Yup, public keys can used for encrypting messages *to* the key-owner, as only he has the capability to decrypt. Alas, that in itself provides no proof of the identity of the sender.
I travel for work. There's precisely *no* reason why an online retailer should expect to have the right to know the locations of my clients. They can know my home address whither things should be delivered, but their need to know anything else about location ends right there.
It depends if you trust the shopkeeper. If you do, then there can be a benefit from haing your identity only known to yourself and him. If you don't trust him, then you must presume that as soon as he knows who you are he announces it to the world, and indeed, any secrecy you maintained on the way to the shop was futile.
Believe it or not, it is possible for two parties who trust each other to trade.
"This video contains content from Chaser Broadcasting Pty Ltd and The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. "
Can someone in a country that is trusted please make an illegal copy and upload it elsewhere? I promise I won't make any further copies, as I'm a good law-abiding citizen.
We had an election here last week. Out of a firm belief that there's no democracy in the UK, I've not bothered voting for the last 20 years (and to those who did vote, you are validating the system, and I have a right to blame you for the outcome, no matter for whom you voted); but now I'm in a different, young, country, I thought it was worth a shot, to see if democracy works here. The party polled enough votes for 3.2 seats on the 79-seat council, and as we have proportional representation, we got 0 seats in reality. Yup, rounding down 3.2 gives you 0.
OK, I won't be voting here again, as there's no way that the 4 big parties are going to change the 5% cutoff that keeps those who have an interest in the community and the country out of being represented. Ironically (not really), the platform of this 5th party included a "the 4 big parties are a cartel" statement.
Duverger's law has started to kick in, and from that there is no way back.
So no, you don't have a jab at making it happen. Sorry.
The "enemy" of the government in such a situation isn't in a couple of cities. Like "Anonymous", they are thinly distributed anywhere. Indiscriminate violent action against mostly innocent citizens in a couple of cities would do nothing but steel the resolve of millions elsewhere, it would be a futile gesture. Unless their goal was simply to get in the history books.
> And you can't sign anything with either the public or private key and still be able to decrypt it unless you have the other half of the key pair.
You don't "decrypt" signed things, you simply verify them.
And you can sign something with the private key and still be able to decrypt it, as (a) at least as defined by all the standards I'm familiar with, the private key contains enough information to generate the public key; (b) the public key can be assumed to be known by everyone; and in some cases (c) there isn't even a public key, per se, merely the curve parameters.
I did remove that word. I did want to get across the concept of it not being purely a product of artificial and externally-imposed training. So it came from within the dog, it was an exercising and honing of a skill that its species had an intrinsic capability to perform, presumably as it has an evolutionary advantage - I'm guessing for hunting air-bound critters. I.e. that combination of awareness, perception, cognition, reaction, and coordination was in its genes.
Like the ability to grip and lift a mug of beer to my lips, and then go 'aaaahhhh, that's tasty!' - it's coded in my genes. No amount of training would have me eating nettles like a goat.
I couldn't think of a better single word than "instinctive", so I put it back in.
To be honest, I've gone past being bothered to explain by example why I don't do MS Windows; I've forgotten some of the things that I don't like. I'm not even aware of many that would cause to to hit rant-mode instantly (such as the automatic DRM-wrapping of media files - shocking) because I've not used it for so long.
You've kept my don't-know-about-MS-Windows-don't-wanna-know-about-MS-Windows kneejerk reflex nicely wound up with those examples, thank you.
> At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.
Some people desire the freedom to be able to exchange programs and recommendations about programs with the 90% of the computer-using world.
Using linux, which I've done for 2 decades (almost to the day - woh!), harms that freedom. Fortunately, I rarely, if ever, want anything that the 90% has, or have anything that the 90% wants.
The harms to the freedom that Windows carries with it are basically freedoms that most of the 90% don't even care about. If they outlawed private ownership of ex-Soviet army tanks within the perimeters of the metropolitan area, that would be a freedom that I wouldn't care about either. Sue me. Just because it's a "freedom" doesn't mean it's actually worth something to everybody.
> Whether I download 1 megabyte or 500 megabytes it does not cost the ISP any more.
Wrong. That's only true if the ISP is not at or near capacity. An economically savvy ISP wants as little wasted capacity as possible, and therefore wants to be running as close to its limit as much as possible. If the ISP is at capacity, then in order to satisfy your furry porn craving, they'd have to install more capacity. Which costs.
Worse for them, after that, all they hear is whiny customers saying "Whether I download 500 megabytes or 50 gigabytes, it doesn't cost the ISP any more".
Has your country thought of wresting things back from its out-of-control government? Perhaps with the support of the 2nd amendment? Forget the stupid cyber-everything prefices - "security" (of a mythical free state, for example) is a far more fundamental concept.
