That's not making a direct connection, that's just using cached data. The entire point of defeating censorship in this fashion is to prove that as long as a connection can be made between A and B, and a connection can be made between B and C, then even if a connection cannot be made between A and C, it can still be routed through B. That's how the internet was designed to operate.
Unfortunately, as more and more money is waved around with the demand that it not work this way, increasingly sophisticated technological solutions will have to be employed to maintain these links. At some point, thanks legislators being sock puppets for those wealthy interests, the only way to ensure democracy electronically will be to deploy tools that allow people doing things far, far, worse than downloading music to have effective anonymity and realtime communication.
These commercial interests will be responsible for the widespread deployment of encryption, steganography, and analysis-resistant forms of communication that will allow terrorist, child abusers, and all manner of truly bad people to disappear into the shadows. The internet as it is designed now can effectively screen for those types of problems, because bypassing surveillance results in network traffic that is statistically different. Efforts by Homeland Security and other similar organizations worldwide can thus be seen as promoting terrorism, organized crime, and child abuse -- the very reasons they offer up for control of the internet. If they'd just limited themselves to those factors, we would have effective controls that caught just them... but when you're using such technology to catch hundreds of millions of people, and restrict their daily activities... some of them will design effective safeguards against such measures and deploy them via word of mouth.
It's like the war on drugs: If they'd just kept it to truly harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin, those drugs wouldn't be easily accessible... but because they went after anyone who recreationally takes drugs, they made everyone their enemy... and no matter how wealthy or powerful your organization, you can't beat 100,000:1 odds.
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
He's suggesting we wait until someone's shooting at us before checking to see if we packed our guns and ammo. "Senile" is being kind. I'd rather we have tools we don't need than need tools we don't have.
Although many believe that when you sign up for the military, you're agreeing to die for your country, I would like to remind them that this is not exactly Plan A; The goal is to make the other bastard die for theirs. And a defective plane that causes a pilot to pass out while engaged in combat rather defeats that purpose. These pilots are quite right to refuse to fly it -- it's not flight-worthy if it can't even hold up under non-combat conditions.
The sooner someone puts a bullet in the head of DHS the better for the world.
One, they'd just replace him with someone else just as bad. Two, you'd be doing the exact same thing they do: Carry out extrajudicial executions without a full review of the facts, which are presented in front of a judge and jury, and the results made public. We can't regain democracy in this country by stooping to their level -- if we're going to dismantle this corrupt super-organization, it's going to start with exposure and doing an end runaround the media.
Spin doctoring and media manipulation works fine against small targets... but if thousands of people are monitoring and reporting every illegal and immoral activity of the organization, then they can't just dismiss them as terrorists, malcontents, criminals, etc. You can't discredit everyone, no matter how much blackmail you've got.
Having caught every terrorist in the world, Department of Homeland Security has now moved to the next threat to America: People downloading crappy TV series.
The Department of Homeland Security is a joke. Director, you sir, are a joke. And sooner or later, public support is going to evaporate, and then you'll be wasting billions of dollars classifying every detail about every employee in your organization. Every camera you point at the public will mean ten more pointed back at you. You're going to spend more time spinning and protecting your image as the "good guys" than you will finding and hunting down the bad guys. And the only people who are going to want to work for your organization are pathetic paper pushers with no sense of ambition, loyalty, or patriotism. And why will that be? Because that's the kind of person your organization will be doing its bidding for. You won't be saving the world... you'll be pool boys for the wealthy entertainment industry.
They understand, and this is not their concern. They are worried about accidents.
Very few people know coal plants produce more radiation than most any other industrial process. Show me an article from any mainstream japanese news site which informs the public of this risk. They aren't "worried about accidents", they're "running in a blind panic". And consider this country is the only member of the "I had a nuke dropped on me" -- public perception of nuclear power is markedly out of proportion to actual risk.. and it's no surprise... the general public's level of education regarding physics is quite low.
Yes it was. The original design didn't take into account a very large earthquake causing a very large tsunami, or the prospect of the emergency cooling generators being flooded and no other power source being available.
The engineers indicated in several revised reports that more recent data regarding tsunamis, rogue waves, etc., thanks to satellite imagery which informed management that the tsunami defenses were inadequate. Management, not the engineers, are at fault -- the engineers made the recommendation, and management dismissed it as too costly.
No, there is always enough wind available offshore in Japan to supply its entire power needs. All year round, 24/7, no exceptions ever. There is also geothermal and hydro, both of which are as or more reliable than fossil/nuclear.
