...but not so easy to do without someone noticing. I mean, if you're going to have the Flash card in your possession long enough to perform the attack UNDER A MICROSCOPE, wouldn't it just be easier to yank the data with one of those smart-card reader/portable hard-drive things that ThinkGeek was advertising on here?
Which leads to another problem: with an LCD-suit, where would you put which app?
I would put "whereis" on my codpiece, because not many females seem to know where to find it.
I'd like to think it's because they're just not looking, but it's been long enough that I'm ready to accept the worst.
Bear in mind, I was hourly, so this might be different for salaried folk, but the principle is still pretty much the same.
About a year ago, I was told that of the three people we had working a total of 96 hours a week, we had to cut back to 72 hours a week. As the lead auditor, I was given first say as to how this would work. I could choose to keep my full-time, sack the part-time guy, and screw my other full-time person out of a shift if I so chose. I told them that I would not make their firing decisions for them.
So, they chose. Everyone else got to keep their hours, and I was reduced to half-time. I told them I would not accept the cut, and if they needed to reclaim the hours, I would continue working at full-time until they notified me in writing of my termination. They hemmed and hawed, and eventually gave me written notice terminating me a month hence, long enough to train the other full-timer. I went on to a job that did not suck so much, at which I work today.
About a month after my dismissal, I served them with a request for the severance package, under whose provisions I was eligible for two weeks full pay if I was offered less than 80% of my regular wage. They fought me on it for a couple of weeks, but eventually came to realize that I had them by the short hairs.
My only regret is that I didn't get to see the look on that bastard manager's face when he found out.
I was looking at a Nebula last night, unfortunatly the Quantum Roses were too small to see (and whenever I tried looking for them, this punk Heisenberg told me I wouldn't be able to find them....)
Heisenberg didn't say you couldn't find them. He said that you could either know their positions or their velocities (speed + direction), but not both.
Let me guess: you went looking for them and for some reason chose a method that determined their velocities.:P
Thank you! This is one of those things that gets overlooked every time the debate comes up. I'm paying >$50 / month for my broadband connection. I don't need to nickel-and-dime myself to death every time some web company can't make ends meet. Look at the cable business model - User pays monthly "cable" bill, many free channels are included, and premium services can be ordered at will. Hate to break it to you, Taco, but/. is NOT a premium service, and until you start to take seriously the suggestions that you check your spelling and grammar, it won't be. So how do you compete? Same way cable channels do. You charge through the teeth for ad-space, and if your users ignore ads, then they ignore ads. Channel-surfing hasn't really hurt the cable ad market has it? The web ad market is depressed only because sites are willing to accept smaller fees for ad space.
That's not it at all. It's not that I don't care if someone snoops or not - what I care about is how they go about snooping, and if I've got sensitive data involved.
What I consider okay: Someone reconstructing my/. posts from the blinking LED's on my router, having gone through all the trouble to set up the snoop.
What I consider NOT okay: Someone snooping in on my email to a friend of mine at LANL, PGP-encrypted, by a legally-mandated key-escrow backdoor.
If the hack exhibits technical proficiency and is relatively harmless, go ahead. Anything that will pass through my router counts. Either I cared enough to encrypt it, and therefore the bitstream is almost purely noise, or it's something lame like responding to AC's on/.
Now, the lazy fuckers in the FBI who want a unilateral pass to scan my email for "buzz" words like "bomb" or "gun," they can fuck off. That's why we have probable cause. If I'm a suspect, and they can give good reasons for suspecting me, they can go through proper channels to get permission to spy on me. It's unreasonable to make everyone a suspect, and then claim that diligence saved the day when it was just a program that could do what any shell-script utilizing grep could do.
I don't do anything interesting with my data anyway. Any corporation/government agency, if they want to go through all that time and trouble, is welcome to whatever they can get. My credit card info gets encrypted before it gets sent, and that's the only thing I do that's worth stealing.
When the government talks about "crypto backdoors" they aren't talking about a universal key that can open up traffic for a specific algorithm. How would you implement this on block ciphers such as DES and AES? And if you couldn't, would you then make AES illegal, after spearheading the years-long initative to create this standard?
