"My god... transparent... ALUMINUM?" "No no, this is *timekeeping* aluminum. You see, it consists of an incredibly preci-" "Traaaaaansparent aluminum... amazing."
And the guy's now thinking, "Damnit!!! Things were going so well with my bombing plans... I'd done step 1 'Identify target'... step 2 'obtain explosives'... step 3, 'post plans on worldwide public forum without obfuscation of any kind'... and then suddenly everything goes to shit for no reason. What did I do wrong?? How can I help my fellow al quaida brothers learn from whatever subtle mistake I must have made? Well, time to escape from prison... I'll start by loudly yelling my intention to do so every night at lockdown..."
I say, hats off to the fine policework in this situation. Keep those terrorists on the run, boys!
Language is changing all the time, and those resisting such change are hampered by the absence of any true linguistic authorities. Dictionaries have partially served as authorities for individual words, but different dictionaries don't typically act in concert as far as when to add a new word (e.g. "doh", or "unfriend")... and, dictionaries don't add new words proactively, they do so REactively, ceding the impetus for doing so to empirical observations about what people are already saying.
Individual words aside, there's a near complete void when it comes to the authority on the evolution of phrases. Case in point, I can't think of a reason the begthequestion.info website should be trusted as an authority. Its greatest credentials are that someone took the time to construct it... credentials it shares with scientologists, neonazis, moonlanding hoax theorists, and all the world's religions.
Not long ago there was no shortage of people dying to point out that ending sentences in prepositions was considered grammatically incorrect. That issue is dying, simply because too many people found the prescribed sentence structures to be awkward and without any real value in terms of information conveyance...making the people who continue to harp on it sound crabby and pedantic. (Seriously, who wants to say things like "up with which I will not put"?)
A telling illustration of people saying what they're habituated to are the phrases "could care less"/"couldn't care less". Unlike "beg the question", these two phrases themselves contain enough information to make a very strong case that "could care less" is wrong and "couldn't care less" is correct. Yet many people -- some of them very bright -- say the former all the time. And I've stopped trying to "correct" them; the very fact that there's enough context for me to know what they mean, even when they use the "wrong" phrase, speaks for itself.
Agreed. And the headline that slashdot tacked on to this article: "Making Carriers Shoulder Smartphone Security"... "MAKING" them "SHOULDER" it like it's some kind of burden?? wow, you'd think the editors of/. were in bed with the cell industry, doing their NewSpeak PR for them. A more accurate headline would be "Cell carriers delighted to portray naked power grab as good for users".
I agree with (what I think is) your larger point that obscurity is used in a lot in everyday life and is most definitely of greater than zero benefit, but I think this part of your post calls for a clarification:
Encryption is security through obscurity because you keep the key secret. Anything that depends on a secret depends on obscurity.
In the context of encryption, "security through obscurity" is NOT intended to refer to keeping an encryption key private. The phrase instead refers to the practice of keeping the decryption *algorithm* private as a means to enhance security... a practice that is widely held to be inadvisable due to (a) the danger of someone reverse engineering the algorithm, and (b) the lack of widespread exposure of the algorithm resulting in the few eyes that do see it missing the occasional algorithmic flaw.
Keeping an encryption key private is of course essential, and so is keeping your housekey in your own possession. But the housekey and the house lock both have all the information needed to enter the house, whereas a solid encryption algorithm does not have all the information needed to expose the data... and it would therefor be incorrect to imply that the security imperfections inherent in the house lock/key mechanism apply to encryption.
And FYI, taxes in California aren't all that high and are clearly not high enough for state and local governments to fund the services we require of them.
Perhaps the totals of all types of taxes in Cal aren't high enough, but the distribution of the sources of those taxes is terribly skewed compared to most other states because of prop 13, which -- thirty years ago -- leveled property taxes at then-current levels. As a consequence, Cal is faced with the prospect of making up for the resulting massive deficit by increasing *other* kinds of taxes... and while property taxes at least vaguely approximate a "wealth" tax, and are therefor essentially progressive... the other compensating kinds of taxes are not, and are eating out the foundations of the infrastructure.
Can you imagine death-penalty murder trials with "we know you did it because this machine we bought from MegaProfitTechCo analyzed the crime scene and says you're guilty." "How does that machine even work? DNA profiling?" "Can't tell you, it's a trade secret and very complicated, but it took a piece of evidence and said you're guilty."
Something similar happened to me this week (where the similarity increases if you replace "murder trials" with "attempt to pay auto repair bill"). I wrote a check to pay an auto repair bill, and the mechanic taking the check dials someone, reads the check data into the phone, and tells me my check has been "rejected". I've got perfect credit and lots of cash in the bank, mind you. I take the phone and speak to the other party, which I think was some credit agency like experion; a woman in a flat, robotic voice informs me that their "computer model" which takes in "a number of factors" cannot "approve the transaction at this time". She says it does not have anything to do with my supposed bank balance. I ask her if she can disclose what factors are in play in this decision, and she says no, she cannot.
