That's why, when I forgot my backpack in the bus two weeks ago, I got it back the next day.
Because they do regular sweeps at every stop, and one employee found it under the seat in the back of the bus. I don't see what revenue this generated for them.
I am curious about your deployment method: Do you have small robots that are going to creep out of the luggage, and then hide next to the bolts? Or do you plan to hide in the luggage yourself, sneak out, affix your little devices to the bolt points, and then sneak back into your luggage?
Look, fool: If devices can hear your message, then the same devices can be used to locate you. You're claiming that you can shout out wide, but then be undetectable.
Locating jammers is easy. People do it for sport. It does not matter that your device is silent most of the time; all you need is the occasional blip, and a device that keeps records.
Your device is either close or it is far. If it is close, it can emit a weaker signal (& evade detection,) but will easily be located by visual inspection. That is, people are working on the bolt, it's not working for some reason, and so while the one guy goes to get the equipment to locate the jammer, the other guy checks around the seat, to see if he can find your device.
Whether he finds it by visual inspection, or they have to get equipment, you're jammer has been found, they're making use of their bolt, and an investigation has been initiated.
If you're source is far, it's even easier. If you're attacking multiple bolts, you're sending out far more signals, and you're doing it with far greater signal strength. Locating your jammer is even easier, and you need a larger installation (meaning that it's more obvious) to send your signal from.
Before they've found you, they've caged the bolt against foreign signal.
It's just a random string, constructed from a random source.
The keys are randomly generated, stored in the bolt, and then stored in the device that is authorized to communicate with the bolt.
There is no pattern.
Look, let me put it this way: When the White House was hooked up to the Kremlin by the Red Telephone, they used this technique to encrypt the line.
It is unbreakable. The only points of weakness are interception or retrieval of the codebooks at point of inception, point of delivery, or in storage on the device.
But wire communications are completely unbreakable.
You're obviously not paying attention. You've got 20 minutes between single attempts, regardless of how many of these you have. In a day, you can try 72 codes. You get to try 26,280 codes in a freaking YEAR. With just 2 bytes, I've got 65,536. Oh, look, I just added another bit: Now I have 131,072 codes you're up against. Oh, look, each key is 16 full bytes, meaning you are up against... 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 possibilities.
Good luck, with your 26,280 per year.
You're going to have to make sure that those devices are really well hidden, for a looong time, buddy.
In all likelihood, the planes'll be long obsoleted, and the bolts converted to raw computronium, way before you've made a dent in their security.
You have to watch how you distribute information from sensors, since it can plausibly be faked.
But perhaps you could lock the bolts from manipulation on a time-basis: "For the next 14 hours, accept no instruction," or something like that. That'd be good, to protect you during flight, and it's dirt simple.
1. magnet holding a case under the wheelwell/bumber trying all combos for several days.
2. Long flight from NYC to India.
Several days won't be long enough. If it is, just add 10 more bits, and it takes 1,024x as many days. Your attack is uneconomical: You'd be better served dispatching robots.
The case will be found on airplane inspection.
Of course everything can be cracked. The thing is, you can make it so much insanely more complicated, that the opponent is better served attacking you elsewhere in your security web.
Sure, but you actually have to have a device that can't be detected, that's emitting the radio frequency.
The scenario is that these mechanics are working on these aircraft in a controlled physical environment. So your attack makes no sense: If someone's using one of these devices to attack your bolts, you just look for the device. It's a freakin' lighthouse, and shouldn't be hard to locate.
Sure, but you're not going to be in position to deliver the DOS attack when the mechanics crew need to adjust the bolts.
Context is everything, in security.
It's as useless as saying that combination locks are useless, because someone can just watch you enter the combination. No, they're not useless; You just have to clear the area before you enter the combination.
I wouldn't think that it would be too hard to key them with, say, 1,000 keys, 128 bits per key. That's 16,000 bytes, and 3.4 * 10^38 odds against you per guess. (I'll wager I don't need quite so many bits per key.)