> The article states their power density around 13wh/kg
That's an energy density, not a power density. (And watts are represented by a capital "W", not a lower case one.)
The article does not contain the phrase "power density", except as a label of the graph. Likewise the paper on Nature. But the limit of that axis on that graph is 10 Wh/kg, and all points are to the left of that limit.
Is there anything else apart from making up units, and making up numbers that you'd like to confess to, to get it off your chest?
Owning, or "the status of ownership", need not have any overhead. However, transferal of ownership is different from owning. Compare decriminalised marijuana where posession for personal use is fine, but dealing's a crime. Or with the fact that you can stay married without any intervention, but need government involvement to formally enter the state of being married. That example was better than you first imagined.
But, back to the gun nuts... (I used to host the local big-bore club's website on my servers, I'm just a wind-up merchant.) If they've ever held a public service post (govt+military+...), and have pledged to defend the constitution, then while the 2nd amendment remains unrepealed, the best way they can honour the pledge that the government obliged them to swear is to fire at the people trying to take their arms.
You know that "4 boxes" truism? The first 3 have failed. There's only one logical conclusion. For that reason, the "constitution fuck yeah!" mob^H^H^Hmilitia should be highly active presently in DC/Utah/wherever in defence of the 4th amendment in the face of so many violators.
It was a throwaway joke - you weren't supposed to analyse it!
OK, it wasn't that funny. But I'll tell you one thing that almost made me laugh out loud - when I got to the "Bottom line: Your cloud data isn't as safe as you might think." sentence. Shit, I just laughed out loud as I pasted that here. Fuck me, he really is an idiot. In part as he seems to perceive himself to be less of an idiot than others, as he pretends to be informative. He just hit one end of the Dunningâ€"Kruger bell-curve!
I have a confession to make - not only do I have a personal connection to a serious wiki page that I know is flawed but out of respect for their rules (it's their website, after all) I do not meddle with, but I also have a personal connection to a wiki page that is pure unadulterated bullshit that I was in part kinda-responsible for, and which was lifted off the web without any verification and put on wikipedia.
Whilst that bullshit page still exists, it's very easy for me to just dismiss wikipedia as unreliable except as a conduit to more trustworthy sources, so who gives a flying monkeybollock about it?!
Letting it survive is the only way that I'm a bad wiki citizen. My contributions have otherwise been only positive.
Certainly, the reason provides no legal obligation/per se/, but cannot help but influence the legalistic interpretation of the "what" part. And that 2nd certainly has been influenced by that part, in a hundred different contradictory ways!
One of the more annoying confusions I see from pro-tight-gun-control proponents is the magical and mystical transference of "well-regulated" onto the right hand side, which is definitely pure bogosity.
However, sufficiently lightweight control does not infringe rights. Your right to vote isn't being infringed by the government forcing you to vote in government-controlled locations, at government-controlled times, using government-controlled protocols. Your right to marry is not infringed by the government forcing you and some witnesses to sign government-approved forms certifying the marriage in the presence of someone government-approved to oversee such procedures.
Analogy: Having to wait in a queue doesn't mean they're refusing to serve you.
Ah, OK, devel-su hadn't reached a workable state when I was working on the device. This was a time when we wanted the kernel logs, as we were debugging everything. So if you wanna know why the software was so buggy, it's in part because the security prevented many of the developers from doing their work effectively!
Can you kexec from there? Examine/dev/{k,}mem? (That's a trick question, I hope, as I remember their removal, and don't think they were ever enabled again.)
Books have been written that address people's motivations and inspirations. For some authors and artists, there are many - just from friends' bookshelves, I know that Robert Graves and Dali have large corpera of works investigating and analysing even their least smelly fart. Those would be secondary sources, and wikipedia would approve of their use.
I'm not saying it's right of fair, it's just the rules.
Look at it this way, and using your words, if it's something "only he would know", then *by definition* it can't be independently verified.
I'm kind of a victim of this myself right at the moment, there is a page which I have an exceedingly close relation to, and it has some total bollocks on it. But I accept that it's not my job to fix it. Even if I were to publish more information on the topic in order for others to pick up, I still wouldn't be a secondary source. C'est la vie. I care less and less about wikipedia as time goes on, so its increasing number of errors and annoyances perturb me equally less too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused how the loony^Hreligious right in the USA cope with the concept that Jesus Christ is clearly a socialist.
Violence and drugs, eh?
You missed out sex and rock'n'roll - your block of wood's rubbish!
Yup, public keys can used for encrypting messages *to* the key-owner, as only he has the capability to decrypt. Alas, that in itself provides no proof of the identity of the sender.