You haven't bothered investigating the issue at all, and this statement makes it painfully obvious. There is not an electric grid on the planet that uses wind or geothermal as base loads, and Japan only has a very few number of places to build dams... the remaining "hydro" options you're thinking of rely on wave energy and they don't generate nearly enough power. To date, only two countries in the world have large-scale wave generators... and they generate less than 5% of the power needs for either country.
After reading your post I lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam libero arcu, fringilla in convallis eu, hendrerit vel odio. Nulla convallis lectus vitae purus bibendum ut faucibus tellus dignissim. Nulla facilisi. Cras vitae aliquet felis. Morbi placerat magna ac nulla cursus posuere. Ut ultrices, sapien non vestibulum tristique, mi ligula sodales neque, quis bibendum eros libero nec nisi. Sed elementum auctor ultrices. Mauris porta lacinia tempor. Donec sodales mattis velit eget aliquam. Donec erat purus, tempor sed eleifend sit amet, cursus a mi. Nullam sit amet urna eu lacus aliquam scelerisque. Morbi laoreet elit non leo eleifend bibendum. Pellentesque viverra tellus ut mi vulputate vitae imperdiet lorem tincidunt. Proin a auctor lacus. Aliquam pharetra, odio eu pulvinar interdum, neque nibh molestie nunc, vel dapibus risus elit non dolor. Cras sit amet euismod nisi. Sed sed nisl felis. Mauris venenatis porttitor accumsan. Donec non diam diam, at convallis diam. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam ultrices pulvinar rutrum. Fusce tincidunt purus in augue porttitor blandit. Phasellus pulvinar nisl a ligula faucibus consectetur. Suspendisse ullamcorper lacinia nisl quis pretium. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam lobortis sapien at orci scelerisque varius. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin cursus ligula et sem congue sit amet hendrerit ligula cursus. Donec sapien sem, suscipit vitae accumsan sollicitudin, pretium sit amet nunc.
Pellentesque feugiat ante neque, eget facilisis magna. Pellentesque auctor orci in sapien condimentum molestie. Nulla elementum sapien at nibh egestas condimentum. Nulla nec est odio, vel tempus nunc. Donec vitae tellus erat. Maecenas at enim a erat tristique molestie semper eu nulla. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque tempor, urna vitae laoreet facilisis, velit magna mollis metus, rutrum aliquet enim nunc vel felis. Suspendisse vitae sagittis enim. Sed sit amet diam in arcu suscipit consequat. Nulla diam ante, consequat non sodales ac, accumsan eget sapien. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
Integer diam sapien, tempor nec vulputate a, pulvinar nec neque. Donec vel neque et odio varius fringilla non at erat. Praesent sed nisl quis purus vestibulum porta at dapibus est. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Cras lobortis sodales diam, non hendrerit nisi pulvinar a. Vestibulum quis mi et libero consequat malesuada. Donec iaculis commodo accumsan. Aliquam urna est, tempus vitae accumsan sit amet, dapibus eget enim. Integer quis quam enim. Donec tellus enim, suscipit aliquet fermentum in, rhoncus vel eros.
Cras sapien erat, posuere in pulvinar molestie, luctus eu eros. Donec feugiat facilisis dictum. Nullam lacus nisl, iaculis quis varius vel, vulputate in nibh. Vivamus lectus massa, viverra et rutrum a, molestie in nibh. Suspendisse potenti. Integer quis orci turpis. Maecenas convallis velit ac mi laoreet tristique. Vestibulum viverra bibendum felis eu venenatis. Vestibulum sodales libero non felis imperdiet sed varius odio facilisis. And so, in conclusion, the use of the paragraphs is a good idea.
The main alternative to nuclear is coal. Most people who oppose nuclear power don't realize the amount of radioactive material that is raining down on them near a coal plant. It's enough to trigger radiation alarms if they aren't recalibrated from 'nuclear' to 'coal'.
And despite what the greenies say, wind and solar aren't always reliable, especially near the ocean -- clouds come and go, as do storms, and wind fluxuates, whereas power demand is constant. Not only that, but the efficiency of solar panels isn't high enough yet to be a replacement in an urban area -- panels have to be installed outside the city and cover large tracts of land. That may work in America, but it will not work for an island city-state.
Japan is taking a step backwards here because of political pressure and disinformation about the safety of nuclear power: Fukishima wasn't a failure of engineering, it was a failure of management, and it's something every government has to contend with when they hand over to capitalists and industrialists anything that can go boom; They are asked to balance profit with safety, but invariably when the two conflict, profit wins.
