Fair enough. But, most developers know how to wreck their software. The guy holding the interrogation implement asks, "What is the weakest part of your encryption tool?" WHACK! "You don't need to think so long, you know the weakest part of your scheme, tell me!"
Given that answer, it would help to focus attention where WE would least want attention.
The best thing going right now, is that so many eyes ARE focused on the last "known good" version. Maybe if there is a weak link, someone will notice it. Of course, there is no guarantee at all.
My question is academic. If they got a developer into a dungeon somewhere, and applied the five dollar monkey wrench interrogation method to extract a working back door - what assurance is there that this back door doesn't work on previous versions? FUD? I thought it a reasonable question. Does an exploit in version x.xxx work on version x.xxx - 1, or x.xxx -.001, or even x.xxx - 3? In some cases, I would imagine that the exploit might work all the way back to the project's startup and milestone.01, in other cases the same exploit might not work in a very minor version update.
Well, first, a gun lock renders a gun useless - to you, as well as to anyone else. When seconds count, it only takes half a minute to unlock a lock, IF you have the key immediately at hand.
It has been suggested throughout this conversation that there are factors at work in the rise and fall of crime statistics other than mere gun ownership. Possession of a gun isn't the end-all and be-all of staying safe, only a moron would think so. But, an armed citizenry remains an important factor in personal security, as well as politics and national security.
I would be suspicious of 7.1 just as much as 7.2. If the developers left this "message" that 7.2 might be compromised, what kind of guarantee is there that 7.1 isn't also compromised? Discussion below shows that the big difference between the two is, 7.2 won't create new encrypted volumes. The message seems to say "We've been compromised - get your stuff out of the existing volumes, because they are NOT PROTECTED!" Or, "no longer protected".
If NSA demanded keys and/or back doors, and if the NSA actually got anything for their trouble, then those keys will open backdoors into older versions as well.
If your police department can have a weapon, then your neighbor should be able to keep the same weapons.
Let me key on the "well regulated" bit for a moment. We have lost something in the past hundred or so years. We don't have hometown mlitias any more. If you should read some of the stories of units that fought in the Civil War, you will find that many soldiers fought and died with the boys they grew up with, and the elders from their own home towns. That is, the county more or less maintained it's own militia, which volunteered for service to the state in times of need. Or, in the case of the Civil War, they volunteered, as a unit, with the US Army.
So, these militias were drilling on the town square routinely, each and every year.
You have a point - the individual militiamen didn't take cannon home with them. Or gatling guns, either. They may or may not have taken their rifles (or muskets) home with them, depending on whether they bought the weapons with personal funds, or were issued by the county or state.
BUT - wherever the cannon, the gatling guns, and the government-owned small arms might have been stowed, the militia had ready access.
I'm kinda getting off of my central point though. Well regulated. At age 17, boys were expected to muster with the militia for training and drill. They were expected to continue doing so, until about age 40. And, thoughout their adult lives, they were expected to be ready for action.
Well regulated? Of COURSE they were well regulated. If the commanding officer happens to be your best buddy's grandfather, and the adjutant is your second cousin by marriage, and you went to school with all the privates, your dad is a corporal - yeah, you bet your ass that you'll stay well regulated! No way are you going to go home in disgrace, with all your freinds and family mocking you for the rest of your life!
Of equal importance - these militias were not units of the US Army, or even of the individual state's "National Guard". They were independent units, ready to respond to emergencies of any kind. They often did volunteer for service to the state, or service to the Army, but they weren't actually obligated to do so.
A man with low morals, or poor morals, isn't necessarily without morals. A guy who is willing to steal your wallet, isn't necessarily willing to kill you in cold blood.
Yes, there really are people who are capable of doing as you describe. I think I may have met a couple of them. But, you don't find them everyday, in every town across the country. Even convicts can be shocked at some of the more heinous crimes that make the news. Whatever happened to that guy Dahmer? As I recall, he was done in by other convicts who didn't want him in "their" prison.
Most cons that I have ever come into contact with actually do have some morals. Often, they are a piss-poor excuse for morality, but they pride themselves on the morals they do possess.
