> I thought that it was the Republican (Conservative) parties in the States that want to control everyone?
If you actually thought that, Ronald Reagan defined the modern Republican party. One of his defining statements is:
âoeGovernment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.â
He further explained: âoeFrom time to time weâ(TM)ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?â
Amazon is SO well known, and was so "hot" for a while that people made irrational investments in Amazon. That probably also included quite large proportion of people who either had never picked stocks before or don't understand and use the fundamental numbers. As such, it was a bit of a bad example for my point.
That said, I understand they've now had two or three consecutive days profitable quarters, and the price dropped 13% on the day they announced that they had failed to meet projections - that things weren't going quite according plan. So yeah bad example of my original point.
> Wall Street is so focused on quarterly numbers, it is really hard to make 5 year plans.
Wall Street is particularly focused on whether or not those quarterly numbers match forecasts or not. Losing money every quarter, like Amazon did for years, along with many other companies, is fine IF you're hitting the numbers in your five-year plan, and that plan has a path to profitability eventually.
What doesn't inspire investor confidence is when you lay out a plan that includes increasing revenue by 5% and decreasing expenses by 15%, then you actually do the opposite- decreasing revenue and increasing expenses. You absolutely can follow a five year plan, and even plan to lose money the first four years, but you'd better execute the plan you communicated.
If you can't execute the plan, well maybe you shouldn't be the executive.
> those much bigger funds have many more people to split up the commissions between.
They have a lot more people paying commissions, splitting the costs of a good manager. Figure about 4 million people in one of the Vanguard funds. If each pays $2 management commission per year, that's $8 million dollars for the fund, which will buy a pretty darn good manager or three. On the other hand, contrast small fund with 1,000 investors. If each investor pays a hundred times as much, that's $100K. Which do you think can atttact better management, $100,000 salary and bonus, or $8 million?
For the DVR and management interface, Zone Minder is THE open source solution and has been for a long time. It can do all kinds of things like run motion detection on the feeds and when motion is detected it turns on the light and pans your high-quality camera to view the area where the motion was.
It's -more- secure than the stuff made by Happy Fun Camera Ltd, in China, with instructions that read "button the press longly is record of picture motions", which also happens to be the exact same system sold under many brand names. I don't know that it's had a complete security audit, but it's better than Chinese "button the press longly ".
As others have mentioned, configuring a separate video vlan (or ssid) which isn't connected to the internet will get you most of the way there for camera security. Your cheap consumer wifi router can do a no-internet ssid by using the parental control feature.
You could be a political speech writer. Your post no doubt got some people a bit pumped up. Also like most political speeches, what you said is the opposite of the actual facts.
I'm referring to the factual claims you make such as: > It is by definition a game that is only available to insiders.
> It is the opposite of a level playing field. It creates a system where there is a vast gap between insiders and everyone else. > There is no free market capitalism with this kind of division of access.
> For all the Libertards out there, being able to trade stock is not equivalent to high speed trading
Those statements are simply false on the facts. If you want to put your money into high frequency trading trading, you can send it on over to Turner Spectrum or any of the other 200 or so trading funds you can find on Morningstar. I wouldn't recommend it, because HFT doesn't reliably perform any better than a plain index fund, due to the high transaction costs from buying and selling all the time.
It feels good to rant about "Wall Street", yet the fact is, most of that money on Wall Street is someone's retirement savings, and when "a fund" makes money that simply means that the owner's of the fund, grandma and grandpa, have a few extra dollars to live on.
If you think the best Wall Street traders have some special advantage, consider this. A really good trader who can make higher profit percentage will of course make alot more money trading with $100 billion than trading with $10 million. The big $100 billion fund can of course afford to hire the best of best to manage the fund. Therefore, the best traders tend to work for the biggest funds, where they can make the most money. The "biggest funds" include a bunch of Vanguard funds. Who are these insiders who are invested in Vanguard funds? Anyone with $500 savings, Vanguard invests the savings of millions of people, including me. There's the insider secret for you - invest the first 10% of your income with Vanguard and you'll get rich just like like their other millions of customers, slowly.
* Yes, you could choose an fund that trades on milliseconds rather than a Vanguard index fund, but I wouldn't suggest it because the risk-adjusted returns aren't any better. A Vanguard fund has expenses around 0.08%, an HFT fund will have expenses 50 times higher.
