The programmers are creating a system that makes business decisions. That means one of two things: A) "The program" decides to give the programmers big raises B) The programmers are incompetent
I know if *I* were programming such a system, the system would "know" that I'm extremely valuable.
Have you ever had a faucet dripping slowly and the sound annoyed you when you were trying to sleep? That's the tax money spent on the wireless phone networks. It's really annoying, and it's a drop in the bucket. The (damn) phone companies spend something like $50 billion / year on network upgrades, it's pretty crazy. As I mentioned in my other post, when I left Sprint ten years ago they were charging $2.50/MB for 128Kbit (really 64Kb) service and 15 cents per text message. It took a minute or so to load my favorite web page, and cost a dollar per page view. In the last yen years they've built a network 100 times faster and 98% cheaper. A couple million bucks from the government isn't significant in that at all.
I absolutely understand your frustration. Watching HD video on a phone without wifi gets expensive pretty quick.
Also, I got tired of the big carriers and left Sprint for Boost Mobile ten years ago, because Sprint was charging $2.50 per MB, and 15 cents per text message. Ten years later, they sell 24GB for $100; four cents per GB. That's a price reduction of over 98%, so pretending nothing has changed is just stupid. For $35 with Boost, I use my phone all day without any extra charges - but I am limited in the amount of video I watch when there's no Wi-Fi.
Ps, remember any time you suggest more government involvement, in the US you're suggesting you want more involvement from the Trump administration. You want the FCC to be more active and have more power? You want DONALD TRUMP'S FCC to have more power? You sure about that?
> Wrong, the government can make sure the work gets done that the private sector has refused for decades to do.
Decades? Two decades ago we had 2G data. Are you still using 2G? Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by the carriers brought us 3G and now 4G nationwide networks. I dislike Sprint as much as the next guy, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a liar, so when they spend billions making their data network 100 times faster I don't pretend that doesn't happen.
The government can make sure things get done? I present to you healthcare.gov, the F-35, or practically any significant government program.
It is important to note that could happen, if the MITM defeats the SSL/TLS session, only while the user initially REGISTERS for the service. The public key is not sent each time the user logs in.
Ps when I assign results (blame) in order to chart things and see what really works, I blame Bush through 2009 - it was his budget in 2009, and mostly the effects of Bush policies. That's imprecise, but reasonably close. Trump's first budget will start October 1st.
I find it interesting to come up with some objective criteria, such as economic growth rate, then chart it out for different presidents. By deciding on the criteria BEFORE I know the results, I get a true measure rather than something cherry-picked. This is the first chart I did, nine years ago:
Of course we know what happened right after that. It would be fair to say that based on economic growth, Bush Jr was the worst Republican President in recent history - the ONLY Republican President to leave the economy in worse shape than when he started.
I don't know about that. I could be mistaken since I pay more attention to your very funny posts than to your political posts, but if I recall correctly you've talked about Bush quite a bit THIS YEAR. After 8 years of Obama, you're still blaming Bush. So people who like that game can blame Obama for another 8 years.
* My apologies if I'm remembering wrong and you're not one of the "blame Bush" goofs. As I said, I think of you more as "the guy in Houston who posts really funny stuff, and also drank too much liberal Koolaid".
Do you have fun completely making shit up that has no relation to reality whatsoever?
> In California, you can replace an ignition system with another ignition with any system designated as valid by the manufacturer of that ignition system
Actually it requires an Executive Order to allow another ignition system. If you go to the California Air Resources Board web site, you'll find a list of ignition systems and parts that they've certified, with the executive order number for that particular part.
> In California, there appears to be no regulation on upholstery for car interiors. The FAA requires certain fire resistance, and the lab testing is apparently around $1000.
The lab test, which is NOT required, takes 20 seconds to do yourself, or for resale purposes you can get a lab to do it and issue a certificate for $40. To do the test yourself, light a sample of the material you're thinking about using with a Bic lighter and see if the flame goes out when you take the lighter away. Or don't spend the 20 seconds and trust the catalog description or salesperson - the FAA requires that the material not burn readily, it doesn't require certification of that fact.
> California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield
I can use a Tomtom, or any other GPS, on my plane, AND I can stick it on my windshield.
> Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air
The certification you're probably thinking of is IFR certification - flying when you can't see, relying only on the instruments. Which is actually a lot like an autonomous car relies on it's instruments. Which one is easier to do legally? Hint - instrument rating in the US requires 105 hours.
> Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency?
