RTFA. This isn't for "full signup" sites, this is more like a cross-site cookie. The idea is they don't ask you to register if you're just trying to read something. The idea for the host site is that they'll be able to target (ads|pages|search results) to you based on your whole surfing history (*cough*google ads*cough*) not just that site. As a "bonus" to you, the surfer, you won't have to do anything and the host site could store your preferences (font choices, colors, etc.)
So the 10 million or so 360 owners out there will kind of be screwed because the life of the 360 is all but one good price cut away.
That's a very good point, and I can see that if you get the fanbois to create the momentum that it could easily happen (assuming Microsoft's corresponding price drop won't undercut Sony too badly.)
But there's that pesky "if" again. It's all going to be market dependent.
Maybe we can use the number of 360s sold so far as a guide. As the priciest console ever, sales of it might indicate market saturation. According to gamedaily.biz, MS sold about 5,000,000 as of July. Can we safely expect sales of a more expensive system to be higher? Sure, Sony has a certain cachet, (as I said they've been working hard to squander it) but can they really sell enough at that pricepoint to threaten the 360?
I still think that they're too close to the "gamer PC" to own the market -- As a middle-income dad, I'd never spend $700+games on a special-purpose box when I could have a general purpose PC for less money. For that price I could buy a halfway decent laptop, and come Christmas I'd feel better giving my kid an educational machine rather than a game system. Sony had better do a good job of getting the spoiled rich kids whining:-)
Yeah, and a lot of "old" people fought in WWII, but have no problem buying a Honda car or Sony TV.
Not as many as you think. "A lot" is far from all, and some forms of hatred last beyond all rational boundaries. My father in law was too young to serve in WWII, but to this day won't buy a "jap car".
Anyway, these people are going to keep trotting out Betamax because they won't forget being screwed. You can complain or rationalize all day long but you're not going to change their opinions or their use of Betamax as a bad example. Ever. They're ossified.
Regarding your other points, I haven't read enough of the discussion below to know if they've been raised but I don't agree that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is going to be the magical "profit factor." Sure, some technophiles just gotta have 1080p, but most muggles can barely tell the difference in video between 700i and 1080p.
There were lots of factors that drove Joe Q. Average from VHS to DVD. Resolution was only one, and it wasn't nearly as big as the convenience or durability factors. ("Look, Ma, I don't have to rewind this here DVD thing! We don't have to use the Dale Earnhart Tape Rewinder we got at Radio Shack no more! Don't you throw it out, though, 'cuz I'm puttin' it in my Dale Earnhart memorabilia collection!") But those differentiating factors are all gone now: the DVD format and the Blu-Ray media formats are physically the same (as far as Joe Q. goes.) The only difference in his mind is that Blu-Ray will take a new expensive TV set, and that's a lot of beer money. And you think he'll drop an extra thousand on a PS3 because a number he doesn't really understand goes from 700 to 1080?
This time around, the difference is just not that big to the average consumer. Basically, once you get to this level a console is equivalent to a cheap-end gamer's PC, the kind you wish your dad WOULDN'T buy you for Christmas because deep down you really want the kick-ass Alienware box.
I predict they'll sell a handful of PS3s to some rich fanbois and early adopters, but there won't be enough demand to jumpstart the market in the way you mention. The economy is just too crappy for average people to spend serious money on what they'll perceive as a slim technological advancement.
Don't get me wrong -- Sony will probably make it. I'm just hoping that the wheel of karma continues to turn, because they need some serious changes.
It's all about history. A lot of (old) people are still bitter about having to replace their Betamax VCRs. The feeling of having been screwed by a corporation doesn't fade -- it ossifies in the brain.
