So the conditions are fake and the drugs don't work??
I'm curious.... how would you know if the drugs were working?
It's pretty simple.
Step 1) You remove her from all electromagnetic fields and see if her symptoms change. Step 2) You put her back in electromagnetic fields and provide her with drugs in two different periods (One using real drugs, one using placebos) and see if her symptoms change accordingly.
Since no one even bothered with step 1 according to the article (There is still sunlight in that remote area she is living in so she is still exposed to EM fields much stronger than we can produce on earth) and they refuse step 2 outright, we can conclude she has no sensitivity to EM since clearly her symptoms change while still being influenced by the same fields the entire time.
She basically claimed similar to "I experience pain while living in a house with a front door, so I moved into another house without a front door (She says while standing in the front doorway) and my pain went away! Clearly removing the front door that I didn't remove means the door was the cause of my pain"
In that made up example we have the same evidence: The claimed cause of her problem was present in both cases so should have the exact same symptoms, yet her symptoms do change, so clearly the cause is something else.
This should create the head of steam required to get some legislation passed to make companies and specific executives SUFFER if they screw up their data security.
Why don't we just instead make cheating on your marriage partner punishable by death. Clearly that will prevent any data leaks like this one from occurring in the future *sarcasm*
So you're storing your data in a doll, and you have to buy a doll for each game you play? And people are still willing to pay above retail for these dolls? Sounds like Nintendo's happy with the current model to me, and somewhere PT Barnum is smiling.
It's worse than that.
Many games now contain features or characters that you can only unlock by swiping the matching character Amibo. Swipe the Mario Amibo and you unlock that skin or hat or track or whatever, swap the Link Amibo instead and you unlock a Zelda themed skin or track or whatever.
The Amibo read function is basically used as DLC. DLC the store can run out of... But anyway
So many people collect an entire themed set of Amibos to play each of the different unlockable DLCs in a given game.
Combined with the write function that is only underutilized for the moment (two games support it, not one as the summary states) you go from simple addition into multiplication.
DLC that they can run out of, plus only enough on-the-go storage for one games save data.
It's obviously going to be a win-win! *depressed sigh*
The medicine I was on is called Citalopram (it used to be brand name Celexa), which after a few months I was at 40mg per day for almost 5 years.
I was 31 or 32 when I started taking it, and stopped taking it just a year ago or so. I'm 37 now.
The bulk of the effects took a week or so to kick in, but a bit longer to stop since they lower your dose over a period before stopping to avoid withdraw symptoms.
The only big difference I've noticed since I stopped taking it completely is depression kicking in more often and stronger than I remember, however I can't say for sure what (if anything) might be responsible for that. I have been on other medications in that time for other things, and at the beginning I remember them trying a number of anti-anxiety medications for a couple months each before finding this one. I've also been hospitalized and on medications for other unrelated things in that time (prior intestinal problems) so who really knows what single thing or combination of things may have caused that. Or maybe life just legitimately sucks more now than almost a decade ago:}
Still, the more you know and all that.
I wish you good luck, and hope you end up finding the right balance of meds for your needs.
... what's wrong with social anxiety? Most people are assholes so it seems quite reasonable as a general attitude, doesn't it?
My problem with my social anxiety is that I can't choose who or when it gets applied to.
Even my close friends whom aren't assholes have had to put up with me "disappearing" for weeks or months on end during attacks, and while those friends are all pretty understanding of my problem it still has to be pretty hard on them as well as myself.
I've only so far found one medication that, sorta kind technically fixes the problem. Mainly, while I don't feel anxiety while on it thus it technically works, I also don't feel anything else at all. No happiness, no sadness, no empathy, no looking forward to anything, etc.
While not under an attack I can see that given the choice between feeling only bad and feeling nothing, at least nothing is arguably better in that the bad is gone and nothing else changes. But during an attack it's typically quite the battle convincing myself there is any point in living life without anything good to look forward to.
While CBT hasn't worked on me, I do hope this tech gets to the point to identify other treatments that would have a higher (or any) success rate.
There are millions of ATMs and other embedded windows XP machines out there languishing as unsupported because they trusted Microsoft. Millions of ATM's and other embedded computer devices will be replaced not because they need to be, but because the operating system running them is no longer supported.
You are aware that Windows XP Embedded is still supported and receiving security patches to this very day, yes?
XP Embedded was released in November 2001 and extended support does not end until January 12th 2016.
In fact if you love living life further over the edge than just using XP, it is possible to hack up XP Pro to use XP Embedded security patches - though obviously even more at-your-own-risk than ever.
Ahh, now I see what you mean. Slight miscommunication I'm guessing.
The usual way it is phrased is referencing the death of the heat within the universe, not the death of the universe itself.
But from the point of view of the universe, I can see what you mean in that the universe itself will "die" from freezing. Especially compared to the alternative of a contracting universe's fate.
Of course even that follows previous thinking that the universe will remain alive and well after this time, and only the heat/energy within will be effectively dead. But of course such thinking isn't even at the theory level for us yet, just some logical assumptions that should hold true given the options.
Or at least I personally am not willing to claim either option as a fact;}
A lot to reply to, and a lot of conflicting concepts even though you are essentially correct regarding each of them.
First, encryption alone isn't related to identification/anonymity. Those are two separate things each needing addressed.
In fact even with public key crypto, reverse encryption (aka signing) isn't required to use, but is the only method for true identification on top of the encryption.