Reading comprehension problem? Let me say the words again real slow for you:
You may know that under-inflated tires greatly reduce gas mileage. A bendy road would be similar - it would be taking energy from the cars, so they have to burn more gas to keep going. That's where the energy comes from in a piezoelectric road - from burning more gas.
If we wanted to generate electricity by burning gasoline, there are generator designs at least 250 times more efficient than piezoelectric.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now.
That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work.
The vehicle title office, which has a thousand times as many "customers", is particularly difficult to deal with if anything about your situation doesn't exactly fit the typical case they designed the forms for.
> 333 exemptions were what were given out before 107 came into play. Under 107, there is no possible way to
Actually 107 came out in June, BEFORE the exemption I linked to was filed.
You can still fly under 333, following the 333 rules (with exemptions) OR under 107. 107 has a limit of 55 pounds, including payload. If the craft + payload is over 55 pounds, 107 isn't an option; 333 is the most likely part you'd fly under.
Here's the first sentence of the FAA Fact Sheet on 107 for you: -- The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations â" Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (PDF) â" cover a broad spectrum of commercial uses for drones weighing less than 55 pounds. --
That's why the subject line of tyre post you replied to is "ps Larger drones".
> Signalis made by the same devs who make Signal .
At the moment, that's moderated +4 Informative. Since that's informative, let me add that Frosted Flakes is made by the same people who make Frosted Flakes.
> we KNOW that some part of the laws of physics are WRONG. We know that NOW
Not at all. What we know is that we don't know why this thing appears to work. Have you ever seen a magic trick? I can make a wooden stick simply vanish right before your eyes. I can make it instantly re-appear somewhere else. Your observations will directly conflict with your knowledge of physics. That doesn't mean your understanding of physics is wrong, it only means you don't know how the trick works.
Did you know there's a magical battery that never runs out of power, and chemicals in the battery never seem to change, they don't undergo any chemical reaction. The selenium battery seemed to violate the conservation of energy. It took 70 years to fully understand where the power was coming from, from the LIGHTS IN THE LAB. The selenium was turning light into electricity. There's no contradiction with the laws of physics, just an effect that was not understood at the time. That's all we have with the EM drive right now - an effect we don't yet understand. Scientists are trying to find the cause by ruling out possibilities such as reactions with the atmosphere - zinc-air batteries are commonplace, air can be an energy source.
Regarding power and telephone lines, most newer neighborhoods in the US have them underground. Not all neighborhoods, of course, but many. The Reno code requires underground utilities in new developments:
-- All new or relocated utility distribution and service facilities, including communication and cable television, shall be placed underground except surface mounted transformers located in conformance to applicable setbacks --
There are three reasons to have an integrity checksum, to verify that it decrypted correctly. One issue you didn't mention is that it's always possible for an attacker to change the cipher text without decrypting it, and sometimes they can make interesting changes. You want to know if the data has been modified.
> Maybe a machine learning algorithm could pick it out, but otherwise it's a needle hiding in a huge haystack...
It's not hard for an attacker to notice whether or not the plaintext looks like: GET/fundstransfer.asp HTTP/1.1 Host: bankamerica.com Cookie: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx User-Agent: Firefox blah blah blah
For data formats where a machine can't readily know if it's probably correct, such a scheme is unusable where there isn't a human interactively using the application at BOTH ends of a communication. For example, you use your bank web site to initiate a transfer. If the computer at the bank can know when the request is correct versus corrupted, the attacker can also know when it's likely correct. If the attacker can't identity a correctly decrypted transaction, neither can the bank.
On the other hand: > The recipient will know whether the response is nonsense or not.
Maybe, maybe not. If it's supposed to be a web page, gibberish would be easy to distinguish. For more compact data formats, many incorrect plain texts will also be syntactically valid. The computer at the other end doesn't necessarily know which is correct, without a checksum indicating correctness.
It sounds to me like you've simply doubled the length of the key. Actually slightly worse than that due to collisions. You'd be more secure encrypting 128 bit blocks with a 128 bit key than encrypting a 64 bit block with a 64 bit key, then with another 64 bit key.
It should be noted that making the key twice as long does NOT make it twice as hard to decrypt. Rather it SQUARES the time required. A 129 bit key takes twice as long as a 128 bit key (assuming blocks are long enough etc.) So your idea DOES make it much harder to break - exactly like a longer key does.
Unfortunately, it may be that in 30 years a quantum computer will be able to break 1024 bit Diffie-Hellman in a picosecond. 2048 bit would then probably take much longer - many seconds or minutes.
