Touche. One of my personal mottos is "You can't achieve what you have already decided is impossible." Thanks for reminding me of it -- however, there is sufficient doubt in the potential of the current system to, in my mind, render it completely invalid from the standpoint of authentication.
If I were to guess, it would be due to the two buffers X windows uses
How does that explain the fact that I had to manually type in the above quote, and I'm running Windows 7?
It's fucking ridiculous, it happens with no other site but this one, and the fact that Slashdot has done nothing to fix it in the past MONTH that it's been going on, is absolutely incomprehensible to me. What. The. Fuck. Find the problem and fix it.
Even if it's somehow a bug in Chrome, I laugh out loud at the prospect of switching away from my preferred browser because one site on the Internet can't be assed to worked around the problem. I'd rather abandon Slashdot than abandon Chrome, and that's saying something.
You sound like you're much more familiar with optics than me, though I have a bunch of experience on the digital (DSP) side which might assist me. At any rate, whether there is moire or not (I'd call it aliasing and/or nonlinear distortion, not "moire" but I get your point), the produced image will be properly signed by the camera. If the digital signature is to be used as some sort of proof-positive of authenticity, then whoever consumes that image should assume it is authentic.
Of course, the image is manipulated, and that might be discovered by examination. Which means the digital signature itself is of no use in authenticating the image -- and if that's the case, why bother having it? That's really my point. This system seems mostly useless to me.
A sub-micron stage could probably be used to position the camera to line up the projected pixels exactly on top of the CCD elements. I bet you could do well enough to make it impossible to tell by anyone but the most seasoned expert in photoanalysis. And if you need to call in an expert, that same expert will quite easily be able to determine that the image has been retouched. Which, again, makes the entire system quite a waste of time.
If anything give him a screwdriver and let him take it apart tell him what all the parts do and possibly even get it back together.
Putting it back together would not be possible. My dad worked for Cadwell Labs and he came home once with a broken EEG machine. The entire thing. It probably cost $100k brand new. Anyway, I was encouraged to disassemble it. I did this primarily with a hammer, but occasionally I employed a screwdriver to pry the surface mount components off the various daughter boards. The only part of the machine that my dad didn't let me play with was the CRT, since he knew the first thing I'd do is smash it with the hammer, and end up slashing myself on broken glass.
That was when I was 9 or so. I can only imagine what tactics I would have used had I been 4.
I seriously don't know how I'm going to raise my own kid without ending up in prison. I took an old toaster once and cut the cord off it, stripped the ends, plugged it in and stuck it into a drinking glass full of salt water. Hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine spewed out (I had just read about electrolysis in the encyclopedia). As I withdrew the leads from the salt water, they arced, which of course ignited the gas mixture with a big enough POP to shatter the upper part of the drinking glass, while simultaneously tripping the circuit breaker. When mom got home she was mad that I'd gotten the floor wet.
When I wasn't busy with that, I was doing other things like burning elemental sulfur in a tablespoon in the middle of the kitchen, boiling onions in water then pouring the water into Mason jars and tucking them under the sink to see what sort of organisms would or would not grow on it, and connecting rabbit-ear antennas to 12-volt lantern batteries then clamping my head between them (turns out 12V isn't enough to shock you, but I was trying to).
I can hardly believe that these days I just sit at a desk and write code.
Plus who's to say it's something to worry about at all.
I don't think my three year old would be traumatized by it either, but I sure as hell will not allow it. What would happen if he mentions it while in preschool? "My dad lets me look at naked people on the computer."
My kid, you know, needs a dad who is not in a federal penitentiary.
No matter how you design the camera the system is not secure. The entire concept is, in fact, impossible to implement. All I need to do is take a picture, retouch it however I want, then project it back into the camera using a high-quality lens system.
Yes, if only we had some way of constantly knowing where we stand with respect to our weekly budget. Something that lets us know from minute to minute whether we're on target for what we've planned. Something like a wallet that provides feedback. Ah, yes. If only we had such a thing.
What kind of fucked up thought process lead you to make the above ridiculous comment? Are you suggesting that people who track their budget via a mobile phone are similarly financially ignorant? Or are you implying that we should keep a running balance in our heads at all times and not rely on anything else? Is doing long-hand addition on paper forbidden as well under your bizarre restrictions? Or are you instead suggesting that we go off of "gut feel" -- that sounds REALLY wise.
