My Blackberry is set with an 8-character moderately complex password, but the key is to have a try limit. If you enter a bad password ten times, my Blackberry will nuke itself clean of all data.
This is definitely a good idea, as long as the data isn't too sensitive. You need to remember that a sufficiently equipped adversary won't be brute forcing your encryption on the Blackberry, but on their own system after they've extracted the encrypted data. Probably one of the best security measures you can have is a physical chip which contains the key, with a physical self destruct after too many attempts. I remember reading an article about a flash drive like this. This of course assumes that you can make this chip very hardened from an attacker extracting the key.
But I mean if it's only someone casual you're worrying about, and not the NSA you're probably fine.
Of course as we all know, the whole thing about prisoner's dilemma is that it falls apart in the long-term.
Wait, don't you have that backwards? The prisoner dilemma as I understand it is ONLY stable in the long-term. If you only perform one iteration of the prisoners dilemma, then the dominant strategy is to choose the "bad" move. However if you can account for there to be many iterations then the maximum profit is found in both parties performing the "good" move, which is easier for large corporations who only have a few rivals.
i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi?... It doesn't work through drywall.
I don't claim to understand this system completely, but that sounds like a feature to me. Crowded apartment building? This gives an alternative to a saturated wifi network.
Just want to make a point here about a common fallacy when doing math in cell phone plans.
If you have a plan for $40 which gives you 450 minutes, it only costs you $40/450=8.9 cents per minute if you use exactly 450 minutes.
For example, If you use 300 minutes in a month, it costs you $40/300 = 13 cents per minute.
If you use 500 minutes in a month, assuming they charge 25 cents per minute overages (the actual number isn't important), then you pay ($40+50*$0.25)=$52.5/500 =11 cents per minute.
This is why tiered plans are deceptive.
I would also be cautious in assuming that since the average phone bill is $36/month that the phone companies are charging $36/month per phone. I would assume that someone as large as a government organization doesn't have to deal with tiered plans, and can just purchase minutes at a set rate. This means that assuming that the price of the phone is negligible (maybe not), the better deal for the organization is simply from whoever bills them a lower rate for the minutes (you or the phone provider).
Most likely though this is a better deal for both of you. You subsidize buying a phone and a plan for the government, and (assuming you would buy a phone anyway for personal use) since you were not using your entire 450 minutes anyway and did not have to increase your plan, you get some of your minutes partially refunded by your employer.
Raising the partial pressure of CO2 exponentially results in a linear increase in the pH.
This is because the Concentration of CO2 in the water is determined using Henry's Law, a linear relationship between partial pressure in the gas and liquid concentration. At the relevant concentrations the concentration of H+ is linearly related to the concentration of CO2 in the water.
If the cracker HAS the hashed password file then your security has already been breached. There's about three things on any system that need access to that file: the login system, the password change system and possibly the admin.
The general idea of hashing passwords is that even if an adversary gains access to the password file it can still be secure. This accounts for things that you might not have foreseen, such as intercepted communications. They don't have to access it in storage necessarily. Now you can always say that your users should be using encrypted connections to your server, but the point of the hash is to have a second line of defense, since a password is a very unique type of information where the data doesn't need to be accessed, simply matched. Even if you encrypt your communications, are you sure it is secure? Will it always be secure?
If we gained less from this than we paid, of course we'd need to either fix the system or abolish it entirely.
The funny thing though, is that I know plenty of people who make music for free, and have no problem even just giving it away. The thing that makes taxi cabs different from music, is that people make music for fun, and will do it for free. I have no doubt that if copyright no longer applied to music, the only people who would stop making music would be the giant corporations who have just turned music in to mass produced shit. Mainstream artists will still be rich, even if they never sold an album, because they'll be able to draw massive crowds to live performances. They just won't be AS rich. However, everyone else will be benefiting from a tremendous boost in culture, when they are able to download as much music as they want from the mainstream artists who are still making money, but would be exposed to more music created by people with no ulterior motive other than to have fun.
Now as a disclaimer, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but I personally think there is no reason being a musician has to be someone's career, it can just be a hobby, which is why if they abolished copyright laws on music tomorrow, I wouldn't have the slightest care about society's wealth of music, because people have and will continue to create it.
...but I still know a LOT of people who forward X over SSH, and there are still a lot of professors who are advising their students (at least in the engineering schools I have seen) to do the same. I guess this is one of those times that just saying, "I use Linux!" will not convey what people think.
I think it wouldn't be too difficult to do one for/. either. All it would have to do is post immediately after the article hits the front page, and say:
"The analysis here is hugely flawed. Sure, they say [something from the summary], but clearly haven't taken into account [something taken into account halfway through the article], so it can hardly be confirmed that [title]."
