I think an equally good question would be, is it the goal of a currency (or the currency controllers) to avoid deflationary spirals?
That is certainly a goal of currency, but I think it is indirect in the sense that avoiding deflationary spirals is necessary to satisfy other, more immediate goals of currency. The purpose of currency is to facilitate trade of some kind -- it is not useful if it cannot be spent, and the most useful currency would be one that can only be used for this purpose (there are other views, of course). Thus hoarding (and deflationary spirals) make money less useful, or in the worst case, totally worthless.
I have argued in the past that Bitcoin is actually not useful as currency, and that it will ultimately fail for economic reasons before it fails for technical reasons.
Going with that presumption, most currencies are at odds because they want to be a store of value (i.e. you can hang on to "just dollars" and your savings is relatively safe) but at the same time they want to facilitate trade. Spending leads to inflation (typically) and saving leads to deflation (typically). Bitcoin, because it is such a small niche (compared to most currencies) is only worse off because a small tip in one direction or another will be amplified dramatically. The creator of Bitcoin posited that deflation wouldnt be a problem over the long term because it was just as easy to trade.00001 BTC as it was to trade 10000 BTC. However, the short term implications are much more destructive.
The term meme has evolved (or devolved) rapidly. The "current" use, as far as I've seen, has come to mean "an ugly square graphic of a recognizable image overlaid with some large typeface text describing bumper-sticker philosophy or a barely ironic pop culture observation."
Your understanding of the principles of evolution (and the misuse of "devolved" which is not an antonym of evolved) is quite curious. However you are correct about what most people currently think of when hearing the word meme. You have to agree though, some of them are just fucking hilarious.
As we all know, you don't have to possess a physical dollar bill to spend a dollar. There's no reason the same shouldn't be true of Bitcoins; you shouldn't need to "possess" a "real" Bitcoin in order to spend one.
To be true, there doesn't need to be a physical dollar in possession *anywhere* in order for you to earn/spend it. Printing electronic money is WAY easier than printing real money. However, this raises the question; is there an advantage to letting a BTC "bank" keep your coin in their account while you go around earning/spending them? If it's all electronic anyway why not keep the BTC in your own possession (or at least locked by your private key). Until private key "vaults" become necessary due to advanced hacking techniques, I can't think of a good reason. More BTC has been lost due to big "banks" being hacked than due to little individuals being hacked (at least based on recent news).
I think an equally good question would be, is it the goal of a currency (or the currency controllers) to avoid deflationary spirals? The BTC deflation is magnified because it's comparative worth is ONLY pinned to USD or some other major currency, and perhaps a few types of illicit drugs. The problems it faces are not really in line with even a small real-world economy.
Here in Australia we've got contactless MasterCards so I can buy anything up to $100 by swiping my card. No pin, no signature, just scan swipe and keep walking.
How do they handle authentication? Say your card is lost or stolen, is the onus on you to report it for deactivation before someone can use it to empty your account? Here in the US there is a mild amount of verification but the money lost due to fraudulent use is HUGE.
Unless I'm missing something, don't we already have this widely deployed and used on credit cards? Nearly every debit and credit card in the UK issued now have contactless NFC in them, and lots of places take them. Isn't NFC-on-phone essentially the same thing?
The idea behind Wallet is that it does the same thing (those cards and readers are all over the US, too, btw) but give you more control over the process. Say you have a wallet with 5 payment cards in it; you still have to pick out the ONE you want to pay with, remove it from your wallet, swipe it over the reader, and then continue with the purchase. Not really a "killer feature" when you can just as easily swipe it on the mag track to accomplish the same exact thing with the same level of effort. So, enter software-based payments. Want to pay from a certain account? no problem. Want to pay from two different accounts? Also no problem. Want to see the amount in each account before committing to the payment? Yep, easy too. Offers/coupons, detailed accounting, etc is all possible. And most importantly, the "Wallet" on your phone is hard-password protected. Most credit cards "protect" your account with a squiggly line drawn by the user. WTF? Or, a 4 digit code that is relatively hard to change on a regular basis? Come on. Security in POS terminals is absolutely pathetic, and if your phone contains the (encrypted) data and requires a strong form of authentication to release it, the system gets a whole lot more secure.
