Don't forget the problem of keeping guns from getting back into the population at any given time. This goes back to the same issue you first spoke to: criminals will still obtain guns, and those who respect the law of the land won't. Essentially, I put this whole discussion into much the same frame as the "war on drugs," meaning things can't be uninvented and attempts to overly regulate many of them may result in more net harm than good.
In 2011, the state with the lowest violent crime rate was Maine, with a rate of 123.2 per 100,000 residents, while the state with the highest violent crime rate was Tennessee, with a rate of 608.2 per 100,000. However, the District of Columbia, the U.S. capital district, had a violent crime rate of 1,202.1 per 100,000 in 2011.
The concern isn't compromise of TC by an insider. The concern is forced conveyance of signing keys to an intelligence agency. Are you aware of the consequences of such a scenario? I suspect you're feigning ignorance at this point in an attempt to minimize perceived risk. Why would you do that?
Please accept my apologies for the delayed reply. You appear to be lacking firsthand experience with interactions involving certain law enforcement agencies and persons who are subject to device examination. The first step will be production of a bit for bit copy of the digital media in question, followed by a quick analysis of the disk image. In many cases, said analysis will rapidly identify media regions which are likely to represent "hidden containers", and interesting interactions between the owner of the device and law enforcement personnel will commence shortly thereafter.
This may disappoint you, but it speaks directly to my original statement regarding the utility of hidden containers. The link included in my prior post was mostly intended to spur further thought, in the hopes that you would consider (at a minimum) the scenario I've just described. Given my apparent failure to spark that trail of reasoning, I elected to provide a more direct example in this post. Cheers.
Typically, the FBI or Secret Service send NSLs. It should be noted that such letters may be generated based on cooperation with other agencies, however.
The TC devs hold no keys, nothing to seize/request.
As others have noted, you've just handily demonstrated that you have absolutely no business commenting on issues like these. Failure to grasp the significance of signing keys in this context is breathtakingly stupid.
LUKS is very good, but until someone works out a way to do hidden containers, it's not even close to a replacement for the most critical feature of TrueCrypt.
Hidden containers are less useful than you might imagine in practice for a variety of reasons. Some of these points are relevant. I don't have any use for hidden containers, although I do use LUKS on a large number of systems.
Given the fact that projects like this have a tendency to shut down in the middle of security audits, it must be curtains for OpenSSL. Just look at what happened to TrueCrypt!
Selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, not a theory.
Reality hasn't changed. The statement continues to hold true. You are confusing ideas (and their relative merits) concerning genesis of features with factual data on conveyance (or demise) through populations over time via certain mechanisms. We can even take the greatly stretched approach of assuming that various features only persist because individuals somehow communicate a desire to manifest them subconsciously. That would be a discussion on a specific causative effect, not the observed outcome.
Read the other replies I linked. Seemingly disadvantageous traits can and do propagate through populations along with advantageous traits, a condition which tends to confound people who are resistance to examination of complex systems on the whole.
You've completely misrepresented and/or misunderstood everything I've said, and oddly enough you've wasted a fair number of keystrokes partially agreeing with me at the same time. Rather than waste more time repeating myself, I'll simply direct you to the following related replies to other posters:
I also noted that selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, but again, this is not under dispute. Again, I pointed to the formal definition of "theory" with specific emphasis on its expansive context, with particular regard for the fact that no single circumstance accounts for "proving" or "disproving" of evolutionary processes on the whole. Apparently this is difficult to understand.
You've missed the target again. I noted that matter-energy equivalence is a fact, which is not under dispute, and this point was used to demonstrate the formal definition of the term "theory." Why are you running in circles?
No, that does not invalidate the point regarding fitness/utility. You have once again failed to read what was written and consider the larger picture. Conveyance of disadvantageous traits is not in opposition to conveyance of advantageous traits; you seem to be unwilling to accept the complexity of interactions with regard to all traits and environmental conditions. Again, there is no invalidation of fact happening here.
