Many people would argue that's exactly what makes a human fetus more special than a mouse. It doesn't make them right, but it does make them hard to argue with.
...shouldn't Trump tweets be... illegal for Trump to delete anyway?
My understanding is that there's a requirement that a copy be saved, but not necessarily ON Twitter. All of his Tweets are being preserved whether he deletes them or not. Saying that Twitter can recover those Tweets seems silly since I assume there are several complete archives. If CNN doesn't have one I'd be shocked. If the DOJ doesn't, I'd be disappointed and concerned.
How about 2 for wild fires (one actual, one test), then there would be 2 more for mud slides. I guess tornado warnings would require two as well. What about civil disturbance - should that require a physical switch?
I'm not defending GP's idea of using a switch, but this is obviously not what he meant. One switch for all live alerts would serve the purpose. There are plenty of reasons to criticize that as a bad idea without getting silly.
Know what really disturbs me the most? How some people envision being able to put their kids in some Level 5 SDC (no controls at all) by themselves and send them off to Grandma's house or wherever. *SHUDDER*
Can you imagine putting 20 or 30 of them all inside a bus a just sending it off to school? All it takes is one bug in that bus driver's software... Think of the children!
Maybe you're under the impression that companies care about performance beyond the end of the quarter? Maybe if they did Kodak wouldn't be in the shape they're in now.
So leaving it on my desk in the typical open office plan is strong encryption and leaving it locked in the trunk of my car, out of sight, is weak encryption?
Let's review. You said that hiding a gift for 4 months would be good enough. I likened that to hiding it in your car - Probably good for 4 months, but not 20 years. I pointed out, "...she hardly ever drives your car." I suggested hiding the gift somewhere that it wouldn't be found in 4 months or otherwise, i.e. the office. I pointed out, "She's never visited work." Weak encryption == will be found eventually == car. Strong encryption == will never be found == office. I thought that was straightforward. I apologize for confusing you. I was making an analogy, not literally addressing your wife, workplace, or habits. Gift stolen at work/Untrusted coworkers == ? If you have a workplace where you're worried about being robbed, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's relevant. How do untrustworthy coworkers relate to a strongly encrypted file being protected?
I repeat...
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
And I repeat:
As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES."
Everything before what you chose to quote was answering to that analogy, so yeah, I got it.
I didn't mean to quote you out of context. But I don't see how everything before what I quoted was related to the analogy. Let's review so we don't have to scroll up.
Is it worth the risk of someone at work stealing it? I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but maybe they're nosy fucks, like most people's coworkers? Plus that's additional work, why would I do that if I don't need to? Beyond that...
"The risk of someone stealing it." Huh? If you opt for stronger encryption it's more likely to be stolen? "I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but..." This relates how? ""Plus that's additional work..." There are cases where the additional overhead may be a burden, but those cases are rare and the increase in computational need for encryption pays off in spades compared to the increased difficulty decrypting.
...it was your analogy to being with.
Yes. I was comparing weak cryptography to a latch lock and strong cryptography to the addition of the deadbolt. Then you said, "They'll just go through a window!" My question is WTF is this "window" the thief is going through because my door's too good? As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES." Hacking AES != Breaking a window.
...the real world answer to both questions is that my wife and I share a car and I work from home.
I think you missed the point. It was an analogy, not a suggestion. Sorry.
When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
But it could cause someone to break your window (an alternate attack) rather than slipping the door latch with a credit card. Now they've gotten into your house, stolen your stuff, and you have to replace a window.
By that logic we should all leave our doors unlocked. Save the windows! I fail to see how this relates to cryptography.
Do the 20 locks on your front door really stop someone from coming in through the window?
You seem to like this analogy, but you've got me stumped. What's the "window" the attacker's going to break through on my AES encrypted file?
If I need to keep the present I bought my wife a secret until her birthday in April, "large" needn't be longer than 4 months.
You could keep it in your car. After all, she hardly ever drives your car. Or you could keep it at work. She's never visited work. If there's no advantage to keeping it in your car, keep it at work. Why opt for risk without reward?