The procedure is this: (1) Listen for my address to be spoken. (2) Listen for fasten/unfasten command. (3) Listen for password.
If you give it a good key, it follows the command, and throws away that key.
If you give it a bad key, it locks up for, say, an hour, ten minutes, whatever, ignoring all input.
When you unfasten for the last time, with that 1,000th key, it refuses to fasten again, until it's rekeyed. Or perhaps you just throw it away at that point; I don't know, depends on your manufacturing process.
I'd trust it.
How would you attack this? Possibilities: (1) Go after the master keyring. (2) Try to go through all possible keys. (3) Attack the fasteners physically.
Going through all possible keys would require that you hang out for a very long time: You'll probably get caught. You could use a device, but it could be picked up by a device listening for bogus queries, or abnormal use patterns, and alert local intelligence of abnormal activity.
Far more likely would be an attack on the keyring itself. This is a physical security problem. If you don't have physical security, the intelligent fasteners in your plane are the least of your concerns.
There's also the question of attacking the fasteners themselves. That is, you could get a wrench, or a hammer, or a grenade, and try to beat them out, by hand. But again, this is the same problem you have with unintelligent fasteners; there is no net loss in security here.
I'd trust this system. It can be successfully attacked. But the radio waves are not a weak point. I'd trust this.
Which are you asking about: Japanese schools closing, or environmentalist's strategy sessions?
Japanese schools closing because there aren't enough kids?
...or environmentalists taking the strategy of mythologizing "Mother Earth?"
I first learned about Japanese schools closing through a friend, and then confirmed it by talking with another friend's wife, Yumiko. "It's because people are being selfish," she said, with some anger.
My research into NEET, freeters, hikikomori, support this.
As for the environmentalists:
30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation.
You may also want to read Adbusters, Daniel Quinn, and whatever other primitivist tract you can find.
Myself, I just know these things because I've been steeped in the culture of community health centers, co-ops, IndyMedia, various movements and efforts.
I was in the community health center, the other day. I decided to look through the books they had available for kids. I picked one up about a couple of young kids (9? 10? 11? 12?) that find a portal to the future. In the future, the world has been picked apart "by technology," but there's this thriving citadel of Gaia: Where the people have no technology, and have a huge organized society, and have all these rules against developing any sort of technology.
The boy has a prolicivity to inventing, and gets these ideas about machines to make, and things like that. The girl is more "in touch with nature," though, and doesn't see what's so necessary about the boy's machine making.
The long trials in the book are all dedicated to showing that they boy's prolicivities are wrong, and should be avoided, at all costs.
The story ends with the boy realizing the error of his ways, and realizing he should be paying more attention to the universal sisterhood of nature.
I don't remember the name of the book; Sorry. But it's not really tricky to find; These kinds of messages are all over the place.
Here's another source: My best friend Phil. Phil's been my best friend since around 4th grade. (I'm 28, right now.) He went more the green route, me more the technology route. We've stayed up many late nights, talking over all sorts of things. I remember tromping through the golden grass fields back of UCSC. (We both grew up in Santa Cruz.) I remember him telling me about how all the top soil would be gone within 10 years, and there'd be no more food for anybody.
At any rate, we've had many discussions about activist strategy, and we've talked about mythologizing environmentalism several times. I think he thought it was a good idea. Myself, I love nature, but I also love computers and machines and buildings.
I don't have a book or a plan guide that I can point you to, and say: "There! There it is! The master plans! The blueprints!" I imagine there are several of them, floating out there. (EcoTopia?) But I assure you, this is quite real; This is a motive force; People are doing this. First hand, I tell you, people have been talking about this.
It's no more surprising than car manufacturers mythologizing cars.
You are either playing ignorant to get your point in the door, or you are seriously out of touch with the environmentalist community. Or, you are in touch with the environmentalist community, but are seeking to wash it's past out, or claim it's name in service of your ideals, and make it more acceptable to the general public.
Regardless, I find the method of communication irritating right now.
