Re:Shared keys, browsers, and malice
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1
What are you talking about? SSL certificates are/contain public keys. Read more about the SSL and TLS handshaking procedure.
Also, what happens when you visit a site that signs its own certificate? It's not that hard in doing a MitM attack to fake being that site's unique certificate. Unless you're dealing with a site that you absolutely know uses a trusted third party certificate, then you're SOL.
Also, a government-run MitM node could very well possess a CA's private key and be able to fake legit certificates -- granted, that's paranoid -- whereas its significantly less likely that they could fake the fingerprint of joe random SSH server.
Shared keys, browsers, and malice
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Or by using private-key encryption whenever possible. Of course neither solution means anything when you're trying to use an e-commerce site with SSL. Browsers don't offer a solution for checking the security of the connection against MitM attacks.
I find it interesting and openly malicious that encrypted protocols are blocked at some exit nodes. This may explain some intermittent problems that I've been experiencing with some of my apps that use TOR and encryption.
No, it doesn't. Eating olive oil won't raise your triglycerides and your insulin levels like eating an equivalent amount of calories in table sugar. Similarly, the sugar will lower HDL levels, and the olive oil with raise HDL levels. Eating fiber lowers cholesterol and slows the intake of sugars from food. Sharp swings in insulin promote hunger and thus increased calorie intake whereas slower metabolization of sugars provokes less severe swings of hunger. If you're stressed, cortisol levels will affect your blood sugar levels and thus exacerbate your craving for certain foods.
Thus, eating 300 calories of whole wheat bread dipped in olive oil is not the same as eating 300 calories from a candy bar. Your body reacts to them differently, and they both have different influences on how much you will want eat in the future to be satisfied. Pretending that all calories are completely the same is a myopic and unscientific oversimplification of the problem which ignores too many variables responsible for health and hunger. A lot of people like to pretend that the problem is mathematically simple and ignore the difficulty in controlling the variables in the equation or the health risks of trying, for example, to lose weight by eating nothing but a few candy
Once I had a physical and my doctor told me I had twice the amount of calcium I should in my blood. I really didn't care or listen to him.
You probably should listen to him. Drinking lots of milk doesn't result in significant spikes in calcium above healthy levels, especially if you're only going through a gallon a week (which is about what the FDA recommends, by the way). Maybe if you were going through more than a gallon per day and eating antacids.
You could very well have a parathyroid problem. Regulation of calcium in the bloodstream is essential to nerve & brain function. Your parathyroid should not be allowing your blood calcium levels to get that high. Cancer is also a common cause of elevated calcium levels as is kidney failure. You should take your doctor seriously and have this rechecked.
(Oh yeah, and ditto on the hyperbole. Normal blood calcium range is about 10 mg/dL. 16 mg/dL would put you in a coma.)
This post also assumes you have a magical vehicle which can use both diesel and gasoline!
Much like assuming you have a magical body that treats all calorie sources the same -- thus assuming away the entire point of my argument. (i.e. Whooooosh!)
What annoys me is low carb stuff tastes bad, so they up the salt content, or put more of other things that improve the taste but make it bad for you in other ways.
I'd just like to point out that this is very true of low-fat stuff too. Remove fat, add sugar. Compare the labels on ranch dressing, low-carb ranch dressing, and low-fat ranch dressing sometime and note just how much fixing one problem leads processed food manufacturers to splurge on the other.
The simple solution, as one of the points you make states, is not to eat pre-packaged food whenever possible. "Low-fat" and "low-carb" are just words co-opted by food manufacturers to disguise the complete unhealthiness of the latest junk food they're peddling. It's just trading corn (starch/syrup) for soybean (oil).
Calories make you fat, regardless of whether they come from fat, sugars, or starches.
This is absolutely true. You can't dispute the fact of this statement taken in isolation. In isolation.
However, it's a fine example of blinding yourself to the causes. The questions at the heart of the debate between low-carb and low-fat diet proponents are the following:
Does eating certain types of food allow for the intake of more calories before being satisfied? (e.g. Pork vs. chicken; fruit vs. Twinkies)
Do certain foods increase hunger? (i.e. Effects on insulin and other hormones)
Do certain foods have other health issues than weight? (e.g. Saturated vs. unsaturated fat; sugar-intake & diabetes.)
