Dude...this has been on the Discovery Channel for at least four years. This is not new information. The stupid cat ran into the street and got run over.
I served as an ICBM launch officer. Did you notice the total lack of knowledge of secure long-distance text communications technologies by the person who started this thread? Don't you find it amusing that civilians seem to think military technology is the same it was before WWII? The only real use I can think of might be communication with a disabled sub by a rescue crew.
That's exactly what I was going to comment on. There are no copyrights which apply to a car. Certain stylistic logos and the like may be copyrighted, but the physical entity isn't. There are numerous patents, however. Incidently, the idea of buy a car analyze it, and make a copy is how the Lexus came into existance. Mercedes-Benz automobiles where blueprinted in Asia then improved upon. This kind of thing happens all the time in the indsuctrial equipment markets. It only yields a decent return in a huge market like cars, though, because it is VERY expensive to completely duplicate a complex machine.
I'm not sure if it's funny or a real shame that a bunch of guys in their twenties think they can work hard enough to succeed. The guy who made the statement of, basically, "work hard and sock money into a mutual fund" doesn't get it. If that truly worked, there would be a lot of rich old people, there aren't. Ergo, it's an unrealistic approach pushed by people who make money by getting others to "invest." I've only seen one programmer who managed to sock away a lot of money. His family lived in squallor their entire lives. "Viper every year?" Oh, come on. For a programmer to save enough money to have something appreciable means they go without their entire lives. When there finally is some money, the only thing they really have to spend it on is medical, not pleasure. Guys who think otherwise don't understand the story about the two bulls.
You're category 3 is a bad spread, btw. There is a vast difference betwen a 20 year old college sophomore and a 33 year old graduate who is married with kids. However, statistics show that most men peak by the age of 35. A guy in his early twenties thinks he can conquer the world, he'll work hard enough. Don't they realize the guy in his forties they think is a loser thought the same thing? Attitude is great but it doesn't change the nature of an activity and the rewards it brings.
technical knowledge is your worst long-term bet...
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
What you will find is technical knowledge, especially in the software industries, provides the least return for your investment.
The ability to organize and lead teams, express thought concisely and coherently, and associate with a wide variety of people is the best skill you can learn.
That might not be what a 20-nothing programmer WANTS to hear, but it's the truth.
Look at it this way, the industry you work for is rapidly making it possible to job out tasks to people in countries such as India or Russia who have more technical education and will work for peanuts. There are literally rocket scientists in Russia who work as street venders to earn money. All a programmer has to offer is, from a business perspective, a technical capability that is easily replaced.
Is the magazine Midnight Engineering still around? I remember starting a software company right out of college. The myth was seductive, I'd make tons of money and life would be wonderful as I tinkered in my home lab. At the time, that appealed to me a heck of a lot more than working with people.
But that's just as much a myth as the fantasies of becoming a rock hero. Sure, some people manage to make it, for a very short time. The extreme few manage to make it work for a long period of time. Those who do are saavy businesspeople first, talented musicians second.
It's good you've taken a critical look at the older people around you who are in the same field. That's what I did. I saw men in their forties who were broke and had crappy marriages (if they weren't divorced already.) Many of them had kids who were hoping to have a future and there was nothing those guys could teach their kids other than how to fail.
Don't misunderstand what I'm trying to communicate to you. I'm NOT saying there is no future in the computer industry. I'm telling you wealth and lifestyle in this industry are NOT in the cards for programmers. Programmers are the technical assets used by the businesspeople. That's not some socialist crap, it's just reality.
Put another way, who at an auto dealership is most knowledgeable and capable about the physical charcteristics of cars? Is that person the one who has welath and lifestyle from the business?
Have you seen the show on VH-1 called "Where are they now?" There are a lot of life lessons to be learned from it.
(I know this might seem a little harsh and I suppose there will be a bunch of flaming replies by people in denial. I'm not trying to push you down at all, I'm trying to help you shock yourself into understanding there is a way you can be involved in the technical stuff which you love, you've just got to make those skills secondary to the skills which will help you build success.)
There are a number of wonderful books that will help you think like a proper businessperson. I'm currently reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and everything I've read rings true. The saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is very true. It's also fair. If somebody specializes in thinking and acting in ways which bring success, they should succeed. I wasn't taught that in school or by my family. I was taught to surrender my destiny to somebody else.