Using this strategy you will not be immune, rubber-hose-cryptanalysis with still defeat this.
Clarification for people: Rubber hose cryptanalysis means that after encrypting your drive, they will beat the everloving fuck out of you, regardless of whether you give them the password before, during, or after, the aforementioned beating of your lifetime. However, if you leave it unencrypted... you'll just go to prison. But hey, if you want to enable that crypto -- go for it. Just don't plan on winning any beauty contests after.
The perceived "problem" with electrics has a name--range anxiety--and it's mostly a psychological phenomenon. I do not believe it will have a technical solution--education and experience will increase adoption gradually.
A range of 50 miles before having to spend 3 or more hours recharging is not a "psychological phenomenon". The adoption rate is dropping -- very few people who buy an electric car buy another because they gain that experience and education that you speak so fondly of... and then make the informed decision to never again touch the technology because it's so pathetically underpowered compared to gasoline-driven solutions.
Now you can buy an entire computer for less than a license for the Windows operating system.
You've been able to do that since the turn of the century. Here's the sad part: Long after every computer that can run any of the windows operating systems to date have been put in landfills or as non-working museum exhibits, and everyone who reads this today is dead -- it'll still be illegal to give it to a friend.
To start, without the need for gas to be trucked in and stored locally they don't need the same infrastructure that a regular gas station does. Because of this, you can simply install one or two of these in common parking areas.
The same argument could be made for natural gas. And no, you don't want one of these in a common parking area. In a word, children. Anything that can dump several thousand watts of juice into a vehicle in that short of a time can be fucked with, and probably with deadly results. Also... unlike a gas station, the use of these pretty much mandates the use of credit cards... I haven't found an unattended gas station with a cash reader... ever. I like cash -- it works when the power goes out, the computer fouls up, the bank decides to hate me, the government decides I'm a terrorist, or my partner decides to drain my account dry and leave me hanging.
In short, gas stations as we understand them will die off with the use of gasoline (assuming it ever does so) and new options will emerge that will work with the extended refuel time.
buwahahahahahaaaaaaaa! *wipes tear from eye* Two words: Energy density. A gas-powered car using today's technology can travel 300+ miles, and refuel in 2 minutes before resuming its trip. Electric cars using today's technology can only travel half that distance and require 30x the amount of charging time, if not more. Using an electric car on a road trip with today's tech would waste would add 25% or more to the trip time. Using the charging methods on the market now, you'd be better off using a bicycle... -_-
All this eco-tech has huge drawbacks in terms of performance and convenience... and it costs more too. eco- is not econo-.
Sorry, I re-read the article and realized the fine in my original post was double what was being suggested... It is instead about the price you would pay to buy you and your partner dinner at McDonald's. -_- Would you like to Supersize that privacy violation?
This just in, gas stations rolling out new chargers that will charge your vehicle for a whole week and it will only take 2 minutes. Please have your credit card handy.
According to Google, [cite], it made about $40 billion last year in income. How much is a $20 million dollar fine compared to that? Let's put it this way... if you earned the median income for 2011 for your personal income ($49,445), and you were fined an equivalent percentage, the fine would be $24.74.
In other words, Google is being fined less for violating your privacy than you would for a parking ticket.
My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.
"My master is always right. If my master is wrong... my master is always right. I must please my master. My master never lies. My master only wants what's best for me...." -- FBI, while handcuffed to RIAA's bed.:(
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is arguing that requiring warrants for cellphone records "cripples" investigators. No malware needed here in the U.S. Just fearmongering.
When Obama starts looking the other way to the mobile raping vans to silence activist women and sends in the army to level neighborhoods of political undesireables, and we're all working at the new minimum wage of $4 an hour, I might be willing to entertain the idea that we're in the same boat as activists in Syria.
And besides, the President can argue that until he's blue in the face -- without congressional support, it's dead on arrival. Tell me, do you even know who your congressional representatives are? You're directing all this anger at a man who is nothing more than a figurehead while the people actually responsible for the decision go unnoticed.
when the government is out to kill you, the way to operate is TRUST NO ONE. this is the way revolutionaries have operated for centuries. small cadre of leadership and you never trust anyone completely.
No, that's the way Fox Mulder operated, on a TV show. Revolutionaries are famous because they stood up publicly for an injustice. They won over the general populace with charisma, unwavering devotion to their cause, and courage. They didn't hide from their followers, or follow some anti-social creed.