After the call, I have no recourse but to pay by credit card. I don't like paying by credit card for various reasons that are my own, but more to the point I believe I should have the ability to pay by check if I so desire and I'm in good standing.
I told the mechanic I didn't particularly blame him personally, but I did blame his organization for working with an entity that, in this case, made me feel like a criminal. I told him the upshot was that I'd have to take my car to him less frequently.
Here's the problem: someone else takes an itunes file, overwrites its email address with *your* email address, and then publishes it on the internet. The presumption that you must therefor have something to do with the file is the problem.
The N810 already runs Linux with a Nokia UI. There's no reason to install Android.
Last I looked, the development procedures for the Nokia tablets involved having to do cross compiling, and required tools that could only be run on linux (not on osx, not on windows). If this is still the case, I'd say there's a significant reason to install Android.
I chased this idea for a few days... bought an NSLU and a Sipura 3002, installed asterisk, and got the incoming call handling working beautifully. Unfortunately I could not figure out how to get asterisk configured to do outgoing calls. I'm sure outgoing calls are doable in asterisk somehow, but it wasn't obvious, and the info on how to configure asterisk in any given context (for a specific purpose with specific hardware) is scattered to the four winds on the internet. And I found asterisk's scripting language quite heinous... brittle and opaque.
In the end I let the project languish. I'd pay money for someone to create a flexible device with a comprehendable scripting language that allows me to do everything I want.
It's not much of a stretch to imagine that all of that imaginary wealth is locked up somewhere inside the computers, and that we humans, led by the silverback males of the financial world, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, are frantically beseeching the monolith for answers
Um, yes it is a stretch. Word to the wise: prefacing any statement with "it's not much of a stretch to imagine..." does NOT mean the ensuing statement automatically becomes valid. (Related concept, illustrated in Talladega Nights: prefacing any statement with "with all due respect" does not warrant the rest of the statement as respectful.)
I've bought my phones unlocked directly from the manufacturer.
I've been considering the same. I'm worried about problems arising which cause finger pointing games between the manufacturer and the carrier... any words of advice?
Does Apple allow existing users to upgrade, possibly restarting their 2yr contract, or are they forced to hold to the terms of their previous contract with the old hardware?
Tesla Motors seems to be shifting from the high-tech company re-writing Detroit's script to another Silicon Valley startup trying to sniff out the competition.
"Sniffing" out the competition would mean Tesla is trying to figure out who their competition is. I have a feeling that the intended word should be "snuffing" out the competition, which would mean Tesla is being anti-competitive, which seems to be what the article is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Me, I like the idea of giving my d*ck in a box. It's easy to do, just follow these steps:
1) Cut a hole in a box
2) Put your junk in that box
3) Make her open the box
"My god... transparent... ALUMINUM?"
"No no, this is *timekeeping* aluminum. You see, it consists of an incredibly preci-"
"Traaaaaansparent aluminum... amazing."
There, fixed that for ya. :)
And the guy's now thinking, "Damnit!!! Things were going so well with my bombing plans... I'd done step 1 'Identify target'... step 2 'obtain explosives'... step 3, 'post plans on worldwide public forum without obfuscation of any kind'... and then suddenly everything goes to shit for no reason. What did I do wrong?? How can I help my fellow al quaida brothers learn from whatever subtle mistake I must have made? Well, time to escape from prison... I'll start by loudly yelling my intention to do so every night at lockdown..."
I say, hats off to the fine policework in this situation. Keep those terrorists on the run, boys!
WAY too general a statement when we're talking about cellphones.
Had to correct the record: make that "truckstop *egg* salad sandwiches". (Parent was referring to Futurama.)
Language is changing all the time, and those resisting such change are hampered by the absence of any true linguistic authorities. Dictionaries have partially served as authorities for individual words, but different dictionaries don't typically act in concert as far as when to add a new word (e.g. "doh", or "unfriend")... and, dictionaries don't add new words proactively, they do so REactively, ceding the impetus for doing so to empirical observations about what people are already saying.
Individual words aside, there's a near complete void when it comes to the authority on the evolution of phrases. Case in point, I can't think of a reason the begthequestion.info website should be trusted as an authority. Its greatest credentials are that someone took the time to construct it... credentials it shares with scientologists, neonazis, moonlanding hoax theorists, and all the world's religions.
Not long ago there was no shortage of people dying to point out that ending sentences in prepositions was considered grammatically incorrect. That issue is dying, simply because too many people found the prescribed sentence structures to be awkward and without any real value in terms of information conveyance...making the people who continue to harp on it sound crabby and pedantic. (Seriously, who wants to say things like "up with which I will not put"?)
A telling illustration of people saying what they're habituated to are the phrases "could care less"/"couldn't care less". Unlike "beg the question", these two phrases themselves contain enough information to make a very strong case that "could care less" is wrong and "couldn't care less" is correct. Yet many people -- some of them very bright -- say the former all the time. And I've stopped trying to "correct" them; the very fact that there's enough context for me to know what they mean, even when they use the "wrong" phrase, speaks for itself.
