AFAIK only though bugs and flawed implementation. I'm thinking, for example, of the Canon crack last year, which was clearly flawed. I presume the more recent Nikon crack is equally an implementation issue (ElcomSoft as always do say ~ "you should have got experts like us to do your crypto" which implies that there would have been a way to do it right.)
You can raise the bar high enough to significantly restrict who can get access to your keys or your analogue path. TLA high. There's nothing to prevent the signing from being done on the sensor itself, it already has a small microprocessor to pump data out, there's nothing stopping it from signing it before transmission. And the field of tamper-proof cryptograhic devices is a fairly mature one. (Though not quite perfect, as the recent secureID fiasco shows.)
The legal systems share a significant common heritage. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#United_States you did at least at some point have a very similar common law definition for assault (feeling under threat was basically enough). And even if you've redefined assault to mean something else, that doesn't mean that there isn't a similar offence under another name.
Quickly checking with my g/f, who did study US law, the name of that offence is indeed "assault", but she was at university a while ago, and it might be state-dependent.
Good point. My attention wasn't on slashdot yesterday (messing about with trying new lightweight browsers) and I misspoke. The article I was refering to, the one that doesn't mention trail, is indeed the one you linked too. So I was right about that. However, I also misspoke in that I should have said "abstract" rather than "paper". So I boobed about that. If the abstract doesn't give me confidence in the reliability of the paper, clearly I'm not going to download the paper.
Curious link. Do you honestly expect people to believe this - "Did you know that to turn a bike to the right, you actually push the handlebars to the left?"?!?!?
I certainly don't.
I know that I'm right in that regard, as I've won many a bet, even against physicists, by making that very claim, and then demonstrating it! It seems to be even more how-does-it-work than even fucking magnets [ICP 2009].
I shall definitely enjoy reading that paper - thanks for posting the link!
The article and paper seem to think that there are only two degrees of freedom for wheel placement geometry, but there are three. Quite why both avoided the words "rake" and "trail" is worrying too. I got the impression that these people really didn't understand the field at all.
If you lift your front wheel and retard it, then you're basically asking to high side if it gets traction when it touches down. I think that risk far outweights any stability issue; you never want to high side, full stop.
Who cares what youtube thinks, why bother with some third party? If he wants the video to be available why doesn't he just host it himself? When he receives the takedown, he can counter it instantly.
Their attacks seem so backward too. Looking at a coupe of the pastebins, they're still using little more than 'reload repeatedly', which is so dumb. It's almost embarassing to watch.
You've made the fundamental mistake that everyone makes. No matter how more logically sensible (the buttons operate on or change the contents of tab, and therefore are subordinate to, or contained in, the tab; likewise, tab switches are now much easier due to Fitz' law, etc.) and therefore on paper *right* the UI designers are, that doesn't make the users *wrong* with their preferences. People often prefer suboptimal interfaces. De gustibus non disputandum est. Familiarity is often vastly more important than functionality.
The stupid thing is that while the arrogant UI designers can have their hissy fight with the dumb users, the whole thing could be fixed by some back-room programmer making it configurable without the other two parties even noticing. Where is that masked programmer to secretly save the day?
Clearly it's a smart LCD, as the device doesn't have the RAM to store a frame-buffer. The pages are of course pre-rendered, all he's doing is blitting. I hope the smart-LCD has enough video RAM, as it then might be using hardware scrolling to keep bandwidth and load down, otherwise it looks like the uC will be running at at least 50% CPU constantly, even at 5V operation.
Great work, either way. It makes the fancy-pants project I'm working on at ${DAYJOB} look like a pile of crap, comparing xistor counts.
No, I haven't disassembled MS Office. But then again, I've not installed MS office. Even if it came in a linux/POWER version, which is my platform of choice currently, I still would install it.
Every single package I have installed comes from sources I have chosen to trust, which have very thorough and exclusive vetting procedures before letting people contribute (some won't even let me contribute presently, for example) and which only distributes software cryptographically signed. On top of that, if I'm less keen to trust them on particular packages, as I don't particularly trust their upstream for example, I can examine the code, as it's all freely available.
This is about 10 orders of magnitude less ass-rapey than running javascript which is sent afresh (and thus can and does change even after you've reviewed it, were you to so do) from a commercial site whose interest in you is that of a farmer's interest in his pigs.
It's not useless for those interested in computational efficiency with huge datasets. (Things like weather modelling, climate modelling, nuke aging analysis, fusion research, etc.)
If you look at a naive theoretical model for a computer, then you would predict that certain classes of algorithms would be most efficient for calculating digits of pi. (These algorithms use huge FFTs in order to do bignum arithmetic.) Several world records were broken using this technique. However, as the problem size grew, the FFTs started to become impractical, as the communication overhead started to dominate, and eventually algorithms that didn't have such a communication overhead became favoured. Better models of computational efficiency were arrived at, and new records were broken. We now understand time/space trade-offs better.
However, your loaf of bread won't be cheaper because of this, nor will the number of homeless on the street decrease.
