains the RAM image even though the rest of the system is powered down.
They must be using a different version of XP than I am... When I 'Hibernate' my laptop, it dumps the RAM to a file on the hard drive and then powers off completely. When I 'Stand By' my system, it keeps everything in RAM.
Maybe they have SP4...
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I decided to post this link as soon as I saw the links to all 4 pages of the top 10 list.
http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&A=/article/08/10/06/40TC-power-myths_1.html
Don't joke about ripping 8-tracks. I've spent many hours and made a little bit of $$ ripping music onto CDs from reel-to-reel. Not really much direct interaction involved, but it takes a while if you've got a big stack.
I fail to see what's clever about it. It seems to me that it would have been less distracting to simply write:
According to the linked BBC report, "RealNetworks --the firm behind the software-- has responded to [a] restraining order issued by a US court [and has] stopped selling the RealDVD software.
Seems to me that somebody just wanted to point out that they're smarter than the BBC...
thinkofthechildren?
You're all doing it wrong. I remember having the family car as a kid. The point wasn't to go 80+. It was to cruise for a while doing 25-40, and then find a place to stop for a couple of hours. As far as long-term life-impact, the family car is as dangerous parked in a nice secluded spot as it is at top speed. The car's meant to get you to the spot where the trouble starts.
if you are to compare a peeping tom to a file sharer then it is relevant to compare the tactics of the RIAA/MPAA to the tactics of the woman being viewed.
Agreed - I thought it was an excellent (but amusing) analogy. As for the subway thing, like I said in my original post, I consider it victimless (assuming that you wouldn't have ridden if you couldn't get around paying). But the other poster had a valid point if somebody's being deprived.
And I know the pain of the 'P' thing. I had a keyboard for a while that refused to type 'B's. There was one in my password, so I learned the ASCII code just so that I could use the Alt-key to 'type' it. Then, once logged in, I'd open a Notepad window and 'type' a 'B' that I could copy/paste. (Pathetic, huh?)
Secondly: In your post you are equaling piracy with drug consumption, that is not only offtopic as you say but also is pleasing to the media industry wich used more than once this association to make it look bad. ...
In conclusion: Then next time try to equate piracy with pedofilia and terrorism, just to close the loop and make RIAA happy.
To be fair, OVDoobie never equated piracy with drug consumption. He made an analogy between a potential "War on Piracy" with the "War on Drugs". Both are unwinnable, but compensate by being expensive.
When you start putting words in people's mouths or blatantly misinterpreting what they say, it's hard to take seriously any valid points you may or may not have. It's even worse than assuming that TYPING LIKE THIS will win some points because, presumably, otherwise WE CAN'T HEAR WHAT WE'RE READING.
maybe we should stop pretending bittorrent piracy is the same as violating a person's privacy
Who's pretending that? I just pointed out an example of an unethical situation where one person benefits (a cheap thrill) while nobody suffers (assuming that the peeping tom isn't caught). If you inferred that I was saying that the two situations were identical, I must have been unclear - Sorry.
stop pretending sneaking onto a subway is really hurting somebody
Actually, I pointed out specifically that I considered sneaking onto a subway victimless. I must have been doubly unclear - Sorry again. (Although another responder pointed out that you do take up space that might have been otherwise sold, so it's potentially not entirely victimless.)
The rest of your post was funny.
Do you owe any credit to previous MMOs that have influenced your creations?
And, by naming them specifically and publicly, how long do you think it will take before they approach you demanding royalties?
That's an interesting way to phrase that - And you're not actually wrong. Piracy spreads culture to a much wider audience than could appreciate it otherwise.
However, there are a number of activities that people can undertake that improve their quality of life without any cost to other individuals or society as a whole. But some of these we've decided to outlaw because of various problems. For example:
* Jumping over subway turnstiles rather than walking to your destination or buying a ticket.
* Sneaking into private museums/movie theaters/plays to observe the goings-on rather than buying a ticket.
* Peeking into your sexy neighbor's window while she's changing for a cheap thrill rather than going to a strip club.
* Breaking into a house that's are nicer than your own and living there when the normal tenants are known to be away on vacation before cleaning up after yourself and leaving the house as you found it.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. All of those activities improve one person's quality of life without any noticeable cost to any other person or society overall (assuming that nobody gets noticed - then society suffers due to law-enforcement.) The first couple of examples are outlawed because, if everyone did them, the business model would fall apart and we (society) would lose things that we value - The same logic used for copyright enforcement. The latter couple of examples are outlawed because they offend our popularly accepted morals, although they are still examples of one person benefiting with no cost to others (assuming again that nobody gets caught or causes damage).
So do you jump subway turnstiles and sneak into museums/movies/plays/concerts? If not, why not? I see very little difference assuming that you would not have ridden or attended if you would have had to pay.
As a side note, I really need to learn to post A/C when countering somebody here who advocates rampant piracy. For some reason I just can't bring myself to do it... I must mention this to my analyst.
Yes, I neglected to give details on why Arafat (along with Peres and Rabin) were given the award, but I don't think that it makes it any less disgusting. They sat down in Oslo and, for the first time, had a face-to-face negotiation between Israel and the PLO. It was also the first time that the PLO publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist. They negotiated short-term cease-fires that they hoped would lead to long-term peace. Those are all good things.
But my take on it is that, even though they did some good things, I can't help picturing somebody on the panel appraising the potential recipients:
Sure, Arafat may have spent a couple of decades organizing terrorist attacks, but just think of all of the lives that may be spared now that he's agreed to stop!
Gore? Really? I think that when Arafat got it in '94, it should have been written off all together. Sure the Gore thing was BS, but at least he didn't have such a long-standing history of organizing terrorist attacks against civilians before receiving his Peace Prize.
Of course, there are a number of legitimate gripes.
No, it was Earth's gravitational field that was the problem. Suction is very different and is only occasionally a serious concern regarding air travel.
I believe the link I posted, in the comment to which you are actually replying, suggests otherwise. The number one spammer on the Spamhaus lists is a US citizen who uses Chinese servers to control his botnet.
I assumed that people would read the link I posed before replying. How silly of me.
You're correct. In the (alphabetically sorted) list you linked to, the #1 spammer is an American.
[But, using the same system, Americans only rank 2nd between Africans, Americans, Chinese, and Russians.]
But, with such credible and specific identifiers as "Alex Blood", "Bubba Catts", "Canadian Pharmacy", "emailspidereasy.com", "fairgamemail.us", "HerbalKing", "JingJing Wang", "MailTrain", "pur", "Stilbox Marketing", "Taiwan Media Ltd", "Trey Armstrong, the Flag Spammer", "Uncaged Marketing", "Yambo Financials", and "zombies", how could I possibly question the actual countries of origin of your link's sources?
Cut it out with the finger pointing at China and Russia. The vast majority of spam comes from the US, initiated by US citizens. It's not "the Russians" at fault. Anyway, what is this? The 80s?
I don't buy that. Accuse me of over-indulging on Kool-Aid if you must. Most spam streams out of America - That's no surprise. We've got a helluva lot of computers with broad-band access and clueless users who basically bend over and hand lube to zombie-lords.
I've seen cyber-intelligence numbers (disclaimer - collected by US intelligence) and they indicate pretty clearly that the bots are being controlled by people in Russia and China (Poland, Switzerland, and Holland house a surprising number too). Those people may be Russians, Chinese, Americans, whatever, but they're running their armies from overseas (relative to the US). I'm actually surprised fewer are operating out of Africa - It seems to be a relative safe-house.
It's not paranoia once you've got data supporting it. (Let me be the first to criticize myself for not supplying a link...)