A key passage for interpreting Revelations is the right at the start of the book,
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
So, I am pretty sure these RFID tags have nothing to do with the "mark of the beast", as almost 2000 years must surely be a stretch for "soon". They are similar in that the mark of the beast was necessary to "buy and sell" (i.e. government approval required) -- and the RFID tag being necessary to get the "public education".
No, having said that, if the person really believes that, I don't see how the government should be able to "force the child" to carry their RFID tag, as I am pretty sure that a public education is a constitutional right in Texas. -- That's the thing about rights, they are there to protect when even when your right is not popular (yes, even if it is stupid).
Schools already use swipe card systems to more accurately track attendance, where was the "mark of the beast" outcry then? The only difference here is that one is something you carry with you to the campus and have to wave around another little device in order for it to work, and the other is just something you carry with you to the campus and it "just works". Is there some stipulation in The Bible about it being "too easy" that I missed?
These days, the outcry sounds a lot more like "How dare you track my kids with a scanner thingy! My kids are *mine* to lose track of!"
Well, if it's done correctly, that would be flagged extremely quickly - a dozen kids constantly going through the same doors at the exact same time is a bit suspicious.
Especially when it's the single occupancy toilet.
RFID gateway + entrance cameras (already in most schools) + facial recognition software = instant defeat of badge ganging. When the software says "where are 10 kids in this picture" and only one shows up, it's an immediate red flag PLUS they know who the mastermind is.
The problem here is that if your kid's school tracks your kid this way on the school campus, your kid likely won't have a problem being tracked that way all the time when they are an adult. Schools are at least as much about social engineering as they are about education. So, unless your attitude is "I got mine, screw my kids." you should be outraged at a school trying to do this.
You must be a ball at parties...
"Why would I want to play a game that encourages me (and others!) to work out the best way to weaken the structure of a tower, leading to its inevitable collapse? The insanity! When we leave here, someone is probably going to go knock down some buildings on the way home, seeing as how we were all conditioned to believe its normal..."
Just play some fucking Jenga, and get yourself off the slippery slope. Not everyone careens helplessly down it.
If Apple gave away "development" machines to every learning institution, they would kiss about 75% of their desktop sales goodbye...
What I'm saying is that "smart" vendors do this kind of thing. Obviously you don't give away enough to kill the bottom line, just enough to prime the pump...
Apple's version of that is giving a $100 discount on a $1500 desktop/laptop computer...
It looks like their hope with the cylindrical orientation is that each server will communicate directly with the 5 to 7 servers opposite it via the inside (and hopefully the signal would be absorbed there as well) and with the servers above/below it on the outside (where the signal would dissipate fast enough to not interfere with other cylinders). Quite intriguing, but it creates one giant (and complex) software-managed ether in the literal sense, information will just "be there" and hopefully the software will keep it moving in the right direction. Good case for IPsec in the data center; hopefully the blades they design will have good hardware to handle encryption otherwise this model will only be good for single use "supercomputer" type applications (where cabling is a minor issue anyway).
On the bight side, Hans might have a 20 year all expenses paid development cycle ahead of him. Think of the contribution he could make if allowed to.
Talk about making productive use of prisoners time.
You're right, the Core 2 Duo machine with a SATA-1 7200 rpm disk that he got when he went into the clink will run un-fucking-believably well 20 years from now. That only leaves one problem...
10 years of smartphone generations for the government to realize there's the potential for viruses, spyware, and malware on these things as they are in all sense of the word a computer. I'm willing to bet google is now going to regulate the android market a little better, it still depends heavily on the user as to the risk posed to the device, just like with PCs.