I started as a programmer and tried to force that into giving me what I wanted. By it's very nature, programming couldn't give me those results. I've since learned a tremendous amount and now own an equipment sales business and am starting another. Five years ago I flew to Chicago to interview a number of frat brothers. Every single one of them was doing lousy. I talked with maybe thirty-five to forty of them. These are all guys with college degrees, many of whom I fully expected would be incredible successes. But they ALL hitched their wagons to principles of failure, not success. I was stunned. I also knew I didn't want to end up like that. It seems you don't, either. Good for you! If you're from a public school family like I am, best prepare yourself for oppostion from them. My family didn't support me (except for my Dad) because if I succeeded it prooved they were doing the wrong things. Crabs in a bucket and all that. That's a heavy life lesson and, when faced with it, most men proove they're really boys.
My income is more than 4 times what it was as a programmer and I'm able to call the shots. I've also found the analysis and planning skills I learned as a programmer help tremendously. You'll be surprised at the thought skills you already have. Learn to channel those skills towards other ventures while not jeopardizing what puts food in your mouth presently and focus on what it takes to bring confidence to other people. It's relatively easy to duplicate what everybody else is doing because of peer presure but if what they are doing won't get you what you want, do that which will. That may sound corny, but that's what it really takes.
The way I read it, it appeared to say that a one time pad is a stream of random numbers used as a key stream and once a number is used it is not used again. If that's what it says, it's only true under certain circumstances.
You are certainly correct tht there might be more than one form of encryption involved. However, that doesn't necessarily mean some form of computerized encryption at all. Your example of using "17" as a replacement for "first post" is also a form of encryption. As long as the security of any such replacement tables is maintined it's almost impossible to know what a message says. That's why I said destruction would only happen under extreme circumstances. Without a good system of verifying limitations of the code knowledge, an operational code must be assumed to be compromised. If these are, indeed, some form of coded communication there are most likely physical components such that a computerized pattern analysis would be fruitless. Given they started in the U.S. and it was pattern analysis that allowed the Allies to crack Ultra and Purple, it would be foolish to think otherwise.
But it's also highly understandable that a programmer-heavy forum would think along the lines of generic encryption by algorithm, isn't it?
Your answers weren't messed up, they're based on the experience you have. Comptuer-based encryption of stream data is all find and good but it's only one tool. I was trying to push you into thinking outside that realm, not to attack you but to help you think of more of the real-world issues. There isn't anybody to come to your rescue on the ground. What I was trying to describe, and maybe I assumed you would catch it, is there are lots of situations in which instantaneous authentication is necessary. A soldier pressed into the ground doesn't have a computer to do encoding and wouldn't want one. Both parties use oral phrases to verify who they are. A soldier wouldn't say the exact location where he wanted something to be delivered until the delay between making that request and the delivery would be very short. So GI Joe calls for air support and, basically, says, "I'm in X sector." The "good guys" show up and both he and the pilots need to know they're talking with the right person then quickly exchange targetting information and maybe corrections if the stuff doesn't show up where it's supposed to. They're going to use pre-determined words which have meanings only during certain time frames. The soldier on the ground is oging to have some paper record of what those phrases are (most likely) because trying to remember anything when you're being shot at probably isn't that easy. In the second scenario the code material isn't destroyed. If it was you and you were going to steal the material (or somethgin else that compromises security) you would also fake documentation. A good example of that was John Walker, the guy who gave the Societs key information starting during the Vietnam War. He forged papers that made it look like his periodic background investigations were completed. In practice, code materials are only destroyed in remot locations in an emergency. They are returned to the local headquarters where they are checked and inventoried before being sent to the next level of headquarters. This provides a way to ensure nothign funny is happening, sort of like a blind test. In movies and WWII documentaries they typically show Agent X burning something right after he finishes sending Morse code and just before the Storm Troopers bust the door down. That's an extreme situation. Under normal conditions, code material is sent back up the chain of distribution to the source as a way to help ensure it didn't get to the "bad guys."
You are incorrect. You also don't have any experience with coded material.
The phrase "one time pad" means an encoding method which is used once. That is ALL it means. Traditionally, and in many environments still, it refers to a printed pad of paper.
