My understanding is encrypted traffic is easily distinguished from clear text.
Yes and no. Properly encrypted data looks indistinguishable from random data. If everyone simply sent random data to each other frequently, then it would be impossible to tell which of that is crypto.
Book ciphers have the advantage of being very convenient. They also have the disadvantage of not being particularly secure. They are vulnerable to most of the usual cipher-breaking methods.
Yes, OTPs are technically unbreakable. However, that unbreakability depends on having a source of truly random numbers. That's a far more difficult thing than it sounds. Unless you have special hardware installed, your computer certainly isn't providing them.
True, but it's a disingenuous argument regardless. They talk as if the fact that they can't break encryption makes it impossible to do their jobs. That's simply untrue. At worst, it means that they have to do their jobs in the same way they did before they had ready access to telephone lines.
Appointees are often politicians as well. The key differentiator isn't whether or not they are in an elected position, it's whether or not they are engaging in politics.
It's us filthy common citizens who would have to go back to paying cash
Some of us filthy common citizens are ahead of the curve and never really stopped paying cash for things. I estimate that I pay cash with about 80% of my purchases.
The fact that people want to get phones through their carriers is the major reason why the cell phone market in the US was so far behind the rest of the world
Well, it's a major reason, yes. I agree. And I am constantly surprised by the number of people who don't even realize that it's possible (and easy) to buy a phone from someone other than their carrier.
People are also fooled by the apparent economics of it. The contracts are arranged so as to make you think you're getting your phone super cheap through your carrier, when you're really overpaying fairly significantly. I understand if you can't come up with the full purchase price of the phone, I suppose, but it's yet another example of how being poor is very expensive.
True, but if the day comes (and I will truly be shocked if it actually does) that you really can't buy any of those things that won't work without talking on the internet, then I guarantee that someone will develop a workaround to that problem.
OK, then "not fit for purpose" which, from my point of view, is the same as "defective". Just because it's working as designed doesn't mean it isn't defective.
The key issue is whether or not the requirement was clearly communicated prior to purchase. If not, then it's a defect.
But I bet you could find one that would work even if you don't allow it to connect to the net. It'll be missing some features, but will do its job as a TV.
Read my comment again. I didn't dismiss it. I said that it has no value to me and acknowledged that others may legitimately find value in it.
My point is that there is a market for both sorts of things -- manual toothbrushes and electric ones. Manual toothbrushes will never go away, and neither will non-IoT devices, for the exact same reasons.
Zontar is correct, you're wrong about this. And think about it for a minute -- in what world would it make sense that that making a factually accurate statement would be a punishable offense?
In all fairness, it's possible that you could find a colonoscopy that cheap. Prices for medical procedures vary wildly from provider to provider even within the same area. They also vary equally wildly from patient to patient with the same provider -- that's part of why it's impossible to price shop for medical procedures: most places wont' tell you what something costs, because they can't predict what the computer will tell them to charge you.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, "unsecure" as an adjective meaning "not secure" has been a word since the 1600s!
"Unsecure" is a perfectly good technical word. It is a verb, meaning "to remove the security from". It's the opposite of the verb form of "secure".
You actually read YouTube comments? Personally, I'm not quite that masochistic.
True, but hangouts is much worse.
My understanding is encrypted traffic is easily distinguished from clear text.
Yes and no. Properly encrypted data looks indistinguishable from random data. If everyone simply sent random data to each other frequently, then it would be impossible to tell which of that is crypto.
Book ciphers have the advantage of being very convenient. They also have the disadvantage of not being particularly secure. They are vulnerable to most of the usual cipher-breaking methods.
Yes, OTPs are technically unbreakable. However, that unbreakability depends on having a source of truly random numbers. That's a far more difficult thing than it sounds. Unless you have special hardware installed, your computer certainly isn't providing them.
True, but it's a disingenuous argument regardless. They talk as if the fact that they can't break encryption makes it impossible to do their jobs. That's simply untrue. At worst, it means that they have to do their jobs in the same way they did before they had ready access to telephone lines.
Appointees are often politicians as well. The key differentiator isn't whether or not they are in an elected position, it's whether or not they are engaging in politics.
It's us filthy common citizens who would have to go back to paying cash
Some of us filthy common citizens are ahead of the curve and never really stopped paying cash for things. I estimate that I pay cash with about 80% of my purchases.
The fact that people want to get phones through their carriers is the major reason why the cell phone market in the US was so far behind the rest of the world
Well, it's a major reason, yes. I agree. And I am constantly surprised by the number of people who don't even realize that it's possible (and easy) to buy a phone from someone other than their carrier.
People are also fooled by the apparent economics of it. The contracts are arranged so as to make you think you're getting your phone super cheap through your carrier, when you're really overpaying fairly significantly. I understand if you can't come up with the full purchase price of the phone, I suppose, but it's yet another example of how being poor is very expensive.
Yep. My phone is now 3 years old and going strong. I see nothing existing now or coming in the foreseeable future that makes it "obsolete" to me.
and grew to a horrible monster. Nobody would object a cool initsystem.
A million times this.
If systemd were just an init system, I could get on board.
Because people have a large existing investment in Windows applications.
In fairness to Microsoft, if you want to run real programs, then you should get something that runs a real operating system.
Windows 10S is not a general purpose OS, it is an appliance OS. Expecting it to be anything else is unrealistic.
Numerous courts have ruled that to breach a website's terms of service is not a criminal act. It is a contract violation, therefore a civil matter.
What would be the point?
True, but if the day comes (and I will truly be shocked if it actually does) that you really can't buy any of those things that won't work without talking on the internet, then I guarantee that someone will develop a workaround to that problem.
Not really, no.
OK, then "not fit for purpose" which, from my point of view, is the same as "defective". Just because it's working as designed doesn't mean it isn't defective.
The key issue is whether or not the requirement was clearly communicated prior to purchase. If not, then it's a defect.
But I bet you could find one that would work even if you don't allow it to connect to the net. It'll be missing some features, but will do its job as a TV.
Ack, you're right. My bad.
Read my comment again. I didn't dismiss it. I said that it has no value to me and acknowledged that others may legitimately find value in it.
My point is that there is a market for both sorts of things -- manual toothbrushes and electric ones. Manual toothbrushes will never go away, and neither will non-IoT devices, for the exact same reasons.
Zontar is correct, you're wrong about this. And think about it for a minute -- in what world would it make sense that that making a factually accurate statement would be a punishable offense?
In all fairness, it's possible that you could find a colonoscopy that cheap. Prices for medical procedures vary wildly from provider to provider even within the same area. They also vary equally wildly from patient to patient with the same provider -- that's part of why it's impossible to price shop for medical procedures: most places wont' tell you what something costs, because they can't predict what the computer will tell them to charge you.