Ongoing discussion of noncoding DNA is useful as a backdrop here, as even the most generalized discussion on the topic sheds insight on the complexity involved with postulates and testing of effects related to genomic sequences, complexity which is greatly extended via consideration of environmental factors and data on observed behavioral patterns at various scales of populations and individuals.
I'll buy you a couple of texts if you'd like. Open offer.
If we're going to head down that road, we might as go ahead and note that time as humans perceive it is a purely fictitious construct based on limited perception (dimensional constraints). However, that's not a terribly good foundation for justifying failure to simply state things in terms that apply to our particular experience as a species.
I've never seen language that remains consistent across versions
You must have missed Perl. It's remained remarkably consistent across major release versions when compared to many other languages, including Java and Python.
Some of the best features of Python are often called out as inconsistencies or syntactic sugar by people who don't really understand them (e.g. list comprehensions).
You're confusing reinforcement of a prediction made in line with a theory with reflection upon other aspects of the theory and consequent predicts/projections/theories. There's no hair splitting involved here; you've misunderstood the entire definition of the term "theory."
Proper astronomers, like proper programmers, have their own coffee pots. This is doubly true for astronomers who happen to be programmers. What's a coffee line?
I just saw the reply from dave420 after I submitted my own; he and I are essentially painting the same picture. I really would encourage you to pick up a few modern works on this topic and a couple of good mathematics texts to serve as references, to include at a minimum a text which includes a decent discussion of nonlinear regression.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the problem of keeping guns from getting back into the population at any given time. This goes back to the same issue you first spoke to: criminals will still obtain guns, and those who respect the law of the land won't. Essentially, I put this whole discussion into much the same frame as the "war on drugs," meaning things can't be uninvented and attempts to overly regulate many of them may result in more net harm than good.
There are many variables you haven't accounted for. Quoting from Crime in the United States:
In 2011, the state with the lowest violent crime rate was Maine, with a rate of 123.2 per 100,000 residents, while the state with the highest violent crime rate was Tennessee, with a rate of 608.2 per 100,000. However, the District of Columbia, the U.S. capital district, had a violent crime rate of 1,202.1 per 100,000 in 2011.
D.C. has a long history of highly restrictive gun laws. Why then does D.C. have double the violent crime rate of Tennessee, and one hundred times that of Maine? It's also worth noting that Maine has very few restrictions on gun ownership. See how this works?
[sideband attempt 1 at obtaining a reply] I'm perfectly willing to burn the karma expended from potential "off topic" moderation of this comment to ask you the following question, which is likely to be considered highly "interesting" by anyone interesting in safeguarding privacy: Why haven't you replied to my last question [regarding TrueCrypt and the value of signing keys]?
Why haven't you replied to my last question?
The concern isn't compromise of TC by an insider. The concern is forced conveyance of signing keys to an intelligence agency. Are you aware of the consequences of such a scenario? I suspect you're feigning ignorance at this point in an attempt to minimize perceived risk. Why would you do that?
Please accept my apologies for the delayed reply. You appear to be lacking firsthand experience with interactions involving certain law enforcement agencies and persons who are subject to device examination. The first step will be production of a bit for bit copy of the digital media in question, followed by a quick analysis of the disk image. In many cases, said analysis will rapidly identify media regions which are likely to represent "hidden containers", and interesting interactions between the owner of the device and law enforcement personnel will commence shortly thereafter.
This may disappoint you, but it speaks directly to my original statement regarding the utility of hidden containers. The link included in my prior post was mostly intended to spur further thought, in the hopes that you would consider (at a minimum) the scenario I've just described. Given my apparent failure to spark that trail of reasoning, I elected to provide a more direct example in this post. Cheers.
Typically, the FBI or Secret Service send NSLs. It should be noted that such letters may be generated based on cooperation with other agencies, however.
Why not just link to the original work instead of some blog entry? Reflections on Trusting Trust
Although you have acknowledged the existence of signing keys, you have still failed to express understanding of the utility of those keys.
The TC devs hold no keys
They hold signing keys. Are you aware of the purpose of those keys?
