McDonald's wifi isn't free. Boingo, iPass, etc all federate to Wayport in McDonalds. It is free to AT&T Internet customers, but not the populace at large.
As far as I am concerned, spammers are at the utter bottom of the food chain. Damned plankton eaters.
... wouldn't that make whatever plankton the spammers feed on the bottom of the food chain?
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
I'll be many, many light years away.
Of course, so will everything else... thanks to general relativity, you'll never experience getting sucked in, at least not from your perspective. Only way that you'll die of anything but starvation or old age is if you get torn apart before time dilates sufficiently...
The premise of a PUF is to make it infeasible to recreate the key, because it is determined by physical characteristics too minute to recreate or perhaps even detect.
For example, if you set up a series of gates with no clock sync and let the data races settle to a steady state, each chip will tend to have a consistent end state, even though the result will vary widely between chips, because of minute, quantum-level differences. I have yet to see a proof for the cryptographic security of such chips, but that is the general premise.
It's very easy to createasystem where it's possible for anybody to verify that the sender is in possession of a given key but not to gain that key themselves.
SSL does in fact stop a DNS-redirect based impostor, if you assume that the keys that the clients trusts are indeed trustworthy. The problem in all of the above systems is three-fold: a.) making sure the cipher is secure (AFAIK, nobody has an efficient way to break RSA yet), b.) making sure the implementation is sound (hence Debian OpenSSL snafu earlier this year), and c.) knowing which keys to trust.
In a system where all keys are registered by a central, trusted registrar (like easypass), (c) is dealt with. Sadly, a lot of RFID authentication schemes fail tests (a) and (b). Attacks on OpenSSL (Debian debacle aside) often concentrate on (c), because your browser has to trust some other authority to sign off on the validity of a key, and often those authorities are not very rigorous and can be tricked.
DRM doesn't work because it has two conflicting goals - giving the user access to encrypted data and hiding the means of decryption.
This, on the other hand, is simple challenge-response authentication. In practice, RFID authentication fails because the chips are not very computationally powerful, so the ciphers employed are weak. However, it's fairly simple to in theory have a device which listens for a challenge, signs the challenge text with its private key, sends the signature back, and the challenger verifies the signature to authenticate.
As long as both the challenge and key space are large enough, replay attacks can be prevented, and if the cipher is secure, you can have confidence in that the responder is who they claim to be.
Or just demand that they set up an autoresponder in perpetuity which tells people you've changed email addresses. Optionally give your new email address in the message (even link to it as an image for braindead spambot avoidance and the ability to update it).
This neatly side-steps the problem of allowing you to send what looks like trusted emails from their domain. (Actually, I suppose just having them forward the mail but not allow your account SMTP access would also work.)
Really? +5 Informative? I suppose it contains information, which would be relevant to many questions about cross-platform encryption, but this doesn't seem really in the neighborhood of what the OP is asking for. They want a tool for uploading small encrypted files to a untrusted server, and the solution is to create an encrypted volume on the server (with, by the way, no mention of how to easily mount it over FTP).
For example, lets say I sell stairmasters. If I do not install a wheelchair ramp, I might get sued. Does that make any sense?
Yeah, those assholes trying to work on their PT so they can get out of their wheelchairs are just so annoying with their "Waaaaah! I can't get into the store to buy the equipment I need!"
Not to mention that not everything everybody buys is for themselves. You're saying that a wheelchair-bound person shouldn't be allowed to buy gifts for their fitness buff friend?
Short answer to your question - yes, it makes sense, if you consider that you may have missed a use case, and a consistent treatment can help ensure that corner cases within corner cases aren't missed. (By the way, the whole point of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws is to make up for people who "may not even care" about those with disabilities.)
You can actually enable two-finger right clicking without enabling tapping - you just have to put two fingers down and click the button. It's surprisingly easy, since the trackpad layout makes your thumb the logical finger to click the button.
