I want to live in no society which is controlled by either.
I know moderate Muslims, and moderate Christians... and remarkably, they seem to share the same values, and have no interest in imposing them on anybody else.
Islam derives from the same lineage as gets you from Judaism to Christianity to Islam... along all of the variations along the way.
It's not a false equivalency to say that "fundamentalist sect of a religion" is no different -- there are probably Christians who would agree with stoning someone for adultery.
Take your false equivalency and cram it up your ass, because I'm not saying all Christians or all Muslims. I'm saying the extreme versions of both are indistinguishable.
Honestly, what insight is there to be had about religious bigotry?
Neither side is different, at the extremes they both do the exact same fucking things, under the name of the exact same fucking god (the Muslim god IS the Christian god, like it or not). Religious extremism is no different, no matter what it is (there's extremist Buddhists, so I'm not singling anybody out here.)
Why do people think it's OK when one group does it but not another? The hypocrisy is why people point it out.
It's not like "yarg, teh batshit crazy Muslims" is any different from "yarg, teh batshit crazy Christians".
Bah... if there's a god of the universe he made it with cool shit like gravity waves and other things we can understand using things like relativity, filled it with vast and complex things to amaze and delight us, and gave us the capacity to investigate and understand it, and ponder our own place in it.
That god is sitting around going "what the fuck are the little squishy ones on that little fucking rock doing?"
It's the fucking humans which are the whiny little petulant assholes who can't get over our own bullshit and fantasies about shit like this.
Narrow minded people need to imagine a narrow minded god.
Hmmm... let's see... wants to define what others can do based on their own religion... are 100% convinced of their right to do so... wish to impose own standards of decency/morality on the rest of the world whether the rest of the world likes it or not... thinks the rest of the world needs to let them do as they please while refusing to respect other beliefs... wants their religion taught in school and to supersede science and facts... firmly think god is personally on their side and can do no wrong.
It's hard to see how they're that much different.
Of course, they'll claim it's entirely different, because they're the True Believers and everyone else is wrong. And in the process will prove the point through a level of irony neither can appreciate.
Why, you'd think anybody who values freedom, free speech, liberty, and the right of self determination would immediately start sending out as many homojis as they could find to defend such censorship and imposition of lack of freedom on the world.
(And I hereby grant homojis to the world to use freely and without license;-)
Would that be random shakedown letters demanding sums of money with no proof of infringement or who did anything, but if you fork over everything you own and sign documents saying you'll never use the internet they won't sue you?
Well, honestly, how the hell did shit like that ever become legal elsewhere in the first place?
Oh, that's right, lawmakers are on the payroll of the copyright cartel to give them stupid laws which allow them to do anything.
That's OK, I'm sure once the TPP is ratified the 'speculative invoicing' business model becomes viable again. After all, it's mostly about entrenching further rights for corporations.
Yeah, that crazy megalomaniac dictator who wants to keep all the good stuff for himself is a hypocrite. Sure, keep telling yourself that.
You know, I'm pretty sure no matter the rhetoric, pisspot dictators have surrounded themselves in luxury trappings from the West to show themselves how awesome they are. You think he eschews status symbols and has the same shit as the rest of the plebes? Or do you think he surrounds himself with wealth and opulence to show he's the boss.
I don't see anything hypocritical about it all. In fact, it seems entirely predictable that he'd have a computer nobody else in his country will every get to see.
Supreme Glorious Batshit Crazy Leader isn't a position of principle, it's one of entitlement and privilege.
I bet her's got fast cars and other toys too. All Western brands, all ridiculously expensive, all only for his personal pleasure.
That's kind of how this shit works from what I've seen in the news and the like. Powerful people, no matter how fucking crazy, surround themselves with expensive toys.
The extraordinarily short length of the cord is presumably to discourage behaviour that resulted in the "tightly wrapped" or "repeatedly bent" cables catching fire in at least 56 separate incidents.
Hmmm... You're holding it wrong?
Sorry, but people wind cables, it's a use case. This sounds like a bit of bullshit to me.
I'm sorry, if one group says "we're going to make some awesome software and it's going to be open source", and the other group says "we're gonna be fucking rich and have patents and licenses and subscription models"... you can't really reconcile those two.
The starting premise is incompatible, which, as I read TFA, is what the author is saying.