For communications to be secured, only the requirement of 3rd parties being unable to read it is assumed. Identifying one or all parties (or not being able to) isn't typically addressed under the umbrella of encryption, so it isn't too surprising that point isn't addressed.
Second, while there is a race to the bottom so far as hardware (or even software) speed goes towards brute forcing any form of encryption, this has actually always been true (even before encryption!) and is just one of those details we "gloss over" in a high level discussion of the topic.
A method of encryption, mathematically speaking, is always a ratio of two numbers: How long it takes to encrypt/decrypt with the proper credentials, and how long it takes to brute force without the credentials (usually mean time, but mean and average can usually be provided)
The same is true for things like locks and safes/vaults. They have a rating of how much time would be required to brute force them, either in blowtorching the thing open or simply trying each combination if it is lacking any form of protection to slow that down - typically which ever method would be fastest.
In the case of encryption, let's take AES-128 as an example, it requires 2^126 operations to brute force (well, last I checked) A Pentium Pro at 200 Mhz required something like 16 or 18 clock cycles per byte of data, which at that speed would have taken a couple billion years to reach mean brute force time.
Clearly our desktops today are much much faster than that, and Government super computers even more so, so the time needed for that many operations is greatly reduced - but still not zero.
NIST typically approves encryption methods that have at least a 20 year mean time to brute force, with the expectation that you have upgraded your encryption method long before that 20 year time is up, and that it isn't worth it to an attacker to hold on to 20 year old data to await the time they can brute force it faster.
Clearly those assumptions are not always true given projects like Tempora that you linked (and I assume most if not all super-power governments have something similar) But that doesn't indicate a failing of the encryption, it only indicates the initial assumptions made when choosing a type of encryption failed.
It's more comparible to buying a water-resistant watch and then either taking it into the ocean while deep diving (failure of the user choosing the encryption), or perhaps being hit with an unexpected multi-day typhoon (failure forced upon the user) In both cases that poor watch likely isn't going to hold up, and also in both cases the watch was never manufactured nor claimed to be able to in the given conditions.
Back on topic, it just indicates we are at a special point in time where a lot of our existing encryption methods won't last long enough for the uses we put to them, be it by ignorance of how and what the encryption actually was made to do, or in ignorance of the current state of technology being used against it.
Lastly, when it comes to "slipping up", there are of course many ways to do so (the old saying about trying to make something idiot proof produces better idiots comes to mind)
An encryption method is just a mathematical formula, and many are actual proofs, not just some guesses being made in how they operate. However the software you use is different, it is an implementation of that encryption method. If an implementation doesn't completely match the math proof (be it a bug, typo, or intentional backdoor) that isn't necessarily an indicator that the encryption
Cold isn't a thing. Heat is a thing, a thing we call energy. Cold is just the lack of that heat/energy thing.
Upon the heat death of the universe, the lack of heat aka cold will be quite alive and well, and isn't going anywhere. In fact it will be all there is.
It is the heat aka energy that will be so diluted and evened out it may as well not exist anymore. Thus heat death.
You still haven't answered the question to the problem at hand.
How do you securely exchange a one time pad in the first place, if all of your communications are being monitored?
That is the one and only thing public key crypto does. Nothing secret needs exchanged, and the only thing needing exchanged is perfectly fine to be public knowledge as it doesn't let an attacker do anything. (Well, it would let the attacker send you an encrypted message that only you can read - but that's not a risk, that's precisely how encryption should work)
Why can't Alice and Bob agree that they will use the text of the first article posted on Slashdot after noon Central Standard Time each day that they have a message to send as their one time pad? In that way avoid the issue of having to transfer the pad between themselves in advance and they have a new text available daily.
How is Alice supposed to inform Bob of this scheme in the first place?
If I am intercepting their communications, I will know of their scheme and have the same access to Slashdot at noon CST to obtain their daily key just as well as they can.
If Alice and Bob do have some "magic" method to communicate this scheme, then why should they bother with the encryption scheme in the first place? Just use the "magic" method they would have used for all their communications since it clearly must be secure, right?
So... for a long time, various encryption algos were considered weapons and subject to ITAR controls. The same is starting up again now.
So... if code can be a weapon, a (very) loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and some Castle Doctrine would already allow someone to hack back...
Even that very loose interpretation doesn't quite fit.
The second amendment after all only says we the people may posses weaponry, it isn't a blanket licence to shoot at just anyone willy nilly, let alone a license to kill someone.
At least so far it is still not illegal to simply own an exploit or its source code, which is a more fair comparison.
One might argue that it should/is legal to counter-hack a system, but to keep the comparison, only so long as they are the one that attacked you first.
The moment you attack some poor smuck infected with malware doing the attackers bidding, it is no different than pulling your legal to own and have firearm and shooting the mailman that brought the ransom note to your door. That is murder far and clear even with the second amendment and castle laws.
Most attacks these days are carried out through such proxy systems, be they n00b level windows malware, or zero day exploits against a fully patched and updated system (which I don't think anyone can possibly blame the systems owner for), and should be just as illegal to attack them as to counter attack them.
Our fear is that won't be the case. Many innocents are at risk with this plan.
Not to mention, all a black hat hacker has to do is form a corporation, then wait for the inevitable botnet scans and "counter hack" all those infected zombies. Now this law just made legal any hacking done by those with unsavory intentions. Yeay?
It's bad enough on the Internet these days, but this certainly will not make a climate I wish to be involved with at all.
I was thinking he was the poor sucker with a first generation iMac where the USB wasn't even 2.0. (and where the firmware is set so that it CANNOT boot from an external USB DVD-ROM drive)
My first gen iMac boots from external CDROM on USB just fine, thank you.
