Thing is that many things get more efficient the bigger you build.
Sure I can put up my own wind turbine but compared to the monsters built by companies with decent money at hand my little thing is far too costly.
Nuclear is very cost effective but even companies don't like to put out that much money without government backing.
Try making your own microchips and compare them to what Intel makes then tell me you can do anything big business can.
People always pull out the distributed generation thing as if it somehow solves the energy problem which is like saying the way to deal with the cost and CO2 from all those buses and trains is to put everyone in their own little vehicle and since those vehicles are smaller they, y'know, wouldn't pump out as much CO2!
I welcome some oversight since I lack the knowledge in the area to tell the difference between a quack giving me bullshit "test results" and someone who actually knows what they're doing giving me useful information.
No I am not willing to learn enough genetics to spot a quack.
*"Did you tell them anything?"
#"Yes everything I knew!"
*"Was that enough for them?"
#"No they'll be back for you in a few minutes."
*"Blast!"
it isn't perfect, while there are humans who know there is data those humans can be tortured to try to get that info.
All trucrypt does is give people a decent chance to resist moderate rubberhosing.
Combine with steganography if you want to avoid people even knowing there's data to be found.
I like the way you think!:D
I've always wished that shareholders could be held liable for the companies actions.
Own 33% of a company which kills 20 people through dumping something nasty or faulty heart valves? The company is taken to court and a sentence handed down. Now you have to serve a third of that sentence.
I predict a sudden upswing in ethical behaviour if companies were treated like this.
but of course this will never happen.
yes you can kill the hidden volume but once law enforcement is dumping files onto your PC you have bigger problems.
if that starts happening then I put my data in truecrypt hidden volumes, hide those in the least significant bit of each pixel of my family photos and take my info to La Resistance.
you seem to have missed the point in a big way.
You see a truecrypt container.
You hold back the rubber hose or start with the thumbscrews.
after much screaming they give you a password.
You see a 1 gig volume with 200mb of confidential and mildly valuable files and 800mb of free space.
It's is utterly plausible that this is all there is. there are no more files. you've got all you're gonna get. no hidden volume.
Now you might try some more torture but your victim is also aware that there is no proof at all that there is any more to find.
Perhaps I have a 1 gig volume with 998MB used on the outside with a 2 MB hidden volume where I keep my plans to kill the president.
as for a dictionary attack, you haven't ever tried this have you?
if there's a decent password then it will take you about a million years(or more) to brute force it using every computer on earth.
Re:This message will self destruct in 5 seconds...
on
TrueCrypt 6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not hidden like a physical object. hidden in the "noise" that makes up the empty space on the disk. and there is no way to tell the difference between empty, unused space and a hidden volume.
actually you can.
with truecrypt I can create an encrypted volume which is just a file on my hard disk.
say it's 1 gigabyte.
To access it I have to type in my password "secretpass"
I see a 1 gigabyte volume.
now I can stop there. it's encrypted strongly enough to protect my files.
I throw 200 MB of porn/corporate data/personal emails/photos of my girlfriend on there.
it shows as 800MB free.
Now I create a hidden volume 800 MB in size.
In there I put my plans for how to kill every politician, the details of my drugrunning opperation, the plans for a nuclear weapon. etc etc etc.
to access this I have to type in my second password "password2"
So I boot up truecrypt, select the 1 gig file which is my virtual drive, type in "secretpass".
What I then see is a 1 gig drive with 800mb free space and lots of semi-important files.
if I open that same file with "password2" I'll see an 800MB drive almost full with highly important documents.
There is no missing hard drive space, no hint at all that there is anything but the first drive unless I enter the second password.
(side note, if you add files to the first drive then there's a chance that you'll overwrite files on the hidden drive since unless you enter that password as well then truecrypt can't see that it's there.)
Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them.
Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first from growing without hurting someones rights.
"yes your medium company is much better than the others but we're going to force you to limit it's size."