Greedy VCs with no concept of open source fund open source so they can ignore principles of open source and make money? So, people who want to make money don't understand something set up to be given away for free?
Don't get me wrong, the article is interesting in that it's refuting an article written by some VCs without a clue... but that VCs don't have a clue about open source doesn't surprise me.
I pretty much expect the VCs and MBAs to be clueless on this topic, because they can't reconcile "free" with the need to leverage synergies and monetize shit.
Which is precisely why this is such a non-important result. You don't learn much about the universe by demonstrating something everyone already knew is true.
You seem to have a funny sense of what constitutes "true".
Nobody "knew" gravitional waves were real until they got measured. They believed in it, had convinced themselves of it, but they sure as fuck didn't "know" it. If fit the theory, but it wasn't a fact.
What you do is confirm your theoretical model with more evidence. That's what they've done here.
It would be much, MUCH more interesting if it didn't work.
So, basically you're sitting around hoping for a miracle to occur so someone can then look for a new theory?
Sure, that would be much more interesting, but it would pretty much assume the universe is just making up shit as it goes... do we have any evidence of that happening?
Why the hell would proving a 100 year old theoretical prediction NOT be useful or important? Because you were hoping for fucking unicorns?
Do you think scientists should building unicorn detectors just in case something happens in the universe we can't explain? That's not science, that's voodoo.
You can safely assume that a tremendous amount of people have been sitting on the edge of their seats for this.
Confirmation of yet another aspect of Relativity is a big deal -- this is a theory with a perfect track record and which pretty much describes almost everything about the universe.
Disproving any of his stuff would rock the scientific community. Continuing to prove again and again just how right he was? That's worthy of some coverage, and NOBODY who covers this stuff was going to miss it.
Everybody learns who Einstein is when they're kids, and they know hew as really smart and had crazy hair. And then the more you see what he actually did, you just look at it and think "sweet damn that was one smart man".
I'm curious as to how someone becomes the head of a spy agency while being so fundamentally ignorant of one of the most fundamental aspects of espionage.
I find the further up the food chain you move the less it becomes about reality, and the more it becomes the ridiculous belief that your demands define reality.
"Just make it go because I said so".
He's a lawyer, not a technologist or a spy... which means he believes semantic arguments about the law take precedence technical constraints.
Political appointees are there to implement policy, and reality isn't allowed to interfere with policy.
"Cryptography is very much a worldwide academic discipline, as evidenced by the quantity and quality of research papers and academic conferences from countries other than the U.S."
Cryptography is, ultimately, mathematics.
People who want to poke holes in crypto fundamentally don't understand that the math is out there for all to see.
So, flash back.. what, 20 years? When the US treated crypto as munitions and you couldn't export it. Now the US wants to break it, control it, and regulate it. And if people shift to other technologies, the US will be left with nothing but wishful thinking, and crypto they can't do anything with.
âoeThe potential of an NSA-installed backdoor in U.S. encryption products is rarely mentioned in the marketing material for the foreign-made encryption products,â the study explains. âoeThis is, of course, likely to change if U.S. policy changes.â
Indeed, wait for the marketing glossy to say "now, 100% American spying free!!!"
Oddly enough, if you make yourselves untrustworthy, nobody will trust you.
"So let me be crystal clear: Weakening encryption or taking it away harms good people who are using it for the right reason," Apple CEO Tim Cook
The people who want to spy on everybody don't understand this fact. You can't keep the benefits of crypto if you've ruined it. And trusting the spies will be the only ones who have broken into your stuff is utterly moronic.
The heads of these spy agencies are too ill-informed about the technology to understand the stupidity of what they say. All they see is a need for nobody to have any secrets from them -- and to them, a big fuck you.
Some of us eschew most forms of competition... I don't care if you can run faster or jump higher... I don't want to play your silly game if it's about that.
Someone who wants to show he's better at something is kind of a boor. I really don't care if you can hit a golf ball further, but if you shoot lower than I do and have fun, I don't need to care.
I wonder if this is why things like Eurogames are popular... it's not competitive and cut-throat, it's co-operative. There is no incentive to cheat, because it's not that kind of game. Why would you cheat when you're all trying to win together?
