Try a VPN sometime and see if that helps. With my old ISP I had sporadic issues with Netflix and even Youtube at times that mysteriously disappeared once the traffic was hidden behind a VPN. Generally costs on the order of $2-$3 / month if you buy a year at a time.
Yes it is actually not a lie if you think you are telling the truth. Mind blown.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted, given how frequently people engage in self-deceptive behavior. Religion is an obvious and easy example, but it happens constantly in the workplace, with relationships and even just casually chatting with friends.
There is a whole universe of deception that exists between lying and not-lying and it build on varying types and degrees of self-deception.
Something I forgot to mention: Amazon Prime's video selection was quite horrible for the several years that I had it, at least an order of mangnitude worse than Netflix's current selection, and the streaming performance was pretty bad too. Has that gotten any better lately? That's the main reason I didn't bothering addressing Amazon until you brought it up.
When I used it, it seemed much more like an afterthought gimmick to try to get people to get in the habit of buying stuff to take advantage of the two day shipping.
You're changing the topic. Amazon instant video is definitely not the same thing as whatever walled gardens HBO and Disney (the two companies you mentioned) are running these days.
Sure, Amazon has a slight toehold (and Hulu might have one too), but that's because they have an existing user base and decent device compatibility. A large proportion of people have a 'smart' TV or smart Bluray player or smart game console and they just use that. Amazon instant video is on a lot of those, but not as many as Netflix. Newer and smaller services are not on there, and they don't have the name recognition.
But in order for Amazon to kill Netflix, they have to do better than Netflix and intertia is a bitch in this game. (As I said elsewhere, Skype would've and should've died a very long time ago if not for the inertia of a userbase and broad name recognition.) That means that, in order to make a huge dent in the lazy people who just want Netflix and not screw with anything else (which is the topic of conversation here), the content owners really have to give Amazon the deals that they refused to give Netflix. Are they going to do that? Is Amazon prepared to offer them a much better deal than Netflix was offering? Maybe. Amazon obviously some multi-industry power they can leverage here, and Amazon Prime subscriptions are unique because of that leverage.
But that is a completely different conversation than arguing that hbo.com or Disney on Demand or something is poised to significantly eat away at Netflix's customer base. That just isn't going to happen. People will find something else to watch. Social media lets people share lists of good shows, and Netflix themselves has invested a lot of money and effort into suggesting shows they think you will like. You don't need to have 100% of the interesting shows out there to keep your subscribers; you don't even need 10% of the interesting shows out there if all you're up against are single-studio competitors like HBO or Disney.
You're not grasping the "good enough effect". Even without compatibility problems with smart TVs that are only ever going to support Netflix, It's very, very powerful.
Consider that Netflix still has (just a quick check): the West Wing, all of the Star Treks, the X Files, Friends, Cheers, Fraiser, NCIS, Bones, Firefly, Arrested Development, plus some pretty good movies (and some meh but still pretty popular/classic ones) I'm seeing like Titanic and Galaxy Quest, Good Will Hunting, Top Gun, E.T., Pirates of the Caribbean, No Country for Old Men.
For newer shows, they have their original content plus a few others like Sherlock and The Walking Dead. (I didn't look super hard)
For kids, they have Little Einsteins, Clifford, Curious George Spongebob, Winnie the Pooh, some misc. Disney stuff... more than enough for them to find something they like.
Anyone who can't easily find a hundred hours of content they wouldn't mind watching just from looking at the suggested lists is NOT an average Netflix user (or average TV/movie watcher in general). Yes, I remember when Netflix was much, much better. I sorely miss Fawlty Towers, Doctor Who, and a few others I would occasionally come back to over the years.
But Netflix can't offer anything close to a comprehensive library (at least, not via streaming... DVD delivery is another matter, and it actually is a powerful lure for people who are interested in a more comprehensive library). And neither can anyone else... at least, certainly not Disney or HBO. Amazon? Eh... anything is possible.
The niche Netflix has is in branding, compatibility, relative cheapness, no commercials, momentum granting them a large enough cash stream that they can afford to drop billions on original content (even borrowing money if necessary). Plus the aforementioned leveraging of people who prefer the DVD rental aspect (which these days is the only way to offer customers a large library at low price.) A pile of
My attitude on burden of proof is that it's on the people who claim to have obtained documents illegally, without being able to verify them.
Except it's not illegal for a journalist to publish a document that may have been obtained or disseminated illegally. We've known this for quite some time.
Obviously, we can't kill Assange with a drone, so Clinton wasn't serious.
"Obviously", Secretaries of State don't make jokes like that about people they are wholly uninterested in. Obviously, Ecuador didn't cut off his internet unless America pressured them to. It's pitiful to continue pretending that we've taken no interest in the man whatsoever.