It does not necessarily mean a string of numbers, the use of bit-wise logical operators, or any other charateristic which you list.
There most certainly are instances in which codes are changed on a frequent basis, used or not. The idea that a one-time pad is always destroyed after use is ridiculous. Destruction of code materials in a field environment is only done under extreme circumstances. When something is destroyed, there is no way of verifying it's presence, is there? How do you verify the integrity of an operation is the code materials are destroyed?
There are far more methods of encoding a message than an algorithm into which a key is fed for encryption of a data stream. Stop thinking like a programmer in an air-conditioned room with Internet access and start thinking like a soldier.
Imagine you're on a hill in a jungle somewhere being shot at. You've been in combat for three weeks and stuck on the hill for two days. You're trying to get some air support. The people shooting at you might already be monitoring your frequencies and their leadership speak flawless English because they were schooled in the U.S. The fighter pilot is, essentially, sitting in a space so small he can hardly move his arms. The cockpit is completely crammed with equipment and he's already turned off most of it because he can't think with the various alarms going off. The only way he can use any kind of paper is if it's strapped to one of his thighs because a map and notes are strapped the other. How do you securely talk with him over a radio? Hint: He's not going to ask you who won the World Series.
Second scenario: You're part of an American crew at a listening post somewhere within the U.S. You're shift is two days. During that period you receive a number of messages. Do you destroy your code materials after you've read the messages? If so, how can your relief crew verify the integrity of the operation? If you were the oncoming crew, would YOU assume responsibility for an operation whose integrity cannot be verified?
The idea that "the CIA/NSA/DoD/etc. have abandoned using one-time pad encrypted ciphertext spoken aloud" is foolish. Those entities must also function in wartime conditions or when they are under attack. Digital communication is very, very fragile.
To illustrate the concept: The American military has cruise missles and GPS but they also still put knives on the end of sticks to poke at their enemy.
Close, very close. I've spent a few years in a hole in the ground which was also operated by SAC, even got a few blue jumpsuits with nifty patches. No Hollywood or pseudo-macho here: It doesn't matter how much computing power is gathered, that is not the way to crack this kind of communication. More than likely there are one-time key methods being used and pros don't use methods which involve consistent application of keys for this type of encryption. This isn't a stream-encryption like would be used in, say, a voice scrambler. The idea that there is some form of one-to-one character relationship is ludicrous. (I have to be very careful how I state this...) Pick up any elementary-level book on codes and secret writing and there's a good likelihood you'll see an example of numbered word dictionaries. 0001 = battalion, 0002 = dawn, etc. You'll also see examples of combining encryption methods within a single message. Put another way, if the final scene was missing from the Citizen Kane movie, all the computers in the world would not be able to deduce demonstratively that Rosebud was the sled. Attempting to find a pattern and then somehow use that to "crack" this form of communication is an absolute waste of time, period. There are just too many variables. Now, if a team used radio direction finding equipment and was able to stalk, trap, and interrogate people and somehow trace other personal connections without alerting the Borg (whoever they may be), there might be a shot. But it ain't going to happen in this reality.
Where did you ever come up with that idea?!?!?! The legal system of the US holds that under many circumstances it is completely impossible to hold the federal government accountabile the way a private entity could be so held. Federal employees have far fewer so-called "rights" or legal protections than those in the private sector. There is no right to privacy on federal property outside of things like monitoring in bathrooms and the like. Any use of federal resources, by default, is completely open to full monitoring. The law stipulates that any use of federal resources for private gain is illegal. (Why do you think the VP is in trouble for making political fund-raising calls on a government phone?)