So just saying calories are calories is like saying BTUs are BTUs and putting heating oil in your gas tank in the hopes of getting better MPG.
I love how you quote the sentence that clarifies that he doesn't mean that all anime is porn, and then go on to "counter" him by plugging a series that isn't porn. He's just saying that anime takes up as much bandwidth as porn.
That used to be the case. More and more I've seen digisubbers whose attitude is "Yes, it's been licensed, but we don't want to wait until they put it out, so we're going to keep subbing/releasing/distributing." I wish I could say these were a tiny minority of subbers, but I don't think so anymore.
There used to be an ethic to fansubbers back in the day when the common belief as that the role of the fansubber was to increase exposure to great and unknown material in the American market, and people who watched fansubs respected this philosophy back when distribution costs of fansubs were relatively high.
Now, it's just a bunch of people who want their free anime without ever intending to pay for it legitimately that drive most downloading. I remember when digital fansubbing first started to gain traction and the outrage a few groups faced when deciding to continue doing series after they'd been licensed. Now, it's not even really blinked at.
Anyone who pretends that the old days of those ethics are still here is either: 1) Lying. 2) Deluded. 3) Uninformed.
Any series that is popular enough will get picked up by a less reputable fansubber after a more ethical one drops the series.
(Disclaimer: I can't say that I've bought every series I've ever downloaded and watched, but I can say that I've never downloaded a series after it got licensed that I'm aware of. That's just a line I won't cross.)
So, because they don't like US foreign policy, they think it's alright to kill, and it's the fault of the US?
What the flying fuck planet of twisted "logic" are you living on? You're blaming the victims of murder for the acts of the murderers.
You're attacking a straw man. I never once said that in my post that the terrorists were justified by these beliefs and goals. I merely stated that "destroying our freedoms" is not anything close to what they actually care about. Big logical leap there.
Define Terrorists please. If you're talking about Al-Queda, you're wrong. This group hates democracy as it goes against Sharia law to the most extreme. Anything governed outside this religious foundation is seen as an act of Hubris and thus punishable by death in the eyes of Allah (Arabic word for God).
Yeah, but al-Qaeda doesn't care about our democracy. And seeing us turn into a secular or Christian dictatorship in no way helps further their goals. The more crazy fascist our government becomes, ironically, the less accepting of Islamic fundamentalism it becomes even as it becomes equally repressive. If anything, it's against their long term goals to see us harder ourselves against them.
Next time, educate yourself about our sworn western enemies before justifying their cause. Bluntly put, I don't give a damn about their cause. These people need to die like the parasites they are on humanity.
What does explaining their motivations have to do with justifying them? You seem to be the sort of reactionary type that associates any attempt to understand your enemy with accepting them and capitulating to them.
Geez, it's no wonder you people are losing the War on Terrorism for us.
Terrorists want us to stop screwing around in the Middle East and Central Asia -- specifically they want us to stop supporting Israel and to stop propping up various dictatorships in countries where there'd be a good chance of overthrowing the government and creating a theocracy.
They don't give a flying f--- about "our freedoms" except where they think that shows we are "morally corrupt." Islamic militants are under no illusions that they're going to change our culture any time soon, though. They've got bigger fish to fry back home trying to establish a power block.
How we govern ourselves beyond our foreign policy is utterly unimportant to their larger goals.
When they finally put this stuff into real space ships, just make sure they don't copy the motion-activated air-lock doors. I kinda like breathing, keep the motion activation swooshing to internal doors only please.
Is it really that hard to include a pressure sensor on both sides of the door and a safety check before opening?
No mater how secure a company claims to be, you can't expect them to not fallow the law.
I'll assume you meant "follow." This is true. However, we have absolutely no evidence that HushMail attempted to FIGHT this order. This should have made a big stink about it and tried to come up with ways to protect their users both technically and legally, but instead they just rolled over and tried to keep it quiet to avoid letting it hurt their bottom line.
They lied to their customers by pretending to offer them a security that was as ephemeral as their own spine.
I differ with you on this. The value of privacy is in the security it provides you -- the "right to be secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects." It's, in many ways, a right to exclude, like property. The very violation of that right to exclude is a form of trespass without the need for someone to abuse that violation further.