And regardless, I will answer your question: Many environmentalists are against technology because it very regularly leads to unsustainable development practices (such as reliance on oil) and environmental catastrophy (Global Warming, nuclear fallout, clearcutting, soil depletion...) Many environmentalists also oppose it, because they find the technology alienating. Very few people define themselves as just environmentalists; There are usually a collection of concerns that group themselves together.
I have pro-technology environmentalist friends, I also have anti-technology or pro-split technology environmentalist friends. (Separate the "bad" technology from the "appropriate" technology.) I spend time at communes, visit ecovillages, and do all sorts of different trippy things with weird people. Have you? The key word (or banner,) (which you repeated yourself,) is "sustainable," and a bunch of these environmentalists just plain don't believe in technology. They don't see the infrastructure behind manufacturing chips as a sustainable process. Some do. Regardless, most believe in, or at least support, the mythologizing of nature. (I do myself! But for different reasons. I believe in mythologizing everything.)
Here's an experiment to try:
Go visit your local eco village. Start talking about technology, start talking about genetic manipulation, start talking about virtual reality, start talking about pervasive computing, and start talking about the technological singularity. See how far you can get, before people start getting worried or strained looks on their faces. Report back on your experiment here.
Not necessarily; Developed countries undergo population implosions.
Schools in Japan are shutting down in a wave, starting with the first grades, and then pushing onward through the school. Sometimes, they just shut down entire floors in their schools.
The thing I find amusing, is that many environmentalists have problems with this.
In the 1990's, a bunch of environmentalists got together, and said, "What do we need to do? We need to seriously do something, so that people will be more environmentalist." The strategy, they decided on, was to mythologize environmentalism. That is, to get people to worship the Earth Mother, to shun technology, to get in psychic harmony with nature, and so on, and so forth.
And that strategy is totally being played out.
So when you tell them, "Hey, in Japan, they're freaking out, because people aren't having kids, and it seems to be because they're developed," it tends to not go over so well.
The social sphere is exactly where they are operating; They aren't pushing legislation, just asking local business owners not to sell the game.
While I'm glad y'all are enthusiastic about putting this in the social sphere, I misled by suggesting that they weren't doing it. Nope! They're doing right! They're not trying to pass laws, or anything like that.
The article says: "asking local merchants not to carry the game and urging parents not to buy the game," and that's precicely the sort of response I was arguing for: A social response.
That said: Your concept of rights is flawed: Rights regularly '''do''' give you permission to do what you wish, to hell with everyone else. This is a fundamental concept of "Free Speech." That's why "Free Speech" means "Free Speech for people we strongly disagree with." It's how the minority is protected from the majority: by rights.
I oppose legislation to limit the amount of violence on the same basis you just cited. You are essentially arguing nothing there: "There is a tension between what you want, and what I want, and therefor, that is my basis for proposition X."
I further dispute your slippery slope argument: You need more than just invoke it, in order to make your point. You have to show that the slippery slope will actually happen out that way, and exactly why.
I've played many of those violent games you complain about, but I do not turn out that way. Clearly, then, the situation is more complex than simply causal. You have either more work ahead of you, or a change in perspective.
Rights are more than just about community, they extend to the individual, even the individual who the community opposes. The sum is greater than the sum of it's parts, but it is also true that the part is greater than it's role in the whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the reason this is tech-relevant, is because, were it not for the Internet, none of us would know about this.
RMS argues that he's mainly concerned with Free as in Freedom, not at no cost.
I see no philisophical argment against selling signatures or photo-ops.
...letter origami!
Did Netflix try origami?
Un-hunh.
That's why, when I forgot my backpack in the bus two weeks ago, I got it back the next day.
Because they do regular sweeps at every stop, and one employee found it under the seat in the back of the bus. I don't see what revenue this generated for them.
I am curious about your deployment method: Do you have small robots that are going to creep out of the luggage, and then hide next to the bolts? Or do you plan to hide in the luggage yourself, sneak out, affix your little devices to the bolt points, and then sneak back into your luggage?
