It's just a private key. The effort to keep 1 bitcoin safe is identical to the effort to keep 350m bitcoin safe
Really? Surely you must protect that private key somehow, both from theft and from loss. How exactly do you do that in a manner that is the same effort for 1 bitcoin vs 350m bitcoin? If there is any 'physical' component to it, then the protection requirements of that physical component are no different (other than sheer space required) than the physical protection requirements for cash. And if there are 'mental' components (passwords, etc), how do you protect against forgetting them, either for yourself or your heirs?
Your biometric info is only used (if at all) to unlock your local keystore in order that your private key (for that site) can be used to sign a challenge. Your biometric data is not transferred to the site in any way.
It seems to me that with this method it could be entirely up to the client how often you need to 'authenticate'. In other words, your key manager could have settings for each site, ranging from 'just reply without asking me' (for forums, etc) to 'ask me every 10 minutes' (for banking, etc).
Could you at least make a feeble attempt to understand what this actually is prior to ranting?
This is NOT identifying OR authenticating you with biometrics. Identification is still done with some sort of userid. Authentication is done with public key encryption.
When you sign up for a service, you get a userid, and YOU generate a public/private key pair. You send the PUBLIC key to the service and keep the PRIVATE key private. When the site later wants to authenticate you, it sends a challenge. You sign the challenge with your private key and return it. If your signature is successfully matched with the previously stored public key, you are authenticated. If someone intercepts the conversation they get nothing useful, because next time the challenge will be different, and no actual keys were exchanged. If someone hacks the service all they get is a bunch of PUBLIC keys.
Now, how to protect your PRIVATE key is totally up to you. You could keep it in an encrypted file that is unlocked with biometrics. Or, you could keep it in a hardware cryptography module in a PC protected with 4096 bit encryption, inside a steel cage. Or anything in between. It is up to YOU, not the service.
Bullshit. The USPS can and does hire temporary employees (here is an example from last year), they do not have any impact on the retirement fund.
The demand that the USPS pre-fund its retirement system is not 'crazy', it is responsible. Note that most other organizations gave up on the pension system altogether and just give the employees money via 401K matches. The employee can then (wisely) 'pre-fund' his own retirement, or (stupidly) not - and be '85 and wanna go home'. About the only pensions that are not fully pre-funded anymore are public service jobs, because you can always just soak the taxpayer later, no sense in being fiscally responsible now.
It astonishes you that people want readily-available, inexpensive, undamaged, food year-round? Really? And learn the meaning of 'inedible' - flavorless is not a synonym.
Nothing about your textfile method is in any way superior to using a GUI. Nothing. A text file can have blank lines, long lines, short lines, lines with characters you didn't expect, and other such stuff. The requirement for checking inputs is no different with a text file than it is with a GUI. The only difference really is that a good GUI can provide more immediate feedback on incorrect entries.
And yet nobody ever says that a kid just starting to drive on safe local streets in daylight is a superior driver. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet, the autonomous driving proponents make that exact claim. Weird.
Ah, 'double or triple the chance of killing someone'. You mean, in exactly the same way as you double your chances of winning the lottery by buying two tickets. Double the chances! It's practically a sure thing! Per your logic, the 'best' car (with the most points) is one that doesn't move at all.
By the way, the biggest cause of weather related accidents isn't snow, or ice, or even rain. It is wet roads. Do you know how often the roads are wet around here? Damn near every day. Guess we should all just be hermits so we are safe.
I never said autonomous cars had to be 'perfect', but I do think they need to be better than at least AVERAGE human drivers. And that includes getting people where they want to be when they want to go there, whether you think it is a 'dumb' reason or not., and whether or not that involves driving in a thunderstorm (around here known as 'afternoon'), or through a construction zone, or in an inch of snow, or in a congested area, or anywhere that is not 'safe'.
And I don't see anything dumb about any of those you listed.
I disagree, it IS a point in their favor. Life goes on even in bad weather, etc. The point of a car is to get you from point A to point B when you want to go. If the car can't/won't do that it is a failure. Now, certainly there are times when you just should not drive, but ordinary rain and snow are not those times.
That link (the one that supposedly shows autonomous cars are safer) has a date of January 2016. Any data studied would obviously have to be older than that. Now, exactly how many fully autonomous cars were there, driving in real-world conditions, more than 2.5 years ago? Maybe 0?
There is not really anything bizarre about that. The utility knows what the base residential usage is, and they know what the big industrial usage is/will be (by contract). That allows them to pre-buy fuel, plan generating capacity, etc to cover that usage. The 'high usage' residentials are a big unknown, and unknowns are expensive.