Not to feed trolls in either the pro or anti-Mac direction, but it's actually pretty easy to right click on a Mac laptop sans external mouse...
With the two-fingered scrolling features, you can actually right click by putting two fingers on the track pad and clicking. You don't have to enable tapping or scrolling, and it's surprisingly easy to get used to.
Anyway, all this is by way of saying, there may be problems with Macs, but can we please stop the smartass "but you can't right-click!" comments? They're just annoying and get in the way of taking any valid complaints about the platform seriously.
Actually, if you define X as the difference between the same envelopes (the same thing as the lower value in this example), this is generally true, no matter what the values or relative ratios.
You don't calculate EV using percentage or ratio gain, but absolute gain or loss. So there's a 50% chance you gain $X (where $X is the quantity in the smaller envelope) and 50% chance of losing $X. So, EV = 0.5*(X) + 0.5*(-X) = 0
Seconded - I didn't like the movie much, but their cursory treatment of the Monty Hall problem seemed accurate. It wasn't easy to follow if you don't already understand it, but as far as I remember, the explanation was accurate.
CAn't play iTMS DRMed music on any non-approved platform, including any non-iPod portable player. Conversely, nobody else's DRM works on an iPod, so until recently you had limited choices for online music purchases (eMusic, and a handful of indie sellers). Amazon MP3 has mitigated this, but the DRM model for iTunes/iPod was designed to have one feed the other. This is why Apple was successfully sued for non-competitive behavior in France.
People buy from iTMS because until recently there was no other music store that would work with an iPod. Moreover, people buy iPods because no other portable jukebox plays iTMS' DRMed files. Is that lock-in enough?
Apple's iPodiTMS business model is textbook lock-in, borderline monopolistic.
I'm a mac user, and while your peripheral argument is an excellent straw man, he actually said "Apple", not "Mac". First off, it is a pain to get certain things to play nice with my Mac, but by and large, I'm happy with its interoperation. However, the iPod/iPhone/Apple TV/all non-computer apple products are another story - the lock-in there is all over the place. They make as few concessions as possible (allowing mp3 on the iPod, and then lock you into the formats they want you to like - no ogg, no wma, no non-Apple DRM. Using anything but iTunes gets broken with alarming regularity (thankfully it gets re-unbroken quickly, too). Apple loves lock-in when it has the market, and embraces openness when it doesn't.
Hmmm... 0 to Gentoo/Slack fanboyism in like... 4 comments.
I know people who know a fair amount about running clusters. None of them want the headache of dealing with the random-ass unexpected conflicts that arise out of having the explosion of possibilities for custom compiling for each server. Also, nobody wants to use their precious "performance cluster" cycles compiling every update. If you really need to compile tweaks (for the important stuff only), you do it offline, once, and then build a *binary* package to distribute to your nodes.
It's strange how "actively punishing" sounds like "unofficially supporting" when you say it.
I'm sorry, bricking the phones of hackers/tinkerers is not the same thing as unofficially supporting. I love my Mac, hate the iPod/iTunes branch of Apple because of just how badly they abuse their users.
Babies first learn to articulate at the lips ("m", "b", "p"), then slightly further back, at the teeth ("n", "d"/"dh", "t"/"th"), and so on. It's no accident that in most languages the words for mother and father start with one of these early sounds. In most languages/families, names for grandparents *also* start with these letters.
... and here we find the fundamental problem. Programming != Computer Science.
More accurately, a programmer is not necessarily a computer scientist any more than a computer scientist is necessarily a programmer. Neither is better or worse than the other, and both should know something about the other's skill set, but in practice, there are many amazing programmers who are poor computer scientists, and even more great computer scientists who are poor programmers.
I would classify programmers as people who can get a computer to do what they want it to, and the measure of the skill of a programmer is how their code performs on some set of metrics (performance, reusability, readability, etc.)