Hold the Alt key at startup to get the boot device menu, plug in your cdrom if need be and press alt again to update the device list, and click on the big giant CD icon.
Both OS X and YellowDog Linux boot fine this way, and I've installed and reinstalled both more than once.
Firmware hasn't ever been manually upgraded either, so unless some patch came with OS X 10.1 or something, the firmware hasn't been upgraded beyond factory as well.
I've not tried the "C" key shortcut on it, as I didn't learn about that one until later sometime around/after I had my i7 macbook.
But even today I prefer the alt key method of selecting a boot device from the list over the "C" key that can't confirm the cd media is even bootable before skipping past it on to the HD. Too many cdrw discs having boot sector problems with various older cdrom drives I guess.
Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do
How is that not easy to do?
"[Man] Kids, get in the house."
Now only one person remains in danger of a drone falling on him, zero people are in danger of the shotgun pellets coming down, and as the one main remaining is also the land owner, you clearly have the land owners permission to act as well as already accepting the risk of damage to their own property.
I started using computers regularly in the time before the "Windows" key was added to the keyboard. So, when it appeared, I refused to use it, out of pique.
I have to bring that statement into question.
If you really did use computers back in the day before Windows, you would already know that key - called Super - has existed since the 80s and was first removed on the IBM 8800 computer, which it remained missing until Microsoft requested keyboard manufacturers to put the Super key back and stick their logo on it.
Unix systems used and still use Super as an extra modifier similar to Hyper, Meta, Alt, AltGr, and Control. The classic Macs used it as the "open apple" / command key, which was used for keyboard shortcuts leaving Control free to insert control characters as originally intended. Sun had a dedicated key on the left-hand function keys.
LISP programmers have said they can't live without Meta. Even emacs remaps the keycode back in for command shortcuts.
Personally when the key REappeared I was quite happy, as any cheap-o $10 keyboard would have similar functionality to any 104-key keyboard in the past, and no longer commanded higher prices to get.
"They installed a simple Chrome plugin on every Macbook [...] the least popular keys are Capslock and Right Mouse Button"
You don't say!
Right click is pretty popular on most every desktop OS out there.
What shocks me the most is they didn't report mouse buttons 3, 4, and 5 as least used. Button 3 is pretty well used by power users, but 4/5 require an external mouse, so macbooks don't have those two buttons built in as hardware.
I'm still waiting on Windows to actually add in support for buttons 4 and 5 instead of faking it and mapping them to browser forward/back.
The most used desktop OS (Windows) still to this day doesn't support as many mouse buttons as younger OSes like OS X and Linux, it's simply amazing.
Usually the settlement documents specifically state that if the patent/etc. is declared invalid that they get to keep the money anyway.
So... $45 million is not a bad run for this troll. It will probably encourage them to keep the extortion ring going with another worthless patent.
I see no mention in the newegg blog about the patent being declared invalid, only that newegg was declared not infringing upon it.
While I'm sure this ruling will help anyone else in the future who is simply using SSL on their web server, it doesn't really help anyone else the troll sues who they feel is using SSL/RC4 differently.
They only really need a new worthless patent to go after the same targets they already sued or planned to sue for the same reason. They get to keep using this same worthless patent still however, just against a different group of targets.
How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your craft would have something to say about it flying over them?
I dunno, but you could ask New Zealand after paying them $600 for the privilege of not giving the people who could be potentially be hit by your craft something to say about it...
Apparently they think it's quite sane to charge so little money in return for making your permission or opinion moot.
To start with, only make it a little harder to maintain a driver's license, such as requiring people to take the test more often
*snip*
Meanwhile, keep making the driving tests more strict. Not impossibly difficult, but maybe difficult and expensive is roughly the same range as getting your pilot's license.
I've been in favor of doing just that for a long time now, before self-driving cars were involved or even a thing.
It's ironic you mention the test shouldn't be impossible difficult, but it seems the primary argument for handing out drivers licenses like candy is that for way over half the US population a test that is possible to fail effectively is impossible (which never sounded like a valid reason against it to me, but alas)
A funny story that happened to me when I went to take my first driving test, many moons ago...
I was 17 and pretty nervous and anxious about taking the official test (as tends to be my nature), so I purposely scheduled it on a later day than suggested in order to get as early a slot in the day as possible. My thinking was that a driving instructor that has had to put up with bad drivers and dumb kid mistakes all day is likely to be pissed off, even if only on the inside. That was an additional stress I didn't want, so hopefully if I was first in the day, the instructor wouldn't have a full days worth of frustration pent up to potentially be taken out on me.
After a 10 day delay I was able to get slot #2 that morning. Sure not as good as slot #1, but how bad could one student before me possibly be?
As myself, my mother, and the mother of the girl in slot #1 were all standing at the front window of the DMV watching her do the parallel parking cone test, just as they finished the instructor opened the passenger door and stepped out of the vehicle, the car lurches forward with a brief screech and runs over the instructors foot!
First to be said, the instructor was not seriously injured, though I can only imagine how much that would hurt. EMTs came and examined him and took him to the hospital for further examination. An employee there was out talking to the instructor before they took him away, which is where the report of "no serious injury" came from, as well as determining another instructor would need to be assigned for the day. (It turns out I was in slot #1 for the new instructor anyway!)
The girl and her mom were still at the DMV after I completed my test and returned and her mom was still chatting with my mom, which was a little surprising as I assumed they remained there due to the accident, something I figured would be involving a lot of paperwork of not a police report or something like that.
