The founding fathers were people living in a different time in a different situation, and the 2nd Amendment made perfect sense when you looked at the weapons of that time. What the Founders couldn't have known is that modern weaponry would enable mass murder thanks to holding a high capacity of ammo, discharging and reloading rapidly, and carrying bullets designed to penetrate body armor and literally tear people apart.
You mean when both the British military and the American rebels had the same level of infantry weapons? Oh and it was legal for civilians to have cannons (many merchant vessels had cannons for defense) as for armor piercing rounds no one had body armor. Also the American long rifle had higher accuracy then the British so I am fairly certain the founding fathers were quite aware of the principle if not the specifics.
Do I think you need a hundred guns no. Whats the point you won't be able to use/carry them anyway. Owning several sure why not.
More to the point if you the original video say to not answer any questions until you have your legal representation present. This guy seems to think that is bad for justice some how not to wait until your attorney to be present.
While I have no intention to collaborate with finding out private communications between US citizens, I don't see why the NSA would not try and break TOR. TOR is a communication system that would allow terrorists to communicate without being monitored, it is a job of a spy agency to get into those communication methods. It's like telling James Bond to not try to break into the safe of the bad guy to get the secret papers because, "breaking and entering is illegal and not nice".
There is nothing wrong with breaking TOR, because TOR doesn't deserve it's reputation if it can be broken. I'm glad that they've broken it and we know about it. I've always known that, while it had certain benefits, it has always been very susceptible to being compromised if you have enough assets and the will to do so. All they've done is proven it. Now we move on to something else, or we accept the caveats that working with TOR constrains us with.
I'm not worried about what they can do, I'm worried about what they do with their capabilities. The fact is that someone is going to be able to do what the NSA is doing, sooner or later. Let's make sure that it is the good guys who are doing it, and that those people who go into that field are responsible and honest people who understand the need for privacy in the course of normal events.
Actually if you read the docs that Snowden released the other day it shows that they can't compromise TOR the network protocols or infrastructure only the browsers script handling engine and cookie management when, (A) people leave no-script (whice the TBB comes with) disabled and (B) turn on javascript and (C) use out of date browser bundles. Over all if you use TOR correctly it does deserve its reputation.
I imagine Comcast will have something to say about this - something like "No more internet for you, TOS-breaker"
This is true, their TOS generally forbid any services (listening ports for inbound connections) which pretty much means you can't host web servers or email servers. They actively scan for these, and contact you if they find them.
Yet, oddly they want to open a public wifi access point on every customer's cable drop so that their customers can have mobile wifi on mobile devices everywhere.
Seems sort of odd.
If they actively scan for open ports you could set-up port-knocking where they would have to ping certain ports in a specific order and use encrypted payload that changes based on when it sent so that it is not vulnerable to them replaying it.
The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be..
Hmmm, that sounds the the Bill Gates theory of OS vulnerability. Popular OSs get broken into not because they are vulnerable but just because they are popular.
I would have thought someone using FreeBSD would have a more enlightened understanding of security, and what makes one OS a target and another a brick wall.
I believe your thinking of OpenBSD as they are the security obsessed ones. The FreeBSD articles and forums I have read seem to be more "We're not GNU" lately.
I'm not sure that's the best solution either. With the current desktop offerings, all applications run with the full permissions of the user. Things are a little bit better on the mobile side. At least with Android I can see which permissions an app has, and by default they are very limited in what they can do. With Windows/Linux, any application I run can go and delete my entire home folder, or send it all out to some site on the web, or wreak all kinds of havoc. Currently, running in a web browser, if the only pseudo-sandbox that exists for desktop systems. I'd much rather run a web app from some random company then install some application on my computer.
on Linux isn't that what AppArmour or selinux is supposed to help negate
the problem is they can simply see who looked at your twitter feed. a better place to post your cat picture containing the hidden message would be somewhere like/b/ on 4chan where anyone that visits the board will see it not just your circle of freinds and fallowers making they social mapping they use useless as ir would now contain potentially every person that visits 4chan. Image boards make the best number stations.
Uncrackable for the average joe, not in my opinion a multi billion dollar government organization.
