I am not saying that having a mechanical lock is bad. I am saying that it will not allow you to start your car if your battery is dead. My comment was a response to a comment that said that mechanical keys are necessary because batteries do go dead.
Bluetooth is just a way of transmitting data. It doesn't need to be secure. You can send encrypted data over any channel securely. Furthermore, with existing public key cryptography, the private key never leaves the device anyway.
So what security precautions do you take to ensure no one can steal your car keys? Sure some phones can be hacked. Keys don't even need to be hacked in order to use them.
Hacking even poorly done security systems is a lot more effort than stealing physical keys. That said, well done electronic security is *way* more secure than having a specifically shaped piece of metal be an authentication system.
If anything, physical keys are less secure than electronic keys. Physical keys can be copied. Electronic security, if done properly is, is much more work to replicate using a machine at home depot.
Look at the fight between Apple and the FBI. The iphone arguably doesn't even have good security, and look at how hard it is for the FBI to unlock the San Bernadino shooter's phone. If the information was in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours.
Just because you have remote keyless entry and engine start doesn't mean you have to use it. I had remote keyless entry and engine start for 11 years on my 2005 prius. Eventually the main key fob I was using died, and the other (that was kept in pristine condition) also died. I then had to shell out $400 on a new one. If their system was based on a smartphone app, I wouldn't have had to buy anything new. Sure I buy a new phone every couple years, but that's not an additional cost.
The idea is that you already have a phone. So you are not adding a phone. You are using a phone you already have and *not* adding a key fob to the mix. If you lose or break your phone you need to shell out $400 but at least you end up with a new phone. If you lose or break your keyfob, you need to spend roughly the same amount or more, and all you end up with is a new key fob.
You don't need to do interferometry. You can simply use a challenge/response system along with some strong encryption (e.g. RSA). You can do this over any system where digital data can be transmitted (Bluetooth included), and you don't need to worry about any 3rd party devices monitoring the data being transmitted.
Absolutely. The police can arrest people and put them in jail. But when I kidnap people and put them in my basement dungeon, it's "illegal". Hypocrisy at it's worst.
My kids won't need to code because soon computers will just code for them
Coding is how you communicate with a machine in order to tell it what you want it to do. Even if we one day have a computer doing what is today thought of as coding, you still need to tell the computer what you want it to do, and *that* will be what coding is.
There was a time when people would code in actual machine language, and then we invented assemblers which did that for us. We then coded in assembly language until we invented compilers which did the assembly code for us. Now we code in "high level" programming languages. Maybe we will go up a few more levels, and computers will do more of the work for us. It doesn't mean we won't code anymore. It means we will be more productive and there will be even more benefit to knowing how to communicate with these magical machines that are willing to work for free.
I don't think it's even a step in the right direction. As a programmer, the tax code is about the most horrifying thing I can imagine. It's the real world embodiment of code bloat.
Even if they wanted to give lots of money towards open source development, tax breaks in a specific state is not a good way to do it. It would probably much better if they just took a bunch of money and donated to to whatever open source projects they wanted.
It's like trying to help homeless people by spending $15 at the grocery store to make 1 sandwich and then spending $8 in gas and an hour of your time to drive downtown to give the sandwich to a homeless person. You could have probably feed 10+ homeless people by donating what you make in hour + $23 to an organization that already has the infrastructure to use money to help homeless people efficiently.
Government has the capability to make some big positive differences, but the downside is that using the machinery of government to do anything comes with a lot of overhead, and this bill is just adding to that overhead with no real benefit.
We already have large masses of people who are hungry and desperate, just not as many in the United States. Working toward a future with lower cost required to produce food is a step in the right direction.
Regardless of whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, wasting human effort on tasks that require no skill that can be done more efficiently by a machine makes no sense.
A capitalist will say, producing food more efficiently will allow the poor to buy food more easily. A socialist will say, that producing food more efficiently will allow us to provide more food to the poor given our limited resources.
Even if you felt that work was a virtue in itself, and forcing people to work was a good thing, we still should force people to do only the work that machines can't.
The only wrong answer is "Let's have people wasting their lives doing work that could simply be done by machines."
Automation actually helps poor people. It doesn't help them to become rich, but it means that it is cheaper to live, and consequently it is cheaper to provide a better social safety net. Taken to the extreme, it will eventually take no human effort to provide human beings with food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc, and therefore the cost will become zero (ignoring opportunity cost, etc).
Will there be a huge wealth disparity in a world with unskilled labor provided only by machines? Probably, but if wealth inequality is the only downside of providing adequate living conditions to the poor, I think I am OK with that.
Not everyone will agree with me, but I wouldn't take any solace in the fact that there was low wealth inequality if there are still lots of people struggling just to survive.
It's a not so simple way (i.e. altering state law) to provide an extremely small amount of encouragement to open source development.
They will no doubt spend more money trying to pass this bill and enforce it than the amount of money ultimately provided to open source.
As a person who sometimes contributes code to open source projects, I think this pointless. I think it's too small an amount of money to be of any real benefit. It's a way for legislators to pretend like they are being useful. It will no doubt be most effectively exploited by people who are the most effective at exploiting tax laws.