As for the rest of your post... well, I'll leave you with two final observations:
1. You seem bent on emphasizing their being obtained illegally at the exact same time that you emphasize their supposed untrustworthiness. Uh, well, if there was an actual, real hack then we've every reason to believe that the emails are (at least mostly) genuine. These two qualms of yours are directly at odds with one another.
2. You apparently didn't look into the cryptographic proof of the emails' authenticity that I twice mentioned. Signatures are provided. Apparently some of the sigs (not all) do have mismatches, but the examples I saw were for trivial, non-controversial emails (I suspect some transcription or encoding issues may have cropped up along the way). If you really do doubt the emails' authenticity, you're free to examine the cryptographic signatures of the more interesting emails. I don't really care to put in the time to check because I think the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the material of interest is materially accurate and not fabricated. If Hillary wants me to put in the effort, she needs to at least bother to utter the words "not true."
But if you don't check because you prefer to quietly nurse your suspicions (in combination with nursing your completely contradictory grudge over the illicit nature of the leak/hack), you are of course free to. Just be aware that we do have a name for what you are engaged in: willful self-delusion.
You should be shamed of yourself for implicitly advocating the reversal of a very important Supreme Court decision. It doesn't matter how many laws were broken in obtaining that information. As a POTUS candidate, there is a very strong public interest and thus it is wholly protected by the first amendment.
And yeah, I'd argue the same for anyone who leaked Trump's tax returns. The leaker may do wrong; the journalist does not.
There was no journalistic reason to release that data. There was no smoking gun, or anything all that important.
Except there very clearly was a journalistic reason to release that data given SHE'S A GODDAMN POTUS CANDIDATE SAYING INTERESTING AND CONTROVERSIAL STUFF. Just because *you* don't think any of it is controversial doesn't make it so.
Yeah, I failed to emphasize that bit. That synergizes with the name recognition and inertia (existing customer base) to an incredible extent. This is why the war old media has declared, via the current balkanized state of affairs with each having their own private walled gardens (which I'm sure must be very satisfying to the c-levels), is doomed.
"Oh no, people are surely going to sign up for Disney's/HBO's/WB's propriety thing because they'll surely want XYZ!" misses the point entirely. The leverage doesn't work in that direction. There's no hope whatsoever unless the competing service was massive (multiple large companies banded together), aggressively priced and promoted, and readily appeared to be better product for average people of all tastes combined (and even then, they would have to be ready for a long slog, not a 1-3 year turnaround.) Niche appeal alone simply cannot crack the Netflix nut.
Collusion with major ISPs is their only potential trump card now, but they've been trying that for years to very little effect, and if they push too hard the regulators and lawmakers will take notice.
Except I'm not trying to or claiming to be inventing anything new. I'm explaining how you're obviously using existing tools wrong. I am almost 100% certain that most of the properties I describe are already present in some existing authentication systems (one person claimed Kerberos had the properties I described, but I don't get paid to research or implement this stuff so I haven't confirmed this). Many local authentication systems have some of the properties I'm looking for, and there's no reason whatsoever that those properties would work just as well over the internet. Or are you arguing that *nix password management is wrong/shitty/broken too, because they don't typically store all of their passwords in plaintext?
The reasons that you have failed to provide me have been provided by other IT professionals I've been in contact with--politics and inertia. One issue apparently with spook jobs in particular is they want to inspect your password to make sure that it's strong enough. It doesn't matter that these rules could be sent over and run client-side--they don't trust you not to modify them (which is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. No one is going to hack the rules just to use a weak password) and/or they want to inspect them randomly after the fact and they don't feel like trying to brute forcing them as a verification method.
I'm sorry, but sloth and cowardice (not telling people that their policies are moronic) are not acceptable reasons for the improper treatment of passwords.
If I had the time or inclination, I'm quite sure could rattle off the names of some Ph. D. holders who have more or less advocated for the same I'm advocating for. As it happens, I am in the process of putting together a project where I will be tackling alleged experts and sacred cows from all sorts of fields, and you'll even get to see my face for this, so if you want to laugh at what you assume is my eventual embarrassment you should have popcorn ready.
But deep down, I strongly suspect you know I'm right. If this were just a matter of stupidity on your part, you would have offered up an attempt at a counterargument by now (other than your nonsensical bit on "iterated hashing" a while back.)
It's possible, but not easy, They have to have the chops to dig in for a very long battle, and they're going to have to sacrifice a bunch of short term profit.
Collusion from ISPs can help, sure, but if they push this too far new net neutrality legislation will not be far off.
Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice. Consumers can be incredibly slow to take notice of "me too!"s that don't offer a something that is (or at least seems) fundamentally new. Skype should have died a very long time ago, (for one thing, Google Voice completely destroyed it in feature set when it showed up), but it had momentum not just in terms of customer base, but as a word people knew and knew the meaning of, just like "Netflix".
Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream. Simply willing into existence a competing service is not going to be enough--you have to outdo them, not just for one or two years, but for five or ten. I don't think a single old media giant has the chops. I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat, but I don't think they're willing to make the deals and make the sacrifices to make that happen.
Let's see. Assange has been known to leak genuine materials, and so he's reliable? That's pretty darn thin.
That is not a semantically valid rephrasing of what I just said. I said that he is not known for releasing fabrications. Stating the inverse, as you just did, is obviously a much weaker endorsement.
Someone not having any known fabrications released, after many years of genuine materials released, more or less means that a decent default assumption is that it's genuine.
When we combine this performance record with the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign has made no reasonable effort to disavow the emails after many, many days they've had to examine them (only eventually saying some extremely suspicious, hand-wavy things about a few of the emails, not specified, being 'somewhat inaccurate' or something. I forget the exact quote but it was one of the weakest, weasely-ist attempts at a disavowal-but-not-really-a-disavowal I've ever seen.), an assumption of authenticity is the only reasonable and intellectually honest assumption. If the other side doesn't call it a fake when they have every reason to call it a fake, then don't try to tell me it's not genuine.
Someone else in this thread was claiming that there were some crypto signatures or something that proved their authenticity, but I didn't get around to looking into this.
Clinton doesn't make a statement so the material is genuine?
Ah ok, so you did address that bit as well (I wasn't reading ahead.) Uh, yes? I'm sorry, what is *your* standard of "burden of proof" here when we're talking about casual conversations of what is likely to be true, not a court of law? A known-reliable (so far) source released information and Clinton decided not to dispute it. Yes, that more or less means that all reasonable people should assume that it is genuine.
You also seem awfully sure it was an inside job
I don't really give a shit (if it was the Russians and the Russians alone, then sure, I thank them for doing their part to make American democracy better by revealing evidence of corruption), but yes in general I assume most hacks are an inside job. The boogieman of hackers in foreign countries is pretty misleading. For non-soft targets, those hackers frequently need help.
while everything I've seen says there was an external attack.
I don't have any words of enlightenment for the especially credulous tonight. I'm fresh out. Sorry.
Well, I can say this: go back and read old newspapers. If that's too boring for you, go watch "Yes, Minister". Notice how leaks happen ALL THE GODDAMN TIME.
And now notice how people talk about leaks much less often nowadays, but they talk about hacking a hell of a lot. I do not believe that is a coincidence. Perhaps you do.
Assange's story about why he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy makes no sense
Uh, ok, well the prosecutor's story for why he didn't detain Assange while he was in Sweden makes no sense.
One of the women (whom he supposedly raped)'s story was completely ridiculous: she was bragging on her phone and/or computer about being his girlfriend immediately after the supposed rape and he stayed at her house for like two weeks after the supposed rape. The other one's story had fewer holes, but there were also long unexplained delays and there was no hard evidence (I don't recall which was the one who eventually withdrew her complaint.)
He asked the USA to provide assurances that we wouldn't kidnapped him; our government refused. Britain's government acted extremely aggressively and briefly threatened to STORM THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY... for an alleged rape with zero evidence other than the word of one accuser? They were willing to violate diplomatic immunity for that?
But most importantly, as Secretary of State Hillary is on record asking whether or n
By the way, that site is aimed at someone I never claimed to be. I repeatedly, explicitly deferred the details and optimization of my scheme (or more precisely, the properties that I insist any competently designed authentication system must possess) to *actual* experts (i.e. not including yourself.)
For example, I never specify the password hashing algorithm, but I do insist that one needs to not be a complete dumbass about it (e.g. the output must be significantly larger than the input so that the chance of collision is pushed very, very close to zero).
If one stumbles upon a group of "experts" building an above ground tornado shelter out of large styrofoam blocks that are hot-glued together, one does not need to be mason to point out a few flaws in their design or even sketch out an alternative that is obviously and objectively much better.
more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.
Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff, so the logical step would've been to congregate around a market leader or de facto standard early on[1] and try secure some good long term license deals or options while Netflix's position is weak.
They're trying to kill the unkillable now. Netflix is far from perfect but it fills a large niche and there's no obvious replacement for it. Trying to kill it just made it a lot more independent. They could have made Netflix their bitch if they so chose, but now Netflix knows they have a lifeline via original content... the old media giants are utterly screwed. They overplayed their hand and lost their blackmail leverage. The only thing left is to try to poison Netflix's performance even more with the ISPs, which... is not going to end well for them.
It's going to be funny as hell to watch the tables slowly turn. We'll probably get to watch as the last remaining dinosaurs of old media, perhaps in 10-20 years' time, start to beg places like Netflix to license them some content for cheap. Or maybe they'll wise up and band together to create a decent competing service before things get that bad.