Read more. The Plouffe formula (apparently the input from the other 2 was minimal, according to Simon himself) is only computationally efficient in base 2 (and therefore powers thereof). You have to do more work in other bases in order to avoid calculating earlier digits, it's simply not worth it.
Both of your poinst are mostly true, but don't cover all aspects of the transactions that are taking place.
The reader, when using most modern browsers in their default configurations, does say "I trust my browser to do what site X asks it to do, no matter what", and site X is saying "I trust facebook to do whatever they want to my readers".
I say "mostly", as it's entirely possible to view a web page without loading any images/iframes/scripts linked to by that page. That happens every time I use links, lynx, or w3m from a tty (which I do occasionally, but my g/f uses text mode browsers as her browser of choice most of the time). That's the simplest of all prescreenings - I don't want anything.
I also remember mosaic back in 1993 not showing inline images. If you moused over the icon, you'd see the URL, and if you were interested in that image, you had to click on the placeholder in order to pop up an xv window containing the image. If that isn't pre-screening, I don't know what is. Of course, that's impractical for the image/script-heavy piles of vomit that the youngsters like to look at nowadays, but that's different from not "having the ability".
A better compromise I remember from the 90s was to always run with a "no 3rd-party images" setting in an early netscape - that worked fine. If it was too much bandwidth for you to serve to me, it's too much bandwidth for me to be bothered to download.
One thing that annoys me about this story is that it only mentions facebook users who have logged out. You yourself do it above too. Those who have at one point logged in have agreed to facebook's T&Cs, and have accepted that facebook can be the bottom feeders of the internet. Those who have never logged in are still being tracked in exactly the same way, as those cookies are still being handed out with gay abandon.
Of course, elitist nerdy schmuck that I am, I have never accepted a single cookie from facebook, but I'm sure there are millions of others who are not on facebook and who don't like the anonymous tracking that facebook can perform with what are effectively their web-bugs.
It takes minimal effort to ensure that facebook can't track you - use something like adblock to block images from their domains. However, that requires a willingness to never have your "like" counted. (And a willingness to stay off facebook, obviously.)
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK only though bugs and flawed implementation. I'm thinking, for example, of the Canon crack last year, which was clearly flawed. I presume the more recent Nikon crack is equally an implementation issue (ElcomSoft as always do say ~ "you should have got experts like us to do your crypto" which implies that there would have been a way to do it right.)
You can raise the bar high enough to significantly restrict who can get access to your keys or your analogue path. TLA high. There's nothing to prevent the signing from being done on the sensor itself, it already has a small microprocessor to pump data out, there's nothing stopping it from signing it before transmission. And the field of tamper-proof cryptograhic devices is a fairly mature one. (Though not quite perfect, as the recent secureID fiasco shows.)
"My thoughts are that this is a home video."
Not if the intention was to broadcast it worldwide.
Please read the wikipedia page on 'assault' before spouting nonsense.
The legal systems share a significant common heritage. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#United_States you did at least at some point have a very similar common law definition for assault (feeling under threat was basically enough). And even if you've redefined assault to mean something else, that doesn't mean that there isn't a similar offence under another name.
Quickly checking with my g/f, who did study US law, the name of that offence is indeed "assault", but she was at university a while ago, and it might be state-dependent.
Good point. My attention wasn't on slashdot yesterday (messing about with trying new lightweight browsers) and I misspoke. The article I was refering to, the one that doesn't mention trail, is indeed the one you linked too. So I was right about that. However, I also misspoke in that I should have said "abstract" rather than "paper". So I boobed about that. If the abstract doesn't give me confidence in the reliability of the paper, clearly I'm not going to download the paper.
Just your look is expression. However, how you interact with others is not. In the UK, you could be guilty of assault if your demeanor shocked people.
The article is http://robosavvy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32542
Search in page for 'trail'
Nothing.
OK, that's only one experiment, but I don't think it's too much to conclude that no matter how many times I read it, I will still not see the word.
Curious link. Do you honestly expect people to believe this - "Did you know that to turn a bike to the right, you actually push the handlebars to the left?"?!?!?
I certainly don't.
I know that I'm right in that regard, as I've won many a bet, even against physicists, by making that very claim, and then demonstrating it! It seems to be even more how-does-it-work than even fucking magnets [ICP 2009].
I shall definitely enjoy reading that paper - thanks for posting the link!
The article and paper seem to think that there are only two degrees of freedom for wheel placement geometry, but there are three. Quite why both avoided the words "rake" and "trail" is worrying too. I got the impression that these people really didn't understand the field at all.
Your final sentence is certainly true, though.
If you lift your front wheel and retard it, then you're basically asking to high side if it gets traction when it touches down. I think that risk far outweights any stability issue; you never want to high side, full stop.
Who cares what youtube thinks, why bother with some third party? If he wants the video to be available why doesn't he just host it himself? When he receives the takedown, he can counter it instantly.
GNU is not Linux. It is you who is stupid.
So, apart from the hardware and the software, the summary's spot on?
Thanks, slashdot - news for derps.
