You're right but you miss my point entirely. Geez, I know where 1.21JW came from, but that makes the GP funny not informative!. For it to be informative it'd hopefully have some basis in fact (even if the fact is to mention the plot in a movie, but that wasn't the point here). I'm worried someone would read that comment and think that you can actually discharge an AA-sized anything in a couple microseconds. It's impossible to do, even if you wanted to be destructive. At the involved geometries, inductance is too high, you don't even need to consider anything else.
OK, then I was wrong. Who the heck deletes logs while acting non-nefariously?
As for system rebuilding, I'd hope it's a click of a button kind of a thing. You can't run an operation the size of Facebook without having it all automated.
What Facebook did is actually completely against themselves and against the society, too: instead of paying him $little, they had to pay their own people $much, and the taxpayer is out of another $much.
I think that the law about unauthorized access to computers is completely irrational. You should punish the real misdeeds: using stolen information for fraud (banking and otherwise), violating privacy laws (say distribution of your naked pictures), blackmail, unfair competition (using stolen industrial secrets), etc. The unathorized access being a crime is basically a mind crime: you're assuming it's done with wrong intentions and will cause damage. Now I'm absolutely not disagreeing that perhaps 99.9999% of all unathorized access is for nefarious reasons, and will ultimately result in fraud and damage. The access itself is not damaging -- if it truly were, then I'm sure this can be settled as a matter of a civil suit. But making it criminally illegal just because it might be damaging is IMHO overreaching. It can be don damaging (whereas there's no way to make, say, drunk driving safe).
Why isn't punishing the ultimate crime enough? Suppose, for a moment, that I knew, right now, a whole lot of your personal information -- say, everything that is needed to open a credit card in your name, or to transfer your car's title to another person, etc. Just the fact that I obtained that information by accessing a computer makes it illegal, but if I, say, worked it out from public information or guessed it all and was lucky, is OK? Heck, say that I "hacked into" one's computer and downloaded a single picture, the very same that is on one's public Facebook profile, would make it illegal, but getting it from Facebook is not? Where's the sense in that? Data is not people, it's not anthorpomorphic, it doesn't know its history. If all I have is a copy of a bunch of numbers with a meaning, why should obtaining it be illegal if all that's involved is shuffling numbers around (copyright notwithstanding)? Now if I, say, take this data from MI5 and then my computer is hacked into, surely I'm liable for illegal disclosure and potentially treason, but disclosing national secrets to joe random was illegal long before computers were of nothing but academic interest.
Alas, I would completely agree of course that Facebook should have nabbed him on doing illegal copies of software subject to copyright protection, that's IMHO a perfectly valid thing to be upset about. So you see, there's at least one law that got violated that has nothing to do with unauthorized access. I posit that the latter is completely useless in practice (unless your goal is but to jail people for no other reason).
That "reaction" was basically what they should have done beforehand but didn't, more or less, isn't it? The major problem with your driving analogy is that there is no way to drive while drunk and keep it safe. Eventually you will cause injuries and property damage, period. Accessing Facebook system with no malicious intent is pretty much a safe thing: nobody will ever get hurt from that, services will remain unaffected, data won't be lost, etc. If you're professional about hacking, that is, but unfortunately most are careless about others' data and uptime, or script kiddies...
I'm pretty sure that if Yahoo wanted to make him miserable, they had some money to throw after the lawyers... They could ruin him for the rest of his life, easily and legally. It's all in how much money you have. They probably realized what should have been obvious to anyone who is levelheaded about this: the guys' work was worth way more than $7000 at even modest consulting rates. I'm sure he spent more than 200 hours on that one. It's have cost them more to do the work themselves. It's like if I was working on a project, and poof there comes someone who not only has the work done, but asks for a fairly modest recompensation, given that I'm out of most of the risk normally present in getting consultants do the job (no overruns, no chasing someone who decided not to do it anymore after wasting some of your time, etc).