And the second will tend to grow in times of emergency when people actually do need it and will then tend to want to maintain the same size.
Government is also good for some things. I quite like that the government pays for schools and (where I live) university education for everyone. (which btw does more to give people a chance to have a decent life than any ammount of food stamps)
And my point is that the law has to take into account that in an employment situation 1 party is automatically in a position to blackmail the other.
It would be nice if we all had the financial security to be able to be self employed but that just isn't the case.
all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company etc and have the social and financial stability to take the chance of their little buisness falling apart.
Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.
situation 1:
Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over.
I don't push for any in my favor
net result: I'm fucked.
situation 2:
Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over.
I don't push for legislation in my favor as well.
net result: Both have a harder time.
situation 3:
non existant since every large company will eventually push for laws which will help them at the expense of everyone else.
This is mainly because it's completely unfeasible to rehire, and retrain hundreds or thousands of workers, in any reasonable amount of time, without completely killing your business. And nothing stops the new employees from starting a new union anyway.
and why shouldn't this be included in the value of the employees?
I hear the opposite argument all the time that employees can just move company even though that lumps in lots of other things like moving house as "value to the employee".
Don't bother, people who toe that line seem to always be high skill set people who think that low skill set people are just fools for not going to college or having a pile of money set aside at all times for emergencies and so shouldn't have any rights.
Also for your point 1 he said "supporting" not "voting for".
Where does the employeers right to tell an employee what to do end?
If I can fire someone for standing on a soapbox and supporting a party I don't like then can I fire someone for not standing on a soapbox in his "free time" and supporting the party I like?
Should I have the right to fire someone for not bringing me a photo of their ballot and a signed statement affirming that they voted for who I want them to?
After all they have the right to vote, the right to make their own record of their vote and the right to tell me who they voted for if they so choose.
I have the right to ask them who they voted for if I so wish.
They have the right to tell me and show the confirmation or refuse to tell me and not show the confirmation.
I have the right to fire them for any reason I want like not showing me the proof or if the proof shows the wrong box ticked.
If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?
if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?
Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.
It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you.
and so it make sense to legislate to make sure people maintain their political freedom even if they need a job to survive.
The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work.
Sure it does, and since every employer has to deal with it it doesn't even give your competition an advantage unless they're overseas.
If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).
very true. so I might want to vote in measures which will protect me somehow....
Last time I checked the government was there to protect as many people as possible, not the handful who happen to have the most money.
sometimes these overlap, sometimes not.
My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date.
and if my employer(pretty much the only game in town) included a clause saying I couldn't do work in the same field for a different employer. A common clause nowdays. Then I cannot get any kind of parttime job.
If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that.
You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it,
Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?
but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do.
Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?
Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.
fair enough, I shouldn't have phrased it like that.
I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment.
Which is fine as long as your company does not have any link/interest/etc with the government.
There are enough banana republics out there where a one or a handful of companies effectively are the government and the only employers at the same time.
Some might claim that America is a fair way down the road of companies having most of the government in their pockets as well.
When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy.
On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region, you've got the local representatives in your pocket and you datamine looking for employees who publicly complain about how your puppet congressman lies,steals and got caught in a truck stop bathroom with a sheep.
At this point you start to fuck with the democratic system and hurt everyones rights.
What if you punish employees for not campaigning for your puppet?
Oh they could just leave if you're such a crappy employer! But wait.... you're also the only work around, they can't leave if they also want to eat and live in a house.
Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.
If I go through a VPN then I'm only sending/recieving to/from one IP. the IP of my VPN.
I choose a VPN which allows anon torrenting since it's much much easier to switch VPN than to switch ISP.
try to spot the difference between a cam and a torrent when it's inside an encrypted pipe. Better yet try to spot it when I'm using a pipe written to to emulate the same profile of sending/recieving.
Wow! You mean you were able to write errors into an artical?
Yet you still don't deal with the fact that regular authors can do this too.
