Instead of voting for a candidate, have the electorate vote on a number of issues (combination of recent past issues and issues on the docket). Then take the average, and the candidate of the political party that is closest to the average, wins. Parties can do whatever they want to determine candidates.
Down side is that for those who already feel like voting is like busy homework, this will add to the load.
Or stop using plurality. The down side of this is lack of a two party system as an emergent property and more politicians to own.
The jurisdictions with sales taxes should get together and create an internet sales tax clearinghouse. Set it up so the seller can send the necessary information to the clearinghouse at the time of sale and it returns the amount of sales tax delivered based on the address of delivery and the kind of item being bought.
It is a great idea but there is nothing in it for The States. If they had to make a true accounting of the costs of maintaining such an operation, it would undermine placing this burden on others.
California proposed that with the Columbia river being the target. In a fit of rationality, Oregon realized that California would never forgo altering the deal and declined to participate.
It is not suppose to happen without a warrant now but it does. The key escrow proposals all allow mass surveillance. Even the DoJ's position is that copying, decrypting, and automated searching of traffic is not a search for purposes of 4th amendment protections.
I think it's hilarious that they don't realize that it's their own insatiable desire to spy on everyone that is the primary driving force behind the spread of encrypted communications. That they don't realize this truth makes it all the more funny.
The law will not be to legalize it. They will conduct mass surveillance whether it is openly legal or not. What the law will do is make it seem that they are not conducting mass surveillance to lower the demand for ubiquitous encryption. I would prefer that they just make mass surveillance openly legal since it is going to happen anyway creating more demand to deploy ubiquitous encryption.
Would this frustrate lawful interception? Yes, and I do not care. If they wanted me to trust them, then they should have scrupulously obeyed the constitution to begin with.
This. Even if it was mandated tomorrow that all encrypted communications shall use X cipher to which the government has a backdoor and through magic psychic software it actually cannot be decrypted without proper cause and judicial review, there's not anything that would prevent the payload from being encrypted again using a different system, and there would be no way to tell without actually decrypting the outer wrapper.
They could pass a statute making it unlawful to use unapproved encryption. If a jurisdictional hook was needed, then link it with using hardware which has traveled or affected interstate commerce. So like travel, you are free to walk anywhere you want or encrypt using pen and paper but using public transport requires ID as is currently the case.
If the NSA gets their way, we won't be able to do banking online, because it won't be possible to secure the transactions.
Just to elucidate on this point, any secure authentication scheme can also be used for secure encryption so weakening encryption means also weakening authentication allowing the government and bad actors to forge authentication.
I'd also wager that the 1st amendment protects encryption. I can communicate using any language I wish. In this case, I communicate in AES256. If you don't understand it, that's on you to figure out and not up to me to explain it to you. Also, I agree 100%, unbreakable encryption is not going to go away - the genie is already out of the bottle.
It would be an interesting legal fight. Are there any other "national security" secrets which the 1st amendment does not protect? They could certainly make it unlawful to export products using unapproved encryption and based on jurisprudence of the interstate commerce clause, make it unlawful to use or posses unapproved encryption products for use across state lines or within a state.
If encryption is breakable with a large amount of effort, then it does several useful things...
The definition of a "large amount of effort" regarding computing resources is neither static nor simple. "Large" for LAPD? "Large" for a Chinese bitcoin mine? "Large" for the FBI? "Large" after 5 years of advancements?
The US Supreme court said that a "limited time" may compass any specifically defined amount of time. We can absolutely calculate how long it will take to brute for any encryption method which is not a one time pad. So it takes only a "limited time" to break any commercially used encryption. What was his complaint again?
#4: As has been repeatedly demonstrated, there are no "domestic whistle blower" options, except to go to solitary deep prison with minimal government-controlled access and all evidence in your defense sealed for "national security" reasons.
To elaborate on this, Snowden was a contractor so most of the statutory whistle-blower protections did not apply to him. Also from previous incidents, we know that the statutory whistle-blower protections only serve to give whistle-blowers a false sense of security because they do not work to protect whistle-blowers. Or rather they do work... to lure them out and expose them to retaliation.
Actually, here in Southern California, home owners are responsible for clearing off the brush around their house, even if the brush is on public land. And, if they don't, the city or county will come in, clear the brush and charge the home's owner. Of course, that's only done once a year, so there's often dry brush waiting to be cleared and that can easily burn. And, as far as controlled burns go, they do get done when conditions are right, but tend to get put off during droughts to avoid having them get out of hand.
And I remember a case (pre-internet so no way to look it up) from when I lived there were the EPA or California equivalent prevented homeowners from clearing brush to protect a sensitive habitat. The lawsuit after their houses burnt down due to a brush fire went nowhere.
Then Congress was neglectful in its duties, and should be chastised for not following through in its legal obligations towards the citizens of Puerto Rico in managing the territorial government.
Now they're paying the price of their own negligence. Well, not really, they're avoiding it, but hey, what else do you expect?
Congress has no legal (literally) obligations toward citizens anywhere. Just like law enforcement has no legal obligations to protect citizens and even enjoys immunity when harming them.