It's not an issue of cold facts, it's one of perception. Keep in mind that at this time Sony was widely loved for having produced the Walkman, which was 1979's version of the iPod. I'm not saying Sony went out to deliberately screw the people who adopted Betamax. Far from it, it's obvious that they wanted Betamax to dominate the market. But it didn't, and people felt like they had wasted a huge amount of money trusting their beloved Sony (feel free to adjust a $1000 price tag for a VCR for 25 years of inflation.) When they spent that money, they didn't know it was a gamble or that there was a chance they'd "lose" -- this was Sony!
Now, compound that disappointment with the rest of the restrictions and proprietary media that Sony's shoveled out the doors or supported ever since they entered the production side of the entertainment industry. ATRAC, the copy bit in DAT tapes, Macrovision, Memory Sticks, CSS, HDCP, (and the rootkit fiasco) and you can't help but notice a pattern of general contempt for their customers evolving over the years.
So if a pissed-off grumpy old guy wants to whine about getting burned by Betamax, let him. He's got tons of evidence on his side, even if the facts are slim.
(A lot of people who paid thousands of dollars for non-HDCP HDMI televisions a few years ago are about to enter that same ripped-off state, so look for a fresh crop of bitter young technophiles to adopt a similar attitude towards the makers of their plasma TVs.)
Except the fact that it MORE like "We are the reason Microsoft and Apple even had to put DRM on stuff in the first place, since we told them they couldnt sell our content without the DRM."
Yes, and you really need to pay attention to what I wrote before imagining what I meant.
To paraphrase, I said Sony should try using "anti-DRM" as a publicity stunt -- I never said they should tell the truth.
Sorry, perhaps I'm just jaded because the current U.S. election campaigns all seem to be based on this very idea: "say only the words that sell yourself or slam your opponent, someone else can bother sorting out the truth after the election."
OK, so I misquoted. It was Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi that said this:
"Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
It was the article's author that summed it up as "Want a PS3? Work a little harder!"
From the article, Sony's CEO was quoted as saying "Want a PS3? Work a little harder."
What do I have to do if I happen to like watching the company most actively pushing DRM on us flounder and collapse? How can I personally help to hasten that demise? Work a little harder? Be a little less greedy?
Actually, that's a strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."
Hey, if they're going down the toilet anyway, try a little innovation! Work a little smarter, not harder.
It was actually 8:43 PM local time. I normally wait until after work before hitting the bottle...
Although if you insist on your rabid fanboyism, the next time you're in my hemisphere please feel free to stop by and pick up the next round or two!:-)
It's quite simple, really. Wipe your ass with the Constitution, throw out 38+ years of precedence, and just monitor every single cash-paid phone sold. (You can't prove it was sold to a citizen, therefore it was de facto sold to a 'terrarist'.) Give Motorola a few bucks per vending machine to install cameras with genuine AT&T direct-to-NSA video feeds, overpay a bunch of Halliburton contractors to watch those video feeds, and put a flag on every foreigner (specifically Arabs, of course, but it's not politically correct to admit it) who buys one.
I don't know how much simpler they could make it.
Really, though, as long as they get a photo of each Arab paying cash for a phone, that's all they really need. The NSA will be monitoring all these phones anyway, so I don't see how much difference it makes. Besides, all the phones will have GPS receivers in them. And as long as they believe they're tracking every Moslem in America, Bush will continue to report that we're safer, (at least for as long as we vote Republican.)
OK, this is my last post on the topic, and I'll promise to shut up after it.:-)
First, I said only that VENONA made it obvious that the Rosenbergs (both of them) were guilty. I did not say to what extent that guilt went, nor did I say that they both received fair sentences.
But do I think Julius committed treason, and do I think VENONA corroborates that assumption? Absolutely. Do I think his crime was serious enough to warrant death? That's a different question, but the magnitude of his crimes, and the possibility they may have led to the hostilities on the Korean peninsula, makes me think the chair wasn't an unreasonable sentence.