There is a lot of cruelty that happens in war, intentionally and unintentionally. The only claim I am making is that *more* drones strikes doesn't necessarily equate to more collateral damage. It could very well mean less collateral damage (e.g. as compared to the drone strikes under the Bush administration). That said, having more strikes could certainly take a larger toll on the pilots flying these missions. There are some known aspects of human psychology that show we are more likely to empathize with smaller groups of people and especially individuals than we are to large groups of people.
I believe the KKK came out against H1Bs before Trump, but they don't hypocritically exploit it for profit.
I agree that he shouldn't be silenced, but the attempt to silence Trump is far outweighed by the excessive media coverage he gets. If there is a least silenced person in America right now, it is Donald Trump. He doesn't even need to buy speech with campaign contributions, he gets it for free.
Aside from this single rally that was shut down, and this threat from anonymous to hack his website, I don't recall any other instances of Trump being silenced. In fact, both of these things probably just give him more free press.
Yes, there is "vitriol" directed at Trump. I am not ready to say that it is greater in magnitude than the vitriol directed at Obama, but the fact that Trump is stoking racism is probably more deserving of vitriol than anything Obama has done. And this is coming from a person who did not vote for Obama in 2008 nor 2012.
I absolutely support Trump's freedom to run. I don't think anybody is trying to stop his candidacy through means other than democracy and/or rules (as fair or unfair as they may be) that already existed.
I think having more drone strikes potentially reduces collateral damage. Killing people in small groups requires more strikes than striking weddings and funerals. Obama supposedly put a moratorium on strikes with a high potential for collateral damage (i.e. strikes on large groups of people). It will be interesting to see the statistics on numbers of people/civilians killed through both the Bush and Obama administrations.
They are not helping the FBI as much as they can, because they are not creating the backdoor that the FBI wants. I want Apple to be able to help the FBI as much as they can. And if they remove the back door, Apple can try to help the FBI crack passwords as much as they can, and it won't compromise the security of other users.
On the contrary, I think Apple would be able to say "We are literally helping as much as we can" (whihc is not very much since the system is very secure). As opposed to "We are purposefully not helping because if we did, the FBI would actually get what they want and a lot more".
Not to mention the fact that lots of people in the government actually use these phones, and having them be secure (even from Apple), as probably a good thing. It means that the data belonging to government agencies is safe, even in the event that Apple is hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not saying that having a mechanical lock is bad. I am saying that it will not allow you to start your car if your battery is dead. My comment was a response to a comment that said that mechanical keys are necessary because batteries do go dead.
Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?
Not anymore than I presume you plan on magically transporting a new battery to the remote place where your car has broken down.
Bluetooth is just a way of transmitting data. It doesn't need to be secure. You can send encrypted data over any channel securely. Furthermore, with existing public key cryptography, the private key never leaves the device anyway.
So what security precautions do you take to ensure no one can steal your car keys? Sure some phones can be hacked. Keys don't even need to be hacked in order to use them.
Hacking even poorly done security systems is a lot more effort than stealing physical keys. That said, well done electronic security is *way* more secure than having a specifically shaped piece of metal be an authentication system.
If anything, physical keys are less secure than electronic keys. Physical keys can be copied. Electronic security, if done properly is, is much more work to replicate using a machine at home depot.
Look at the fight between Apple and the FBI. The iphone arguably doesn't even have good security, and look at how hard it is for the FBI to unlock the San Bernadino shooter's phone. If the information was in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours.
Just because you have remote keyless entry and engine start doesn't mean you have to use it. I had remote keyless entry and engine start for 11 years on my 2005 prius. Eventually the main key fob I was using died, and the other (that was kept in pristine condition) also died. I then had to shell out $400 on a new one. If their system was based on a smartphone app, I wouldn't have had to buy anything new. Sure I buy a new phone every couple years, but that's not an additional cost.
The idea is that you already have a phone. So you are not adding a phone. You are using a phone you already have and *not* adding a key fob to the mix. If you lose or break your phone you need to shell out $400 but at least you end up with a new phone. If you lose or break your keyfob, you need to spend roughly the same amount or more, and all you end up with is a new key fob.
You don't need to do interferometry. You can simply use a challenge/response system along with some strong encryption (e.g. RSA). You can do this over any system where digital data can be transmitted (Bluetooth included), and you don't need to worry about any 3rd party devices monitoring the data being transmitted.
A mechanical lock is not going to do you any good if your car requires charge in the battery to start the engine.
Absolutely. The police can arrest people and put them in jail. But when I kidnap people and put them in my basement dungeon, it's "illegal". Hypocrisy at it's worst.
My kids won't need to code because soon computers will just code for them
Coding is how you communicate with a machine in order to tell it what you want it to do. Even if we one day have a computer doing what is today thought of as coding, you still need to tell the computer what you want it to do, and *that* will be what coding is.
There was a time when people would code in actual machine language, and then we invented assemblers which did that for us. We then coded in assembly language until we invented compilers which did the assembly code for us. Now we code in "high level" programming languages. Maybe we will go up a few more levels, and computers will do more of the work for us. It doesn't mean we won't code anymore. It means we will be more productive and there will be even more benefit to knowing how to communicate with these magical machines that are willing to work for free.