Nope, turns out the girl passed the rest of her testing, and despite running over the instructors foot with her car, was waiting on (and issued) her full privileged drivers license!
If that isn't reason enough to fail someone and keep them on a learners permit, I'm honestly not sure what one could do to fail it if they wanted to.
The driving test was already far too easy even back then, and from what I hear lately the written test is now multiple choice where they get to choose which questions to skip or answer, the cone test is now spread out further than the parking lot line guides we used, and the driving test itself is limited to four right turns going around the block.
I understand how today it is practically impossible to live without being able to drive to and from work, to and from the big grocery stores that replaced the corner-mart, and all of that... But I still wish they would take into account how difficult it is for the rest of us to live when they allow people like this to pilot a 4000lb block of metal without the slightest idea how to control the thing.
Computer driving system needs to avoid all accidents, not just proclaim after each one "its not its fault!"
The courts and entire legal system says you are wrong.
The law only says you must follow the law, and thusly following the law and being hit by someone breaking the law is not the law abiding person (or computers) fault, nor is it intended to be their problem.
(Even then it's only their problem in the sense the law abiding driver has to deal with fucktards like you causing harm to them, refusing to take responsibility for your law breaking, and the slowness of the courts in forcing you to make them whole again)
That goal might be a technically sound one, but I don't think it's politically viable. Telling people they are not allowed to drive their car anymore is likely to be even less popular than telling Americans they can't own a gun anymore.
I'm not sure I agree with that, although admit you may be right.
I think telling people they can't drive a motor vehicle on the public roads anymore would be more comparable to ~100 years ago when the government told people they wouldn't be allowed to ride their horse or horse drawn carriage on the public roads anymore.
I bet most people back then also thought that would never work or be accepted by the public either. Actually for all I know it DIDN'T go over well!
However here we are, not a single horse on the roads in the cities anyways, and even in the country it isn't the most common form of transportation anymore although you do still see it on occasion.
But just as its necessary/tolerated to have a horse on a country road at times, I suspect those same roads will tolerate human-driven motor vehicles just the same and likely for a long time to come.
In the city however? Doubtful.
As a country we have gone through such a transition before, so there's no reason to think it can't also be done again.
But I must admit you may still be correct. The opinion of the general public on what America should be and is has drastically changed in the last 100 years or so.
It used to mean "freedom" yet today more than the minority are in favor for a totalitarian police state. It used to mean "chasing the American dream" but now that is hardly tolerated and less possible than ever before. It used to mean curiosity and learning to those that wanted it, but today we imprison more children for doing the exact same things the judges, police, and lawyers (and the rest of us!) all did as kids too.
A strong anti-science and anti-progress movement to stop such a change from happening today like it did with horse drawn carriages wouldn't be a shocking surprise to me, sadly.
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
When given the choice between not stopping and rear-ending the car stopped in front of you, or stopping like you are required to do by law and being rear-ended yourself, I must seriously question why you advocate the more dangerous and the only illegal option of the two?
Plus 11 out of 10000 rear-end accidents per city per day doesn't sound at all like it is out of range, especially so considering those 11 are spread out over a vehicle fleet the size of Googles.
Take a small taxi or limo company with the same sized fleet and I would bet money on the spot they have had more than 11 vehicles rear-ended in the same time period.
Finally, in closing you just literally advocated 11 traffic violations should have been committed, when in reality Google's vehicles haven't violated a single one. You do realize if you followed your own advice, after just 3-4 of those accidents you caused, you would have lost your drivers license and privileges by now, right?
Hard to take the opinion of someone who by all rights should have a suspended license over a fleet of vehicles and drivers that haven't violated any traffic laws to date.
But by that definition, if I write an essay advocating anarchist revolution to a conservative newspaper and they decide not to publish it in full on their letters page, they are "censoring" me.
Yes, exactly, they would be censoring you.
Not illegally censoring you, not censoring you in violation of any constitutional amendments, but they would certainly be censoring you.
In fact as the topic of discussion at hand is about, they arguably are not even in the wrong for that form of censorship. It is their conservative newspaper, their soapbox so to speak. They have the moral right to decline letting you use their soapbox.
They likely have the legal right to do so as well, although that can be trickier depending on the details. Certain forms of discrimination Are after all illegal for citizens to perform.
Also if it was an issue of the newspaper controlling ALL the soapboxes that could be available, that would certainly have a good argument for not being legal. It may need a monopolistic practices charge from a judge first, but that may certainly be possible. Since you defined "conservative newspaper" that does imply there are other sub-types of newspaper out there, and assuming they are each controlled by different parties (IE no monopoly issues) it would very likely not even be considered a problem legally. You would have other soapboxes to use, and in that example could very well find one more in line with the anarchist theme which would publish the paper.
It also matters a lot if you can make your own soapbox or not. In the case of the press, you can make your own soapbox to use, so being denied the use of other peoples soapboxes isn't a legal issue. If that was practically or fully impossible to do, that would be a valid and good argument that it is illegal censorship.
I don't believe in your example it would be illegal discrimination or censorship, but honestly there are so many laws out there and so many differences state to state that I could very easily be wrong.
But legal or illegal doesn't really matter, the act itself is still called "censorship".
Slashdot Mirror
So the conditions are fake and the drugs don't work??
I'm curious.... how would you know if the drugs were working?
It's pretty simple.
Step 1) You remove her from all electromagnetic fields and see if her symptoms change.