The real questions surround Ethel's case. Do I think she was also guilty of treason? Yes, and I think VENONA confirms that. But did she participate to the same extent as her husband? Not according to VENONA. So, was she truly deserving of death? Aiding and abetting treason of this magnitude (and with knowledge of what she was participating in) is very serious. But really, that's a much harder judgement to make, and I don't know for sure; I haven't studied the trial, and since it took place before I was born, I certainly didn't get swept up in the emotions of the time.
For the record, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. There certainly are many people on this planet that we no longer have a use for, but I'm not convinced death is an appropriate punishment for two reasons: first, the courts can make mistakes, and have been wrong on many occasions, and you can't undo death. But more importantly is that I don't think there's an afterlife. If you execute someone today, that's it; they won't suffer an eternity with demons poking their backsides with hot pitchforks, they're just dead. If you really want them to suffer for their crimes, the best way is to keep them alive and alone in a little concrete box for the next 60 years or so.
which contradicted what I knew about the case (which could have been wrong or mis-remembered),
It would be easy to have heard something that contradicted this. For decades, the execution of the Rosenbergs was trumpeted as a "show trial" or as the triumph of McCarthyism over the truth. There probably would have been no controversy at all except the CPUSA ran an active misinformation campaign to try to stir up sympathy. It wasn't till the release of Venona that the proof of their crimes was really laid bare.
No, she definitely knew about her husband's role as a ringleader who ran several technical spies, including her brother; the debate is simply about the level of her participation. According to Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes & Harvey Kleher, they write that in VENONA #1657, KGB New York to Moscow of 27 November 1944, the New York center wrote (translated) "Information on LIBERAL's wife. Surname that of her husband, first name Ethel, 29 years old. Married five years. Finished secondary school. A Fellow-countryman [CPUSA member] since 1938. Sufficiently well developed politically. Knows about her husband's work and the role of METER [Joel Barr] and NIL [unidentified agent]. In view of delicate health does not work. Is characterized positively and as a devoted person."
[ Emphasis mine. ]
Combine that with her brother's testimony that she was an active participant in her husband's treason (by typing his notes, although he later recanted this to a reporter, he claimed he lied for more lenient treatment for his wife and children;) her husband's silence rather than coming to her defense; and add the fact that both Rosenbergs (not just Julius) were secretly recommended for Soviet medals.
Now, I'm not a modern day McCarthyite. (Senator McCarthy was a vain, self-serving bastard who didn't care who he trampled upon for personal gain. I think he may have had a hint at the existence of VENONA, and leveraged these rumors to cast suspicion upon anyone who got in his way.) Regardless, the case against Ethel Rosenberg was strong. It was strong enough to have her executed even without the VENONA decrypts being brought up at trial.
That's what I'm wondering: if the S/N ratio adds any security, or if that can be beaten by an opponent who knows the operating frequencies and has a modest amount of skills to track the hopping. I should think that someone could put together a "conversation-follower" in software, perhaps by studying signal strength and the presence of a carrier wave. But it would be difficult, and certainly not easy to put in a handheld receiver usable by guerillas in a combat situation.
Of course with the data being encrypted, that still wouldn't give you the ability to understand it anyway.
It may seem like a mistake for them to reveal their intercept capabilities, but TFA says the Israelies had captured a "listening outpost", and so probably knew this information anyway. But since Israel knows anyway, Hezbollah has now turned this into propaganda: "We are so clever we cracked the Israelies' secret codes."
This is different from the way U.S. intelligence services handle secrets. They maintained the fiction surrounding the Venona decrypts for 50 years. However, the Soviets found out about the project somewhere around 1948 from a spy. And, the U.S. then found out from one of their spies that the Soviets had found out about Venona. So both sides' intelligence agencies knew about the break, yet it was kept secret from the public. Even though the intel was germane to the FBI prosecutions of several traitors, including the Rosenbergs (who were very obviously guilty after having read the Venona decrypts.) The info could also have been used to verify Senator McCarthy's allegations (or prove him wrong.) Lots of good could have come from knowing the truth.