Unfortunately right now we're trying to defeat the capabilities of machines that don't yet exist, so we don't know their capabilities. Recall the president of IBM said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Twenty years later, there were hundreds of thousands of computers sold every year, and a decade or so later was the Apple ][. Predicting what the next generation of computers will be able to do is *hard*.
PS, while SCOTUS *could* rule that the FISA court is essentially a sham court, they won't go that far because that would set up a direct confrontation with the executive. They would instead do something less drastic, perhaps rule that in order to comply with the fourth amendment, the FISA court must do a, b, and c.
Again, they already ruled recently that the mass collection of call records from phone companies is unconstitutional - it is entirely possible for the court to take action in this area. In fact, that's their job, safe guarding Constitutional rights is an essential part of the mandate of the court, since at least Marbury v Madison.
> the Supreme Court is going to strike it down based on..well, what exactly?
Here's one possibility: > The FISA court is in itself a response by Congress to the Supreme Court's determination in 1972 that national security investigations are subject to 4th Amendment provisions and require judicial warrants.
Given the court has already (repeatedly) that mere pro forma due process is not due process at all, they could certainly decide that the existing FISA court procedure does not in fact provide protections required by the 4th, that a court which *always* rules in favor of the government is essentially a false court.
Another approach they could take is also hinted at in your post. You say "The FISA court is in itself a response by Congress". Congress can create a court under Article I of the Constitution:
---
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; ---
Any court created by Congress, including the FISA court, is expressly *inferior* to the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS can set rules and procedures for all inferior courts. Even without striking down the law, SCOTUS could neuter the FISA court by setting it's procedural rules.
PS there's an entirely different set of rules for larger drones (see Section 333). Flirtey, the company working with 7-11, has filed for exemptions under Section 333, such as this one filed in July: https://www.federalregister.go...
As noted in the FAA Summary of UAS Rule ( https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/... ), most of the requirements can be waived if the operator shows that the intended flight can be done safely, with the waiver specifying compensating conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
The programmers are creating a system that makes business decisions. That means one of two things:
A) "The program" decides to give the programmers big raises
B) The programmers are incompetent
I know if *I* were programming such a system, the system would "know" that I'm extremely valuable.
Someone else posted this automatic charger:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6...
The electronic guidance needn't be any more complex than the Lego Mindstorms line/ligght following robot, recommended for kids 10 years old and up.
This kit does essentially the same thing and costs £16.50.
https://www.kitronik.co.uk/219...
Have you ever had a faucet dripping slowly and the sound annoyed you when you were trying to sleep? That's the tax money spent on the wireless phone networks. It's really annoying, and it's a drop in the bucket. The (damn) phone companies spend something like $50 billion / year on network upgrades, it's pretty crazy. As I mentioned in my other post, when I left Sprint ten years ago they were charging $2.50 /MB for 128Kbit (really 64Kb) service and 15 cents per text message. It took a minute or so to load my favorite web page, and cost a dollar per page view. In the last yen years they've built a network 100 times faster and 98% cheaper. A couple million bucks from the government isn't significant in that at all.
I absolutely understand your frustration. Watching HD video on a phone without wifi gets expensive pretty quick.
Also, I got tired of the big carriers and left Sprint for Boost Mobile ten years ago, because Sprint was charging $2.50 per MB, and 15 cents per text message. Ten years later, they sell 24GB for $100; four cents per GB. That's a price reduction of over 98%, so pretending nothing has changed is just stupid. For $35 with Boost, I use my phone all day without any extra charges - but I am limited in the amount of video I watch when there's no Wi-Fi.
Ps, remember any time you suggest more government involvement, in the US you're suggesting you want more involvement from the Trump administration. You want the FCC to be more active and have more power? You want DONALD TRUMP'S FCC to have more power? You sure about that?
> Wrong, the government can make sure the work gets done that the private sector has refused for decades to do.
Decades? Two decades ago we had 2G data. Are you still using 2G? Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by the carriers brought us 3G and now 4G nationwide networks. I dislike Sprint as much as the next guy, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a liar, so when they spend billions making their data network 100 times faster I don't pretend that doesn't happen.
The government can make sure things get done? I present to you healthcare.gov, the F-35, or practically any significant government program.
It is important to note that could happen, if the MITM defeats the SSL/TLS session, only while the user initially REGISTERS for the service. The public key is not sent each time the user logs in.
Ps when I assign results (blame) in order to chart things and see what really works, I blame Bush through 2009 - it was his budget in 2009, and mostly the effects of Bush policies. That's imprecise, but reasonably close. Trump's first budget will start October 1st.
