OT: Re:Always overstated --- IQ FALLACY! Wrong
on
Cracking the Smartcards
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
*Sigh* - I'm really going off-topic with this one, but whilst their may be "thousands" of citations, doubtless there are many conflicting studies. This is not a very accurate field of science.
IQ is NOT an accurate measure of intelligence. How can it be, if we can't even define intelligence?! And how can a single number and a few tests give even a rough indication of the power of something as complex and different as a human brain?
Secondly, may I say that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! Just because the black people studied had a lower average IQ, does not mean that because a person is black they are more likely to have a lower IQ. Have you considered social background at all? Thought not. Same with the information about females. Please don't jump to conclusions; that's the realm of the closed minded.
I seems to me that anybody who claims to be intelligent must have opened their mind just a little. I've read the book, and the books which appear to contradict it, and I'm generally ambiguous on the whole subject myself. Though I do believe that The Bell Curve is obviously flawed; we simply do not know enough to measure intelligence accurately. However, it is an interested account of what we have measured, no matter how rough and ambiguous the findings are.
However, I'm getting away from the point. You seem to take this book's word as gospel. It's science - i.e. it's wrong. Science only models the Universe - it is not the Universe itself. All models break eventually, some sooner than others. Why do you insist on closing your mind to the possibility that this book may be, frankly, a load of crap?
Honestly, I think you're either a troll (in which case, you've got yourself some bait:) - or you're just an idiot who thinks he's clever.
Would it work the other way? I mean, if we're going to go to Mars sometime in the near future, the crew would surely amass such a massive amount of air miles that they never have to pay for air travel again:)
I don't know about you, but after seeing both the trailers in one go for the first time, I knew what movie I wanted to see. Star Wars, Episode 2 -may- be good, but the trailer is boring compared to LOTR.
Ok, so this is slightly trollish, but I just had to say it!:)
I see your point now. I agree with you - mostly. Censorship can restrict freedom of the majority of people if applied on a broad scale.
Then again, there could be like the breaking of a dam - one crack and the whole thing collapses. Look at Napster for instance - one program and suddenly millions of people are on. Couldn't that happen with Freenet? If a really easy interface was made, and it send encrypted/disguised packets over open ports, then there isn't much people can do to stop it.
If people accept the censorship, then yes, there is a very real danger. And unfortunately most people don't seem to care too much. But, if people do not accept the censorship - then it is virtually impossible to stop them.
Dunno about the "first rule of programming", but surely the first rule of hacking is to mess about until you get something that vaguely does what it's meant to:) - and that's what Taco, Hemos et all seem to be doing. Good work!
I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks for me, at least in a general, Linux community kinda way. I might disagree sometimes, but most of the time he's on the ball.
You're missing my point. Public key encryption was an example of how +A takes little effort, while -A is virtually impossible.
Also, I would argue, that due to the inherent nature of the net, if someone finds a way round something, anybody can grab it. Look at clueless script-kiddies taking advantage of cracking software, or sites which crack shareware and 30-day trials.
The above instances may still be confined to a small number of people - contrary to popular media I don't think the majority of the net consists of script kiddies and people leeching warez. What I'm trying to say is that if the tool exists to avoid censorship, then the net makes it availiable. If people want to use it, they can. Anybody who doesn't will do so because it is a matter of choice, rather than an inability to get the software.
Sure encryption can be used against freedom, but the net has the advantage of numbers, and, combined, sheer processing power. Plus, if the encryption is cracked just once, then the information can be distributed for free. To stop this free exchange of information, the Powers That Be would have to stop every single one. Note the difference in complexity? This is why the difficulty of +A is much less than -A.
But what is the net other than a piece of technology that so far has seemed to be the base for anti-censorship and all kinds of information - no matter how controversial or illegal they may be?
Is it not possible that the technological opportunities the net gives us are not separate from social change, but instead encourage it? Look at the mass sharing of MP3s over P2P networks, for example. Not exactly anti-censorship (more outright theft), but it illustrates a point that technology can affect society and bring about change in social attitudes.
In short, having tasted freedom on the net, will people really be able to let it go?
No. No it doesn't. If it did, there wouldn't be public key encryption. Some things are easy to do, but difficult to reverse.
Finding ways round censorship are easier than blocking them. What could seem like perfectly ordinary internet traffic, could, in reality, be discussing some censored work. How would anyone decide which was which if it took several weeks of continous processing power to check each time?
