That's why you use two internal containers. The question is, why reimplement this ? It's been donw (well!) again and again, and frankly, if the original poster does not know the answer to these kinds of questions, he's not the right guy to do it.
What you do is, you have a partition full of what seems like random noise. If someone gets access to it, no problem, since the data there is encrypted, they get nothing.
If they get access *and* are in a position to force your compliance, you fret some, and then reluctantly say; "Yeah well, actually it's encrypted, you can read it by using this passphrase: 'superS333kr1t'.
When they do, they found you told the truth. The 100GB random-noise partition, contains an encrypted filesystem which has 60 GB of private files, some modestly embarassing (say some porn, or nudiepics of the girlfriend), but nothing of serious consequence.
Now, there's 40GB worth of free space on this device, free space that's filled with seemingly-random noise. Except, it's possible that a second secret password, if used to decrypt the free space, would yield a second encrypted filesystem, with much more sensitive data, data you could get in real trouble for.
"plausible deniability" is maintained, if there is absolutely no way for the attackers to know if there's just -one- encrypted filesystem, with some free space -- or if there's really 2, one on top, and anothe hidden in the free unused space of number 1.
It's the same idea as carrying a bit of cash in your wallet, if you're having a larger sum of cash hidden on you. The hope is that -if- you're robbed, the assaulter will let you be after you reluctantly hand over the wallet, with the $170 in it.
No, it's not 100% foolproof, it's possible they'll continue to beat you until you hand over password 2, on the off chance that password 2 even exists. The existence of encrypted-container 1, also serves to explain why there's decryption-software on the machine, which would be a lot harder to do if you claimed "that's just random noise".
TrueCrypt and other data-protection-software has been doing this for decades.
The agreement to purchase was made at the time of purchase - additional conditions disclosed AFTER the sale, can not have any influence on the sale itself.
If I walk into a store and say: "I would like to buy this computer", the clerk says: "Very well sir, that'll be $899 then." i pay, and receive the computer. Then what just happened was a very classical, fairly typical sale. (except clerks tend to be less polite)
They cannot then hours or days later, when I turn on the computer that I bought, pop up some text that says: "Infact you didn't buy this computer, instead you need to agree to this/agreement/ which forbids you from doing certain things with it."
Similarily, if you paid by check, and when the store tried to cash it in, they got a EULA from you, wherein they need to agree to certain conditions of yours, to get the cash, that's -also- not be legally binding.
Clauses which are not negotiated and included in an agreement BEFORE the agreement is entered into, can obviously not form part of that agreement.
I'd consider it pretty fair, to be able to send DVDs to friends on other continents, and have 'em work flawlessly, without being stopped by stupid region-codes. (yes, I know, there's region-free players, that's ONE way of breaking the DRM) And sending movies you own by mail to a friend, does not violate copyright.
Yes you did. You did -not- purchase the copyright, true. But you *did* purchase a single copy of the content. For you to do as you please with, within the constraints of copyright law. Like the name says "copy"-right, the main right authors retain is the right to make COPIES. (there's also public performance, and some other stuff like the right to be recognized as author)
But though there are certain restrictions on what you can do with the content, that single copy IS yours. You can sell it. You can shred it. You can (in most jurisdictions anyway) format or timeshift it. You can even, (again in many jurisdictions, the world isn't totally homogenous) make a limited number of copies for friends and family, or for purposes such as backup.
I ain't so sure. There's monumental amounts of crap in commercial code too. Atleast the publich nature of open source projects, mean you're aware that anything you put out there, speaks about your abilities (or lack of same) for the rest of your life.
Internal code-review in companies range from excellent to nonexistent, and the latter is definitely the most common, especially in smaller companies.
It's a weird surreal claim anyway: "Doing everything in an open, transparent way that anyone can freely inspect -- is a way of hiding shoddy quality."
That's just absurd. There's lots of incompetence, offcourse. But there's a lot less -hidden- in a open project, compared to a closed one, that is frankly only common sense.
I think even non-passive fibreoptical networks have sufficient promise. Yes, you'll have to replace tranceivers to upgrade the bandwith, but the cost for this is a -tiny- fraction of the cost of installing new physical cabling.
