Each person have a different sequence, while the first time they sequenced one of the billions "human genomes". Doing different people could help finding what makes one person different from another and on the other hand what make us similar.:-)
Also, if they show interest in contacting us in the first place, they would probably value us as a source of information, so destroying earth would be counter-productive. Think on how much money is spent on making sure that our probes would not contaminate with earth life the places that it visits.
This is probably because no one uses it or care for it. Encryption is not a matter of simply slapping an encrypted channel on top of something and that something is magically secure.
Just on the top of my head I could bet that this telnet is vulnerable to timing attacks that ssh were once vulnerable. you see, telnet usually sends keys as fast as it can, so when you're typing your password the timing between the keys-down events are reflected on the timing of packages that go trough the net, with those timings you can narrow down the brute force password search.
SSH is more smart then telnet, so first it has a initial handshake that is not part of the session, so the first password, the login password, is sent in a single packet. But even for other password prompts that are asked during the session, openssh notice that the no-echo mode is activated and uses a timeout to join together more then one key on a single packet, since there is no echo this does not compromise the responsiveness of the session.
People used to believe that incantations could summon gods or demons (or what ever) that were able to destroy the world. The fact that those people believed that didn't make it more real.
The main argument to why the LHC will not destroy anything is very simple indeed. No machine human made collisions with that amount of energy don't mean that those don't happen naturally.
In fact collisions with even more energy happen naturally and frequently, it just happen that we don't have huge detectors to measure them when they happen.
No that is still windows fault, the user is used to click thousands of those cryptic little windows that appear whenever he has to do something. He doesn't even read them anymore.
A better solution is to ask the users password before installing stuff, those prompts are rare and give the user the impression that something potentially harmful is about to happen.
On the other hand, the system can not over use it, some versions of linux require that you enter your password even to change the system time for instance. This abuse of the password prompt can make users get used to them, and just like the warning dialogs they will get trained to enter the password on demand, without thinking.
I have never actually used itunes (I use linux), but every time I have to interact with it it only gave me head aches or stood in the way of doing something.
I use mainly ogg, not because I am an audiophilie, but because I believe in open source and free from patent formats. So maybe I am a "technology zealot" as the troll bellow (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1069953&cid=26201681) said. But I am not a radical, I don't re-encode mp3s into ogg, nor I want to turn my ogg permanently into mp3, I am studding an alternate solution, I want to make the daapd server reencode on the fly when serving itunes and serve ogg streams to everyone else.
ITunes sucks it don't play ogg by default and it refuses to play ogg from the network even after the quicktime coded is installed. I have setted up a daap for my home and itunes simply does not work, while rythmbox work perfectly.
I also tried to configure songbird to see my daap, but had no luck, and my wife want something that is as easy as itunes.
Also I loved the "Dr. Horrible sing along blog" I tryed to buy the files from itunes, it is impossible, because you know you have to have a itunes installed, so one less sell.
The problem is that the system is not open. The more people have access to the source sode more secure it will be. The way it is today very few people have access to it and many if not all the people who have access to it have a direct interest in the result and by consequence in defrauding it.
Yes the current government is left, but when it was elected the government were from right and we were already using the same electronic voting as today. Also, after the presidential election there were already other election, state elections, that were won by right wing people (mainly after the scandals you cited).
Sure if compared to the US we are very left indeed.
I'm sorry but is not enough, the election has to be transparent to all society. How can a bunch of lawyers and judges judge if the code is ok? It is hard even for people in the area, subtle "bugs" can change the result, security from obscurity is no security at all.
As I said before, in other thread, I trust the system as the results have been coherent with pools and what is expected, but it is far from a system that I would trust with my eyes closed.
While I agree that our election is far from perfect, I don't think that pen & paper is the best solution. It introduces many more places where it can be frauded, the accounting, false ballots and much more. A unified electronic voting has many advantages and can be made more safe by adding cryptographic receipts, for instance.