Even if we assume they do not have some sort of decryption quantum computer, which should make all encryption useless, you could theoretically do the same thing with custom built hardware designed to by massively parallel and do division really fast.
Really? I keep hearing that quantum computing will break encryption but has anyone actually written an algorithm or done anything beyond handwaving to show this to be so? Also your assuming that first generation prototype quantum computational hardware that may or may not exist is not only reliable but faster than traditional hardware. While yes it theoretically is possibly to be much faster it is highly unlikely that it would be at this state of development. Secondly you make the assurtion that they can simply break encryption using the brute force of one of their massively parallel computational clusters well bullshit. lets go back to encryption 101. For every bit you add you double the time it takes to decrypt it without the key. With a key of 4092 bits most estimates put decryption somewhere after heatdeath of the. universe. Most of the analysis that is done to shorten the time till decryption will strip off a couple thousand years, however that still puts decryption time several billion years after the sun has run out of fussable matter and cooled to a cold ball of radioactive iron.
To be entirely frank, your whole post stinks of being written entirely in ignorance or as a melissiously written fud piece, meant to spread the "chilling effect".
Revolutions are not always violent. "Revolution" just means "turning around" -- some kind of major reversal of the social order. I would say the Civil Rights movement in the US was a revolution. Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa was a revolution. (OK, there was violence in both cases, but the violence was mostly aimed at *suppressing* those revolutions, and it failed.)
The US is a long, long way from needing actual bloodshed to improve its society. A few hundred thousand people marching in the streets would be plenty effective.
if lots of people marching was all that was required then both the tea party and occupy would have sucseeded at something niether has.
There will be cracks and patches for Steam games on Linux just as there are for Windows, and you'll get them from the same seedy corners of the internet with the same risks of getting pwned. ("yes this crack absolutely needs root to work, trust us").
So when the crack demands root access that's just fine, chroot has very good performance
So you advocate for Java and then link to a blog post you obviously have not read because all those points apply equally to Java and in the article itself it points that out and it also links to Joel Spolsky's post on why the Java path is a bad idea. Advocating for.Net over Java or Java over.Net in terms of 'what language should I learn' is largely just blatant fanboyism.
Not entirely true..net implementations on non windows operating systems (mono and.gnu are the big ones) have very little development or support where java actually is cross platform and well supported on all major OS's and many processors architectures. As for what is a better language outside of that it is pretty much a pissing contest.
Bullshit, the reason why BB is on the ropes is they no longer HAVE the enterprise customers, BYOD killed BB dead and all those PHBs that had to have a crackberry now have an iPhone or Android.
Lets face it the only ones that would be interested in buying BB is patent trolls and the big three who could use those patents against the competition. Since MSFT gets paid for every android sold thanks to patents my money would be on them buying it but it sure won't be for the customers, it'll be for the patents.
BYOD is nothing but a time bomb waiting to happen. I a bring your own device environment there is nothing to the IT department can do to insure security every device allowed in not configured the the company IT department is another potential back-door into the companies network. I am just waiting to see the explosion that happens when there is a massive leak of customer data and it is tracked back to a BYOD policy.
The problem is Average Joe User is a ignorant moron that click OK to every prompt and installs everything with the word free in it. Average Joe actual does believe every Nigerian prince, installs every "Fr33!!!! fonts and 1337 Smiliez pack!!!!.exe, and would find nothing suspicious in nor have problem executing a file named;
That is why the a good IT department locks down the living hell out of every pc on their network. Allowing average joe to a have access to sensitive data on unsecured untrusted easily compromised systems is a bad bad idea. The PHB's will in a while see that there short sided idea of BYOD saving money will cost them painfully, and will eventually look to fix the problem and remember centrally administered black berries didn't have these problems.
HDCP requires end-to-end encryption, and has the entire weight of the MPAA member legal departments behind that restriction. MicroSoft just gave them all the finger.
not really a pass-through doesn't need to see what its carrying so it could remain encrypted until it gets to the tv
and have no hardware support, no codex's, and only fsf approved code I think debian or mint would be a better choice if your going to jump ditros. I personally just rip out all of the unity crap out of ubuntu (all of the privacy leacking bloats that goes with it.) and install either a mate or cinnamon DE.