There are a number of things to consider including the lack of full copy of the notice sent from Bank of America. Copyright itself may not be the root of the issue. In the U.S. there is an incredible amount of legal restrictions and guidelines on what a bank may say, do, and communicate. Given that the BoA site contains specific financial statements, it is quite reasonable they would be concerned about any "translation." Secondly, "fair use" does not include complete copying or translation except in very rare and specific instances (admitting into legal evidence, etc.) Thirdly, the BoA site includes not only text, but also trademarked properties (logos, product names, etc.) and they most certainly do have a proper legal right in the U.S. to control how those are used. They not only have the right, the legal code requires them to do so or risk loosing ownership of those properties. Kleenex and Xerox are probably the most widely known instances of companies almost loosing ownership of a trademarked name. Fourthly, this sure was a very cost effective way for BoA, wasn't it? One letter? Seems to me the issue of translation happening locally or through an automated remote server is ridiculous. The phone compnay is not legally responsible for what I speak into a handset but they translate that physical motion into analog current and then into digital for transmission then reassemble. I haven't been following this stuff that closely the past few years but a pure carrier has some insular protection against the use of the transfer medium. Without that concept, we couldn't have ANY form of mass communication other than government propaganda. (Don't get me started...;) Given all of that, a simple solution seems to be an automated "opt out" process in which a blacklist could be created. (OK, all of you that are howling, grow up and realize your freedom of speech does not mean you can claim ownership of somebody else's speech. That concept is called "polical correctness" which is a euphemism for a Stalinist utopia.) Human intervention would be required if a hosting company decided to enter their entire domain if their agreement with the hosted parties sites does not allow this form of restriction. (ABC ISP blocks their domain which blocks my page but there is nothing in our agreement which allows them to censor for this reason.) This might also be a good incident for the free speech groups ot take on. Then again, it might be best to NOT attack it because the wrong kind of legal precedent could be set.
Then put together a list of "kill" characteristics. Suggestions would include domains you don't want to retrieve and known banner sizes. There are numerous configurable ad banner killers where you can get this information.
Not running Windoze? Sorry, Proxomitron is only written for windows. I've sent email to the author asking about conversion to Linux for use in firewalls but never got any response. Maybe somebody else will have better luck. Sure would like to know if they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Series 1 DirecTiVo units are completely hackable to include extraction/remote viewing of video streams.
p hp ?s=&forumid=23
p ?s =&threadid=23380
http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/forumdisplay.
There's also a MythTV module that completely integrates the series 1 units.
http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.ph
You can also have hacks to do caller ID reporting, sports scores, weather, etc.
http://shelob.mordor.net/dgraft/ (Follow link on the left to DirecTiVo)
You are doing something massively wrong.
There is no way 90 minutes of 720x480 should take up that kind of space.
An hour in DV format is about 13G
An hour in USB MPEG-2 is about 4G
Even if you use something like HuffYUV it would only be around 30G, something like that.
Have you done a lot of video before? This just doesn't seem right.
Is your source material clean enough that lossless really helps? What kind of software are you using to sample?
Stan Lee created Spider-Man as a comic book character in the 1960s.
So...exactly WHICH generation are you attempting to pompously proclamate for?
Dude...this has been on the Discovery Channel for at least four years. This is not new information. The stupid cat ran into the street and got run over.
I served as an ICBM launch officer. Did you notice the total lack of knowledge of secure long-distance text communications technologies by the person who started this thread? Don't you find it amusing that civilians seem to think military technology is the same it was before WWII? The only real use I can think of might be communication with a disabled sub by a rescue crew.
That's exactly what I was going to comment on. There are no copyrights which apply to a car. Certain stylistic logos and the like may be copyrighted, but the physical entity isn't. There are numerous patents, however. Incidently, the idea of buy a car analyze it, and make a copy is how the Lexus came into existance. Mercedes-Benz automobiles where blueprinted in Asia then improved upon. This kind of thing happens all the time in the indsuctrial equipment markets. It only yields a decent return in a huge market like cars, though, because it is VERY expensive to completely duplicate a complex machine.
I'm not sure if it's funny or a real shame that a bunch of guys in their twenties think they can work hard enough to succeed. The guy who made the statement of, basically, "work hard and sock money into a mutual fund" doesn't get it. If that truly worked, there would be a lot of rich old people, there aren't. Ergo, it's an unrealistic approach pushed by people who make money by getting others to "invest." I've only seen one programmer who managed to sock away a lot of money. His family lived in squallor their entire lives. "Viper every year?" Oh, come on. For a programmer to save enough money to have something appreciable means they go without their entire lives. When there finally is some money, the only thing they really have to spend it on is medical, not pleasure. Guys who think otherwise don't understand the story about the two bulls.