The fact that you're a dick does not make other media any more reliable.
Why do people speak like being killed by terrorists is so very likely?
I mean death by lightening is only slightly less likely and you and your family are much much much more likely to be killed by some random drunk who can't drive straight.
Yes terrorists exist and they are a danger, a small danger.
Money should be invested in defending the population from terrorist attacks just like money should be invested in lightening rods. But if you could save more lives and keep more people safe by investing that same money in safer cars or better hospital facitities then you're throwing money and lives away.
Imagine that after 9/11 if 90% of the money which was spent on anti-terrorist measures had instead been spent on a mix of other ways to keep the population safe and happy.
even if there had been ten times as many deaths due to terrorism since 9/11 in the US how many lives could have been saved?
Imagine a company which invests millions in an anti-slip floor surface to prevent falls but neglects to spend anything on (cheap)hard hats even if the latter would save ten times more lives.
So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views?
If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.
In that case I rewrite the program I'm using to tunnel into my vpn a little so it tries to look like another protocol at the cost of a little bandwidth.
Arms race which can only be won by encryption being outlawed or enshrined in the constitution.
Thing is that wikipedia gets a lot more flack than others for no good reason.
Most of the vandalism on the site is akin to a kid drawing a penis in a library book. When the word "asstoast" is added to every 3rd sentence in an article it's not really hard to spot.
This means what you really have to be cautious of is people with an alteria motive writing something or removing bits that go against their view. But then this is automatic with a normal book, you get all the biases of the author and no edit log to check.
Personally I think what bothers people more is that wikipedia has few clear biases which carry through the whole site unlike most news sites or pay encyclopedias. You can't just dismiss something on there with "it's all conservative crap" or "it's all liberal crap" or anti/pro X.
And if a decent number of people had simply done what I'm sugesting over the last 40 years then we might by now have 5 or 6 parties in every election and people might have some decent choices.
When there's only 2 parties then you have the choice between "bad" or "worse", having a chance at "good" is worth the slightly increasing the chance of "worse".
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is that many things get more efficient the bigger you build.
Sure I can put up my own wind turbine but compared to the monsters built by companies with decent money at hand my little thing is far too costly.
Nuclear is very cost effective but even companies don't like to put out that much money without government backing.
Try making your own microchips and compare them to what Intel makes then tell me you can do anything big business can. People always pull out the distributed generation thing as if it somehow solves the energy problem which is like saying the way to deal with the cost and CO2 from all those buses and trains is to put everyone in their own little vehicle and since those vehicles are smaller they, y'know, wouldn't pump out as much CO2!
I welcome some oversight since I lack the knowledge in the area to tell the difference between a quack giving me bullshit "test results" and someone who actually knows what they're doing giving me useful information.
No I am not willing to learn enough genetics to spot a quack.
*"Did you tell them anything?" #"Yes everything I knew!" *"Was that enough for them?" #"No they'll be back for you in a few minutes." *"Blast!" it isn't perfect, while there are humans who know there is data those humans can be tortured to try to get that info. All trucrypt does is give people a decent chance to resist moderate rubberhosing. Combine with steganography if you want to avoid people even knowing there's data to be found.
I like the way you think! :D
I've always wished that shareholders could be held liable for the companies actions. Own 33% of a company which kills 20 people through dumping something nasty or faulty heart valves? The company is taken to court and a sentence handed down. Now you have to serve a third of that sentence.