I know that electronic voting can be hacked, but if you raise the bar too high it start to get impractical hacking. Compromising single units can be easy, but if it can be detected later the votes from that machine could be eliminated, so the roms would have to be swapped out after wise also, unless your objective is to create a dos on some ballots.
I trust the system now because of the results it have shown, not because of the system it self, I know it can be hacked, I don't know what the heck is running there, what I know is that it has been shown by the results.
The source is available to lawyers or two years after the election? How this makes anyone secure? The source must be available BEFORE the election, for all population, also all the designs of the machines and also the procedures. Everything must be open for examination, otherwise it is not secure.
I do trust the system, because historically it has shown to be able to elect people from the opposition, like Lula, but this is now. The fact that everything is closed is an opportunity for fraud and it should be fixed.
Sorry, but the machines in brazil are also made by Diebold.:-P The article on the "press observatory" shows the design and specifications of the ballots. The article is in potuguese, but it should be translatable.
It has worked? I am not so sure about that, for an election to work it has to be void of frauds and offer some guaranties to the electors, like anonymity. Election are not a simple problem, in fact is a very hard one.
The elections on Brazil seem to work fine, in fact many of the "left" parties (Brazil has many political parties) felt their numbers get better after the electronic voting was installed. But the system, as it is now, gives no warranty on how the votes are counted, you have to trust it is working and has not been tampered and as far as I know the code and designs of the voting machines are not open for review by the population.
I trust that the system work, it has shown consistent numbers with the election day pools and as I said the system has been show to give results that are bad for the current government, that is the one witch could more easily tamper with the election, several times.
Just because you can't physically alter one chip into another, because of some hardware id fitted into the device it don't mean that another chip could not emulate the protocol perfectly. So one ship cannot be cloned to another chip of the same type, so what?
In fact, even if you use noScript the TraceMonkey (the super boosted javascript engine) will help the performance, many parts of firefox and almost all the extensions are writen in javascript.
Why you have to do it, why this is not the default? The problem is that you started with a faulty concept and then to fix without breaking every other application is hard.
As I said before, I know MS is trying hard to fix this, but that was not my point, I was only pointing out that concepts can be broken independently of their implementation.
Except that the concept on windows is and have been broken, the system requires the user have administration power on their machines. I know that MS have been trying to fix this, and may have already done so in vista (I have never use it), but my point is that concepts may be broken, so that no matter what implementation it will not work correctly.
Just because you haven't seen doesn't mean they don't exists, when you are protecting your self against attacks, be terrorist or even normal criminals, you must prepare for all possibilities, because your enemy might have knowledge on how you operate and build an attack that explores the weakness of your defenses.
Of course that would cost too much, both on quality of services and on real money on infrastructure and people, so you must find the best protection you can get for the price you are willing to pay.
Digital passport are not about security, they are about control, the selling point is how easy you can control who and when people enter or leave countries.
Well, I and many atheist I believe do say stuff like that, but those are idiomatic expressions. When people say "god damn it" or simply "damn" they are not trying to damn anything or ordering a superior being to do anything, I don't think that even most religious people mean those sentences as literally as you are suggesting.
I always were against literalism, fighting words is meaningless, what good is to ban, for instance the "n" word to such extent that even I am afraid to use it as example here without offending anyone, when the racists and intolerant people will simply choose another word to mean the same hatred and filthy as the other one.
But this is beyond the case, just because I use "god" don't mean I believe in a bearded man, it is a convention. If I am pissed about something, I may say "god damn it", and I can be sure that you will understand it. In my, humble, point of view this don't make me less then an atheist for using idiomatic expressions.
They would not be using encryption, if they want to be heard. If they don't want to be heard then they would be using it and it would hard to tell communication apart from background noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Each person have a different sequence, while the first time they sequenced one of the billions "human genomes". Doing different people could help finding what makes one person different from another and on the other hand what make us similar. :-)
While a single human genome is a lot of information, storing thousands shouldn't add much requirements, one can simply store a diff from the first.