That is just idiotic. There are, on average, about 11 pedestrians killed each day in the US. So 11 times/day the driver did the wrong thing. If it is 'just as likely' they will do the wrong thing, that means there are 11 times/day when a pedestrian puts themself in danger and the driver does not kill them. Does that seem reasonable? Or does it seem more likely that there are thousands and thousands of times a day a pedestrian puts himself in danger and the driver does the right thing?
This seems to be a common problem with self-driving proponents - they focus purely on the (relatively infrequent) things human driver to wrong, and completely ignore the FAR more prevalent human drivers do right. And until self-driving vehicles can not only correct the things we do wrong, but ALSO do the things we do right, they are not better than human drivers. And that seems a very long way off.
I can 100% guarantee you that the percentage of human drivers who killed a pedestrian yesterday is orders of magnitude lower than the number of self-driving cars that did.
Nobody said it was okay for a vehicle to it someone. Only an ignornamus would think that. But there is an enormous difference between being okay to hit someone and not being liable if you do hit someone if that person caused the accident. Probably even in your so-called 'civilized' country.
No, you do not recall that because it never happened. When cable first started in the 50s and 60s it was just retransmission of local channels. All of the ads were of course included. In the 70s subscription services such as HBO entered the picture. They were, and still are, ad-free. The later 70s and 80s saw the introduction of 'super stations', which were OTA broadcasts that were also carried on satellite and picked up by cable, again with all the ads in place. Pure cable, but not subscription, channels such as CNN have always had ads. The 'ad free' time you remember so fondly never happened.
What if you, the owner, allowed the tires to get bald and the car skidded and hit someone? What if you, the owner, failed to keep the brakes in working order? What if you, the owner, continued using the car after being informed there was a defect that needed repair? You'd have to be pretty dumb to think you won't still need at least liability insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a private key. The effort to keep 1 bitcoin safe is identical to the effort to keep 350m bitcoin safe
Really? Surely you must protect that private key somehow, both from theft and from loss. How exactly do you do that in a manner that is the same effort for 1 bitcoin vs 350m bitcoin? If there is any 'physical' component to it, then the protection requirements of that physical component are no different (other than sheer space required) than the physical protection requirements for cash. And if there are 'mental' components (passwords, etc), how do you protect against forgetting them, either for yourself or your heirs?
Your biometric info is only used (if at all) to unlock your local keystore in order that your private key (for that site) can be used to sign a challenge. Your biometric data is not transferred to the site in any way.
Why, exactly, is it a 'poor implementation'? Where is a 'good implementation', and why isn't it being used anywhere?
Losing your key is no different than losing/forgetting your password.
How will it make that easier? In case of a breach, all they get is a bunch of public keys.
It seems to me that with this method it could be entirely up to the client how often you need to 'authenticate'. In other words, your key manager could have settings for each site, ranging from 'just reply without asking me' (for forums, etc) to 'ask me every 10 minutes' (for banking, etc).
Could you at least make a feeble attempt to understand what this actually is prior to ranting?
This is NOT identifying OR authenticating you with biometrics. Identification is still done with some sort of userid. Authentication is done with public key encryption.
When you sign up for a service, you get a userid, and YOU generate a public/private key pair. You send the PUBLIC key to the service and keep the PRIVATE key private. When the site later wants to authenticate you, it sends a challenge. You sign the challenge with your private key and return it. If your signature is successfully matched with the previously stored public key, you are authenticated. If someone intercepts the conversation they get nothing useful, because next time the challenge will be different, and no actual keys were exchanged. If someone hacks the service all they get is a bunch of PUBLIC keys.
Now, how to protect your PRIVATE key is totally up to you. You could keep it in an encrypted file that is unlocked with biometrics. Or, you could keep it in a hardware cryptography module in a PC protected with 4096 bit encryption, inside a steel cage. Or anything in between. It is up to YOU, not the service.
The Post Office can't hire extra real folks
Bullshit. The USPS can and does hire temporary employees (here is an example from last year), they do not have any impact on the retirement fund.
The demand that the USPS pre-fund its retirement system is not 'crazy', it is responsible. Note that most other organizations gave up on the pension system altogether and just give the employees money via 401K matches. The employee can then (wisely) 'pre-fund' his own retirement, or (stupidly) not - and be '85 and wanna go home'. About the only pensions that are not fully pre-funded anymore are public service jobs, because you can always just soak the taxpayer later, no sense in being fiscally responsible now.
I think it was a JOKE. He didn't say "Don't game ON Linux" or "Don't game WITH Linux", he said "Don't game Linux". It is a play on gaming the system.