You're category 3 is a bad spread, btw. There is a vast difference betwen a 20 year old college sophomore and a 33 year old graduate who is married with kids. However, statistics show that most men peak by the age of 35. A guy in his early twenties thinks he can conquer the world, he'll work hard enough. Don't they realize the guy in his forties they think is a loser thought the same thing? Attitude is great but it doesn't change the nature of an activity and the rewards it brings.
What you will find is technical knowledge, especially in the software industries, provides the least return for your investment.
The ability to organize and lead teams, express thought concisely and coherently, and associate with a wide variety of people is the best skill you can learn.
That might not be what a 20-nothing programmer WANTS to hear, but it's the truth.
Look at it this way, the industry you work for is rapidly making it possible to job out tasks to people in countries such as India or Russia who have more technical education and will work for peanuts. There are literally rocket scientists in Russia who work as street venders to earn money. All a programmer has to offer is, from a business perspective, a technical capability that is easily replaced.
Is the magazine Midnight Engineering still around? I remember starting a software company right out of college. The myth was seductive, I'd make tons of money and life would be wonderful as I tinkered in my home lab. At the time, that appealed to me a heck of a lot more than working with people.
But that's just as much a myth as the fantasies of becoming a rock hero. Sure, some people manage to make it, for a very short time. The extreme few manage to make it work for a long period of time. Those who do are saavy businesspeople first, talented musicians second.
It's good you've taken a critical look at the older people around you who are in the same field. That's what I did. I saw men in their forties who were broke and had crappy marriages (if they weren't divorced already.) Many of them had kids who were hoping to have a future and there was nothing those guys could teach their kids other than how to fail.
Don't misunderstand what I'm trying to communicate to you. I'm NOT saying there is no future in the computer industry. I'm telling you wealth and lifestyle in this industry are NOT in the cards for programmers. Programmers are the technical assets used by the businesspeople. That's not some socialist crap, it's just reality.
Put another way, who at an auto dealership is most knowledgeable and capable about the physical charcteristics of cars? Is that person the one who has welath and lifestyle from the business?
Have you seen the show on VH-1 called "Where are they now?" There are a lot of life lessons to be learned from it.
(I know this might seem a little harsh and I suppose there will be a bunch of flaming replies by people in denial. I'm not trying to push you down at all, I'm trying to help you shock yourself into understanding there is a way you can be involved in the technical stuff which you love, you've just got to make those skills secondary to the skills which will help you build success.)
There are a number of wonderful books that will help you think like a proper businessperson. I'm currently reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and everything I've read rings true. The saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is very true. It's also fair. If somebody specializes in thinking and acting in ways which bring success, they should succeed. I wasn't taught that in school or by my family. I was taught to surrender my destiny to somebody else.
I started as a programmer and tried to force that into giving me what I wanted. By it's very nature, programming couldn't give me those results. I've since learned a tremendous amount and now own an equipment sales business and am starting another. Five years ago I flew to Chicago to interview a number of frat brothers. Every single one of them was doing lousy. I talked with maybe thirty-five to forty of them. These are all guys with college degrees, many of whom I fully expected would be incredible successes. But they ALL hitched their wagons to principles of failure, not success. I was stunned. I also knew I didn't want to end up like that. It seems you don't, either. Good for you! If you're from a public school family like I am, best prepare yourself for oppostion from them. My family didn't support me (except for my Dad) because if I succeeded it prooved they were doing the wrong things. Crabs in a bucket and all that. That's a heavy life lesson and, when faced with it, most men proove they're really boys.
My income is more than 4 times what it was as a programmer and I'm able to call the shots. I've also found the analysis and planning skills I learned as a programmer help tremendously. You'll be surprised at the thought skills you already have. Learn to channel those skills towards other ventures while not jeopardizing what puts food in your mouth presently and focus on what it takes to bring confidence to other people. It's relatively easy to duplicate what everybody else is doing because of peer presure but if what they are doing won't get you what you want, do that which will. That may sound corny, but that's what it really takes.
The way I read it, it appeared to say that a one time pad is a stream of random numbers used as a key stream and once a number is used it is not used again. If that's what it says, it's only true under certain circumstances.