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda.
That's okay. We're used to the politicism and commentary. We know that everyone has their own bias. But information is information. I can filter out Julian's particular world view just as easily as I can ignore the ridiculous rantings of Sarah Palin. At any rate, thanks, Julian, for putting the information out there. I'll make of it what I can make of it.
Assange isn't a spy, he's somebody that whistleblowers turn to to dispose of their information. If he doesn't receive a particular piece of information how can he publish it?
Assange is now the target of various levels of government reaction around the world. This puts a name on everything and makes it much harder for those governments to handle the situation by simply having him assassinated. Now it's going to be a lot more complicated to deal with this. Assange is on the run, accused of unlikely-sounding crimes. Yet while on the run the releases of information and the coordination of Wikileaks is ongoing. This raises everything to a very different level. What is happening right now, in one way or another, is extremely important to the world. Is Assange's egotism really the most interesting component of this entire affair? Certainly not to me.
If the little old lady had had the gun visible in the open instead of concealed, she could have avoided the initial approach altogether. They'd see the gun and just go somewhere else.
What if she hadn't drawn fast enough and took a bat to the side of the head instead? I guess I just don't understand this "make my day" kind of attitude where people seem to be itching to pull a gun on someone. Why conceal the thing? Wear it on your hip.
Strangely, these forum posts asking "How to do X" usually end up on the first page of Google results, thereby generating a causal loop in space-time itself which will ultimately expand to encompass the entire solar system. Then the universe blows up. Or something like that.
By what mechanism of cause-and-effect does concealed carry reduce crime? I don't mean what's your argument for it, I mean in reality, when a concealed carry prevents a crime from occurring, what was the chain of events? Describe it for me. How does it happen.
Dogs beg for attention and do whatever we want them to, cats simply don't care what we want and ignore us
You can test a mushroom for poison by seeing if it blackens a silver spoon, you can catch a cold by exposing yourself to low temperatures, and gay people always talk with a lisp. What other ridiculous unfounded unproven bits of superstitious folk wisdom shall we discuss this morning?
Well imagine that. An animal, is able to figure out that physical object can be moved. By observing another animal moving said object. Wow, give the cat a gold star.
Look, cats are cool. And some people are particularly enamored with attitude they seem to carry with them. But the thing is a damn animal. It has no attitude. It has a number of behavioral traits that you, as a human, find familiar and therefore endearing. Apparently, this attachment has clouded your judgment to the point that you consider a cat moving an object to be an act of higher intelligence.
There are other things we could do to save lives. Such as lock everyone in their homes 24/7. Hell, we could sterilize the population so that no children are born who could potentially die somehow. Think of the lives we'll save.
Sorry, idiot, my freedom is more important to me than my longevity.
Corporations should not have ANY right to petition the government under any circumstances
Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different? In any case, a corporation is imaginary and the person doing the talking is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Are you proposing that we strip the rights of those who work for corporations? "If you work for XYZ, then you, as an individual, may not petition the government on matters relating to XYZ." Even better, maybe you want to restrict the right of individuals to peaceably assemble in support of their employer?
Let's look at campaign donations. You say the corps shouldn't be allowed to do it. Okay, instead of the corporation donating directly, they tell the employees "Donate $500 each or you are fired." How are you going to stop that? By regulating it? How Libertarian an approach.
Terrorist: "Well, I had this fancy bomb all put together and I was ready to blow myself and 200 other people out of the sky, but then the damned TSA went and made it illegal to do that. Since I have an instinctive need to obey the laws of the infidels, I suppose my plan is right out the window. Oh well. I guess I'll just walk down to the donut shop and gorge myself. Maybe I'll take up farming. Fava beans, anyone?"
If you're interested in getting a better handle on this bizarre way of thinking, I suggest the book "The Biotic Message" by Walter Remine. Indeed, your roommate may have constructed his own opinions directly on Remine's foundations. You might ask him if he's read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Touche. One of my personal mottos is "You can't achieve what you have already decided is impossible." Thanks for reminding me of it -- however, there is sufficient doubt in the potential of the current system to, in my mind, render it completely invalid from the standpoint of authentication.