I've also got to respectfully disagree with the article on rooting your device, it opens up the potential to load some pretty nifty security tools that help keep you safe in the first place.
It has nothing to do with the Android Market (that's not where these apps are hosted) it has to do with the fact that on Android phones, you only have to navigate down a few screens to find the check-box that turns off enforcement of market-only content. For users that decide to do that, all bets are off on security as they can say OK to sharing just about any information or permission (except that which wants to alter system level apps). What Google apparently needs to do is add a few more "Are you sure?" "Are you sure-sure?" "Are you so fucking sure that you would call your wife and explain to her what you are about to do?" dialogs, like Microsoft did with privilege escalation in Windows. Seems to have worked out fairly well for them.
Smart platform vendors donate development platforms to colleges and universities around the world so that students have a chance to learn. I don't know if Apple does this nor not, but I saw a LOT of apple products in the computer labs when I went to school (20 or so years ago...)
If Apple gave away "development" machines to every learning institution, they would kiss about 75% of their desktop sales goodbye...
That's a fallacious argument. The "famous guy's" saying isn't comparable to protecting the average consumer's expectation of having a consumer device that won't leak all of his private info by clicking an "update" or link that is actually a phishing lure.
I don't even own or like Android or iOS devices, but I have kids and a wife who do and it's irritating to know that they are vulnerable and it's why I am moving them to iOS ASAP.
I will gladly offer you the service of taking all those buggy, insecure android devices off your hands and dispose of them properly, for a nominal $50 e-recycling fee. I know it sounds like a steal, but I just like knowing mobile users are secure in the big scary world out there. So go ahead and send me those phones, and don't forget to include the check for $50. I am sure you will forget all about them once your new iOS devices arrive. Oh, and you're welcome!
Don't give up on the HTPC, give up on cable instead.
Get yourself an OTA tuner, amazon/netflix/hulu plus and go for it. Unless you are addicted to some sport that is not OTA it really is the way to go.
HDHomeRun is the way to go; install it in your attic (where the signal is probably strong enough even if you are a ways from the tower) and enjoy it on MythTV...
it's been cross-posted and advertised on the reviewer's twitter account.
the review really is a shameful piece of work and it's not just spelling and grammar. he gives no solid reason whatsoever why this book is better (or even significantly different from) the 1996 edition of applied cryptography, which he mentions in the introduction. here are the topics he presents: historical ciphers; modern symmetric/asymmetric encryption; key management; and a few applications shoved into the last chapter.
apart from the applications, none of these things have fundamentally changed since 1996. sure, the book might have more up-to-date details but, oh, that's right, the review doesn't mention it either way. there are supposedly-difficult (note: this is completely subjective) questions, and some "mathematics" in an appendix (not a good sign). there is no comment on technical details at all.
And never mind the similarity between this and the Schneier book Practical Cryptography (which would seem like a much more relevant comparison...)
These days, with VMs (and hence software switches) carrying the actual workload, and hastily programmed core switches broken down into a hundred VLANs, why are we hanging on to the ancient notion of "wires"? Clearly a wireless method for every server to be able to talk to every other server is the next logical evolution. Just sprinkle a little software on top to make sure that the servers only see/process what they are supposed to, and surely it will all work great!
Ok...this is a bragging rights type thing somehow??
Most telling is that they seem to think so... It's akin to vying for the title of "world's largest landfill", it sounds too much like a story from The Onion.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful with the pedantry there. Typo's ahoy!
I had to leave a little room for others to have fun, too...
linux and tech, mixed with science and Legos, and a few reviews and sci-fi folded in.
Yeah, in the past maybe. Today's there's far more stories about apple than linux, facebook over legos.
It's like adding shit to an omelet, no one wants that.
Lets not forget pedantry.
ITS LEGO. NOT LEGOS (SIC).