That's a little rude. If we all restricted ourselves to commenting on subjects in which we are experts - slashdot would appear to be abandoned. Two or three people would comment on some subjects, other subjects might have fifteen people participating. And, whatever would happen to good old AC?
No, the cell phones are merely remote sensors for the AI hidden behind the scenes. Of course, given an AI, the computational power that accompanies those sensors is probably somewhat useful as well.
Isnt' that precisely what they did recently? They built a facility for the very purpose of increasing storage by orders of magnitude? Or, did I misunderstand all those stories?
Gang violence - that seems to occupy it's own special little niche. I really don't know how to address it, either.
I am more than half convinced that the gang bangers should be encouraged to battle it out, and to kill each other off. The more of them that are dead, the safer the streets will be for honest people.
Of course, a lot of honest people will hate me for that attitude, because they have sons, brothers, cousins, or something that belongs to one gang or another.
Gangs are the refuge of the week minded, IMHO - and survival of the fittest seems to demand that they be permitted to kill each other. Those who resist the lure of the gangs seem more fit to live, again, IMHO.
Vicious circle kinda thing there. They had a gun problem, so they passed laws, which made the gun problem worse, so they passed more laws, which made the problem worse again. All of that, DESPITE the fact that nationwide, we see violent crimes being reduced. I am convinced that gun laws only contribute to crime rates.
Wait - to make a scientifically valid judgement, based on evidence, you ask me to interview a victim's survivor? A survivor who has almost certainly suffered through an indoctrination within that city's schools? I should try to weigh emotional appeals to my heart, in lieu of statistics, facts, and historical data? Yeah, I'm on it - see me go!
Armed teachers in every classroom WOULD have prevented Sandy Hook, quite naturally. That punk would have been stopped before he got into the first classroom if all the teachers had been armed. TWO of those women have been lauded for bravery, UNARMED. Just think what they could have done with a weapon!
Gun laws effectively declaw the females of the species, but fail to pull the teeth from the deranged, or from predatory males.
Gun laws are actually pretty damned sexist, when you think about it. Empower the women in your life - give them a 9mm for their birthdays!
Chicago. Nothing more need be said. If you had a clue about facts, you wouldn't have written those first couple sentences, and I may have read your wall of text. CHICAGO!!
The most dangerous cities in the United States are cities with strict gun controls.
How 'bout that City of Fairies, located right next to Gay Bay? Oakland? Not many shootings there, but per capita, it is the THIRD most violent city in the United States. Muggings, knifings, robberies, on and on, and on.
Oh - while you're ranting against conservatives - how's the ultra-liberal city, Detroit, doing these days? Violent, dangerous, broke, bankrupt, and totally dysfunctional.
I mentioned "empirical evidence", did I not? The status that Detroit "enjoys" today is due to an empire full of wrong decisions, including gun control and reliance on police forces to maintain order.
Point taken. But, you talk as if it might be a "good thing" to deprive citizens of firearms. See, that's the REAL problem with gun laws - they are unconstitutional.
Root causes? We're a violent people - that is the root cause. WTF do you want to do about it? DNA testing, prior to birth, and all potentially violent babies have to be aborted?
You never threaten to kill a person. Never. So, don't expect a threat to kill to stop the zombie attacker, no matter his beliefs.
You just kill the bastard. No threats. No promises. No brandishing of weapons. No show of force. You pull your weapon out, aim, and squeeze. Lethal force will indeed have an affect. Your crazed zombie will hit the ground, and never harm another human being again. Who really gives a damn that he wasn't thinking rationally?
Call me less disciplined, but I am convinced that increased gun ownership actually causes crime to go down. Strict rules of cause and effect be damned - empirical evidence weighs in on my side. Time and again, when cities and states make gun laws stricter, crime increases. And, repeatedly, when gun laws are relaxed, there is a short initial period of increased violence, followed by a decidedly downward trend in crime.
Many criminals are just plain stupid, but not all. The criminal who is not outright stupid understands the risk of assaulting an armed citizen. Like any corporate shark, the common criminal is going to minimize his risks whenever possible. If he's pretty sure that 50% or more of his potential victims are armed, he is going to get very choosy about which victims to hit. Heck, even stupid people seldom WANT to be shot!