Ok; I don't understand anything about the physics of that sort of thing; I only know the SIG-INT side of things.
I figure if you can do that, you can also attack a normal bolt. (With a wrench, or something dumb like that.)
And so on.
I think it becomes quickly apparent that this attack is way more expensive than it is worth.
Look, fool: If devices can hear your message, then the same devices can be used to locate you. You're claiming that you can shout out wide, but then be undetectable.
Locating jammers is easy. People do it for sport. It does not matter that your device is silent most of the time; all you need is the occasional blip, and a device that keeps records.
Your device is either close or it is far. If it is close, it can emit a weaker signal (& evade detection,) but will easily be located by visual inspection. That is, people are working on the bolt, it's not working for some reason, and so while the one guy goes to get the equipment to locate the jammer, the other guy checks around the seat, to see if he can find your device.
Whether he finds it by visual inspection, or they have to get equipment, you're jammer has been found, they're making use of their bolt, and an investigation has been initiated.
If you're source is far, it's even easier. If you're attacking multiple bolts, you're sending out far more signals, and you're doing it with far greater signal strength. Locating your jammer is even easier, and you need a larger installation (meaning that it's more obvious) to send your signal from.
Before they've found you, they've caged the bolt against foreign signal.
Give it up.
No: There doesn't need to be an algorithm.
It's just a random string, constructed from a random source.
The keys are randomly generated, stored in the bolt, and then stored in the device that is authorized to communicate with the bolt.
There is no pattern.
Look, let me put it this way: When the White House was hooked up to the Kremlin by the Red Telephone, they used this technique to encrypt the line.
It is unbreakable. The only points of weakness are interception or retrieval of the codebooks at point of inception, point of delivery, or in storage on the device.
But wire communications are completely unbreakable.
Un-hunh.
5 6 possibilities.
You're obviously not paying attention. You've got 20 minutes between single attempts, regardless of how many of these you have. In a day, you can try 72 codes. You get to try 26,280 codes in a freaking YEAR. With just 2 bytes, I've got 65,536. Oh, look, I just added another bit: Now I have 131,072 codes you're up against. Oh, look, each key is 16 full bytes, meaning you are up against... 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,4
Good luck, with your 26,280 per year.
You're going to have to make sure that those devices are really well hidden, for a looong time, buddy.
In all likelihood, the planes'll be long obsoleted, and the bolts converted to raw computronium, way before you've made a dent in their security.
Interesting idea.
You have to watch how you distribute information from sensors, since it can plausibly be faked.
But perhaps you could lock the bolts from manipulation on a time-basis: "For the next 14 hours, accept no instruction," or something like that. That'd be good, to protect you during flight, and it's dirt simple.
1. magnet holding a case under the wheelwell/bumber trying all combos for several days.
2. Long flight from NYC to India.
Several days won't be long enough. If it is, just add 10 more bits, and it takes 1,024x as many days. Your attack is uneconomical: You'd be better served dispatching robots.
The case will be found on airplane inspection.
Of course everything can be cracked. The thing is, you can make it so much insanely more complicated, that the opponent is better served attacking you elsewhere in your security web.
The point is: The fasteners aren't insecure.
No: You missed the point. You can't replay attack, because each key is thrown away after it's used once.
The keys only work once.
After you've exhausted the keys, you rekey the bolt.
Sure, but you actually have to have a device that can't be detected, that's emitting the radio frequency.
The scenario is that these mechanics are working on these aircraft in a controlled physical environment. So your attack makes no sense: If someone's using one of these devices to attack your bolts, you just look for the device. It's a freakin' lighthouse, and shouldn't be hard to locate.
Sure, but you're not going to be in position to deliver the DOS attack when the mechanics crew need to adjust the bolts.
Context is everything, in security.
It's as useless as saying that combination locks are useless, because someone can just watch you enter the combination. No, they're not useless; You just have to clear the area before you enter the combination.
One time keys, I would guess.
