I think Snow Crash is a better book than any of Banks i`ve read (although I`ve only read his non sci fi stuff). With the possible exception of The Wasp Factory, which is well worth a read.
And to be fair, the gargoyles arent specifically following any one person - they just sort of turn up and film/record stuff. But its pretty close!
Laws are good!! As you can see, i think we have most dangerous activities covered now. Who can remember when the streets werent safe because of drugs, murderers, spies, hackers, drunk drivers, crazed psychopaths, bent policement etc etc. Thank god someone had the foresight to see that the solution to these problems were just a few billion dollars of taxpayers money!
So whats your response to his suggestion that war would only make things worse? I think you`ve got some good ideas in your post - especially when you suggest we should torture the perpetrators to death (is this before or after a fair trial?) - perhaps you should forward them on to the DL yourself. I mean, what would he know about suffering?
I was talking about censorship in the harsh, final definition - its banned and therefore very hard/impossible to access.
I`m sure there are lots of `real world` working definitions, including the poster mentioning his mother `censoring` his tv viewing.
But in this case, ClearChannel (who i`ve never heard of before now) seem to be censoring themselves.
Theres a magazine called `spotlight on censorship` which has highlighted censorship around the world. I`d be surprised if this issue ever got mentioned in it (if indeed its still being published) - except, perhaps, because of some of the ridiculous choices on the list!
BBC1 (a tv channel in the UK) uses public airwaves. Are you suggesting that unsigned bands are being censored because they dont broadcast every last demo they send in?
Censorship (to me) is when someone is prevented from expressing an idea by another body (ie the government). If someone approaches the band and threatens them with prison for playing a song, thats censorship.
In the broad definition of censorship you may have a point. But using that definition of censorship, you could just as well accuse someone on the same bus as you of censorship for standing up and getting in the way when you were looking at an advert!
They wouldnt be censoring me, because they are not the government. I do not have an automatic right to have what i write published by a private company.
Thats what deniable encryption is all about.
Make sure there is one (or 2) harmless-to-reveal messages to show people who really want to be shown something.
PGP v7 will never go away. Its out there. Make all the laws you want; unless you make the punishment for using encryption the same as the punishment for killing thousands of people, then people who commit such acts will use it.
Exactly. All you need is to decide upon a cd to use as data for a one-time pad. Its pretty likely you could use a secure channel if you`re not in a rush to decide upon the pad. Once its been sorted out, the terrorists wouldnt even need to have the cd in their possession all the time.
"it really possible to create a system that is undetectable even if the algorithm is public?"
What if you used a `rubberhose` type system, where there are (possibly) multiple encrypted streams within a single block of data? Yes, theres a message in there. But is there 2, or 3 or 20?
People always talk up the cost of stuff. I remember seeing something about how much spam costs industry. I hate spam as much as the next man, but it worked out at something like $80 to delete 3 pieces of spam a week. Can I have a job there please? I`ll do that for $10!
I think its just companies being pissed off because their crap security, which they DID spend a lot of money on, was badly set up, and cracked by a 15 year old geek.
"lax compared to European airports, with many electronic gadgets he had with him including a laptop remaining unchecked."
I`ve flown from UK -> Denmark many times recently. You can take what you want onto the plane (regarding electronic devices). You can use them on the plane, except for phones and anything which transmits radio signals.
Basically you *could* use even those as long as the stewardesses dont catch you! Thats one thing
that could change (if it was considered relevant).
But we still have metal detectors and passport checks, even between 2 European countries (probably because the UK isnt signed up to the Schengen agreement). Sounds like the US is more like the UK train system - you just turn up, get a ticket, and get on, with no checking.
Of course, the US would need no extra security in the planes, if preventing hijacking is the priority - simply lock the pilots into the cabin before take-off and make it impossible for them to open the door until after the plane has landed (i guess you could have an emergency fire exit via a cockpit window or something)
I`d just watched a program which mentioned how it was built, and how it was a new design which was weaker than other types of building. Fair call about the design specs! But that point notwithstanding, would it still be standing today if it had been built with more support?
The moderates will probably just not be that bothered that they`d want to risk their own life. They`re still pissed off about Americans poking their noses into their affairs like they are the worlds policeman, judges and jailors.
If they had just attacked the pentagon, and hadnt use civilian aircraft, i believe they would have got a lot of respect from a lot more people (especially within America).
Time to sort out some of the worlds problems, rather than making money from them. Although i doubt that will happen - instead it will be used to promote the new world order some more, you`ll have a whole load of CCTV cameras popping up, id cards, laws against encryption & anon net access...
Slashdot Mirror
I think Snow Crash is a better book than any of Banks i`ve read (although I`ve only read his non sci fi stuff). With the possible exception of The Wasp Factory, which is well worth a read.
And to be fair, the gargoyles arent specifically following any one person - they just sort of turn up and film/record stuff. But its pretty close!
...of `the idiot`
4 ,0 0.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/1,7371,33748
Sounds like the gargoyles from Neall Stephensons Snow Crash.
Sci-fi authors - is there any limit to their creativity?
