Yes, that's what the official story may be... but who knows? Just two or three days ago was the whole exposing of how the government admitted that they have been coming up with "alternate explanations" of how they get various pieces of intelligence so that the official explanations don't point to prism/etc. So truly, how can we possibly know?
What is clear is that it is never safe to write off an approach in AI.
... which is an example of a (sadly) standard over-generalization often used by writers to sound important in a closing paragraph. IF the approach used by Google was being "written off" by someone somewhere, what we have here is one example of someone being wrong about something. Claiming, as the article does, that it's therefor impossible to judge any AI technique as a dead end is unsupported and in no way warranted by Google's research in this case.
For all the whining and moaning about rich people, that seems to be how society advances often. A rich person's fad then becomes a commodity.
Your statement implies that rich people being able to afford things others can't afford should be seen as the rich providing a service that the rest of society ought to be thankful for. I will let you off lightly and simply say that I disagree.
... and should keep the data stable and readable for up to a million years. 'It is thrilling to think that we have created the first document which will likely survive the human race,'
Hmm. Does this guy have plans to bomb/poison the human race out of existence, or is he just superconfident it'll happen by itself? Perhaps more importantly, if the human race is gone, who is the intended audience of the document?
If I was Ecuador, I'd have every person who entered and left the embassy dye their hair the same color as Julian, dress like Julian, and wear hats and dark glasses. Every single person. Eventually it'd be trivial to sneak Julian out of there.
Wonderful idea, you and a few thousand buddies are all going to crapflood the NSA. The NSA, an organization that is arguably the best in the world at sorting noise from signal. Check your ego at the door and realize your an amateur pretending to play in the big leagues.
Wow, I don't know how many NSA cocks you've sucked, but I'm sure they're appreciative.
I read through several but not all of the qualifiers, so not sure if this strictly meets the request but it's what comes to mind:
Alice has an encrypted hard drive that contains evidence that just before meeting her husband, she briefly had a fling with his best friend, which her husband has never known about, and which Alice happens to know he would leave her for (judgements about whether it would be rational or warranted for her husband to do so are irrelevant to Alice; she knows that this would be the outcome, and desperately does not want it).
Alice is accused of some crime, and suspicion that her hard drive may have evidence incriminating her comes up. Alice in reality has not committed the crime (not sure if this aspect even matters).
The fifth amendment seems a very good thing in such a case.
First they came for the child rapists and I said nothing because everyone would think I was one, too.
Paraphrasing a related quote I recently happened across: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that you spend most of your time defending scoundrels, because it's against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression is best stopped early."
From what I'm reading, if the judge doesn't believe him, he'd just find him in contempt of court and detain him until he remembers.
Remedy for this: enact a practice of having various hard encrypted hard drives around your house that are encrypted with passwords you don't know (i.e. were loooong randomly generated strings you copy/pasted and forgot), and document your practice of creating/keeping such drives. That your purpose is to have plausible deniability if asked for a password to a given drive may be offputting, but the plausible deniability part is now, well, highly undeniable.
Second, since the drives are now known to be his because the FBI encrypted a drive, refusing to decrypt would now be taken as evidence that he's got something to hide, basically an admission of guilt.
Ah, the old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have no legitimate objection to a complete invasion of your privacy" argument.
Kind of funny, isn't it... Windows malware? Blame Microsoft. Android malware? Blame the user.
If you're trying to point out hypocrisy, you miss. The WIndows OS code is so full of security holes it's pathetic... and yes, that is squarely Microsoft's fault. Android/linux is much much better, and when we're talking about malware that specifically must be cert-installed by a user, yes, the user is most definitely complicit. Get off your high horse.
"The purpose was" is now irrelevant. The patent law now serves the interests of those who own the government just as they wish it to be.
Stating the purpose is hugely relevant in terms of educating many who do not know. You're correct to state that that patent law is currently abused in ways directly contrary to the motivations of its creators. You're very incorrect to imply that educating people about this travesty is meaningless.
All it takes is you wearing some kind of odd underwear or... hell, whatever. Freak accidents happen. You slip, try to steady yourself with the table, knock it over, trip the cupboard with all the cake... you get the idea. How long 'til it's a meme?
I feel like the above pretty much captures the essence of the Harlem Shake video phenomenon.
The salt's actual job is not to prevent a hacker from breaking that user's password, but to prevent the hacker from being able to break all the passwords at once.
That may be *part* of a salt's usefulness. Another possibly bigger part is to prevent rainbow table attacks, i.e. making it so a cracker can't just take a precomputed list of hashes of common passwords and match them to what's in the database.
Hmmm... why are you still surprised that people are disappointed at breaches of what should be common decency? I assume from your post you've seen such reactions before.. so your surprise at people's good nature and consequent expectations shouldn't be commentworthy anymore... just sayin'...
With glass you have to announce, out-loud, that you are recording.
F*ck... so much for my plan to wear google glasses inside a brothel...
Me: Yes, I'm ready for my session now.
Her: Ok... hmmm, you still have your glasses on?
Me: Yeah, I just like to be able to see well.
Her: Uh, ok.
(we get busy)
Me: Ok glass, take a picture. Ok glass, take a picture. Ok glass, take a picture.
Her: Who are you talking to?
Me: Nobody, baby!
Write (or wait for someone like me to write) software for your phone that has the following modes:
*Disabled. Phone behaves as normal. This is the mode to have it in when you're carrying your phone around and -- for whatever reasons -- you don't care about being tracked that particular day.