1. Which many years back might have been Hulu, not Netflix. A lot of people forget how big and popular Hulu was in those early days; back when Netflix was still mostly about getting DVDs in the mail. Maybe Hulu still could be a big player; I'm not sure. Their policies kept getting more and more obnoxious and the latest shows were either uninteresting or they didn't carry them, so I haven't bothered with 'em in years. They are still around, aren't they?
Rest assured, if you try to spread this child-killing dreck in any threads in the future, I will make sure people remember just how thoroughly intellectually dishonest and incurious you and your kin were here.
The reality is even worse than you suggest though. There has never even been a placebo test of a vaccine. Not one in the history of mankind, but that is a requirement for any other type of drug.
As I explained elsewhere, this is first-rate idiocy. Go back to school. Take a statistics class or teo. Go to Wikipedia and read about the purpose of placebos in medical testing. You are sounding and acting like a moron.
The addition of a placebo control cannot uncover hidden safety concerns. EVER. It's impossible. If a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparison looks safe, then the vaccine is safe. Adding a placebo control will only make it look even safer.
This is a baldfaced lie. Presumably, you are referring to a lack of placebo-controlled studies? This is Grade A bullshit, as I've explained here.
Safety can be established using vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Such studies do exist, and they also exist on epidemiological levels as well (prevalence of disorders in populations) as well as on a less macro, more patient-centered studies.
Claiming that such vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies do not exist is a goddamn lie, and this laughable insistence on adding placebo controls absolutely could not, in any way shape or form, actually uncover any additional hidden dangers, but rather would make vaccines appear even safer than they already appear to be.
I'm dimly aware of these projects and wasn't trying to pretend I was proposing anything radically new; I just wish we could see preemptive, precautionary widespread adoption (without abandoning the current system as a fallback / legacy option). I really fear that no one will take serious steps (re: adoption, not research) until after someone has a working machine able to crack almost everything currently in widespread use.
This amuses me no end. Actually, I have a PhD in the IT security field and about a decade of relevant experience after that.
Then you should have no problem succinctly explaining the flaws in my proof of concept, back of napkin scheme, something that you hitherto have failed to even attempt. Quibbling over terminology doesn't count, as I readly and repeatedly admitted that some of my verbiage was probably off.
Or alternatively, you'd have no posting your credentials publicly so you can be verified; however, you seem to think that saying stuff like this aloud constitutes "stalking" you (despite the fact that you're the one who barged in my thread with your nonsense), so I must emphasize that none of this has been intended as any sort of micro-aggressive slight against your poor, paranoid psyche.
Nice mathematics, does not really work in practice.
Uh sure, except for the part that it has been repeatedly field-tested and works completely as expected "in practice". It is currently infeasible to scale up due to current engineering constraints, not due to any fundamental flaw in the idea. It may be worth noting that 14 nanometer tubes/transistors in 194x were pretty goddamn damn infeasible as well. No doubt that the equivalents of you were alive in 196x, patently explaining that this transistor business had clearly hit its limit.
Funding for tech research isn't an issue, either: the CIA, NRO, NSA or pretty much any of the other three letter organizations and their equivalents in China and Russia would gleefully throw a billion dollars at a project that seemed to offer the promise of catastrophically compromising pretty much every asymmetric crypto system currently in use.
I did clarify that this is strictly a long term thing to be concerned about, but we may not have much advanced warning if/when it does become an issue, because the person who first develops such a machine will be in no hurry to advertise its existence any more than the British were eager to advertise their investment into "bombes" in WWII.
You don't get to demand that of people, sorry. Not until you've provided references for all of your astonshing claims that:
1. Andrew Wakefield was exonerated by the Walker-Smith decision. I have read some of the actual documents from that ruling and your claim appears to be a baldfaced lie.
2. That a lack of placebo controls have anything to do with hidden safety concerns. This actually isn't something you can fix with a source; it's more of a brain fart / "duurr, I think water isn't wet" sort of situation. Anyone of reasonable intelligence should immediately grasp that comparison with unvaccinated individuals is more than sufficient for uncovering safety concerns (although they may be false concerns. You can't know until after a placebo controlled study is done. But that speaks against your point, not for it.)
3. That smallpox eradication (not "decline", its ERADICATION FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH except in some high security labs) had something to do with nutrition or hygiene instead of the massive erradication campaign that wiped it out in first world and third world countries alike over a very short period of time.
No, sorry, until you provide citations or admit that you were wrong on stuff like this, no one owes you a damn bit of legwork.
but the claim that in the western world, with the improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions
Smallpox was prevalent in third world nations as well. It is gone now, even in places where there have been very little gains in hygiene or nutrition. Congratulations for changing the topic once again and refusing to admit that you have been making the most absurd, provably false claims.