If by business plan you mean to follow the plan of mostly destroying your company by releasing hardware 2 years late. then making a complete bollocks of releasing what's left that's worth saving, vis a vis BBM, yeah it's a plan...
But at least they're consistent.
No they have two more thing of value that everyone else in the mobile world would pay through the nose for;
1. Patents lots and lots of patent on smart phones and mobile devices. 2. They also have a brand recognition and reputation in the corporate/government world that any company would love to have.
Whoever ends up buying the blackberry name will when the enterprise game. I look for a bidding war in the next year between Microsoft Google Apple and possible Samsung over Blackberry's patent profile and the trademark. Whoever gets the name will probably use it as their branding for their enterprise line of phones, and whoever gets the patent will have a war chest that they will be able to brow beat the competition into submission with.
worse everyone knows the NSA has a big file on everyone and is willing to display all the details, which means even if they don't have anything on the first politician to speak up they can make shit up and people will buy it.
As Thompson explains in his Reflections on trusting Trust (http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html) even if you download everything in source form, and review it, you are still susceptible to manipulation if you use the compiler binary and haven't reviewed it's source.
Or the source of the compiler compiling that compiler, and so on.
The Thompson compiler hack has always struck me a flawed as how does the compiler know what exactly it is compiling to insert the back door? If it is simply based on name of the files it is compiling then it would fail when you change the name of the program, if it was based on the code then it would fail when I compile another version of it as it would no longer match the definitions provided or depending on the changes made it would insert the backdoor but not work because the updated version is incompatible with the old exploit. So essentially the compiler would need a high degree of AI with the ability to comprehend what it was parsing and be able to dynamically write a back-door that would be compatible with what ever it is compiling and the would be no mean feat. Not only that but it would be susceptible to you simply compiling with a different compiler and diff'ing the output.
Maybe Dr. Who is a big 'get' (look IMHO its shit scifi, but i don't know what people like)...maybe it'll boost 'clicks' by 20%...that's just polishing the brass on the titanic
Doctor who is great once you look at it as a fantasy series instead of as a scifi series, everything else you said I agree with.
One of these creates a positive feedback loop in which small, incremental improvements from coders who share increase exponentially. The other creates a negative feedback loop in which the improvements from those who don't share are locked away and lost. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
The problem with this claim is that you're simply lying by omission. (Well, there's another problem: hyperbole. "Exponentially"? Hah.) GPL: the positive feedback loop is damped by the unattractiveness of the license to many potential contributors, particularly GPLv3. Fewer participants equals less resources spent developing the project. BSD: the claimed negative feedback loop almost doesn't exist. Many of the entities (the same ones who have issues with GPLv3) whom you GPL zealots assume would just take everything private actually tend not to. Why? Because the reason they're using open source in the first place is to reduce their own workload, and maintaining a private fork of a public codebase turns out to be a lot of work. If you want to take changes from the public version, you're in permanent merge hell (because nobody in the outside world knows or cares about your local changes). If you want to fully fork and ignore the public version, now you're responsible for maintaining everything on your own. In most cases it's substantially less work to contribute your changes back to the public version. Basically the only time this actually happens in the BSD-licensed world is when someone decides "to hell with it, we don't care how much we have to spend, we're going to go all the way private". (All of the above is equally true of GPL-licensed code. GPL zealots are only assuming that their preferred license is required to create sharing. In reality, productive sharing is always an outcome of shared interests between all the parties involved, not the license.)
The same people that won't use software under the gpl because it requires them to contribute there changes back to the project won't give them to BSD licensed projects either. Microsoft took their TCP IP stack from BSD have they contributed back to BSD?
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't simply cooking the infected meat to the correct temperature kill the bacteria?
The founding fathers were people living in a different time in a different situation, and the 2nd Amendment made perfect sense when you looked at the weapons of that time. What the Founders couldn't have known is that modern weaponry would enable mass murder thanks to holding a high capacity of ammo, discharging and reloading rapidly, and carrying bullets designed to penetrate body armor and literally tear people apart.
You mean when both the British military and the American rebels had the same level of infantry weapons? Oh and it was legal for civilians to have cannons (many merchant vessels had cannons for defense) as for armor piercing rounds no one had body armor. Also the American long rifle had higher accuracy then the British so I am fairly certain the founding fathers were quite aware of the principle if not the specifics.