Using too big of a value for "large" adds complexity which, in turn, increases the potential for errors which may divulge your secret.
I'm really curious about these "errors" that will cause your file to decrypt itself if the encryption's too strong. When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
A system should be just as complex as necessary, and no more so.
Are you suggesting we all use DES? After all, you'll probably be fine and AES is SO much more complicated.
"Large" needs to be valued at the target's need for privacy. Thus if you need something to be secret for a long time, then maybe you need a larger keyspace...
Why would you ever set "large" to be anything other than "a really fucking long time"? It's pretty easy to encrypt something that even nation states will have a hard time cracking in a reasonable time frame. Are you suggesting that we should intentionally encrypt things with weaker protection according to our "need for privacy"?
If encryption is breakable with a large amount of effort, then it does several useful things...
The definition of a "large amount of effort" regarding computing resources is neither static nor simple. "Large" for LAPD? "Large" for a Chinese bitcoin mine? "Large" for the FBI? "Large" after 5 years of advancements?
Depends on what you're buying. For some of the products that bitcoin is popular for, expensive overhead is less important than anonymity. $20 on top of a $80 software license? Pay with a credit card. $20 on top of a $300 sheet of LSD? Pony up the $20.
You keep dropping the words "in context" with remarkable consistency from your quoting me.
WTF are you talking about? I quote the portions of your text that I'm addressing. The "context" is all readily visible.
Even after being called on this several times now.
WTF are you talking about? What have you called me out several times now? Are you mixing up conversations?
Have you considered trying to actually engage with what I'm actually saying yet?
You accused the MSM of slandering DJT. I pointed out that much negative DJT coverage isn't slander. We've been here before. I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your slander accusation. I'm entirely engaged with what you said. You keep trying to change the topic.
When it's entirely true and presented accurately, that's news. When DJT lies to the world and the MSM calls him out on it, that's reporting not propaganda. Certainly not slander. The facts coming from DJT are propaganda and he barely bothers with the "seeds of truth".
I conflate "slander" with "lie". That's where we started. You said that we all fell for the MSM's "slander" against DJT. You're the one that combined slander and propaganda. Slander is false. I gave examples of negative DJT coverage that were not false, not slander. I'm waiting for your examples of slander. I'm suggesting that the MSM gave us a lot of accurate, negative coverage of DJT and that your accusations of slander are largely fantasy.
I re-read your posts. You REALLY seem to focus on propaganda after you brought it up, which is why I followed up on it. If you're trying to have a discussion on some core principle unrelated to propaganda, you haven't made it clear what that is.
Your refusal to engage in any kind of discussion on principles, and merely discussing the "shades of propaganda"...
I'm happy to to have a discussion about principles. WTF are you talking about? Insisting that the world is falling for DJT slander with nothing to back it up is hollow. Let's review:
You: Everyone falls for the DJT slander. Me: Many negative reports on DJT aren't slander; they aren't false. You: Those reports are propaganda and you're falling for it. Me: Which reports are propaganda? You: Stick to the principles! Who's talking about propaganda? Also? Propaganda.
Can you see why I'm confused? You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm asking what Kool-Aid you think I'm drinking. You're changing the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what's so special? A soul?
Many people would argue that's exactly what makes a human fetus more special than a mouse. It doesn't make them right, but it does make them hard to argue with.
...shouldn't Trump tweets be... illegal for Trump to delete anyway?
My understanding is that there's a requirement that a copy be saved, but not necessarily ON Twitter. All of his Tweets are being preserved whether he deletes them or not. Saying that Twitter can recover those Tweets seems silly since I assume there are several complete archives. If CNN doesn't have one I'd be shocked. If the DOJ doesn't, I'd be disappointed and concerned.
DOE... are invested in a competing fusion technology. Maybe with new leadership at DOE the project could get proper funding
Like the $3.5B NIF? Or something more ambitious?