I predict a sudden upswing in ethical behaviour if companies were treated like this. but of course this will never happen.
yes you can kill the hidden volume but once law enforcement is dumping files onto your PC you have bigger problems. if that starts happening then I put my data in truecrypt hidden volumes, hide those in the least significant bit of each pixel of my family photos and take my info to La Resistance.
you seem to have missed the point in a big way. You see a truecrypt container. You hold back the rubber hose or start with the thumbscrews. after much screaming they give you a password. You see a 1 gig volume with 200mb of confidential and mildly valuable files and 800mb of free space. It's is utterly plausible that this is all there is. there are no more files. you've got all you're gonna get. no hidden volume. Now you might try some more torture but your victim is also aware that there is no proof at all that there is any more to find. Perhaps I have a 1 gig volume with 998MB used on the outside with a 2 MB hidden volume where I keep my plans to kill the president. as for a dictionary attack, you haven't ever tried this have you? if there's a decent password then it will take you about a million years(or more) to brute force it using every computer on earth.
does it run linux? If yes they you already can! :D
I have no hidden volume. I use truecrypt as a simple and easy way to keep my clients personal data secure.
Not hidden like a physical object. hidden in the "noise" that makes up the empty space on the disk. and there is no way to tell the difference between empty, unused space and a hidden volume.
actually you can. with truecrypt I can create an encrypted volume which is just a file on my hard disk. say it's 1 gigabyte. To access it I have to type in my password "secretpass" I see a 1 gigabyte volume. now I can stop there. it's encrypted strongly enough to protect my files. I throw 200 MB of porn/corporate data/personal emails/photos of my girlfriend on there. it shows as 800MB free. Now I create a hidden volume 800 MB in size. In there I put my plans for how to kill every politician, the details of my drugrunning opperation, the plans for a nuclear weapon. etc etc etc. to access this I have to type in my second password "password2" So I boot up truecrypt, select the 1 gig file which is my virtual drive, type in "secretpass". What I then see is a 1 gig drive with 800mb free space and lots of semi-important files. if I open that same file with "password2" I'll see an 800MB drive almost full with highly important documents. There is no missing hard drive space, no hint at all that there is anything but the first drive unless I enter the second password. (side note, if you add files to the first drive then there's a chance that you'll overwrite files on the hidden drive since unless you enter that password as well then truecrypt can't see that it's there.)
Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them.
Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first from growing without hurting someones rights.
"yes your medium company is much better than the others but we're going to force you to limit it's size."
And the second will tend to grow in times of emergency when people actually do need it and will then tend to want to maintain the same size.
Government is also good for some things. I quite like that the government pays for schools and (where I live) university education for everyone. (which btw does more to give people a chance to have a decent life than any ammount of food stamps)
It would be nice if we all had the financial security to be able to be self employed but that just isn't the case.
all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company etc and have the social and financial stability to take the chance of their little buisness falling apart.
Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.
situation 1: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for any in my favor net result: I'm fucked. situation 2: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for legislation in my favor as well. net result: Both have a harder time. situation 3: non existant since every large company will eventually push for laws which will help them at the expense of everyone else.
This is mainly because it's completely unfeasible to rehire, and retrain hundreds or thousands of workers, in any reasonable amount of time, without completely killing your business. And nothing stops the new employees from starting a new union anyway.
and why shouldn't this be included in the value of the employees? I hear the opposite argument all the time that employees can just move company even though that lumps in lots of other things like moving house as "value to the employee".
Don't bother, people who toe that line seem to always be high skill set people who think that low skill set people are just fools for not going to college or having a pile of money set aside at all times for emergencies and so shouldn't have any rights.
Also for your point 1 he said "supporting" not "voting for".
:)
Where does the employeers right to tell an employee what to do end?
If I can fire someone for standing on a soapbox and supporting a party I don't like then can I fire someone for not standing on a soapbox in his "free time" and supporting the party I like?
Should I have the right to fire someone for not bringing me a photo of their ballot and a signed statement affirming that they voted for who I want them to?
After all they have the right to vote, the right to make their own record of their vote and the right to tell me who they voted for if they so choose.
I have the right to ask them who they voted for if I so wish.
They have the right to tell me and show the confirmation or refuse to tell me and not show the confirmation.
I have the right to fire them for any reason I want like not showing me the proof or if the proof shows the wrong box ticked.
Isn't freedom great
If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?
if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to? Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.