Step 2) You put her back in electromagnetic fields and provide her with drugs in two different periods (One using real drugs, one using placebos) and see if her symptoms change accordingly.
Since no one even bothered with step 1 according to the article (There is still sunlight in that remote area she is living in so she is still exposed to EM fields much stronger than we can produce on earth) and they refuse step 2 outright, we can conclude she has no sensitivity to EM since clearly her symptoms change while still being influenced by the same fields the entire time.
She basically claimed similar to "I experience pain while living in a house with a front door, so I moved into another house without a front door (She says while standing in the front doorway) and my pain went away! Clearly removing the front door that I didn't remove means the door was the cause of my pain"
In that made up example we have the same evidence: The claimed cause of her problem was present in both cases so should have the exact same symptoms, yet her symptoms do change, so clearly the cause is something else.
This should create the head of steam required to get some legislation passed to make companies and specific executives SUFFER if they screw up their data security.
Why don't we just instead make cheating on your marriage partner punishable by death.
Clearly that will prevent any data leaks like this one from occurring in the future *sarcasm*
I just hope they don't enslave us and force us to watch The Secret of NIMH 2
*shudder*
So you're storing your data in a doll, and you have to buy a doll for each game you play? And people are still willing to pay above retail for these dolls? Sounds like Nintendo's happy with the current model to me, and somewhere PT Barnum is smiling.
It's worse than that.
Many games now contain features or characters that you can only unlock by swiping the matching character Amibo.
Swipe the Mario Amibo and you unlock that skin or hat or track or whatever, swap the Link Amibo instead and you unlock a Zelda themed skin or track or whatever.
The Amibo read function is basically used as DLC. DLC the store can run out of... But anyway
So many people collect an entire themed set of Amibos to play each of the different unlockable DLCs in a given game.
Combined with the write function that is only underutilized for the moment (two games support it, not one as the summary states) you go from simple addition into multiplication.
DLC that they can run out of, plus only enough on-the-go storage for one games save data.
It's obviously going to be a win-win! *depressed sigh*
The medicine I was on is called Citalopram (it used to be brand name Celexa), which after a few months I was at 40mg per day for almost 5 years.
I was 31 or 32 when I started taking it, and stopped taking it just a year ago or so. I'm 37 now.
The bulk of the effects took a week or so to kick in, but a bit longer to stop since they lower your dose over a period before stopping to avoid withdraw symptoms.
The only big difference I've noticed since I stopped taking it completely is depression kicking in more often and stronger than I remember, however I can't say for sure what (if anything) might be responsible for that. :}
I have been on other medications in that time for other things, and at the beginning I remember them trying a number of anti-anxiety medications for a couple months each before finding this one.
I've also been hospitalized and on medications for other unrelated things in that time (prior intestinal problems) so who really knows what single thing or combination of things may have caused that.
Or maybe life just legitimately sucks more now than almost a decade ago
Still, the more you know and all that.
I wish you good luck, and hope you end up finding the right balance of meds for your needs.
... what's wrong with social anxiety?
Most people are assholes so it seems quite reasonable as a general attitude, doesn't it?
My problem with my social anxiety is that I can't choose who or when it gets applied to.
Even my close friends whom aren't assholes have had to put up with me "disappearing" for weeks or months on end during attacks, and while those friends are all pretty understanding of my problem it still has to be pretty hard on them as well as myself.
I've only so far found one medication that, sorta kind technically fixes the problem.
Mainly, while I don't feel anxiety while on it thus it technically works, I also don't feel anything else at all. No happiness, no sadness, no empathy, no looking forward to anything, etc.
While not under an attack I can see that given the choice between feeling only bad and feeling nothing, at least nothing is arguably better in that the bad is gone and nothing else changes.
But during an attack it's typically quite the battle convincing myself there is any point in living life without anything good to look forward to.
While CBT hasn't worked on me, I do hope this tech gets to the point to identify other treatments that would have a higher (or any) success rate.
There are millions of ATMs and other embedded windows XP machines out there languishing as unsupported because they trusted Microsoft. Millions of ATM's and other embedded computer devices will be replaced not because they need to be, but because the operating system running them is no longer supported.
You are aware that Windows XP Embedded is still supported and receiving security patches to this very day, yes?
XP Embedded was released in November 2001 and extended support does not end until January 12th 2016.
In fact if you love living life further over the edge than just using XP, it is possible to hack up XP Pro to use XP Embedded security patches - though obviously even more at-your-own-risk than ever.
Ahh, now I see what you mean. Slight miscommunication I'm guessing.
The usual way it is phrased is referencing the death of the heat within the universe, not the death of the universe itself.
But from the point of view of the universe, I can see what you mean in that the universe itself will "die" from freezing. Especially compared to the alternative of a contracting universe's fate.
Of course even that follows previous thinking that the universe will remain alive and well after this time, and only the heat/energy within will be effectively dead.
But of course such thinking isn't even at the theory level for us yet, just some logical assumptions that should hold true given the options.
Or at least I personally am not willing to claim either option as a fact ;}
A lot to reply to, and a lot of conflicting concepts even though you are essentially correct regarding each of them.
First, encryption alone isn't related to identification/anonymity. Those are two separate things each needing addressed.
In fact even with public key crypto, reverse encryption (aka signing) isn't required to use, but is the only method for true identification on top of the encryption.
For communications to be secured, only the requirement of 3rd parties being unable to read it is assumed. Identifying one or all parties (or not being able to) isn't typically addressed under the umbrella of encryption, so it isn't too surprising that point isn't addressed.