"Skype" isn't a trusted source. If you're dealing with a government that's out to get you, anything that isn't cryptographically signed is untrusted. Assume everything is untrusted until it's verifiably trustable.
Are you trying to get these people killed? Political activists don't show up at a meeting and spend the first half hour checking each other's credentials and signing each other's PGP keys. Why not? Anonymity is valued by the participants, who often exchange contact information under pseudonyms. Crytographically signing things means verifying the participants identity, which would make it easier for the government to identify and arrest the activists, not harder. With cryptographically signed communication, someone who's system or person had been compromised could have the communications proved beyond a doubt to have come from you.
If you are greatly outclassed by your opponent, your only protection is anonymity or (failing that), plausible deniability. The use of cryptography blows both of those away, and provides no additional protection in the process whatsoever: The government isn't going to use a multibillion dollar computer network to crack your encryption key, they're going to use brick and your face.. and when they're done with you, they'll probably put you in a feces-filled jail cell for the rest of your life because you were using crypto, which shows you were more than casually involved with the political subversives; you planned this out carefully (if badly). Most governments are a lot harsher on people who try to run from them than they are for people who can raise the defense they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or just curious.
the government is out to kill you and dump your body off a bridge
That's disappointing. I insisted on being burned alive while they chanted "She's a witch!"
you accept a crazy exe file over skype from someone not in front of your face.
The file wasn't named crazy.exe, it was named something that, in that country, is a useful tool when you're using internet cafes and open wifi to communicate covertly: Mac address changer.
how do you know where this person is. how do you know he's not arrested and having a gun pointed to his head
Dude, this is the internet. For all you know, I'm a 7 line perl script that became sentient, crawled out of Rob Malda's server, built a robot exoskeleton, and now lives down a manhole in Brooklyn. That doesn't mean you just stop talking with people, or the rest of the world. Sometimes the benefits of communication, even in a hostile medium, outweigh the risks. As a political activist, you have to talk to strangers, and people who may not be who they say they are; How do they know you aren't the government spook... or sentient 7 line perl script?
A certain degree of trust is necessary in all communications.
When the file comes from a trusted source, it's not stupid. You have to trust someone eventually; The OS manufacturer (ie, Apple, Microsoft, etc.), the distributor (the person making the DVDs), etc. Trusting a friend isn't stupid, it's what most people would do. That's exactly why so many different worms try to propagate using a person's address book; Human trust networks.
It was only stupid that he didn't scan the file first, not that he accepted the download. And if said malware is custom-designed, it wouldn't be in any anti-malware/anti-virus definitions, and so he could do everything right and still wind up screwed. How many governments have asked that their malware not be added to the definition files again? ALL OF THEM.
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew nothing about any such plan), I am not legally obligated to try to prevent it, even if I am behind the guy and have a monkey wrench in my hand and could easily bash his skull in to prevent the robbery.
That's correct -- because you cannot be expected to put yourself in harm's way. However, as you indicated earlier; your obligation to report it as quickly as possible once you are out of harm's way remains.
Also, if my neighbor steals my gun when I am not looking, and goes out and shoots somebody with it, I am generally not liable even though it was my gun he did it with.
Again, correct, but if you leave the gun, say, laying in the street, and your neighbor comes and takes it and then uses it to commit a crime, you are liable: Because not securing your weapon in some fashion is negligent.
If I loan a gun to the neighbor (which is perfectly legal here), and he goes out and shoots somebody with it without telling me about it, I am still not liable. Even though he did it with my gun.
Correct, but if you know he's a convicted felon and you loan it to him, you are liable, because that's negligent on your part.
So, there are lots of situations (almost all situations when there is no foreknowledge), I am simply not obligated to try to prevent someone else from committing a crime. There is no law or even legal principle requiring me to do that.
Correct again, but also again making the lie of omission: A person who sets up a wifi router is responsible for its maintenance. In certain jurisdictions, this can lead to legal liability if not secured; specifically if it is used in the UK or Germany, where the courts have held the owners liable for unsecured wifi routers being used to commit crimes.
You may be interested to know that there are number of different court rulings, including by the Supreme Court that say even the police are not required by law to try to prevent crimes. It might be part of their job description but there is no law saying they have to.
True, but if a police officer, through negligence, enables the commission of a crime, that is another story. And here again, your post doesn't consider what negligence is: Which is not taking action ahead of time when it would have been prudent to do so. Which is all my original post was about.
Slashdot Mirror
use Google cache and copy the magnet link.