I find it interesting to come up with some objective criteria, such as economic growth rate, then chart it out for different presidents. By deciding on the criteria BEFORE I know the results, I get a true measure rather than something cherry-picked. This is the first chart I did, nine years ago:
http://bettercgi.com/tmp/econo...
Of course we know what happened right after that. It would be fair to say that based on economic growth, Bush Jr was the worst Republican President in recent history - the ONLY Republican President to leave the economy in worse shape than when he started.
That was clear and concise. Merry Christmas, my friend.
> You have a few more weeks to use that.
I don't know about that. I could be mistaken since I pay more attention to your very funny posts than to your political posts, but if I recall correctly you've talked about Bush quite a bit THIS YEAR. After 8 years of Obama, you're still blaming Bush. So people who like that game can blame Obama for another 8 years.
* My apologies if I'm remembering wrong and you're not one of the "blame Bush" goofs. As I said, I think of you more as "the guy in Houston who posts really funny stuff, and also drank too much liberal Koolaid".
Do you have fun completely making shit up that has no relation to reality whatsoever?
> In California, you can replace an ignition system with another ignition with any system designated as valid by the manufacturer of that ignition system
Actually it requires an Executive Order to allow another ignition system. If you go to the California Air Resources Board web site, you'll find a list of ignition systems and parts that they've certified, with the executive order number for that particular part.
> In California, there appears to be no regulation on upholstery for car interiors. The FAA requires certain fire resistance, and the lab testing is apparently around $1000.
The lab test, which is NOT required, takes 20 seconds to do yourself, or for resale purposes you can get a lab to do it and issue a certificate for $40. To do the test yourself, light a sample of the material you're thinking about using with a Bic lighter and see if the flame goes out when you take the lighter away. Or don't spend the 20 seconds and trust the catalog description or salesperson - the FAA requires that the material not burn readily, it doesn't require certification of that fact.
> California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield
I can use a Tomtom, or any other GPS, on my plane, AND I can stick it on my windshield.
> Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air
The certification you're probably thinking of is IFR certification - flying when you can't see, relying only on the instruments. Which is actually a lot like an autonomous car relies on it's instruments. Which one is easier to do legally? Hint - instrument rating in the US requires 105 hours.
> Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency?
Reading comprehension problem? Let me say the words again real slow for you:
engage licensees to find ways to do things safely
You may know that under-inflated tires greatly reduce gas mileage. A bendy road would be similar - it would be taking energy from the cars, so they have to burn more gas to keep going. That's where the energy comes from in a piezoelectric road - from burning more gas.
If we wanted to generate electricity by burning gasoline, there are generator designs at least 250 times more efficient than piezoelectric.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now.
That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work.
The vehicle title office, which has a thousand times as many "customers", is particularly difficult to deal with if anything about your situation doesn't exactly fit the typical case they designed the forms for.
> 333 exemptions were what were given out before 107 came into play. Under 107, there is no possible way to
Actually 107 came out in June, BEFORE the exemption I linked to was filed.
You can still fly under 333, following the 333 rules (with exemptions) OR under 107. 107 has a limit of 55 pounds, including payload. If the craft + payload is over 55 pounds, 107 isn't an option; 333 is the most likely part you'd fly under.
Here's the first sentence of the FAA Fact Sheet on 107 for you:
--
The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations â" Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (PDF) â" cover a broad spectrum of commercial uses for drones weighing less than 55 pounds.
--
That's why the subject line of tyre post you replied to is "ps Larger drones".
> Signalis made by the same devs who make Signal . At the moment, that's moderated +4 Informative. Since that's informative, let me add that Frosted Flakes is made by the same people who make Frosted Flakes.
Thanks for pointing that out.
> we KNOW that some part of the laws of physics are WRONG. We know that NOW
Not at all. What we know is that we don't know why this thing appears to work. Have you ever seen a magic trick? I can make a wooden stick simply vanish right before your eyes. I can make it instantly re-appear somewhere else. Your observations will directly conflict with your knowledge of physics. That doesn't mean your understanding of physics is wrong, it only means you don't know how the trick works.
Did you know there's a magical battery that never runs out of power, and chemicals in the battery never seem to change, they don't undergo any chemical reaction. The selenium battery seemed to violate the conservation of energy. It took 70 years to fully understand where the power was coming from, from the LIGHTS IN THE LAB. The selenium was turning light into electricity. There's no contradiction with the laws of physics, just an effect that was not understood at the time. That's all we have with the EM drive right now - an effect we don't yet understand. Scientists are trying to find the cause by ruling out possibilities such as reactions with the atmosphere - zinc-air batteries are commonplace, air can be an energy source.