Is there any reason to consider frequency hopping secure, or is that simply adding "security through difficulty"? I understand it has certain resistance to jamming, but couldn't a sophisticated outsider simply have a large set of receivers to monitor all possible hops?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the bank's security.
It has everything to do with security in general. Consider that security is a process, not just an encrypted link between you and the bank. In this particular case, the security comes from BOTH parties understanding how to establish a trusted connection between each other. As a bank, if my customers are falling for phishers, it's because I haven't explicitly given them a secure trusted communication channel, and I haven't educated them in how to establish that trust.
In order to fix this problem, the concept of trust is going to have to be expanded to the users, and probably via a hardware mechanism. (I hate to suggest the TCPA but that might be a part of a possible solution.) The best (and obviously most expensive) fix would be a smart-card reader issued by the bank that would read a smart card also issued by the bank. They'd have to send out a heavily advertised mailing that says "To prevent con-artists from ripping you off, we are disabling online banking until you stop by your local branch to pick up your new 'electronic passbook'." You'd have to physically go to the bank and present a couple forms of photo ID (perhaps a signature verification, too), at which point you'd be issued a smartcard and reader.
The best solution would need to include a "red light / green light" on the smartcard itself, otherwise a phishy web page could simply lie and say "Congratulations, your smart card is working and you are now connected to the bank, please enter your social security number."
Ultimately, though, many people will simply be unable to comprehend security. Misguided tinfoil-hat wearers will preach nonsense and lies such as "the chip is the devil's work" or "it's part of a gubmint plot to track you." Others will find the instructions too complex or too confusing, and for their own security should never bank online; they'll fall prey to future phishers promising to make "online banking easy." Phishers already feed off these gullible people; in order to truly stem the losses will require banks to take a new approach to dealing with customers.
And you're right, forcing customers to at least share in their losses might educate them enough that they seek out a more secure bank.
Actually, I think the pressure to improve security will eventually come from insurance and lawsuits.
Given a few large lawsuits, banks will probably have to sign up for fraud insurance. But if their insurers set their rates based on an assesors' estimate of their security, it'll be in their best interests to improve security to get the cheapest policy possible.
It's how the civil court system and capitalism are supposed to work, anyway. It may just take time (and no freakin' governmental interference by passing "tort reform" limiting the banks' liability, otherwise there will be no financial incentive at all.)
a bank could perhaps continuously move the URLs for images on the bank's site
I like that idea a lot! Use a sessionID-named folder for any URLs that have bank logos, and any requests for logos that use an expired session ID would return an image of a stopsign with the text: "STOP - ERASE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM THIS PAGE - THIS IS A FRAUDULENT WEBSITE!!! SOMEONE IS TRYING TO STEAL YOUR MONEY!!!"
I get maybe one phish every two weeks or so, it takes me about two or three minutes to report it. No skin off my nose, really. Do you like phishers, or getting their bait in your email? Do you think it's OK for them to scam people, just because you don't know the victims in advance?
The faster anybody responds, the faster the phishing web host can be taken down, and the fewer people can be scammed. Fewer victims == fewer profits for the phishers.
They annoy me. A lot. The least I can do is annoy them back by keeping their take as low as possible.
Whenever I receive a phishing email, I immediately capture what I can of it (including headers,) then head to the legitimate site and look for a place to report it. I do this even though I am not a customer of the bank in question. Some banks like Barclay's have easy-to-find "Report fraudulent e-mail here" links, while others seem to go far out of their way to hide any contact information at all.
The banks with the helpful "report here" links also typically have helpful auto-responders, and their sites and form letters at least make it seem like they care about security. The banks who make it hard to hear from their customers usually don't reply at all. If I were shopping for a new bank, I'd definitely stay away from those that don't have an easy-to-find contact point near the front of their site. I get the impression they do not take security or phishing threats seriously at all. They'll probably be the ones that would fight their victims.