The only perfect way of internet censorship is to shut down the internet.
A system is never 100% perfect, and if people want something, they will find a way round it. Defending and enforcing censorships is a far, far, more difficult problem than finding your way around it.
For instance, use a strong, public encrypted steganography, and put up a censored text up on a site hidden in plain view. Or use an encrypted P2P network like Freenet. Or one of a hundred different ways of getting past these things.
Whatever new protocols are introduced (and it's very unlikely in my mind that any company could introduce this - for one, free OS's like Linux and the BSDs would still have the libre net for themselves...) how can they possibly check for every trick a user could create? Unless they want to have a system that takes at least a few weeks to check through each packet, it's completely unworkable.
You could build an OS entirely closed, and cut off from any user interfering (again in theory - I doubt it would work that well in practise) - but it's too late for that anyway. Such an OS would just mean the rise of other that didn't block access, and hasten its own demise. Or, with the rise of cheaper computers, surely even if the OS were totally sealed, and if for some reason you didn't want to part with it (Killer app?), you could still have a spare computer with a open OS, for those times when you want a taste of freedom.
Hey, it would! I'd like to see the reults of that. Me, I'm using Konqueror, and in 99% of cases this is my standard browser, with Mozilla 0.9% of cases (when Konq doesn't handle it). IE only gets used when I've played a game under Windows and can't be bothered to switch back, or cannot access the site under Linux because the HTML isn't standard (damn, I hate that), or the site uses ActiveX or something.
Um, sorry to object, but what idiot defined this as offtopic? It wasn't that funny, granted (sorry Trogre!:) - but offtopic? Some people are too stupid to moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
*Sigh* - I'm really going off-topic with this one, but whilst their may be "thousands" of citations, doubtless there are many conflicting studies. This is not a very accurate field of science.
IQ is NOT an accurate measure of intelligence. How can it be, if we can't even define intelligence?! And how can a single number and a few tests give even a rough indication of the power of something as complex and different as a human brain?
Secondly, may I say that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! Just because the black people studied had a lower average IQ, does not mean that because a person is black they are more likely to have a lower IQ. Have you considered social background at all? Thought not. Same with the information about females. Please don't jump to conclusions; that's the realm of the closed minded.
I seems to me that anybody who claims to be intelligent must have opened their mind just a little. I've read the book, and the books which appear to contradict it, and I'm generally ambiguous on the whole subject myself. Though I do believe that The Bell Curve is obviously flawed; we simply do not know enough to measure intelligence accurately. However, it is an interested account of what we have measured, no matter how rough and ambiguous the findings are.
However, I'm getting away from the point. You seem to take this book's word as gospel. It's science - i.e. it's wrong. Science only models the Universe - it is not the Universe itself. All models break eventually, some sooner than others. Why do you insist on closing your mind to the possibility that this book may be, frankly, a load of crap?
Honestly, I think you're either a troll (in which case, you've got yourself some bait :) - or you're just an idiot who thinks he's clever.
To quote the above post...
37337 tool called pignWell, at least the spelling is realistic for a Slashdot article :)
Would it work the other way? I mean, if we're going to go to Mars sometime in the near future, the crew would surely amass such a massive amount of air miles that they never have to pay for air travel again :)
I don't know about you, but after seeing both the trailers in one go for the first time, I knew what movie I wanted to see. Star Wars, Episode 2 -may- be good, but the trailer is boring compared to LOTR.
:)
Ok, so this is slightly trollish, but I just had to say it!
I see your point now. I agree with you - mostly. Censorship can restrict freedom of the majority of people if applied on a broad scale.
Then again, there could be like the breaking of a dam - one crack and the whole thing collapses. Look at Napster for instance - one program and suddenly millions of people are on. Couldn't that happen with Freenet? If a really easy interface was made, and it send encrypted/disguised packets over open ports, then there isn't much people can do to stop it.
If people accept the censorship, then yes, there is a very real danger. And unfortunately most people don't seem to care too much. But, if people do not accept the censorship - then it is virtually impossible to stop them.
... Before someone brings out anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation.
That's part of the charm! (And I'm serious about that)
*bottom lip trembles as if about to burst into tears*
B-b-but I liked Amélie!