Regarding power and telephone lines, most newer neighborhoods in the US have them underground. Not all neighborhoods, of course, but many. The Reno code requires underground utilities in new developments:
--
All new or relocated utility distribution and service facilities, including communication and cable television, shall be placed underground except surface mounted transformers located in conformance to applicable setbacks
--
https://www.municode.com/libra...
There are three reasons to have an integrity checksum, to verify that it decrypted correctly. One issue you didn't mention is that it's always possible for an attacker to change the cipher text without decrypting it, and sometimes they can make interesting changes. You want to know if the data has been modified.
> Maybe a machine learning algorithm could pick it out, but otherwise it's a needle hiding in a huge haystack...
It's not hard for an attacker to notice whether or not the plaintext looks like: /fundstransfer.asp HTTP/1.1
GET
Host: bankamerica.com
Cookie: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-Agent: Firefox blah blah blah
For data formats where a machine can't readily know if it's probably correct, such a scheme is unusable where there isn't a human interactively using the application at BOTH ends of a communication. For example, you use your bank web site to initiate a transfer. If the computer at the bank can know when the request is correct versus corrupted, the attacker can also know when it's likely correct. If the attacker can't identity a correctly decrypted transaction, neither can the bank.
On the other hand:
> The recipient will know whether the response is nonsense or not.
Maybe, maybe not. If it's supposed to be a web page, gibberish would be easy to distinguish. For more compact data formats, many incorrect plain texts will also be syntactically valid. The computer at the other end doesn't necessarily know which is correct, without a checksum indicating correctness.
It sounds to me like you've simply doubled the length of the key. Actually slightly worse than that due to collisions. You'd be more secure encrypting 128 bit blocks with a 128 bit key than encrypting a 64 bit block with a 64 bit key, then with another 64 bit key.
It should be noted that making the key twice as long does NOT make it twice as hard to decrypt. Rather it SQUARES the time required. A 129 bit key takes twice as long as a 128 bit key (assuming blocks are long enough etc.) So your idea DOES make it much harder to break - exactly like a longer key does.
Unfortunately, it may be that in 30 years a quantum computer will be able to break 1024 bit Diffie-Hellman in a picosecond. 2048 bit would then probably take much longer - many seconds or minutes.
Unfortunately right now we're trying to defeat the capabilities of machines that don't yet exist, so we don't know their capabilities. Recall the president of IBM said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Twenty years later, there were hundreds of thousands of computers sold every year, and a decade or so later was the Apple ][. Predicting what the next generation of computers will be able to do is *hard*.
PS, while SCOTUS *could* rule that the FISA court is essentially a sham court, they won't go that far because that would set up a direct confrontation with the executive. They would instead do something less drastic, perhaps rule that in order to comply with the fourth amendment, the FISA court must do a, b, and c.
Again, they already ruled recently that the mass collection of call records from phone companies is unconstitutional - it is entirely possible for the court to take action in this area. In fact, that's their job, safe guarding Constitutional rights is an essential part of the mandate of the court, since at least Marbury v Madison.
> the Supreme Court is going to strike it down based on..well, what exactly?
Here's one possibility:
> The FISA court is in itself a response by Congress to the Supreme Court's determination in 1972 that national security investigations are subject to 4th Amendment provisions and require judicial warrants.
Given the court has already (repeatedly) that mere pro forma due process is not due process at all, they could certainly decide that the existing FISA court procedure does not in fact provide protections required by the 4th, that a court which *always* rules in favor of the government is essentially a false court.
Another approach they could take is also hinted at in your post. You say "The FISA court is in itself a response by Congress". Congress can create a court under Article I of the Constitution:
---
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
---
Any court created by Congress, including the FISA court, is expressly *inferior* to the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS can set rules and procedures for all inferior courts. Even without striking down the law, SCOTUS could neuter the FISA court by setting it's procedural rules.
PS there's an entirely different set of rules for larger drones (see Section 333). Flirtey, the company working with 7-11, has filed for exemptions under Section 333, such as this one filed in July:
https://www.federalregister.go...
As noted in the FAA Summary of UAS Rule ( https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/... ), most of the requirements can be waived if the operator shows that the intended flight can be done safely, with the waiver specifying compensating conditions.
More information on waiver can be found here:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond...
The complete text of the rule can be found here:
https://www.federalregister.go...