Second, while there is a race to the bottom so far as hardware (or even software) speed goes towards brute forcing any form of encryption, this has actually always been true (even before encryption!) and is just one of those details we "gloss over" in a high level discussion of the topic.
A method of encryption, mathematically speaking, is always a ratio of two numbers: How long it takes to encrypt/decrypt with the proper credentials, and how long it takes to brute force without the credentials (usually mean time, but mean and average can usually be provided)
The same is true for things like locks and safes/vaults. They have a rating of how much time would be required to brute force them, either in blowtorching the thing open or simply trying each combination if it is lacking any form of protection to slow that down - typically which ever method would be fastest.
In the case of encryption, let's take AES-128 as an example, it requires 2^126 operations to brute force (well, last I checked)
A Pentium Pro at 200 Mhz required something like 16 or 18 clock cycles per byte of data, which at that speed would have taken a couple billion years to reach mean brute force time.
Clearly our desktops today are much much faster than that, and Government super computers even more so, so the time needed for that many operations is greatly reduced - but still not zero.
NIST typically approves encryption methods that have at least a 20 year mean time to brute force, with the expectation that you have upgraded your encryption method long before that 20 year time is up, and that it isn't worth it to an attacker to hold on to 20 year old data to await the time they can brute force it faster.
Clearly those assumptions are not always true given projects like Tempora that you linked (and I assume most if not all super-power governments have something similar)
But that doesn't indicate a failing of the encryption, it only indicates the initial assumptions made when choosing a type of encryption failed.
It's more comparible to buying a water-resistant watch and then either taking it into the ocean while deep diving (failure of the user choosing the encryption), or perhaps being hit with an unexpected multi-day typhoon (failure forced upon the user)
In both cases that poor watch likely isn't going to hold up, and also in both cases the watch was never manufactured nor claimed to be able to in the given conditions.
Back on topic, it just indicates we are at a special point in time where a lot of our existing encryption methods won't last long enough for the uses we put to them, be it by ignorance of how and what the encryption actually was made to do, or in ignorance of the current state of technology being used against it.
Lastly, when it comes to "slipping up", there are of course many ways to do so (the old saying about trying to make something idiot proof produces better idiots comes to mind)
An encryption method is just a mathematical formula, and many are actual proofs, not just some guesses being made in how they operate.
However the software you use is different, it is an implementation of that encryption method.
If an implementation doesn't completely match the math proof (be it a bug, typo, or intentional backdoor) that isn't necessarily an indicator that the encryption
Cold isn't a thing. Heat is a thing, a thing we call energy. Cold is just the lack of that heat/energy thing.
Upon the heat death of the universe, the lack of heat aka cold will be quite alive and well, and isn't going anywhere. In fact it will be all there is.
It is the heat aka energy that will be so diluted and evened out it may as well not exist anymore. Thus heat death.
You still haven't answered the question to the problem at hand.
How do you securely exchange a one time pad in the first place, if all of your communications are being monitored?
That is the one and only thing public key crypto does. Nothing secret needs exchanged, and the only thing needing exchanged is perfectly fine to be public knowledge as it doesn't let an attacker do anything.
(Well, it would let the attacker send you an encrypted message that only you can read - but that's not a risk, that's precisely how encryption should work)
Why can't Alice and Bob agree that they will use the text of the first article posted on Slashdot after noon Central Standard Time each day that they have a message to send as their one time pad? In that way avoid the issue of having to transfer the pad between themselves in advance and they have a new text available daily.
How is Alice supposed to inform Bob of this scheme in the first place?
If I am intercepting their communications, I will know of their scheme and have the same access to Slashdot at noon CST to obtain their daily key just as well as they can.
If Alice and Bob do have some "magic" method to communicate this scheme, then why should they bother with the encryption scheme in the first place? Just use the "magic" method they would have used for all their communications since it clearly must be secure, right?
So... for a long time, various encryption algos were considered weapons and subject to ITAR controls. The same is starting up again now.
So... if code can be a weapon, a (very) loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and some Castle Doctrine would already allow someone to hack back ...
Even that very loose interpretation doesn't quite fit.
The second amendment after all only says we the people may posses weaponry, it isn't a blanket licence to shoot at just anyone willy nilly, let alone a license to kill someone.
At least so far it is still not illegal to simply own an exploit or its source code, which is a more fair comparison.
One might argue that it should/is legal to counter-hack a system, but to keep the comparison, only so long as they are the one that attacked you first.
The moment you attack some poor smuck infected with malware doing the attackers bidding, it is no different than pulling your legal to own and have firearm and shooting the mailman that brought the ransom note to your door.
That is murder far and clear even with the second amendment and castle laws.
Most attacks these days are carried out through such proxy systems, be they n00b level windows malware, or zero day exploits against a fully patched and updated system (which I don't think anyone can possibly blame the systems owner for), and should be just as illegal to attack them as to counter attack them.
Our fear is that won't be the case. Many innocents are at risk with this plan.
Not to mention, all a black hat hacker has to do is form a corporation, then wait for the inevitable botnet scans and "counter hack" all those infected zombies.
Now this law just made legal any hacking done by those with unsavory intentions. Yeay?
It's bad enough on the Internet these days, but this certainly will not make a climate I wish to be involved with at all.
I was thinking he was the poor sucker with a first generation iMac where the USB wasn't even 2.0. (and where the firmware is set so that it CANNOT boot from an external USB DVD-ROM drive)
My first gen iMac boots from external CDROM on USB just fine, thank you.