For example, at the moment, I have 10mbps/symetrical internet-connection, provided over a single-mode optical fibre that is -currently- using 1Gbps tranceivers, the fibre itself can handle several orders of magnitude more than that.
If we assume bandwith continues to grow by 50% a year, this gives me 11 years before the current tranceivers give out. And when they do, no new digging or pulling is nessecary, but instead simply a replacement of the $100 box in my basement, and the $3000 box that handles the connections from the neighbourhood. (~100 subscribers)
That's a $130/subscriber cost. For a upgrade that is a decade away.
In contrast, installing the network in the first place, cost on the order of $1000/subscriber, mostly as a consequence of needing actual digging and cable-pulling. (the equipment wasn't the expensive part, the man-hours was)
It's not that it's nessecarily particularily misogynistic. It's just that whenever women are mentioned, in any way shape or form here on slashdot, you always gets the same (or variations of the same) tired old stupid "jokes".
In the real world, the average slashdotter is not 17. not a virgin. and not devoid of female friends. For that matter, I bet there's more married guys than there's virgins.
You'll get no arguments with me for stating that -humans- are different from -computers-, I do suggest this is pretty much equally true for both sexes though. Guys "apparently similar" to me appreciate talking sports, visiting Hooters and, for that matter, love blowjobs.
Some people embrace the new, the foreign, the unknown, and eagerly incorporate it into their own identity. At least partially.
Others see it as threatening, dangerous, a temptation to be resisted, and react by withdrawing, becoming more fundamentalist.
I tend to think isolation and failed integration is the largest enabler for the latter. Too many may live -in- the west physically, but nevertheless have a parallell society with little actual integration. Live in their own areas, go to their own schools, shop in their own shops, have friends mainly from the region they come from, rather than the region they live in.
On the flipside, there's many people who live -in- the middle east, but nevertheless *do* have friends and contacts in other cultures, I am certain, that serves as a pretty good vaccine against extremism. It's one thing to say "death to America!", it's another thing to say "death to my friend John, with the part-time job and 2 daugthers that started school last month."
It works in reverse too. I've got a much more nuanced view of the middle east now that I've got friends there. I'm much less inclined to knee-jerk along the "they're all the same" lines. Because guess what, they're not.
I realize it's meant as a joke. But really. Just give it a rest already, okay ? It's not funny.
There's plenty of women around slashdot and other nerdy ventures. And there'd be even more, if not for stupid comments like that.
It depends how it's used. A paraglider doesn't have the capability to stay airborn to nearest airport + 45 minutes.
Some tiny planes have stall-speeds so low they can land on any random flat patch of ground, and with a speed low enough that even if you where to crash at landing-speed, you'd have excellent chances of walking away unharmed.
If you're 5 meters wide (including wings) and can land at 45mph, there's -plenty- of landing-spots around, in most areas.
They may be (minimally) trained to perform those functions - but it's still cost-benefit. How often are those skills used ? How much of a difference does it make on the average ? For what costs ?
All passenger-planes carry lifejackets, and has for decades. What is the cost, in space, fuel, production and maintenance ? Can you point me to a few cases where those lifejackets have saved lives ?
Most of the time, planes don't fall down, so the lifejacket is useless. If a plane -does- fall down, but does so over land, the lifejacket is useless. If a plane falls down in the sea, but in such a manner that passengers don't survive the landing, the lifejacket is useless. If a plane falls down in water in a manner that leaves passengers alive and conscious, the lifejacket is still useless if it's the north atlantic in january. If neither of the above is true, and you land, say, in the hudson, the lifejacket is of -limited- use and MAY save lives. With boats immediately around the planes, especially in summer, swimmers would be okay with or without a lifejacket, and it's entirely plausible that absent lifejackets, the deathcount in the Hudson would still have been zero.
That leaves, what exactly ? Can you point to a few -actual- (as opposed to imagined) cases where lifejackets in planes have saved lifes ?
Her opinion is doubly irrelevant because she is DEAD. i.e. not even the moral argument of not causing needless offence applies, as decomposed people are incapable of being offended.
No. I'm saying that though it's useful to be able to read handwriting, it's generally often a waste of time to do it -- particularily in the case of old classical scientific works. Sure, you can read this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg rather than a good-quality transcript of the US constitution.