Am I right in thinking that whole jabbering mess could be condensed to "my deaf relative annoys TSA people in airports"?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/bonanzleimages/afu/images/0341/8013/100_4205.jpg
Bollocks.
I travel for work. There's precisely *no* reason why an online retailer should expect to have the right to know the locations of my clients. They can know my home address whither things should be delivered, but their need to know anything else about location ends right there.
It depends if you trust the shopkeeper. If you do, then there can be a benefit from haing your identity only known to yourself and him. If you don't trust him, then you must presume that as soon as he knows who you are he announces it to the world, and indeed, any secrecy you maintained on the way to the shop was futile.
Believe it or not, it is possible for two parties who trust each other to trade.
"This video contains content from Chaser Broadcasting Pty Ltd and The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. "
Can someone in a country that is trusted please make an illegal copy and upload it elsewhere? I promise I won't make any further copies, as I'm a good law-abiding citizen.
We had an election here last week. Out of a firm belief that there's no democracy in the UK, I've not bothered voting for the last 20 years (and to those who did vote, you are validating the system, and I have a right to blame you for the outcome, no matter for whom you voted); but now I'm in a different, young, country, I thought it was worth a shot, to see if democracy works here. The party polled enough votes for 3.2 seats on the 79-seat council, and as we have proportional representation, we got 0 seats in reality. Yup, rounding down 3.2 gives you 0.
OK, I won't be voting here again, as there's no way that the 4 big parties are going to change the 5% cutoff that keeps those who have an interest in the community and the country out of being represented. Ironically (not really), the platform of this 5th party included a "the 4 big parties are a cartel" statement.
Duverger's law has started to kick in, and from that there is no way back.
So no, you don't have a jab at making it happen. Sorry.
The "enemy" of the government in such a situation isn't in a couple of cities. Like "Anonymous", they are thinly distributed anywhere. Indiscriminate violent action against mostly innocent citizens in a couple of cities would do nothing but steel the resolve of millions elsewhere, it would be a futile gesture. Unless their goal was simply to get in the history books.
> And you can't sign anything with either the public or private key and still be able to decrypt it unless you have the other half of the key pair.
You don't "decrypt" signed things, you simply verify them.
And you can sign something with the private key and still be able to decrypt it, as (a) at least as defined by all the standards I'm familiar with, the private key contains enough information to generate the public key; (b) the public key can be assumed to be known by everyone; and in some cases (c) there isn't even a public key, per se, merely the curve parameters.
I did remove that word. I did want to get across the concept of it not being purely a product of artificial and externally-imposed training. So it came from within the dog, it was an exercising and honing of a skill that its species had an intrinsic capability to perform, presumably as it has an evolutionary advantage - I'm guessing for hunting air-bound critters. I.e. that combination of awareness, perception, cognition, reaction, and coordination was in its genes.
Like the ability to grip and lift a mug of beer to my lips, and then go 'aaaahhhh, that's tasty!' - it's coded in my genes. No amount of training would have me eating nettles like a goat.
I couldn't think of a better single word than "instinctive", so I put it back in.
To be honest, I've gone past being bothered to explain by example why I don't do MS Windows; I've forgotten some of the things that I don't like. I'm not even aware of many that would cause to to hit rant-mode instantly (such as the automatic DRM-wrapping of media files - shocking) because I've not used it for so long.
You've kept my don't-know-about-MS-Windows-don't-wanna-know-about-MS-Windows kneejerk reflex nicely wound up with those examples, thank you.
Says the guy who bought himself a ".me" domain under the ".uk" CCTLD.
The jumping started way back, it's now just actually landed with a splash.
> At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.
Some people desire the freedom to be able to exchange programs and recommendations about programs with the 90% of the computer-using world.
Using linux, which I've done for 2 decades (almost to the day - woh!), harms that freedom. Fortunately, I rarely, if ever, want anything that the 90% has, or have anything that the 90% wants.
The harms to the freedom that Windows carries with it are basically freedoms that most of the 90% don't even care about. If they outlawed private ownership of ex-Soviet army tanks within the perimeters of the metropolitan area, that would be a freedom that I wouldn't care about either. Sue me. Just because it's a "freedom" doesn't mean it's actually worth something to everybody.
> Whether I download 1 megabyte or 500 megabytes it does not cost the ISP any more.
Wrong. That's only true if the ISP is not at or near capacity. An economically savvy ISP wants as little wasted capacity as possible, and therefore wants to be running as close to its limit as much as possible. If the ISP is at capacity, then in order to satisfy your furry porn craving, they'd have to install more capacity. Which costs.
Worse for them, after that, all they hear is whiny customers saying "Whether I download 500 megabytes or 50 gigabytes, it doesn't cost the ISP any more".