Further, the most dangerous cities to live in today, are precisely those cities with the strictest gun control.
Just browse the images. I don't think that any of the trucks weigh ten tons, but with a trailer connected, some of the might.
I thought EVERYONE knew that Mercedes makes trucks. I drove a little Mercedes delivery truck way back in 1983. I didn't like it much, but it earned a paycheck. I preferred the Mack delivery trucks, actually. Of course, after a short period of driving delivery trucks, I ventured out on the open road with 18-wheelers.
I've been thinking for a few minutes about the physics. It seems to me that automobiles cannot and will not actually benefit from this concept - it's all just feel-good nonsense, and marketing hype.
First, unless you're a motorcycle rider, most people don't understand WHY a motorcycle leans. Motorcycle tires are not constructed the same as auto tires. Almost all the tires you have ever seen have a wide, flat surface that contacts the pavement. Motorcycle tires have rounded surfaces, with only a narrow patch at the center contacting the pavement. When cornoring, the motorcycle leans intentionally to roll the tires off of the center, onto the sides of the tire. The further the bike leans, the less the circumference of the portion of the tire in contact with the pavement. Making a right turn, the left most portion of the tire's contact patch has a greater circumference than the right most portion of the contact patch. We might describe the motorcycle as "falling" off of the greater circumference, onto the smaller circumference area. That description is not especially accurate, but accurate enough to help picture what is happening.
If Mercedes should figure out how to install a varying circumference tire onto their cars, then figure out how to lean those tires to take advantage of those varying circumferences, then they might claim to drive a car like a motorcyle.
All that Mecedes is promising to do here, is to reposition the seat under the driver so as to align the driver's body with the G-forces involved in a turn. Jack up one side of the car, and lower the side on the inside of the curve. Very complicated, very expensive, and quite silly, in my opinion.
A fool, huh? Really? Then, why does guerilla warfare work so well? How many set-piece battles has our army won in recent years? Perhaps it is your own grasp of reality that should be questioned. In Viet Nam, we had EVERYTHING going for us, except that we had a much longer logistics train than the enemy had. We lost. Pretty much the same in Afghanistan - and we have failed to win. We haven't really "lost" as badly as in Viet Nam, but the Taliban are coming out of the wood work, to take over again when we abandon the stage. Iraq? Hmmm - we won, I guess. Of course, the Iraqi people are still paying one hellaciously expensive bill for our "victory". And, we didn't even get the oil! Study some history. http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...
Ask yourself, "What is the ultimate weapon?"
The Marines have always known the answer to that question.
You do make something of a point though. If you rely on WalMart for your weapons, then you are left seriously lacking.
Those secret courts, 24/7 surveillance, and detention without trial are the things that most justify arming the populace. The government is out of control. If it cannot be brought under control peacefully, then it must be brought under control by force of arms. Give EVERYONE a weapon, I say. Actually, that's rather socialistic, don't give them weapons, SELL THEM WEAPONS!!
Snowden has unmasked the guilty, and the guilty are demanding that he return to face a trial staged by the guilty.
What is there about a kangaroo court that needs to be spelled out?
When the system is broken, then any "conviction" handed out by the system is questionable at best, and more likely wrong.
You would like to see Snowden given a fair trial? I'd much rather see those in the White House and the people running the NSA given a fair trial. Snowden isn't going to get a fair trial, and neither are the people in the "intelligence" communities.
Citations needed, and then, supporting citations needed. How and why does diversity, in and of itself, improve performance? What are the mechanisms? I call bullshit on the concept.
Given a survival situation, the group most likely to survive is that particular group with the most training and experience in that kind of situation. Given an engineering situation, the best results are going to come from the group with the most education and experience in that area of engineering. Adding a (black, white, gay, straight, female, male, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever else) WILL NOT make the group more successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. But, most developers know how to wreck their software. The guy holding the interrogation implement asks, "What is the weakest part of your encryption tool?" WHACK! "You don't need to think so long, you know the weakest part of your scheme, tell me!"