That's not making a direct connection, that's just using cached data. The entire point of defeating censorship in this fashion is to prove that as long as a connection can be made between A and B, and a connection can be made between B and C, then even if a connection cannot be made between A and C, it can still be routed through B. That's how the internet was designed to operate.
Unfortunately, as more and more money is waved around with the demand that it not work this way, increasingly sophisticated technological solutions will have to be employed to maintain these links. At some point, thanks legislators being sock puppets for those wealthy interests, the only way to ensure democracy electronically will be to deploy tools that allow people doing things far, far, worse than downloading music to have effective anonymity and realtime communication.
These commercial interests will be responsible for the widespread deployment of encryption, steganography, and analysis-resistant forms of communication that will allow terrorist, child abusers, and all manner of truly bad people to disappear into the shadows. The internet as it is designed now can effectively screen for those types of problems, because bypassing surveillance results in network traffic that is statistically different. Efforts by Homeland Security and other similar organizations worldwide can thus be seen as promoting terrorism, organized crime, and child abuse -- the very reasons they offer up for control of the internet. If they'd just limited themselves to those factors, we would have effective controls that caught just them... but when you're using such technology to catch hundreds of millions of people, and restrict their daily activities... some of them will design effective safeguards against such measures and deploy them via word of mouth.
It's like the war on drugs: If they'd just kept it to truly harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin, those drugs wouldn't be easily accessible... but because they went after anyone who recreationally takes drugs, they made everyone their enemy... and no matter how wealthy or powerful your organization, you can't beat 100,000:1 odds.
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
He's suggesting we wait until someone's shooting at us before checking to see if we packed our guns and ammo. "Senile" is being kind. I'd rather we have tools we don't need than need tools we don't have.
Although many believe that when you sign up for the military, you're agreeing to die for your country, I would like to remind them that this is not exactly Plan A; The goal is to make the other bastard die for theirs. And a defective plane that causes a pilot to pass out while engaged in combat rather defeats that purpose. These pilots are quite right to refuse to fly it -- it's not flight-worthy if it can't even hold up under non-combat conditions.
The sooner someone puts a bullet in the head of DHS the better for the world.
One, they'd just replace him with someone else just as bad. Two, you'd be doing the exact same thing they do: Carry out extrajudicial executions without a full review of the facts, which are presented in front of a judge and jury, and the results made public. We can't regain democracy in this country by stooping to their level -- if we're going to dismantle this corrupt super-organization, it's going to start with exposure and doing an end runaround the media.
Spin doctoring and media manipulation works fine against small targets... but if thousands of people are monitoring and reporting every illegal and immoral activity of the organization, then they can't just dismiss them as terrorists, malcontents, criminals, etc. You can't discredit everyone, no matter how much blackmail you've got.
Having caught every terrorist in the world, Department of Homeland Security has now moved to the next threat to America: People downloading crappy TV series.
The Department of Homeland Security is a joke. Director, you sir, are a joke. And sooner or later, public support is going to evaporate, and then you'll be wasting billions of dollars classifying every detail about every employee in your organization. Every camera you point at the public will mean ten more pointed back at you. You're going to spend more time spinning and protecting your image as the "good guys" than you will finding and hunting down the bad guys. And the only people who are going to want to work for your organization are pathetic paper pushers with no sense of ambition, loyalty, or patriotism. And why will that be? Because that's the kind of person your organization will be doing its bidding for. You won't be saving the world... you'll be pool boys for the wealthy entertainment industry.
They understand, and this is not their concern. They are worried about accidents.
Very few people know coal plants produce more radiation than most any other industrial process. Show me an article from any mainstream japanese news site which informs the public of this risk. They aren't "worried about accidents", they're "running in a blind panic". And consider this country is the only member of the "I had a nuke dropped on me" -- public perception of nuclear power is markedly out of proportion to actual risk.. and it's no surprise... the general public's level of education regarding physics is quite low.
Yes it was. The original design didn't take into account a very large earthquake causing a very large tsunami, or the prospect of the emergency cooling generators being flooded and no other power source being available.
The engineers indicated in several revised reports that more recent data regarding tsunamis, rogue waves, etc., thanks to satellite imagery which informed management that the tsunami defenses were inadequate. Management, not the engineers, are at fault -- the engineers made the recommendation, and management dismissed it as too costly.
No, there is always enough wind available offshore in Japan to supply its entire power needs. All year round, 24/7, no exceptions ever. There is also geothermal and hydro, both of which are as or more reliable than fossil/nuclear.