*Enabled. In this mode you leave your phone at home, or at your office, or in the possession of some friend. In this mode, your phone will responds to all incoming calls and texts by optionally either sending text messages to some other number, or emails to an account, or posting info on a website (or some combination thereof).
Example use cases:
*Alice is running this software, and has left her phone at home. Bob calls Alice, gets her voicemail, leaves a message. Alice's phone sends Alice an email (optionally encrypted) which contains the number from which she was called. Alice dials into her voicemail using her office phone system, then dials Bob back from that same office phone and continues talking with him.
*Alice gets a text from Bob. Alice's phone sends email to Alice with the text message (optionally scrambled/encrypted), or relays the text message to an anonymous disposable phone Alice is carrying (again optionally scrambled). Alice either calls Bob from her anon phone or some desk phone, or text him back from her anon phone, or texts her home cell phone (the one at home running the software) with a response for Bob, which the home phone then texts onwards to Bob.
*Midday, Alice decides she's like calls to ring through to her desk phone. She sends a text to her cell at home instructing it to switch modes so that it now forwards calls to her desk phone. Alternate ways of informing the home cellphone of the need to switch modes could include posting key info on a web that the home phone polls, or sending an email that the home phone pays attention to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's what the official story may be... but who knows? Just two or three days ago was the whole exposing of how the government admitted that they have been coming up with "alternate explanations" of how they get various pieces of intelligence so that the official explanations don't point to prism/etc. So truly, how can we possibly know?
Your statement implies that rich people being able to afford things others can't afford should be seen as the rich providing a service that the rest of society ought to be thankful for. I will let you off lightly and simply say that I disagree.
I guess I'm supposed to go scrambling for my acronym dictionary, but I just don't care. I'll assume he means laughter and medial attention.
Hmm. Does this guy have plans to bomb/poison the human race out of existence, or is he just superconfident it'll happen by itself? Perhaps more importantly, if the human race is gone, who is the intended audience of the document?
Um, yes. Yes it can. It will be installed on the device. Consider that its headway.
Boooooooo, get off the stage, drama queen, before a house falls on you.
Have the courage to speak for yourself and only yourself. Everybody here wants you to do that.
If I was Ecuador, I'd have every person who entered and left the embassy dye their hair the same color as Julian, dress like Julian, and wear hats and dark glasses. Every single person. Eventually it'd be trivial to sneak Julian out of there.
Wow, I don't know how many NSA cocks you've sucked, but I'm sure they're appreciative.
I read through several but not all of the qualifiers, so not sure if this strictly meets the request but it's what comes to mind:
Alice has an encrypted hard drive that contains evidence that just before meeting her husband, she briefly had a fling with his best friend, which her husband has never known about, and which Alice happens to know he would leave her for (judgements about whether it would be rational or warranted for her husband to do so are irrelevant to Alice; she knows that this would be the outcome, and desperately does not want it).
Alice is accused of some crime, and suspicion that her hard drive may have evidence incriminating her comes up. Alice in reality has not committed the crime (not sure if this aspect even matters).
The fifth amendment seems a very good thing in such a case.
Paraphrasing a related quote I recently happened across: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that you spend most of your time defending scoundrels, because it's against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression is best stopped early."
Remedy for this: enact a practice of having various hard encrypted hard drives around your house that are encrypted with passwords you don't know (i.e. were loooong randomly generated strings you copy/pasted and forgot), and document your practice of creating/keeping such drives. That your purpose is to have plausible deniability if asked for a password to a given drive may be offputting, but the plausible deniability part is now, well, highly undeniable.
Ah, the old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have no legitimate objection to a complete invasion of your privacy" argument.
Please feel free to support your claim with facts.
If you're trying to point out hypocrisy, you miss. The WIndows OS code is so full of security holes it's pathetic... and yes, that is squarely Microsoft's fault. Android/linux is much much better, and when we're talking about malware that specifically must be cert-installed by a user, yes, the user is most definitely complicit. Get off your high horse.
Maybe the notion that some packages have cameras in them will result in better package handling, resulting in fewer lost packages.
Stating the purpose is hugely relevant in terms of educating many who do not know. You're correct to state that that patent law is currently abused in ways directly contrary to the motivations of its creators. You're very incorrect to imply that educating people about this travesty is meaningless.
I feel like the above pretty much captures the essence of the Harlem Shake video phenomenon.
That may be *part* of a salt's usefulness. Another possibly bigger part is to prevent rainbow table attacks, i.e. making it so a cracker can't just take a precomputed list of hashes of common passwords and match them to what's in the database.
Or someone who hates Senatorial aids. :)
Hmmm... why are you still surprised that people are disappointed at breaches of what should be common decency? I assume from your post you've seen such reactions before.. so your surprise at people's good nature and consequent expectations shouldn't be commentworthy anymore... just sayin'...
F*ck... so much for my plan to wear google glasses inside a brothel...
Me: Yes, I'm ready for my session now.
Her: Ok... hmmm, you still have your glasses on?
Me: Yeah, I just like to be able to see well.
Her: Uh, ok.
(we get busy)
Me: Ok glass, take a picture. Ok glass, take a picture. Ok glass, take a picture.
Her: Who are you talking to?
Me: Nobody, baby!
Example use cases:
And *poof*... you are off the grid.
V sbe bar jrypbzr bhe arj Gnfznavna snvel crathva bireybeqf.