Given that answer, it would help to focus attention where WE would least want attention.
The best thing going right now, is that so many eyes ARE focused on the last "known good" version. Maybe if there is a weak link, someone will notice it. Of course, there is no guarantee at all.
My question is academic. If they got a developer into a dungeon somewhere, and applied the five dollar monkey wrench interrogation method to extract a working back door - what assurance is there that this back door doesn't work on previous versions? FUD? I thought it a reasonable question. Does an exploit in version x.xxx work on version x.xxx - 1, or x.xxx - .001, or even x.xxx - 3? In some cases, I would imagine that the exploit might work all the way back to the project's startup and milestone .01, in other cases the same exploit might not work in a very minor version update.
Well, first, a gun lock renders a gun useless - to you, as well as to anyone else. When seconds count, it only takes half a minute to unlock a lock, IF you have the key immediately at hand.
It has been suggested throughout this conversation that there are factors at work in the rise and fall of crime statistics other than mere gun ownership. Possession of a gun isn't the end-all and be-all of staying safe, only a moron would think so. But, an armed citizenry remains an important factor in personal security, as well as politics and national security.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Dr. Hupp accurately points out that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect us, the little people, from them, congress.
I would be suspicious of 7.1 just as much as 7.2. If the developers left this "message" that 7.2 might be compromised, what kind of guarantee is there that 7.1 isn't also compromised? Discussion below shows that the big difference between the two is, 7.2 won't create new encrypted volumes. The message seems to say "We've been compromised - get your stuff out of the existing volumes, because they are NOT PROTECTED!" Or, "no longer protected".
If NSA demanded keys and/or back doors, and if the NSA actually got anything for their trouble, then those keys will open backdoors into older versions as well.
If your police department can have a weapon, then your neighbor should be able to keep the same weapons.
Let me key on the "well regulated" bit for a moment. We have lost something in the past hundred or so years. We don't have hometown mlitias any more. If you should read some of the stories of units that fought in the Civil War, you will find that many soldiers fought and died with the boys they grew up with, and the elders from their own home towns. That is, the county more or less maintained it's own militia, which volunteered for service to the state in times of need. Or, in the case of the Civil War, they volunteered, as a unit, with the US Army.
So, these militias were drilling on the town square routinely, each and every year.
You have a point - the individual militiamen didn't take cannon home with them. Or gatling guns, either. They may or may not have taken their rifles (or muskets) home with them, depending on whether they bought the weapons with personal funds, or were issued by the county or state.
BUT - wherever the cannon, the gatling guns, and the government-owned small arms might have been stowed, the militia had ready access.
I'm kinda getting off of my central point though. Well regulated. At age 17, boys were expected to muster with the militia for training and drill. They were expected to continue doing so, until about age 40. And, thoughout their adult lives, they were expected to be ready for action.
Well regulated? Of COURSE they were well regulated. If the commanding officer happens to be your best buddy's grandfather, and the adjutant is your second cousin by marriage, and you went to school with all the privates, your dad is a corporal - yeah, you bet your ass that you'll stay well regulated! No way are you going to go home in disgrace, with all your freinds and family mocking you for the rest of your life!
Of equal importance - these militias were not units of the US Army, or even of the individual state's "National Guard". They were independent units, ready to respond to emergencies of any kind. They often did volunteer for service to the state, or service to the Army, but they weren't actually obligated to do so.
Let me throw an idea at you.
A man with low morals, or poor morals, isn't necessarily without morals. A guy who is willing to steal your wallet, isn't necessarily willing to kill you in cold blood.
Yes, there really are people who are capable of doing as you describe. I think I may have met a couple of them. But, you don't find them everyday, in every town across the country. Even convicts can be shocked at some of the more heinous crimes that make the news. Whatever happened to that guy Dahmer? As I recall, he was done in by other convicts who didn't want him in "their" prison.
Most cons that I have ever come into contact with actually do have some morals. Often, they are a piss-poor excuse for morality, but they pride themselves on the morals they do possess.
That's a little rude. If we all restricted ourselves to commenting on subjects in which we are experts - slashdot would appear to be abandoned. Two or three people would comment on some subjects, other subjects might have fifteen people participating. And, whatever would happen to good old AC?