You are certainly correct tht there might be more than one form of encryption involved. However, that doesn't necessarily mean some form of computerized encryption at all. Your example of using "17" as a replacement for "first post" is also a form of encryption. As long as the security of any such replacement tables is maintined it's almost impossible to know what a message says. That's why I said destruction would only happen under extreme circumstances. Without a good system of verifying limitations of the code knowledge, an operational code must be assumed to be compromised. If these are, indeed, some form of coded communication there are most likely physical components such that a computerized pattern analysis would be fruitless. Given they started in the U.S. and it was pattern analysis that allowed the Allies to crack Ultra and Purple, it would be foolish to think otherwise.
But it's also highly understandable that a programmer-heavy forum would think along the lines of generic encryption by algorithm, isn't it?
Your answers weren't messed up, they're based on the experience you have. Comptuer-based encryption of stream data is all find and good but it's only one tool. I was trying to push you into thinking outside that realm, not to attack you but to help you think of more of the real-world issues. There isn't anybody to come to your rescue on the ground. What I was trying to describe, and maybe I assumed you would catch it, is there are lots of situations in which instantaneous authentication is necessary. A soldier pressed into the ground doesn't have a computer to do encoding and wouldn't want one. Both parties use oral phrases to verify who they are. A soldier wouldn't say the exact location where he wanted something to be delivered until the delay between making that request and the delivery would be very short. So GI Joe calls for air support and, basically, says, "I'm in X sector." The "good guys" show up and both he and the pilots need to know they're talking with the right person then quickly exchange targetting information and maybe corrections if the stuff doesn't show up where it's supposed to. They're going to use pre-determined words which have meanings only during certain time frames. The soldier on the ground is oging to have some paper record of what those phrases are (most likely) because trying to remember anything when you're being shot at probably isn't that easy. In the second scenario the code material isn't destroyed. If it was you and you were going to steal the material (or somethgin else that compromises security) you would also fake documentation. A good example of that was John Walker, the guy who gave the Societs key information starting during the Vietnam War. He forged papers that made it look like his periodic background investigations were completed. In practice, code materials are only destroyed in remot locations in an emergency. They are returned to the local headquarters where they are checked and inventoried before being sent to the next level of headquarters. This provides a way to ensure nothign funny is happening, sort of like a blind test. In movies and WWII documentaries they typically show Agent X burning something right after he finishes sending Morse code and just before the Storm Troopers bust the door down. That's an extreme situation. Under normal conditions, code material is sent back up the chain of distribution to the source as a way to help ensure it didn't get to the "bad guys."
You are incorrect. You also don't have any experience with coded material.
The phrase "one time pad" means an encoding method which is used once. That is ALL it means. Traditionally, and in many environments still, it refers to a printed pad of paper.
It does not necessarily mean a string of numbers, the use of bit-wise logical operators, or any other charateristic which you list.
There most certainly are instances in which codes are changed on a frequent basis, used or not. The idea that a one-time pad is always destroyed after use is ridiculous. Destruction of code materials in a field environment is only done under extreme circumstances. When something is destroyed, there is no way of verifying it's presence, is there? How do you verify the integrity of an operation is the code materials are destroyed?
There are far more methods of encoding a message than an algorithm into which a key is fed for encryption of a data stream. Stop thinking like a programmer in an air-conditioned room with Internet access and start thinking like a soldier.
Imagine you're on a hill in a jungle somewhere being shot at. You've been in combat for three weeks and stuck on the hill for two days. You're trying to get some air support. The people shooting at you might already be monitoring your frequencies and their leadership speak flawless English because they were schooled in the U.S. The fighter pilot is, essentially, sitting in a space so small he can hardly move his arms. The cockpit is completely crammed with equipment and he's already turned off most of it because he can't think with the various alarms going off. The only way he can use any kind of paper is if it's strapped to one of his thighs because a map and notes are strapped the other. How do you securely talk with him over a radio? Hint: He's not going to ask you who won the World Series.
Second scenario: You're part of an American crew at a listening post somewhere within the U.S. You're shift is two days. During that period you receive a number of messages. Do you destroy your code materials after you've read the messages? If so, how can your relief crew verify the integrity of the operation? If you were the oncoming crew, would YOU assume responsibility for an operation whose integrity cannot be verified?
The idea that "the CIA/NSA/DoD/etc. have abandoned using one-time pad encrypted ciphertext spoken aloud" is foolish. Those entities must also function in wartime conditions or when they are under attack. Digital communication is very, very fragile.
