Yes it will, unless that admin has access to the passphrase of the recipient and their private key (assuming some sort of public key encryption), or to technology capable of constructing the private key given the public one.
Encryption can't be relied upon 100% if you're keeping secrets from a large government or corporation and are worth their trouble to care about, but in all other situations, you're pretty much certain that it won't be broken. (Assuming a good implementation of strong crypto, yadda yadda)
That's meaningless, without seeing the questions, details of interview techniques used and sample selection procedure, etc.
It's very easy indeed to skew a poll to give the desired outcome, just by carefully wording the questions and choosing the people you ask.
That said though, I'd well believe that a majority of people here are at least not against them - they'll have been told that it'll help tackle illegal immigrants, benefit fraud and other crimes and terrorism, without a mention of anything to be concerned about. If there's an outcry at all, it'll be because of plans to charge us for them.
Why, on god's green earth, do cell phones need a camera?
I recently bought a 'phone with a camera, a Nokia 3650. This is the first mobile I've bought, having previously vowed never to buy one, but to always get the free one whenever I renewed my contract.
I bought it mostly because I don't have a digital camera, and wanted one that I could carry with me everywhere, for those times when I just want to snap a quick picture and I'm not too worried about the quality. For example, if I'm out buying something for my girlfriend, I can take a picture & send it to her, to make sure it's the right one before buying it. Or I might be out and see something funny/unusual/whatever and just want to take a quick picture.
I wouldn't want to carry a "proper" digital camera around with me, for cost and convenience reasons, but my 'phone goes everywhere with me; it just lives in my pocket.
Besides, as others have pointed out, your rant is entirely misdirected - the camera draws no power when I'm not using it, which is 99% of the time.
No one is buying a phone for its camera.
Maybe that's true where you are, but it's certainly not true in the UK.
It's not awful, but it does indicate that that functionality is broken. I have selected to not see stories with a topic of "Caldera", yet I still see it.
That strikes me as a bug, something that open source is supposed to kill quickly ("many eyes make shallow bugs"). Ironic that bugs exist in slashcode, given that slashdot is open source's largest, most vehement proponent.
Oh, and while I'm moaning about bugs, comment preview formatting is broken in Mozilla (1.4) too - the main section of the page is too wide, and overlaps the menu on the left. Works fine in IE...
Surely a 32 bit processor consumes at most 32 bits of information per cycle? (Well, 32 bits per instruction pipeline, but there's only a couple of them).
Around 100 Gbps sounds about right to me, although I'm more than prepared to be proved wrong.
But these people are -not- buying CDs, so how will DRM stop them?
Because it'll (attempt to) prevent those who do buy the CDs from ripping the tracks and putting them on Kazaa/edonkey/whatever, thus (hopefully) forcing the non-buyers to buy the CD, or make do without.
You cheer for Microsoft, because they're trying to enable the average end user to choose whether or not they see popup ads.
More generally, in fact, it would be about whether or not the user of the computer has the right to decide what applications can do on that computer. If the ad agencies won such a case, there would be a precedence for a third party forcing you to accept an application spawning a new window, and forcing you to accept traffic requested by it.
their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing.
Then don't think of it as "borrowing" - think of it as learning. Surely that's something any good techy aspires to - to continue learning for as long as possible?
your ISP or their upstream is spam-friendly and... this is the price they pay.
But they're not paying the price, the OP is.
The idea is you and all the other guys it's pissed off will complain/take your business elsewhere and the ISP will be encouraged to behave responsibly.
But what if there isn't anywhere else to take their business to? Perhaps they recently entered into a long-period contract, or there simply aren't any other providers that they can use (particularly possible if it's the upstream that's been blocked).
What are they supposed to do then, shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, at least it's for the greater good"?
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means spam-friendly, and I do support efforts to tackle it. I just think that some of those efforts are a little too wide-reaching. By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges; it's not fair on the innocent bystanders that inevitably get caught in the crossfire.
I would absolutely flip out if my router dared to do this!
I'd return it as defective, which it is (in this case by design).
I request that it route packets to and from a given IP address, and instead it routes them to/from another. That meets my definition of a defective router.
The manufacturer did something to appeal to Non-Techs
No they didn't. They tried to do something to make something (in this case signing up for the 6 month trial) easier for non-techs. That is not the same as something that appeals to them - I can't think of a single person, techy or non, who actually likes adverts.