They're talking about key escrow. Basically, any time something is encrypted, they want the encrypting software to report the key to the proper authorities, who would then use the key when necessary to decrypt a stream or file.
But as long as people can write their own code, this isn't a feasible alternative either. Perform an act of insubordination. Learn C today!
...just like the real world. Or rather, life is a zero-sum game, with a *much* larger game set.
On Earth, there are a finite number of resources. Just because we haven't exhausted them yet doesn't mean that they'll last forever and perpetually allow us to make them increase in value. And when we use them up here, we've got a choice: leave the planet, or stay here and keep fighting over the dwindling resources until everyone's dead. And I mean everyone: us, the animals, bacteria - everyone. As long as there are at least two lving things, there will be competition. And if we leave this planet, we have the rest of the Universe to exploit, but it's a finite Universe. Just because we won't exhaust all the matter in the Universe in our lifetimes doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
There IS a finite supply of money; it's just a very large number in real life. Think of it like Monopoly. It's possible to win Monopoly 2 ways:
- One player is better than all the others and winds up having money when everyone else runs out. At this point there's no reason to keep playing; everything the Winner owns becomes valueless because no one has anything the Winner is willing to accept as payment.
- More than one players are equally matched, and they continue passing money back and forth (commerce) and collecting $200 every time they pass Go (consuming resources) until the bank runs out of money (all matter in the Universe is consumed.) Then they're either tied, or one has more money than the other. But that really doesn't matter, because at this point neither will accept the all but worthless money in exchange for properties, because in the next few turns they'll have to fork it right back over for rent.
The second scenario quite probably has never come up in the hundreds of gazillions of games of Monopoly ever played, but it's still possible. Either way, Monopoly mirrors quite successfully the economic aspects of real life, so much so that I'm willing to say that if Monopoly is a zero-sum game, then so is real life.
But that's just my opinion; I could be Dennis Miller.
>If you do not vote, you are saying "I can not be >bought", "I want honesty".
You're also saying "I'm a lemming, willing to accept whatever everyone who votes in November decides."
Like it or not, until those who are in power say otherwise or have their power stripped of them, you're still subject to the tyranny of the two-party system.
So vote third-party this election. Find a bunch of people who think like you do. Find a candidate who embodies your views. Then vote for them. They won't win, but get enough people to do the same, and you can get the government to match funds with your cause.
Then you get national attention, which brings in the corporate donations, which lets you run a sucessful campaign, which lets you win the Presidency.
But who knows? Maybe watching TV and eating Cheetos instead of voting will work, too.
"First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." - Al Pacino,Scarface
Napster doesn't allow 'bots. They specifically forbid them. Just like they forbid copyright infringement. So, I guess this means NetPD is going to find themselves without access to Napster, right?
I agree with your subject line...and not much else in your post. We do need more crypto, but key-escrow is not the way to go. Neither is keeping publicly available crypto so weak that any government agency, and hence any dark lurker with sufficient processing power and inclination, could break it. I'd rather run the risk of letting a few bad guys get away than having even ONE more Richard Joule fiasco. Yes, terrorists could keep their activities clandestine. Yes, child pornographers could keep pumping out their volumes of smut (not nearly as much as you seem to think, btw). Yes, that Canadian script-kiddie who was arrested for DDOS-ing a bunch of sites could run around unchecked. But you forget - most of these lowlife scumbags you mention are so ecstatic that they've "gotten away with it" that they can't shut the hell up for fifteen seconds about it. The Canadian kid - blabbed all over AOL chat rooms about it. Chat rooms which ARE LOGGED. The terrorists who took out the World Trade Center six years ago - kept freakin' talking about it. That's how the FBI found them. The most important flaw in your logic is that it's unprovable. In a perfectly secret net, you'd have no way of proving who traffics what.
Slashdot Mirror
...but not so easy to do without someone noticing. I mean, if you're going to have the Flash card in your possession long enough to perform the attack UNDER A MICROSCOPE, wouldn't it just be easier to yank the data with one of those smart-card reader/portable hard-drive things that ThinkGeek was advertising on here?