No, the cell phones are merely remote sensors for the AI hidden behind the scenes. Of course, given an AI, the computational power that accompanies those sensors is probably somewhat useful as well.
Isnt' that precisely what they did recently? They built a facility for the very purpose of increasing storage by orders of magnitude? Or, did I misunderstand all those stories?
Gang violence - that seems to occupy it's own special little niche. I really don't know how to address it, either.
I am more than half convinced that the gang bangers should be encouraged to battle it out, and to kill each other off. The more of them that are dead, the safer the streets will be for honest people.
Of course, a lot of honest people will hate me for that attitude, because they have sons, brothers, cousins, or something that belongs to one gang or another.
Gangs are the refuge of the week minded, IMHO - and survival of the fittest seems to demand that they be permitted to kill each other. Those who resist the lure of the gangs seem more fit to live, again, IMHO.
That may seem harsh - but then, life is harsh.
Vicious circle kinda thing there. They had a gun problem, so they passed laws, which made the gun problem worse, so they passed more laws, which made the problem worse again. All of that, DESPITE the fact that nationwide, we see violent crimes being reduced. I am convinced that gun laws only contribute to crime rates.
Wait - to make a scientifically valid judgement, based on evidence, you ask me to interview a victim's survivor? A survivor who has almost certainly suffered through an indoctrination within that city's schools? I should try to weigh emotional appeals to my heart, in lieu of statistics, facts, and historical data? Yeah, I'm on it - see me go!
Here's another article for you to consider: http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...
Armed teachers in every classroom WOULD have prevented Sandy Hook, quite naturally. That punk would have been stopped before he got into the first classroom if all the teachers had been armed. TWO of those women have been lauded for bravery, UNARMED. Just think what they could have done with a weapon!
Gun laws effectively declaw the females of the species, but fail to pull the teeth from the deranged, or from predatory males.
Gun laws are actually pretty damned sexist, when you think about it. Empower the women in your life - give them a 9mm for their birthdays!
Your wall of text isn't worth wasting my time.
Chicago. Nothing more need be said. If you had a clue about facts, you wouldn't have written those first couple sentences, and I may have read your wall of text. CHICAGO!!
The most dangerous cities in the United States are cities with strict gun controls.
How 'bout that City of Fairies, located right next to Gay Bay? Oakland? Not many shootings there, but per capita, it is the THIRD most violent city in the United States. Muggings, knifings, robberies, on and on, and on.
Oh - while you're ranting against conservatives - how's the ultra-liberal city, Detroit, doing these days? Violent, dangerous, broke, bankrupt, and totally dysfunctional.
I mentioned "empirical evidence", did I not? The status that Detroit "enjoys" today is due to an empire full of wrong decisions, including gun control and reliance on police forces to maintain order.
Point taken. But, you talk as if it might be a "good thing" to deprive citizens of firearms. See, that's the REAL problem with gun laws - they are unconstitutional.
Root causes? We're a violent people - that is the root cause. WTF do you want to do about it? DNA testing, prior to birth, and all potentially violent babies have to be aborted?
Hell, we might as well be French then.
You never threaten to kill a person. Never. So, don't expect a threat to kill to stop the zombie attacker, no matter his beliefs.
You just kill the bastard. No threats. No promises. No brandishing of weapons. No show of force. You pull your weapon out, aim, and squeeze. Lethal force will indeed have an affect. Your crazed zombie will hit the ground, and never harm another human being again. Who really gives a damn that he wasn't thinking rationally?
Exceptionally good example of logic.
Call me less disciplined, but I am convinced that increased gun ownership actually causes crime to go down. Strict rules of cause and effect be damned - empirical evidence weighs in on my side. Time and again, when cities and states make gun laws stricter, crime increases. And, repeatedly, when gun laws are relaxed, there is a short initial period of increased violence, followed by a decidedly downward trend in crime.
Many criminals are just plain stupid, but not all. The criminal who is not outright stupid understands the risk of assaulting an armed citizen. Like any corporate shark, the common criminal is going to minimize his risks whenever possible. If he's pretty sure that 50% or more of his potential victims are armed, he is going to get very choosy about which victims to hit. Heck, even stupid people seldom WANT to be shot!