I think an equally good question would be, is it the goal of a currency (or the currency controllers) to avoid deflationary spirals?
That is certainly a goal of currency, but I think it is indirect in the sense that avoiding deflationary spirals is necessary to satisfy other, more immediate goals of currency. The purpose of currency is to facilitate trade of some kind -- it is not useful if it cannot be spent, and the most useful currency would be one that can only be used for this purpose (there are other views, of course). Thus hoarding (and deflationary spirals) make money less useful, or in the worst case, totally worthless.
I have argued in the past that Bitcoin is actually not useful as currency, and that it will ultimately fail for economic reasons before it fails for technical reasons.
Going with that presumption, most currencies are at odds because they want to be a store of value (i.e. you can hang on to "just dollars" and your savings is relatively safe) but at the same time they want to facilitate trade. Spending leads to inflation (typically) and saving leads to deflation (typically). Bitcoin, because it is such a small niche (compared to most currencies) is only worse off because a small tip in one direction or another will be amplified dramatically. The creator of Bitcoin posited that deflation wouldnt be a problem over the long term because it was just as easy to trade .00001 BTC as it was to trade 10000 BTC. However, the short term implications are much more destructive.
The term meme has evolved (or devolved) rapidly. The "current" use, as far as I've seen, has come to mean "an ugly square graphic of a recognizable image overlaid with some large typeface text describing bumper-sticker philosophy or a barely ironic pop culture observation."
Your understanding of the principles of evolution (and the misuse of "devolved" which is not an antonym of evolved) is quite curious. However you are correct about what most people currently think of when hearing the word meme. You have to agree though, some of them are just fucking hilarious.
There are more $100 bills than all other types of bills put together. The majority aren't even in the United States.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/09/162568387/all-the-money-the-government-is-printing-this-year-in-one-graphic
As we all know, you don't have to possess a physical dollar bill to spend a dollar. There's no reason the same shouldn't be true of Bitcoins; you shouldn't need to "possess" a "real" Bitcoin in order to spend one.
To be true, there doesn't need to be a physical dollar in possession *anywhere* in order for you to earn/spend it. Printing electronic money is WAY easier than printing real money. However, this raises the question; is there an advantage to letting a BTC "bank" keep your coin in their account while you go around earning/spending them? If it's all electronic anyway why not keep the BTC in your own possession (or at least locked by your private key). Until private key "vaults" become necessary due to advanced hacking techniques, I can't think of a good reason. More BTC has been lost due to big "banks" being hacked than due to little individuals being hacked (at least based on recent news).
I think an equally good question would be, is it the goal of a currency (or the currency controllers) to avoid deflationary spirals? The BTC deflation is magnified because it's comparative worth is ONLY pinned to USD or some other major currency, and perhaps a few types of illicit drugs. The problems it faces are not really in line with even a small real-world economy.
Here in Australia we've got contactless MasterCards so I can buy anything up to $100 by swiping my card. No pin, no signature, just scan swipe and keep walking.
How do they handle authentication? Say your card is lost or stolen, is the onus on you to report it for deactivation before someone can use it to empty your account? Here in the US there is a mild amount of verification but the money lost due to fraudulent use is HUGE.
Unless I'm missing something, don't we already have this widely deployed and used on credit cards? Nearly every debit and credit card in the UK issued now have contactless NFC in them, and lots of places take them. Isn't NFC-on-phone essentially the same thing?
The idea behind Wallet is that it does the same thing (those cards and readers are all over the US, too, btw) but give you more control over the process. Say you have a wallet with 5 payment cards in it; you still have to pick out the ONE you want to pay with, remove it from your wallet, swipe it over the reader, and then continue with the purchase. Not really a "killer feature" when you can just as easily swipe it on the mag track to accomplish the same exact thing with the same level of effort. So, enter software-based payments. Want to pay from a certain account? no problem. Want to pay from two different accounts? Also no problem. Want to see the amount in each account before committing to the payment? Yep, easy too. Offers/coupons, detailed accounting, etc is all possible. And most importantly, the "Wallet" on your phone is hard-password protected. Most credit cards "protect" your account with a squiggly line drawn by the user. WTF? Or, a 4 digit code that is relatively hard to change on a regular basis? Come on. Security in POS terminals is absolutely pathetic, and if your phone contains the (encrypted) data and requires a strong form of authentication to release it, the system gets a whole lot more secure.