That means that the hacker has to be careful and professional. No botched half-jobs. The usual hacker behavior is such that obviously you cannot trust your servers, but that's because you have to assume the worst. This guy explicitly stated what his motives were so the random outlaw assumption doesn't apply anymore.
When you break into my house and take something, that thing is actually gone from my house, and there are probably some broken locks as well.
If you "break into" a computer system and "take source code", you copy some numbers and make fairly innocent modifications to the state (another bunch of numbers) of said computer system. The latter is still operational, and whoever runs it is not deprived of anything. If they argue you used their bandwidth without permission, I'm sure it can be arranged to recompense them for $0.1 worth of it, mmmright?
If you manage, somehow, to break into my house in such a way so that the only indication of the break in is an "I was here" post-it on the fridge (so -- no physical contact, we don't run into each other because that would deprive me of my physical privacy/intimacy/whatnot, nothing damaged, etc), and your "taking" stuff means you, say, scan a bunch of books in the library, then frankly - be my guest. It's like being upset that someone middle-fingered you behind your back when you weren't watching to boot. It's completely inconsequential. Now if you somehow took copies of my personal records and used them for anything but indulging your own brain (say defrauding my bank), then everyone would have a right to be upset.
Wait, isn't what you just said pretty much a definition of a mind crime? It was all in his head, after all (or equivalent to being in his head). So now when we know too much we're supposed to go to jail?! Just because he was not entitled to knowing something should not make it illegal, IMHO such laws are entirely unconscionable. Now don't get me wrong, I do understand that there are secrets of various nature (military, industrial, etc), but the punishment shouldn't be for knowing them, but for illegal disclosure.
That's not even remotely the same: one happens in the physical world, the other is pretty much a bunch of numbers being sent between computers on a network without any other consequences at all -- he didn't log into their servers and issue rm -rf, did he? No data was lost/deleted, there was no material/financial loss, so what the heck? It seems almost like a mind crime: he knows what he's not supposed to know, and nothing else, and he's not blackmailing anyone over it, nor is he intending to. Sure someone's feathers got ruffled, but -- to me -- it seems like Facebook basically says: we have a big ego, and we have lotsa money to show for it. And we won't mind jailing people just to show how big of an ego we have.
Entering into business transactions (like an executed NDA) under false pretenses is fraud, so that's not even remotely on the table. What you're suggesting doesn't fix the underlying problem either. I speak with my wallet, and that's enough as far as I'm concerned.
That AA battery is a strawman like nobody's business. What you're claiming is that if you take about 5000J of energy and transfer it in 4.3us, you need the average power level of 1.2GW. That's very clever of you, but this is kinda middle school physics and I'm not impressed unless you're in middle school. But since you tossed in a physical object, rather than just numbers in some pupil's workbook, let's be real, mmmkay?
The middle school pupil would, obviously enough, claim if you discharge it all in 4ns, you'd get 1TW, right? That's even better than some feeble gigawatts, I tell ya!!
Let's forget about the self-resistance and thermal capacity of a real AA nicad, or even about whatever circuit you use to do the discharge. Let's just focus on the fact that the damn thing has rolled electrodes and will have some real-life inductance.
Pray tell, what inductance would we need to discharge such a battery so quickly? That's easy back-of-the-envelope stuff. Rounding everything one or two significant figures, you get 4000J when you discharge for 4us, at 1V, at an average current of 1GA. If you assume a triangular current shape, then you need to have dI/dt of 2GA/2us = 1E15 A/s. Letting us have a maximum of 10% of voltage drop on self-inductance, your maximum allowed inductance is 0.1V/(1e15A/s) = 1E-16 Henries, or 1E-7 nanoHenries.
Now let's just remember that 1 inch of "generic" PCB trace has on the order of 10nH. Your battery would need to be on the order of 0.1um in size to have that small of self-inductance, and that's assuming it was a solid piece of metal.
