How about, have the operator type in the password as it's spoken? You'd have to have spellcheck in place each time it's entered, and maybe remove punctuation to ensure consistency, but there's no reason to display the password to a human operator.
You mean if someone steals my SSH key, they can then use it to log into my account??? And if that SSH key is in the authorized_keys file for root, or if I have sudo set not to prompt for a password, they could install a rootkit?!?!? Why didn't someone tell me this earlier?!?!?!
My step-daughter is one of those. She's been an active supporter of Obama throughout the primaries, and even volunteered to help on his campaign. I'm torn: part of my is proud of her for getting involved, I just wish she could've exercised a little better judgment. Guess that'll just have to come in time.
End-to-end encryption would only solve one part of the problem, keeping a third party from reading your traffic. But it would do nothing to prevent your traffic from simply disappearing, which could be even more disastrous. What if someone targeted Amazon's networks and dumped all traffic in or out into/dev/null? How much would Amazon lose before the problem got fixed (and what would that be worth to Barnes and Noble)? What if someone targeted Wall Street, and cut off the thousands of broker-dealers who submit their orders electronically? It could spell doom for our entire financial system.
There's a lot more at stake here than your emails to your college buddies about the next fishing trip.
Except that quite a bit of this particular White House's email communications weren't going over SIPR, they were going through GOP servers and Blackberries. Which means it was on the public internet.
Security only works when people use it.
(Former Navy communications nerd, now in the private sector.)
How? The person you were responding to used the third person plural, not the first person plural. Ergo, it does not seem likely the person is a McCain supporter, so their posting a comment does nothing to disprove their comment.
People without children aren't being penalized, people with children are just being rewarded. Or do you feel you were penalized when Michael Phelps won his eight gold medals?
How about learned patterns of sunlight corresponding to landmarks?
They looked at cows in widely disparate geographic locations, and at different times of the day. How in the world could there be similar patterns of sunlight for the cows to grow accustomed to under those variables?
Subsidized child care and similar benefits reward parents at the expense of other employees.
I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but people with children are worth more to society than people without children. Perhaps you should read or watch Children of Men to get a grasp on how important having children really is. The greatest advancements in the arts and sciences will mean very little if there is no one around to appreciate them.
Nothing wrong with them, it's a problem with the workplaces, it's pretty easy to let someone take a child leave for a year or two.
So someone decides to have children, and now their employer has to keep their job on hold for up to two years in case they decide to come back to it? How does that make any sense?
On the other hand, by providing a basic living to the poor, you keep them from getting desperate enough to decide that they have nothing to lose since they're going to die of hunger anyway and can thus as well kill you and loot your corpse for spare change.
Good point. However, the danger there is that when you subsidize laziness, you encourage people not to do anything with their lives. Personally, I see the value in a social safety net (*gasp* a Libertarian with common sense, what a shock!) I just don't want to see people get trapped in multi-generational dependency on the government. It's one reason why I think private charities are better suited to handle that sort of thing, since they can place requirements on their charity.
Besides, all the rights you have are ultimately based on your perceived value as a human being. A society which doesn't value humans is unlikely to respect their rights either, and a society which lets its members starve to death obviously doesn't value them much.
That's an interesting argument. Definitely food for thought.
So even though your specific example doesn't hold water, the general sense of what you're saying is quite valid - it's quite possible (even likely) that modern English will be nearly unintelligible in 2000 years.
LOL U cant b 4real, peoplez w1ll st1ll reed gud cuz its sew ez!!!
Any aliens that encounter our civilization may experience life in a completely incomprehensible way. For instance, they might not speak, but rather use some form of sign language or color language like squid.
OT, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of species that communicates via smell and taste. This species, in my mind, would be able to differentiate tastes that humans can't even imagine. And when we finally make contact with them, they start to emigrate to our planet and take up all the good sommelier jobs.
The problem there is, what society giveth, society can taketh away. I, for one, do not want society to decide that freedom of speech, especially but not exclusively political speech, is something that can be easily done away with. If it takes people believing it came from God, fine. If it takes people believing it's part of the inherent nature of humanity, fine. But saying it's like that just because enough people agree to it is dangerous and short sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because us Yanks spell "favorite" with a "u".
The guy was obviously a Canadian, doing what Canadians do best: make Americans look bad.
How about, have the operator type in the password as it's spoken? You'd have to have spellcheck in place each time it's entered, and maybe remove punctuation to ensure consistency, but there's no reason to display the password to a human operator.
(since the chat was anonymous, it is hard to make this attribution; but they can always deny it later if it isn't true I guess)
You should've kept a chat log that you could leak later if they did change their stance.