I'm in Minnesota as well, so I'm mostly using CF bulbs indoors. I still use tungsten bulbs in all the outdoor lights. I am trying a couple of 29W CF bulbs in the garage where it's usually several degrees warmer than the outside temp, and I'll see how long they last.
I also like the ability to get more light from a fixture rated at 60W. The biggest problem I have with CFs indoors is that I can't use them in chandeliers or other fixtures where the bulbs are a visible part of the design -- they're simply ugly as trolls. (I don't even like using the Reveal bulbs in those because of the purplish color when they're off.)
Oh well. I wish all problems were as simple as light bulb colors.
I find that the failure rate of energy efficient fluorescent bulbs is about the same as normal incandescent bulbs
Ouch! Fortunately, I haven't had the same bad luck as you.
About three years ago I started switching over to compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs as my tungsten bulbs have died. The ones I've bought have a 7 year guarantee (cheapos from Home Depot.) I've taken to writing the install date on them with a sharpie marker before putting them in the fixtures. Yes, I know I'll never find the original receipt so the warranty is most likely useless, but I'm curious to see if they do last as long as advertised.
So far, I haven't replaced any failed CFs. I particularily like having them in the sealed ceiling fixtures as they don't generate nearly the heat of the tungsten bulbs they replace. Yes, I know the fixtures are designed with heat insulation to protect against fire, but 26W simply emits much less heat than 120W. I feel safer.
My UPS (an APC Back-UPS RS 1500) came with their "PowerChute" utility. The "Current status" screen has a 'Load on battery backup' indicator that tells me I'm drawing 268 Watts of power through the UPS right this instant. (That means I'd burn 268 Watt-hours if the computer were to remain in this state for one hour.)
Of course, a 50 pound battery isn't very portable, and I wouldn't drag it around to the refrigerator, dishwasher, lamp, or garage. But I'm mostly interested in the computer's draw anyway, since it's one of the biggest power drains in my house.
If you've already read "1984", go re-read the last paragraph. It'll make sense then.
If you haven't read the book, take a couple of hours. It's short, a quick read, and I promise it's worth it. The full text is even online, if you have no money. But you never know when they're watching the telescreens, though, so you might want to just buy a copy in paperback and read it on a nice park bench.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. This isn't for "full signup" sites, this is more like a cross-site cookie. The idea is they don't ask you to register if you're just trying to read something. The idea for the host site is that they'll be able to target (ads|pages|search results) to you based on your whole surfing history (*cough*google ads*cough*) not just that site. As a "bonus" to you, the surfer, you won't have to do anything and the host site could store your preferences (font choices, colors, etc.)
That's a very good point, and I can see that if you get the fanbois to create the momentum that it could easily happen (assuming Microsoft's corresponding price drop won't undercut Sony too badly.)
But there's that pesky "if" again. It's all going to be market dependent.
Maybe we can use the number of 360s sold so far as a guide. As the priciest console ever, sales of it might indicate market saturation. According to gamedaily.biz, MS sold about 5,000,000 as of July. Can we safely expect sales of a more expensive system to be higher? Sure, Sony has a certain cachet, (as I said they've been working hard to squander it) but can they really sell enough at that pricepoint to threaten the 360?
I still think that they're too close to the "gamer PC" to own the market -- As a middle-income dad, I'd never spend $700+games on a special-purpose box when I could have a general purpose PC for less money. For that price I could buy a halfway decent laptop, and come Christmas I'd feel better giving my kid an educational machine rather than a game system. Sony had better do a good job of getting the spoiled rich kids whining :-)
Not as many as you think. "A lot" is far from all, and some forms of hatred last beyond all rational boundaries. My father in law was too young to serve in WWII, but to this day won't buy a "jap car".
Anyway, these people are going to keep trotting out Betamax because they won't forget being screwed. You can complain or rationalize all day long but you're not going to change their opinions or their use of Betamax as a bad example. Ever. They're ossified.