0.1um is the size of the smallest of bacteria.
Never mind that you'd be looking at mutual forces between the outermost electrode layer and the ones underlying it on the order of 1E6N per mm of length of the electrode, I took a guesstimate reduction due to the fact that there are multiple layers wound together, so this is probably quote conservative.
Yes, I'm pissed that someone would be called informative for being 6+ orders of magnitude off base (in terms of physically possible discharge times).
One either claims that history has predictive powers, or one doesn't. Decide and be subject to consequences of such a decision in terms of scrutiny afforded such predictive powers. That's all I'm saying. Don't skirt the issue, please.
It must take some serious conspiracy theorist to believe that publicly publishing an accurate description of a printer's command language puts you somehow at a disadvantage. Because, you know, your geeky users who may dare to develop products that talk to your printer directly are teh worst hackers and all.
Here's my take: there was a time about a decade and a half ago where I had to develop a self contained product that, for sake of being simple to use, had to talk directly to a printer. That product ended selling with a particular brand of printer, and the choice was made solely on the available level of documentation: otherwise, even if the printer would be cheaper to buy or to own, it'd still be a pipe dream. Someone somewhere got a couple thousand sold printers because of it -- all on documentation, nothing else.
Who are the fucktards who came up with an idea that this should be under an NDA?! What THE FUCK has changed that this stuff cannot be included in at least the electronic version of the printer manual? It used to be that printers came with manuals that had the full command language laid out in the back. Of course todays' printers are more complex; it'd be probably a waste of paper and money to include it in whatever physical documentation that's coming with the printer. Alas, there's nothing at all barring you from just documenting your FINE product in the first place.
Sorry, this irrational behavior on the part of printer vendors just gets me all upset. Because it's stupid. Fuck if I will buy Konica/Minolta, even HP has freely available technical documentation for their mainstream printing languages, even for "esoteric" stuff like PJL.
There's nothing to be learned from history. Almost any cruel behavior you can imagine has probably happened and will be happening, so you're claiming a tautology at best, or a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc in terms of expectations. It is an issue of expectations: we usually don't deal with sociopaths, so we don't expect others to be so -- most people believe others are good. This has nothing to do with history, you have to be realistic in your expectations. Positions of power corrupt, and expecting any good from established power figures is silly -- but this is no history, this is psychology and sociology. History doesn't tell us much about how the entirely new technological landscape will end up being abused. It has no predictive power here, and that's expected, too, for it has no theories (in scientific sense) about anything, it's but a collection of anecdotes.
I agree, it's a very broad net; you pretty much have to question who buys into the shit that this is really to prevent any counterfeiting.
You'd have to be declared mentally incompetent for falling for at least anything that's printed/xeroxed on fused toner equipment. Inkjets/bubblejets are equally obvious, sublimation too, and I won't even start about dot matrix, pen plotters or the usual photographic emulsion-on-paper.
So, pray tell, what is this magical office printing technology that's good enough to make a counterfeit bill pass for the real thing? Because I sure would like to get my hands on it and get into the lucrative legitimate business of printing various high-security numbered forms for various government agencies. Last time I checked, you had to have fairly expensive printing equipment to do any of that, and that's still a far cry from being able to print most first-world paper currency.
The vending machines don't care how a bill looks, so I call BS on that one, or at least that person did it for reasons that had nothing to do with the machine itself.
There are no general-purpose optical scanners in usual bill acceptors, IIRC. There are things that are sensitive to magnetic ink, bill width, and embedded metal strips. I've seen a couple very simple fluorescence detectors. That's all. You could fool them using nothing but stuff that you can buy at a local home improvement store / crafts store.
So, the only reason you'd xerox a bill is to have it not stand out in the pile when it's collected by the person who periodically services the machine. Those xeroxed bills still had to be magnetically overpainted in critical spots, and possibly had other things added (metal wires, fluorescent inking, etc), depending on what is present (and tested for) in given country's paper currency.