I loved it, too, except at the very end where Mary Jane inexplicably expresses her undying love for Peter. Where the hell did that come from?
I would put "whereis" on my codpiece, because not many females seem to know where to find it.
I'd like to think it's because they're just not looking, but it's been long enough that I'm ready to accept the worst.
Bear in mind, I was hourly, so this might be different for salaried folk, but the principle is still pretty much the same.
About a year ago, I was told that of the three people we had working a total of 96 hours a week, we had to cut back to 72 hours a week. As the lead auditor, I was given first say as to how this would work. I could choose to keep my full-time, sack the part-time guy, and screw my other full-time person out of a shift if I so chose. I told them that I would not make their firing decisions for them.
So, they chose. Everyone else got to keep their hours, and I was reduced to half-time. I told them I would not accept the cut, and if they needed to reclaim the hours, I would continue working at full-time until they notified me in writing of my termination. They hemmed and hawed, and eventually gave me written notice terminating me a month hence, long enough to train the other full-timer. I went on to a job that did not suck so much, at which I work today.
About a month after my dismissal, I served them with a request for the severance package, under whose provisions I was eligible for two weeks full pay if I was offered less than 80% of my regular wage. They fought me on it for a couple of weeks, but eventually came to realize that I had them by the short hairs.
My only regret is that I didn't get to see the look on that bastard manager's face when he found out.
How do you delay May 1st?
Heisenberg didn't say you couldn't find them. He said that you could either know their positions or their velocities (speed + direction), but not both. :P
Let me guess: you went looking for them and for some reason chose a method that determined their velocities.
Thank you! /. is NOT a premium service, and until you start to take seriously the suggestions that you check your spelling and grammar, it won't be.
This is one of those things that gets overlooked every time the debate comes up. I'm paying >$50 / month for my broadband connection. I don't need to nickel-and-dime myself to death every time some web company can't make ends meet.
Look at the cable business model - User pays monthly "cable" bill, many free channels are included, and premium services can be ordered at will. Hate to break it to you, Taco, but
So how do you compete? Same way cable channels do. You charge through the teeth for ad-space, and if your users ignore ads, then they ignore ads. Channel-surfing hasn't really hurt the cable ad market has it? The web ad market is depressed only because sites are willing to accept smaller fees for ad space.
That's not it at all.
/. posts from the blinking LED's on my router, having gone through all the trouble to set up the snoop.
/.
It's not that I don't care if someone snoops or not - what I care about is how they go about snooping, and if I've got sensitive data involved.
What I consider okay: Someone reconstructing my
What I consider NOT okay: Someone snooping in on my email to a friend of mine at LANL, PGP-encrypted, by a legally-mandated key-escrow backdoor.
If the hack exhibits technical proficiency and is relatively harmless, go ahead. Anything that will pass through my router counts. Either I cared enough to encrypt it, and therefore the bitstream is almost purely noise, or it's something lame like responding to AC's on
Now, the lazy fuckers in the FBI who want a unilateral pass to scan my email for "buzz" words like "bomb" or "gun," they can fuck off. That's why we have probable cause. If I'm a suspect, and they can give good reasons for suspecting me, they can go through proper channels to get permission to spy on me. It's unreasonable to make everyone a suspect, and then claim that diligence saved the day when it was just a program that could do what any shell-script utilizing grep could do.
I don't do anything interesting with my data anyway. Any corporation/government agency, if they want to go through all that time and trouble, is welcome to whatever they can get. My credit card info gets encrypted before it gets sent, and that's the only thing I do that's worth stealing.
So did USAToday.com (a long while back). Apparently people aren't willing to pay for McNews...
Congratulations to you both.
And dammit, I don't care if it's already been posted, it needs to be said again. =)
... is just to rename. Pick something pseudo-Bond, but different enough to be easily defended.
I suggest "Goldenrod."
Blasphemy, though it is hard to see. Get a friggin' light.
When the government talks about "crypto backdoors" they aren't talking about a universal key that can open up traffic for a specific algorithm. How would you implement this on block ciphers such as DES and AES? And if you couldn't, would you then make AES illegal, after spearheading the years-long initative to create this standard?
