Snowden, may be, following in the footsteps of Assange. Get somewhere the US can't get you (China is a very good choice), and then monetize the public's fear of government.
Again, I'm not saying he's lying. An ulterior motive doesn't automatically mean you aren't telling the truth. I'm just being honest that the guy has a lot to gain. Maybe during the years of the Pentagon Papers he wouldn't be able to live "a normal life again," but the modern day is different. He doesn't need to work; he'll get donations from the anti-government folks and live well.
He is going to get charged with enough computer misuse to put him away for a long time, and his donations might be seen as "ill gotten gains" that will be frozen by the global banking system (read: the US banking system). Hope he finds a lot of hotels willing to take BTC as payment. As for Assange, you do know he has been living for like a year in a single room in an embassy in Britain, right? He can't even get to Ecuador to lounge on the beach, he has literally not been outside of the building, trapped in "good enough prison" the entire time. Sounds grand, eh?
It says something (sad) about the state of our government when I'll take the word of a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong over that of the government.
Uh, given that many of the most powerful positions within our government are still elected positions, I'd say you're only half right.
It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.
And yes, of course it's too late to effect real change. This didn't happen overnight, didn't start with some guy named "Bush", and won't end with some guy named "Obama". That said, it seems that finger pointing creates headlines and generates click revenue these days, so back to our regular two-party mudslinging system we go, ironically in the name of capitalism.
We really are seeing the logical outcome of the system we created where people now have more incentive to simply back the party that says the right things to them (it just feels so *good* to be right all the time) than to become informed and maybe come across information that challenges their viewpoint (which is downright uncomfortable, maybe even saddening.) Now that there is an entire political/media hierarchy in place for both popular worldviews (and innumerable more popping up on the internet) there really is no reason to ever think to yourself that maybe you are wrong about something, since you can just change the channel and *poof* the guy telling you about the world suddenly says you are right about everything!
Not a single one of those things affects risk to life (except the risk differential in public transit) so kindly shut the fuck up about how good you think your ideas are.
What's fantastically short sighted is the notion that, in a society that puts an extremely high value on cooperation and interdependence, putting your life at risk in any circumstance only affects yourself. Unless you are comfortable with a law stating that emergency and rehabilitative services will be permanently denied to anyone found not wearing a seatbelt in an accident of any circumstance, you are better off just passing the fucking seatbelt law. Balk all you want, if you are selfish and refuse to see the big picture. There are bad ideas, there are ok ideas (like all the things you mentioned), and there are good ideas. Everyone wearing their seatbelt is a good idea.
I can understand the desire by many to attract more women into the CS/software dev field. I'm just not sure if the right way to do it is to emphasize one-gender-only programs. It seems to erode the basis of one of the more public goals; that women in the CS field be treated as equals with males in the CS field(*), while admittedly fulfilling other goals.
We already know how 'separate but equal' turns out.
I note above there's already a misogynistic note - even though it's just a joke - that some people are only interested if they're naked, so maybe there's a point anyway, at least in the short term.
As a point of special interest, it is worthwhile. Women generally have different wants/needs when it comes to events like these, not to mention the obvious benefit of giving attendees the comfort of knowing they won't be going to *another* fucking sausage fest tech conference. And they merely cater to women; men are perfectly welcome (for some definitions of welcome) to attend as well.
You will probably have to use some kind of technicality to get rid of the IT manager. For my company, it was a combination of things, including the HR manager noticing that the IT manager was only coming into work like 4 hours a day on average (which was used with other circumstantial evidence). However, even after we got rid of that manager, we are still in the process of "hitting rock bottom" as we try to fix years of managing the department like a nation of fiefdoms . . . it is amazing how much damage one incompetent high level manager can do . . .
This is really why IT needs to establish some kind of professional certification like doctors, lawyers, and accountants. It is not so much that you will prevent the incompetent from getting certified (though, certainly, hard testing does help prevent that). However, the main thing is that it creates an incentive for any certificate holder to try to keep their certification (our fired IT manager actually brags about how little work he was doing) and provides employers some leverage ("please help us with a smooth transition or we will report you to your professional organization . .."). Until then, things will continue to be the wild west, so good luck trying to replace the old sheriff in town . ..
