It works for completely isolated incidences, but once it gets systemic, it's not idiocy any more - it's malice.
For example, if you get caught driving while very drunk, yes, you were stupid. If it's the 20th time you do it, you're a malicious asshole.
Same with sales staff. The individual salesperson may indeed be a complete idiot and believe all the lies he is telling. But that person works for a company that obviously has no interest in not spreading those lies - that is malicious behaviour.
When doing anything that deal with companies, do not give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, they make small mistakes from time to time, but they aren't motivated in any way, shape or form to avoid those mistakes unless it hurts their bottom line. They are malicious by nature.
Hanlon's Company Razor should be "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice".
I honestly haven't a clue. I just figured that 2^n would give you an exponential power gain to the point where 20-30 qubits would be enough to brute force most types of encryptions.
If you have a device that can brute force a 1 Mbit to 1 Gbit key in a single step, your regular encryption types are dead.
But I haven't a clue how it maps from qubit to bit. The maths shown on the Wiki page and on quantum computer is way above my head. The last one notes: "For example, a 300-qubit quantum computer has a state described by 2^300 (approximately 10^90) complex numbers, more than the number of atoms in the observable universe."
But - no clue. I wasn't aiming for informative, I was hoping for interesting (as in, that's an interesting thought, let's see what the experts say).
That's actually a pretty cool idea of doing. Like the guy below you said, that can make for complete electrical isolation. It does make it difficult to easily daisy chain these devices, but very cool none the less.
If you are very unfortunate, n qubits can map 2^n -1 bits. -1 because 2^0 = 1, and that'd just be weird.
If this is the case, then a 6 qubit machine maps 63 bits, but 20 would map 1,048,575 bits (1 Mbit of information) and 30 would map 1 Gbit of information.
TherapistFinder decided to use CamelCase on their name... I do have to wonder how many inquiries they get from stupid police offiers hoping it's TheRapistFinder.com
Now, what makes you think that the damages to your car were because you were driving a 57 Ford rather than you T-boning the Toyota?
When you T-bone a car, you're essentially just hitting sheet metal with no structural integrity. It is not in any way, shape or form surprising that the car doing the T-boning gets away with barely any damage.
Does that include the time needed to now fix the artefacts that scanning doesn't get you?
If you have a scanner, then why don't you just use that? And if you do not have a scanner, why even bother with the speed comparison and not settle for "I don't have a scanner"?
There's a reason that scanning takes time compared to just pointing a camera at a book and snapping a picture. You've now found one of those reasons. Congratulations.
Now you just have to find out if the up front time savings are greater than the post processing time costs, and since you're going to spend time reading through Slashdot and trying out the suggestions, I'm going to say "no, the savings aren't bigger". As someone else said, even Google's scanned/photographed books have issues, so don't be surprised when you do as well.
Since these computers are completely and utterly unhackable, wouldn't it be interesting to see 240,000 of these computers all harbouring a few thousand Simpson's Parody Porno images? Then they'd have to jail 240,000 kids for fake kiddy porn.
The other option would be that the government officials who claimed these computers are unhackable admits that he was wrong, and that's just too far fetched for my imagination.
And think of the political success you'd have, if you managed to shut down a ring of 240,000 purveyors of kiddy porn! They'd elect you king!
I don't recall one with a new and old Espace. The closest I can come to that comparison is the 940 vs the Modus, but that doesn't mean they (or Top Gear) didn't do one with Espace vs Espace - I just can't remember seeing it.
When I said "moderately stable equilibrium" I was talking about the amount of energy that entered out atmosphere. This was not very clear in my post, and I apologize for that.
Yes, over very large periods of time, the amount of energy that has then been radiated away from our atmosphere has varied as glaciation will increase the bleed off by reflecting this.
But, when we then start to burn off fuels that are the accumulation of energy over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years inside a span that is a few hundred years, that will have an effect. What that effect will be in the long is very difficult to determine.