My other response details your misunderstandings about the purpose of placebo controls. You clearly have no idea how or why placebos are used, to the point where you're even advocating that distilled water be used for the placebo. I'll let you discover on your own why this is a wonderful demonstration of your ignorance in these matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a VPN sometime and see if that helps. With my old ISP I had sporadic issues with Netflix and even Youtube at times that mysteriously disappeared once the traffic was hidden behind a VPN. Generally costs on the order of $2-$3 / month if you buy a year at a time.
[irony intended]
it's built* , damnit. I blame the keyboard.
Yes it is actually not a lie if you think you are telling the truth. Mind blown.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted, given how frequently people engage in self-deceptive behavior. Religion is an obvious and easy example, but it happens constantly in the workplace, with relationships and even just casually chatting with friends.
There is a whole universe of deception that exists between lying and not-lying and it build on varying types and degrees of self-deception.
Something I forgot to mention: Amazon Prime's video selection was quite horrible for the several years that I had it, at least an order of mangnitude worse than Netflix's current selection, and the streaming performance was pretty bad too. Has that gotten any better lately? That's the main reason I didn't bothering addressing Amazon until you brought it up.
When I used it, it seemed much more like an afterthought gimmick to try to get people to get in the habit of buying stuff to take advantage of the two day shipping.
You're changing the topic. Amazon instant video is definitely not the same thing as whatever walled gardens HBO and Disney (the two companies you mentioned) are running these days.
Sure, Amazon has a slight toehold (and Hulu might have one too), but that's because they have an existing user base and decent device compatibility. A large proportion of people have a 'smart' TV or smart Bluray player or smart game console and they just use that. Amazon instant video is on a lot of those, but not as many as Netflix. Newer and smaller services are not on there, and they don't have the name recognition.
But in order for Amazon to kill Netflix, they have to do better than Netflix and intertia is a bitch in this game. (As I said elsewhere, Skype would've and should've died a very long time ago if not for the inertia of a userbase and broad name recognition.) That means that, in order to make a huge dent in the lazy people who just want Netflix and not screw with anything else (which is the topic of conversation here), the content owners really have to give Amazon the deals that they refused to give Netflix. Are they going to do that? Is Amazon prepared to offer them a much better deal than Netflix was offering? Maybe. Amazon obviously some multi-industry power they can leverage here, and Amazon Prime subscriptions are unique because of that leverage.
But that is a completely different conversation than arguing that hbo.com or Disney on Demand or something is poised to significantly eat away at Netflix's customer base. That just isn't going to happen. People will find something else to watch. Social media lets people share lists of good shows, and Netflix themselves has invested a lot of money and effort into suggesting shows they think you will like. You don't need to have 100% of the interesting shows out there to keep your subscribers; you don't even need 10% of the interesting shows out there if all you're up against are single-studio competitors like HBO or Disney.
You're not grasping the "good enough effect". Even without compatibility problems with smart TVs that are only ever going to support Netflix, It's very, very powerful.
Consider that Netflix still has (just a quick check): the West Wing, all of the Star Treks, the X Files, Friends, Cheers, Fraiser, NCIS, Bones, Firefly, Arrested Development, plus some pretty good movies (and some meh but still pretty popular/classic ones) I'm seeing like Titanic and Galaxy Quest, Good Will Hunting, Top Gun, E.T., Pirates of the Caribbean, No Country for Old Men.
For newer shows, they have their original content plus a few others like Sherlock and The Walking Dead. (I didn't look super hard)
For kids, they have Little Einsteins, Clifford, Curious George Spongebob, Winnie the Pooh, some misc. Disney stuff... more than enough for them to find something they like.
Anyone who can't easily find a hundred hours of content they wouldn't mind watching just from looking at the suggested lists is NOT an average Netflix user (or average TV/movie watcher in general). Yes, I remember when Netflix was much, much better. I sorely miss Fawlty Towers, Doctor Who, and a few others I would occasionally come back to over the years.
But Netflix can't offer anything close to a comprehensive library (at least, not via streaming... DVD delivery is another matter, and it actually is a powerful lure for people who are interested in a more comprehensive library). And neither can anyone else... at least, certainly not Disney or HBO. Amazon? Eh... anything is possible.
The niche Netflix has is in branding, compatibility, relative cheapness, no commercials, momentum granting them a large enough cash stream that they can afford to drop billions on original content (even borrowing money if necessary). Plus the aforementioned leveraging of people who prefer the DVD rental aspect (which these days is the only way to offer customers a large library at low price.) A pile of
My attitude on burden of proof is that it's on the people who claim to have obtained documents illegally, without being able to verify them.
Except it's not illegal for a journalist to publish a document that may have been obtained or disseminated illegally. We've known this for quite some time.