If I were to guess, it would be due to the two buffers X windows uses
How does that explain the fact that I had to manually type in the above quote, and I'm running Windows 7?
It's fucking ridiculous, it happens with no other site but this one, and the fact that Slashdot has done nothing to fix it in the past MONTH that it's been going on, is absolutely incomprehensible to me. What. The. Fuck. Find the problem and fix it.
Even if it's somehow a bug in Chrome, I laugh out loud at the prospect of switching away from my preferred browser because one site on the Internet can't be assed to worked around the problem. I'd rather abandon Slashdot than abandon Chrome, and that's saying something.
You sound like you're much more familiar with optics than me, though I have a bunch of experience on the digital (DSP) side which might assist me. At any rate, whether there is moire or not (I'd call it aliasing and/or nonlinear distortion, not "moire" but I get your point), the produced image will be properly signed by the camera. If the digital signature is to be used as some sort of proof-positive of authenticity, then whoever consumes that image should assume it is authentic.
Of course, the image is manipulated, and that might be discovered by examination. Which means the digital signature itself is of no use in authenticating the image -- and if that's the case, why bother having it? That's really my point. This system seems mostly useless to me.
A sub-micron stage could probably be used to position the camera to line up the projected pixels exactly on top of the CCD elements. I bet you could do well enough to make it impossible to tell by anyone but the most seasoned expert in photoanalysis. And if you need to call in an expert, that same expert will quite easily be able to determine that the image has been retouched. Which, again, makes the entire system quite a waste of time.
If anything give him a screwdriver and let him take it apart tell him what all the parts do and possibly even get it back together.
Putting it back together would not be possible. My dad worked for Cadwell Labs and he came home once with a broken EEG machine. The entire thing. It probably cost $100k brand new. Anyway, I was encouraged to disassemble it. I did this primarily with a hammer, but occasionally I employed a screwdriver to pry the surface mount components off the various daughter boards. The only part of the machine that my dad didn't let me play with was the CRT, since he knew the first thing I'd do is smash it with the hammer, and end up slashing myself on broken glass.
That was when I was 9 or so. I can only imagine what tactics I would have used had I been 4.
I seriously don't know how I'm going to raise my own kid without ending up in prison. I took an old toaster once and cut the cord off it, stripped the ends, plugged it in and stuck it into a drinking glass full of salt water. Hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine spewed out (I had just read about electrolysis in the encyclopedia). As I withdrew the leads from the salt water, they arced, which of course ignited the gas mixture with a big enough POP to shatter the upper part of the drinking glass, while simultaneously tripping the circuit breaker. When mom got home she was mad that I'd gotten the floor wet.
When I wasn't busy with that, I was doing other things like burning elemental sulfur in a tablespoon in the middle of the kitchen, boiling onions in water then pouring the water into Mason jars and tucking them under the sink to see what sort of organisms would or would not grow on it, and connecting rabbit-ear antennas to 12-volt lantern batteries then clamping my head between them (turns out 12V isn't enough to shock you, but I was trying to).
I can hardly believe that these days I just sit at a desk and write code.
Plus who's to say it's something to worry about at all.
I don't think my three year old would be traumatized by it either, but I sure as hell will not allow it. What would happen if he mentions it while in preschool? "My dad lets me look at naked people on the computer."
My kid, you know, needs a dad who is not in a federal penitentiary.
No matter how you design the camera the system is not secure. The entire concept is, in fact, impossible to implement. All I need to do is take a picture, retouch it however I want, then project it back into the camera using a high-quality lens system.
My first reading of the headline was "Schneier recommends nuclear war." Would have been a more interesting article...
Yes, if only we had some way of constantly knowing where we stand with respect to our weekly budget. Something that lets us know from minute to minute whether we're on target for what we've planned. Something like a wallet that provides feedback. Ah, yes. If only we had such a thing.
What kind of fucked up thought process lead you to make the above ridiculous comment? Are you suggesting that people who track their budget via a mobile phone are similarly financially ignorant? Or are you implying that we should keep a running balance in our heads at all times and not rely on anything else? Is doing long-hand addition on paper forbidden as well under your bizarre restrictions? Or are you instead suggesting that we go off of "gut feel" -- that sounds REALLY wise.
