There is no difference between republicans and democrats (they are just republicrats), theists and atheists (atheists just believe in the religion of science), humans and mice (97.5% of our genome is the same), etc. There are no differences between anything.
I agree that the term "wealth creators" and "job creators" are used for this purpose. All I am saying is that I think "value creators" could be used as well.
If you want to treat wealth as a relative term (e.g. you only have wealth if you are *more* wealthy than someone else), and value as an absolute term (e.g. you can create value even if what you create is less valuable than what someone else created), that's fine, but I don't think that semantic distinction is widely accepted.
I use the two terms pretty much interchangeably.
I would say that people who have wealth are not necessarily wealth creators. A person who wins the lottery is wealthy, but didn't create any of that wealth, they just acquired it.
Also, I think it is fair to count consumption as wealth destruction. So if you create $100 of wealth/value doing your job, sell the products of your for $100, and then use that money to buy and eat $100 worth of tacos, you are basically "wealth neutral".
Have you actually ever read Atlas Shrugged? The biggest villains are rich people. It's not like Ayn's Rand's philosophy is incredibly nuanced, but it's also not the oversimplification that her critics (who usually have never actually read her books) make it out to be.
Did Ayn Rand advocate selfishness as a virtue? Yes, but this was to be provocative, and her definition of selfishness was different than what most people would consider selfishness. But if you actually read the book, you'd see that the people who were actually selfish in the common sense of the word were all villains proclaiming to be selfless.
Should you read Atlas Shrugged? No, it's a terrible book. But you should read it if you intend to criticize it, so you are at least knowledgeable on the subject.
is bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans really only come together when it is time to give themselves a raise or shit like this. Can we go back to gridlock?
Does the FBI care more about fighting crime or reducing crime? There is a common tendency to for people and organizations to try to increase their own importance. So maybe the FBI could help to prevent X amount of crime (in the form of hacking, fraud, etc) from ever happening by helping Apple fix some security flaws. But maybe they will get more credit for allowing this vulnerability to remain and exploiting the vulnerability to catch a few more criminals. It's harder to appreciate crime prevention than punishment of criminals after the fact.
If someone invented a magic security system for houses that eliminated home invasions, this might actually be bad for the prestige of law enforcement. While it will probably reduce crime (one of the purposes of law enforcement), it reduces the reliance of the population on law enforcement and therefore decreases their importance. A flaw in the security system would create the opportunity for more people to be criminals and more opportunity for law enforcement to come to the rescue. If law enforcement can in addition actually exploit this weakness to catch a few more criminals then even better.
If the damage done by leaving the hole open exceeds the damage prevented by leaving the hole open, then it is better for society to have the hole closed, but it is not necessarily better for the FBI to have the hole closed. They won't get the blame for damage caused by an security hole unknown to the public, and they won't get any credit for the damage prevented by closing it.
It would be nice if everyone (especially public officials) did what was best for society rather than what was best for themselves, but this is a rather hard standard to hold human beings to.
I suspect it would be better for society to have the hole closed, but I wouldn't expect the FBI to have the kind of deep dedication to the improvement of society necessary to see that. Maybe it will be easier for them to see if they somehow become the victim (e.g. a scandal resulting from the FBI director's iphone getting hacked, etc).
Take for example Nancy Pelosi. She was all for government surveillance. It was only until she became one of the targets of government surveillance, that she was able to be outraged.
Context? You mean like you presumably making an attribution mistake, then blaming it on me?
I am not making an attribution mistake. You can see the names of the author for every comment. It's pretty easy to know who said what.
As well as going netcop and demanding no one trespass on tour private conversations here on Slashdot?
Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. If you go back and read what I said you will see that I said "Feel free to weigh in" (i.e. the opposite of demanding that no one trespass on my conversations). I also did not demand that you have context. I said it helps if you do, because a conversation requires mutual comprehension, otherwise it's just people talking.
What's the difference? I have no idea how well this thing will work, but just hypothetically, if you can run all the same apps (e.g. gnome, bash, cron, insert whatever other apps you love), does it really matter what kernel is under the hood?
I get that windows is not free. But for the time being, there is a bunch of stuff developed for windows that doesn't run well under linux. I already own windows 10 because I want to play games. As far as I am concerned, I'd love to have a better cygwin if that's possible. I love cygwin, but it has it's limitations.