The TC devs hold no keys, nothing to seize/request.
As others have noted, you've just handily demonstrated that you have absolutely no business commenting on issues like these. Failure to grasp the significance of signing keys in this context is breathtakingly stupid.
LUKS is very good, but until someone works out a way to do hidden containers, it's not even close to a replacement for the most critical feature of TrueCrypt.
Hidden containers are less useful than you might imagine in practice for a variety of reasons. Some of these points are relevant. I don't have any use for hidden containers, although I do use LUKS on a large number of systems.
Given the fact that projects like this have a tendency to shut down in the middle of security audits, it must be curtains for OpenSSL. Just look at what happened to TrueCrypt!
.
.
.
pst, it's a joke
.
.
.
I cannot deny this truth. Sir, you are a champion.
Allow me to quote exactly what I said:
Selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, not a theory.
Reality hasn't changed. The statement continues to hold true. You are confusing ideas (and their relative merits) concerning genesis of features with factual data on conveyance (or demise) through populations over time via certain mechanisms. We can even take the greatly stretched approach of assuming that various features only persist because individuals somehow communicate a desire to manifest them subconsciously. That would be a discussion on a specific causative effect, not the observed outcome.
Read the other replies I linked. Seemingly disadvantageous traits can and do propagate through populations along with advantageous traits, a condition which tends to confound people who are resistance to examination of complex systems on the whole.
You've completely misrepresented and/or misunderstood everything I've said, and oddly enough you've wasted a fair number of keystrokes partially agreeing with me at the same time. Rather than waste more time repeating myself, I'll simply direct you to the following related replies to other posters:
I also noted that selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, but again, this is not under dispute. Again, I pointed to the formal definition of "theory" with specific emphasis on its expansive context, with particular regard for the fact that no single circumstance accounts for "proving" or "disproving" of evolutionary processes on the whole. Apparently this is difficult to understand.
You've missed the target again. I noted that matter-energy equivalence is a fact, which is not under dispute, and this point was used to demonstrate the formal definition of the term "theory." Why are you running in circles?
I'm certain you just agreed with me, but I'm left with the lingering feeling that you intended to convey disagreement.
No, that does not invalidate the point regarding fitness/utility. You have once again failed to read what was written and consider the larger picture. Conveyance of disadvantageous traits is not in opposition to conveyance of advantageous traits; you seem to be unwilling to accept the complexity of interactions with regard to all traits and environmental conditions. Again, there is no invalidation of fact happening here.
Ongoing discussion of noncoding DNA is useful as a backdrop here, as even the most generalized discussion on the topic sheds insight on the complexity involved with postulates and testing of effects related to genomic sequences, complexity which is greatly extended via consideration of environmental factors and data on observed behavioral patterns at various scales of populations and individuals.
I'll buy you a couple of texts if you'd like. Open offer.
If we're going to head down that road, we might as go ahead and note that time as humans perceive it is a purely fictitious construct based on limited perception (dimensional constraints). However, that's not a terribly good foundation for justifying failure to simply state things in terms that apply to our particular experience as a species.
I've never seen language that remains consistent across versions
You must have missed Perl. It's remained remarkably consistent across major release versions when compared to many other languages, including Java and Python.
Some of the best features of Python are often called out as inconsistencies or syntactic sugar by people who don't really understand them (e.g. list comprehensions).
Backward incompatibilities are very real issues affecting a very large amount of code.
You're confusing reinforcement of a prediction made in line with a theory with reflection upon other aspects of the theory and consequent predicts/projections/theories. There's no hair splitting involved here; you've misunderstood the entire definition of the term "theory."
Proper astronomers, like proper programmers, have their own coffee pots. This is doubly true for astronomers who happen to be programmers. What's a coffee line?
I just saw the reply from dave420 after I submitted my own; he and I are essentially painting the same picture. I really would encourage you to pick up a few modern works on this topic and a couple of good mathematics texts to serve as references, to include at a minimum a text which includes a decent discussion of nonlinear regression.