On the other hand, computer scientists are people who figure out what they can get a computer to do and how to do it. More often than not, these people work in research labs and in academia, and their measure of performance is how many (usefully) novel methods they've found of doing things or how many new things they've figured out they can make computers do. In most cases, aptitude in more advanced math does help computer scientists, although in some sub-fields, there is less dependency on this.
I'm sorry, I'm as left-leaning as the next guy, but "liberty" is not the root of "liberal", etymologically or politically. It is the root of "libertarian", which is why libertarians are ideologically conservative. The word liberal in English has nothing to do with liberty, per se. Rather, it comes from the Latin for "generous" (admittedly a word which is itself related to "free", but that meaning is a generation removed from the modern word) and its definition and usage reflect that.
Traditionally, a "conservative" governmental philosophy, as used in the U.S. and most English-speaking countries, is one in which minimizing ("conserving") governmental involvement is central. On the other hand, a "liberal" philosophy is one advocating more governmental involvement (i.e. "is liberal with the scope of government"). This is why, for instance, conservatives are supposed to like tax cuts, and liberals are supposed to like entitlements and wide government programs.
One of the most troubling developments recently in the U.S. is that "conservative" and "liberal" in the political arena are now mapped almost directly to "conservative"/"traditionalist" and "liberal"/"progressive" in the religious arena when in fact the two are independent concerns. One can be fiscally conservative and socially/religiously progressive or vice versa. For an example, see the Bush White house. The current administration is stalwartly socially and religiously traditionalist, but likes to spend money like it's going out of style. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and the RNC have been so busy trying to build a power base, they don't really seem to care what agenda or ideology that power is used to support, and are trading these days on so-called "values" at the expense of the Republicans' ideological tradition.
The interesting thing, though, is that it's making people who have traditionally viewed themselves as liberal see what happens when government is big and the people making the decisions disagree with you. I suspect this will have the effect of creating a stronger progressive conservative political presence in the U.S..
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory telephone sanitizer link.
McDonald's wifi isn't free. Boingo, iPass, etc all federate to Wayport in McDonalds. It is free to AT&T Internet customers, but not the populace at large.
As far as I am concerned, spammers are at the utter bottom of the food chain. Damned plankton eaters.
... wouldn't that make whatever plankton the spammers feed on the bottom of the food chain?
I'll be many, many light years away.
Of course, so will everything else... thanks to general relativity, you'll never experience getting sucked in, at least not from your perspective. Only way that you'll die of anything but starvation or old age is if you get torn apart before time dilates sufficiently...
I mean, happy thoughts!
The premise of a PUF is to make it infeasible to recreate the key, because it is determined by physical characteristics too minute to recreate or perhaps even detect.
For example, if you set up a series of gates with no clock sync and let the data races settle to a steady state, each chip will tend to have a consistent end state, even though the result will vary widely between chips, because of minute, quantum-level differences. I have yet to see a proof for the cryptographic security of such chips, but that is the general premise.
It's very easy to create a system where it's possible for anybody to verify that the sender is in possession of a given key but not to gain that key themselves.
SSL does in fact stop a DNS-redirect based impostor, if you assume that the keys that the clients trusts are indeed trustworthy. The problem in all of the above systems is three-fold: a.) making sure the cipher is secure (AFAIK, nobody has an efficient way to break RSA yet), b.) making sure the implementation is sound (hence Debian OpenSSL snafu earlier this year), and c.) knowing which keys to trust.
In a system where all keys are registered by a central, trusted registrar (like easypass), (c) is dealt with. Sadly, a lot of RFID authentication schemes fail tests (a) and (b). Attacks on OpenSSL (Debian debacle aside) often concentrate on (c), because your browser has to trust some other authority to sign off on the validity of a key, and often those authorities are not very rigorous and can be tricked.
DRM doesn't work because it has two conflicting goals - giving the user access to encrypted data and hiding the means of decryption.