They don't yet know whether there is anything they can use even in the investigation, much less in court. If they want to use it in court, they'll have to pay the company to send an expert witness and testify about it. There's a lot more to pay if and when they decide to use it in court.
While encryption in transit is good, unfortunately encryption on the server is typically more theatre/ marketing than it is useful security. There are only two things you can do with properly encrypted data - decrypt it or send it to someone who can decrypt it. If the server can decrypt it, and the concern is that the server may be compromised, there's little point in encrypting it.
As a random example, let's consider the data of which users have purchased which songs on itunes. Apple uses that to know which songs you're allowed to stream. If it's encrypted, their server-side software can't do the lookup , so that can't be encrypted (or the server has to have the key, which amounts to the same thing).
Essentially the only data that can be usefully encrypted is files sent from a customer's device which Apple doesn't want to read or understand, they just want to send back the exact same binary blob that they received. That CAN be encrypted before it's sent to Apple. But any data that Apple needs to query, change, record, or de-duplicate can't really be usefully encrypted, in general.
It's an annoying problem, and a hard problem. There was a theory about encrypting data in such a way that you could do some very limited statistical processing on it without being able to actually read the data, but it's pretty limited so approximately nobody uses it. The one major use for data "encrypted" on the server is passwords, where you store a hash and can compare whether the password the person entered is the same as the stored hash. Though that's an important use case, it's only one use case. There aren't too many use cases for storing data you can't retrieve.
> wouldn't the resin harden on it's own inside the bottle under ambient light?
If the bottle were clear it would.
For those who don't care to do cube roots and metric- imperial conversions in their head at the moment , 400cm3 is about 2.9 inches cubed. (Not 2.9 cubic inches)
For those freaked out about leaving their phone on the desk for a few hours, you can use one of the old phones you hae in the junk drawer. No phones in junk drawer? You can find one on ebay for about $20.
If they're only paying $15,000, they may only be paying to have this phone hacked, without being told the key details of how it's done. They don't have to share information that they don't have.
Yeah, ARM can never replace x86. There will never be a day when consumers mostly buy ARM devices rather than x86. Well not until 2014 anyway. The fact is, most CPUs purchased in the last two years were ARM.
In the datacenter, power (and it's associated cooling) is expensive, so we're already starting to see ARM replacing x86 in the datacenter too.
Business desktops still mostly run x86, because they mostly run Windows and Windows is currently x86-centric. Microsoft has already released an ARM version of Windows, though, and they are currently making a big push toward "apps" that cpu-architecture independent. That is to say, any application written according to Microsoft's recommendations will be ARM compatible.
ARM hasn't completely replaced x86, but ARM does now have most of the market, and the most significant hurdle"for ARM, Windows compatibility, appears to be going away.
The way I see it, it's much like IP protocol and specifically IP addresses- the protocol, the technology, works well, but IP addresses needed a user-friendly layer on top. Enter DNS. You can google.com and your client software automatically looks up the matching IP and uses it. There's a standard to do the exact same thing with PGP keys.
PGP keys can be served via DNS, so when you email support@clonebox.net it automatically looks up my key and encrypts your email. Just as you, the human user, never see the IP of my mail server, you also never see my PGP key. It just works automatically. Of course that means DNS needs yo be secured. Enter DNSSEC.
> WTF, are people incabable of pushing a button on their fob any more?
I would have said the same thing until I tried it. My latest car came with a proximity key. I've come to appreciate it, especially when my hands or full or it's raining.
I need to have my car "key" (fob) on a keychain with two access cards, each credit card sized, so digging the whole thing out of my pocket is a bit of a hassle (the cards turn sideways and hang on the pocket). It's not something I would pay $300-$400 to add aftermarket, but it's a convenience. Avoiding digging out the wad of a keychain and trying to find the right button in the dark also helps when I'm trying to be smooth on date night.:)
Encryption with public keys basically requires signatures as a precondition. Without validation, you could be encrypting the message with the bad guy's key.
> You completely and totally miss the point. If I have to track down a web site, or Google+ page, or Facebook page, and manually copy or use a key from there, you might as well toss the whole idea in the bin.
I said that, twice. Twice I said if mail clients don't basically do it automatically, people won't do it manually. So I'm not sure how you can say I miss that point.
What I find interesting about that is that everyone WILL find and Sally's email address, sally.krendircksoen9283@hotmail.com. Yet almost -nobody-, not even the most privacy preaching, Rand Paul voting Slashtotters, will click on the key link right next to the email address.