Maybe the increase in energy will merely result in a slightly higher average temperature resulting in slightly higher water levels and then that becomes the basis for a new equilibrium. Maybe the increase in temperature will result in more clouds which in turn will reflect more sunshine away and dropping the temperature resulting in larger temperature fluctuations over a span of multiple years like a sinusoid with an average temperature of what we have now just with a larger amplitude. Maybe it'll run amok from a human perspective, raising average global temperatures 10 C, raise the sea levels 3 meters (10 feet) and make Scandinavia a lush tropical jungle. Hell, I live in mid-Sweden, 120 meters above sea level - what the fuck do I care if Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo and probably a billion people end up drowning or having to move somewhere else? And since it won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, I really don't have a reason to care.
Maybe it'll go the other way. Ten thousand years ago the sea levels were 40 meters (120 feet) below what they are today. That kind of change would also result in some very serious geo-political tensions, as nations that were previously separated by hundreds of miles of sea would now have a land-bridge between them. Not to mention the consequences for fishing. To give you an idea what that might look like, I encourage you to read about The Aral Sea. Or look at Venice. That wasn't a city that was built in the middle of a lagoon. Nor was it something that happened at the pace we're facing here.
Granted, those are the extremes, but increasing or decreasing the sea levels by a meter is going to have some serious consequences we aren't prepared for. They will happen on their own over time, but then we're talking about geological time periods of thousands of years, not the span of a few decades or a single century.
I honestly believe that from where we're sitting, we're on the cab of a run away freight train. We don't have a chance of stopping it before something "bad" happens (compared to the status quo), but we can at the very least lift the foot of the accelerator. Getting there sooner is not always a good thing.
Well, with what is usually being proposed, like reducing carbon emissions by driving more fuel efficient cars, no leaving lights on everywhere, how is that POSSIBLY a bad thing?
If we're talking about some of the more harebrained ideas like having hundred of thousands of ships sucking up cold water from the the ocean and spraying it as high into the atmosphere as possible, yes I agree - that could easily do serious long term damage that we don't realise.
But conserving energy cannot do that, as we are simply choosing to reduce the energy input into a system that had previously had a moderately stable equilibrium before we started burning all those fossil fuels.
Yes, because I'm sure that all of Gmails 150+ million users are able to set up their own email server, are customers at an ISP that allows them to run a public email server, and have the knowledge required to secure the email server in such a way, that they don't end up causing a ton of problems for everyone else.
Considering the amount of zombie computers on the net, why would you ever expect them to be able to run an email server that isn't instantly transformed into another spam-bot?
Now, what you're saying is that if someone is using a post box at the post office and a bank decides to send them confidential information, it is perfectly acceptable for a judge to not only get the box closed, but also burn everything that happens to be in the box - all because the person wasn't smart enough to have his own personal mail box by his house.
Do you really not see how this action is a BAD thing? Are you really that obtuse or are you just trolling?
And where did you get the idea that the victim was German? It's not in any of the linked articles. The original poster pulled Germany out of his ass as example.
But as for the German ISP ignoring a ruling in a US court, as the court has no jurisdiction in Germany, I think we've seen plenty of examples of what happens in those cases - namely the board members being put on watch lists for arrests when they enter the country. And with the way that the US has been behaving with regards to terror legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd see extradition requests for those people for not complying with a US court order either.
The fact that this is about Gmail is completely irrelevant. The provider would be exactly as interesting if it was some small community run ISP in Hicksville, New York.
The interesting thing here, is that a completely innocent 3rd part has been raped by Rocky Mountain Bank and District Judge James Ware and has absolutely no recourse to undo this raping. Even if it would be possible to appeal a court order closing the account, the victim will be out a ton of money and time and probably won't have any way of getting any kind of compensation for this.
THAT is the interesting thing, not who the email provider happens to be. Now, if that isn't something you see as problematic, I feel sorry for your inner sense of right and wrong.
That wouldn't work as well as you think, as the governing body requires you to drive a full mile (really tall building) and you have to return on the same route. Not sure how fast you could get car/bike to go if it had travel straight up for a full mile.
The answer is to not rely on anyone else for email.