Decent chips are potato, grains (cereals) or corn fried in veggie oil. It's neither good nor bad IMHO, as long as you keep your calorie intake in check they are just as good or bad (nutritionally) as, say, a slice of good bread with butter. Except that good bread will give you fiber. But then some cereal chips are rich in fiber too. Of course if you think that the only chips out there are Lays, then you may think there's nothing good about them at all.
That's the problem: just because is natural it doesn't mean it's healthy! I was specifically referring to the fluid you get when you squeeze an apple. It's nutritionally about as useful as drinking Fanta or Sprite -- same amount of calories, except that it got a bit of vitamins in it. That whole "apple juice is healthy" thing is an urban myth. Seriously. You're supposed to eat apples because they have some fiber in it, and that's good for your colon health and whatnot. If you give your kid an apple juice and fight over it you're silly, you may as well give them a can of caffeine-free cola.
I do white bread occasionally in the bread machine and to say that it's tasteless, textureless goo is being disingenuous. If you buy what passes for bread in a plastic bag in a grocery store (usually costs around $1.0 to $1.5), then of course it's crap, but that doesn't mean it's good white bread. Go to a french bakery and buy some white bread, and tell me it's tasteless or textureless. Haha.
It's about as un-healthy (or healthy, as it may be) as eating the equivalent amount of sugar and washing it down with water. I'd take the water without the sugar, please.
Apple juice is arguably useless (it's just sugared water with apple taste). Banana is like a potato, but with sweeter taste and more potassium methinks. It all gets digested down to simple sugars, so feel free to eat whichever suits your taste the best, but nutritionally there is zilch of difference IIRC. A sandwich and chips may be enough for one meal, I'd think...
Slashdot Mirror
You're right but you miss my point entirely. Geez, I know where 1.21JW came from, but that makes the GP funny not informative!. For it to be informative it'd hopefully have some basis in fact (even if the fact is to mention the plot in a movie, but that wasn't the point here). I'm worried someone would read that comment and think that you can actually discharge an AA-sized anything in a couple microseconds. It's impossible to do, even if you wanted to be destructive. At the involved geometries, inductance is too high, you don't even need to consider anything else.
OK, then I was wrong. Who the heck deletes logs while acting non-nefariously?
As for system rebuilding, I'd hope it's a click of a button kind of a thing. You can't run an operation the size of Facebook without having it all automated.
What Facebook did is actually completely against themselves and against the society, too: instead of paying him $little, they had to pay their own people $much, and the taxpayer is out of another $much.
I think that the law about unauthorized access to computers is completely irrational. You should punish the real misdeeds: using stolen information for fraud (banking and otherwise), violating privacy laws (say distribution of your naked pictures), blackmail, unfair competition (using stolen industrial secrets), etc. The unathorized access being a crime is basically a mind crime: you're assuming it's done with wrong intentions and will cause damage. Now I'm absolutely not disagreeing that perhaps 99.9999% of all unathorized access is for nefarious reasons, and will ultimately result in fraud and damage. The access itself is not damaging -- if it truly were, then I'm sure this can be settled as a matter of a civil suit. But making it criminally illegal just because it might be damaging is IMHO overreaching. It can be don damaging (whereas there's no way to make, say, drunk driving safe).
Why isn't punishing the ultimate crime enough? Suppose, for a moment, that I knew, right now, a whole lot of your personal information -- say, everything that is needed to open a credit card in your name, or to transfer your car's title to another person, etc. Just the fact that I obtained that information by accessing a computer makes it illegal, but if I, say, worked it out from public information or guessed it all and was lucky, is OK? Heck, say that I "hacked into" one's computer and downloaded a single picture, the very same that is on one's public Facebook profile, would make it illegal, but getting it from Facebook is not? Where's the sense in that? Data is not people, it's not anthorpomorphic, it doesn't know its history. If all I have is a copy of a bunch of numbers with a meaning, why should obtaining it be illegal if all that's involved is shuffling numbers around (copyright notwithstanding)? Now if I, say, take this data from MI5 and then my computer is hacked into, surely I'm liable for illegal disclosure and potentially treason, but disclosing national secrets to joe random was illegal long before computers were of nothing but academic interest.