Regarding your other points, I haven't read enough of the discussion below to know if they've been raised but I don't agree that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is going to be the magical "profit factor." Sure, some technophiles just gotta have 1080p, but most muggles can barely tell the difference in video between 700i and 1080p.
There were lots of factors that drove Joe Q. Average from VHS to DVD. Resolution was only one, and it wasn't nearly as big as the convenience or durability factors. ("Look, Ma, I don't have to rewind this here DVD thing! We don't have to use the Dale Earnhart Tape Rewinder we got at Radio Shack no more! Don't you throw it out, though, 'cuz I'm puttin' it in my Dale Earnhart memorabilia collection!") But those differentiating factors are all gone now: the DVD format and the Blu-Ray media formats are physically the same (as far as Joe Q. goes.) The only difference in his mind is that Blu-Ray will take a new expensive TV set, and that's a lot of beer money. And you think he'll drop an extra thousand on a PS3 because a number he doesn't really understand goes from 700 to 1080?
This time around, the difference is just not that big to the average consumer. Basically, once you get to this level a console is equivalent to a cheap-end gamer's PC, the kind you wish your dad WOULDN'T buy you for Christmas because deep down you really want the kick-ass Alienware box.
I predict they'll sell a handful of PS3s to some rich fanbois and early adopters, but there won't be enough demand to jumpstart the market in the way you mention. The economy is just too crappy for average people to spend serious money on what they'll perceive as a slim technological advancement.
Don't get me wrong -- Sony will probably make it. I'm just hoping that the wheel of karma continues to turn, because they need some serious changes.
It's not an issue of cold facts, it's one of perception. Keep in mind that at this time Sony was widely loved for having produced the Walkman, which was 1979's version of the iPod. I'm not saying Sony went out to deliberately screw the people who adopted Betamax. Far from it, it's obvious that they wanted Betamax to dominate the market. But it didn't, and people felt like they had wasted a huge amount of money trusting their beloved Sony (feel free to adjust a $1000 price tag for a VCR for 25 years of inflation.) When they spent that money, they didn't know it was a gamble or that there was a chance they'd "lose" -- this was Sony!
Now, compound that disappointment with the rest of the restrictions and proprietary media that Sony's shoveled out the doors or supported ever since they entered the production side of the entertainment industry. ATRAC, the copy bit in DAT tapes, Macrovision, Memory Sticks, CSS, HDCP, (and the rootkit fiasco) and you can't help but notice a pattern of general contempt for their customers evolving over the years.
So if a pissed-off grumpy old guy wants to whine about getting burned by Betamax, let him. He's got tons of evidence on his side, even if the facts are slim.
(A lot of people who paid thousands of dollars for non-HDCP HDMI televisions a few years ago are about to enter that same ripped-off state, so look for a fresh crop of bitter young technophiles to adopt a similar attitude towards the makers of their plasma TVs.)
Yes, and you really need to pay attention to what I wrote before imagining what I meant.
To paraphrase, I said Sony should try using "anti-DRM" as a publicity stunt -- I never said they should tell the truth.
Sorry, perhaps I'm just jaded because the current U.S. election campaigns all seem to be based on this very idea: "say only the words that sell yourself or slam your opponent, someone else can bother sorting out the truth after the election."
"Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
It was the article's author that summed it up as "Want a PS3? Work a little harder!"
What do I have to do if I happen to like watching the company most actively pushing DRM on us flounder and collapse? How can I personally help to hasten that demise? Work a little harder? Be a little less greedy?
Actually, that's a strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."
Hey, if they're going down the toilet anyway, try a little innovation! Work a little smarter, not harder.
Although if you insist on your rabid fanboyism, the next time you're in my hemisphere please feel free to stop by and pick up the next round or two! :-)
Ouch. I just reread this and I really should learn to not post while drunk. I'm on the f'cking watch-list for sure, now...
I don't know how much simpler they could make it.