The difference is that all those people you mention are certified professionally because of their expertise in the details of their line of work. If there were a "licensed IT Boss" certification then that would be the only thing people go to school for and we quickly would see another area where higher education is grossly overpriced. The reason those professions keep a high standard is that everyone who practices needs to be certified, and the good ones out of THAT pool get promoted and go on to lead organizations. Add to it that and they can command high salaries, and you have a system that is not workable in the IT field.
If you're going to go around with no seatbelt on, whose taxes are going to pay to clean up the mess when you spread your brains on the pavement? Or when you blow someone's head off?
Well, in a proper Libertarian society, it would ultimately be the person who is held responsible for the accident who should be made to pay for all costs associated with putting the damage right. Although it would probably be something which has to be covered by private insurance because I don't think many individuals could afford the full costs, at least not at short notice.
Of course then you run into the problem of what happens when someone causes damage to infrastructure that everyone uses but doesn't have insurance which covers it. Should insurance be mandatory or should the state be the insurer of last resort, paying for repairs out of taxes? both of which in theory goes directly against the Libertarian ideal.
It's pretty fucking hard living in a society that values cooperation, without some amount of universal laws governing that cooperation to prevent the inevitable tragedy of the commons (a pattern so universal it might as well be gravity). This is the fundamental flaw in the "ultimate" libertarian ideal.
Also, guns don't need to be legal for someone to use them to blow your head off. If you paid any attention AT ALL to actual crime statistics, you would see that the correlation is actually inverted (ie more guns==less crime).
Insurance? You can't force me to buy insurance, you fascist. If I'm going to turn my car into metal shavings by driving as fast (legally) as I fucking want without wearing a seatbelt (also legally) I sure as shit won't bother buying some bullshit insurance./sarcasm
There's a huge difference between not wanting to wear a seatbelt and not wanting to be forced to wear a seatbelt. I wear a helmet on my motorcycle, but I'm happy I'm not required to do so by law.
Seat belts save so many lives relative to their cost to include in a vehicle and their cost to utilize on a constant basis, that it seems (now) ridiculous to think that they might ever not be standard on a car, or worn as a matter of habit. However, if you think it was overwhelming civic pressure that caused them to be included as a standard and worn as a standard by people who "wanted to wear them but didn't want to be forced to wear them" you would be pretty wrong. If it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt its just a good fucking idea to wear a seatbelt, make it a law and move on. There are far worst threats on your freedom in the form of government interference (in the economy, for example) that this isn't even worth a mention except by extremist libertarians who won't be happy until we are all living in 1750 again.
Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...
It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.
The argument is actually pretty obvious; if you are plotting something that the NSA wants to know about, and you know that they have free and clear access to X providers, you simply avoid communicating via X providers when relaying details of your plot. Intent on good or evil, a US citizen who has not given up enough details of his intent to qualify for a warrant could, theoretically, count on the protection of the fourth amendment to avoid detection. Of course, this argument runs contrary to the fourth amendment because that is what it is supposed to do. The argument is clear, it's just not the one we want to hear.
So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.
Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.
It's a particularly tricky "do two wrongs make a right" situation. Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies. If he had a way to document abuses of civil liberties that involved not revealing top secret information, that would have been the "right" thing to do instead of this. We don't know enough facts about his situation (and probably never will) to say if he did this as truly a last resort, or as a rather careless act of defiance that puts him in the "two wrongs do NOT make a right" category.
Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.
The problem with his position is that his leak included no actual documenting of those crimes; no details about what information was obtained, if any of it was obtained on a US citizen without a warrant, or who authorized/oversaw it. It sure as hell *sounds* bad but none of it is specific enough to force a "house cleaning". And with most things secretive, there is really little chance of any of that coming to light unless another whistle-blower comes forward with it. His (and our) only hope is that someone will come forward with that. Until then, the only reaction will be the usual partisan "in fact [insert opposition party] started this with X" and "it's well known that [insert opposition party] really did this with Y".
Ironic in what respect? Hong Kong actually cherishes and nurtures their freedoms in ways that Beijing knows they can't control. There's a reason Beijing hasn't tried to step Hong Kong slowly into their own system. They know ruining Hong Kong with it would expose the destructive nature of their programs and heavy-handed authority. You know, the kind of programs Snowden exposed.
Hong Kong is a "special administrative region" which to China means "you can do what you want as long as we approve of it". This guy stands no chance, *especially* if it makes China look like they aren't in charge of HK.
When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?