I knew it! Math causes global warming.
You mean if someone steals my SSH key, they can then use it to log into my account??? And if that SSH key is in the authorized_keys file for root, or if I have sudo set not to prompt for a password, they could install a rootkit?!?!? Why didn't someone tell me this earlier?!?!?!
My step-daughter is one of those. She's been an active supporter of Obama throughout the primaries, and even volunteered to help on his campaign. I'm torn: part of my is proud of her for getting involved, I just wish she could've exercised a little better judgment. Guess that'll just have to come in time.
Ah, gotcha. Working on a lower level than I realized.
End-to-end encryption would only solve one part of the problem, keeping a third party from reading your traffic. But it would do nothing to prevent your traffic from simply disappearing, which could be even more disastrous. What if someone targeted Amazon's networks and dumped all traffic in or out into /dev/null? How much would Amazon lose before the problem got fixed (and what would that be worth to Barnes and Noble)? What if someone targeted Wall Street, and cut off the thousands of broker-dealers who submit their orders electronically? It could spell doom for our entire financial system.
There's a lot more at stake here than your emails to your college buddies about the next fishing trip.
Except that quite a bit of this particular White House's email communications weren't going over SIPR, they were going through GOP servers and Blackberries. Which means it was on the public internet.
Security only works when people use it.
(Former Navy communications nerd, now in the private sector.)
To be fair to Obama, it's change we can believe in, not change we can count on.
How? The person you were responding to used the third person plural, not the first person plural. Ergo, it does not seem likely the person is a McCain supporter, so their posting a comment does nothing to disprove their comment.
People without children aren't being penalized, people with children are just being rewarded. Or do you feel you were penalized when Michael Phelps won his eight gold medals?
And the day we figure out how to safely power cars with blood, we solve the problems of dependence on foreign energy AND overpopulation!
And if he's in the south, they're trying to get away from his torments?
First loud laugh of the day, that was a good one.
How about learned patterns of sunlight corresponding to landmarks?
They looked at cows in widely disparate geographic locations, and at different times of the day. How in the world could there be similar patterns of sunlight for the cows to grow accustomed to under those variables?
Hitting on the Russians seems to be in real fashion these days
I didn't think anybody actually hit on Russians, I thought they just met them online through a broker and married them.
I'm surprised you didn't have a third reaction: You got ripped off!
Subsidized child care and similar benefits reward parents at the expense of other employees.
I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but people with children are worth more to society than people without children. Perhaps you should read or watch Children of Men to get a grasp on how important having children really is. The greatest advancements in the arts and sciences will mean very little if there is no one around to appreciate them.
Nothing wrong with them, it's a problem with the workplaces, it's pretty easy to let someone take a child leave for a year or two.
So someone decides to have children, and now their employer has to keep their job on hold for up to two years in case they decide to come back to it? How does that make any sense?
On the other hand, by providing a basic living to the poor, you keep them from getting desperate enough to decide that they have nothing to lose since they're going to die of hunger anyway and can thus as well kill you and loot your corpse for spare change.
Good point. However, the danger there is that when you subsidize laziness, you encourage people not to do anything with their lives. Personally, I see the value in a social safety net (*gasp* a Libertarian with common sense, what a shock!) I just don't want to see people get trapped in multi-generational dependency on the government. It's one reason why I think private charities are better suited to handle that sort of thing, since they can place requirements on their charity.
Besides, all the rights you have are ultimately based on your perceived value as a human being. A society which doesn't value humans is unlikely to respect their rights either, and a society which lets its members starve to death obviously doesn't value them much.
That's an interesting argument. Definitely food for thought.
So even though your specific example doesn't hold water, the general sense of what you're saying is quite valid - it's quite possible (even likely) that modern English will be nearly unintelligible in 2000 years.
LOL U cant b 4real, peoplez w1ll st1ll reed gud cuz its sew ez!!!
come on, surely we could upload 4chan instead.
At least then our descendants would have a clue as to why our civilization perished.
Any aliens that encounter our civilization may experience life in a completely incomprehensible way. For instance, they might not speak, but rather use some form of sign language or color language like squid.
OT, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of species that communicates via smell and taste. This species, in my mind, would be able to differentiate tastes that humans can't even imagine. And when we finally make contact with them, they start to emigrate to our planet and take up all the good sommelier jobs.
The problem there is, what society giveth, society can taketh away. I, for one, do not want society to decide that freedom of speech, especially but not exclusively political speech, is something that can be easily done away with. If it takes people believing it came from God, fine. If it takes people believing it's part of the inherent nature of humanity, fine. But saying it's like that just because enough people agree to it is dangerous and short sighted.