But doing so *will* mean you spend more time, and that time is spent on superficial items. The quality of the handwriting, is *not* the reason why people consider the US constitution a interesting document to study. (okay, so maybe for a few, but at a guess, 99%+ of the ones who ARE interested in the consititution are NOT interested in the handwriting)
Sure, it's useful to be able to read poorly readable sources. (though a lot LESS useful than it used to be, since a diminishing proportion of sources are handwritten)
But nevertheless, if given the CHOICE between a poorly readable scan, and a high-quality typeset version of the same text, and your interest is to learn what is in the text. Then most of the time, scanning the handwritten scan, is a waste of time.
Except the letters ain't the "substance" of a old work on mathemathics. Unless the subject is caligraphy, the actual letters *are* the style while the content is the substance.
Yeah, I'll take a machine-written copy over the original handwritten manuscript any day -- precisely BECAUSE it allows me to focus on the substance, rather than wasting my time trying to read the handwriting.
why not ? 8 bytes give 4 bytes for each of lat and long, or 2^32 alternatives. Since earth is around 40.000km circumference, this gives a resolution of 40000/2^32 or about half an inch in the east-west direction if you're at equator (better if you're not, because the circumference is smaller at higher latitudes. The distance from pole to pole is half that, so the resolution on the north-south direction would be better than 1/4th inch.
GPS can't provide that accurate positioning anyway, anything better than ~10m is superfluous accuracy for tracking a car.
True, vocals and other analogue instruments, perform better in a suitable room. But even so, the equipment needed for a good vocal-recording, including the room, is cheaper and cheaper relative to income-levels. Even if you -don't- have the possibility of owning your own recording-studio, a larger and larger fraction of the population can effortlessly afford to hire a suitable room.
If you bring your own tech (i.e. mic and recorder), you can hire excellent rooms for recording voice or guitar or suchlike here for $100/day. This is well within the means of most bands, even those who're not all that well-off or home-owners. You can practice in less optimal conditions, you need the excellent room for making the final recording, so you're unlikely to need it for THAT many days.
Flipping burgers earns you $25/hour here, so we're talking 4 hours of minimal-pay-work for a days studio-quality-room-rental.
If you're under 18 or still a student, you can do the same thing for free. The school of culture has a (very!) good studio, and the same goes for the student-radio, both of which lets students/pupils borrow the rooms at zero charge - assuming you're prepared to use the room at uncomfortable hours (i.e. those hours the room is free)
I'd say that's pretty accessible. Orders of magnitude more accessible than such things where when I was young, and that's only 2 decades ago.
Even people who've done it before, can't avoid performing poorer. After a while the body is out of carbs, so need to burn fat to generate energy. This works fine, but not at the same rate. Anyone will be more sluggish and more tired and less concentrated after 2 days with no food.
You're right that a small amount helps a lot though. There's a huge difference between going 3 days on zero food, which sucks a lot. And going 3 days with only, say, 500 calories a day. (no problem at all, infact you can easily do that accidentally)
Yeah. I tried it. For the heck of it. It's true, there's not much fun in being physically active for prolonged periods, with no food. You definitely get more sluggish, and need to take extra care to avoid accidents. Nevertheless, spending 1-3 days with zero food is definitely not life-threathening for a healthy adult. Infact it's something I would recommend people try. It's a useful experience if you're a hiker.
That being said, there's a huge difference between zero food and very-little food. 50 grams of nuts, and two handfulls of blueberries, is a huge improvement over "no food". Thus bringing a small amount of high-energy food is worthwhile, even for pretty short trips.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you use two internal containers. The question is, why reimplement this ? It's been donw (well!) again and again, and frankly, if the original poster does not know the answer to these kinds of questions, he's not the right guy to do it.
What you do is, you have a partition full of what seems like random noise. If someone gets access to it, no problem, since the data there is encrypted, they get nothing.
If they get access *and* are in a position to force your compliance, you fret some, and then reluctantly say; "Yeah well, actually it's encrypted, you can read it by using this passphrase: 'superS333kr1t'.
When they do, they found you told the truth. The 100GB random-noise partition, contains an encrypted filesystem which has 60 GB of private files, some modestly embarassing (say some porn, or nudiepics of the girlfriend), but nothing of serious consequence.