Contrast this with Monopoly where the object of the game is... well, to piss off everybody else and claim victory and rub their noses in it. I despise Monopoly.
Winning seems like it comes from competition for scarce resources. But in situations in which everyone needs to work together, it can be counter productive... yes, you're awesome, but we all need to achieve a goal instead of stroking your ego.
So, if you derive your sense of self worth from "I beat you", "I'm better than you", a lot more of your self worth is dependent on those outcomes... and you'll take greater lengths to ensure those outcomes.
Sure, in some contexts competition is good, and achieves some outcomes. But then you can get a skewed perspective on what you'll be willing to do to achieve those outcomes.
Interesting. Usually until someone actually studies this stuff you don't stop to think about it.
Since when do systems allow brute-force attacks on PIN numbers?
Who said brute force?
The attack occurred in January and targeted an IRS Web application that taxpayers use to obtain their so-called Electronic Filing (E-file) PINs. The app requires taxpayer information such as name, Social Security number, date of birth and full address.
This sucker just harvested them.
Because, really, HOW many different places will have those 4 pieces of information? I'm betting FAR too many for comfort... and I'm betting some combination of them have been hacked in the last few years.
Oh, and of course:
While the IRS said that externally-acquired taxpayer data was used, the agency did suffer a security breach last year that allowed attackers to gain information such as Social Security information, date of birth and street address for over 300,000 taxpayers.
the IRS has already coughed this up before.
Who needs brute force when it's just a matter of entering the information you already have?
This leaves the question: does looking down on the word "czar" a sign of communism?
No, because it's a massively overused term, which seems completely random and pointless for an over inflated title, and has NOTHING to do with any historical meaning. Think King, Emperor, Dictator, Supreme Leader, High Priestess.
Czar sounds like a bullshit title which is handed out for no defensible reason.
So, much like we don't have Privacy Emperor, and Internet Emperor... why the hell do we even call these things 'czar'?
It's like some idiot heard a cool word, and then next thing you know everybody is a freaking czar of something. It just seems like a totally misplaced superlative in English, or anywhere else.
Take every place you see the word czar these days, change it for "Asshole", and it's probably a more accurate title.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to do see what the Marital High Priestess wishes to do for dinner.
If your secret law which requires you to lie about not having backdoors is invoked, you also have to lie about how people can check that you don't have backdoors. The presence of the secret law which says "you can't tell them about this" pretty much means there is no scenario in which you say "oh, well, gee, they're awesome and trustworthy".
By definition, the US government has taken the public stance that results in the conclusion "NO US COMPANY CAN BE TRUSTED".
Because as soon as you assert your laws trump the laws of the countries in which Microsoft etc do business, you essentially force everyone else to have to conclude "fuck you, go away, we now must assume you're not following the law".
I don't care how fucking big of a player you are, when Uncle Sam can compel them to lie... you must assume they're lying, and that they couldn't tell you they were lying if they wanted to. Auditing about an NSA backdoor can't be trusted if the laws which would place such a hypothetical back door prevent you from admitting to that back door.
The US government's contention is that it can demand electronic data anywhere US companies keep them, and that it doesn't need to ask a local jurisdiction's permission. A magistrate and a federal judge have agreed. If Microsoft doesn't prevail in the appeal, Smith said it will go to the US Supreme Court.
nobody outside of the US can ever trust a US company ever again.
It really is that simple. Claiming auditing fixes this misses the entire point. Auditing in this case is a fucking fairy tale.
But Americans seem to WANT NSL's and are willing to sacrifice the entire tech sector, the basis of their economic growth, for an increased police state.
Actually, I worry they'd want it both ways... to keep their NSLs, and then to say "hey, you can't stop buying stuff from us, you signed a trade agreement".
There seems to be a belief they can base all of their economic growth on tech, but undermine and cripple it by making it unable to be trusted... with the unsurprising outcome of not being able to link the two.
You assert this as a fact. Citation? Or are you just deciding it's true? (If it's true, I'd love to know.)
If the car won't just hand off control without warning, then I should be able to be asleep in the back. If I can't be asleep in the back, then I don't believe what you say.
If it's full stop, change control, start driving... then I shouldn't physically be in the driver's seat, to make it 100% explicit.
So far your "simple" scenario has yet to be validate by anybody, and so far all these tests require a driver in the seat ready to take controls.