How about 2 for wild fires (one actual, one test), then there would be 2 more for mud slides. I guess tornado warnings would require two as well. What about civil disturbance - should that require a physical switch?
I'm not defending GP's idea of using a switch, but this is obviously not what he meant. One switch for all live alerts would serve the purpose. There are plenty of reasons to criticize that as a bad idea without getting silly.
See your point.
Know what really disturbs me the most? How some people envision being able to put their kids in some Level 5 SDC (no controls at all) by themselves and send them off to Grandma's house or wherever. *SHUDDER*
Can you imagine putting 20 or 30 of them all inside a bus a just sending it off to school? All it takes is one bug in that bus driver's software... Think of the children!
Only the conservative ones are forced to actually address the event.
I can think of a certain POTUS that stands as a counterexample.
...not every place where these so-called ubiquitous home assistants can be found is actually serviced by them.
In spite of the model set by the US, the world remains free.
Maybe you're under the impression that companies care about performance beyond the end of the quarter? Maybe if they did Kodak wouldn't be in the shape they're in now.
$6 is better than $3. Photography's changed a lot since Kodak was at their peak and apparently they haven't kept up.
it's not clear why the photography company needs to use blockchain to achieve its goals
Kodak's stock (KODK) jumped more than 60 percent
Sounds like they achieved their goal.
In other words, you're being trolled...
You do a very credible job of mimicking an idiot.
So leaving it on my desk in the typical open office plan is strong encryption and leaving it locked in the trunk of my car, out of sight, is weak encryption?
Let's review. You said that hiding a gift for 4 months would be good enough. I likened that to hiding it in your car - Probably good for 4 months, but not 20 years. I pointed out, "...she hardly ever drives your car." I suggested hiding the gift somewhere that it wouldn't be found in 4 months or otherwise, i.e. the office. I pointed out, "She's never visited work." Weak encryption == will be found eventually == car. Strong encryption == will never be found == office. I thought that was straightforward. I apologize for confusing you. I was making an analogy, not literally addressing your wife, workplace, or habits.
Gift stolen at work/Untrusted coworkers == ? If you have a workplace where you're worried about being robbed, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's relevant. How do untrustworthy coworkers relate to a strongly encrypted file being protected?
I repeat...
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
And I repeat:
As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES."
Nonsense.
Hacking AES != Breaking a window
Everything before what you chose to quote was answering to that analogy, so yeah, I got it.
I didn't mean to quote you out of context. But I don't see how everything before what I quoted was related to the analogy. Let's review so we don't have to scroll up.
Is it worth the risk of someone at work stealing it? I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but maybe they're nosy fucks, like most people's coworkers? Plus that's additional work, why would I do that if I don't need to? Beyond that...
"The risk of someone stealing it." Huh? If you opt for stronger encryption it's more likely to be stolen? "I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but..." This relates how? ""Plus that's additional work..." There are cases where the additional overhead may be a burden, but those cases are rare and the increase in computational need for encryption pays off in spades compared to the increased difficulty decrypting.
...it was your analogy to being with.
Yes. I was comparing weak cryptography to a latch lock and strong cryptography to the addition of the deadbolt. Then you said, "They'll just go through a window!" My question is WTF is this "window" the thief is going through because my door's too good? As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES."
Hacking AES != Breaking a window.
...the real world answer to both questions is that my wife and I share a car and I work from home.
I think you missed the point. It was an analogy, not a suggestion. Sorry.
When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
But it could cause someone to break your window (an alternate attack) rather than slipping the door latch with a credit card. Now they've gotten into your house, stolen your stuff, and you have to replace a window.
By that logic we should all leave our doors unlocked. Save the windows! I fail to see how this relates to cryptography.
Do the 20 locks on your front door really stop someone from coming in through the window?
You seem to like this analogy, but you've got me stumped. What's the "window" the attacker's going to break through on my AES encrypted file?
There is no such thing as unbreakable encryption.
Referencing Bob's quote above, if the energy required to break it exceeds what you could ideally extract from a large star, let's call it unbreakable.