> How do you send email to random people encrypted? > Your solutions work for internal email, but not external.
This problem was solved in 1991, in terms of the technical implementation and protocol. The "problem" is that few people care about receiving encrypted email, so they don't publish a key to use for sending them email. Maybe if email clients made it super-easy more people would do it.
Here's a brief description of how PGP/GPG works. Wherever I publish my email address, I also publish my public key, which I generated. To send me an email, you can either use my address and my public key, or you can let your email client retrieve the key for you, from a key server. Since the email is encrypted with my public key, it can only be decrypted by my private key.
Personally, I publish my public key on the "Contact Us" page of my web site and on the public key servers.
The protocol works fine. The problems are that email clients don't make it super-easy for you to generate and publish a key, or to send PGP email using the recipient's key. That's a UI problem, not a protocol problem.
One byte at a time and see if the other end "accepts" it sounds like a padding oracle attack. Those are in vogue now also.
The padding oracle works with cbc ciphers where there is a padding check before the actual decryption. You change on byte and see whether you get a padding error. If the byte is correct, you don't get the padding error. When you've found one byte, move on to the next byte.
In the most recent quarter, Amazon posted record profits, but they weren't high enough, so the value of their shares (what people are willing to pay to invest their money in Amazon) plunged 13%. So I guess you're right, that IS a perfect example of low profits = investors flee.
Amazon is still in, though preparing to graduate from, the early phase of the cloud business in which the goal is to gain and hold market share in order to reap high profits later, after the cloud industry stabilizes. People were buying Amazon based on the high profits expected in 2018, 1019, 2020, etc, not for last years low profits. As they've recently failed to make the turn, investors are leaving.
OS X is the UNIX that large organizations support their employees using. And btw it's nothing like iOS.
I used Linux exclusively for about 12 years. I'm even named in the Linux kernel changelog, so you could say I've long been a fan of Linux. When sold my business and took a 9-5 job with a big organization, I was offered a choice - Windows or OS X. The corporate helpdesk, the active directory services, etc didn't do Linux. Knowing that OS X is UNIX (certified UNIX, POSIX, single UNIX), I chose OS X over Windows. I don't buy Apple's mobile devices, and didn't much care for the iPad my boss handed me, but that's iOS. Time for me to try OS X.
I was surprised to find that for day-to-day use, OS X is almost exactly like Linux, on a quality machine, with few to no annoyances. It just works. I can download and compile all my favorite FOSS software the same way I always have -./configure; make; make install. It's just like a well-polished Linux distribution, and it integrates seamlessly with the corporate network.
System administration is a little different, but I haven't needed to do much system administration on my Macs, they just work.
If you like Linux or BSD and you're in an organization that includes Windows desktops, Active Directory, etc, a Mac is a very good fit. Don't let any negative experience with iOS fool you, OS X on a Mac Pro is a powerful UNIX system, and the hardware is well made. (The hardware isn't anything magical, but it's well designed, solid construction, and good performance) .
Good post. It also partially explains an observation that Obama and many others clearly are unfamiliar with, which is titled "American Exceptionalism".
The idea is that while most nations are ethnic groups who established geographical borders, the US is not. The US founding fathers, in the founding documents, declared that they were creating a new nation in order to have liberty and justice and... . When the US government (including voters) fail to protect freedom and justice, they fail at precisely the goals that government was created to pursue. Not that we don't sometimes fail, we do, but we're -supposed- to do better, the US is founded, designed, as a nation of freedom, not a nation of German people or Japanese people or Czechs or Irish.
Obama mistakenly said "I'm sure Germans believe in German exceptionalism". No, Mr President, Germans know that Germany is the nation of Germanic people. They have not declared Germany to be the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy to the world, so they have no responsibility to do that. The German government's responsibility is to the German people. America is an exception to the common history because it wasn't created as an area for a specific ethnic group to live, it was created as a place for certain ideals to flourish. We therefore have a special responsibility to those ideals.
I have a solution to this. Most of my code can never be read by the government, or anyone else I don't want reading it.
I've made that impossible, by writing it in -Perl-, with page-long regular expressions.:) Just try reading my recursive descent parser for almost-html embedded in almost-xml written as a 8,000 character regex, Obama.