Laws are good!! As you can see, i think we have most dangerous activities covered now. Who can remember when the streets werent safe because of drugs, murderers, spies, hackers, drunk drivers, crazed psychopaths, bent policement etc etc. Thank god someone had the foresight to see that the solution to these problems were just a few billion dollars of taxpayers money!
"Not to denigrate the Dalai Lama"
So whats your response to his suggestion that war would only make things worse? I think you`ve got some good ideas in your post - especially when you suggest we should torture the perpetrators to death (is this before or after a fair trial?) - perhaps you should forward them on to the DL yourself. I mean, what would he know about suffering?
I was talking about censorship in the harsh, final definition - its banned and therefore very hard/impossible to access.
I`m sure there are lots of `real world` working definitions, including the poster mentioning his mother `censoring` his tv viewing.
But in this case, ClearChannel (who i`ve never heard of before now) seem to be censoring themselves.
Theres a magazine called `spotlight on censorship` which has highlighted censorship around the world. I`d be surprised if this issue ever got mentioned in it (if indeed its still being published) - except, perhaps, because of some of the ridiculous choices on the list!
BBC1 (a tv channel in the UK) uses public airwaves. Are you suggesting that unsigned bands are being censored because they dont broadcast every last demo they send in?
Censorship (to me) is when someone is prevented from expressing an idea by another body (ie the government). If someone approaches the band and threatens them with prison for playing a song, thats censorship.
In the broad definition of censorship you may have a point. But using that definition of censorship, you could just as well accuse someone on the same bus as you of censorship for standing up and getting in the way when you were looking at an advert!
They wouldnt be censoring me, because they are not the government. I do not have an automatic right to have what i write published by a private company.
How does someone who is not the government censor you? With what powers/rights?
www.safeweb.co.uk
(use https if your company blocks http)
Yes. Thats exactly it. Otherwise another company/individual can do it. Its their choice what they play.
Are you sure they didnt just use a phone. A payphone or something? Or are black helicopters watching every phone box in the country now?
Thats what deniable encryption is all about.
Make sure there is one (or 2) harmless-to-reveal messages to show people who really want to be shown something.
http://www.rubberhose.org
PGP v7 will never go away. Its out there. Make all the laws you want; unless you make the punishment for using encryption the same as the punishment for killing thousands of people, then people who commit such acts will use it.
Exactly. All you need is to decide upon a cd to use as data for a one-time pad. Its pretty likely you could use a secure channel if you`re not in a rush to decide upon the pad. Once its been sorted out, the terrorists wouldnt even need to have the cd in their possession all the time.
"it really possible to create a system that is undetectable even if the algorithm is public?"
What if you used a `rubberhose` type system, where there are (possibly) multiple encrypted streams within a single block of data? Yes, theres a message in there. But is there 2, or 3 or 20?
Oh you give him a more suitable sentence, like using his skills for a charity, or having him design websites or something.
That's what justice is for.
On the other hand, 8 months fixing bugs in Perl...
People always talk up the cost of stuff. I remember seeing something about how much spam costs industry. I hate spam as much as the next man, but it worked out at something like $80 to delete 3 pieces of spam a week. Can I have a job there please? I`ll do that for $10!
I think its just companies being pissed off because their crap security, which they DID spend a lot of money on, was badly set up, and cracked by a 15 year old geek.
"We have acted as an "honest broker" between a
mostly-free and democratic nation - Israel - and the blood-thirsty thugs who
seek its destruction. "
Amusing how such a trollworthy message isnt PGP-signed.
"lax compared to European airports, with many electronic gadgets he had with him including a laptop remaining unchecked."
I`ve flown from UK -> Denmark many times recently. You can take what you want onto the plane (regarding electronic devices). You can use them on the plane, except for phones and anything which transmits radio signals.
Basically you *could* use even those as long as the stewardesses dont catch you! Thats one thing
that could change (if it was considered relevant).
But we still have metal detectors and passport checks, even between 2 European countries (probably because the UK isnt signed up to the Schengen agreement). Sounds like the US is more like the UK train system - you just turn up, get a ticket, and get on, with no checking.
Of course, the US would need no extra security in the planes, if preventing hijacking is the priority - simply lock the pilots into the cabin before take-off and make it impossible for them to open the door until after the plane has landed (i guess you could have an emergency fire exit via a cockpit window or something)
I`d just watched a program which mentioned how it was built, and how it was a new design which was weaker than other types of building. Fair call about the design specs! But that point notwithstanding, would it still be standing today if it had been built with more support?
"If you're a single guy on a plane with a knife, i can tell you that it is entirely impossible to hijack an airplane."
Ok, suppose you were married.
amusing how, when you actually want to know whats going on, you have to forget all about the web, and just turn on the radio.
"greatly outnumbered by the moderates"
The moderates will probably just not be that bothered that they`d want to risk their own life. They`re still pissed off about Americans poking their noses into their affairs like they are the worlds policeman, judges and jailors.
If they had just attacked the pentagon, and hadnt use civilian aircraft, i believe they would have got a lot of respect from a lot more people (especially within America).
Time to sort out some of the worlds problems, rather than making money from them. Although i doubt that will happen - instead it will be used to promote the new world order some more, you`ll have a whole load of CCTV cameras popping up, id cards, laws against encryption & anon net access...