I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough....?
Depends if you have backups.
*if* ?!!?!?
A key passage for interpreting Revelations is the right at the start of the book,
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
So, I am pretty sure these RFID tags have nothing to do with the "mark of the beast", as almost 2000 years must surely be a stretch for "soon". They are similar in that the mark of the beast was necessary to "buy and sell" (i.e. government approval required) -- and the RFID tag being necessary to get the "public education".
No, having said that, if the person really believes that, I don't see how the government should be able to "force the child" to carry their RFID tag, as I am pretty sure that a public education is a constitutional right in Texas. -- That's the thing about rights, they are there to protect when even when your right is not popular (yes, even if it is stupid).
Schools already use swipe card systems to more accurately track attendance, where was the "mark of the beast" outcry then? The only difference here is that one is something you carry with you to the campus and have to wave around another little device in order for it to work, and the other is just something you carry with you to the campus and it "just works". Is there some stipulation in The Bible about it being "too easy" that I missed?
These days, the outcry sounds a lot more like "How dare you track my kids with a scanner thingy! My kids are *mine* to lose track of!"
Well, if it's done correctly, that would be flagged extremely quickly - a dozen kids constantly going through the same doors at the exact same time is a bit suspicious.
Especially when it's the single occupancy toilet.
RFID gateway + entrance cameras (already in most schools) + facial recognition software = instant defeat of badge ganging. When the software says "where are 10 kids in this picture" and only one shows up, it's an immediate red flag PLUS they know who the mastermind is.
The problem here is that if your kid's school tracks your kid this way on the school campus, your kid likely won't have a problem being tracked that way all the time when they are an adult. Schools are at least as much about social engineering as they are about education. So, unless your attitude is "I got mine, screw my kids." you should be outraged at a school trying to do this.
You must be a ball at parties...
"Why would I want to play a game that encourages me (and others!) to work out the best way to weaken the structure of a tower, leading to its inevitable collapse? The insanity! When we leave here, someone is probably going to go knock down some buildings on the way home, seeing as how we were all conditioned to believe its normal..."
Just play some fucking Jenga, and get yourself off the slippery slope. Not everyone careens helplessly down it.
Or house alarm goes off when an unrecognized RFID enters. You get the picture.
OK now i am SURE you are trolling...
If Apple gave away "development" machines to every learning institution, they would kiss about 75% of their desktop sales goodbye...
What I'm saying is that "smart" vendors do this kind of thing. Obviously you don't give away enough to kill the bottom line, just enough to prime the pump...
Apple's version of that is giving a $100 discount on a $1500 desktop/laptop computer...
It looks like their hope with the cylindrical orientation is that each server will communicate directly with the 5 to 7 servers opposite it via the inside (and hopefully the signal would be absorbed there as well) and with the servers above/below it on the outside (where the signal would dissipate fast enough to not interfere with other cylinders). Quite intriguing, but it creates one giant (and complex) software-managed ether in the literal sense, information will just "be there" and hopefully the software will keep it moving in the right direction. Good case for IPsec in the data center; hopefully the blades they design will have good hardware to handle encryption otherwise this model will only be good for single use "supercomputer" type applications (where cabling is a minor issue anyway).
On the bight side, Hans might have a 20 year all expenses paid development cycle ahead of him. Think of the contribution he could make if allowed to.
Talk about making productive use of prisoners time.