Make the needed tool, just be sure it runs on Windows 8, not Windows 10. In a month or two, when Microsoft finishes degrading everyone to Windows 10, it'll quit working.
> It's a good idea but the execution of it is not trivial.
100% agreed. The biggest thing that jumps out at me, in terms of making that a -requirement-, is that 95% of software projects involve adding to existing systems, not writing an entire system from scratch. Even for a brand-new agency, you're going to use Active Directory or something similar, not author your own AD from scratch.
At my last job, I spent three years writing software for a government agency in an environment which included a big GPLv3 system I was responsible for, which stored all of its data in Microsoft SQL server and ran on Windows, using the Microsoft database driver. It interfaced with legacy Scantron systems, using Scantron's API code under their license. Being non-stupid, I used a lot of libraries and copy-pasted functions that were under GPLv2, CC, and BSD licenses. There is no license that all the software I wrote could be released under. I did release a lot of it under GPLv3, but a -requirement- that it all be released under any specific type of license would mean we simply couldn't do the project at all, the code would never have been written and we'd still be stuck with paper and pencil Scantrons for everything.
This has ahll been tried, repeatedly. You say "they can possibly", let's look at what people ACTUALLY DO.
> as the profit margin is higher than "the fair profit for money" (in Adam Smith's words), they can possibly reduce their margin and still stay in business
They "possibly could", I suppose. Here's what is in fact happening. Each paycheck, I have a certain amount set aside for retirement, and to buy a house again, because I'm trying to be a responsible adult. That money that is set aside is of course "capital". (it's worth recognizing that in the US, with our system of public companies, the word "capital" mostly means "retirement savings").
So anyway I have this retirement money, or capital, and I need to do something with it. I -could- put my money in a Detroit car company, who pays relatively high wages but makes no money. If I choose to do that, I can retire when I'm 85. Or I can put my savings into another car company which makes cars in Texas, Mexico, and other places with lower regulatory costs, and therefore makes money. If I do that, I can retire when I'm 65.
So retire at 85 via a Detroit company with Detroit costs, or retire at 65 via a multinational with Texas and Mexico costs. Which would YOU choose. Virtually nobody is choosing to put their savings (capital) into companies with high costs and low profits. A few choose their investments based on being a fan of this or that, but most people want to retire sooner rather than later, so their money goes to places that have lower costs.
China and India have had much lower costs than the east coast of the US does, so businesses operating in China and India (and creating jobs there) are the ones doing well. The jobs in Detroit are gone. They HAD very high benefits and wages due to unions and regulation there, and that's why they are gone.
Of course, that fact that legislating higher pay doesn't work is unacceptable to some people; their first instinct is to deny it, though of course it's fairly obvious. What about those poor assembly line workers, warehouse workers, etc.? We have to do something! I'd agree, somewhat. I'd say "we have to do something THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE." All too often we think "we have to do something" and then politician X suggests plan Z. Well plan Z is something, and we have to do something, so we have to plan Z. Well, no, plan Z has been tried many times and it doesn't work. We need to do something that actually works.
The main thing that actually works is vocational training / education. I started to just write "education", but getting a bunch of people degrees in Russian Literature isn't all that effective; we can get better results from our limited resources with training in welding, IT fields, etc. If someone is 36 years old and they're worth the same wage as a 16 year old, if they haven't managed to improve their skills and knowledge in 20 years, that's something we need to look at.
We also have to recognize a very uncomfortable fact. Gas stations and fast food places around Texas are offering $10-12/hour to start, which, with the low cost of living in Texas, is a decent wage. That's just the starting wage, for teenagers with no experience, show up on time for a year and you start getting raises. Yet there are a bunch of people not working! There are even people getting fired from Taco Bell because they won't show up on time and when they do show up they're stoned. It's a lot harder to help those people. I'm not sure how to help people who won't show up, except I've done one thing that has helped in some cases. I've given them two choices - show up, sober, and get paid well, or don't get paid at all. They'd like to show up drunk or stoned, figuring they are then worth about $6/hour, but I don't give them that option. About half of them then decide they'd rather have a job where they show up on time, sober, for $10, then have no job and no money for beer. The other half - I don't know how to help them.
Slashdot Mirror
> I thought that it was the Republican (Conservative) parties in the States that want to control everyone?