Do I think you need a hundred guns no. Whats the point you won't be able to use/carry them anyway. Owning several sure why not.
More to the point if you the original video say to not answer any questions until you have your legal representation present. This guy seems to think that is bad for justice some how not to wait until your attorney to be present.
While I have no intention to collaborate with finding out private communications between US citizens, I don't see why the NSA would not try and break TOR. TOR is a communication system that would allow terrorists to communicate without being monitored, it is a job of a spy agency to get into those communication methods. It's like telling James Bond to not try to break into the safe of the bad guy to get the secret papers because, "breaking and entering is illegal and not nice".
There is nothing wrong with breaking TOR, because TOR doesn't deserve it's reputation if it can be broken. I'm glad that they've broken it and we know about it. I've always known that, while it had certain benefits, it has always been very susceptible to being compromised if you have enough assets and the will to do so. All they've done is proven it. Now we move on to something else, or we accept the caveats that working with TOR constrains us with.
I'm not worried about what they can do, I'm worried about what they do with their capabilities. The fact is that someone is going to be able to do what the NSA is doing, sooner or later. Let's make sure that it is the good guys who are doing it, and that those people who go into that field are responsible and honest people who understand the need for privacy in the course of normal events.
Actually if you read the docs that Snowden released the other day it shows that they can't compromise TOR the network protocols or infrastructure only the browsers script handling engine and cookie management when, (A) people leave no-script (whice the TBB comes with) disabled and (B) turn on javascript and (C) use out of date browser bundles. Over all if you use TOR correctly it does deserve its reputation.
White privilege
"what is total non sequitur?" for 5000 Alex.
I imagine Comcast will have something to say about this - something like "No more internet for you, TOS-breaker"
This is true, their TOS generally forbid any services (listening ports for inbound connections) which pretty much means you can't host web servers or email servers. They actively scan for these, and contact you if they find them.
Yet, oddly they want to open a public wifi access point on every customer's cable drop so that their customers can have mobile wifi on mobile devices everywhere.
Seems sort of odd.
If they actively scan for open ports you could set-up port-knocking where they would have to ping certain ports in a specific order and use encrypted payload that changes based on when it sent so that it is not vulnerable to them replaying it.
The less noobs like yourself that use it, the less of a target the OS will be. .
Hmmm, that sounds the the Bill Gates theory of OS vulnerability. Popular OSs get broken into not because they are vulnerable but just because they are popular.
I would have thought someone using FreeBSD would have a more enlightened understanding of security,
and what makes one OS a target and another a brick wall.
I believe your thinking of OpenBSD as they are the security obsessed ones. The FreeBSD articles and forums I have read seem to be more "We're not GNU" lately.
I'm not sure that's the best solution either. With the current desktop offerings, all applications run with the full permissions of the user. Things are a little bit better on the mobile side. At least with Android I can see which permissions an app has, and by default they are very limited in what they can do. With Windows/Linux, any application I run can go and delete my entire home folder, or send it all out to some site on the web, or wreak all kinds of havoc. Currently, running in a web browser, if the only pseudo-sandbox that exists for desktop systems. I'd much rather run a web app from some random company then install some application on my computer.
on Linux isn't that what AppArmour or selinux is supposed to help negate
the problem is they can simply see who looked at your twitter feed. a better place to post your cat picture containing the hidden message would be somewhere like /b/ on 4chan where anyone that visits the board will see it not just your circle of freinds and fallowers making they social mapping they use useless as ir would now contain potentially every person that visits 4chan. Image boards make the best number stations.
Uncrackable for the average joe, not in my opinion a multi billion dollar government organization.
Even if we assume they do not have some sort of decryption quantum computer, which should make all encryption useless, you could theoretically do the same thing with custom built hardware designed to by massively parallel and do division really fast.