Hold the Alt key at startup to get the boot device menu, plug in your cdrom if need be and press alt again to update the device list, and click on the big giant CD icon.
Both OS X and YellowDog Linux boot fine this way, and I've installed and reinstalled both more than once.
Firmware hasn't ever been manually upgraded either, so unless some patch came with OS X 10.1 or something, the firmware hasn't been upgraded beyond factory as well.
I've not tried the "C" key shortcut on it, as I didn't learn about that one until later sometime around/after I had my i7 macbook.
But even today I prefer the alt key method of selecting a boot device from the list over the "C" key that can't confirm the cd media is even bootable before skipping past it on to the HD.
Too many cdrw discs having boot sector problems with various older cdrom drives I guess.
Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do
How is that not easy to do?
"[Man] Kids, get in the house."
Now only one person remains in danger of a drone falling on him, zero people are in danger of the shotgun pellets coming down, and as the one main remaining is also the land owner, you clearly have the land owners permission to act as well as already accepting the risk of damage to their own property.
Easy Peasy
I started using computers regularly in the time before the "Windows" key was added to the keyboard. So, when it appeared, I refused to use it, out of pique.
I have to bring that statement into question.
If you really did use computers back in the day before Windows, you would already know that key - called Super - has existed since the 80s and was first removed on the IBM 8800 computer, which it remained missing until Microsoft requested keyboard manufacturers to put the Super key back and stick their logo on it.
Unix systems used and still use Super as an extra modifier similar to Hyper, Meta, Alt, AltGr, and Control.
The classic Macs used it as the "open apple" / command key, which was used for keyboard shortcuts leaving Control free to insert control characters as originally intended.
Sun had a dedicated key on the left-hand function keys.
LISP programmers have said they can't live without Meta.
Even emacs remaps the keycode back in for command shortcuts.
Personally when the key REappeared I was quite happy, as any cheap-o $10 keyboard would have similar functionality to any 104-key keyboard in the past, and no longer commanded higher prices to get.
"They installed a simple Chrome plugin on every Macbook [...] the least popular keys are Capslock and Right Mouse Button"
You don't say!
Right click is pretty popular on most every desktop OS out there.
What shocks me the most is they didn't report mouse buttons 3, 4, and 5 as least used.
Button 3 is pretty well used by power users, but 4/5 require an external mouse, so macbooks don't have those two buttons built in as hardware.
I'm still waiting on Windows to actually add in support for buttons 4 and 5 instead of faking it and mapping them to browser forward/back.
The most used desktop OS (Windows) still to this day doesn't support as many mouse buttons as younger OSes like OS X and Linux, it's simply amazing.
Usually the settlement documents specifically state that if the patent/etc. is declared invalid that they get to keep the money anyway.
So... $45 million is not a bad run for this troll. It will probably encourage them to keep the extortion ring going with another worthless patent.
I see no mention in the newegg blog about the patent being declared invalid, only that newegg was declared not infringing upon it.
While I'm sure this ruling will help anyone else in the future who is simply using SSL on their web server, it doesn't really help anyone else the troll sues who they feel is using SSL/RC4 differently.
They only really need a new worthless patent to go after the same targets they already sued or planned to sue for the same reason.
They get to keep using this same worthless patent still however, just against a different group of targets.
How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your craft would have something to say about it flying over them?
I dunno, but you could ask New Zealand after paying them $600 for the privilege of not giving the people who could be potentially be hit by your craft something to say about it...
Apparently they think it's quite sane to charge so little money in return for making your permission or opinion moot.
Yeah? Well I strapped some fucking rockets to my car and it went from 0 to 60 MPH in about 0.8 seconds. So fuck you.
Yes, but that was 0-60 straight up.
To win the race you need to move forward, and the largest piece left over from the explosion must cross the finish line.
To start with, only make it a little harder to maintain a driver's license, such as requiring people to take the test more often
*snip*
Meanwhile, keep making the driving tests more strict. Not impossibly difficult, but maybe difficult and expensive is roughly the same range as getting your pilot's license.
I've been in favor of doing just that for a long time now, before self-driving cars were involved or even a thing.
It's ironic you mention the test shouldn't be impossible difficult, but it seems the primary argument for handing out drivers licenses like candy is that for way over half the US population a test that is possible to fail effectively is impossible (which never sounded like a valid reason against it to me, but alas)
A funny story that happened to me when I went to take my first driving test, many moons ago...
I was 17 and pretty nervous and anxious about taking the official test (as tends to be my nature), so I purposely scheduled it on a later day than suggested in order to get as early a slot in the day as possible.
My thinking was that a driving instructor that has had to put up with bad drivers and dumb kid mistakes all day is likely to be pissed off, even if only on the inside. That was an additional stress I didn't want, so hopefully if I was first in the day, the instructor wouldn't have a full days worth of frustration pent up to potentially be taken out on me.
After a 10 day delay I was able to get slot #2 that morning. Sure not as good as slot #1, but how bad could one student before me possibly be?
As myself, my mother, and the mother of the girl in slot #1 were all standing at the front window of the DMV watching her do the parallel parking cone test, just as they finished the instructor opened the passenger door and stepped out of the vehicle, the car lurches forward with a brief screech and runs over the instructors foot!
First to be said, the instructor was not seriously injured, though I can only imagine how much that would hurt.
EMTs came and examined him and took him to the hospital for further examination.
An employee there was out talking to the instructor before they took him away, which is where the report of "no serious injury" came from, as well as determining another instructor would need to be assigned for the day.