I wouldn't think that it would be too hard to key them with, say, 1,000 keys, 128 bits per key. That's 16,000 bytes, and 3.4 * 10^38 odds against you per guess. (I'll wager I don't need quite so many bits per key.)
The procedure is this: (1) Listen for my address to be spoken. (2) Listen for fasten/unfasten command. (3) Listen for password.
If you give it a good key, it follows the command, and throws away that key.
If you give it a bad key, it locks up for, say, an hour, ten minutes, whatever, ignoring all input.
When you unfasten for the last time, with that 1,000th key, it refuses to fasten again, until it's rekeyed. Or perhaps you just throw it away at that point; I don't know, depends on your manufacturing process.
I'd trust it.
How would you attack this? Possibilities: (1) Go after the master keyring. (2) Try to go through all possible keys. (3) Attack the fasteners physically.
Going through all possible keys would require that you hang out for a very long time: You'll probably get caught. You could use a device, but it could be picked up by a device listening for bogus queries, or abnormal use patterns, and alert local intelligence of abnormal activity.
Far more likely would be an attack on the keyring itself. This is a physical security problem. If you don't have physical security, the intelligent fasteners in your plane are the least of your concerns.
There's also the question of attacking the fasteners themselves. That is, you could get a wrench, or a hammer, or a grenade, and try to beat them out, by hand. But again, this is the same problem you have with unintelligent fasteners; there is no net loss in security here.
I'd trust this system. It can be successfully attacked. But the radio waves are not a weak point. I'd trust this.
I first learned about Japanese schools closing through a friend, and then confirmed it by talking with another friend's wife, Yumiko. "It's because people are being selfish," she said, with some anger.
My research into NEET, freeters, hikikomori, support this.
As for the environmentalists:
-- the Unibomber Manifesto
You may also want to read Adbusters, Daniel Quinn, and whatever other primitivist tract you can find.
Myself, I just know these things because I've been steeped in the culture of community health centers, co-ops, IndyMedia, various movements and efforts.
I was in the community health center, the other day. I decided to look through the books they had available for kids. I picked one up about a couple of young kids (9? 10? 11? 12?) that find a portal to the future. In the future, the world has been picked apart "by technology," but there's this thriving citadel of Gaia: Where the people have no technology, and have a huge organized society, and have all these rules against developing any sort of technology.
The boy has a prolicivity to inventing, and gets these ideas about machines to make, and things like that. The girl is more "in touch with nature," though, and doesn't see what's so necessary about the boy's machine making.
The long trials in the book are all dedicated to showing that they boy's prolicivities are wrong, and should be avoided, at all costs.
The story ends with the boy realizing the error of his ways, and realizing he should be paying more attention to the universal sisterhood of nature.
I don't remember the name of the book; Sorry. But it's not really tricky to find; These kinds of messages are all over the place.
Here's another source: My best friend Phil. Phil's been my best friend since around 4th grade. (I'm 28, right now.) He went more the green route, me more the technology route. We've stayed up many late nights, talking over all sorts of things. I remember tromping through the golden grass fields back of UCSC. (We both grew up in Santa Cruz.) I remember him telling me about how all the top soil would be gone within 10 years, and there'd be no more food for anybody.
At any rate, we've had many discussions about activist strategy, and we've talked about mythologizing environmentalism several times. I think he thought it was a good idea. Myself, I love nature, but I also love computers and machines and buildings.
I don't have a book or a plan guide that I can point you to, and say: "There! There it is! The master plans! The blueprints!" I imagine there are several of them, floating out there. (EcoTopia?) But I assure you, this is quite real; This is a motive force; People are doing this. First hand, I tell you, people have been talking about this.
It's no more surprising than car manufacturers mythologizing cars.
You are either playing ignorant to get your point in the door, or you are seriously out of touch with the environmentalist community. Or, you are in touch with the environmentalist community, but are seeking to wash it's past out, or claim it's name in service of your ideals, and make it more acceptable to the general public.