Would I rather have a world where game developers made games for linux, and graphics card manufacturers made great open source drivers that ran well on linux? Of course, and we are headed in that direction, and I'm sure we will get there one day.
But it's not as if we can only have one or the other. Until that day comes, why not have an additional tool to make some people's lives a little easier? It's not like you have to use it.
Except your reply (presumably not to me) included:
So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.
Nothing about a starter pack was in the post you said you were replying to, so you got that from my post.
Obviously we eventually started talking to each other. But this conversation between you and I started with you inserting yourself and responding to a reply to a different person.
No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.
Specifically this one.
Feel free to weigh in, but if your going to jump into the middle of a conversation, it helps if you have some context.
Thou needest a chill pill, muchacho! And don't act like everyone is picking on you after your snarky comment:
My snarky comment was in response to another snarky comment.
Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?
No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.
It was also not a response to you.
Calm down.
I know it is easy to incorrectly infer tone from text, so I will just tell you that I am calm. If you choose to read my comments as something other than calm, I can't stop you. But I assure you, I'm just bored at work, looking to kill some time.
So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.
Also notice that what I did not say is "mechanical locks are bad and we shouldn't have them". What I said was that they don't help you start your engine if your battery is dead. Can you imagine a scenario where having mechanical locks helps you start your engine? Ok so I guess the *can* help. But so can just about everything else.
But cool, now I know. I shouldn't say things like "Having working spark plugs won't help help you start your car if your battery is dead", because slashdot nitpickers will point out that yes in fact having working spark plugs will technically *help* you start your car if you have some way of overcoming your dead battery problem.
It is definitely possible to do encryption in a way where it is "safe". And by "safe" I mean it's going to be a hell of a lot safer than a metal key. It may not stop the FBI or the NSA or the Chinese government, or some other entity with unlimited resources from getting in your car if they *really* want to, but it still might.
There is a lot of press surrounding the instances of when electronic security systems are broken. If a thief breaks into a car by somehow forging a metal key, I don't think anyone would lose any sleep over how the thief did it. We could probably think of half a dozen ways it could be done, and I don't even think it would be that important to know how the thief did it.
When an electronic security system is hacked, it's a big deal. It is important to figure out how it happened. Often times it is a failure to implement the security system properly (e.g. short/common passwords, non-randomly generated numbers, passwords stored in the clear, etc). When it turns out to be a problem in the actual crypto algorithm, that algorithm is abandoned by the security community in favor of one that is still considered secure.
If someone in the world managed to pick a schlage padlock, there wouldn't be a massive effort to recall all the schlage padlocks, because it's accepted that metal locks are just not that secure. The standard of security is much higher for electronic security and for good reason.
It's a lot better option the have a mechanical key and put 1 key hole on the driver's door. If you never use it that's fine.
If you look closely you will see that I never said having a mechanical lock was a bad idea. I also think it's a good idea. What I said was that it does not solve the problem of having a dead battery. What I mean by "not solving the problem" is that it *still* requires a lot of effort to fix the situation (e.g. someone driving out to wherever you are to bring you a battery). That's not to say other things can't make your situation even worse (e.g. not having a way to get in the car without breaking the glass).
Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is.
The same could be said for on chip encryption in a phone. Sure you could have a shitty encryption system that stores the keys somewhere in the flash chip where they can be hacked, but you could also leave your keys in the ignition ignition.
You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.
Your smartphone OS no doubt has thousands of bugs that can be exploited for various things. This is why the OS would be allowed access to the private key.
Just the theory behind the two. The security for all asymmetric crypto is based on unproven assumptions about the difficulty of some class of problems. A math breakthrough could render any given asymmetric algorithm trivial. Symmetric cyphers (at least the good ones) aren't. E.g., quantum computers don't help at all with AES.
And if there is ever a solution to the discrete logarithm problem, stolen cars will be the least of our problems, not to mention that a software solution lends itself to updates than a hardware solution.
I still don't see what the problem is with putting your cars keys in your phone. First of all, you can encrypt your phone. Secondly, even if your phone gets stolen (and consequently your car), as you said, the car is less important than your data.
Key exchange is a security issue. If you get a new phone with a new key, having public key crypto means you don't need to do private key exchange. I don't see how symmetric keys are more secure than asymmetric keys. If anything I would say the opposite is true because of the reason I already stated. Please enlighten me.