If you actually thought that, Ronald Reagan defined the modern Republican party. One of his defining statements is:
âoeGovernment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.â
He further explained:
âoeFrom time to time weâ(TM)ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?â
> When was the last time a US government agency massacred dozens of people
Last month, I suppose.
> here in the US?
In the US, I'm not sure when was the LAST time, but I sure remember when they did so a few miles down the road from me, in Waco.
> a school or theater and shot dozens of folks?
Ever notice those virtually always happen in "gun free" zones (aka defenseless victim zones)?
Amazon is SO well known, and was so "hot" for a while that people made irrational investments in Amazon. That probably also included quite large proportion of people who either had never picked stocks before or don't understand and use the fundamental numbers. As such, it was a bit of a bad example for my point.
That said, I understand they've now had two or three consecutive days profitable quarters, and the price dropped 13% on the day they announced that they had failed to meet projections - that things weren't going quite according plan. So yeah bad example of my original point.
> Wall Street is so focused on quarterly numbers, it is really hard to make 5 year plans.
Wall Street is particularly focused on whether or not those quarterly numbers match forecasts or not. Losing money every quarter, like Amazon did for years, along with many other companies, is fine IF you're hitting the numbers in your five-year plan, and that plan has a path to profitability eventually.
What doesn't inspire investor confidence is when you lay out a plan that includes increasing revenue by 5% and decreasing expenses by 15%, then you actually do the opposite- decreasing revenue and increasing expenses. You absolutely can follow a five year plan, and even plan to lose money the first four years, but you'd better execute the plan you communicated.
If you can't execute the plan, well maybe you shouldn't be the executive.
> those much bigger funds have many more people to split up the commissions between.
They have a lot more people paying commissions, splitting the costs of a good manager. Figure about 4 million people in one of the Vanguard funds. If each pays $2 management commission per year, that's $8 million dollars for the fund, which will buy a pretty darn good manager or three. On the other hand, contrast small fund with 1,000 investors. If each investor pays a hundred times as much, that's $100K. Which do you think can atttact better management, $100,000 salary and bonus, or $8 million?
For the DVR and management interface, Zone Minder is THE open source solution and has been for a long time. It can do all kinds of things like run motion detection on the feeds and when motion is detected it turns on the light and pans your high-quality camera to view the area where the motion was.
It's -more- secure than the stuff made by Happy Fun Camera Ltd, in China, with instructions that read "button the press longly is record of picture motions", which also happens to be the exact same system sold under many brand names. I don't know that it's had a complete security audit, but it's better than Chinese "button the press longly ".
https://zoneminder.com/
As others have mentioned, configuring a separate video vlan (or ssid) which isn't connected to the internet will get you most of the way there for camera security. Your cheap consumer wifi router can do a no-internet ssid by using the parental control feature.
You could be a political speech writer. Your post no doubt got some people a bit pumped up. Also like most political speeches, what you said is the opposite of the actual facts.
I'm referring to the factual claims you make such as:
> It is by definition a game that is only available to insiders.
> It is the opposite of a level playing field. It creates a system where there is a vast gap between insiders and everyone else.
> There is no free market capitalism with this kind of division of access.
> For all the Libertards out there, being able to trade stock is not equivalent to high speed trading
Those statements are simply false on the facts. If you want to put your money into high frequency trading trading, you can send it on over to Turner Spectrum or any of the other 200 or so trading funds you can find on Morningstar. I wouldn't recommend it, because HFT doesn't reliably perform any better than a plain index fund, due to the high transaction costs from buying and selling all the time.
It feels good to rant about "Wall Street", yet the fact is, most of that money on Wall Street is someone's retirement savings, and when "a fund" makes money that simply means that the owner's of the fund, grandma and grandpa, have a few extra dollars to live on.
If you think the best Wall Street traders have some special advantage, consider this. A really good trader who can make higher profit percentage will of course make alot more money trading with $100 billion than trading with $10 million. The big $100 billion fund can of course afford to hire the best of best to manage the fund. Therefore, the best traders tend to work for the biggest funds, where they can make the most money. The "biggest funds" include a bunch of Vanguard funds. Who are these insiders who are invested in Vanguard funds? Anyone with $500 savings, Vanguard invests the savings of millions of people, including me. There's the insider secret for you - invest the first 10% of your income with Vanguard and you'll get rich just like like their other millions of customers, slowly.