That's a Score:5, Insightful comment right there.
You left out the critical, "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."
The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
I agree, and what is the problem? When I buy something from anyone else, I don't use it, and then demand my money back. Likewise, Google hosts emails for free, in exchange for the fact that they can look at them at any time and do with them what they please. Why should I be upset when there is a breach in privacy? The only difference between posting a message on Facebook, and sending an email through GMail, is that Google has better security settings. It would be ridiculous to use GMail for anything sensitive, just like it would be ridiculous to use Facebook for anything sensitive.
Most people are lulled into a false sense of security because Google doesn't release email data. It's in their best interest not to. But people forget that they have it all there.
So the second one person has an accident in an autonomous vehicle, you're looking at major liability and lawsuits directed towards the car manufacturer - whether or not it was their fault and whether or not a human driver could have prevented the accident in *any* car. That manufacturer now has to take responsibility for that car versus every idiot on the road, every pedestrian that runs out and everything that can confuse one of its sensors.
I've thought about this problem for a while, and here is my guess how it will proceed. When cars started being made with cruise control, the responsibility in an accident still belonged to the driver. There are cars being built today which automatically apply brakes when they sense an oncoming collision, but in the event of a malfunction or accident, the human driver is ultimately held responsible.
I don't believe anyone is going to drop an autonomous car into the market, but instead it will simply be more and more iterations of the computer taking control. The human driver will always have a manual override though, and will be responsible for the accidents, simply because that was the status quo. My guess is by the time we do get autonomous cars, people probably won't be paying attention to the road since their cars are driving themselves fine anyway, but they will have signed a disclaimer claiming responsibility anyway. I do think there will be uproars when accidents do occur, like we have seen with the Toyota problem, but not for a long while after we have become comfortable with autonomous vehicles will any law change regarding responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
I would probably take precautions if it was me, but is a police raid really an acceptable response to a civil disagreement?
If this is how people think then we have already lost...
She truth, while painful, is good for you.
I remember when my girlfriend dropped a big she-truth on me. It took me a week to recover.
At last, Sony sees the error of their ways in choosing disks over cartridges!
More importantly to me, is whether or not these are implemented using open standards.
Car-to-Car communication isn't helpful when 10% of them use FORD wireless communications, 10% have GM brand Safety wireless etc. etc.
My Blackberry is set with an 8-character moderately complex password, but the key is to have a try limit. If you enter a bad password ten times, my Blackberry will nuke itself clean of all data.
This is definitely a good idea, as long as the data isn't too sensitive. You need to remember that a sufficiently equipped adversary won't be brute forcing your encryption on the Blackberry, but on their own system after they've extracted the encrypted data. Probably one of the best security measures you can have is a physical chip which contains the key, with a physical self destruct after too many attempts. I remember reading an article about a flash drive like this. This of course assumes that you can make this chip very hardened from an attacker extracting the key.
But I mean if it's only someone casual you're worrying about, and not the NSA you're probably fine.
Thanks. That was my misunderstanding.
Of course as we all know, the whole thing about prisoner's dilemma is that it falls apart in the long-term.
Wait, don't you have that backwards? The prisoner dilemma as I understand it is ONLY stable in the long-term. If you only perform one iteration of the prisoners dilemma, then the dominant strategy is to choose the "bad" move. However if you can account for there to be many iterations then the maximum profit is found in both parties performing the "good" move, which is easier for large corporations who only have a few rivals.
It's never a good idea to abuse hyperbole.
You might become overwhelmed by Glorious Leader's use of strength in html.
"Sir, are there three green lights on the modem?"
Yea. They're flashing.
i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? ... It doesn't work through drywall.
I don't claim to understand this system completely, but that sounds like a feature to me. Crowded apartment building? This gives an alternative to a saturated wifi network.
Just want to make a point here about a common fallacy when doing math in cell phone plans.
If you have a plan for $40 which gives you 450 minutes, it only costs you $40/450=8.9 cents per minute if you use exactly 450 minutes.
For example, If you use 300 minutes in a month, it costs you $40/300 = 13 cents per minute.
If you use 500 minutes in a month, assuming they charge 25 cents per minute overages (the actual number isn't important), then you pay ($40+50*$0.25)=$52.5/500 =11 cents per minute.
This is why tiered plans are deceptive.
I would also be cautious in assuming that since the average phone bill is $36/month that the phone companies are charging $36/month per phone. I would assume that someone as large as a government organization doesn't have to deal with tiered plans, and can just purchase minutes at a set rate. This means that assuming that the price of the phone is negligible (maybe not), the better deal for the organization is simply from whoever bills them a lower rate for the minutes (you or the phone provider).