Alas, I would completely agree of course that Facebook should have nabbed him on doing illegal copies of software subject to copyright protection, that's IMHO a perfectly valid thing to be upset about. So you see, there's at least one law that got violated that has nothing to do with unauthorized access. I posit that the latter is completely useless in practice (unless your goal is but to jail people for no other reason).
That "reaction" was basically what they should have done beforehand but didn't, more or less, isn't it? The major problem with your driving analogy is that there is no way to drive while drunk and keep it safe. Eventually you will cause injuries and property damage, period. Accessing Facebook system with no malicious intent is pretty much a safe thing: nobody will ever get hurt from that, services will remain unaffected, data won't be lost, etc. If you're professional about hacking, that is, but unfortunately most are careless about others' data and uptime, or script kiddies...
I'm pretty sure that if Yahoo wanted to make him miserable, they had some money to throw after the lawyers... They could ruin him for the rest of his life, easily and legally. It's all in how much money you have. They probably realized what should have been obvious to anyone who is levelheaded about this: the guys' work was worth way more than $7000 at even modest consulting rates. I'm sure he spent more than 200 hours on that one. It's have cost them more to do the work themselves. It's like if I was working on a project, and poof there comes someone who not only has the work done, but asks for a fairly modest recompensation, given that I'm out of most of the risk normally present in getting consultants do the job (no overruns, no chasing someone who decided not to do it anymore after wasting some of your time, etc).
That means that the hacker has to be careful and professional. No botched half-jobs. The usual hacker behavior is such that obviously you cannot trust your servers, but that's because you have to assume the worst. This guy explicitly stated what his motives were so the random outlaw assumption doesn't apply anymore.
When you break into my house and take something, that thing is actually gone from my house, and there are probably some broken locks as well.
If you "break into" a computer system and "take source code", you copy some numbers and make fairly innocent modifications to the state (another bunch of numbers) of said computer system. The latter is still operational, and whoever runs it is not deprived of anything. If they argue you used their bandwidth without permission, I'm sure it can be arranged to recompense them for $0.1 worth of it, mmmright?
If you manage, somehow, to break into my house in such a way so that the only indication of the break in is an "I was here" post-it on the fridge (so -- no physical contact, we don't run into each other because that would deprive me of my physical privacy/intimacy/whatnot, nothing damaged, etc), and your "taking" stuff means you, say, scan a bunch of books in the library, then frankly - be my guest. It's like being upset that someone middle-fingered you behind your back when you weren't watching to boot. It's completely inconsequential. Now if you somehow took copies of my personal records and used them for anything but indulging your own brain (say defrauding my bank), then everyone would have a right to be upset.
Wait, isn't what you just said pretty much a definition of a mind crime? It was all in his head, after all (or equivalent to being in his head). So now when we know too much we're supposed to go to jail?! Just because he was not entitled to knowing something should not make it illegal, IMHO such laws are entirely unconscionable. Now don't get me wrong, I do understand that there are secrets of various nature (military, industrial, etc), but the punishment shouldn't be for knowing them, but for illegal disclosure.
That's not even remotely the same: one happens in the physical world, the other is pretty much a bunch of numbers being sent between computers on a network without any other consequences at all -- he didn't log into their servers and issue rm -rf, did he? No data was lost/deleted, there was no material/financial loss, so what the heck? It seems almost like a mind crime: he knows what he's not supposed to know, and nothing else, and he's not blackmailing anyone over it, nor is he intending to. Sure someone's feathers got ruffled, but -- to me -- it seems like Facebook basically says: we have a big ego, and we have lotsa money to show for it. And we won't mind jailing people just to show how big of an ego we have.