If the bank had asked your local ISP for the information identifying you, would they have waited for a court order before disclosing it, or would they have folded and just said 'here you go' to the bank? And if they waited for a court order, how the fuck would that be any different that what Google did? The judge would still be as stupid, the bank would be just as stupid, and the account would be just as closed, and the victim just as screwed.
If that was my gmail account I'd be thoroughly fucked.
Most of the places I've registered, if I want to change the registered email address, I need to acknowledge it through my gmail account.
Now, my ISP doesn't offer an email option, so I can't just get one there. And if I'm going to move out of this area, I'd be screwed as well, as I'd have to get a new ISP and thus a new email-address. In the end the Gmail option is easier.
My gmail account is thus the primary account I have for all personal and semi-professional communications.
Since the bank went to court to get my account closed, they haven't broken any laws, so I'd be barking up a tree if I tried to sue for damages. Google did exactly what they've promised to do - they refused to close the account without a court order. And I can't exactly sue the court or the judge either.
Now, I do have the contacts saved elsewhere, but how do I easily prove that I am in fact the person behind my gmail account and get those companies to change the address they've saved, when I cannot send them a mail from that account to prove it? Paper work is a bitch.
And when one of my contacts suggests to one of their contacts that they could use me, then they're likely to use the gmail account which is now closed, which makes me look like an arrogant asshole: "He didn't even bother to write back to say no, he just ignored me."
If Google were kind, they would at least make mail to that account bounce with a good explanation like
"Unfortunately this account has been shut down due to a court order on behalf of Rocky Mountain Bank, as Rocky Mountain Bank failed to live up to even the most basic of customer data security and sent sensitive information to this account by mistake.
We hope you will not let this screw up on behalf of Rocky Mountain Bank affect you view of the user of this email account.
The last thing a sports car, any sports car, can be is green
Define green. While you're at it, define sports car.
If green is better than the average mileage of cars on the road, then something like the Mazda MX5 would likely count, as the average mileage seems to be about 17 MPG in the US, and the MX5 is at 21/28 city/highway.
Now, some people seem to think that an MX5 isn't a proper sports car, because it's a Mazda, because it's a Wankel engine or because it's not powerful enough. The Porsche Cayman is rakes in 20/29... but maybe that's not a sports car either.
I was filling out one of those sheets at one time (donating blood) and came across this question for men: "Have you ever engaged in homosexual anal sex ?"
When I asked the nurse, where on the form I should make a note that I've had unprotected anal sex with 1,500 different women she didn't quite know what to say.
Apparently it's only a problem if a guy fucks another guy in the ass.
Somewhat similar with the questions on visiting prostitutes. If you've been a user within the last 12 months, that's bad. If you've ever at one point in your life been paid to have sex with someone (and if you want to get technical, I consider free drinks payment), you can't ever donate, but on that one at least they don't make an obvious discrimination against gender.
And why wouldn't I be willing to hijack a plane for some political cause? Maybe the BLNA liberation front wants to make a point about security theatre being just that, and conclude that if you kill a few hundred people to free hundreds of millions from oppression, you're making a logical sacrifice?
Now, why is it that for Linux the totally clueless get their computer set up by an expert (don't give them the root password), whereas Windows XP is just set up like crap?
If you take Windows XP Linux and a blank computer and gave it to a totally clueless user, asking them to install it and get online, neither OS will result in "secure in the "kiosk" sense", as the user will inevitably have the root passwords needed. The only way Linux scores better security there, is because there isn't really any malware targeted at that platform. As we all know, once the user gives admin rights to malware, the computer is fucked.
However, if you have an expert lock down XP, the clueless user won't be "pwned" anymore than when using Linux. And they'll be limited in the same sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Hanlon's Razor is a load of bullshit.
It works for completely isolated incidences, but once it gets systemic, it's not idiocy any more - it's malice.
For example, if you get caught driving while very drunk, yes, you were stupid. If it's the 20th time you do it, you're a malicious asshole.
Same with sales staff. The individual salesperson may indeed be a complete idiot and believe all the lies he is telling. But that person works for a company that obviously has no interest in not spreading those lies - that is malicious behaviour.