This, on the other hand, is simple challenge-response authentication. In practice, RFID authentication fails because the chips are not very computationally powerful, so the ciphers employed are weak. However, it's fairly simple to in theory have a device which listens for a challenge, signs the challenge text with its private key, sends the signature back, and the challenger verifies the signature to authenticate.
As long as both the challenge and key space are large enough, replay attacks can be prevented, and if the cipher is secure, you can have confidence in that the responder is who they claim to be.
For more info, read up on public key cryptography
Or just demand that they set up an autoresponder in perpetuity which tells people you've changed email addresses. Optionally give your new email address in the message (even link to it as an image for braindead spambot avoidance and the ability to update it).
This neatly side-steps the problem of allowing you to send what looks like trusted emails from their domain. (Actually, I suppose just having them forward the mail but not allow your account SMTP access would also work.)
Really? +5 Informative? I suppose it contains information, which would be relevant to many questions about cross-platform encryption, but this doesn't seem really in the neighborhood of what the OP is asking for. They want a tool for uploading small encrypted files to a untrusted server, and the solution is to create an encrypted volume on the server (with, by the way, no mention of how to easily mount it over FTP).
For example, lets say I sell stairmasters. If I do not install a wheelchair ramp, I might get sued. Does that make any sense?
Yeah, those assholes trying to work on their PT so they can get out of their wheelchairs are just so annoying with their "Waaaaah! I can't get into the store to buy the equipment I need!"
Not to mention that not everything everybody buys is for themselves. You're saying that a wheelchair-bound person shouldn't be allowed to buy gifts for their fitness buff friend?
Short answer to your question - yes, it makes sense, if you consider that you may have missed a use case, and a consistent treatment can help ensure that corner cases within corner cases aren't missed. (By the way, the whole point of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws is to make up for people who "may not even care" about those with disabilities.)
You can actually enable two-finger right clicking without enabling tapping - you just have to put two fingers down and click the button. It's surprisingly easy, since the trackpad layout makes your thumb the logical finger to click the button.
Not to feed trolls in either the pro or anti-Mac direction, but it's actually pretty easy to right click on a Mac laptop sans external mouse...
With the two-fingered scrolling features, you can actually right click by putting two fingers on the track pad and clicking. You don't have to enable tapping or scrolling, and it's surprisingly easy to get used to.
Anyway, all this is by way of saying, there may be problems with Macs, but can we please stop the smartass "but you can't right-click!" comments? They're just annoying and get in the way of taking any valid complaints about the platform seriously.
Actually, if you define X as the difference between the same envelopes (the same thing as the lower value in this example), this is generally true, no matter what the values or relative ratios.
You don't calculate EV using percentage or ratio gain, but absolute gain or loss. So there's a 50% chance you gain $X (where $X is the quantity in the smaller envelope) and 50% chance of losing $X. So, EV = 0.5*(X) + 0.5*(-X) = 0
Seconded - I didn't like the movie much, but their cursory treatment of the Monty Hall problem seemed accurate. It wasn't easy to follow if you don't already understand it, but as far as I remember, the explanation was accurate.
CAn't play iTMS DRMed music on any non-approved platform, including any non-iPod portable player. Conversely, nobody else's DRM works on an iPod, so until recently you had limited choices for online music purchases (eMusic, and a handful of indie sellers). Amazon MP3 has mitigated this, but the DRM model for iTunes/iPod was designed to have one feed the other. This is why Apple was successfully sued for non-competitive behavior in France.
People buy from iTMS because until recently there was no other music store that would work with an iPod. Moreover, people buy iPods because no other portable jukebox plays iTMS' DRMed files. Is that lock-in enough?
Apple's iPodiTMS business model is textbook lock-in, borderline monopolistic.