Most likely though this is a better deal for both of you. You subsidize buying a phone and a plan for the government, and (assuming you would buy a phone anyway for personal use) since you were not using your entire 450 minutes anyway and did not have to increase your plan, you get some of your minutes partially refunded by your employer.
Neat fact:
Raising the partial pressure of CO2 exponentially results in a linear increase in the pH.
This is because the Concentration of CO2 in the water is determined using Henry's Law, a linear relationship between partial pressure in the gas and liquid concentration. At the relevant concentrations the concentration of H+ is linearly related to the concentration of CO2 in the water.
Autonomous Turrets? A Trifle. Just send wave after wave of your own men until they reach their preset kill limit.
That's boring, think of all the stuff you could do while...
hold on, I gotta change lanes...
If the cracker HAS the hashed password file then your security has already been breached. There's about three things on any system that need access to that file: the login system, the password change system and possibly the admin.
The general idea of hashing passwords is that even if an adversary gains access to the password file it can still be secure. This accounts for things that you might not have foreseen, such as intercepted communications. They don't have to access it in storage necessarily. Now you can always say that your users should be using encrypted connections to your server, but the point of the hash is to have a second line of defense, since a password is a very unique type of information where the data doesn't need to be accessed, simply matched. Even if you encrypt your communications, are you sure it is secure? Will it always be secure?
Also this
If we gained less from this than we paid, of course we'd need to either fix the system or abolish it entirely.
The funny thing though, is that I know plenty of people who make music for free, and have no problem even just giving it away. The thing that makes taxi cabs different from music, is that people make music for fun, and will do it for free. I have no doubt that if copyright no longer applied to music, the only people who would stop making music would be the giant corporations who have just turned music in to mass produced shit. Mainstream artists will still be rich, even if they never sold an album, because they'll be able to draw massive crowds to live performances. They just won't be AS rich. However, everyone else will be benefiting from a tremendous boost in culture, when they are able to download as much music as they want from the mainstream artists who are still making money, but would be exposed to more music created by people with no ulterior motive other than to have fun.
Now as a disclaimer, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but I personally think there is no reason being a musician has to be someone's career, it can just be a hobby, which is why if they abolished copyright laws on music tomorrow, I wouldn't have the slightest care about society's wealth of music, because people have and will continue to create it.
...but I still know a LOT of people who forward X over SSH, and there are still a lot of professors who are advising their students (at least in the engineering schools I have seen) to do the same. I guess this is one of those times that just saying, "I use Linux!" will not convey what people think.
You mean, "I use GNU/Linux!"
I think it wouldn't be too difficult to do one for /. either. All it would have to do is post immediately after the article hits the front page, and say:
"The analysis here is hugely flawed. Sure, they say [something from the summary], but clearly haven't taken into account [something taken into account halfway through the article], so it can hardly be confirmed that [title]."
That's a Score:5, Insightful comment right there.
You left out the critical, "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."
The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
credit
Keep the government off my medicare!
I agree, and what is the problem? When I buy something from anyone else, I don't use it, and then demand my money back. Likewise, Google hosts emails for free, in exchange for the fact that they can look at them at any time and do with them what they please. Why should I be upset when there is a breach in privacy? The only difference between posting a message on Facebook, and sending an email through GMail, is that Google has better security settings. It would be ridiculous to use GMail for anything sensitive, just like it would be ridiculous to use Facebook for anything sensitive.
Most people are lulled into a false sense of security because Google doesn't release email data. It's in their best interest not to. But people forget that they have it all there.
Google Settles Buzz Privacy Suit - Refund Issued to All Gmail Users
So the second one person has an accident in an autonomous vehicle, you're looking at major liability and lawsuits directed towards the car manufacturer - whether or not it was their fault and whether or not a human driver could have prevented the accident in *any* car. That manufacturer now has to take responsibility for that car versus every idiot on the road, every pedestrian that runs out and everything that can confuse one of its sensors.
I've thought about this problem for a while, and here is my guess how it will proceed. When cars started being made with cruise control, the responsibility in an accident still belonged to the driver. There are cars being built today which automatically apply brakes when they sense an oncoming collision, but in the event of a malfunction or accident, the human driver is ultimately held responsible.
I don't believe anyone is going to drop an autonomous car into the market, but instead it will simply be more and more iterations of the computer taking control. The human driver will always have a manual override though, and will be responsible for the accidents, simply because that was the status quo. My guess is by the time we do get autonomous cars, people probably won't be paying attention to the road since their cars are driving themselves fine anyway, but they will have signed a disclaimer claiming responsibility anyway. I do think there will be uproars when accidents do occur, like we have seen with the Toyota problem, but not for a long while after we have become comfortable with autonomous vehicles will any law change regarding responsibility.