Seriously, this guy is a criminal
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret. You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that, but with ONE document. He may be morally in the right, to expose egregious abuse of power and trampling of the 4th amendment (and generally trampling human rights even if the US Constitution isn't the law of the land to whoever was spied on) but he is in some DEEP shit because it was classified the way it was. He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not.
I wonder if there's about to be a raging business in non-US-hosted free email.
What could possibly be the point of that? Anyone using email needs to presume that while in transit, anyone can see (and store for later) the message contents. Given this, the notion that the NSA (or anyone else interested) has access to it is a foregone conclusion. What we have here (if true) is merely a more organized way for them to search through the data. If you are concerned about this, you don't need a foreign email box, you need a foreign residence.
Except, if this were the case, how would your spare key work? Removed from the vehicle, it will not roll over..
I am not an expert here, but I suspect there is some two way communications going on. The vehicle asks for for code number x, which the key must supply correctly sort of thing.
Multi-key support is maintained by the processor in the car, it simply assumes that any new key being paired goes in the "next" slot, and they often have 4 slots or so. Each received transmission is checked until it matches the right code (the computer has no problem checking each key slot 256 times or so) or is thrown away. You are right that there must be a two-way handshake of some sort at some point in the system's life, and this is essentially what is done when the car is put in programming mode (a special sequence of key position changes in the ignition, usually). From that point on, the PRNG in the key and the car move in lock step, and no one but those two parties know what the "next" key is (without a pretty significant amount of intercepted data and CPU horsepower).
Wrong again, take for instance a dog. 7 dog years = 1 human year. How many years would it be for a digital dog @ 4.4GHZ? Exactly. Your billions of years suddenly turned into seconds with digital dog decryptographic technique. Don't even get me started on applying quantumn mechanics to this because it would blow your mind. Is there a car, is there a key? Is it locked or unlocked?!
There have been lots of accounts tweeting history as it happened. Hell, someone is tweeting production pictures from Sean of the Dead on the 10 year anniversary of when they were taken.
"Someone" as in the film's director, Edgar Wright? Oh just a lollygagger who popped round the set now and then, what would he know about making the film?
I was under the impression that these things were always vulnerable to replay attacks and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a master code as well.
See Rolling Code for why you are under the wrong impression. There might be a recent vulnerability, but for the vast extent of their history these kinds of systems have been safe against amateur tactics like simple radio tricks, and if there is a "Backdoor" code it has been a pretty well guarded secret.
That's a huge false equivalency. Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested. There is plenty of time to weed out the harmful.
And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years. These are not labeled as GM... Before that, single-generation mutations (highly selective breeding) has been in use for hundreds of years, resulting in untested (by your standards) food going into the mouths of just about everyone in a developed/developing country for the past 300 years. Modern GM does go a far bit beyond either of those techniques because of the ability to switch many genes at once, for a particular purpose, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this is the first time modern man has eaten "new to planet earth" food.
so the company is using data analytics to determine where it should plant crops most efficiently? thats pretty cool. Chances are great theyve been using analytics heavily in their biosciences divisions for quite some time, considering output from computational modeling software is rarely terse.
this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.
The beef you're *supposed* to have with Monsanto, is that while everyone is rallying around the incredibly remote possibility of cross-pollinated crops becoming infertile or unkillable or somewhere in-between (the somewhere in-between has been the outcome so far, cross pollinated plants act just like any other species, they are always of the same species and arbitrarily inherit a combination of traits from both progenitors) the amazingly more likely scenario of a devastating form of TB or bird flu or Ebola to ravage the globe will sneak up on us unannounced. Goddamn you, Monsanto, for distracting us!
Am I supposed to know what they are talking about here? Where is this going? Why? What is a bottom head used for? Vogtle Unit 3?? I feel like Lord Helmet in Spaceballs shouting "WHO??" in confusion just before his mask falls.
This is a story about an energy plant installing a single piece of metal into a hole in the ground. Somehow, we are in awe that this took place. The fact that it is foundation for the first Nuclear reactor built by a private electric utility company in about 35 years might have something to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden, may be, following in the footsteps of Assange. Get somewhere the US can't get you (China is a very good choice), and then monetize the public's fear of government.
Again, I'm not saying he's lying. An ulterior motive doesn't automatically mean you aren't telling the truth. I'm just being honest that the guy has a lot to gain. Maybe during the years of the Pentagon Papers he wouldn't be able to live "a normal life again," but the modern day is different. He doesn't need to work; he'll get donations from the anti-government folks and live well.