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda.
That's okay. We're used to the politicism and commentary. We know that everyone has their own bias. But information is information. I can filter out Julian's particular world view just as easily as I can ignore the ridiculous rantings of Sarah Palin. At any rate, thanks, Julian, for putting the information out there. I'll make of it what I can make of it.
Assange isn't a spy, he's somebody that whistleblowers turn to to dispose of their information. If he doesn't receive a particular piece of information how can he publish it?
Ah, I see. If organization XYZ says something then it must be true. Also, Google isn't evil. I mean, they said so. Duh.
Assange is now the target of various levels of government reaction around the world. This puts a name on everything and makes it much harder for those governments to handle the situation by simply having him assassinated. Now it's going to be a lot more complicated to deal with this. Assange is on the run, accused of unlikely-sounding crimes. Yet while on the run the releases of information and the coordination of Wikileaks is ongoing. This raises everything to a very different level. What is happening right now, in one way or another, is extremely important to the world. Is Assange's egotism really the most interesting component of this entire affair? Certainly not to me.
How is a Bose-Einstein condensate of photons any different than regular ol' standing wave?
If the little old lady had had the gun visible in the open instead of concealed, she could have avoided the initial approach altogether. They'd see the gun and just go somewhere else.
What if she hadn't drawn fast enough and took a bat to the side of the head instead? I guess I just don't understand this "make my day" kind of attitude where people seem to be itching to pull a gun on someone. Why conceal the thing? Wear it on your hip.
Strangely, these forum posts asking "How to do X" usually end up on the first page of Google results, thereby generating a causal loop in space-time itself which will ultimately expand to encompass the entire solar system. Then the universe blows up. Or something like that.
Deliberately discarding the reasonable solution doesn't make him any less stupid.
By what mechanism of cause-and-effect does concealed carry reduce crime? I don't mean what's your argument for it, I mean in reality, when a concealed carry prevents a crime from occurring, what was the chain of events? Describe it for me. How does it happen.
You're kind of a lunatic, huh?
Dogs beg for attention and do whatever we want them to, cats simply don't care what we want and ignore us
You can test a mushroom for poison by seeing if it blackens a silver spoon, you can catch a cold by exposing yourself to low temperatures, and gay people always talk with a lisp. What other ridiculous unfounded unproven bits of superstitious folk wisdom shall we discuss this morning?
Well imagine that. An animal, is able to figure out that physical object can be moved. By observing another animal moving said object. Wow, give the cat a gold star.
Look, cats are cool. And some people are particularly enamored with attitude they seem to carry with them. But the thing is a damn animal. It has no attitude. It has a number of behavioral traits that you, as a human, find familiar and therefore endearing. Apparently, this attachment has clouded your judgment to the point that you consider a cat moving an object to be an act of higher intelligence.
There are other things we could do to save lives. Such as lock everyone in their homes 24/7. Hell, we could sterilize the population so that no children are born who could potentially die somehow. Think of the lives we'll save.
Sorry, idiot, my freedom is more important to me than my longevity.
Corporations should not have ANY right to petition the government under any circumstances
Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different? In any case, a corporation is imaginary and the person doing the talking is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Are you proposing that we strip the rights of those who work for corporations? "If you work for XYZ, then you, as an individual, may not petition the government on matters relating to XYZ." Even better, maybe you want to restrict the right of individuals to peaceably assemble in support of their employer?
Let's look at campaign donations. You say the corps shouldn't be allowed to do it. Okay, instead of the corporation donating directly, they tell the employees "Donate $500 each or you are fired." How are you going to stop that? By regulating it? How Libertarian an approach.
Terrorist: "Well, I had this fancy bomb all put together and I was ready to blow myself and 200 other people out of the sky, but then the damned TSA went and made it illegal to do that. Since I have an instinctive need to obey the laws of the infidels, I suppose my plan is right out the window. Oh well. I guess I'll just walk down to the donut shop and gorge myself. Maybe I'll take up farming. Fava beans, anyone?"
If you're interested in getting a better handle on this bizarre way of thinking, I suggest the book "The Biotic Message" by Walter Remine. Indeed, your roommate may have constructed his own opinions directly on Remine's foundations. You might ask him if he's read it.