Apart from that, I agree with you - this feature is Evil and Wrong, and I for one will never buy another Belkin product. Makes me wish I had gone for the other manufacturer's Bluetooth adapter when I bought one a month ago, rather than the Belkin one. Oh, and all my networking gear at home (not much, admittedly) is Belkin too - I'm hardly a big spender, but I was a customer, and they just lost me.
Well, IE is already integrated into the OS - wasn't that the whole point of the (US) anti-trust case?
As for.net, it's seemed to me for a long time now that Windows Forms has been indtended to replace MFC, so "integrating".net into the OS makes sense. I see the day when the OS is *written* in.NET, and it wouldn't entirely surprise me if Longhorn, or its successor perhaps, is it.
Finally, as for SQL Server's integration, as I understand it that's not for general database use, but represents an extension to the filesystem. If you want to store arbitrary data in an arbitrary way, you'll still need to acquire a thrid-party db of some sort.
The "Black box" would be about the size of a deck of cards and would look just like any other control box on the car truck.
But presumably these trucks are mass produced, and so the control box is likely to be in the same place in each one. Find out where it goes (either by industrial espionage, or just stripping one down and looking for it) and that little bit of security through obscurity is useless.
To hack it you would have to be INSIDE the control center as (I hope) they don't allow the systems on the Internet, the beam things up directly from a sat. dish on sire.
That only increases the difficulty of the attack, it doesn't make it impossible. If the control computers are on the company's network, then it may be possible to get in with a laptop and connect to the network that way. Ultimately though, if a group is resourceful and determined enough, they could just turn up with some firepower and take the place by force.
Note that I'm not screaming that the sky is falling - just pointing out that very little is impossible. I actually agree with you that this is probably a pretty good idea, for that class of transport. Making something harder to do than it's worth is what security is all about, after all.
They can't possibly require a working signal to work or these things would have serious problems with tunnels and such.
So you put a time limit on it - 5 or 10 minutes without a signal, for example, and the engine shuts itself down. That should give the truck plenty of time to get through a tunnel, but still require a more sophisticated hack than just snapping the antenna off.
in fact it was the BitKeeper CVS export scripts that detected the unauthorized modifications [emphasis added]
So in fact, it was the power of BitKeeper, or at least BitKeeper's authors, that prevented this, not CVS itself. Looks like closed source saves the day once more...;-)
but imo a website should be a passion thing, not a money maker
That's all well and good, but passion doesn't pay the bills. Even with a well paid job, if the site does get popular, those bills are soon going to add up to a fair chunk of cash.
Anyone reading/. for more than a month or so should have seen the data by now.
I've been reading slashdot for about 4 years or more (check my uid if you don't believe me), and while I've certainly seen this sort of thing said often enough, I don't remember ever seeing any hard data, with sources, to back up the claims.
Now, I'm not saying I don't believe you - just pointing out that I have not seen the data, just the claims. I'd be very interested if you could provide that data.
That may well be true, but just because the "doc should be fine" (emphasis mine) doesn't mean that the hospital/clinic and/or manufacturer of the drug won't be forced to defend against lawsuits anyway.
Even the thought of having to defend against such a suit may well be enough to stop a lot of places from doing this. Such a waste.
But you can set up your own grassroots server now, even with NAT. At worst, if you want to set up more than one server providing the same service, you run some on non-standard ports and have your gateway/NAT box forward the connections based on port. True, then people have to remember to use the port as well - but you could set the "standard" one to list all available services.
Alternatively, if you host each on a seperate domain name, you could set up some sort of controller that forwarded the requests to the appropriate interal box & port transparently.
In short, the IP address restrictions are easily worked around - it's the upstream bandwidth that's the fundamental limit. My current home connection is 256Kbps upstream, and nothing I do can change that. That limits music streaming, for example, to one stream, without dropping quality to an imho unacceptably low level.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it will, unless that admin has access to the passphrase of the recipient and their private key (assuming some sort of public key encryption), or to technology capable of constructing the private key given the public one.