If I need to keep the present I bought my wife a secret until her birthday in April, "large" needn't be longer than 4 months.
You could keep it in your car. After all, she hardly ever drives your car. Or you could keep it at work. She's never visited work. If there's no advantage to keeping it in your car, keep it at work. Why opt for risk without reward?
Using too big of a value for "large" adds complexity which, in turn, increases the potential for errors which may divulge your secret.
I'm really curious about these "errors" that will cause your file to decrypt itself if the encryption's too strong. When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
A system should be just as complex as necessary, and no more so.
Are you suggesting we all use DES? After all, you'll probably be fine and AES is SO much more complicated.
"Large" needs to be valued at the target's need for privacy.
Thus if you need something to be secret for a long time, then maybe you need a larger keyspace...
Why would you ever set "large" to be anything other than "a really fucking long time"? It's pretty easy to encrypt something that even nation states will have a hard time cracking in a reasonable time frame. Are you suggesting that we should intentionally encrypt things with weaker protection according to our "need for privacy"?
Anybody have any links on defeating face recognition systems?>
Just change your password every so often. Problem solved.
If encryption is breakable with a large amount of effort, then it does several useful things...
The definition of a "large amount of effort" regarding computing resources is neither static nor simple. "Large" for LAPD? "Large" for a Chinese bitcoin mine? "Large" for the FBI? "Large" after 5 years of advancements?
...who will even pay in bitcoin with a $20 fee?
Depends on what you're buying. For some of the products that bitcoin is popular for, expensive overhead is less important than anonymity. $20 on top of a $80 software license? Pay with a credit card. $20 on top of a $300 sheet of LSD? Pony up the $20.
You keep dropping the words "in context" with remarkable consistency from your quoting me.
WTF are you talking about? I quote the portions of your text that I'm addressing. The "context" is all readily visible.
Even after being called on this several times now.
WTF are you talking about? What have you called me out several times now? Are you mixing up conversations?
Have you considered trying to actually engage with what I'm actually saying yet?
You accused the MSM of slandering DJT. I pointed out that much negative DJT coverage isn't slander. We've been here before. I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your slander accusation. I'm entirely engaged with what you said. You keep trying to change the topic.
...best propaganda has a seed of truth in it.
When it's entirely true and presented accurately, that's news. When DJT lies to the world and the MSM calls him out on it, that's reporting not propaganda. Certainly not slander. The facts coming from DJT are propaganda and he barely bothers with the "seeds of truth".
81% whites murdered by blacks
That's straight from the White House. And that's just the latest of hundreds.
You appear to conflate "propaganda" with "lie"...
I conflate "slander" with "lie". That's where we started. You said that we all fell for the MSM's "slander" against DJT. You're the one that combined slander and propaganda. Slander is false. I gave examples of negative DJT coverage that were not false, not slander. I'm waiting for your examples of slander. I'm suggesting that the MSM gave us a lot of accurate, negative coverage of DJT and that your accusations of slander are largely fantasy.
Allegations of any sort should never harm anyone's career.
Unless you try to hide them. Then you open yourself to blackmail and shouldn't be trusted in secure positions.
I re-read your posts. You REALLY seem to focus on propaganda after you brought it up, which is why I followed up on it. If you're trying to have a discussion on some core principle unrelated to propaganda, you haven't made it clear what that is.
Your refusal to engage in any kind of discussion on principles, and merely discussing the "shades of propaganda"...
I'm happy to to have a discussion about principles. WTF are you talking about? Insisting that the world is falling for DJT slander with nothing to back it up is hollow. Let's review:
You: Everyone falls for the DJT slander.
Me: Many negative reports on DJT aren't slander; they aren't false.
You: Those reports are propaganda and you're falling for it.
Me: Which reports are propaganda?
You: Stick to the principles! Who's talking about propaganda? Also? Propaganda.
Can you see why I'm confused? You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm asking what Kool-Aid you think I'm drinking. You're changing the subject.