Regardless, I find the method of communication irritating right now.
And regardless, I will answer your question: Many environmentalists are against technology because it very regularly leads to unsustainable development practices (such as reliance on oil) and environmental catastrophy (Global Warming, nuclear fallout, clearcutting, soil depletion...) Many environmentalists also oppose it, because they find the technology alienating. Very few people define themselves as just environmentalists; There are usually a collection of concerns that group themselves together.
I have pro-technology environmentalist friends, I also have anti-technology or pro-split technology environmentalist friends. (Separate the "bad" technology from the "appropriate" technology.) I spend time at communes, visit ecovillages, and do all sorts of different trippy things with weird people. Have you? The key word (or banner,) (which you repeated yourself,) is "sustainable," and a bunch of these environmentalists just plain don't believe in technology. They don't see the infrastructure behind manufacturing chips as a sustainable process. Some do. Regardless, most believe in, or at least support, the mythologizing of nature. (I do myself! But for different reasons. I believe in mythologizing everything.)
Here's an experiment to try:
Go visit your local eco village. Start talking about technology, start talking about genetic manipulation, start talking about virtual reality, start talking about pervasive computing, and start talking about the technological singularity. See how far you can get, before people start getting worried or strained looks on their faces. Report back on your experiment here.
Not necessarily; Developed countries undergo population implosions.
Schools in Japan are shutting down in a wave, starting with the first grades, and then pushing onward through the school. Sometimes, they just shut down entire floors in their schools.
This is happening elsewhere, as well.
People are seriously freaked out about this.
The thing I find amusing, is that many environmentalists have problems with this.
In the 1990's, a bunch of environmentalists got together, and said, "What do we need to do? We need to seriously do something, so that people will be more environmentalist." The strategy, they decided on, was to mythologize environmentalism. That is, to get people to worship the Earth Mother, to shun technology, to get in psychic harmony with nature, and so on, and so forth.
And that strategy is totally being played out.
So when you tell them, "Hey, in Japan, they're freaking out, because people aren't having kids, and it seems to be because they're developed," it tends to not go over so well.
I think, more likely, people are just going to get used to the concept that "people can be a little weird, wherebout's 15-25."
Oh, wait- it's already like that!
I've said plenty of strange stuff. I'm not ashamed of it.
Dude, it doesn't take intelligence to draw a drawing, or write a program.
Yeah.
Tetris.
No matter what you do, the bricks just keep falling.
And nothing you can do can ever change that. NOTHING.
I didn't RTFA.
The social sphere is exactly where they are operating; They aren't pushing legislation, just asking local business owners not to sell the game.
While I'm glad y'all are enthusiastic about putting this in the social sphere, I misled by suggesting that they weren't doing it. Nope! They're doing right! They're not trying to pass laws, or anything like that.
Not here, at least.
Yep; You're right.
I spoke too quickly.
I'm sorry!
You know what; I wrote too soon:
The article says: "asking local merchants not to carry the game and urging parents not to buy the game," and that's precicely the sort of response I was arguing for: A social response.
That said: Your concept of rights is flawed: Rights regularly '''do''' give you permission to do what you wish, to hell with everyone else. This is a fundamental concept of "Free Speech." That's why "Free Speech" means "Free Speech for people we strongly disagree with." It's how the minority is protected from the majority: by rights.
I oppose legislation to limit the amount of violence on the same basis you just cited. You are essentially arguing nothing there: "There is a tension between what you want, and what I want, and therefor, that is my basis for proposition X."
I further dispute your slippery slope argument: You need more than just invoke it, in order to make your point. You have to show that the slippery slope will actually happen out that way, and exactly why.
I've played many of those violent games you complain about, but I do not turn out that way. Clearly, then, the situation is more complex than simply causal. You have either more work ahead of you, or a change in perspective.
Rights are more than just about community, they extend to the individual, even the individual who the community opposes. The sum is greater than the sum of it's parts, but it is also true that the part is greater than it's role in the whole.