* Yes, you could choose an fund that trades on milliseconds rather than a Vanguard index fund, but I wouldn't suggest it because the risk-adjusted returns aren't any better. A Vanguard fund has expenses around 0.08%, an HFT fund will have expenses 50 times higher.
They don't yet know whether there is anything they can use even in the investigation, much less in court. If they want to use it in court, they'll have to pay the company to send an expert witness and testify about it. There's a lot more to pay if and when they decide to use it in court.
While encryption in transit is good, unfortunately encryption on the server is typically more theatre/ marketing than it is useful security. There are only two things you can do with properly encrypted data - decrypt it or send it to someone who can decrypt it. If the server can decrypt it, and the concern is that the server may be compromised, there's little point in encrypting it.
As a random example, let's consider the data of which users have purchased which songs on itunes. Apple uses that to know which songs you're allowed to stream. If it's encrypted, their server-side software can't do the lookup , so that can't be encrypted (or the server has to have the key, which amounts to the same thing).
Essentially the only data that can be usefully encrypted is files sent from a customer's device which Apple doesn't want to read or understand, they just want to send back the exact same binary blob that they received. That CAN be encrypted before it's sent to Apple. But any data that Apple needs to query, change, record, or de-duplicate can't really be usefully encrypted, in general.
It's an annoying problem, and a hard problem. There was a theory about encrypting data in such a way that you could do some very limited statistical processing on it without being able to actually read the data, but it's pretty limited so approximately nobody uses it. The one major use for data "encrypted" on the server is passwords, where you store a hash and can compare whether the password the person entered is the same as the stored hash. Though that's an important use case, it's only one use case. There aren't too many use cases for storing data you can't retrieve.
> wouldn't the resin harden on it's own inside the bottle under ambient light?
If the bottle were clear it would.
For those who don't care to do cube roots and metric- imperial conversions in their head at the moment , 400cm3 is about 2.9 inches cubed. (Not 2.9 cubic inches)
For those freaked out about leaving their phone on the desk for a few hours, you can use one of the old phones you hae in the junk drawer. No phones in junk drawer? You can find one on ebay for about $20.
If they're only paying $15,000, they may only be paying to have this phone hacked, without being told the key details of how it's done. They don't have to share information that they don't have.
Yeah, ARM can never replace x86. There will never be a day when consumers mostly buy ARM devices rather than x86. Well not until 2014 anyway. The fact is, most CPUs purchased in the last two years were ARM.
In the datacenter, power (and it's associated cooling) is expensive, so we're already starting to see ARM replacing x86 in the datacenter too.
Business desktops still mostly run x86, because they mostly run Windows and Windows is currently x86-centric. Microsoft has already released an ARM version of Windows, though, and they are currently making a big push toward "apps" that cpu-architecture independent. That is to say, any application written according to Microsoft's recommendations will be ARM compatible.
ARM hasn't completely replaced x86, but ARM does now have most of the market, and the most significant hurdle"for ARM, Windows compatibility, appears to be going away.
The way I see it, it's much like IP protocol and specifically IP addresses- the protocol, the technology, works well, but IP addresses needed a user-friendly layer on top. Enter DNS. You can google.com and your client software automatically looks up the matching IP and uses it. There's a standard to do the exact same thing with PGP keys.
PGP keys can be served via DNS, so when you email support@clonebox.net it automatically looks up my key and encrypts your email. Just as you, the human user, never see the IP of my mail server, you also never see my PGP key. It just works automatically. Of course that means DNS needs yo be secured. Enter DNSSEC.
> WTF, are people incabable of pushing a button on their fob any more?
I would have said the same thing until I tried it. My latest car came with a proximity key. I've come to appreciate it, especially when my hands or full or it's raining.
I need to have my car "key" (fob) on a keychain with two access cards, each credit card sized, so digging the whole thing out of my pocket is a bit of a hassle (the cards turn sideways and hang on the pocket). It's not something I would pay $300-$400 to add aftermarket, but it's a convenience. Avoiding digging out the wad of a keychain and trying to find the right button in the dark also helps when I'm trying to be smooth on date night. :)
Encryption with public keys basically requires signatures as a precondition. Without validation, you could be encrypting the message with the bad guy's key.
> You completely and totally miss the point. If I have to track down a web site, or Google+ page, or Facebook page, and manually copy or use a key from there, you might as well toss the whole idea in the bin.