Encryption can't be relied upon 100% if you're keeping secrets from a large government or corporation and are worth their trouble to care about, but in all other situations, you're pretty much certain that it won't be broken. (Assuming a good implementation of strong crypto, yadda yadda)
That's meaningless, without seeing the questions, details of interview techniques used and sample selection procedure, etc.
It's very easy indeed to skew a poll to give the desired outcome, just by carefully wording the questions and choosing the people you ask.
That said though, I'd well believe that a majority of people here are at least not against them - they'll have been told that it'll help tackle illegal immigrants, benefit fraud and other crimes and terrorism, without a mention of anything to be concerned about. If there's an outcry at all, it'll be because of plans to charge us for them.
Ah, but in the US, do they really all show up to vote? For a national election??
He said votes, not voters...
Why, on god's green earth, do cell phones need a camera?
I recently bought a 'phone with a camera, a Nokia 3650. This is the first mobile I've bought, having previously vowed never to buy one, but to always get the free one whenever I renewed my contract.
I bought it mostly because I don't have a digital camera, and wanted one that I could carry with me everywhere, for those times when I just want to snap a quick picture and I'm not too worried about the quality. For example, if I'm out buying something for my girlfriend, I can take a picture & send it to her, to make sure it's the right one before buying it. Or I might be out and see something funny/unusual/whatever and just want to take a quick picture.
I wouldn't want to carry a "proper" digital camera around with me, for cost and convenience reasons, but my 'phone goes everywhere with me; it just lives in my pocket.
Besides, as others have pointed out, your rant is entirely misdirected - the camera draws no power when I'm not using it, which is 99% of the time.
No one is buying a phone for its camera.
Maybe that's true where you are, but it's certainly not true in the UK.
It's not awful, but it does indicate that that functionality is broken. I have selected to not see stories with a topic of "Caldera", yet I still see it.
That strikes me as a bug, something that open source is supposed to kill quickly ("many eyes make shallow bugs"). Ironic that bugs exist in slashcode, given that slashdot is open source's largest, most vehement proponent.
Oh, and while I'm moaning about bugs, comment preview formatting is broken in Mozilla (1.4) too - the main section of the page is too wide, and overlaps the menu on the left. Works fine in IE...
Surely a 32 bit processor consumes at most 32 bits of information per cycle? (Well, 32 bits per instruction pipeline, but there's only a couple of them).
Around 100 Gbps sounds about right to me, although I'm more than prepared to be proved wrong.
But these people are -not- buying CDs, so how will DRM stop them?
Because it'll (attempt to) prevent those who do buy the CDs from ripping the tracks and putting them on Kazaa/edonkey/whatever, thus (hopefully) forcing the non-buyers to buy the CD, or make do without.
You cheer for Microsoft, because they're trying to enable the average end user to choose whether or not they see popup ads.
More generally, in fact, it would be about whether or not the user of the computer has the right to decide what applications can do on that computer. If the ad agencies won such a case, there would be a precedence for a third party forcing you to accept an application spawning a new window, and forcing you to accept traffic requested by it.
their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing.
Then don't think of it as "borrowing" - think of it as learning. Surely that's something any good techy aspires to - to continue learning for as long as possible?
So what's to stop me writing a proxy that rewrites the packet headers to change the mac address each time?
your ISP or their upstream is spam-friendly and... this is the price they pay.
But they're not paying the price, the OP is.
The idea is you and all the other guys it's pissed off will complain/take your business elsewhere and the ISP will be encouraged to behave responsibly.
But what if there isn't anywhere else to take their business to? Perhaps they recently entered into a long-period contract, or there simply aren't any other providers that they can use (particularly possible if it's the upstream that's been blocked).
What are they supposed to do then, shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, at least it's for the greater good"?
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means spam-friendly, and I do support efforts to tackle it. I just think that some of those efforts are a little too wide-reaching. By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges; it's not fair on the innocent bystanders that inevitably get caught in the crossfire.
Remember it? I still have the bruises...
I would absolutely flip out if my router dared to do this!
I'd return it as defective, which it is (in this case by design).
I request that it route packets to and from a given IP address, and instead it routes them to/from another. That meets my definition of a defective router.
The manufacturer did something to appeal to Non-Techs
No they didn't. They tried to do something to make something (in this case signing up for the 6 month trial) easier for non-techs. That is not the same as something that appeals to them - I can't think of a single person, techy or non, who actually likes adverts.