You're right, the Core 2 Duo machine with a SATA-1 7200 rpm disk that he got when he went into the clink will run un-fucking-believably well 20 years from now. That only leaves one problem...
10 years of smartphone generations for the government to realize there's the potential for viruses, spyware, and malware on these things as they are in all sense of the word a computer. I'm willing to bet google is now going to regulate the android market a little better, it still depends heavily on the user as to the risk posed to the device, just like with PCs.
I've also got to respectfully disagree with the article on rooting your device, it opens up the potential to load some pretty nifty security tools that help keep you safe in the first place.
It has nothing to do with the Android Market (that's not where these apps are hosted) it has to do with the fact that on Android phones, you only have to navigate down a few screens to find the check-box that turns off enforcement of market-only content. For users that decide to do that, all bets are off on security as they can say OK to sharing just about any information or permission (except that which wants to alter system level apps). What Google apparently needs to do is add a few more "Are you sure?" "Are you sure-sure?" "Are you so fucking sure that you would call your wife and explain to her what you are about to do?" dialogs, like Microsoft did with privilege escalation in Windows. Seems to have worked out fairly well for them.
Smart platform vendors donate development platforms to colleges and universities around the world so that students have a chance to learn. I don't know if Apple does this nor not, but I saw a LOT of apple products in the computer labs when I went to school (20 or so years ago...)
If Apple gave away "development" machines to every learning institution, they would kiss about 75% of their desktop sales goodbye...
That's a fallacious argument. The "famous guy's" saying isn't comparable to protecting the average consumer's expectation of having a consumer device that won't leak all of his private info by clicking an "update" or link that is actually a phishing lure.
I don't even own or like Android or iOS devices, but I have kids and a wife who do and it's irritating to know that they are vulnerable and it's why I am moving them to iOS ASAP.
I will gladly offer you the service of taking all those buggy, insecure android devices off your hands and dispose of them properly, for a nominal $50 e-recycling fee. I know it sounds like a steal, but I just like knowing mobile users are secure in the big scary world out there. So go ahead and send me those phones, and don't forget to include the check for $50. I am sure you will forget all about them once your new iOS devices arrive. Oh, and you're welcome!
Don't give up on the HTPC, give up on cable instead.
Get yourself an OTA tuner, amazon/netflix/hulu plus and go for it. Unless you are addicted to some sport that is not OTA it really is the way to go.
HDHomeRun is the way to go; install it in your attic (where the signal is probably strong enough even if you are a ways from the tower) and enjoy it on MythTV...
Wait, 99% of TVs sold today don't bother supporting it... Shit!
it's been cross-posted and advertised on the reviewer's twitter account.
the review really is a shameful piece of work and it's not just spelling and grammar. he gives no solid reason whatsoever why this book is better (or even significantly different from) the 1996 edition of applied cryptography, which he mentions in the introduction. here are the topics he presents: historical ciphers; modern symmetric/asymmetric encryption; key management; and a few applications shoved into the last chapter.
apart from the applications, none of these things have fundamentally changed since 1996. sure, the book might have more up-to-date details but, oh, that's right, the review doesn't mention it either way. there are supposedly-difficult (note: this is completely subjective) questions, and some "mathematics" in an appendix (not a good sign). there is no comment on technical details at all.
And never mind the similarity between this and the Schneier book Practical Cryptography (which would seem like a much more relevant comparison...)
These days, with VMs (and hence software switches) carrying the actual workload, and hastily programmed core switches broken down into a hundred VLANs, why are we hanging on to the ancient notion of "wires"? Clearly a wireless method for every server to be able to talk to every other server is the next logical evolution. Just sprinkle a little software on top to make sure that the servers only see/process what they are supposed to, and surely it will all work great!
It means he should have gotten a third party to help proof his review.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You would think he would know one or two...
Ok...this is a bragging rights type thing somehow??
Most telling is that they seem to think so... It's akin to vying for the title of "world's largest landfill", it sounds too much like a story from The Onion.