Really, though, as long as they get a photo of each Arab paying cash for a phone, that's all they really need. The NSA will be monitoring all these phones anyway, so I don't see how much difference it makes. Besides, all the phones will have GPS receivers in them. And as long as they believe they're tracking every Moslem in America, Bush will continue to report that we're safer, (at least for as long as we vote Republican.)
First, I said only that VENONA made it obvious that the Rosenbergs (both of them) were guilty. I did not say to what extent that guilt went, nor did I say that they both received fair sentences.
But do I think Julius committed treason, and do I think VENONA corroborates that assumption? Absolutely. Do I think his crime was serious enough to warrant death? That's a different question, but the magnitude of his crimes, and the possibility they may have led to the hostilities on the Korean peninsula, makes me think the chair wasn't an unreasonable sentence.
The real questions surround Ethel's case. Do I think she was also guilty of treason? Yes, and I think VENONA confirms that. But did she participate to the same extent as her husband? Not according to VENONA. So, was she truly deserving of death? Aiding and abetting treason of this magnitude (and with knowledge of what she was participating in) is very serious. But really, that's a much harder judgement to make, and I don't know for sure; I haven't studied the trial, and since it took place before I was born, I certainly didn't get swept up in the emotions of the time.
For the record, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. There certainly are many people on this planet that we no longer have a use for, but I'm not convinced death is an appropriate punishment for two reasons: first, the courts can make mistakes, and have been wrong on many occasions, and you can't undo death. But more importantly is that I don't think there's an afterlife. If you execute someone today, that's it; they won't suffer an eternity with demons poking their backsides with hot pitchforks, they're just dead. If you really want them to suffer for their crimes, the best way is to keep them alive and alone in a little concrete box for the next 60 years or so.
It would be easy to have heard something that contradicted this. For decades, the execution of the Rosenbergs was trumpeted as a "show trial" or as the triumph of McCarthyism over the truth. There probably would have been no controversy at all except the CPUSA ran an active misinformation campaign to try to stir up sympathy. It wasn't till the release of Venona that the proof of their crimes was really laid bare.
[ Emphasis mine. ]
Combine that with her brother's testimony that she was an active participant in her husband's treason (by typing his notes, although he later recanted this to a reporter, he claimed he lied for more lenient treatment for his wife and children;) her husband's silence rather than coming to her defense; and add the fact that both Rosenbergs (not just Julius) were secretly recommended for Soviet medals.
Now, I'm not a modern day McCarthyite. (Senator McCarthy was a vain, self-serving bastard who didn't care who he trampled upon for personal gain. I think he may have had a hint at the existence of VENONA, and leveraged these rumors to cast suspicion upon anyone who got in his way.) Regardless, the case against Ethel Rosenberg was strong. It was strong enough to have her executed even without the VENONA decrypts being brought up at trial.
Of course with the data being encrypted, that still wouldn't give you the ability to understand it anyway.
This is different from the way U.S. intelligence services handle secrets. They maintained the fiction surrounding the Venona decrypts for 50 years. However, the Soviets found out about the project somewhere around 1948 from a spy. And, the U.S. then found out from one of their spies that the Soviets had found out about Venona. So both sides' intelligence agencies knew about the break, yet it was kept secret from the public. Even though the intel was germane to the FBI prosecutions of several traitors, including the Rosenbergs (who were very obviously guilty after having read the Venona decrypts.) The info could also have been used to verify Senator McCarthy's allegations (or prove him wrong.) Lots of good could have come from knowing the truth.
Is there any reason to consider frequency hopping secure, or is that simply adding "security through difficulty"? I understand it has certain resistance to jamming, but couldn't a sophisticated outsider simply have a large set of receivers to monitor all possible hops?