Agreed. And the headline that slashdot tacked on to this article: "Making Carriers Shoulder Smartphone Security"... "MAKING" them "SHOULDER" it like it's some kind of burden?? wow, you'd think the editors of /. were in bed with the cell industry, doing their NewSpeak PR for them. A more accurate headline would be "Cell carriers delighted to portray naked power grab as good for users".
I agree with (what I think is) your larger point that obscurity is used in a lot in everyday life and is most definitely of greater than zero benefit, but I think this part of your post calls for a clarification:
In the context of encryption, "security through obscurity" is NOT intended to refer to keeping an encryption key private. The phrase instead refers to the practice of keeping the decryption *algorithm* private as a means to enhance security... a practice that is widely held to be inadvisable due to (a) the danger of someone reverse engineering the algorithm, and (b) the lack of widespread exposure of the algorithm resulting in the few eyes that do see it missing the occasional algorithmic flaw.
Keeping an encryption key private is of course essential, and so is keeping your housekey in your own possession. But the housekey and the house lock both have all the information needed to enter the house, whereas a solid encryption algorithm does not have all the information needed to expose the data... and it would therefor be incorrect to imply that the security imperfections inherent in the house lock/key mechanism apply to encryption.
I think Ubuntu got past its second edition long ago... aren't they up to 9.04?
It totally *nailed* my question.
Its answer was "WolframAlpha isn't sure what to do with your input".
The question I'd asked was, "Are you sure what to do with my input?"
Perhaps the totals of all types of taxes in Cal aren't high enough, but the distribution of the sources of those taxes is terribly skewed compared to most other states because of prop 13, which -- thirty years ago -- leveled property taxes at then-current levels. As a consequence, Cal is faced with the prospect of making up for the resulting massive deficit by increasing *other* kinds of taxes... and while property taxes at least vaguely approximate a "wealth" tax, and are therefor essentially progressive... the other compensating kinds of taxes are not, and are eating out the foundations of the infrastructure.
Something similar happened to me this week (where the similarity increases if you replace "murder trials" with "attempt to pay auto repair bill"). I wrote a check to pay an auto repair bill, and the mechanic taking the check dials someone, reads the check data into the phone, and tells me my check has been "rejected". I've got perfect credit and lots of cash in the bank, mind you. I take the phone and speak to the other party, which I think was some credit agency like experion; a woman in a flat, robotic voice informs me that their "computer model" which takes in "a number of factors" cannot "approve the transaction at this time". She says it does not have anything to do with my supposed bank balance. I ask her if she can disclose what factors are in play in this decision, and she says no, she cannot.
After the call, I have no recourse but to pay by credit card. I don't like paying by credit card for various reasons that are my own, but more to the point I believe I should have the ability to pay by check if I so desire and I'm in good standing.
I told the mechanic I didn't particularly blame him personally, but I did blame his organization for working with an entity that, in this case, made me feel like a criminal. I told him the upshot was that I'd have to take my car to him less frequently.
Here's the problem: someone else takes an itunes file, overwrites its email address with *your* email address, and then publishes it on the internet. The presumption that you must therefor have something to do with the file is the problem.
And that is one revolution that will not be televised.
I've been achieving the same via PornoTube for quite some time now.
Last I looked, the development procedures for the Nokia tablets involved having to do cross compiling, and required tools that could only be run on linux (not on osx, not on windows). If this is still the case, I'd say there's a significant reason to install Android.
how about "infirmware"...
I chased this idea for a few days... bought an NSLU and a Sipura 3002, installed asterisk, and got the incoming call handling working beautifully. Unfortunately I could not figure out how to get asterisk configured to do outgoing calls. I'm sure outgoing calls are doable in asterisk somehow, but it wasn't obvious, and the info on how to configure asterisk in any given context (for a specific purpose with specific hardware) is scattered to the four winds on the internet. And I found asterisk's scripting language quite heinous... brittle and opaque. In the end I let the project languish. I'd pay money for someone to create a flexible device with a comprehendable scripting language that allows me to do everything I want.
Um, yes it is a stretch. Word to the wise: prefacing any statement with "it's not much of a stretch to imagine..." does NOT mean the ensuing statement automatically becomes valid. (Related concept, illustrated in Talladega Nights: prefacing any statement with "with all due respect" does not warrant the rest of the statement as respectful.)
We can always stand in front of the microwave.
I've been considering the same. I'm worried about problems arising which cause finger pointing games between the manufacturer and the carrier... any words of advice?
Does Apple allow existing users to upgrade, possibly restarting their 2yr contract, or are they forced to hold to the terms of their previous contract with the old hardware?
"Sniffing" out the competition would mean Tesla is trying to figure out who their competition is. I have a feeling that the intended word should be "snuffing" out the competition, which would mean Tesla is being anti-competitive, which seems to be what the article is talking about.