When doing anything that deal with companies, do not give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, they make small mistakes from time to time, but they aren't motivated in any way, shape or form to avoid those mistakes unless it hurts their bottom line. They are malicious by nature.
Hanlon's Company Razor should be "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice".
I honestly haven't a clue. I just figured that 2^n would give you an exponential power gain to the point where 20-30 qubits would be enough to brute force most types of encryptions.
If you have a device that can brute force a 1 Mbit to 1 Gbit key in a single step, your regular encryption types are dead.
But I haven't a clue how it maps from qubit to bit. The maths shown on the Wiki page and on quantum computer is way above my head. The last one notes: "For example, a 300-qubit quantum computer has a state described by 2^300 (approximately 10^90) complex numbers, more than the number of atoms in the observable universe."
But - no clue. I wasn't aiming for informative, I was hoping for interesting (as in, that's an interesting thought, let's see what the experts say).
That's actually a pretty cool idea of doing. Like the guy below you said, that can make for complete electrical isolation. It does make it difficult to easily daisy chain these devices, but very cool none the less.
Until the user somehow manages to plug the mouse directly into a 380v power socket in the kitchen.
If you are very unfortunate, n qubits can map 2^n -1 bits. -1 because 2^0 = 1, and that'd just be weird.
If this is the case, then a 6 qubit machine maps 63 bits, but 20 would map 1,048,575 bits (1 Mbit of information) and 30 would map 1 Gbit of information.
TherapistFinder decided to use CamelCase on their name ... I do have to wonder how many inquiries they get from stupid police offiers hoping it's TheRapistFinder.com
Isn't it simply 40 * sqrt(2) = 56.57?
Actually your numbers don't match up at all.
sqrt(972 000 / 1 500) = 25.4558441 m/s
25.51500 (meters / second) = 57.0754295 mph
If we just do sqrt(972 000 / 1500) * (m / s) = 56.9431016 mph, we come up with a result that doesn't match mine either.
Now, what makes you think that the damages to your car were because you were driving a 57 Ford rather than you T-boning the Toyota?
When you T-bone a car, you're essentially just hitting sheet metal with no structural integrity. It is not in any way, shape or form surprising that the car doing the T-boning gets away with barely any damage.
That one is from Fifth Gear. It's the same Discovery vs Espace crash that I linked to.
Does that include the time needed to now fix the artefacts that scanning doesn't get you?
If you have a scanner, then why don't you just use that? And if you do not have a scanner, why even bother with the speed comparison and not settle for "I don't have a scanner"?
There's a reason that scanning takes time compared to just pointing a camera at a book and snapping a picture. You've now found one of those reasons. Congratulations.
Now you just have to find out if the up front time savings are greater than the post processing time costs, and since you're going to spend time reading through Slashdot and trying out the suggestions, I'm going to say "no, the savings aren't bigger". As someone else said, even Google's scanned/photographed books have issues, so don't be surprised when you do as well.
Actually, that gives me a great idea.
Since these computers are completely and utterly unhackable, wouldn't it be interesting to see 240,000 of these computers all harbouring a few thousand Simpson's Parody Porno images? Then they'd have to jail 240,000 kids for fake kiddy porn.
The other option would be that the government officials who claimed these computers are unhackable admits that he was wrong, and that's just too far fetched for my imagination.
And think of the political success you'd have, if you managed to shut down a ring of 240,000 purveyors of kiddy porn! They'd elect you king!
Arranging head on collisions sounds a lot more like 5th Gear than Top Gear.
But just like the Chevy test video linked to hear, everyone's on YouTube's an expert when it comes to stuff like that.
They've done several like Renault Espace vs. Land Rover Discovery and Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus.
I don't recall one with a new and old Espace. The closest I can come to that comparison is the 940 vs the Modus, but that doesn't mean they (or Top Gear) didn't do one with Espace vs Espace - I just can't remember seeing it.
When I said "moderately stable equilibrium" I was talking about the amount of energy that entered out atmosphere. This was not very clear in my post, and I apologize for that.