I'm a mac user, and while your peripheral argument is an excellent straw man, he actually said "Apple", not "Mac". First off, it is a pain to get certain things to play nice with my Mac, but by and large, I'm happy with its interoperation. However, the iPod/iPhone/Apple TV/all non-computer apple products are another story - the lock-in there is all over the place. They make as few concessions as possible (allowing mp3 on the iPod, and then lock you into the formats they want you to like - no ogg, no wma, no non-Apple DRM. Using anything but iTunes gets broken with alarming regularity (thankfully it gets re-unbroken quickly, too). Apple loves lock-in when it has the market, and embraces openness when it doesn't.
Hmmm... 0 to Gentoo/Slack fanboyism in like... 4 comments.
I know people who know a fair amount about running clusters. None of them want the headache of dealing with the random-ass unexpected conflicts that arise out of having the explosion of possibilities for custom compiling for each server. Also, nobody wants to use their precious "performance cluster" cycles compiling every update. If you really need to compile tweaks (for the important stuff only), you do it offline, once, and then build a *binary* package to distribute to your nodes.
It's strange how "actively punishing" sounds like "unofficially supporting" when you say it.
I'm sorry, bricking the phones of hackers/tinkerers is not the same thing as unofficially supporting. I love my Mac, hate the iPod/iTunes branch of Apple because of just how badly they abuse their users.
Babies first learn to articulate at the lips ("m", "b", "p"), then slightly further back, at the teeth ("n", "d"/"dh", "t"/"th"), and so on. It's no accident that in most languages the words for mother and father start with one of these early sounds. In most languages/families, names for grandparents *also* start with these letters.
I want to mod it up for the reference, but sadly, I am bereft of mod points.
Yes, by saying "x or later" lets people decide on which one they care to use, and leaves them free to use the more permissive license.
... and here we find the fundamental problem. Programming != Computer Science.
More accurately, a programmer is not necessarily a computer scientist any more than a computer scientist is necessarily a programmer. Neither is better or worse than the other, and both should know something about the other's skill set, but in practice, there are many amazing programmers who are poor computer scientists, and even more great computer scientists who are poor programmers.
I would classify programmers as people who can get a computer to do what they want it to, and the measure of the skill of a programmer is how their code performs on some set of metrics (performance, reusability, readability, etc.)
On the other hand, computer scientists are people who figure out what they can get a computer to do and how to do it. More often than not, these people work in research labs and in academia, and their measure of performance is how many (usefully) novel methods they've found of doing things or how many new things they've figured out they can make computers do. In most cases, aptitude in more advanced math does help computer scientists, although in some sub-fields, there is less dependency on this.
I'm sorry, I'm as left-leaning as the next guy, but "liberty" is not the root of "liberal", etymologically or politically. It is the root of "libertarian", which is why libertarians are ideologically conservative. The word liberal in English has nothing to do with liberty, per se. Rather, it comes from the Latin for "generous" (admittedly a word which is itself related to "free", but that meaning is a generation removed from the modern word) and its definition and usage reflect that.
Traditionally, a "conservative" governmental philosophy, as used in the U.S. and most English-speaking countries, is one in which minimizing ("conserving") governmental involvement is central. On the other hand, a "liberal" philosophy is one advocating more governmental involvement (i.e. "is liberal with the scope of government"). This is why, for instance, conservatives are supposed to like tax cuts, and liberals are supposed to like entitlements and wide government programs.
One of the most troubling developments recently in the U.S. is that "conservative" and "liberal" in the political arena are now mapped almost directly to "conservative"/"traditionalist" and "liberal"/"progressive" in the religious arena when in fact the two are independent concerns. One can be fiscally conservative and socially/religiously progressive or vice versa. For an example, see the Bush White house. The current administration is stalwartly socially and religiously traditionalist, but likes to spend money like it's going out of style. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and the RNC have been so busy trying to build a power base, they don't really seem to care what agenda or ideology that power is used to support, and are trading these days on so-called "values" at the expense of the Republicans' ideological tradition.
The interesting thing, though, is that it's making people who have traditionally viewed themselves as liberal see what happens when government is big and the people making the decisions disagree with you. I suspect this will have the effect of creating a stronger progressive conservative political presence in the U.S..