(It turns out I was in slot #1 for the new instructor anyway!)
The girl and her mom were still at the DMV after I completed my test and returned and her mom was still chatting with my mom, which was a little surprising as I assumed they remained there due to the accident, something I figured would be involving a lot of paperwork of not a police report or something like that.
Nope, turns out the girl passed the rest of her testing, and despite running over the instructors foot with her car, was waiting on (and issued) her full privileged drivers license!
If that isn't reason enough to fail someone and keep them on a learners permit, I'm honestly not sure what one could do to fail it if they wanted to.
The driving test was already far too easy even back then, and from what I hear lately the written test is now multiple choice where they get to choose which questions to skip or answer, the cone test is now spread out further than the parking lot line guides we used, and the driving test itself is limited to four right turns going around the block.
I understand how today it is practically impossible to live without being able to drive to and from work, to and from the big grocery stores that replaced the corner-mart, and all of that...
But I still wish they would take into account how difficult it is for the rest of us to live when they allow people like this to pilot a 4000lb block of metal without the slightest idea how to control the thing.
Computer driving system needs to avoid all accidents, not just proclaim after each one "its not its fault!"
The courts and entire legal system says you are wrong.
The law only says you must follow the law, and thusly following the law and being hit by someone breaking the law is not the law abiding person (or computers) fault, nor is it intended to be their problem.
(Even then it's only their problem in the sense the law abiding driver has to deal with fucktards like you causing harm to them, refusing to take responsibility for your law breaking, and the slowness of the courts in forcing you to make them whole again)
That goal might be a technically sound one, but I don't think it's politically viable. Telling people they are not allowed to drive their car anymore is likely to be even less popular than telling Americans they can't own a gun anymore.
I'm not sure I agree with that, although admit you may be right.
I think telling people they can't drive a motor vehicle on the public roads anymore would be more comparable to ~100 years ago when the government told people they wouldn't be allowed to ride their horse or horse drawn carriage on the public roads anymore.
I bet most people back then also thought that would never work or be accepted by the public either.
Actually for all I know it DIDN'T go over well!
However here we are, not a single horse on the roads in the cities anyways, and even in the country it isn't the most common form of transportation anymore although you do still see it on occasion.
But just as its necessary/tolerated to have a horse on a country road at times, I suspect those same roads will tolerate human-driven motor vehicles just the same and likely for a long time to come.
In the city however? Doubtful.
As a country we have gone through such a transition before, so there's no reason to think it can't also be done again.
But I must admit you may still be correct. The opinion of the general public on what America should be and is has drastically changed in the last 100 years or so.
It used to mean "freedom" yet today more than the minority are in favor for a totalitarian police state.
It used to mean "chasing the American dream" but now that is hardly tolerated and less possible than ever before.
It used to mean curiosity and learning to those that wanted it, but today we imprison more children for doing the exact same things the judges, police, and lawyers (and the rest of us!) all did as kids too.
A strong anti-science and anti-progress movement to stop such a change from happening today like it did with horse drawn carriages wouldn't be a shocking surprise to me, sadly.
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
When given the choice between not stopping and rear-ending the car stopped in front of you, or stopping like you are required to do by law and being rear-ended yourself, I must seriously question why you advocate the more dangerous and the only illegal option of the two?
Plus 11 out of 10000 rear-end accidents per city per day doesn't sound at all like it is out of range, especially so considering those 11 are spread out over a vehicle fleet the size of Googles.
Take a small taxi or limo company with the same sized fleet and I would bet money on the spot they have had more than 11 vehicles rear-ended in the same time period.
Finally, in closing you just literally advocated 11 traffic violations should have been committed, when in reality Google's vehicles haven't violated a single one.
You do realize if you followed your own advice, after just 3-4 of those accidents you caused, you would have lost your drivers license and privileges by now, right?
Hard to take the opinion of someone who by all rights should have a suspended license over a fleet of vehicles and drivers that haven't violated any traffic laws to date.
But by that definition, if I write an essay advocating anarchist revolution to a conservative newspaper and they decide not to publish it in full on their letters page, they are "censoring" me.
Yes, exactly, they would be censoring you.
Not illegally censoring you, not censoring you in violation of any constitutional amendments, but they would certainly be censoring you.
In fact as the topic of discussion at hand is about, they arguably are not even in the wrong for that form of censorship.
It is their conservative newspaper, their soapbox so to speak. They have the moral right to decline letting you use their soapbox.
They likely have the legal right to do so as well, although that can be trickier depending on the details. Certain forms of discrimination Are after all illegal for citizens to perform.
Also if it was an issue of the newspaper controlling ALL the soapboxes that could be available, that would certainly have a good argument for not being legal. It may need a monopolistic practices charge from a judge first, but that may certainly be possible.
Since you defined "conservative newspaper" that does imply there are other sub-types of newspaper out there, and assuming they are each controlled by different parties (IE no monopoly issues) it would very likely not even be considered a problem legally. You would have other soapboxes to use, and in that example could very well find one more in line with the anarchist theme which would publish the paper.
It also matters a lot if you can make your own soapbox or not.
In the case of the press, you can make your own soapbox to use, so being denied the use of other peoples soapboxes isn't a legal issue.
If that was practically or fully impossible to do, that would be a valid and good argument that it is illegal censorship.
I don't believe in your example it would be illegal discrimination or censorship, but honestly there are so many laws out there and so many differences state to state that I could very easily be wrong.
But legal or illegal doesn't really matter, the act itself is still called "censorship".