He is going to get charged with enough computer misuse to put him away for a long time, and his donations might be seen as "ill gotten gains" that will be frozen by the global banking system (read: the US banking system). Hope he finds a lot of hotels willing to take BTC as payment. As for Assange, you do know he has been living for like a year in a single room in an embassy in Britain, right? He can't even get to Ecuador to lounge on the beach, he has literally not been outside of the building, trapped in "good enough prison" the entire time. Sounds grand, eh?
It says something (sad) about the state of our government when I'll take the word of a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong over that of the government.
Uh, given that many of the most powerful positions within our government are still elected positions, I'd say you're only half right.
It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.
And yes, of course it's too late to effect real change. This didn't happen overnight, didn't start with some guy named "Bush", and won't end with some guy named "Obama". That said, it seems that finger pointing creates headlines and generates click revenue these days, so back to our regular two-party mudslinging system we go, ironically in the name of capitalism.
We really are seeing the logical outcome of the system we created where people now have more incentive to simply back the party that says the right things to them (it just feels so *good* to be right all the time) than to become informed and maybe come across information that challenges their viewpoint (which is downright uncomfortable, maybe even saddening.) Now that there is an entire political/media hierarchy in place for both popular worldviews (and innumerable more popping up on the internet) there really is no reason to ever think to yourself that maybe you are wrong about something, since you can just change the channel and *poof* the guy telling you about the world suddenly says you are right about everything!
Uhm, that's a quote from the Wizard of Oz. What prompted this tirade?
Slashdot's awesomely terrible post filtering system hid the actual comment he replied to, making it look like he replied to yours.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually done this, but it seems a lot better than buying phones from staples if you're truly up to something nefarious.
Wait, why? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning was that you didn't want to be snooped on, despite *not* have anything to hide...
Not a single one of those things affects risk to life (except the risk differential in public transit) so kindly shut the fuck up about how good you think your ideas are.
What's fantastically short sighted is the notion that, in a society that puts an extremely high value on cooperation and interdependence, putting your life at risk in any circumstance only affects yourself. Unless you are comfortable with a law stating that emergency and rehabilitative services will be permanently denied to anyone found not wearing a seatbelt in an accident of any circumstance, you are better off just passing the fucking seatbelt law. Balk all you want, if you are selfish and refuse to see the big picture. There are bad ideas, there are ok ideas (like all the things you mentioned), and there are good ideas. Everyone wearing their seatbelt is a good idea.
I can understand the desire by many to attract more women into the CS/software dev field. I'm just not sure if the right way to do it is to emphasize one-gender-only programs. It seems to erode the basis of one of the more public goals; that women in the CS field be treated as equals with males in the CS field(*), while admittedly fulfilling other goals.
We already know how 'separate but equal' turns out.
I note above there's already a misogynistic note - even though it's just a joke - that some people are only interested if they're naked, so maybe there's a point anyway, at least in the short term.
As a point of special interest, it is worthwhile. Women generally have different wants/needs when it comes to events like these, not to mention the obvious benefit of giving attendees the comfort of knowing they won't be going to *another* fucking sausage fest tech conference. And they merely cater to women; men are perfectly welcome (for some definitions of welcome) to attend as well.
You will probably have to use some kind of technicality to get rid of the IT manager. For my company, it was a combination of things, including the HR manager noticing that the IT manager was only coming into work like 4 hours a day on average (which was used with other circumstantial evidence). However, even after we got rid of that manager, we are still in the process of "hitting rock bottom" as we try to fix years of managing the department like a nation of fiefdoms . . . it is amazing how much damage one incompetent high level manager can do . . .
This is really why IT needs to establish some kind of professional certification like doctors, lawyers, and accountants. It is not so much that you will prevent the incompetent from getting certified (though, certainly, hard testing does help prevent that). However, the main thing is that it creates an incentive for any certificate holder to try to keep their certification (our fired IT manager actually brags about how little work he was doing) and provides employers some leverage ("please help us with a smooth transition or we will report you to your professional organization . . ."). Until then, things will continue to be the wild west, so good luck trying to replace the old sheriff in town . . .