To illustrate the concept: The American military has cruise missles and GPS but they also still put knives on the end of sticks to poke at their enemy.
Close, very close. I've spent a few years in a hole in the ground which was also operated by SAC, even got a few blue jumpsuits with nifty patches. No Hollywood or pseudo-macho here: It doesn't matter how much computing power is gathered, that is not the way to crack this kind of communication. More than likely there are one-time key methods being used and pros don't use methods which involve consistent application of keys for this type of encryption. This isn't a stream-encryption like would be used in, say, a voice scrambler. The idea that there is some form of one-to-one character relationship is ludicrous. (I have to be very careful how I state this...) Pick up any elementary-level book on codes and secret writing and there's a good likelihood you'll see an example of numbered word dictionaries. 0001 = battalion, 0002 = dawn, etc. You'll also see examples of combining encryption methods within a single message. Put another way, if the final scene was missing from the Citizen Kane movie, all the computers in the world would not be able to deduce demonstratively that Rosebud was the sled. Attempting to find a pattern and then somehow use that to "crack" this form of communication is an absolute waste of time, period. There are just too many variables. Now, if a team used radio direction finding equipment and was able to stalk, trap, and interrogate people and somehow trace other personal connections without alerting the Borg (whoever they may be), there might be a shot. But it ain't going to happen in this reality.
Where did you ever come up with that idea?!?!?! The legal system of the US holds that under many circumstances it is completely impossible to hold the federal government accountabile the way a private entity could be so held. Federal employees have far fewer so-called "rights" or legal protections than those in the private sector. There is no right to privacy on federal property outside of things like monitoring in bathrooms and the like. Any use of federal resources, by default, is completely open to full monitoring. The law stipulates that any use of federal resources for private gain is illegal. (Why do you think the VP is in trouble for making political fund-raising calls on a government phone?)
There are a number of things to consider including the lack of full copy of the notice sent from Bank of America. Copyright itself may not be the root of the issue. In the U.S. there is an incredible amount of legal restrictions and guidelines on what a bank may say, do, and communicate. Given that the BoA site contains specific financial statements, it is quite reasonable they would be concerned about any "translation." Secondly, "fair use" does not include complete copying or translation except in very rare and specific instances (admitting into legal evidence, etc.) Thirdly, the BoA site includes not only text, but also trademarked properties (logos, product names, etc.) and they most certainly do have a proper legal right in the U.S. to control how those are used. They not only have the right, the legal code requires them to do so or risk loosing ownership of those properties. Kleenex and Xerox are probably the most widely known instances of companies almost loosing ownership of a trademarked name. Fourthly, this sure was a very cost effective way for BoA, wasn't it? One letter? Seems to me the issue of translation happening locally or through an automated remote server is ridiculous. The phone compnay is not legally responsible for what I speak into a handset but they translate that physical motion into analog current and then into digital for transmission then reassemble. I haven't been following this stuff that closely the past few years but a pure carrier has some insular protection against the use of the transfer medium. Without that concept, we couldn't have ANY form of mass communication other than government propaganda. (Don't get me started... ;) Given all of that, a simple solution seems to be an automated "opt out" process in which a blacklist could be created. (OK, all of you that are howling, grow up and realize your freedom of speech does not mean you can claim ownership of somebody else's speech. That concept is called "polical correctness" which is a euphemism for a Stalinist utopia.) Human intervention would be required if a hosting company decided to enter their entire domain if their agreement with the hosted parties sites does not allow this form of restriction. (ABC ISP blocks their domain which blocks my page but there is nothing in our agreement which allows them to censor for this reason.) This might also be a good incident for the free speech groups ot take on. Then again, it might be best to NOT attack it because the wrong kind of legal precedent could be set.
First: get the Proxomitron HTML pre-processor
http://members.tripod.com/Proxomitron/
Then put together a list of "kill" characteristics. Suggestions would include domains you don't want to retrieve and known banner sizes. There are numerous configurable ad banner killers where you can get this information.
Not running Windoze? Sorry, Proxomitron is only written for windows. I've sent email to the author asking about conversion to Linux for use in firewalls but never got any response. Maybe somebody else will have better luck. Sure would like to know if they do.
fredthompson@mindspring.com