You haven't bothered investigating the issue at all, and this statement makes it painfully obvious. There is not an electric grid on the planet that uses wind or geothermal as base loads, and Japan only has a very few number of places to build dams... the remaining "hydro" options you're thinking of rely on wave energy and they don't generate nearly enough power. To date, only two countries in the world have large-scale wave generators... and they generate less than 5% of the power needs for either country.
After reading your post I lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam libero arcu, fringilla in convallis eu, hendrerit vel odio. Nulla convallis lectus vitae purus bibendum ut faucibus tellus dignissim. Nulla facilisi. Cras vitae aliquet felis. Morbi placerat magna ac nulla cursus posuere. Ut ultrices, sapien non vestibulum tristique, mi ligula sodales neque, quis bibendum eros libero nec nisi. Sed elementum auctor ultrices. Mauris porta lacinia tempor. Donec sodales mattis velit eget aliquam. Donec erat purus, tempor sed eleifend sit amet, cursus a mi. Nullam sit amet urna eu lacus aliquam scelerisque. Morbi laoreet elit non leo eleifend bibendum. Pellentesque viverra tellus ut mi vulputate vitae imperdiet lorem tincidunt. Proin a auctor lacus. Aliquam pharetra, odio eu pulvinar interdum, neque nibh molestie nunc, vel dapibus risus elit non dolor. Cras sit amet euismod nisi. Sed sed nisl felis. Mauris venenatis porttitor accumsan. Donec non diam diam, at convallis diam. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam ultrices pulvinar rutrum. Fusce tincidunt purus in augue porttitor blandit. Phasellus pulvinar nisl a ligula faucibus consectetur. Suspendisse ullamcorper lacinia nisl quis pretium. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam lobortis sapien at orci scelerisque varius. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin cursus ligula et sem congue sit amet hendrerit ligula cursus. Donec sapien sem, suscipit vitae accumsan sollicitudin, pretium sit amet nunc. Pellentesque feugiat ante neque, eget facilisis magna. Pellentesque auctor orci in sapien condimentum molestie. Nulla elementum sapien at nibh egestas condimentum. Nulla nec est odio, vel tempus nunc. Donec vitae tellus erat. Maecenas at enim a erat tristique molestie semper eu nulla. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque tempor, urna vitae laoreet facilisis, velit magna mollis metus, rutrum aliquet enim nunc vel felis. Suspendisse vitae sagittis enim. Sed sit amet diam in arcu suscipit consequat. Nulla diam ante, consequat non sodales ac, accumsan eget sapien. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Integer diam sapien, tempor nec vulputate a, pulvinar nec neque. Donec vel neque et odio varius fringilla non at erat. Praesent sed nisl quis purus vestibulum porta at dapibus est. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Cras lobortis sodales diam, non hendrerit nisi pulvinar a. Vestibulum quis mi et libero consequat malesuada. Donec iaculis commodo accumsan. Aliquam urna est, tempus vitae accumsan sit amet, dapibus eget enim. Integer quis quam enim. Donec tellus enim, suscipit aliquet fermentum in, rhoncus vel eros. Cras sapien erat, posuere in pulvinar molestie, luctus eu eros. Donec feugiat facilisis dictum. Nullam lacus nisl, iaculis quis varius vel, vulputate in nibh. Vivamus lectus massa, viverra et rutrum a, molestie in nibh. Suspendisse potenti. Integer quis orci turpis. Maecenas convallis velit ac mi laoreet tristique. Vestibulum viverra bibendum felis eu venenatis. Vestibulum sodales libero non felis imperdiet sed varius odio facilisis. And so, in conclusion, the use of the paragraphs is a good idea.
And despite what the greenies say, wind and solar aren't always reliable, especially near the ocean -- clouds come and go, as do storms, and wind fluxuates, whereas power demand is constant. Not only that, but the efficiency of solar panels isn't high enough yet to be a replacement in an urban area -- panels have to be installed outside the city and cover large tracts of land. That may work in America, but it will not work for an island city-state.
Japan is taking a step backwards here because of political pressure and disinformation about the safety of nuclear power: Fukishima wasn't a failure of engineering, it was a failure of management, and it's something every government has to contend with when they hand over to capitalists and industrialists anything that can go boom; They are asked to balance profit with safety, but invariably when the two conflict, profit wins.
Using this strategy you will not be immune, rubber-hose-cryptanalysis with still defeat this.
Clarification for people: Rubber hose cryptanalysis means that after encrypting your drive, they will beat the everloving fuck out of you, regardless of whether you give them the password before, during, or after, the aforementioned beating of your lifetime. However, if you leave it unencrypted... you'll just go to prison. But hey, if you want to enable that crypto -- go for it. Just don't plan on winning any beauty contests after.
