I find it interesting that he is grappling with how these numbers may be related (true, we don't have a Unified Theory just yet) and that they are seemingly random, but at the same time just right. One observation, though, is that they are all in the decimal number system (duh). Might they be more meaningful in some other system? I wouldn't expect binary or hexadecimal to be any more meaningful partially because that's a very linear translation, but there's bound to be other systems.
I'm not familiar with all the number and coordinate systems out there, but just for arguments sake take polar coordinates. Converting from decimal to polar isn't linear--it's governed by trigonometric functions. Is it possible that these six important numbers will show a greater interrelation by using some other known number system?
I'm glad you see my point... because "it's possible to commit a crime with it" isn't sufficient grounds for declaring something illegal. Might as well ban all pencils since it's possible to kill someone with them (jugular interuption or upper palate/brain penetration) or keys since people's cars get keyed.
You're right--innocent until proven guilty. That's one way to express the philosophy that the ultimate responsibility for actions rests on the individual. There are legitimate uses for Napster and DeCSS which should go unpunished--illegitimate ones should be investigated. That's one reason this is all out of hand--just bring up the analogy of a video rental store or a library and the RIAA and MPAA's brains would melt because they'd instantly realize the craziness of their arguments.
Have you noticed that few, if any, Napster advocates are arguing that it should be legal to purchase a copy of Windows 2000 and share it with a community of Windows fans on the Internet via a peer-to-peer networking system? Why not? Is it because there are no fans or potential fnas of Windows 2000?
This is an apples and oranges argument. "Why not?" Because if you are already an owner of Windows 2000, then you already have a copy in data format. When I download an MP3 from Napster, it's because I don't want to take the time to rip and encode the tracks of my CDs--I have them in audio format, but not data format. Napster saves me the time. That's why, Mr. Petreley.
Schneier writes, "he's going to choose the dancing pigs over computer security any day."
That's one of the reasons Schneier rocks as hard as he does. He's a down-to-earth kind of renaissance man and he's pretty much always been like that in the years I've known him. Not only is he one of the best 10 or 50 cryptographers in the world (of which about 40 are probably NSA), but he's a regular guy. I had the good fortune to see Richard Thieme speak and he's similar in that regard (though he's more of a humanities guy than a science guy).
I read something recently describing a self-proclaimed epiphany he experienced a few years ago that set him in the direction of holistic security versus the crypto-heavy approach he favored since he entered the field. I'd be curious to know more about it because I felt he's always had a hint of that approach. Just go back and read his essays "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks" and "Security Pitfalls in Cryptography"... substitute "cryptography" for "computer security" or "network security" and you'll see what I mean.
In 1996 I think it was, Bruce, Niels Ferguson, and I were working on the problem of creating a file system offering plausible deniability of the existence of any files the user wanted to keep secret. We came up with some really neat ideas on how to avoid creating proof that certain files existed. I think it would have worked, but I made the realization that it wouldn't work successfully with technology of the day. Microsoft Word (heck, the Start -> Documents listing broke us too) will list the last several documents accessed: what if one of them was supposed to remain secret? If it's hidden, but the attacker sees you modified it and they can't find it, the game is over--you can't deny it exists and the system is broken.
Why is this such a big problem? Because if we were to create a special OS and set of applications that didn't track that stuff, the only people who would use it were those with something to hide (this wasn't a court of law--we couldn't assume you were innocent until proven guilty). So, the user loses the game before it even started simply by having that special OS and application set.
How does one create a file system for something like this? All the file systems I know of rely on some sort of "static landmark" from which to begin... the first track, the last track, whatever--it doesn't matter so long as it doesn't move and the access hardware (the drive) knows where to find it and start reading. It's difficult to fathom relying on this paradigm when the matter used to store information can change simply by bumping/dropping/shaking the vial.
The only thing I can think of on how to solve this is to use heterogeneous elements/molecules to store information. If there's only one water molecule and our fictional access drive/vial reader knows that H20 is where the file system starts, then it merely scans for it and uses the state of one of it's components to point it to the next "block."
In the ever-expanding rush for bandwidth, this frankly doesn't surprise me very much. The demographic that DSL is marketed to right now (re: residential home (l)users with their first computer wanting to surf the Net) either wouldn't notice, wouldn't care, or wouldn't understand what's going on if someone who has half a clue wasn't poking around and running tests.
Being a control-freak power-user myself, I'd be upset especially since many of these regions don't have any alternative to DSL. People in my neck of the woods could get cable, but this is another example of corporate strong-arming for the bottom line earnings-per-share and shareholder equity rather than customer service and quality. It's a shame.