No, the example code only affected Intel. The underlying exploit exist in AMD and ARM64 as well.
The original paper postulated as to why their code wouldn't run on AMD and even went so far as stating it may work on AMD with some optimization or on chips with different execution pipeline sizes. https://meltdownattack.com/mel...
However, for both ARM and AMD, the toy example as described in Section 3 works reliably, indicating that out-of-order execution generally occurs and instructions past illegal memory accesses are also performed.
The paper shows a timing variation indicating that speculated instructions caused memory access but *not* that the specific memory was accessed, For instance those may have been page table accesses needed to load a TLB before permissions were checked. Nothing indicates that speculated instructions which relied on a load from the targeted protected memory location were executed.
Stop talking about Spectre. There is no fix for Meltdown. Meltdown is much more severe. You cannot fix it in software, only mitigate it. You have been fooled, or you are being intentionally misleading.
Meltdown is the one which can be fixed in software. Flush the TLBs and do not share them between privilege levels. Unfortunately doing so incurs a significant performance penalty during privilege changes.
it's a fundamental design flaw with speculative execution. Poor security is a bug, but they delivered everything they promised on the box. This is not a simple patch. It's a complete redesign of a huge section of the die
It is a design flaw with Intel's implementation of speculative execution which does speculative loads before checking permissions. The only necessary redesign is to check the permissions before executing the speculative load instead of at instruction retirement.
The only benefit to what Intel did is to execute speculative code that causes faults more quickly.
I find it hard to believe that any software patch is managing to brick a PC. Short of flashing the BIOS, it's almost impossible to brick a PC with software. A simple format/reinstall will recover the PC without issues.
For most users of Windows, that is a distinction without a difference.
How much did Intel pay M$ to brick AMD systems? *tightens tin foil hat*
They did not have to pay anything if Intel had a hand in writing the patches which is likely the case. Why would they test to see if it failed on AMD processors? That is AMD's responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of voting for a candidate, have the electorate vote on a number of issues (combination of recent past issues and issues on the docket). Then take the average, and the candidate of the political party that is closest to the average, wins. Parties can do whatever they want to determine candidates.
Down side is that for those who already feel like voting is like busy homework, this will add to the load.
Or stop using plurality. The down side of this is lack of a two party system as an emergent property and more politicians to own.
Over half of Americans don't know who the vice president is.
The president of the Senate? Who cares?
The jurisdictions with sales taxes should get together and create an internet sales tax clearinghouse. Set it up so the seller can send the necessary information to the clearinghouse at the time of sale and it returns the amount of sales tax delivered based on the address of delivery and the kind of item being bought.
It is a great idea but there is nothing in it for The States. If they had to make a true accounting of the costs of maintaining such an operation, it would undermine placing this burden on others.
If it functions as well as other GMC vehicles, then it will be completely safe as it just sits there.
California proposed that with the Columbia river being the target. In a fit of rationality, Oregon realized that California would never forgo altering the deal and declined to participate.
Actually, California has fared reasonably well, and has a sustainable approach to water management in general.
Owen's Valley was a great success.
It is not suppose to happen without a warrant now but it does. The key escrow proposals all allow mass surveillance. Even the DoJ's position is that copying, decrypting, and automated searching of traffic is not a search for purposes of 4th amendment protections.
I think it's hilarious that they don't realize that it's their own insatiable desire to spy on everyone that is the primary driving force behind the spread of encrypted communications. That they don't realize this truth makes it all the more funny.
The law will not be to legalize it. They will conduct mass surveillance whether it is openly legal or not. What the law will do is make it seem that they are not conducting mass surveillance to lower the demand for ubiquitous encryption. I would prefer that they just make mass surveillance openly legal since it is going to happen anyway creating more demand to deploy ubiquitous encryption.
Would this frustrate lawful interception? Yes, and I do not care. If they wanted me to trust them, then they should have scrupulously obeyed the constitution to begin with.
What — exactly — do you expect Microsoft to do?
I expect them to not apply a performance sapping patch to my AMD system which does not require it.
This. Even if it was mandated tomorrow that all encrypted communications shall use X cipher to which the government has a backdoor and through magic psychic software it actually cannot be decrypted without proper cause and judicial review, there's not anything that would prevent the payload from being encrypted again using a different system, and there would be no way to tell without actually decrypting the outer wrapper.
They could pass a statute making it unlawful to use unapproved encryption. If a jurisdictional hook was needed, then link it with using hardware which has traveled or affected interstate commerce. So like travel, you are free to walk anywhere you want or encrypt using pen and paper but using public transport requires ID as is currently the case.
If the NSA gets their way, we won't be able to do banking online, because it won't be possible to secure the transactions.
Just to elucidate on this point, any secure authentication scheme can also be used for secure encryption so weakening encryption means also weakening authentication allowing the government and bad actors to forge authentication.
I'd also wager that the 1st amendment protects encryption. I can communicate using any language I wish. In this case, I communicate in AES256. If you don't understand it, that's on you to figure out and not up to me to explain it to you. Also, I agree 100%, unbreakable encryption is not going to go away - the genie is already out of the bottle.