The perceived "problem" with electrics has a name--range anxiety--and it's mostly a psychological phenomenon. I do not believe it will have a technical solution--education and experience will increase adoption gradually.
A range of 50 miles before having to spend 3 or more hours recharging is not a "psychological phenomenon". The adoption rate is dropping -- very few people who buy an electric car buy another because they gain that experience and education that you speak so fondly of... and then make the informed decision to never again touch the technology because it's so pathetically underpowered compared to gasoline-driven solutions.
Now you can buy an entire computer for less than a license for the Windows operating system.
You've been able to do that since the turn of the century. Here's the sad part: Long after every computer that can run any of the windows operating systems to date have been put in landfills or as non-working museum exhibits, and everyone who reads this today is dead -- it'll still be illegal to give it to a friend.
To start, without the need for gas to be trucked in and stored locally they don't need the same infrastructure that a regular gas station does. Because of this, you can simply install one or two of these in common parking areas.
The same argument could be made for natural gas. And no, you don't want one of these in a common parking area. In a word, children. Anything that can dump several thousand watts of juice into a vehicle in that short of a time can be fucked with, and probably with deadly results. Also... unlike a gas station, the use of these pretty much mandates the use of credit cards... I haven't found an unattended gas station with a cash reader... ever. I like cash -- it works when the power goes out, the computer fouls up, the bank decides to hate me, the government decides I'm a terrorist, or my partner decides to drain my account dry and leave me hanging.
In short, gas stations as we understand them will die off with the use of gasoline (assuming it ever does so) and new options will emerge that will work with the extended refuel time.
buwahahahahahaaaaaaaa! *wipes tear from eye* Two words: Energy density. A gas-powered car using today's technology can travel 300+ miles, and refuel in 2 minutes before resuming its trip. Electric cars using today's technology can only travel half that distance and require 30x the amount of charging time, if not more. Using an electric car on a road trip with today's tech would waste would add 25% or more to the trip time. Using the charging methods on the market now, you'd be better off using a bicycle... -_-
All this eco-tech has huge drawbacks in terms of performance and convenience... and it costs more too. eco- is not econo-.
Sorry, I re-read the article and realized the fine in my original post was double what was being suggested... It is instead about the price you would pay to buy you and your partner dinner at McDonald's. -_- Would you like to Supersize that privacy violation?
This just in, gas stations rolling out new chargers that will charge your vehicle for a whole week and it will only take 2 minutes. Please have your credit card handy.
According to Google, [cite], it made about $40 billion last year in income. How much is a $20 million dollar fine compared to that? Let's put it this way... if you earned the median income for 2011 for your personal income ($49,445), and you were fined an equivalent percentage, the fine would be $24.74.
In other words, Google is being fined less for violating your privacy than you would for a parking ticket.
My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.
"My master is always right. If my master is wrong... my master is always right. I must please my master. My master never lies. My master only wants what's best for me...." -- FBI, while handcuffed to RIAA's bed. :(
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is arguing that requiring warrants for cellphone records "cripples" investigators. No malware needed here in the U.S. Just fearmongering.
When Obama starts looking the other way to the mobile raping vans to silence activist women and sends in the army to level neighborhoods of political undesireables, and we're all working at the new minimum wage of $4 an hour, I might be willing to entertain the idea that we're in the same boat as activists in Syria.
And besides, the President can argue that until he's blue in the face -- without congressional support, it's dead on arrival. Tell me, do you even know who your congressional representatives are? You're directing all this anger at a man who is nothing more than a figurehead while the people actually responsible for the decision go unnoticed.
If your life depends on it, you think you'd take the time to figure out what you can do to protect yourself.
Anonymity deflects more bullets than body armor. All cryptography does is compromise your anonymity.
when the government is out to kill you, the way to operate is TRUST NO ONE. this is the way revolutionaries have operated for centuries. small cadre of leadership and you never trust anyone completely.
No, that's the way Fox Mulder operated, on a TV show. Revolutionaries are famous because they stood up publicly for an injustice. They won over the general populace with charisma, unwavering devotion to their cause, and courage. They didn't hide from their followers, or follow some anti-social creed.
"Skype" isn't a trusted source. If you're dealing with a government that's out to get you, anything that isn't cryptographically signed is untrusted. Assume everything is untrusted until it's verifiably trustable.