I'm afraid you're arguing a scenario which thus far isn't real.
When the US government is in court with Microsoft over how they could use secret laws to claim Microsoft has to break the laws of other countries... I fail to see how Microsoft, or any US company, can really be trusted.
This seems an entirely prudent response from Russia. I'm actually surprised more companies aren't actively wondering just how much Microsoft and others can be controlled by the US government.
When the US government is actively trying to ensure backdoors in encryption and the like, why would you assume there aren't any? You think these companies are going to make the international version with no US spying capabilities?
Slashdot Mirror
I want to live in no society which is controlled by either.
I know moderate Muslims, and moderate Christians ... and remarkably, they seem to share the same values, and have no interest in imposing them on anybody else.
Islam derives from the same lineage as gets you from Judaism to Christianity to Islam ... along all of the variations along the way.
It's not a false equivalency to say that "fundamentalist sect of a religion" is no different -- there are probably Christians who would agree with stoning someone for adultery.
Take your false equivalency and cram it up your ass, because I'm not saying all Christians or all Muslims. I'm saying the extreme versions of both are indistinguishable.
Honestly, what insight is there to be had about religious bigotry?
Neither side is different, at the extremes they both do the exact same fucking things, under the name of the exact same fucking god (the Muslim god IS the Christian god, like it or not). Religious extremism is no different, no matter what it is (there's extremist Buddhists, so I'm not singling anybody out here.)
Why do people think it's OK when one group does it but not another? The hypocrisy is why people point it out.
It's not like "yarg, teh batshit crazy Muslims" is any different from "yarg, teh batshit crazy Christians".
Bah ... if there's a god of the universe he made it with cool shit like gravity waves and other things we can understand using things like relativity, filled it with vast and complex things to amaze and delight us, and gave us the capacity to investigate and understand it, and ponder our own place in it.
That god is sitting around going "what the fuck are the little squishy ones on that little fucking rock doing ?"
It's the fucking humans which are the whiny little petulant assholes who can't get over our own bullshit and fantasies about shit like this.
Narrow minded people need to imagine a narrow minded god.
Hmmm ... let's see ... wants to define what others can do based on their own religion ... are 100% convinced of their right to do so ... wish to impose own standards of decency/morality on the rest of the world whether the rest of the world likes it or not ... thinks the rest of the world needs to let them do as they please while refusing to respect other beliefs ... wants their religion taught in school and to supersede science and facts ... firmly think god is personally on their side and can do no wrong.
It's hard to see how they're that much different.
Of course, they'll claim it's entirely different, because they're the True Believers and everyone else is wrong. And in the process will prove the point through a level of irony neither can appreciate.
Why, you'd think anybody who values freedom, free speech, liberty, and the right of self determination would immediately start sending out as many homojis as they could find to defend such censorship and imposition of lack of freedom on the world.
(And I hereby grant homojis to the world to use freely and without license ;-)
Would that be random shakedown letters demanding sums of money with no proof of infringement or who did anything, but if you fork over everything you own and sign documents saying you'll never use the internet they won't sue you?
Well, honestly, how the hell did shit like that ever become legal elsewhere in the first place?
Oh, that's right, lawmakers are on the payroll of the copyright cartel to give them stupid laws which allow them to do anything.
That's OK, I'm sure once the TPP is ratified the 'speculative invoicing' business model becomes viable again. After all, it's mostly about entrenching further rights for corporations.
Yeah, that crazy megalomaniac dictator who wants to keep all the good stuff for himself is a hypocrite. Sure, keep telling yourself that.
You know, I'm pretty sure no matter the rhetoric, pisspot dictators have surrounded themselves in luxury trappings from the West to show themselves how awesome they are. You think he eschews status symbols and has the same shit as the rest of the plebes? Or do you think he surrounds himself with wealth and opulence to show he's the boss.
I don't see anything hypocritical about it all. In fact, it seems entirely predictable that he'd have a computer nobody else in his country will every get to see.
Supreme Glorious Batshit Crazy Leader isn't a position of principle, it's one of entitlement and privilege.
I bet her's got fast cars and other toys too. All Western brands, all ridiculously expensive, all only for his personal pleasure.