Apart from that, I agree with you - this feature is Evil and Wrong, and I for one will never buy another Belkin product. Makes me wish I had gone for the other manufacturer's Bluetooth adapter when I bought one a month ago, rather than the Belkin one. Oh, and all my networking gear at home (not much, admittedly) is Belkin too - I'm hardly a big spender, but I was a customer, and they just lost me.
Well, IE is already integrated into the OS - wasn't that the whole point of the (US) anti-trust case?
.net, it's seemed to me for a long time now that Windows Forms has been indtended to replace MFC, so "integrating" .net into the OS makes sense. I see the day when the OS is *written* in .NET, and it wouldn't entirely surprise me if Longhorn, or its successor perhaps, is it.
As for
Finally, as for SQL Server's integration, as I understand it that's not for general database use, but represents an extension to the filesystem. If you want to store arbitrary data in an arbitrary way, you'll still need to acquire a thrid-party db of some sort.
Apparently you haven't been to hotmale.com Don't ask how I know this.
That's okay - these days, there's very little shame associated with not being able to type...
+5, Insightful? +5, Cynic more like ;-)
(Hey, I'm not saying it's not necessarily the case...)
The "Black box" would be about the size of a deck of cards and would look just like any other control box on the car truck.
But presumably these trucks are mass produced, and so the control box is likely to be in the same place in each one. Find out where it goes (either by industrial espionage, or just stripping one down and looking for it) and that little bit of security through obscurity is useless.
To hack it you would have to be INSIDE the control center as (I hope) they don't allow the systems on the Internet, the beam things up directly from a sat. dish on sire.
That only increases the difficulty of the attack, it doesn't make it impossible. If the control computers are on the company's network, then it may be possible to get in with a laptop and connect to the network that way. Ultimately though, if a group is resourceful and determined enough, they could just turn up with some firepower and take the place by force.
Note that I'm not screaming that the sky is falling - just pointing out that very little is impossible. I actually agree with you that this is probably a pretty good idea, for that class of transport. Making something harder to do than it's worth is what security is all about, after all.
They can't possibly require a working signal to work or these things would have serious problems with tunnels and such.
So you put a time limit on it - 5 or 10 minutes without a signal, for example, and the engine shuts itself down. That should give the truck plenty of time to get through a tunnel, but still require a more sophisticated hack than just snapping the antenna off.
in fact it was the BitKeeper CVS export scripts that detected the unauthorized modifications
;-)
[emphasis added]
So in fact, it was the power of BitKeeper, or at least BitKeeper's authors, that prevented this, not CVS itself. Looks like closed source saves the day once more...
but imo a website should be a passion thing, not a money maker
That's all well and good, but passion doesn't pay the bills. Even with a well paid job, if the site does get popular, those bills are soon going to add up to a fair chunk of cash.
Anyone reading /. for more than a month or so should have seen the data by now.
I've been reading slashdot for about 4 years or more (check my uid if you don't believe me), and while I've certainly seen this sort of thing said often enough, I don't remember ever seeing any hard data, with sources, to back up the claims.
Now, I'm not saying I don't believe you - just pointing out that I have not seen the data, just the claims. I'd be very interested if you could provide that data.
That may well be true, but just because the "doc should be fine" (emphasis mine) doesn't mean that the hospital/clinic and/or manufacturer of the drug won't be forced to defend against lawsuits anyway.
Even the thought of having to defend against such a suit may well be enough to stop a lot of places from doing this. Such a waste.
Would make for more grassroots servers.
But you can set up your own grassroots server now, even with NAT. At worst, if you want to set up more than one server providing the same service, you run some on non-standard ports and have your gateway/NAT box forward the connections based on port. True, then people have to remember to use the port as well - but you could set the "standard" one to list all available services.
Alternatively, if you host each on a seperate domain name, you could set up some sort of controller that forwarded the requests to the appropriate interal box & port transparently.
In short, the IP address restrictions are easily worked around - it's the upstream bandwidth that's the fundamental limit. My current home connection is 256Kbps upstream, and nothing I do can change that. That limits music streaming, for example, to one stream, without dropping quality to an imho unacceptably low level.
Standard range for PC USB Bluetooth adapters seems to be 10m (33ft), but you can buy ones with a 100m range (330ft).