Their attacks seem so backward too. Looking at a coupe of the pastebins, they're still using little more than 'reload repeatedly', which is so dumb. It's almost embarassing to watch.
Nope, if you are contrasting the porn industry against the rest of the industry you are clearly talking about the whole industry.
"Solely" does not mean what you apparently think it means. It does not mean "mostly", or even "almost entirely".
You've made the fundamental mistake that everyone makes. No matter how more logically sensible (the buttons operate on or change the contents of tab, and therefore are subordinate to, or contained in, the tab; likewise, tab switches are now much easier due to Fitz' law, etc.) and therefore on paper *right* the UI designers are, that doesn't make the users *wrong* with their preferences. People often prefer suboptimal interfaces. De gustibus non disputandum est. Familiarity is often vastly more important than functionality.
The stupid thing is that while the arrogant UI designers can have their hissy fight with the dumb users, the whole thing could be fixed by some back-room programmer making it configurable without the other two parties even noticing. Where is that masked programmer to secretly save the day?
Clearly it's a smart LCD, as the device doesn't have the RAM to store a frame-buffer. The pages are of course pre-rendered, all he's doing is blitting. I hope the smart-LCD has enough video RAM, as it then might be using hardware scrolling to keep bandwidth and load down, otherwise it looks like the uC will be running at at least 50% CPU constantly, even at 5V operation.
Great work, either way. It makes the fancy-pants project I'm working on at ${DAYJOB} look like a pile of crap, comparing xistor counts.
No, I haven't disassembled MS Office. But then again, I've not installed MS office. Even if it came in a linux/POWER version, which is my platform of choice currently, I still would install it.
Every single package I have installed comes from sources I have chosen to trust, which have very thorough and exclusive vetting procedures before letting people contribute (some won't even let me contribute presently, for example) and which only distributes software cryptographically signed. On top of that, if I'm less keen to trust them on particular packages, as I don't particularly trust their upstream for example, I can examine the code, as it's all freely available.
This is about 10 orders of magnitude less ass-rapey than running javascript which is sent afresh (and thus can and does change even after you've reviewed it, were you to so do) from a commercial site whose interest in you is that of a farmer's interest in his pigs.
It's not useless for those interested in computational efficiency with huge datasets. (Things like weather modelling, climate modelling, nuke aging analysis, fusion research, etc.)
If you look at a naive theoretical model for a computer, then you would predict that certain classes of algorithms would be most efficient for calculating digits of pi. (These algorithms use huge FFTs in order to do bignum arithmetic.) Several world records were broken using this technique. However, as the problem size grew, the FFTs started to become impractical, as the communication overhead started to dominate, and eventually algorithms that didn't have such a communication overhead became favoured. Better models of computational efficiency were arrived at, and new records were broken. We now understand time/space trade-offs better.
However, your loaf of bread won't be cheaper because of this, nor will the number of homeless on the street decrease.
Read more. The Plouffe formula (apparently the input from the other 2 was minimal, according to Simon himself) is only computationally efficient in base 2 (and therefore powers thereof). You have to do more work in other bases in order to avoid calculating earlier digits, it's simply not worth it.
Strangely, that's why I said "Those who have never logged in are still being tracked in exactly the same way."
Both of your poinst are mostly true, but don't cover all aspects of the transactions that are taking place.
The reader, when using most modern browsers in their default configurations, does say "I trust my browser to do what site X asks it to do, no matter what", and site X is saying "I trust facebook to do whatever they want to my readers".
I say "mostly", as it's entirely possible to view a web page without loading any images/iframes/scripts linked to by that page. That happens every time I use links, lynx, or w3m from a tty (which I do occasionally, but my g/f uses text mode browsers as her browser of choice most of the time). That's the simplest of all prescreenings - I don't want anything.
I also remember mosaic back in 1993 not showing inline images. If you moused over the icon, you'd see the URL, and if you were interested in that image, you had to click on the placeholder in order to pop up an xv window containing the image. If that isn't pre-screening, I don't know what is. Of course, that's impractical for the image/script-heavy piles of vomit that the youngsters like to look at nowadays, but that's different from not "having the ability".
A better compromise I remember from the 90s was to always run with a "no 3rd-party images" setting in an early netscape - that worked fine. If it was too much bandwidth for you to serve to me, it's too much bandwidth for me to be bothered to download.
I wish those darn kids would get orf moi web!
One thing that annoys me about this story is that it only mentions facebook users who have logged out. You yourself do it above too. Those who have at one point logged in have agreed to facebook's T&Cs, and have accepted that facebook can be the bottom feeders of the internet. Those who have never logged in are still being tracked in exactly the same way, as those cookies are still being handed out with gay abandon.
Of course, elitist nerdy schmuck that I am, I have never accepted a single cookie from facebook, but I'm sure there are millions of others who are not on facebook and who don't like the anonymous tracking that facebook can perform with what are effectively their web-bugs.
It takes minimal effort to ensure that facebook can't track you - use something like adblock to block images from their domains. However, that requires a willingness to never have your "like" counted. (And a willingness to stay off facebook, obviously.)