That's kind of how this shit works from what I've seen in the news and the like. Powerful people, no matter how fucking crazy, surround themselves with expensive toys.
Hmmm ... You're holding it wrong?
Sorry, but people wind cables, it's a use case. This sounds like a bit of bullshit to me.
I'm sorry, if one group says "we're going to make some awesome software and it's going to be open source", and the other group says "we're gonna be fucking rich and have patents and licenses and subscription models" ... you can't really reconcile those two.
The starting premise is incompatible, which, as I read TFA, is what the author is saying.
Greedy VCs with no concept of open source fund open source so they can ignore principles of open source and make money? So, people who want to make money don't understand something set up to be given away for free?
Don't get me wrong, the article is interesting in that it's refuting an article written by some VCs without a clue ... but that VCs don't have a clue about open source doesn't surprise me.
I pretty much expect the VCs and MBAs to be clueless on this topic, because they can't reconcile "free" with the need to leverage synergies and monetize shit.
You seem to have a funny sense of what constitutes "true".
Nobody "knew" gravitional waves were real until they got measured. They believed in it, had convinced themselves of it, but they sure as fuck didn't "know" it. If fit the theory, but it wasn't a fact.
What you do is confirm your theoretical model with more evidence. That's what they've done here.
So, basically you're sitting around hoping for a miracle to occur so someone can then look for a new theory?
Sure, that would be much more interesting, but it would pretty much assume the universe is just making up shit as it goes ... do we have any evidence of that happening?
Why the hell would proving a 100 year old theoretical prediction NOT be useful or important? Because you were hoping for fucking unicorns?
Do you think scientists should building unicorn detectors just in case something happens in the universe we can't explain? That's not science, that's voodoo.
Sorry, did you pick today to try meth for the first time or something?
What the actual fuck are you on about now?
You can safely assume that a tremendous amount of people have been sitting on the edge of their seats for this.
Confirmation of yet another aspect of Relativity is a big deal -- this is a theory with a perfect track record and which pretty much describes almost everything about the universe.
Disproving any of his stuff would rock the scientific community. Continuing to prove again and again just how right he was? That's worthy of some coverage, and NOBODY who covers this stuff was going to miss it.
Everybody learns who Einstein is when they're kids, and they know hew as really smart and had crazy hair. And then the more you see what he actually did, you just look at it and think "sweet damn that was one smart man".
Yes, absolutely.
The thing here is that to date Einstein has a perfect track record. Which is pretty remarkable.
To date, everything they've ever tested says that the theory of relativity, as far as we've been able to investigate, hasn't shown any cracks.
I find the further up the food chain you move the less it becomes about reality, and the more it becomes the ridiculous belief that your demands define reality.
"Just make it go because I said so".
He's a lawyer, not a technologist or a spy ... which means he believes semantic arguments about the law take precedence technical constraints.
Political appointees are there to implement policy, and reality isn't allowed to interfere with policy.
Cryptography is, ultimately, mathematics.
People who want to poke holes in crypto fundamentally don't understand that the math is out there for all to see.
So, flash back .. what, 20 years? When the US treated crypto as munitions and you couldn't export it. Now the US wants to break it, control it, and regulate it. And if people shift to other technologies, the US will be left with nothing but wishful thinking, and crypto they can't do anything with.
Indeed, wait for the marketing glossy to say "now, 100% American spying free!!!"
Oddly enough, if you make yourselves untrustworthy, nobody will trust you.
The people who want to spy on everybody don't understand this fact. You can't keep the benefits of crypto if you've ruined it. And trusting the spies will be the only ones who have broken into your stuff is utterly moronic.
The heads of these spy agencies are too ill-informed about the technology to understand the stupidity of what they say. All they see is a need for nobody to have any secrets from them -- and to them, a big fuck you.
Interesting.
Some of us eschew most forms of competition ... I don't care if you can run faster or jump higher ... I don't want to play your silly game if it's about that.
Someone who wants to show he's better at something is kind of a boor. I really don't care if you can hit a golf ball further, but if you shoot lower than I do and have fun, I don't need to care.
I wonder if this is why things like Eurogames are popular ... it's not competitive and cut-throat, it's co-operative. There is no incentive to cheat, because it's not that kind of game. Why would you cheat when you're all trying to win together?