The other problem here is that you will most likely never know what someone has done with information gleaned from your personal papers and effects unless they do something public with it. That doesn't mean that they haven't done something harmful to you. The lack of security over one's own secrets means that one may be restrained from doing something that isn't wrong but is illegal and from doing things which aren't even illegal but are disapproved. That's an unconscionable restraint on liberty.
Really, how many "vast" conspiracies were ever really proven? I sure can't think of any.
Proven government conspiracies: - The US government's advance knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl harbor in 1941. - COINTELPRO actions taken against civil rights leaders like MLK. - CIA-backed coups and assassinations in Latin America during the Cold War. - The NSA's illegal wiretapping program.
Read more history and current events.
Also, this article isn't about a "conspiracy" per se. It's about actions which are government acknowledges are going on refuses to tell the details about.
see Kuro5in.org for moderation technology that actually works Or one that promotes cliques. Accountability in moderation produces the same abuses it does in voting -- ganging up on people who see things differently from you. Unless something at Kuro5hin has radically changed in the past 2-3 years, count me as not impressed.
Anonymous moderation is subject to its own sets of abuses, but "accountable" moderation is no panacea.
The shotgun approach where you fire off dozens of accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick suggests a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth.
As long as they're all related to the same cause of action, then it's more commonly a fear of res judicata which is a doctrine that, simply put, prevents you from being sued twice for the same cause of action.
Take the case Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade (1985). A black guy wants to build a disco next to a skating rink owned by a bank but is shot down after a local business group opposes the construction. He later sues on grounds of a racial conspiracy after a white guy gets nearly all the same permits for the skating rink which he wanted to build the disco next to. His initial case is thrown out on lack of evidence.
He then sues again over the denial of permits alleging that there was an anti-trust violation since the the president of the Board of Trade was also an officer of the bank that owned the rink and the general manager of the rink. He also noted that several of the Selectmen (city government officers) who turned down his permits were members of the Board of Trade who only did so after the board voted.
Despite having much stronger evidence of a conspiracy, his case was thrown out against two of the defendants he sued on grounds of res judicata. (A third defendant was never named in the first case and had to deal with the lawsuit, but that's another story entirely.)
Basically, you throw everything you can against the wall in the hopes that something will stick because you can face an automatic loss if you didn't think of it at the time. The doctrine of res judicata is meant to keep defendants from the fear of being perpetually dragged into court until a plaintiff finds a sympathetic judge and jury as well as to keep the courts from being bogged down with cases that should have already been decided. The side-effect is laundry list pleadings that try to hit every tort in the book.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like plasma.kde.org is Slashdotted right now, so hey -- Wikipedia to the rescue.
What are you talking about? SSL certificates are/contain public keys. Read more about the SSL and TLS handshaking procedure.
Also, what happens when you visit a site that signs its own certificate? It's not that hard in doing a MitM attack to fake being that site's unique certificate. Unless you're dealing with a site that you absolutely know uses a trusted third party certificate, then you're SOL.
Also, a government-run MitM node could very well possess a CA's private key and be able to fake legit certificates -- granted, that's paranoid -- whereas its significantly less likely that they could fake the fingerprint of joe random SSH server.
Or by using private-key encryption whenever possible. Of course neither solution means anything when you're trying to use an e-commerce site with SSL. Browsers don't offer a solution for checking the security of the connection against MitM attacks.
I find it interesting and openly malicious that encrypted protocols are blocked at some exit nodes. This may explain some intermittent problems that I've been experiencing with some of my apps that use TOR and encryption.
No, it doesn't. Eating olive oil won't raise your triglycerides and your insulin levels like eating an equivalent amount of calories in table sugar. Similarly, the sugar will lower HDL levels, and the olive oil with raise HDL levels. Eating fiber lowers cholesterol and slows the intake of sugars from food. Sharp swings in insulin promote hunger and thus increased calorie intake whereas slower metabolization of sugars provokes less severe swings of hunger. If you're stressed, cortisol levels will affect your blood sugar levels and thus exacerbate your craving for certain foods.
Thus, eating 300 calories of whole wheat bread dipped in olive oil is not the same as eating 300 calories from a candy bar. Your body reacts to them differently, and they both have different influences on how much you will want eat in the future to be satisfied. Pretending that all calories are completely the same is a myopic and unscientific oversimplification of the problem which ignores too many variables responsible for health and hunger. A lot of people like to pretend that the problem is mathematically simple and ignore the difficulty in controlling the variables in the equation or the health risks of trying, for example, to lose weight by eating nothing but a few candy
Once I had a physical and my doctor told me I had twice the amount of calcium I should in my blood. I really didn't care or listen to him.