Has your country thought of wresting things back from its out-of-control government? Perhaps with the support of the 2nd amendment? Forget the stupid cyber-everything prefices - "security" (of a mythical free state, for example) is a far more fundamental concept.
> The article states their power density around 13wh/kg
That's an energy density, not a power density. (And watts are represented by a capital "W", not a lower case one.)
The article does not contain the phrase "power density", except as a label of the graph. Likewise the paper on Nature. But the limit of that axis on that graph is 10 Wh/kg, and all points are to the left of that limit.
Is there anything else apart from making up units, and making up numbers that you'd like to confess to, to get it off your chest?
Owning, or "the status of ownership", need not have any overhead. However, transferal of ownership is different from owning. Compare decriminalised marijuana where posession for personal use is fine, but dealing's a crime. Or with the fact that you can stay married without any intervention, but need government involvement to formally enter the state of being married. That example was better than you first imagined.
But, back to the gun nuts... (I used to host the local big-bore club's website on my servers, I'm just a wind-up merchant.) If they've ever held a public service post (govt+military+...), and have pledged to defend the constitution, then while the 2nd amendment remains unrepealed, the best way they can honour the pledge that the government obliged them to swear is to fire at the people trying to take their arms.
You know that "4 boxes" truism? The first 3 have failed. There's only one logical conclusion. For that reason, the "constitution fuck yeah!" mob^H^H^Hmilitia should be highly active presently in DC/Utah/wherever in defence of the 4th amendment in the face of so many violators.
It was a throwaway joke - you weren't supposed to analyse it!
OK, it wasn't that funny. But I'll tell you one thing that almost made me laugh out loud - when I got to the "Bottom line: Your cloud data isn't as safe as you might think." sentence. Shit, I just laughed out loud as I pasted that here. Fuck me, he really is an idiot. In part as he seems to perceive himself to be less of an idiot than others, as he pretends to be informative. He just hit one end of the Dunningâ€"Kruger bell-curve!
I do not disagree with you.
I have a confession to make - not only do I have a personal connection to a serious wiki page that I know is flawed but out of respect for their rules (it's their website, after all) I do not meddle with, but I also have a personal connection to a wiki page that is pure unadulterated bullshit that I was in part kinda-responsible for, and which was lifted off the web without any verification and put on wikipedia.
Whilst that bullshit page still exists, it's very easy for me to just dismiss wikipedia as unreliable except as a conduit to more trustworthy sources, so who gives a flying monkeybollock about it?!
Letting it survive is the only way that I'm a bad wiki citizen. My contributions have otherwise been only positive.
Don't tell anyone.
Certainly, the reason provides no legal obligation /per se/, but cannot help but influence the legalistic interpretation of the "what" part. And that 2nd certainly has been influenced by that part, in a hundred different contradictory ways!
One of the more annoying confusions I see from pro-tight-gun-control proponents is the magical and mystical transference of "well-regulated" onto the right hand side, which is definitely pure bogosity.
However, sufficiently lightweight control does not infringe rights. Your right to vote isn't being infringed by the government forcing you to vote in government-controlled locations, at government-controlled times, using government-controlled protocols. Your right to marry is not infringed by the government forcing you and some witnesses to sign government-approved forms certifying the marriage in the presence of someone government-approved to oversee such procedures.
Analogy: Having to wait in a queue doesn't mean they're refusing to serve you.
Ah, OK, devel-su hadn't reached a workable state when I was working on the device. This was a time when we wanted the kernel logs, as we were debugging everything. So if you wanna know why the software was so buggy, it's in part because the security prevented many of the developers from doing their work effectively!
/dev/{k,}mem?
Can you kexec from there? Examine
(That's a trick question, I hope, as I remember their removal, and don't think they were ever enabled again.)
Books have been written that address people's motivations and inspirations. For some authors and artists, there are many - just from friends' bookshelves, I know that Robert Graves and Dali have large corpera of works investigating and analysing even their least smelly fart. Those would be secondary sources, and wikipedia would approve of their use.
I'm not saying it's right of fair, it's just the rules.
Look at it this way, and using your words, if it's something "only he would know", then *by definition* it can't be independently verified.
I'm kind of a victim of this myself right at the moment, there is a page which I have an exceedingly close relation to, and it has some total bollocks on it. But I accept that it's not my job to fix it. Even if I were to publish more information on the topic in order for others to pick up, I still wouldn't be a secondary source. C'est la vie. I care less and less about wikipedia as time goes on, so its increasing number of errors and annoyances perturb me equally less too.
> What an idiot.
He admits to that himself, right from the outset:
"Let me start by saying that I am a bit of a nut"