Now, there's 40GB worth of free space on this device, free space that's filled with seemingly-random noise. Except, it's possible that a second secret password, if used to decrypt the free space, would yield a second encrypted filesystem, with much more sensitive data, data you could get in real trouble for.
"plausible deniability" is maintained, if there is absolutely no way for the attackers to know if there's just -one- encrypted filesystem, with some free space -- or if there's really 2, one on top, and anothe hidden in the free unused space of number 1.
It's the same idea as carrying a bit of cash in your wallet, if you're having a larger sum of cash hidden on you. The hope is that -if- you're robbed, the assaulter will let you be after you reluctantly hand over the wallet, with the $170 in it.
No, it's not 100% foolproof, it's possible they'll continue to beat you until you hand over password 2, on the off chance that password 2 even exists. The existence of encrypted-container 1, also serves to explain why there's decryption-software on the machine, which would be a lot harder to do if you claimed "that's just random noise".
TrueCrypt and other data-protection-software has been doing this for decades.
That would not work.
The agreement to purchase was made at the time of purchase - additional conditions disclosed AFTER the sale, can not have any influence on the sale itself.
If I walk into a store and say: "I would like to buy this computer", the clerk says: "Very well sir, that'll be $899 then." i pay, and receive the computer. Then what just happened was a very classical, fairly typical sale. (except clerks tend to be less polite)
They cannot then hours or days later, when I turn on the computer that I bought, pop up some text that says: "Infact you didn't buy this computer, instead you need to agree to this /agreement/ which forbids you from doing certain things with it."
Similarily, if you paid by check, and when the store tried to cash it in, they got a EULA from you, wherein they need to agree to certain conditions of yours, to get the cash, that's -also- not be legally binding.
Clauses which are not negotiated and included in an agreement BEFORE the agreement is entered into, can obviously not form part of that agreement.
I'd consider it pretty fair, to be able to send DVDs to friends on other continents, and have 'em work flawlessly, without being stopped by stupid region-codes. (yes, I know, there's region-free players, that's ONE way of breaking the DRM) And sending movies you own by mail to a friend, does not violate copyright.
Yes you did. You did -not- purchase the copyright, true. But you *did* purchase a single copy of the content. For you to do as you please with, within the constraints of copyright law. Like the name says "copy"-right, the main right authors retain is the right to make COPIES. (there's also public performance, and some other stuff like the right to be recognized as author)
But though there are certain restrictions on what you can do with the content, that single copy IS yours. You can sell it. You can shred it. You can (in most jurisdictions anyway) format or timeshift it. You can even, (again in many jurisdictions, the world isn't totally homogenous) make a limited number of copies for friends and family, or for purposes such as backup.
I ain't so sure. There's monumental amounts of crap in commercial code too. Atleast the publich nature of open source projects, mean you're aware that anything you put out there, speaks about your abilities (or lack of same) for the rest of your life.
Internal code-review in companies range from excellent to nonexistent, and the latter is definitely the most common, especially in smaller companies.
It's a weird surreal claim anyway: "Doing everything in an open, transparent way that anyone can freely inspect -- is a way of hiding shoddy quality."
That's just absurd. There's lots of incompetence, offcourse. But there's a lot less -hidden- in a open project, compared to a closed one, that is frankly only common sense.
I think even non-passive fibreoptical networks have sufficient promise. Yes, you'll have to replace tranceivers to upgrade the bandwith, but the cost for this is a -tiny- fraction of the cost of installing new physical cabling.
For example, at the moment, I have 10mbps/symetrical internet-connection, provided over a single-mode optical fibre that is -currently- using 1Gbps tranceivers, the fibre itself can handle several orders of magnitude more than that.
If we assume bandwith continues to grow by 50% a year, this gives me 11 years before the current tranceivers give out. And when they do, no new digging or pulling is nessecary, but instead simply a replacement of the $100 box in my basement, and the $3000 box that handles the connections from the neighbourhood. (~100 subscribers)
That's a $130/subscriber cost. For a upgrade that is a decade away.
In contrast, installing the network in the first place, cost on the order of $1000/subscriber, mostly as a consequence of needing actual digging and cable-pulling. (the equipment wasn't the expensive part, the man-hours was)
SSI shouldn't evaporate just cos you've got ANY job either. It should always pay to get a job, any job.