It turns out lots of people do security properly. We just don't hear about those instances because there aren't any incidents to report on. Even when electronic security is not done well (e.g. like on the iphone), it is often still much more secure than a metal key.
I did not claim that electronic security is perfect. I am saying it can easily be done more securely than physical keys.
If it is smart phone based you now have to be sure that your phones will run the app for the next 15-20 years.
This is not much harder than making sure that Toyota will be able to offer replacement key fobs for 15-20 years. Both require some trust in Toyota to keep the the infrastructure going that is needed. Better yet, if Toyota were to open source the software, then the chances of losing this technology would be very small.
It's arguably easier to port some software to a new OS than it is to make millions of new key fobs. The expense of the keyfobs is probably the part of reason they are so expensive to replace. Software is cheap to make (when the cost is divided over all the users).
1. The security on an iphone is *not* good. Yes the FBI will eventually get in. Will the second device take 1 second? It depends how they get into the first one. There is a lot of speculation that the FBI is trying to physically hack the iphone (i.e. disassembling chips to extract information, etc), which is not a process that is going to be easy even after your know how to do it. Just because iphones are not secure now, doesn't mean they can't be secure.
2. Why is the remote use of electronic keys a problem?
That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time.
There are no "errant" signals that are going to accidentally correctly digitally sign a message. If a hacker hacks the security system, they system is broken. Having some feature that relocks the car after 30 seconds to prevent the hacker from reaching the car in time to steal it is not going to do any good. Good security does not rely on obscurity like the difficulty a thief has in trying to find the car he successfully hacked in a crowded parking lot. This examples assume weak security to begin with. It's like saying that a castle's security is weak because once the attackers break the walls, the blankets in the kings bed are not strong enough to deflect swords and arrows. Once the walls are breached it's game over. There is no point in trying to make blankets that can be used as shields.
There are encryption algorithms that have not (to the best of anyone's knowledge) ever been cracked (e.g. RSA, AES, etc). If a hacker manages to hack a properly implemented security system, stolen cars are the least of our problems.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no difference between republicans and democrats (they are just republicrats), theists and atheists (atheists just believe in the religion of science), humans and mice (97.5% of our genome is the same), etc. There are no differences between anything.
I agree that the term "wealth creators" and "job creators" are used for this purpose. All I am saying is that I think "value creators" could be used as well.
If you want to treat wealth as a relative term (e.g. you only have wealth if you are *more* wealthy than someone else), and value as an absolute term (e.g. you can create value even if what you create is less valuable than what someone else created), that's fine, but I don't think that semantic distinction is widely accepted.
I use the two terms pretty much interchangeably.
I would say that people who have wealth are not necessarily wealth creators. A person who wins the lottery is wealthy, but didn't create any of that wealth, they just acquired it.
Also, I think it is fair to count consumption as wealth destruction. So if you create $100 of wealth/value doing your job, sell the products of your for $100, and then use that money to buy and eat $100 worth of tacos, you are basically "wealth neutral".
Have you actually ever read Atlas Shrugged? The biggest villains are rich people. It's not like Ayn's Rand's philosophy is incredibly nuanced, but it's also not the oversimplification that her critics (who usually have never actually read her books) make it out to be.
Did Ayn Rand advocate selfishness as a virtue? Yes, but this was to be provocative, and her definition of selfishness was different than what most people would consider selfishness. But if you actually read the book, you'd see that the people who were actually selfish in the common sense of the word were all villains proclaiming to be selfless.
Should you read Atlas Shrugged? No, it's a terrible book. But you should read it if you intend to criticize it, so you are at least knowledgeable on the subject.
You seem to have a much higher opinion of their intelligence than I do.
is bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans really only come together when it is time to give themselves a raise or shit like this. Can we go back to gridlock?
Does the FBI care more about fighting crime or reducing crime? There is a common tendency to for people and organizations to try to increase their own importance. So maybe the FBI could help to prevent X amount of crime (in the form of hacking, fraud, etc) from ever happening by helping Apple fix some security flaws. But maybe they will get more credit for allowing this vulnerability to remain and exploiting the vulnerability to catch a few more criminals. It's harder to appreciate crime prevention than punishment of criminals after the fact.