You probably should listen to him. Drinking lots of milk doesn't result in significant spikes in calcium above healthy levels, especially if you're only going through a gallon a week (which is about what the FDA recommends, by the way). Maybe if you were going through more than a gallon per day and eating antacids.
You could very well have a parathyroid problem. Regulation of calcium in the bloodstream is essential to nerve & brain function. Your parathyroid should not be allowing your blood calcium levels to get that high. Cancer is also a common cause of elevated calcium levels as is kidney failure. You should take your doctor seriously and have this rechecked.
(Oh yeah, and ditto on the hyperbole. Normal blood calcium range is about 10 mg/dL. 16 mg/dL would put you in a coma.)
This post also assumes you have a magical vehicle which can use both diesel and gasoline!
Much like assuming you have a magical body that treats all calorie sources the same -- thus assuming away the entire point of my argument. (i.e. Whooooosh!)
What annoys me is low carb stuff tastes bad, so they up the salt content, or put more of other things that improve the taste but make it bad for you in other ways.
I'd just like to point out that this is very true of low-fat stuff too. Remove fat, add sugar. Compare the labels on ranch dressing, low-carb ranch dressing, and low-fat ranch dressing sometime and note just how much fixing one problem leads processed food manufacturers to splurge on the other.
The simple solution, as one of the points you make states, is not to eat pre-packaged food whenever possible. "Low-fat" and "low-carb" are just words co-opted by food manufacturers to disguise the complete unhealthiness of the latest junk food they're peddling. It's just trading corn (starch/syrup) for soybean (oil).
This is absolutely true. You can't dispute the fact of this statement taken in isolation. In isolation.
However, it's a fine example of blinding yourself to the causes. The questions at the heart of the debate between low-carb and low-fat diet proponents are the following:
So just saying calories are calories is like saying BTUs are BTUs and putting heating oil in your gas tank in the hopes of getting better MPG.
I love how you quote the sentence that clarifies that he doesn't mean that all anime is porn, and then go on to "counter" him by plugging a series that isn't porn. He's just saying that anime takes up as much bandwidth as porn.
In summary: WHOOOOOSH!!!
There used to be an ethic to fansubbers back in the day when the common belief as that the role of the fansubber was to increase exposure to great and unknown material in the American market, and people who watched fansubs respected this philosophy back when distribution costs of fansubs were relatively high.
Now, it's just a bunch of people who want their free anime without ever intending to pay for it legitimately that drive most downloading. I remember when digital fansubbing first started to gain traction and the outrage a few groups faced when deciding to continue doing series after they'd been licensed. Now, it's not even really blinked at.
Anyone who pretends that the old days of those ethics are still here is either:
1) Lying.
2) Deluded.
3) Uninformed.
Any series that is popular enough will get picked up by a less reputable fansubber after a more ethical one drops the series.
(Disclaimer: I can't say that I've bought every series I've ever downloaded and watched, but I can say that I've never downloaded a series after it got licensed that I'm aware of. That's just a line I won't cross.)
You're attacking a straw man. I never once said that in my post that the terrorists were justified by these beliefs and goals. I merely stated that "destroying our freedoms" is not anything close to what they actually care about. Big logical leap there.
Define Terrorists please. If you're talking about Al-Queda, you're wrong. This group hates democracy as it goes against Sharia law to the most extreme. Anything governed outside this religious foundation is seen as an act of Hubris and thus punishable by death in the eyes of Allah (Arabic word for God).
Yeah, but al-Qaeda doesn't care about our democracy. And seeing us turn into a secular or Christian dictatorship in no way helps further their goals. The more crazy fascist our government becomes, ironically, the less accepting of Islamic fundamentalism it becomes even as it becomes equally repressive. If anything, it's against their long term goals to see us harder ourselves against them.
Next time, educate yourself about our sworn western enemies before justifying their cause. Bluntly put, I don't give a damn about their cause. These people need to die like the parasites they are on humanity.
What does explaining their motivations have to do with justifying them? You seem to be the sort of reactionary type that associates any attempt to understand your enemy with accepting them and capitulating to them.
Geez, it's no wonder you people are losing the War on Terrorism for us.