Entering into business transactions (like an executed NDA) under false pretenses is fraud, so that's not even remotely on the table. What you're suggesting doesn't fix the underlying problem either. I speak with my wallet, and that's enough as far as I'm concerned.
Wait a minizel, informafuckingwhat?
That AA battery is a strawman like nobody's business. What you're claiming is that if you take about 5000J of energy and transfer it in 4.3us, you need the average power level of 1.2GW. That's very clever of you, but this is kinda middle school physics and I'm not impressed unless you're in middle school. But since you tossed in a physical object, rather than just numbers in some pupil's workbook, let's be real, mmmkay?
The middle school pupil would, obviously enough, claim if you discharge it all in 4ns, you'd get 1TW, right? That's even better than some feeble gigawatts, I tell ya!!
Let's forget about the self-resistance and thermal capacity of a real AA nicad, or even about whatever circuit you use to do the discharge. Let's just focus on the fact that the damn thing has rolled electrodes and will have some real-life inductance.
Pray tell, what inductance would we need to discharge such a battery so quickly? That's easy back-of-the-envelope stuff. Rounding everything one or two significant figures, you get 4000J when you discharge for 4us, at 1V, at an average current of 1GA. If you assume a triangular current shape, then you need to have dI/dt of 2GA/2us = 1E15 A/s. Letting us have a maximum of 10% of voltage drop on self-inductance, your maximum allowed inductance is 0.1V/(1e15A/s) = 1E-16 Henries, or 1E-7 nanoHenries.
Now let's just remember that 1 inch of "generic" PCB trace has on the order of 10nH. Your battery would need to be on the order of 0.1um in size to have that small of self-inductance, and that's assuming it was a solid piece of metal.
0.1um is the size of the smallest of bacteria.
Never mind that you'd be looking at mutual forces between the outermost electrode layer and the ones underlying it on the order of 1E6N per mm of length of the electrode, I took a guesstimate reduction due to the fact that there are multiple layers wound together, so this is probably quote conservative.
Yes, I'm pissed that someone would be called informative for being 6+ orders of magnitude off base (in terms of physically possible discharge times).
One either claims that history has predictive powers, or one doesn't. Decide and be subject to consequences of such a decision in terms of scrutiny afforded such predictive powers. That's all I'm saying. Don't skirt the issue, please.
It must take some serious conspiracy theorist to believe that publicly publishing an accurate description of a printer's command language puts you somehow at a disadvantage. Because, you know, your geeky users who may dare to develop products that talk to your printer directly are teh worst hackers and all.
Here's my take: there was a time about a decade and a half ago where I had to develop a self contained product that, for sake of being simple to use, had to talk directly to a printer. That product ended selling with a particular brand of printer, and the choice was made solely on the available level of documentation: otherwise, even if the printer would be cheaper to buy or to own, it'd still be a pipe dream. Someone somewhere got a couple thousand sold printers because of it -- all on documentation, nothing else.
Who are the fucktards who came up with an idea that this should be under an NDA?! What THE FUCK has changed that this stuff cannot be included in at least the electronic version of the printer manual? It used to be that printers came with manuals that had the full command language laid out in the back. Of course todays' printers are more complex; it'd be probably a waste of paper and money to include it in whatever physical documentation that's coming with the printer. Alas, there's nothing at all barring you from just documenting your FINE product in the first place.
Sorry, this irrational behavior on the part of printer vendors just gets me all upset. Because it's stupid. Fuck if I will buy Konica/Minolta, even HP has freely available technical documentation for their mainstream printing languages, even for "esoteric" stuff like PJL.