Further, the most dangerous cities to live in today, are precisely those cities with the strictest gun control.
The preponderence of evidence is enough for me.
Just browse the images. I don't think that any of the trucks weigh ten tons, but with a trailer connected, some of the might.
I thought EVERYONE knew that Mercedes makes trucks. I drove a little Mercedes delivery truck way back in 1983. I didn't like it much, but it earned a paycheck. I preferred the Mack delivery trucks, actually. Of course, after a short period of driving delivery trucks, I ventured out on the open road with 18-wheelers.
I've been thinking for a few minutes about the physics. It seems to me that automobiles cannot and will not actually benefit from this concept - it's all just feel-good nonsense, and marketing hype.
First, unless you're a motorcycle rider, most people don't understand WHY a motorcycle leans. Motorcycle tires are not constructed the same as auto tires. Almost all the tires you have ever seen have a wide, flat surface that contacts the pavement. Motorcycle tires have rounded surfaces, with only a narrow patch at the center contacting the pavement. When cornoring, the motorcycle leans intentionally to roll the tires off of the center, onto the sides of the tire. The further the bike leans, the less the circumference of the portion of the tire in contact with the pavement. Making a right turn, the left most portion of the tire's contact patch has a greater circumference than the right most portion of the contact patch. We might describe the motorcycle as "falling" off of the greater circumference, onto the smaller circumference area. That description is not especially accurate, but accurate enough to help picture what is happening.
If Mercedes should figure out how to install a varying circumference tire onto their cars, then figure out how to lean those tires to take advantage of those varying circumferences, then they might claim to drive a car like a motorcyle.
All that Mecedes is promising to do here, is to reposition the seat under the driver so as to align the driver's body with the G-forces involved in a turn. Jack up one side of the car, and lower the side on the inside of the curve. Very complicated, very expensive, and quite silly, in my opinion.
I take the opposite view. The government is dangerous, not the people with the guns.
A fool, huh? Really? Then, why does guerilla warfare work so well? How many set-piece battles has our army won in recent years? Perhaps it is your own grasp of reality that should be questioned. In Viet Nam, we had EVERYTHING going for us, except that we had a much longer logistics train than the enemy had. We lost. Pretty much the same in Afghanistan - and we have failed to win. We haven't really "lost" as badly as in Viet Nam, but the Taliban are coming out of the wood work, to take over again when we abandon the stage. Iraq? Hmmm - we won, I guess. Of course, the Iraqi people are still paying one hellaciously expensive bill for our "victory". And, we didn't even get the oil! Study some history. http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...
Ask yourself, "What is the ultimate weapon?"
The Marines have always known the answer to that question.
You do make something of a point though. If you rely on WalMart for your weapons, then you are left seriously lacking.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...
Those secret courts, 24/7 surveillance, and detention without trial are the things that most justify arming the populace. The government is out of control. If it cannot be brought under control peacefully, then it must be brought under control by force of arms. Give EVERYONE a weapon, I say. Actually, that's rather socialistic, don't give them weapons, SELL THEM WEAPONS!!
No, let's face it for real.
Snowden has unmasked the guilty, and the guilty are demanding that he return to face a trial staged by the guilty.
What is there about a kangaroo court that needs to be spelled out?
When the system is broken, then any "conviction" handed out by the system is questionable at best, and more likely wrong.
You would like to see Snowden given a fair trial? I'd much rather see those in the White House and the people running the NSA given a fair trial. Snowden isn't going to get a fair trial, and neither are the people in the "intelligence" communities.
Google's own stats?
Citations needed, and then, supporting citations needed. How and why does diversity, in and of itself, improve performance? What are the mechanisms? I call bullshit on the concept.
Given a survival situation, the group most likely to survive is that particular group with the most training and experience in that kind of situation. Given an engineering situation, the best results are going to come from the group with the most education and experience in that area of engineering. Adding a (black, white, gay, straight, female, male, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever else) WILL NOT make the group more successful.