Yes, over very large periods of time, the amount of energy that has then been radiated away from our atmosphere has varied as glaciation will increase the bleed off by reflecting this.
But, when we then start to burn off fuels that are the accumulation of energy over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years inside a span that is a few hundred years, that will have an effect. What that effect will be in the long is very difficult to determine.
Maybe the increase in energy will merely result in a slightly higher average temperature resulting in slightly higher water levels and then that becomes the basis for a new equilibrium.
Maybe the increase in temperature will result in more clouds which in turn will reflect more sunshine away and dropping the temperature resulting in larger temperature fluctuations over a span of multiple years like a sinusoid with an average temperature of what we have now just with a larger amplitude.
Maybe it'll run amok from a human perspective, raising average global temperatures 10 C, raise the sea levels 3 meters (10 feet) and make Scandinavia a lush tropical jungle. Hell, I live in mid-Sweden, 120 meters above sea level - what the fuck do I care if Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo and probably a billion people end up drowning or having to move somewhere else? And since it won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, I really don't have a reason to care.
Maybe it'll go the other way. Ten thousand years ago the sea levels were 40 meters (120 feet) below what they are today. That kind of change would also result in some very serious geo-political tensions, as nations that were previously separated by hundreds of miles of sea would now have a land-bridge between them. Not to mention the consequences for fishing. To give you an idea what that might look like, I encourage you to read about The Aral Sea. Or look at Venice. That wasn't a city that was built in the middle of a lagoon. Nor was it something that happened at the pace we're facing here.
Granted, those are the extremes, but increasing or decreasing the sea levels by a meter is going to have some serious consequences we aren't prepared for. They will happen on their own over time, but then we're talking about geological time periods of thousands of years, not the span of a few decades or a single century.
I honestly believe that from where we're sitting, we're on the cab of a run away freight train. We don't have a chance of stopping it before something "bad" happens (compared to the status quo), but we can at the very least lift the foot of the accelerator. Getting there sooner is not always a good thing.
Well, with what is usually being proposed, like reducing carbon emissions by driving more fuel efficient cars, no leaving lights on everywhere, how is that POSSIBLY a bad thing?
If we're talking about some of the more harebrained ideas like having hundred of thousands of ships sucking up cold water from the the ocean and spraying it as high into the atmosphere as possible, yes I agree - that could easily do serious long term damage that we don't realise.
But conserving energy cannot do that, as we are simply choosing to reduce the energy input into a system that had previously had a moderately stable equilibrium before we started burning all those fossil fuels.
Yes, because I'm sure that all of Gmails 150+ million users are able to set up their own email server, are customers at an ISP that allows them to run a public email server, and have the knowledge required to secure the email server in such a way, that they don't end up causing a ton of problems for everyone else.
Considering the amount of zombie computers on the net, why would you ever expect them to be able to run an email server that isn't instantly transformed into another spam-bot?
Now, what you're saying is that if someone is using a post box at the post office and a bank decides to send them confidential information, it is perfectly acceptable for a judge to not only get the box closed, but also burn everything that happens to be in the box - all because the person wasn't smart enough to have his own personal mail box by his house.
Do you really not see how this action is a BAD thing? Are you really that obtuse or are you just trolling?
And where did you get the idea that the victim was German? It's not in any of the linked articles. The original poster pulled Germany out of his ass as example.
But as for the German ISP ignoring a ruling in a US court, as the court has no jurisdiction in Germany, I think we've seen plenty of examples of what happens in those cases - namely the board members being put on watch lists for arrests when they enter the country. And with the way that the US has been behaving with regards to terror legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd see extradition requests for those people for not complying with a US court order either.
The fact that this is about Gmail is completely irrelevant. The provider would be exactly as interesting if it was some small community run ISP in Hicksville, New York.
The interesting thing here, is that a completely innocent 3rd part has been raped by Rocky Mountain Bank and District Judge James Ware and has absolutely no recourse to undo this raping. Even if it would be possible to appeal a court order closing the account, the victim will be out a ton of money and time and probably won't have any way of getting any kind of compensation for this.