I said that, twice. Twice I said if mail clients don't basically do it automatically, people won't do it manually. So I'm not sure how you can say I miss that point.
What I find interesting about that is that everyone WILL find and Sally's email address, sally.krendircksoen9283@hotmail.com. Yet almost -nobody-, not even the most privacy preaching, Rand Paul voting Slashtotters, will click on the key link right next to the email address.
> How do you send email to random people encrypted?
> Your solutions work for internal email, but not external.
This problem was solved in 1991, in terms of the technical implementation and protocol. The "problem" is that few people care about receiving encrypted email, so they don't publish a key to use for sending them email. Maybe if email clients made it super-easy more people would do it.
Here's a brief description of how PGP/GPG works. Wherever I publish my email address, I also publish my public key, which I generated. To send me an email, you can either use my address and my public key, or you can let your email client retrieve the key for you, from a key server. Since the email is encrypted with my public key, it can only be decrypted by my private key.
Personally, I publish my public key on the "Contact Us" page of my web site and on the public key servers.
The protocol works fine. The problems are that email clients don't make it super-easy for you to generate and publish a key, or to send PGP email using the recipient's key. That's a UI problem, not a protocol problem.
One byte at a time and see if the other end "accepts" it sounds like a padding oracle attack. Those are in vogue now also.
The padding oracle works with cbc ciphers where there is a padding check before the actual decryption. You change on byte and see whether you get a padding error. If the byte is correct, you don't get the padding error. When you've found one byte, move on to the next byte.
In the most recent quarter, Amazon posted record profits, but they weren't high enough, so the value of their shares (what people are willing to pay to invest their money in Amazon) plunged 13%. So I guess you're right, that IS a perfect example of low profits = investors flee.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Amazon is still in, though preparing to graduate from, the early phase of the cloud business in which the goal is to gain and hold market share in order to reap high profits later, after the cloud industry stabilizes. People were buying Amazon based on the high profits expected in 2018, 1019, 2020, etc, not for last years low profits. As they've recently failed to make the turn, investors are leaving.
OS X is the UNIX that large organizations support their employees using. And btw it's nothing like iOS.
I used Linux exclusively for about 12 years. I'm even named in the Linux kernel changelog, so you could say I've long been a fan of Linux. When sold my business and took a 9-5 job with a big organization, I was offered a choice - Windows or OS X. The corporate helpdesk, the active directory services, etc didn't do Linux. Knowing that OS X is UNIX (certified UNIX, POSIX, single UNIX), I chose OS X over Windows.
I don't buy Apple's mobile devices, and didn't much care for the iPad my boss handed me, but that's iOS. Time for me to try OS X.
I was surprised to find that for day-to-day use, OS X is almost exactly like Linux, on a quality machine, with few to no annoyances. It just works. I can download and compile all my favorite FOSS software the same way I always have - ./configure; make; make install. It's just like a well-polished Linux distribution, and it integrates seamlessly with the corporate network.
System administration is a little different, but I haven't needed to do much system administration on my Macs, they just work.
If you like Linux or BSD and you're in an organization that includes Windows desktops, Active Directory, etc, a Mac is a very good fit. Don't let any negative experience with iOS fool you, OS X on a Mac Pro is a powerful UNIX system, and the hardware is well made. (The hardware isn't anything magical, but it's well designed, solid construction, and good performance) .
Good post. It also partially explains an observation that Obama and many others clearly are unfamiliar with, which is titled "American Exceptionalism".
The idea is that while most nations are ethnic groups who established geographical borders, the US is not. The US founding fathers, in the founding documents, declared that they were creating a new nation in order to have liberty and justice and ... . When the US government (including voters) fail to protect freedom and justice, they fail at precisely the goals that government was created to pursue. Not that we don't sometimes fail, we do, but we're -supposed- to do better, the US is founded, designed, as a nation of freedom, not a nation of German people or Japanese people or Czechs or Irish.
Obama mistakenly said "I'm sure Germans believe in German exceptionalism". No, Mr President, Germans know that Germany is the nation of Germanic people. They have not declared Germany to be the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy to the world, so they have no responsibility to do that. The German government's responsibility is to the German people. America is an exception to the common history because it wasn't created as an area for a specific ethnic group to live, it was created as a place for certain ideals to flourish. We therefore have a special responsibility to those ideals.
I have a solution to this. Most of my code can never be read by the government, or anyone else I don't want reading it.