I don't know the US system, the way it works here is aproximately thusly:
* SSI is $800/month aproximately. You're allowed to earn up to a max of $150 or something with no reduction in SSI.
* If you earn MORE than $150, then half of what is over, is subtracted from SSI.
In other words, if you where living on SSI $800, and got a $500 job, then your new income would be $800 + $500 -($500-$150)*0.5 = $1125.
Thus even if the job pays less than SSI, you're still better off with the job.
At the same time, the state also saves, because earlier it was paying you $800, whereas now it's paying you $625.
Indeed, and google suggest does the same thing, i.e. when autosuggesting, it refrains from suggestions that would return overwhelmingly adult content.
It's not that it's nessecarily particularily misogynistic. It's just that whenever women are mentioned, in any way shape or form here on slashdot, you always gets the same (or variations of the same) tired old stupid "jokes".
In the real world, the average slashdotter is not 17. not a virgin. and not devoid of female friends. For that matter, I bet there's more married guys than there's virgins.
You'll get no arguments with me for stating that -humans- are different from -computers-, I do suggest this is pretty much equally true for both sexes though. Guys "apparently similar" to me appreciate talking sports, visiting Hooters and, for that matter, love blowjobs.
No it's not. Try googling "airplane life jacket", look at pictures, for that matter. Those things look like seat-cushions to you ?
It does both.
Some people embrace the new, the foreign, the unknown, and eagerly incorporate it into their own identity. At least partially.
Others see it as threatening, dangerous, a temptation to be resisted, and react by withdrawing, becoming more fundamentalist.
I tend to think isolation and failed integration is the largest enabler for the latter. Too many may live -in- the west physically, but nevertheless have a parallell society with little actual integration. Live in their own areas, go to their own schools, shop in their own shops, have friends mainly from the region they come from, rather than the region they live in.
On the flipside, there's many people who live -in- the middle east, but nevertheless *do* have friends and contacts in other cultures, I am certain, that serves as a pretty good vaccine against extremism. It's one thing to say "death to America!", it's another thing to say "death to my friend John, with the part-time job and 2 daugthers that started school last month."
It works in reverse too. I've got a much more nuanced view of the middle east now that I've got friends there. I'm much less inclined to knee-jerk along the "they're all the same" lines. Because guess what, they're not.
I realize it's meant as a joke. But really. Just give it a rest already, okay ? It's not funny. There's plenty of women around slashdot and other nerdy ventures. And there'd be even more, if not for stupid comments like that.
It depends how it's used. A paraglider doesn't have the capability to stay airborn to nearest airport + 45 minutes.
Some tiny planes have stall-speeds so low they can land on any random flat patch of ground, and with a speed low enough that even if you where to crash at landing-speed, you'd have excellent chances of walking away unharmed.
If you're 5 meters wide (including wings) and can land at 45mph, there's -plenty- of landing-spots around, in most areas.
They may be (minimally) trained to perform those functions - but it's still cost-benefit. How often are those skills used ? How much of a difference does it make on the average ? For what costs ?
All passenger-planes carry lifejackets, and has for decades. What is the cost, in space, fuel, production and maintenance ? Can you point me to a few cases where those lifejackets have saved lives ?
Most of the time, planes don't fall down, so the lifejacket is useless. If a plane -does- fall down, but does so over land, the lifejacket is useless. If a plane falls down in the sea, but in such a manner that passengers don't survive the landing, the lifejacket is useless. If a plane falls down in water in a manner that leaves passengers alive and conscious, the lifejacket is still useless if it's the north atlantic in january. If neither of the above is true, and you land, say, in the hudson, the lifejacket is of -limited- use and MAY save lives. With boats immediately around the planes, especially in summer, swimmers would be okay with or without a lifejacket, and it's entirely plausible that absent lifejackets, the deathcount in the Hudson would still have been zero.
That leaves, what exactly ? Can you point to a few -actual- (as opposed to imagined) cases where lifejackets in planes have saved lifes ?
Or you could just put on the packaging: "Protected by patent ...... until 2007"
Her opinion is doubly irrelevant because she is DEAD. i.e. not even the moral argument of not causing needless offence applies, as decomposed people are incapable of being offended.