Dunno about the "first rule of programming", but surely the first rule of hacking is to mess about until you get something that vaguely does what it's meant to :) - and that's what Taco, Hemos et all seem to be doing. Good work!
Glad it's not just me then :)
But he put an apostrophe in the wrong place! Surely this is a crime that deserves only death?!
If Europe gets the SSSCA, won't that mean that all the open source software used by the government in Germany and so forth will be a bit redundant?
Well, the destruction of Open Source software in /America/ maybe. Not all around the world.
Still, that isn't exactly good either (just not as bad as your scenario).
(My option of the parent post ;)
Yeah! *nudge nudge!* Ha ha ha! Windows too?! Ha ha h- ... Oh. Sarcasm. Right.
I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks for me, at least in a general, Linux community kinda way. I might disagree sometimes, but most of the time he's on the ball.
You're missing my point. Public key encryption was an example of how +A takes little effort, while -A is virtually impossible.
Also, I would argue, that due to the inherent nature of the net, if someone finds a way round something, anybody can grab it. Look at clueless script-kiddies taking advantage of cracking software, or sites which crack shareware and 30-day trials.
The above instances may still be confined to a small number of people - contrary to popular media I don't think the majority of the net consists of script kiddies and people leeching warez. What I'm trying to say is that if the tool exists to avoid censorship, then the net makes it availiable. If people want to use it, they can. Anybody who doesn't will do so because it is a matter of choice, rather than an inability to get the software.
Sure encryption can be used against freedom, but the net has the advantage of numbers, and, combined, sheer processing power. Plus, if the encryption is cracked just once, then the information can be distributed for free. To stop this free exchange of information, the Powers That Be would have to stop every single one. Note the difference in complexity? This is why the difficulty of +A is much less than -A.
But what is the net other than a piece of technology that so far has seemed to be the base for anti-censorship and all kinds of information - no matter how controversial or illegal they may be?
Is it not possible that the technological opportunities the net gives us are not separate from social change, but instead encourage it? Look at the mass sharing of MP3s over P2P networks, for example. Not exactly anti-censorship (more outright theft), but it illustrates a point that technology can affect society and bring about change in social attitudes.
In short, having tasted freedom on the net, will people really be able to let it go?
> Any technology that does +A also does -A.
No. No it doesn't. If it did, there wouldn't be public key encryption. Some things are easy to do, but difficult to reverse.
Finding ways round censorship are easier than blocking them. What could seem like perfectly ordinary internet traffic, could, in reality, be discussing some censored work. How would anyone decide which was which if it took several weeks of continous processing power to check each time?
The only perfect way of internet censorship is to shut down the internet.
A system is never 100% perfect, and if people want something, they will find a way round it. Defending and enforcing censorships is a far, far, more difficult problem than finding your way around it.
For instance, use a strong, public encrypted steganography, and put up a censored text up on a site hidden in plain view. Or use an encrypted P2P network like Freenet. Or one of a hundred different ways of getting past these things.
Whatever new protocols are introduced (and it's very unlikely in my mind that any company could introduce this - for one, free OS's like Linux and the BSDs would still have the libre net for themselves...) how can they possibly check for every trick a user could create? Unless they want to have a system that takes at least a few weeks to check through each packet, it's completely unworkable.
You could build an OS entirely closed, and cut off from any user interfering (again in theory - I doubt it would work that well in practise) - but it's too late for that anyway. Such an OS would just mean the rise of other that didn't block access, and hasten its own demise. Or, with the rise of cheaper computers, surely even if the OS were totally sealed, and if for some reason you didn't want to part with it (Killer app?), you could still have a spare computer with a open OS, for those times when you want a taste of freedom.
...No-one can hear you sing!
'Nuff said.
Hey, it would! I'd like to see the reults of that. Me, I'm using Konqueror, and in 99% of cases this is my standard browser, with Mozilla 0.9% of cases (when Konq doesn't handle it). IE only gets used when I've played a game under Windows and can't be bothered to switch back, or cannot access the site under Linux because the HTML isn't standard (damn, I hate that), or the site uses ActiveX or something.
Wow! What about Vi plugged into KDevelop?! The best of both worlds! (And a dream come true for me ;)
Hey, we've got a Royal Observatory employee on Slashdot. Cool :)
Um, sorry to object, but what idiot defined this as offtopic? It wasn't that funny, granted (sorry Trogre! :) - but offtopic? Some people are too stupid to moderate.