Obviously, we can't kill Assange with a drone, so Clinton wasn't serious.
"Obviously", Secretaries of State don't make jokes like that about people they are wholly uninterested in. Obviously, Ecuador didn't cut off his internet unless America pressured them to. It's pitiful to continue pretending that we've taken no interest in the man whatsoever.
As for the rest of your post... well, I'll leave you with two final observations:
1. You seem bent on emphasizing their being obtained illegally at the exact same time that you emphasize their supposed untrustworthiness. Uh, well, if there was an actual, real hack then we've every reason to believe that the emails are (at least mostly) genuine. These two qualms of yours are directly at odds with one another.
2. You apparently didn't look into the cryptographic proof of the emails' authenticity that I twice mentioned. Signatures are provided. Apparently some of the sigs (not all) do have mismatches, but the examples I saw were for trivial, non-controversial emails (I suspect some transcription or encoding issues may have cropped up along the way). If you really do doubt the emails' authenticity, you're free to examine the cryptographic signatures of the more interesting emails. I don't really care to put in the time to check because I think the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the material of interest is materially accurate and not fabricated. If Hillary wants me to put in the effort, she needs to at least bother to utter the words "not true."
But if you don't check because you prefer to quietly nurse your suspicions (in combination with nursing your completely contradictory grudge over the illicit nature of the leak/hack), you are of course free to. Just be aware that we do have a name for what you are engaged in: willful self-delusion.
You should be shamed of yourself for implicitly advocating the reversal of a very important Supreme Court decision. It doesn't matter how many laws were broken in obtaining that information. As a POTUS candidate, there is a very strong public interest and thus it is wholly protected by the first amendment.
And yeah, I'd argue the same for anyone who leaked Trump's tax returns. The leaker may do wrong; the journalist does not.
There was no journalistic reason to release that data. There was no smoking gun, or anything all that important.
Except there very clearly was a journalistic reason to release that data given SHE'S A GODDAMN POTUS CANDIDATE SAYING INTERESTING AND CONTROVERSIAL STUFF. Just because *you* don't think any of it is controversial doesn't make it so.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the journalists cannot legally be stopped from publishing documents obtained or leaked illegally.
Yes, clearly this couldn't possibly be the result of some nonmaterial encoding or transcription errors along the way.
Do any of the ones that people actually care have bad sigs? The two examples you provided appear to be pretty mundane / noncontroversial.
Yeah, I failed to emphasize that bit. That synergizes with the name recognition and inertia (existing customer base) to an incredible extent. This is why the war old media has declared, via the current balkanized state of affairs with each having their own private walled gardens (which I'm sure must be very satisfying to the c-levels), is doomed.
"Oh no, people are surely going to sign up for Disney's/HBO's/WB's propriety thing because they'll surely want XYZ!" misses the point entirely. The leverage doesn't work in that direction. There's no hope whatsoever unless the competing service was massive (multiple large companies banded together), aggressively priced and promoted, and readily appeared to be better product for average people of all tastes combined (and even then, they would have to be ready for a long slog, not a 1-3 year turnaround.) Niche appeal alone simply cannot crack the Netflix nut.
Collusion with major ISPs is their only potential trump card now, but they've been trying that for years to very little effect, and if they push too hard the regulators and lawmakers will take notice.
Amateur crypto universally sucks, no exceptions.
Except I'm not trying to or claiming to be inventing anything new. I'm explaining how you're obviously using existing tools wrong. I am almost 100% certain that most of the properties I describe are already present in some existing authentication systems (one person claimed Kerberos had the properties I described, but I don't get paid to research or implement this stuff so I haven't confirmed this). Many local authentication systems have some of the properties I'm looking for, and there's no reason whatsoever that those properties would work just as well over the internet. Or are you arguing that *nix password management is wrong/shitty/broken too, because they don't typically store all of their passwords in plaintext?
The reasons that you have failed to provide me have been provided by other IT professionals I've been in contact with--politics and inertia. One issue apparently with spook jobs in particular is they want to inspect your password to make sure that it's strong enough. It doesn't matter that these rules could be sent over and run client-side--they don't trust you not to modify them (which is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. No one is going to hack the rules just to use a weak password) and/or they want to inspect them randomly after the fact and they don't feel like trying to brute forcing them as a verification method.
I'm sorry, but sloth and cowardice (not telling people that their policies are moronic) are not acceptable reasons for the improper treatment of passwords.
If I had the time or inclination, I'm quite sure could rattle off the names of some Ph. D. holders who have more or less advocated for the same I'm advocating for. As it happens, I am in the process of putting together a project where I will be tackling alleged experts and sacred cows from all sorts of fields, and you'll even get to see my face for this, so if you want to laugh at what you assume is my eventual embarrassment you should have popcorn ready.