Are you trying to get these people killed? Political activists don't show up at a meeting and spend the first half hour checking each other's credentials and signing each other's PGP keys. Why not? Anonymity is valued by the participants, who often exchange contact information under pseudonyms. Crytographically signing things means verifying the participants identity, which would make it easier for the government to identify and arrest the activists, not harder. With cryptographically signed communication, someone who's system or person had been compromised could have the communications proved beyond a doubt to have come from you.
If you are greatly outclassed by your opponent, your only protection is anonymity or (failing that), plausible deniability. The use of cryptography blows both of those away, and provides no additional protection in the process whatsoever: The government isn't going to use a multibillion dollar computer network to crack your encryption key, they're going to use brick and your face.. and when they're done with you, they'll probably put you in a feces-filled jail cell for the rest of your life because you were using crypto, which shows you were more than casually involved with the political subversives; you planned this out carefully (if badly). Most governments are a lot harsher on people who try to run from them than they are for people who can raise the defense they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or just curious.
How do you say "Big Brother" in arabic?
"Fucking Americans."
the government is out to kill you and dump your body off a bridge
That's disappointing. I insisted on being burned alive while they chanted "She's a witch!"
you accept a crazy exe file over skype from someone not in front of your face.
The file wasn't named crazy.exe, it was named something that, in that country, is a useful tool when you're using internet cafes and open wifi to communicate covertly: Mac address changer.
how do you know where this person is. how do you know he's not arrested and having a gun pointed to his head
Dude, this is the internet. For all you know, I'm a 7 line perl script that became sentient, crawled out of Rob Malda's server, built a robot exoskeleton, and now lives down a manhole in Brooklyn. That doesn't mean you just stop talking with people, or the rest of the world. Sometimes the benefits of communication, even in a hostile medium, outweigh the risks. As a political activist, you have to talk to strangers, and people who may not be who they say they are; How do they know you aren't the government spook... or sentient 7 line perl script?
A certain degree of trust is necessary in all communications.
If he knew that the other activist had already been arrested, why would you accept a chat from them AND then accept a file transfer from them?
People occasionally get released from jail.
Do these activists not use some super secret codes to tell each other they are who they say they are?
No. They're political activists, not James Bond.
When the file comes from a trusted source, it's not stupid. You have to trust someone eventually; The OS manufacturer (ie, Apple, Microsoft, etc.), the distributor (the person making the DVDs), etc. Trusting a friend isn't stupid, it's what most people would do. That's exactly why so many different worms try to propagate using a person's address book; Human trust networks.
It was only stupid that he didn't scan the file first, not that he accepted the download. And if said malware is custom-designed, it wouldn't be in any anti-malware/anti-virus definitions, and so he could do everything right and still wind up screwed. How many governments have asked that their malware not be added to the definition files again? ALL OF THEM.
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew nothing about any such plan), I am not legally obligated to try to prevent it, even if I am behind the guy and have a monkey wrench in my hand and could easily bash his skull in to prevent the robbery.
That's correct -- because you cannot be expected to put yourself in harm's way. However, as you indicated earlier; your obligation to report it as quickly as possible once you are out of harm's way remains.
Also, if my neighbor steals my gun when I am not looking, and goes out and shoots somebody with it, I am generally not liable even though it was my gun he did it with.
Again, correct, but if you leave the gun, say, laying in the street, and your neighbor comes and takes it and then uses it to commit a crime, you are liable: Because not securing your weapon in some fashion is negligent.
If I loan a gun to the neighbor (which is perfectly legal here), and he goes out and shoots somebody with it without telling me about it, I am still not liable. Even though he did it with my gun.
Correct, but if you know he's a convicted felon and you loan it to him, you are liable, because that's negligent on your part.
So, there are lots of situations (almost all situations when there is no foreknowledge), I am simply not obligated to try to prevent someone else from committing a crime. There is no law or even legal principle requiring me to do that.
Correct again, but also again making the lie of omission: A person who sets up a wifi router is responsible for its maintenance. In certain jurisdictions, this can lead to legal liability if not secured; specifically if it is used in the UK or Germany, where the courts have held the owners liable for unsecured wifi routers being used to commit crimes.
You may be interested to know that there are number of different court rulings, including by the Supreme Court that say even the police are not required by law to try to prevent crimes. It might be part of their job description but there is no law saying they have to.
True, but if a police officer, through negligence, enables the commission of a crime, that is another story. And here again, your post doesn't consider what negligence is: Which is not taking action ahead of time when it would have been prudent to do so. Which is all my original post was about.