Terrorists want us to stop screwing around in the Middle East and Central Asia -- specifically they want us to stop supporting Israel and to stop propping up various dictatorships in countries where there'd be a good chance of overthrowing the government and creating a theocracy.
They don't give a flying f--- about "our freedoms" except where they think that shows we are "morally corrupt." Islamic militants are under no illusions that they're going to change our culture any time soon, though. They've got bigger fish to fry back home trying to establish a power block.
How we govern ourselves beyond our foreign policy is utterly unimportant to their larger goals.
When they finally put this stuff into real space ships, just make sure they don't copy the motion-activated air-lock doors.
I kinda like breathing, keep the motion activation swooshing to internal doors only please.
Is it really that hard to include a pressure sensor on both sides of the door and a safety check before opening?
That's not the Little Mermaid. That's The Rescuers.
The Little Mermaid was the supposedly phallic palace art.
No mater how secure a company claims to be, you can't expect them to not fallow the law.
I'll assume you meant "follow." This is true. However, we have absolutely no evidence that HushMail attempted to FIGHT this order. This should have made a big stink about it and tried to come up with ways to protect their users both technically and legally, but instead they just rolled over and tried to keep it quiet to avoid letting it hurt their bottom line.
They lied to their customers by pretending to offer them a security that was as ephemeral as their own spine.
Great! Now email your friends and watch all the messages get bounced or eaten by anti-spam filters that don't trust your home IP address.
Not all of us can afford dedicated hosting for our email.
I differ with you on this. The value of privacy is in the security it provides you -- the "right to be secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects." It's, in many ways, a right to exclude, like property. The very violation of that right to exclude is a form of trespass without the need for someone to abuse that violation further.
The other problem here is that you will most likely never know what someone has done with information gleaned from your personal papers and effects unless they do something public with it. That doesn't mean that they haven't done something harmful to you. The lack of security over one's own secrets means that one may be restrained from doing something that isn't wrong but is illegal and from doing things which aren't even illegal but are disapproved. That's an unconscionable restraint on liberty.
I guess this is a brief lesson in why one should never fully trust the encryption of your private materials to a third party.
Really, how many "vast" conspiracies were ever really proven? I sure can't think of any.
Proven government conspiracies:
- The US government's advance knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl harbor in 1941.
- COINTELPRO actions taken against civil rights leaders like MLK.
- CIA-backed coups and assassinations in Latin America during the Cold War.
- The NSA's illegal wiretapping program.
Read more history and current events.
Also, this article isn't about a "conspiracy" per se. It's about actions which are government acknowledges are going on refuses to tell the details about.
Who's more credible -- random anonymous internet posters or the Bush administration?
How did you get your post to come out blank like that?
Slashdot usually requires you to put *something* in the comment field.
Anonymous moderation is subject to its own sets of abuses, but "accountable" moderation is no panacea.
The shotgun approach where you fire off dozens of accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick suggests a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth.
As long as they're all related to the same cause of action, then it's more commonly a fear of res judicata which is a doctrine that, simply put, prevents you from being sued twice for the same cause of action.
Take the case Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade (1985). A black guy wants to build a disco next to a skating rink owned by a bank but is shot down after a local business group opposes the construction. He later sues on grounds of a racial conspiracy after a white guy gets nearly all the same permits for the skating rink which he wanted to build the disco next to. His initial case is thrown out on lack of evidence.
He then sues again over the denial of permits alleging that there was an anti-trust violation since the the president of the Board of Trade was also an officer of the bank that owned the rink and the general manager of the rink. He also noted that several of the Selectmen (city government officers) who turned down his permits were members of the Board of Trade who only did so after the board voted.
Despite having much stronger evidence of a conspiracy, his case was thrown out against two of the defendants he sued on grounds of res judicata. (A third defendant was never named in the first case and had to deal with the lawsuit, but that's another story entirely.)
Basically, you throw everything you can against the wall in the hopes that something will stick because you can face an automatic loss if you didn't think of it at the time. The doctrine of res judicata is meant to keep defendants from the fear of being perpetually dragged into court until a plaintiff finds a sympathetic judge and jury as well as to keep the courts from being bogged down with cases that should have already been decided. The side-effect is laundry list pleadings that try to hit every tort in the book.
Thanks. I think that comment pretty much just cured mine for today.