If someone invented a magic security system for houses that eliminated home invasions, this might actually be bad for the prestige of law enforcement. While it will probably reduce crime (one of the purposes of law enforcement), it reduces the reliance of the population on law enforcement and therefore decreases their importance. A flaw in the security system would create the opportunity for more people to be criminals and more opportunity for law enforcement to come to the rescue. If law enforcement can in addition actually exploit this weakness to catch a few more criminals then even better.
If the damage done by leaving the hole open exceeds the damage prevented by leaving the hole open, then it is better for society to have the hole closed, but it is not necessarily better for the FBI to have the hole closed. They won't get the blame for damage caused by an security hole unknown to the public, and they won't get any credit for the damage prevented by closing it.
It would be nice if everyone (especially public officials) did what was best for society rather than what was best for themselves, but this is a rather hard standard to hold human beings to.
I suspect it would be better for society to have the hole closed, but I wouldn't expect the FBI to have the kind of deep dedication to the improvement of society necessary to see that. Maybe it will be easier for them to see if they somehow become the victim (e.g. a scandal resulting from the FBI director's iphone getting hacked, etc).
Take for example Nancy Pelosi. She was all for government surveillance. It was only until she became one of the targets of government surveillance, that she was able to be outraged.
Context? You mean like you presumably making an attribution mistake, then blaming it on me?
I am not making an attribution mistake. You can see the names of the author for every comment. It's pretty easy to know who said what.
As well as going netcop and demanding no one trespass on tour private conversations here on Slashdot?
Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. If you go back and read what I said you will see that I said "Feel free to weigh in" (i.e. the opposite of demanding that no one trespass on my conversations). I also did not demand that you have context. I said it helps if you do, because a conversation requires mutual comprehension, otherwise it's just people talking.
What's the difference? I have no idea how well this thing will work, but just hypothetically, if you can run all the same apps (e.g. gnome, bash, cron, insert whatever other apps you love), does it really matter what kernel is under the hood?
I get that windows is not free. But for the time being, there is a bunch of stuff developed for windows that doesn't run well under linux. I already own windows 10 because I want to play games. As far as I am concerned, I'd love to have a better cygwin if that's possible. I love cygwin, but it has it's limitations.
Would I rather have a world where game developers made games for linux, and graphics card manufacturers made great open source drivers that ran well on linux? Of course, and we are headed in that direction, and I'm sure we will get there one day.
But it's not as if we can only have one or the other. Until that day comes, why not have an additional tool to make some people's lives a little easier? It's not like you have to use it.
Except your reply (presumably not to me) included:
So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.
Nothing about a starter pack was in the post you said you were replying to, so you got that from my post.
Obviously we eventually started talking to each other. But this conversation between you and I started with you inserting yourself and responding to a reply to a different person.
No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.
Specifically this one.
Feel free to weigh in, but if your going to jump into the middle of a conversation, it helps if you have some context.
Thou needest a chill pill, muchacho! And don't act like everyone is picking on you after your snarky comment:
My snarky comment was in response to another snarky comment.
Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?
No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.
It was also not a response to you.
Calm down.
I know it is easy to incorrectly infer tone from text, so I will just tell you that I am calm. If you choose to read my comments as something other than calm, I can't stop you. But I assure you, I'm just bored at work, looking to kill some time.
So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.
Also notice that what I did not say is "mechanical locks are bad and we shouldn't have them". What I said was that they don't help you start your engine if your battery is dead. Can you imagine a scenario where having mechanical locks helps you start your engine? Ok so I guess the *can* help. But so can just about everything else.
But cool, now I know. I shouldn't say things like "Having working spark plugs won't help help you start your car if your battery is dead", because slashdot nitpickers will point out that yes in fact having working spark plugs will technically *help* you start your car if you have some way of overcoming your dead battery problem.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, if it were software based, there is a good chance the software could be updated (cheap) rather than hardware replaced (expensive).
It is definitely possible to do encryption in a way where it is "safe". And by "safe" I mean it's going to be a hell of a lot safer than a metal key. It may not stop the FBI or the NSA or the Chinese government, or some other entity with unlimited resources from getting in your car if they *really* want to, but it still might.
There is a lot of press surrounding the instances of when electronic security systems are broken. If a thief breaks into a car by somehow forging a metal key, I don't think anyone would lose any sleep over how the thief did it. We could probably think of half a dozen ways it could be done, and I don't even think it would be that important to know how the thief did it.