The difference is that all those people you mention are certified professionally because of their expertise in the details of their line of work. If there were a "licensed IT Boss" certification then that would be the only thing people go to school for and we quickly would see another area where higher education is grossly overpriced. The reason those professions keep a high standard is that everyone who practices needs to be certified, and the good ones out of THAT pool get promoted and go on to lead organizations. Add to it that and they can command high salaries, and you have a system that is not workable in the IT field.
Well, in a proper Libertarian society, it would ultimately be the person who is held responsible for the accident who should be made to pay for all costs associated with putting the damage right. Although it would probably be something which has to be covered by private insurance because I don't think many individuals could afford the full costs, at least not at short notice.
Of course then you run into the problem of what happens when someone causes damage to infrastructure that everyone uses but doesn't have insurance which covers it. Should insurance be mandatory or should the state be the insurer of last resort, paying for repairs out of taxes? both of which in theory goes directly against the Libertarian ideal.
It's pretty fucking hard living in a society that values cooperation, without some amount of universal laws governing that cooperation to prevent the inevitable tragedy of the commons (a pattern so universal it might as well be gravity). This is the fundamental flaw in the "ultimate" libertarian ideal.
"Who pays?"
The individual, via insurance premiums.
Also, guns don't need to be legal for someone to use them to blow your head off. If you paid any attention AT ALL to actual crime statistics, you would see that the correlation is actually inverted (ie more guns==less crime).
Insurance? You can't force me to buy insurance, you fascist. If I'm going to turn my car into metal shavings by driving as fast (legally) as I fucking want without wearing a seatbelt (also legally) I sure as shit won't bother buying some bullshit insurance. /sarcasm
There's a huge difference between not wanting to wear a seatbelt and not wanting to be forced to wear a seatbelt. I wear a helmet on my motorcycle, but I'm happy I'm not required to do so by law.
Seat belts save so many lives relative to their cost to include in a vehicle and their cost to utilize on a constant basis, that it seems (now) ridiculous to think that they might ever not be standard on a car, or worn as a matter of habit. However, if you think it was overwhelming civic pressure that caused them to be included as a standard and worn as a standard by people who "wanted to wear them but didn't want to be forced to wear them" you would be pretty wrong. If it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt its just a good fucking idea to wear a seatbelt, make it a law and move on. There are far worst threats on your freedom in the form of government interference (in the economy, for example) that this isn't even worth a mention except by extremist libertarians who won't be happy until we are all living in 1750 again.
Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...
It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.
The argument is actually pretty obvious; if you are plotting something that the NSA wants to know about, and you know that they have free and clear access to X providers, you simply avoid communicating via X providers when relaying details of your plot. Intent on good or evil, a US citizen who has not given up enough details of his intent to qualify for a warrant could, theoretically, count on the protection of the fourth amendment to avoid detection. Of course, this argument runs contrary to the fourth amendment because that is what it is supposed to do. The argument is clear, it's just not the one we want to hear.
So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.
Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.
It's a particularly tricky "do two wrongs make a right" situation. Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies. If he had a way to document abuses of civil liberties that involved not revealing top secret information, that would have been the "right" thing to do instead of this. We don't know enough facts about his situation (and probably never will) to say if he did this as truly a last resort, or as a rather careless act of defiance that puts him in the "two wrongs do NOT make a right" category.
Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.
The problem with his position is that his leak included no actual documenting of those crimes; no details about what information was obtained, if any of it was obtained on a US citizen without a warrant, or who authorized/oversaw it. It sure as hell *sounds* bad but none of it is specific enough to force a "house cleaning". And with most things secretive, there is really little chance of any of that coming to light unless another whistle-blower comes forward with it. His (and our) only hope is that someone will come forward with that. Until then, the only reaction will be the usual partisan "in fact [insert opposition party] started this with X" and "it's well known that [insert opposition party] really did this with Y".
Ironic in what respect? Hong Kong actually cherishes and nurtures their freedoms in ways that Beijing knows they can't control. There's a reason Beijing hasn't tried to step Hong Kong slowly into their own system. They know ruining Hong Kong with it would expose the destructive nature of their programs and heavy-handed authority. You know, the kind of programs Snowden exposed.
Hong Kong is a "special administrative region" which to China means "you can do what you want as long as we approve of it". This guy stands no chance, *especially* if it makes China look like they aren't in charge of HK.
and betraying democracy
When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?