It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you.
and so it make sense to legislate to make sure people maintain their political freedom even if they need a job to survive.
The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work.
Sure it does, and since every employer has to deal with it it doesn't even give your competition an advantage unless they're overseas.
If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).
very true. so I might want to vote in measures which will protect me somehow.... Last time I checked the government was there to protect as many people as possible, not the handful who happen to have the most money.
sometimes these overlap, sometimes not.
My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date.
and if my employer(pretty much the only game in town) included a clause saying I couldn't do work in the same field for a different employer. A common clause nowdays. Then I cannot get any kind of parttime job.
If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that. You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it,
Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?
but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do.
Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?
Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.
fair enough, I shouldn't have phrased it like that.
I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment.
Which is fine as long as your company does not have any link/interest/etc with the government.
There are enough banana republics out there where a one or a handful of companies effectively are the government and the only employers at the same time.
Some might claim that America is a fair way down the road of companies having most of the government in their pockets as well.
When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy.
On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region, you've got the local representatives in your pocket and you datamine looking for employees who publicly complain about how your puppet congressman lies,steals and got caught in a truck stop bathroom with a sheep.
At this point you start to fuck with the democratic system and hurt everyones rights.
What if you punish employees for not campaigning for your puppet?
Oh they could just leave if you're such a crappy employer! But wait.... you're also the only work around, they can't leave if they also want to eat and live in a house.
Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.
If I go through a VPN then I'm only sending/recieving to/from one IP. the IP of my VPN. I choose a VPN which allows anon torrenting since it's much much easier to switch VPN than to switch ISP. try to spot the difference between a cam and a torrent when it's inside an encrypted pipe. Better yet try to spot it when I'm using a pipe written to to emulate the same profile of sending/recieving.
Wow! You mean you were able to write errors into an artical?
Yet you still don't deal with the fact that regular authors can do this too.
The fact that you're a dick does not make other media any more reliable.
Why do people speak like being killed by terrorists is so very likely?
I mean death by lightening is only slightly less likely and you and your family are much much much more likely to be killed by some random drunk who can't drive straight.
Yes terrorists exist and they are a danger, a small danger.
Money should be invested in defending the population from terrorist attacks just like money should be invested in lightening rods. But if you could save more lives and keep more people safe by investing that same money in safer cars or better hospital facitities then you're throwing money and lives away.
Imagine that after 9/11 if 90% of the money which was spent on anti-terrorist measures had instead been spent on a mix of other ways to keep the population safe and happy.
even if there had been ten times as many deaths due to terrorism since 9/11 in the US how many lives could have been saved?
Imagine a company which invests millions in an anti-slip floor surface to prevent falls but neglects to spend anything on (cheap)hard hats even if the latter would save ten times more lives.
So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views? If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.
In that case I rewrite the program I'm using to tunnel into my vpn a little so it tries to look like another protocol at the cost of a little bandwidth.
Arms race which can only be won by encryption being outlawed or enshrined in the constitution.
Thing is that wikipedia gets a lot more flack than others for no good reason. Most of the vandalism on the site is akin to a kid drawing a penis in a library book. When the word "asstoast" is added to every 3rd sentence in an article it's not really hard to spot. This means what you really have to be cautious of is people with an alteria motive writing something or removing bits that go against their view. But then this is automatic with a normal book, you get all the biases of the author and no edit log to check. Personally I think what bothers people more is that wikipedia has few clear biases which carry through the whole site unlike most news sites or pay encyclopedias. You can't just dismiss something on there with "it's all conservative crap" or "it's all liberal crap" or anti/pro X.
When WoW stops working because the updates are blocked the Hord and the Alliance might finally put their differences aside to fight a bigger foe!
And if a decent number of people had simply done what I'm sugesting over the last 40 years then we might by now have 5 or 6 parties in every election and people might have some decent choices. When there's only 2 parties then you have the choice between "bad" or "worse", having a chance at "good" is worth the slightly increasing the chance of "worse".