Also, if they show interest in contacting us in the first place, they would probably value us as a source of information, so destroying earth would be counter-productive. Think on how much money is spent on making sure that our probes would not contaminate with earth life the places that it visits.
With glowing monkeys??? :-P
This is probably because no one uses it or care for it. Encryption is not a matter of simply slapping an encrypted channel on top of something and that something is magically secure.
Just on the top of my head I could bet that this telnet is vulnerable to timing attacks that ssh were once vulnerable. you see, telnet usually sends keys as fast as it can, so when you're typing your password the timing between the keys-down events are reflected on the timing of packages that go trough the net, with those timings you can narrow down the brute force password search.
SSH is more smart then telnet, so first it has a initial handshake that is not part of the session, so the first password, the login password, is sent in a single packet. But even for other password prompts that are asked during the session, openssh notice that the no-echo mode is activated and uses a timeout to join together more then one key on a single packet, since there is no echo this does not compromise the responsiveness of the session.
People used to believe that incantations could summon gods or demons (or what ever) that were able to destroy the world. The fact that those people believed that didn't make it more real.
The main argument to why the LHC will not destroy anything is very simple indeed. No machine human made collisions with that amount of energy don't mean that those don't happen naturally.
In fact collisions with even more energy happen naturally and frequently, it just happen that we don't have huge detectors to measure them when they happen.
No that is still windows fault, the user is used to click thousands of those cryptic little windows that appear whenever he has to do something. He doesn't even read them anymore.
A better solution is to ask the users password before installing stuff, those prompts are rare and give the user the impression that something potentially harmful is about to happen.
On the other hand, the system can not over use it, some versions of linux require that you enter your password even to change the system time for instance. This abuse of the password prompt can make users get used to them, and just like the warning dialogs they will get trained to enter the password on demand, without thinking.
I have never actually used itunes (I use linux), but every time I have to interact with it it only gave me head aches or stood in the way of doing something.
I use mainly ogg, not because I am an audiophilie, but because I believe in open source and free from patent formats. So maybe I am a "technology zealot" as the troll bellow (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1069953&cid=26201681) said. But I am not a radical, I don't re-encode mp3s into ogg, nor I want to turn my ogg permanently into mp3, I am studding an alternate solution, I want to make the daapd server reencode on the fly when serving itunes and serve ogg streams to everyone else.
ITunes sucks it don't play ogg by default and it refuses to play ogg from the network even after the quicktime coded is installed. I have setted up a daap for my home and itunes simply does not work, while rythmbox work perfectly.
I also tried to configure songbird to see my daap, but had no luck, and my wife want something that is as easy as itunes.
Also I loved the "Dr. Horrible sing along blog" I tryed to buy the files from itunes, it is impossible, because you know you have to have a itunes installed, so one less sell.
ARGH I really hate itunes.
The problem is that the system is not open. The more people have access to the source sode more secure it will be. The way it is today very few people have access to it and many if not all the people who have access to it have a direct interest in the result and by consequence in defrauding it.
If the code is secure why can't we look at it?
Yes the current government is left, but when it was elected the government were from right and we were already using the same electronic voting as today. Also, after the presidential election there were already other election, state elections, that were won by right wing people (mainly after the scandals you cited).
Sure if compared to the US we are very left indeed.
I'm sorry but is not enough, the election has to be transparent to all society. How can a bunch of lawyers and judges judge if the code is ok? It is hard even for people in the area, subtle "bugs" can change the result, security from obscurity is no security at all.
As I said before, in other thread, I trust the system as the results have been coherent with pools and what is expected, but it is far from a system that I would trust with my eyes closed.
While I agree that our election is far from perfect, I don't think that pen & paper is the best solution. It introduces many more places where it can be frauded, the accounting, false ballots and much more. A unified electronic voting has many advantages and can be made more safe by adding cryptographic receipts, for instance.