I've made that impossible, by writing it in -Perl-, with page-long regular expressions. :) Just try reading my recursive descent parser for almost-html embedded in almost-xml written as a 8,000 character regex, Obama.
Make the needed tool, just be sure it runs on Windows 8, not Windows 10. In a month or two, when Microsoft finishes degrading everyone to Windows 10, it'll quit working.
> It's a good idea but the execution of it is not trivial.
100% agreed. The biggest thing that jumps out at me, in terms of making that a -requirement-, is that 95% of software projects involve adding to existing systems, not writing an entire system from scratch. Even for a brand-new agency, you're going to use Active Directory or something similar, not author your own AD from scratch.
At my last job, I spent three years writing software for a government agency in an environment which included a big GPLv3 system I was responsible for, which stored all of its data in Microsoft SQL server and ran on Windows, using the Microsoft database driver. It interfaced with legacy Scantron systems, using Scantron's API code under their license. Being non-stupid, I used a lot of libraries and copy-pasted functions that were under GPLv2, CC, and BSD licenses. There is no license that all the software I wrote could be released under. I did release a lot of it under GPLv3, but a -requirement- that it all be released under any specific type of license would mean we simply couldn't do the project at all, the code would never have been written and we'd still be stuck with paper and pencil Scantrons for everything.
This has ahll been tried, repeatedly. You say "they can possibly", let's look at what people ACTUALLY DO.
> as the profit margin is higher than "the fair profit for money" (in Adam Smith's words), they can possibly reduce their margin and still stay in business
They "possibly could", I suppose. Here's what is in fact happening. Each paycheck, I have a certain amount set aside for retirement, and to buy a house again, because I'm trying to be a responsible adult. That money that is set aside is of course "capital". (it's worth recognizing that in the US, with our system of public companies, the word "capital" mostly means "retirement savings").
So anyway I have this retirement money, or capital, and I need to do something with it. I -could- put my money in a Detroit car company, who pays relatively high wages but makes no money. If I choose to do that, I can retire when I'm 85. Or I can put my savings into another car company which makes cars in Texas, Mexico, and other places with lower regulatory costs, and therefore makes money. If I do that, I can retire when I'm 65.
So retire at 85 via a Detroit company with Detroit costs, or retire at 65 via a multinational with Texas and Mexico costs. Which would YOU choose. Virtually nobody is choosing to put their savings (capital) into companies with high costs and low profits. A few choose their investments based on being a fan of this or that, but most people want to retire sooner rather than later, so their money goes to places that have lower costs.
China and India have had much lower costs than the east coast of the US does, so businesses operating in China and India (and creating jobs there) are the ones doing well. The jobs in Detroit are gone. They HAD very high benefits and wages due to unions and regulation there, and that's why they are gone.
Of course, that fact that legislating higher pay doesn't work is unacceptable to some people; their first instinct is to deny it, though of course it's fairly obvious. What about those poor assembly line workers, warehouse workers, etc.? We have to do something! I'd agree, somewhat. I'd say "we have to do something THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE." All too often we think "we have to do something" and then politician X suggests plan Z. Well plan Z is something, and we have to do something, so we have to plan Z. Well, no, plan Z has been tried many times and it doesn't work. We need to do something that actually works.
The main thing that actually works is vocational training / education. I started to just write "education", but getting a bunch of people degrees in Russian Literature isn't all that effective; we can get better results from our limited resources with training in welding, IT fields, etc. If someone is 36 years old and they're worth the same wage as a 16 year old, if they haven't managed to improve their skills and knowledge in 20 years, that's something we need to look at.
We also have to recognize a very uncomfortable fact. Gas stations and fast food places around Texas are offering $10-12/hour to start, which, with the low cost of living in Texas, is a decent wage. That's just the starting wage, for teenagers with no experience, show up on time for a year and you start getting raises. Yet there are a bunch of people not working! There are even people getting fired from Taco Bell because they won't show up on time and when they do show up they're stoned. It's a lot harder to help those people. I'm not sure how to help people who won't show up, except I've done one thing that has helped in some cases. I've given them two choices - show up, sober, and get paid well, or don't get paid at all. They'd like to show up drunk or stoned, figuring they are then worth about $6/hour, but I don't give them that option. About half of them then decide they'd rather have a job where they show up on time, sober, for $10, then have no job and no money for beer. The other half - I don't know how to help them.