They're talking about key escrow. Basically, any time something is encrypted, they want the encrypting software to report the key to the proper authorities, who would then use the key when necessary to decrypt a stream or file.
But as long as people can write their own code, this isn't a feasible alternative either. Perform an act of insubordination. Learn C today!
Skew the data. Have a bunch of you and your friends look at something arcane - quilting, perhaps.
Or, find a bunch of hardcore kids-with-goats pr0n and leave it lying about in teacher's directories...
The only interesting thing I learned there in five years was Huffman encoding. ...and apparently not even that very well. It's "Hoffman."
...just like the real world. Or rather, life is a zero-sum game, with a *much* larger game set. On Earth, there are a finite number of resources. Just because we haven't exhausted them yet doesn't mean that they'll last forever and perpetually allow us to make them increase in value. And when we use them up here, we've got a choice: leave the planet, or stay here and keep fighting over the dwindling resources until everyone's dead. And I mean everyone: us, the animals, bacteria - everyone. As long as there are at least two lving things, there will be competition. And if we leave this planet, we have the rest of the Universe to exploit, but it's a finite Universe. Just because we won't exhaust all the matter in the Universe in our lifetimes doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
There IS a finite supply of money; it's just a very large number in real life. Think of it like Monopoly. It's possible to win Monopoly 2 ways:
- One player is better than all the others and winds up having money when everyone else runs out. At this point there's no reason to keep playing; everything the Winner owns becomes valueless because no one has anything the Winner is willing to accept as payment.
- More than one players are equally matched, and they continue passing money back and forth (commerce) and collecting $200 every time they pass Go (consuming resources) until the bank runs out of money (all matter in the Universe is consumed.) Then they're either tied, or one has more money than the other. But that really doesn't matter, because at this point neither will accept the all but worthless money in exchange for properties, because in the next few turns they'll have to fork it right back over for rent.
The second scenario quite probably has never come up in the hundreds of gazillions of games of Monopoly ever played, but it's still possible. Either way, Monopoly mirrors quite successfully the economic aspects of real life, so much so that I'm willing to say that if Monopoly is a zero-sum game, then so is real life.
But that's just my opinion; I could be Dennis Miller.
>If you do not vote, you are saying "I can not be
>bought", "I want honesty".
You're also saying "I'm a lemming, willing to accept whatever everyone who votes in November decides."
Like it or not, until those who are in power say otherwise or have their power stripped of them, you're still subject to the tyranny of the two-party system.
So vote third-party this election. Find a bunch of people who think like you do. Find a candidate who embodies your views. Then vote for them. They won't win, but get enough people to do the same, and you can get the government to match funds with your cause.
Then you get national attention, which brings in the corporate donations, which lets you run a sucessful campaign, which lets you win the Presidency.
But who knows? Maybe watching TV and eating Cheetos instead of voting will work, too.
"First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." - Al Pacino, Scarface
pc
Napster doesn't allow 'bots. They specifically forbid them. Just like they forbid copyright infringement. So, I guess this means NetPD is going to find themselves without access to Napster, right?
I agree with your subject line...and not much else in your post. We do need more crypto, but key-escrow is not the way to go. Neither is keeping publicly available crypto so weak that any government agency, and hence any dark lurker with sufficient processing power and inclination, could break it. I'd rather run the risk of letting a few bad guys get away than having even ONE more Richard Joule fiasco. Yes, terrorists could keep their activities clandestine. Yes, child pornographers could keep pumping out their volumes of smut (not nearly as much as you seem to think, btw). Yes, that Canadian script-kiddie who was arrested for DDOS-ing a bunch of sites could run around unchecked. But you forget - most of these lowlife scumbags you mention are so ecstatic that they've "gotten away with it" that they can't shut the hell up for fifteen seconds about it. The Canadian kid - blabbed all over AOL chat rooms about it. Chat rooms which ARE LOGGED. The terrorists who took out the World Trade Center six years ago - kept freakin' talking about it. That's how the FBI found them. The most important flaw in your logic is that it's unprovable. In a perfectly secret net, you'd have no way of proving who traffics what.