Seriously, this guy is a criminal
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret. You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that, but with ONE document. He may be morally in the right, to expose egregious abuse of power and trampling of the 4th amendment (and generally trampling human rights even if the US Constitution isn't the law of the land to whoever was spied on) but he is in some DEEP shit because it was classified the way it was. He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not.
Why would the Amish need a court system? They have the Amish Mafia to protect them.
This. They will have the Mullet gang pay them a visit, with some scissors. You can't make that shit up (and that's why it's terrifying).
I wonder if there's about to be a raging business in non-US-hosted free email.
What could possibly be the point of that? Anyone using email needs to presume that while in transit, anyone can see (and store for later) the message contents. Given this, the notion that the NSA (or anyone else interested) has access to it is a foregone conclusion. What we have here (if true) is merely a more organized way for them to search through the data. If you are concerned about this, you don't need a foreign email box, you need a foreign residence.
Bitcoin is the Boxxy of Slashdot.
My first thought was "Boxee is the boxee of slashdot" and then I realized I was out of my element...
Except, if this were the case, how would your spare key work? Removed from the vehicle, it will not roll over..
I am not an expert here, but I suspect there is some two way communications going on. The vehicle asks for for code number x, which the key must supply correctly sort of thing.
Multi-key support is maintained by the processor in the car, it simply assumes that any new key being paired goes in the "next" slot, and they often have 4 slots or so. Each received transmission is checked until it matches the right code (the computer has no problem checking each key slot 256 times or so) or is thrown away. You are right that there must be a two-way handshake of some sort at some point in the system's life, and this is essentially what is done when the car is put in programming mode (a special sequence of key position changes in the ignition, usually). From that point on, the PRNG in the key and the car move in lock step, and no one but those two parties know what the "next" key is (without a pretty significant amount of intercepted data and CPU horsepower).
Wrong again, take for instance a dog. 7 dog years = 1 human year. How many years would it be for a digital dog @ 4.4GHZ? Exactly. Your billions of years suddenly turned into seconds with digital dog decryptographic technique. Don't even get me started on applying quantumn mechanics to this because it would blow your mind. Is there a car, is there a key? Is it locked or unlocked?!
Hah, you just made my day. That was a good one.
There have been lots of accounts tweeting history as it happened. Hell, someone is tweeting production pictures from Sean of the Dead on the 10 year anniversary of when they were taken.
"Someone" as in the film's director, Edgar Wright? Oh just a lollygagger who popped round the set now and then, what would he know about making the film?
I was under the impression that these things were always vulnerable to replay attacks and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a master code as well.
See Rolling Code for why you are under the wrong impression. There might be a recent vulnerability, but for the vast extent of their history these kinds of systems have been safe against amateur tactics like simple radio tricks, and if there is a "Backdoor" code it has been a pretty well guarded secret.
That's a huge false equivalency. Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested. There is plenty of time to weed out the harmful.
And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years. These are not labeled as GM... Before that, single-generation mutations (highly selective breeding) has been in use for hundreds of years, resulting in untested (by your standards) food going into the mouths of just about everyone in a developed/developing country for the past 300 years. Modern GM does go a far bit beyond either of those techniques because of the ability to switch many genes at once, for a particular purpose, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this is the first time modern man has eaten "new to planet earth" food.
so the company is using data analytics to determine where it should plant crops most efficiently? thats pretty cool. Chances are great theyve been using analytics heavily in their biosciences divisions for quite some time, considering output from computational modeling software is rarely terse.
this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.
The beef you're *supposed* to have with Monsanto, is that while everyone is rallying around the incredibly remote possibility of cross-pollinated crops becoming infertile or unkillable or somewhere in-between (the somewhere in-between has been the outcome so far, cross pollinated plants act just like any other species, they are always of the same species and arbitrarily inherit a combination of traits from both progenitors) the amazingly more likely scenario of a devastating form of TB or bird flu or Ebola to ravage the globe will sneak up on us unannounced. Goddamn you, Monsanto, for distracting us!
Am I supposed to know what they are talking about here? Where is this going? Why? What is a bottom head used for? Vogtle Unit 3?? I feel like Lord Helmet in Spaceballs shouting "WHO??" in confusion just before his mask falls.
This is a story about an energy plant installing a single piece of metal into a hole in the ground. Somehow, we are in awe that this took place. The fact that it is foundation for the first Nuclear reactor built by a private electric utility company in about 35 years might have something to do with it.