When an electronic security system is hacked, it's a big deal. It is important to figure out how it happened. Often times it is a failure to implement the security system properly (e.g. short/common passwords, non-randomly generated numbers, passwords stored in the clear, etc). When it turns out to be a problem in the actual crypto algorithm, that algorithm is abandoned by the security community in favor of one that is still considered secure.
If someone in the world managed to pick a schlage padlock, there wouldn't be a massive effort to recall all the schlage padlocks, because it's accepted that metal locks are just not that secure. The standard of security is much higher for electronic security and for good reason.
It's a lot better option the have a mechanical key and put 1 key hole on the driver's door. If you never use it that's fine.
If you look closely you will see that I never said having a mechanical lock was a bad idea. I also think it's a good idea. What I said was that it does not solve the problem of having a dead battery. What I mean by "not solving the problem" is that it *still* requires a lot of effort to fix the situation (e.g. someone driving out to wherever you are to bring you a battery). That's not to say other things can't make your situation even worse (e.g. not having a way to get in the car without breaking the glass).
My last 4 phones have been $200, $300, $350, $500. Sure there are more expensive phones, but there are also more expensive key fobs.
Obviously...
Necessary is not the same as sufficient. Also, you don't need a cutting torch.. you can just break a window if you need to get into a locked car.
Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is.
The same could be said for on chip encryption in a phone. Sure you could have a shitty encryption system that stores the keys somewhere in the flash chip where they can be hacked, but you could also leave your keys in the ignition ignition.
You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.
Your smartphone OS no doubt has thousands of bugs that can be exploited for various things. This is why the OS would be allowed access to the private key.
Just the theory behind the two. The security for all asymmetric crypto is based on unproven assumptions about the difficulty of some class of problems. A math breakthrough could render any given asymmetric algorithm trivial. Symmetric cyphers (at least the good ones) aren't. E.g., quantum computers don't help at all with AES.
And if there is ever a solution to the discrete logarithm problem, stolen cars will be the least of our problems, not to mention that a software solution lends itself to updates than a hardware solution.
I still don't see what the problem is with putting your cars keys in your phone. First of all, you can encrypt your phone. Secondly, even if your phone gets stolen (and consequently your car), as you said, the car is less important than your data.
Key exchange is a security issue. If you get a new phone with a new key, having public key crypto means you don't need to do private key exchange. I don't see how symmetric keys are more secure than asymmetric keys. If anything I would say the opposite is true because of the reason I already stated. Please enlighten me.
It turns out lots of people do security properly. We just don't hear about those instances because there aren't any incidents to report on. Even when electronic security is not done well (e.g. like on the iphone), it is often still much more secure than a metal key.
I did not claim that electronic security is perfect. I am saying it can easily be done more securely than physical keys.
If it is smart phone based you now have to be sure that your phones will run the app for the next 15-20 years.
This is not much harder than making sure that Toyota will be able to offer replacement key fobs for 15-20 years. Both require some trust in Toyota to keep the the infrastructure going that is needed. Better yet, if Toyota were to open source the software, then the chances of losing this technology would be very small.
It's arguably easier to port some software to a new OS than it is to make millions of new key fobs. The expense of the keyfobs is probably the part of reason they are so expensive to replace. Software is cheap to make (when the cost is divided over all the users).
1. The security on an iphone is *not* good. Yes the FBI will eventually get in. Will the second device take 1 second? It depends how they get into the first one. There is a lot of speculation that the FBI is trying to physically hack the iphone (i.e. disassembling chips to extract information, etc), which is not a process that is going to be easy even after your know how to do it. Just because iphones are not secure now, doesn't mean they can't be secure.
2. Why is the remote use of electronic keys a problem?
That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time.
There are no "errant" signals that are going to accidentally correctly digitally sign a message. If a hacker hacks the security system, they system is broken. Having some feature that relocks the car after 30 seconds to prevent the hacker from reaching the car in time to steal it is not going to do any good. Good security does not rely on obscurity like the difficulty a thief has in trying to find the car he successfully hacked in a crowded parking lot. This examples assume weak security to begin with. It's like saying that a castle's security is weak because once the attackers break the walls, the blankets in the kings bed are not strong enough to deflect swords and arrows. Once the walls are breached it's game over. There is no point in trying to make blankets that can be used as shields.
There are encryption algorithms that have not (to the best of anyone's knowledge) ever been cracked (e.g. RSA, AES, etc). If a hacker manages to hack a properly implemented security system, stolen cars are the least of our problems.