There's nothing to be learned from history. Almost any cruel behavior you can imagine has probably happened and will be happening, so you're claiming a tautology at best, or a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc in terms of expectations. It is an issue of expectations: we usually don't deal with sociopaths, so we don't expect others to be so -- most people believe others are good. This has nothing to do with history, you have to be realistic in your expectations. Positions of power corrupt, and expecting any good from established power figures is silly -- but this is no history, this is psychology and sociology. History doesn't tell us much about how the entirely new technological landscape will end up being abused. It has no predictive power here, and that's expected, too, for it has no theories (in scientific sense) about anything, it's but a collection of anecdotes.
I agree, it's a very broad net; you pretty much have to question who buys into the shit that this is really to prevent any counterfeiting.
You'd have to be declared mentally incompetent for falling for at least anything that's printed/xeroxed on fused toner equipment. Inkjets/bubblejets are equally obvious, sublimation too, and I won't even start about dot matrix, pen plotters or the usual photographic emulsion-on-paper.
So, pray tell, what is this magical office printing technology that's good enough to make a counterfeit bill pass for the real thing? Because I sure would like to get my hands on it and get into the lucrative legitimate business of printing various high-security numbered forms for various government agencies. Last time I checked, you had to have fairly expensive printing equipment to do any of that, and that's still a far cry from being able to print most first-world paper currency.
The vending machines don't care how a bill looks, so I call BS on that one, or at least that person did it for reasons that had nothing to do with the machine itself.
There are no general-purpose optical scanners in usual bill acceptors, IIRC. There are things that are sensitive to magnetic ink, bill width, and embedded metal strips. I've seen a couple very simple fluorescence detectors. That's all. You could fool them using nothing but stuff that you can buy at a local home improvement store / crafts store.
So, the only reason you'd xerox a bill is to have it not stand out in the pile when it's collected by the person who periodically services the machine. Those xeroxed bills still had to be magnetically overpainted in critical spots, and possibly had other things added (metal wires, fluorescent inking, etc), depending on what is present (and tested for) in given country's paper currency.
I said "as useful as". No hard feelings toward potatoes. Yummy.
This. +1 insightful.
Decent chips are potato, grains (cereals) or corn fried in veggie oil. It's neither good nor bad IMHO, as long as you keep your calorie intake in check they are just as good or bad (nutritionally) as, say, a slice of good bread with butter. Except that good bread will give you fiber. But then some cereal chips are rich in fiber too. Of course if you think that the only chips out there are Lays, then you may think there's nothing good about them at all.
That's the problem: just because is natural it doesn't mean it's healthy! I was specifically referring to the fluid you get when you squeeze an apple. It's nutritionally about as useful as drinking Fanta or Sprite -- same amount of calories, except that it got a bit of vitamins in it. That whole "apple juice is healthy" thing is an urban myth. Seriously. You're supposed to eat apples because they have some fiber in it, and that's good for your colon health and whatnot. If you give your kid an apple juice and fight over it you're silly, you may as well give them a can of caffeine-free cola.
I do white bread occasionally in the bread machine and to say that it's tasteless, textureless goo is being disingenuous. If you buy what passes for bread in a plastic bag in a grocery store (usually costs around $1.0 to $1.5), then of course it's crap, but that doesn't mean it's good white bread. Go to a french bakery and buy some white bread, and tell me it's tasteless or textureless. Haha.
Bananas good? WTF? It's all starch with a bit of sweet-tasting sugars and some potassium. It's nutritionally as useful as a potato.
It's about as un-healthy (or healthy, as it may be) as eating the equivalent amount of sugar and washing it down with water. I'd take the water without the sugar, please.
Apple juice is arguably useless (it's just sugared water with apple taste). Banana is like a potato, but with sweeter taste and more potassium methinks. It all gets digested down to simple sugars, so feel free to eat whichever suits your taste the best, but nutritionally there is zilch of difference IIRC. A sandwich and chips may be enough for one meal, I'd think...
Is it the methamphetamine itself that causes your teeth to rot, or is it impurities and/or secondary malnutrition?