I know that electronic voting can be hacked, but if you raise the bar too high it start to get impractical hacking. Compromising single units can be easy, but if it can be detected later the votes from that machine could be eliminated, so the roms would have to be swapped out after wise also, unless your objective is to create a dos on some ballots.
I trust the system now because of the results it have shown, not because of the system it self, I know it can be hacked, I don't know what the heck is running there, what I know is that it has been shown by the results.
The source is available to lawyers or two years after the election? How this makes anyone secure? The source must be available BEFORE the election, for all population, also all the designs of the machines and also the procedures. Everything must be open for examination, otherwise it is not secure.
I do trust the system, because historically it has shown to be able to elect people from the opposition, like Lula, but this is now. The fact that everything is closed is an opportunity for fraud and it should be fixed.
Sorry, but the machines in brazil are also made by Diebold. :-P The article on the "press observatory" shows the design and specifications of the ballots. The article is in potuguese, but it should be translatable.
It has worked? I am not so sure about that, for an election to work it has to be void of frauds and offer some guaranties to the electors, like anonymity. Election are not a simple problem, in fact is a very hard one.
The elections on Brazil seem to work fine, in fact many of the "left" parties (Brazil has many political parties) felt their numbers get better after the electronic voting was installed. But the system, as it is now, gives no warranty on how the votes are counted, you have to trust it is working and has not been tampered and as far as I know the code and designs of the voting machines are not open for review by the population.
I trust that the system work, it has shown consistent numbers with the election day pools and as I said the system has been show to give results that are bad for the current government, that is the one witch could more easily tamper with the election, several times.
Just because you can't physically alter one chip into another, because of some hardware id fitted into the device it don't mean that another chip could not emulate the protocol perfectly. So one ship cannot be cloned to another chip of the same type, so what?
In fact, even if you use noScript the TraceMonkey (the super boosted javascript engine) will help the performance, many parts of firefox and almost all the extensions are writen in javascript.
Why you have to do it, why this is not the default? The problem is that you started with a faulty concept and then to fix without breaking every other application is hard.
As I said before, I know MS is trying hard to fix this, but that was not my point, I was only pointing out that concepts can be broken independently of their implementation.
Except that the concept on windows is and have been broken, the system requires the user have administration power on their machines. I know that MS have been trying to fix this, and may have already done so in vista (I have never use it), but my point is that concepts may be broken, so that no matter what implementation it will not work correctly.
Yes flash block do have a list of allowed site, and it alone can stop the attack.
PN usually are passwords, but they are simpler and unique (some user have a single sign on, but this is a bad practice).
Just because you haven't seen doesn't mean they don't exists, when you are protecting your self against attacks, be terrorist or even normal criminals, you must prepare for all possibilities, because your enemy might have knowledge on how you operate and build an attack that explores the weakness of your defenses.
Of course that would cost too much, both on quality of services and on real money on infrastructure and people, so you must find the best protection you can get for the price you are willing to pay.
Digital passport are not about security, they are about control, the selling point is how easy you can control who and when people enter or leave countries.
Well, I and many atheist I believe do say stuff like that, but those are idiomatic expressions. When people say "god damn it" or simply "damn" they are not trying to damn anything or ordering a superior being to do anything, I don't think that even most religious people mean those sentences as literally as you are suggesting.
I always were against literalism, fighting words is meaningless, what good is to ban, for instance the "n" word to such extent that even I am afraid to use it as example here without offending anyone, when the racists and intolerant people will simply choose another word to mean the same hatred and filthy as the other one.
But this is beyond the case, just because I use "god" don't mean I believe in a bearded man, it is a convention. If I am pissed about something, I may say "god damn it", and I can be sure that you will understand it. In my, humble, point of view this don't make me less then an atheist for using idiomatic expressions.
They would not be using encryption, if they want to be heard. If they don't want to be heard then they would be using it and it would hard to tell communication apart from background noise.