Really? I keep hearing that quantum computing will break encryption but has anyone actually written an algorithm or done anything beyond handwaving to show this to be so? Also your assuming that first generation prototype quantum computational hardware that may or may not exist is not only reliable but faster than traditional hardware. While yes it theoretically is possibly to be much faster it is highly unlikely that it would be at this state of development. Secondly you make the assurtion that they can simply break encryption using the brute force of one of their massively parallel computational clusters well bullshit. lets go back to encryption 101. For every bit you add you double the time it takes to decrypt it without the key. With a key of 4092 bits most estimates put decryption somewhere after heatdeath of the. universe. Most of the analysis that is done to shorten the time till decryption will strip off a couple thousand years, however that still puts decryption time several billion years after the sun has run out of fussable matter and cooled to a cold ball of radioactive iron.
To be entirely frank, your whole post stinks of being written entirely in ignorance or as a melissiously written fud piece, meant to spread the "chilling effect".
Revolutions are not always violent. "Revolution" just means "turning around" -- some kind of major reversal of the social order. I would say the Civil Rights movement in the US was a revolution. Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa was a revolution. (OK, there was violence in both cases, but the violence was mostly aimed at *suppressing* those revolutions, and it failed.)
The US is a long, long way from needing actual bloodshed to improve its society. A few hundred thousand people marching in the streets would be plenty effective.
if lots of people marching was all that was required then both the tea party and occupy would have sucseeded at something niether has.
if subscribers had a automatic 3 then we would be inundated with high ranked shills
There will be cracks and patches for Steam games on Linux just as there are for Windows, and you'll get them from the same seedy corners of the internet with the same risks of getting pwned. ("yes this crack absolutely needs root to work, trust us").
So when the crack demands root access that's just fine, chroot has very good performance
It meant you were akin to a script kiddy: Why we don't hire .NET coders
So you advocate for Java and then link to a blog post you obviously have not read because all those points apply equally to Java and in the article itself it points that out and it also links to Joel Spolsky's post on why the Java path is a bad idea. Advocating for .Net over Java or Java over .Net in terms of 'what language should I learn' is largely just blatant fanboyism.
Not entirely true. .net implementations on non windows operating systems (mono and .gnu are the big ones) have very little development or support where java actually is cross platform and well supported on all major OS's and many processors architectures. As for what is a better language outside of that it is pretty much a pissing contest.
Bullshit, the reason why BB is on the ropes is they no longer HAVE the enterprise customers, BYOD killed BB dead and all those PHBs that had to have a crackberry now have an iPhone or Android.
Lets face it the only ones that would be interested in buying BB is patent trolls and the big three who could use those patents against the competition. Since MSFT gets paid for every android sold thanks to patents my money would be on them buying it but it sure won't be for the customers, it'll be for the patents.
BYOD is nothing but a time bomb waiting to happen. I a bring your own device environment there is nothing to the IT department can do to insure security every device allowed in not configured the the company IT department is another potential back-door into the companies network. I am just waiting to see the explosion that happens when there is a massive leak of customer data and it is tracked back to a BYOD policy.
The problem is Average Joe User is a ignorant moron that click OK to every prompt and installs everything with the word free in it. Average Joe actual does believe every Nigerian prince, installs every "Fr33!!!! fonts and 1337 Smiliez pack!!!!.exe, and would find nothing suspicious in nor have problem executing a file named;
~TILDE/PUB/CIA-BIN/ETC/INIT.DLL?FILE=__AUTOEXEC.BAT.MY%20OSX%20DOCUMENTS-INSTALL.EXE.RAR.INI.TAR.DOÇX.PHPHPHP.XHTML.TML.XTL.TXXT.0DAY.HACK.ERS_(1995)_BLURAY_CAM-XVID.EXE.TAR.[SCR].LISP.MSI.LNK.ZDA.GNN.WRBT.OBJ.O.H.SWF.DPKG.APP.ZIP.TAR.TAR.CO.GZ.A.OUT.EXE.
That is why the a good IT department locks down the living hell out of every pc on their network. Allowing average joe to a have access to sensitive data on unsecured untrusted easily compromised systems is a bad bad idea. The PHB's will in a while see that there short sided idea of BYOD saving money will cost them painfully, and will eventually look to fix the problem and remember centrally administered black berries didn't have these problems.
HDCP requires end-to-end encryption, and has the entire weight of the MPAA member legal departments behind that restriction. MicroSoft just gave them all the finger.
not really a pass-through doesn't need to see what its carrying so it could remain encrypted until it gets to the tv
and have no hardware support, no codex's, and only fsf approved code I think debian or mint would be a better choice if your going to jump ditros. I personally just rip out all of the unity crap out of ubuntu (all of the privacy leacking bloats that goes with it.) and install either a mate or cinnamon DE.