There are legitimate points about deleting the posts containing the entire text of the spec, but there is little basis for Microsoft to contend that it is a trade secret and this would essentially nullify a portion of their argument. The copyright matter may be degraded as well.
Slashdot cannot allow itself to eliminate open analysis, page references, or discussion about widely available material (or even not-so-widely available material). One can download something from Microsoft's site, do some research, and make comments. There's nothing wrong with that, even if the research indicates how to circumvent committing to an EULA.
Microsoft pressures it's own business partners--what would happen if it is successful at doing so to the anti-Microsoft's of the world?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not familiar with all the number and coordinate systems out there, but just for arguments sake take polar coordinates. Converting from decimal to polar isn't linear--it's governed by trigonometric functions. Is it possible that these six important numbers will show a greater interrelation by using some other known number system?
Let 2 = 3 (it's a variable even though conventionally variables are letters--here, I break with convention).
2 + 2 = 5
Indeed.
You're right--innocent until proven guilty. That's one way to express the philosophy that the ultimate responsibility for actions rests on the individual. There are legitimate uses for Napster and DeCSS which should go unpunished--illegitimate ones should be investigated. That's one reason this is all out of hand--just bring up the analogy of a video rental store or a library and the RIAA and MPAA's brains would melt because they'd instantly realize the craziness of their arguments.
Have you noticed that few, if any, Napster advocates are arguing that it should be legal to purchase a copy of Windows 2000 and share it with a community of Windows fans on the Internet via a peer-to-peer networking system? Why not? Is it because there are no fans or potential fnas of Windows 2000?
This is an apples and oranges argument. "Why not?" Because if you are already an owner of Windows 2000, then you already have a copy in data format. When I download an MP3 from Napster, it's because I don't want to take the time to rip and encode the tracks of my CDs--I have them in audio format, but not data format. Napster saves me the time. That's why, Mr. Petreley.
That's one of the reasons Schneier rocks as hard as he does. He's a down-to-earth kind of renaissance man and he's pretty much always been like that in the years I've known him. Not only is he one of the best 10 or 50 cryptographers in the world (of which about 40 are probably NSA), but he's a regular guy. I had the good fortune to see Richard Thieme speak and he's similar in that regard (though he's more of a humanities guy than a science guy).
I read something recently describing a self-proclaimed epiphany he experienced a few years ago that set him in the direction of holistic security versus the crypto-heavy approach he favored since he entered the field. I'd be curious to know more about it because I felt he's always had a hint of that approach. Just go back and read his essays "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks" and "Security Pitfalls in Cryptography"... substitute "cryptography" for "computer security" or "network security" and you'll see what I mean.
In 1996 I think it was, Bruce, Niels Ferguson, and I were working on the problem of creating a file system offering plausible deniability of the existence of any files the user wanted to keep secret. We came up with some really neat ideas on how to avoid creating proof that certain files existed. I think it would have worked, but I made the realization that it wouldn't work successfully with technology of the day. Microsoft Word (heck, the Start -> Documents listing broke us too) will list the last several documents accessed: what if one of them was supposed to remain secret? If it's hidden, but the attacker sees you modified it and they can't find it, the game is over--you can't deny it exists and the system is broken.
Why is this such a big problem? Because if we were to create a special OS and set of applications that didn't track that stuff, the only people who would use it were those with something to hide (this wasn't a court of law--we couldn't assume you were innocent until proven guilty). So, the user loses the game before it even started simply by having that special OS and application set.
Keep on "keeping on", Bruce.
The only thing I can think of on how to solve this is to use heterogeneous elements/molecules to store information. If there's only one water molecule and our fictional access drive/vial reader knows that H20 is where the file system starts, then it merely scans for it and uses the state of one of it's components to point it to the next "block."
Thoughts?
Being a control-freak power-user myself, I'd be upset especially since many of these regions don't have any alternative to DSL. People in my neck of the woods could get cable, but this is another example of corporate strong-arming for the bottom line earnings-per-share and shareholder equity rather than customer service and quality. It's a shame.
Slashdot cannot allow itself to eliminate open analysis, page references, or discussion about widely available material (or even not-so-widely available material). One can download something from Microsoft's site, do some research, and make comments. There's nothing wrong with that, even if the research indicates how to circumvent committing to an EULA.
Microsoft pressures it's own business partners--what would happen if it is successful at doing so to the anti-Microsoft's of the world?