I don't think it's even a step in the right direction. As a programmer, the tax code is about the most horrifying thing I can imagine. It's the real world embodiment of code bloat.
Even if they wanted to give lots of money towards open source development, tax breaks in a specific state is not a good way to do it. It would probably much better if they just took a bunch of money and donated to to whatever open source projects they wanted.
It's like trying to help homeless people by spending $15 at the grocery store to make 1 sandwich and then spending $8 in gas and an hour of your time to drive downtown to give the sandwich to a homeless person. You could have probably feed 10+ homeless people by donating what you make in hour + $23 to an organization that already has the infrastructure to use money to help homeless people efficiently.
Government has the capability to make some big positive differences, but the downside is that using the machinery of government to do anything comes with a lot of overhead, and this bill is just adding to that overhead with no real benefit.
We already have large masses of people who are hungry and desperate, just not as many in the United States. Working toward a future with lower cost required to produce food is a step in the right direction.
Regardless of whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, wasting human effort on tasks that require no skill that can be done more efficiently by a machine makes no sense.
A capitalist will say, producing food more efficiently will allow the poor to buy food more easily. A socialist will say, that producing food more efficiently will allow us to provide more food to the poor given our limited resources.
Even if you felt that work was a virtue in itself, and forcing people to work was a good thing, we still should force people to do only the work that machines can't.
The only wrong answer is "Let's have people wasting their lives doing work that could simply be done by machines."
Automation actually helps poor people. It doesn't help them to become rich, but it means that it is cheaper to live, and consequently it is cheaper to provide a better social safety net. Taken to the extreme, it will eventually take no human effort to provide human beings with food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc, and therefore the cost will become zero (ignoring opportunity cost, etc).
Will there be a huge wealth disparity in a world with unskilled labor provided only by machines? Probably, but if wealth inequality is the only downside of providing adequate living conditions to the poor, I think I am OK with that.
Not everyone will agree with me, but I wouldn't take any solace in the fact that there was low wealth inequality if there are still lots of people struggling just to survive.
It's a not so simple way (i.e. altering state law) to provide an extremely small amount of encouragement to open source development.
They will no doubt spend more money trying to pass this bill and enforce it than the amount of money ultimately provided to open source.
As a person who sometimes contributes code to open source projects, I think this pointless. I think it's too small an amount of money to be of any real benefit. It's a way for legislators to pretend like they are being useful. It will no doubt be most effectively exploited by people who are the most effective at exploiting tax laws.
But what if I offer you $200? Now are you willing to further complicate an already over-complicated tax code?
There is a lot of cruelty that happens in war, intentionally and unintentionally. The only claim I am making is that *more* drones strikes doesn't necessarily equate to more collateral damage. It could very well mean less collateral damage (e.g. as compared to the drone strikes under the Bush administration). That said, having more strikes could certainly take a larger toll on the pilots flying these missions. There are some known aspects of human psychology that show we are more likely to empathize with smaller groups of people and especially individuals than we are to large groups of people.
I believe the KKK came out against H1Bs before Trump, but they don't hypocritically exploit it for profit.
I agree that he shouldn't be silenced, but the attempt to silence Trump is far outweighed by the excessive media coverage he gets. If there is a least silenced person in America right now, it is Donald Trump. He doesn't even need to buy speech with campaign contributions, he gets it for free.
Aside from this single rally that was shut down, and this threat from anonymous to hack his website, I don't recall any other instances of Trump being silenced. In fact, both of these things probably just give him more free press.
Yes, there is "vitriol" directed at Trump. I am not ready to say that it is greater in magnitude than the vitriol directed at Obama, but the fact that Trump is stoking racism is probably more deserving of vitriol than anything Obama has done. And this is coming from a person who did not vote for Obama in 2008 nor 2012.
I absolutely support Trump's freedom to run. I don't think anybody is trying to stop his candidacy through means other than democracy and/or rules (as fair or unfair as they may be) that already existed.
I think having more drone strikes potentially reduces collateral damage. Killing people in small groups requires more strikes than striking weddings and funerals. Obama supposedly put a moratorium on strikes with a high potential for collateral damage (i.e. strikes on large groups of people). It will be interesting to see the statistics on numbers of people/civilians killed through both the Bush and Obama administrations.
I never suggested Apple be forced to do anything.
They are not helping the FBI as much as they can, because they are not creating the backdoor that the FBI wants. I want Apple to be able to help the FBI as much as they can. And if they remove the back door, Apple can try to help the FBI crack passwords as much as they can, and it won't compromise the security of other users.
Yes, have you?
On the contrary, I think Apple would be able to say "We are literally helping as much as we can" (whihc is not very much since the system is very secure). As opposed to "We are purposefully not helping because if we did, the FBI would actually get what they want and a lot more".
Not to mention the fact that lots of people in the government actually use these phones, and having them be secure (even from Apple), as probably a good thing. It means that the data belonging to government agencies is safe, even in the event that Apple is hacked.
I think a simple solution would be to require the device to be unlocked and require user confirmation to perform an OS update.