If by business plan you mean to follow the plan of mostly destroying your company by releasing hardware 2 years late. then making a complete bollocks of releasing what's left that's worth saving, vis a vis BBM, yeah it's a plan...
But at least they're consistent.
No they have two more thing of value that everyone else in the mobile world would pay through the nose for;
1. Patents lots and lots of patent on smart phones and mobile devices.
2. They also have a brand recognition and reputation in the corporate/government world that any company would love to have.
Whoever ends up buying the blackberry name will when the enterprise game. I look for a bidding war in the next year between Microsoft Google Apple and possible Samsung over Blackberry's patent profile and the trademark. Whoever gets the name will probably use it as their branding for their enterprise line of phones, and whoever gets the patent will have a war chest that they will be able to brow beat the competition into submission with.
worse everyone knows the NSA has a big file on everyone and is willing to display all the details, which means even if they don't have anything on the first politician to speak up they can make shit up and people will buy it.
and trucks where I live at least you can have 2 trailers so you could double the bandwidth while maintaing the same latency.
As Thompson explains in his Reflections on trusting Trust (http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html) even if you download everything in source form, and review it, you are still susceptible to manipulation if you use the compiler binary and haven't reviewed it's source.
Or the source of the compiler compiling that compiler, and so on.
The Thompson compiler hack has always struck me a flawed as how does the compiler know what exactly it is compiling to insert the back door? If it is simply based on name of the files it is compiling then it would fail when you change the name of the program, if it was based on the code then it would fail when I compile another version of it as it would no longer match the definitions provided or depending on the changes made it would insert the backdoor but not work because the updated version is incompatible with the old exploit. So essentially the compiler would need a high degree of AI with the ability to comprehend what it was parsing and be able to dynamically write a back-door that would be compatible with what ever it is compiling and the would be no mean feat. Not only that but it would be susceptible to you simply compiling with a different compiler and diff'ing the output.
Windows has a good reputation
That is something I never thought I would hear someone say slashdot.
>
Maybe Dr. Who is a big 'get' (look IMHO its shit scifi, but i don't know what people like)...maybe it'll boost 'clicks' by 20%...that's just polishing the brass on the titanic
Doctor who is great once you look at it as a fantasy series instead of as a scifi series, everything else you said I agree with.
One of these creates a positive feedback loop in which small, incremental improvements from coders who share increase exponentially. The other creates a negative feedback loop in which the improvements from those who don't share are locked away and lost. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
The problem with this claim is that you're simply lying by omission. (Well, there's another problem: hyperbole. "Exponentially"? Hah.)
GPL: the positive feedback loop is damped by the unattractiveness of the license to many potential contributors, particularly GPLv3. Fewer participants equals less resources spent developing the project.
BSD: the claimed negative feedback loop almost doesn't exist. Many of the entities (the same ones who have issues with GPLv3) whom you GPL zealots assume would just take everything private actually tend not to. Why? Because the reason they're using open source in the first place is to reduce their own workload, and maintaining a private fork of a public codebase turns out to be a lot of work. If you want to take changes from the public version, you're in permanent merge hell (because nobody in the outside world knows or cares about your local changes). If you want to fully fork and ignore the public version, now you're responsible for maintaining everything on your own. In most cases it's substantially less work to contribute your changes back to the public version.
Basically the only time this actually happens in the BSD-licensed world is when someone decides "to hell with it, we don't care how much we have to spend, we're going to go all the way private".
(All of the above is equally true of GPL-licensed code. GPL zealots are only assuming that their preferred license is required to create sharing. In reality, productive sharing is always an outcome of shared interests between all the parties involved, not the license.)
The same people that won't use software under the gpl because it requires them to contribute there changes back to the project won't give them to BSD licensed projects either. Microsoft took their TCP IP stack from BSD have they contributed back to BSD?
If they wanted to replace the "horrid scanned copies", and it was already in LaTeX, why not upload good PDFs?
What a waste of money.
or the LaTeX .DVI's