It would be an interesting legal fight. Are there any other "national security" secrets which the 1st amendment does not protect? They could certainly make it unlawful to export products using unapproved encryption and based on jurisprudence of the interstate commerce clause, make it unlawful to use or posses unapproved encryption products for use across state lines or within a state.
If encryption is breakable with a large amount of effort, then it does several useful things...
The definition of a "large amount of effort" regarding computing resources is neither static nor simple. "Large" for LAPD? "Large" for a Chinese bitcoin mine? "Large" for the FBI? "Large" after 5 years of advancements?
The US Supreme court said that a "limited time" may compass any specifically defined amount of time. We can absolutely calculate how long it will take to brute for any encryption method which is not a one time pad. So it takes only a "limited time" to break any commercially used encryption. What was his complaint again?
#4: As has been repeatedly demonstrated, there are no "domestic whistle blower" options, except to go to solitary deep prison with minimal government-controlled access and all evidence in your defense sealed for "national security" reasons.
To elaborate on this, Snowden was a contractor so most of the statutory whistle-blower protections did not apply to him. Also from previous incidents, we know that the statutory whistle-blower protections only serve to give whistle-blowers a false sense of security because they do not work to protect whistle-blowers. Or rather they do work ... to lure them out and expose them to retaliation.
Intel probably submitted the fix to Microsoft, and Microsoft's wonderful QA/QC team tested this (not likely) and got it ready for distribution.
If you think about it, wouldn't Intel want all CPUs to have a significant performance penalty and not just their chips?
It is not Intel's responsibility to not issue patches which break AMD's processors.
Actually, here in Southern California, home owners are responsible for clearing off the brush around their house, even if the brush is on public land. And, if they don't, the city or county will come in, clear the brush and charge the home's owner. Of course, that's only done once a year, so there's often dry brush waiting to be cleared and that can easily burn. And, as far as controlled burns go, they do get done when conditions are right, but tend to get put off during droughts to avoid having them get out of hand.
And I remember a case (pre-internet so no way to look it up) from when I lived there were the EPA or California equivalent prevented homeowners from clearing brush to protect a sensitive habitat. The lawsuit after their houses burnt down due to a brush fire went nowhere.
Then Congress was neglectful in its duties, and should be chastised for not following through in its legal obligations towards the citizens of Puerto Rico in managing the territorial government.
Now they're paying the price of their own negligence. Well, not really, they're avoiding it, but hey, what else do you expect?
Congress has no legal (literally) obligations toward citizens anywhere. Just like law enforcement has no legal obligations to protect citizens and even enjoys immunity when harming them.
Is wireless charging any faster than wired? How much less efficient is it?
It might be as fast but it is less efficient.
What's the range? Do I still need to put my phone on a dedicated slab, or can it charge from across the hallway?
Contact range.
No, the example code only affected Intel. The underlying exploit exist in AMD and ARM64 as well.
The original paper postulated as to why their code wouldn't run on AMD and even went so far as stating it may work on AMD with some optimization or on chips with different execution pipeline sizes.
https://meltdownattack.com/mel...
However, for both ARM and AMD, the toy example as described in Section 3 works reliably, indicating that out-of-order execution generally occurs and instructions past illegal memory accesses are also performed.
The paper shows a timing variation indicating that speculated instructions caused memory access but *not* that the specific memory was accessed, For instance those may have been page table accesses needed to load a TLB before permissions were checked. Nothing indicates that speculated instructions which relied on a load from the targeted protected memory location were executed.
Stop talking about Spectre. There is no fix for Meltdown. Meltdown is much more severe. You cannot fix it in software, only mitigate it. You have been fooled, or you are being intentionally misleading.
Meltdown is the one which can be fixed in software. Flush the TLBs and do not share them between privilege levels. Unfortunately doing so incurs a significant performance penalty during privilege changes.
it's a fundamental design flaw with speculative execution. Poor security is a bug, but they delivered everything they promised on the box. This is not a simple patch. It's a complete redesign of a huge section of the die
It is a design flaw with Intel's implementation of speculative execution which does speculative loads before checking permissions. The only necessary redesign is to check the permissions before executing the speculative load instead of at instruction retirement.
The only benefit to what Intel did is to execute speculative code that causes faults more quickly.
I find it hard to believe that any software patch is managing to brick a PC. Short of flashing the BIOS, it's almost impossible to brick a PC with software. A simple format/reinstall will recover the PC without issues.
For most users of Windows, that is a distinction without a difference.
Why is a Meltdown patch affecting AMD? Only commercially avaiable Intel processors are affected by Meltdown.
Because it would be unfair to Intel for only Intel processors to lose performance.
How much did Intel pay M$ to brick AMD systems?
*tightens tin foil hat*
They did not have to pay anything if Intel had a hand in writing the patches which is likely the case. Why would they test to see if it failed on AMD processors? That is AMD's responsibility.
It is some kind of american thing - to have a stupid female voice acting like a real "wife" and no way to fuck it.
At least the artificial wife doesn't take all of your wealth and children in the divorce until they change the EULA.