It astonishes you that people want readily-available, inexpensive, undamaged, food year-round? Really? And learn the meaning of 'inedible' - flavorless is not a synonym.
Nothing about your textfile method is in any way superior to using a GUI. Nothing. A text file can have blank lines, long lines, short lines, lines with characters you didn't expect, and other such stuff. The requirement for checking inputs is no different with a text file than it is with a GUI. The only difference really is that a good GUI can provide more immediate feedback on incorrect entries.
And yet nobody ever says that a kid just starting to drive on safe local streets in daylight is a superior driver. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet, the autonomous driving proponents make that exact claim. Weird.
Ah, 'double or triple the chance of killing someone'. You mean, in exactly the same way as you double your chances of winning the lottery by buying two tickets. Double the chances! It's practically a sure thing! Per your logic, the 'best' car (with the most points) is one that doesn't move at all.
By the way, the biggest cause of weather related accidents isn't snow, or ice, or even rain. It is wet roads. Do you know how often the roads are wet around here? Damn near every day. Guess we should all just be hermits so we are safe.
I never said autonomous cars had to be 'perfect', but I do think they need to be better than at least AVERAGE human drivers. And that includes getting people where they want to be when they want to go there, whether you think it is a 'dumb' reason or not., and whether or not that involves driving in a thunderstorm (around here known as 'afternoon'), or through a construction zone, or in an inch of snow, or in a congested area, or anywhere that is not 'safe'.
And I don't see anything dumb about any of those you listed.
I disagree, it IS a point in their favor. Life goes on even in bad weather, etc. The point of a car is to get you from point A to point B when you want to go. If the car can't/won't do that it is a failure. Now, certainly there are times when you just should not drive, but ordinary rain and snow are not those times.
That link (the one that supposedly shows autonomous cars are safer) has a date of January 2016. Any data studied would obviously have to be older than that. Now, exactly how many fully autonomous cars were there, driving in real-world conditions, more than 2.5 years ago? Maybe 0?
The insurance against risky mortgages is the house. You don't pay, they get the house. Student loans are unsecured. You did know that, didn't you?
Domestic spending is a fraction of military spending.
Huh?
Military spending - $609B (15.8%)
Foreign aid - $50B (1.3%)
Interest - $229B (6%)
Domestic programs - $2.9T (76%)
Where did you get your supposed numbers from?
Two second reaction time? Average reaction time to visual stimulus is about a quarter of a second.
There is not really anything bizarre about that. The utility knows what the base residential usage is, and they know what the big industrial usage is/will be (by contract). That allows them to pre-buy fuel, plan generating capacity, etc to cover that usage. The 'high usage' residentials are a big unknown, and unknowns are expensive.
That is just idiotic. There are, on average, about 11 pedestrians killed each day in the US. So 11 times/day the driver did the wrong thing. If it is 'just as likely' they will do the wrong thing, that means there are 11 times/day when a pedestrian puts themself in danger and the driver does not kill them. Does that seem reasonable? Or does it seem more likely that there are thousands and thousands of times a day a pedestrian puts himself in danger and the driver does the right thing?
This seems to be a common problem with self-driving proponents - they focus purely on the (relatively infrequent) things human driver to wrong, and completely ignore the FAR more prevalent human drivers do right. And until self-driving vehicles can not only correct the things we do wrong, but ALSO do the things we do right, they are not better than human drivers. And that seems a very long way off.
And also, that human drivers had orders of magnitude more opportunities to kill pedestrians (which they didn't) than self-driving cards did.
I can 100% guarantee you that the percentage of human drivers who killed a pedestrian yesterday is orders of magnitude lower than the number of self-driving cars that did.
Nobody said it was okay for a vehicle to it someone. Only an ignornamus would think that. But there is an enormous difference between being okay to hit someone and not being liable if you do hit someone if that person caused the accident. Probably even in your so-called 'civilized' country.
No, you do not recall that because it never happened. When cable first started in the 50s and 60s it was just retransmission of local channels. All of the ads were of course included. In the 70s subscription services such as HBO entered the picture. They were, and still are, ad-free. The later 70s and 80s saw the introduction of 'super stations', which were OTA broadcasts that were also carried on satellite and picked up by cable, again with all the ads in place. Pure cable, but not subscription, channels such as CNN have always had ads. The 'ad free' time you remember so fondly never happened.
You have to read all the way to the 5th sentence to see that there is a timer that turns it off.
What if you, the owner, allowed the tires to get bald and the car skidded and hit someone? What if you, the owner, failed to keep the brakes in working order? What if you, the owner, continued using the car after being informed there was a defect that needed repair? You'd have to be pretty dumb to think you won't still need at least liability insurance.