THAT is the interesting thing, not who the email provider happens to be. Now, if that isn't something you see as problematic, I feel sorry for your inner sense of right and wrong.
That wouldn't work as well as you think, as the governing body requires you to drive a full mile (really tall building) and you have to return on the same route. Not sure how fast you could get car/bike to go if it had travel straight up for a full mile.
I think you mean
If the bank had asked your local ISP for the information identifying you, would they have waited for a court order before disclosing it, or would they have folded and just said 'here you go' to the bank? And if they waited for a court order, how the fuck would that be any different that what Google did? The judge would still be as stupid, the bank would be just as stupid, and the account would be just as closed, and the victim just as screwed.
If that was my gmail account I'd be thoroughly fucked.
Most of the places I've registered, if I want to change the registered email address, I need to acknowledge it through my gmail account.
Now, my ISP doesn't offer an email option, so I can't just get one there. And if I'm going to move out of this area, I'd be screwed as well, as I'd have to get a new ISP and thus a new email-address. In the end the Gmail option is easier.
My gmail account is thus the primary account I have for all personal and semi-professional communications.
Since the bank went to court to get my account closed, they haven't broken any laws, so I'd be barking up a tree if I tried to sue for damages.
Google did exactly what they've promised to do - they refused to close the account without a court order.
And I can't exactly sue the court or the judge either.
Now, I do have the contacts saved elsewhere, but how do I easily prove that I am in fact the person behind my gmail account and get those companies to change the address they've saved, when I cannot send them a mail from that account to prove it? Paper work is a bitch.
And when one of my contacts suggests to one of their contacts that they could use me, then they're likely to use the gmail account which is now closed, which makes me look like an arrogant asshole: "He didn't even bother to write back to say no, he just ignored me."
If Google were kind, they would at least make mail to that account bounce with a good explanation like
Define green. While you're at it, define sports car.
If green is better than the average mileage of cars on the road, then something like the Mazda MX5 would likely count, as the average mileage seems to be about 17 MPG in the US, and the MX5 is at 21/28 city/highway.
Now, some people seem to think that an MX5 isn't a proper sports car, because it's a Mazda, because it's a Wankel engine or because it's not powerful enough. The Porsche Cayman is rakes in 20/29 ... but maybe that's not a sports car either.
I don't know about that ...
I would say that lawyers make a reputable law firm more reputable than a law firm with no lawyers.
Use a BeOS derivative. The Haiku version that was linked to a week or so ago boots in 8 seconds in my VirtualBox.
I was filling out one of those sheets at one time (donating blood) and came across this question for men:
"Have you ever engaged in homosexual anal sex ?"
When I asked the nurse, where on the form I should make a note that I've had unprotected anal sex with 1,500 different women she didn't quite know what to say.
Apparently it's only a problem if a guy fucks another guy in the ass.
Somewhat similar with the questions on visiting prostitutes. If you've been a user within the last 12 months, that's bad. If you've ever at one point in your life been paid to have sex with someone (and if you want to get technical, I consider free drinks payment), you can't ever donate, but on that one at least they don't make an obvious discrimination against gender.
Bacon-loving - check
nudist - sure, why not
atheist - check
And why wouldn't I be willing to hijack a plane for some political cause? Maybe the BLNA liberation front wants to make a point about security theatre being just that, and conclude that if you kill a few hundred people to free hundreds of millions from oppression, you're making a logical sacrifice?
Now, why is it that for Linux the totally clueless get their computer set up by an expert (don't give them the root password), whereas Windows XP is just set up like crap?
If you take Windows XP Linux and a blank computer and gave it to a totally clueless user, asking them to install it and get online, neither OS will result in "secure in the "kiosk" sense", as the user will inevitably have the root passwords needed. The only way Linux scores better security there, is because there isn't really any malware targeted at that platform. As we all know, once the user gives admin rights to malware, the computer is fucked.
However, if you have an expert lock down XP, the clueless user won't be "pwned" anymore than when using Linux. And they'll be limited in the same sense.