Contrast this with Monopoly where the object of the game is ... well, to piss off everybody else and claim victory and rub their noses in it. I despise Monopoly.
Winning seems like it comes from competition for scarce resources. But in situations in which everyone needs to work together, it can be counter productive ... yes, you're awesome, but we all need to achieve a goal instead of stroking your ego.
So, if you derive your sense of self worth from "I beat you", "I'm better than you", a lot more of your self worth is dependent on those outcomes ... and you'll take greater lengths to ensure those outcomes.
Sure, in some contexts competition is good, and achieves some outcomes. But then you can get a skewed perspective on what you'll be willing to do to achieve those outcomes.
Interesting. Usually until someone actually studies this stuff you don't stop to think about it.
LOL ... nonexistent?
Who said brute force?
This sucker just harvested them.
Because, really, HOW many different places will have those 4 pieces of information? I'm betting FAR too many for comfort ... and I'm betting some combination of them have been hacked in the last few years.
Oh, and of course:
the IRS has already coughed this up before.
Who needs brute force when it's just a matter of entering the information you already have?
No, because it's a massively overused term, which seems completely random and pointless for an over inflated title, and has NOTHING to do with any historical meaning. Think King, Emperor, Dictator, Supreme Leader, High Priestess.
Czar sounds like a bullshit title which is handed out for no defensible reason.
So, much like we don't have Privacy Emperor, and Internet Emperor ... why the hell do we even call these things 'czar'?
It's like some idiot heard a cool word, and then next thing you know everybody is a freaking czar of something. It just seems like a totally misplaced superlative in English, or anywhere else.
Take every place you see the word czar these days, change it for "Asshole", and it's probably a more accurate title.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to do see what the Marital High Priestess wishes to do for dinner.
Dude, it's turtles all the way down.
If your secret law which requires you to lie about not having backdoors is invoked, you also have to lie about how people can check that you don't have backdoors. The presence of the secret law which says "you can't tell them about this" pretty much means there is no scenario in which you say "oh, well, gee, they're awesome and trustworthy".
By definition, the US government has taken the public stance that results in the conclusion "NO US COMPANY CAN BE TRUSTED".
Because as soon as you assert your laws trump the laws of the countries in which Microsoft etc do business, you essentially force everyone else to have to conclude "fuck you, go away, we now must assume you're not following the law".
I don't care how fucking big of a player you are, when Uncle Sam can compel them to lie ... you must assume they're lying, and that they couldn't tell you they were lying if they wanted to. Auditing about an NSA backdoor can't be trusted if the laws which would place such a hypothetical back door prevent you from admitting to that back door.
If Microsoft loses this case:
nobody outside of the US can ever trust a US company ever again.
It really is that simple. Claiming auditing fixes this misses the entire point. Auditing in this case is a fucking fairy tale.
Uputintu?
Actually, I worry they'd want it both ways ... to keep their NSLs, and then to say "hey, you can't stop buying stuff from us, you signed a trade agreement".
There seems to be a belief they can base all of their economic growth on tech, but undermine and cripple it by making it unable to be trusted ... with the unsurprising outcome of not being able to link the two.
You assert this as a fact. Citation? Or are you just deciding it's true? (If it's true, I'd love to know.)
If the car won't just hand off control without warning, then I should be able to be asleep in the back. If I can't be asleep in the back, then I don't believe what you say.
If it's full stop, change control, start driving ... then I shouldn't physically be in the driver's seat, to make it 100% explicit.
So far your "simple" scenario has yet to be validate by anybody, and so far all these tests require a driver in the seat ready to take controls.
I'm afraid you're arguing a scenario which thus far isn't real.
When the US government is in court with Microsoft over how they could use secret laws to claim Microsoft has to break the laws of other countries ... I fail to see how Microsoft, or any US company, can really be trusted.
This seems an entirely prudent response from Russia. I'm actually surprised more companies aren't actively wondering just how much Microsoft and others can be controlled by the US government.
When the US government is actively trying to ensure backdoors in encryption and the like, why would you assume there aren't any? You think these companies are going to make the international version with no US spying capabilities?
Good luck with that.
In the context of Russia, I find it odd to use the now ubiquitous term "czar" .. a term which is bandied about far too often for no good reason.
I'm pretty sure nobody refers to him as the internet czar in Russia.