In order to fix this problem, the concept of trust is going to have to be expanded to the users, and probably via a hardware mechanism. (I hate to suggest the TCPA but that might be a part of a possible solution.) The best (and obviously most expensive) fix would be a smart-card reader issued by the bank that would read a smart card also issued by the bank. They'd have to send out a heavily advertised mailing that says "To prevent con-artists from ripping you off, we are disabling online banking until you stop by your local branch to pick up your new 'electronic passbook'." You'd have to physically go to the bank and present a couple forms of photo ID (perhaps a signature verification, too), at which point you'd be issued a smartcard and reader.
The best solution would need to include a "red light / green light" on the smartcard itself, otherwise a phishy web page could simply lie and say "Congratulations, your smart card is working and you are now connected to the bank, please enter your social security number."
Ultimately, though, many people will simply be unable to comprehend security. Misguided tinfoil-hat wearers will preach nonsense and lies such as "the chip is the devil's work" or "it's part of a gubmint plot to track you." Others will find the instructions too complex or too confusing, and for their own security should never bank online; they'll fall prey to future phishers promising to make "online banking easy." Phishers already feed off these gullible people; in order to truly stem the losses will require banks to take a new approach to dealing with customers.
And you're right, forcing customers to at least share in their losses might educate them enough that they seek out a more secure bank.
Given a few large lawsuits, banks will probably have to sign up for fraud insurance. But if their insurers set their rates based on an assesors' estimate of their security, it'll be in their best interests to improve security to get the cheapest policy possible.
It's how the civil court system and capitalism are supposed to work, anyway. It may just take time (and no freakin' governmental interference by passing "tort reform" limiting the banks' liability, otherwise there will be no financial incentive at all.)
I like that idea a lot! Use a sessionID-named folder for any URLs that have bank logos, and any requests for logos that use an expired session ID would return an image of a stopsign with the text: "STOP - ERASE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM THIS PAGE - THIS IS A FRAUDULENT WEBSITE!!! SOMEONE IS TRYING TO STEAL YOUR MONEY!!!"
The faster anybody responds, the faster the phishing web host can be taken down, and the fewer people can be scammed. Fewer victims == fewer profits for the phishers.
They annoy me. A lot. The least I can do is annoy them back by keeping their take as low as possible.
The banks with the helpful "report here" links also typically have helpful auto-responders, and their sites and form letters at least make it seem like they care about security. The banks who make it hard to hear from their customers usually don't reply at all. If I were shopping for a new bank, I'd definitely stay away from those that don't have an easy-to-find contact point near the front of their site. I get the impression they do not take security or phishing threats seriously at all. They'll probably be the ones that would fight their victims.
I also like the ability to get more light from a fixture rated at 60W. The biggest problem I have with CFs indoors is that I can't use them in chandeliers or other fixtures where the bulbs are a visible part of the design -- they're simply ugly as trolls. (I don't even like using the Reveal bulbs in those because of the purplish color when they're off.)
Oh well. I wish all problems were as simple as light bulb colors.
Ouch! Fortunately, I haven't had the same bad luck as you.
About three years ago I started switching over to compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs as my tungsten bulbs have died. The ones I've bought have a 7 year guarantee (cheapos from Home Depot.) I've taken to writing the install date on them with a sharpie marker before putting them in the fixtures. Yes, I know I'll never find the original receipt so the warranty is most likely useless, but I'm curious to see if they do last as long as advertised.
So far, I haven't replaced any failed CFs. I particularily like having them in the sealed ceiling fixtures as they don't generate nearly the heat of the tungsten bulbs they replace. Yes, I know the fixtures are designed with heat insulation to protect against fire, but 26W simply emits much less heat than 120W. I feel safer.
Of course, a 50 pound battery isn't very portable, and I wouldn't drag it around to the refrigerator, dishwasher, lamp, or garage. But I'm mostly interested in the computer's draw anyway, since it's one of the biggest power drains in my house.
If you haven't read the book, take a couple of hours. It's short, a quick read, and I promise it's worth it. The full text is even online, if you have no money. But you never know when they're watching the telescreens, though, so you might want to just buy a copy in paperback and read it on a nice park bench. ;-)