No. I'm saying that though it's useful to be able to read handwriting, it's generally often a waste of time to do it -- particularily in the case of old classical scientific works. Sure, you can read this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg rather than a good-quality transcript of the US constitution.
But doing so *will* mean you spend more time, and that time is spent on superficial items. The quality of the handwriting, is *not* the reason why people consider the US constitution a interesting document to study. (okay, so maybe for a few, but at a guess, 99%+ of the ones who ARE interested in the consititution are NOT interested in the handwriting)
Sure, it's useful to be able to read poorly readable sources. (though a lot LESS useful than it used to be, since a diminishing proportion of sources are handwritten)
But nevertheless, if given the CHOICE between a poorly readable scan, and a high-quality typeset version of the same text, and your interest is to learn what is in the text. Then most of the time, scanning the handwritten scan, is a waste of time.
Except the letters ain't the "substance" of a old work on mathemathics. Unless the subject is caligraphy, the actual letters *are* the style while the content is the substance.
Yeah, I'll take a machine-written copy over the original handwritten manuscript any day -- precisely BECAUSE it allows me to focus on the substance, rather than wasting my time trying to read the handwriting.
English is particularly funny, because even phrases that by logic SHOULD have opposite meaning, in reality have the same meaning.
I have no money.
I ain't got no money.
It's a bit more than "dried".
a 10 feet dish covered in reflective material will cause anything held at the focus to spontaneously burst into flames in a second.
why not ? 8 bytes give 4 bytes for each of lat and long, or 2^32 alternatives. Since earth is around 40.000km circumference, this gives a resolution of 40000/2^32 or about half an inch in the east-west direction if you're at equator (better if you're not, because the circumference is smaller at higher latitudes. The distance from pole to pole is half that, so the resolution on the north-south direction would be better than 1/4th inch.
GPS can't provide that accurate positioning anyway, anything better than ~10m is superfluous accuracy for tracking a car.
True, vocals and other analogue instruments, perform better in a suitable room. But even so, the equipment needed for a good vocal-recording, including the room, is cheaper and cheaper relative to income-levels. Even if you -don't- have the possibility of owning your own recording-studio, a larger and larger fraction of the population can effortlessly afford to hire a suitable room.
If you bring your own tech (i.e. mic and recorder), you can hire excellent rooms for recording voice or guitar or suchlike here for $100/day. This is well within the means of most bands, even those who're not all that well-off or home-owners. You can practice in less optimal conditions, you need the excellent room for making the final recording, so you're unlikely to need it for THAT many days.
Flipping burgers earns you $25/hour here, so we're talking 4 hours of minimal-pay-work for a days studio-quality-room-rental.
If you're under 18 or still a student, you can do the same thing for free. The school of culture has a (very!) good studio, and the same goes for the student-radio, both of which lets students/pupils borrow the rooms at zero charge - assuming you're prepared to use the room at uncomfortable hours (i.e. those hours the room is free)
I'd say that's pretty accessible. Orders of magnitude more accessible than such things where when I was young, and that's only 2 decades ago.
Even people who've done it before, can't avoid performing poorer. After a while the body is out of carbs, so need to burn fat to generate energy. This works fine, but not at the same rate. Anyone will be more sluggish and more tired and less concentrated after 2 days with no food. You're right that a small amount helps a lot though. There's a huge difference between going 3 days on zero food, which sucks a lot. And going 3 days with only, say, 500 calories a day. (no problem at all, infact you can easily do that accidentally)
A day isn't constant length.
Sounds fairly complex to me, to deal with a second in 1900 being a different time-period from a second in 2000.
Yeah. I tried it. For the heck of it. It's true, there's not much fun in being physically active for prolonged periods, with no food. You definitely get more sluggish, and need to take extra care to avoid accidents. Nevertheless, spending 1-3 days with zero food is definitely not life-threathening for a healthy adult. Infact it's something I would recommend people try. It's a useful experience if you're a hiker.
That being said, there's a huge difference between zero food and very-little food. 50 grams of nuts, and two handfulls of blueberries, is a huge improvement over "no food". Thus bringing a small amount of high-energy food is worthwhile, even for pretty short trips.