But deep down, I strongly suspect you know I'm right. If this were just a matter of stupidity on your part, you would have offered up an attempt at a counterargument by now (other than your nonsensical bit on "iterated hashing" a while back.)
I more or less reply to this argument here: https://slashdot.org/comments....
It's possible, but not easy, They have to have the chops to dig in for a very long battle, and they're going to have to sacrifice a bunch of short term profit.
Collusion from ISPs can help, sure, but if they push this too far new net neutrality legislation will not be far off.
Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice. Consumers can be incredibly slow to take notice of "me too!"s that don't offer a something that is (or at least seems) fundamentally new. Skype should have died a very long time ago, (for one thing, Google Voice completely destroyed it in feature set when it showed up), but it had momentum not just in terms of customer base, but as a word people knew and knew the meaning of, just like "Netflix".
Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream. Simply willing into existence a competing service is not going to be enough--you have to outdo them, not just for one or two years, but for five or ten. I don't think a single old media giant has the chops. I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat, but I don't think they're willing to make the deals and make the sacrifices to make that happen.
Let's see. Assange has been known to leak genuine materials, and so he's reliable? That's pretty darn thin.
That is not a semantically valid rephrasing of what I just said. I said that he is not known for releasing fabrications. Stating the inverse, as you just did, is obviously a much weaker endorsement.
Someone not having any known fabrications released, after many years of genuine materials released, more or less means that a decent default assumption is that it's genuine. When we combine this performance record with the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign has made no reasonable effort to disavow the emails after many, many days they've had to examine them (only eventually saying some extremely suspicious, hand-wavy things about a few of the emails, not specified, being 'somewhat inaccurate' or something. I forget the exact quote but it was one of the weakest, weasely-ist attempts at a disavowal-but-not-really-a-disavowal I've ever seen.), an assumption of authenticity is the only reasonable and intellectually honest assumption. If the other side doesn't call it a fake when they have every reason to call it a fake, then don't try to tell me it's not genuine.
Someone else in this thread was claiming that there were some crypto signatures or something that proved their authenticity, but I didn't get around to looking into this.
Clinton doesn't make a statement so the material is genuine?
Ah ok, so you did address that bit as well (I wasn't reading ahead.) Uh, yes? I'm sorry, what is *your* standard of "burden of proof" here when we're talking about casual conversations of what is likely to be true, not a court of law? A known-reliable (so far) source released information and Clinton decided not to dispute it. Yes, that more or less means that all reasonable people should assume that it is genuine.
You also seem awfully sure it was an inside job
I don't really give a shit (if it was the Russians and the Russians alone, then sure, I thank them for doing their part to make American democracy better by revealing evidence of corruption), but yes in general I assume most hacks are an inside job. The boogieman of hackers in foreign countries is pretty misleading. For non-soft targets, those hackers frequently need help.
while everything I've seen says there was an external attack.
I don't have any words of enlightenment for the especially credulous tonight. I'm fresh out. Sorry.
Well, I can say this: go back and read old newspapers. If that's too boring for you, go watch "Yes, Minister". Notice how leaks happen ALL THE GODDAMN TIME.
And now notice how people talk about leaks much less often nowadays, but they talk about hacking a hell of a lot. I do not believe that is a coincidence. Perhaps you do.
Assange's story about why he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy makes no sense
Uh, ok, well the prosecutor's story for why he didn't detain Assange while he was in Sweden makes no sense.
One of the women (whom he supposedly raped)'s story was completely ridiculous: she was bragging on her phone and/or computer about being his girlfriend immediately after the supposed rape and he stayed at her house for like two weeks after the supposed rape. The other one's story had fewer holes, but there were also long unexplained delays and there was no hard evidence (I don't recall which was the one who eventually withdrew her complaint.)
He asked the USA to provide assurances that we wouldn't kidnapped him; our government refused. Britain's government acted extremely aggressively and briefly threatened to STORM THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY... for an alleged rape with zero evidence other than the word of one accuser? They were willing to violate diplomatic immunity for that?
But most importantly, as Secretary of State Hillary is on record asking whether or n
By the way, that site is aimed at someone I never claimed to be. I repeatedly, explicitly deferred the details and optimization of my scheme (or more precisely, the properties that I insist any competently designed authentication system must possess) to *actual* experts (i.e. not including yourself.)
For example, I never specify the password hashing algorithm, but I do insist that one needs to not be a complete dumbass about it (e.g. the output must be significantly larger than the input so that the chance of collision is pushed very, very close to zero).
If one stumbles upon a group of "experts" building an above ground tornado shelter out of large styrofoam blocks that are hot-glued together, one does not need to be mason to point out a few flaws in their design or even sketch out an alternative that is obviously and objectively much better.
no, not given up.
more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.
Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff, so the logical step would've been to congregate around a market leader or de facto standard early on[1] and try secure some good long term license deals or options while Netflix's position is weak.
They're trying to kill the unkillable now. Netflix is far from perfect but it fills a large niche and there's no obvious replacement for it. Trying to kill it just made it a lot more independent. They could have made Netflix their bitch if they so chose, but now Netflix knows they have a lifeline via original content... the old media giants are utterly screwed. They overplayed their hand and lost their blackmail leverage. The only thing left is to try to poison Netflix's performance even more with the ISPs, which... is not going to end well for them.
It's going to be funny as hell to watch the tables slowly turn. We'll probably get to watch as the last remaining dinosaurs of old media, perhaps in 10-20 years' time, start to beg places like Netflix to license them some content for cheap. Or maybe they'll wise up and band together to create a decent competing service before things get that bad.
1. Which many years back might have been Hulu, not Netflix. A lot of people forget how big and popular Hulu was in those early days; back when Netflix was still mostly about getting DVDs in the mail. Maybe Hulu still could be a big player; I'm not sure. Their policies kept getting more and more obnoxious and the latest shows were either uninteresting or they didn't carry them, so I haven't bothered with 'em in years. They are still around, aren't they?
Says the man who was no earthly clue how placebo controls work, but is sure that a lack of them indicates that something must be untested or unsafe.
Your ignorance is the worst possible kind of ignorance, absolute belief that you are right.
Your ignorance is of a highly entertaining kind because you've openly demonstrated that you have zero critical thinking ability and no desire to actually understand what things imply. A lack of placebo controls in these studies helps OUR side, the side of scientists arguing that these vaccines of safe. It actually hurts your side, the side that is arguing that these vaccines are dangerous.
Rest assured, if you try to spread this child-killing dreck in any threads in the future, I will make sure people remember just how thoroughly intellectually dishonest and incurious you and your kin were here.
The reality is even worse than you suggest though. There has never even been a placebo test of a vaccine. Not one in the history of mankind, but that is a requirement for any other type of drug.
As I explained elsewhere, this is first-rate idiocy. Go back to school. Take a statistics class or teo. Go to Wikipedia and read about the purpose of placebos in medical testing. You are sounding and acting like a moron.
The addition of a placebo control cannot uncover hidden safety concerns. EVER. It's impossible. If a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparison looks safe, then the vaccine is safe. Adding a placebo control will only make it look even safer.
This is a baldfaced lie. Presumably, you are referring to a lack of placebo-controlled studies? This is Grade A bullshit, as I've explained here. Safety can be established using vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Such studies do exist, and they also exist on epidemiological levels as well (prevalence of disorders in populations) as well as on a less macro, more patient-centered studies.
Claiming that such vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies do not exist is a goddamn lie, and this laughable insistence on adding placebo controls absolutely could not, in any way shape or form, actually uncover any additional hidden dangers, but rather would make vaccines appear even safer than they already appear to be.
I'm dimly aware of these projects and wasn't trying to pretend I was proposing anything radically new; I just wish we could see preemptive, precautionary widespread adoption (without abandoning the current system as a fallback / legacy option). I really fear that no one will take serious steps (re: adoption, not research) until after someone has a working machine able to crack almost everything currently in widespread use.
This amuses me no end. Actually, I have a PhD in the IT security field and about a decade of relevant experience after that.
Then you should have no problem succinctly explaining the flaws in my proof of concept, back of napkin scheme, something that you hitherto have failed to even attempt. Quibbling over terminology doesn't count, as I readly and repeatedly admitted that some of my verbiage was probably off.
Or alternatively, you'd have no posting your credentials publicly so you can be verified; however, you seem to think that saying stuff like this aloud constitutes "stalking" you (despite the fact that you're the one who barged in my thread with your nonsense), so I must emphasize that none of this has been intended as any sort of micro-aggressive slight against your poor, paranoid psyche.
Nice mathematics, does not really work in practice.
Uh sure, except for the part that it has been repeatedly field-tested and works completely as expected "in practice". It is currently infeasible to scale up due to current engineering constraints, not due to any fundamental flaw in the idea. It may be worth noting that 14 nanometer tubes/transistors in 194x were pretty goddamn damn infeasible as well. No doubt that the equivalents of you were alive in 196x, patently explaining that this transistor business had clearly hit its limit.
Funding for tech research isn't an issue, either: the CIA, NRO, NSA or pretty much any of the other three letter organizations and their equivalents in China and Russia would gleefully throw a billion dollars at a project that seemed to offer the promise of catastrophically compromising pretty much every asymmetric crypto system currently in use.
I did clarify that this is strictly a long term thing to be concerned about, but we may not have much advanced warning if/when it does become an issue, because the person who first develops such a machine will be in no hurry to advertise its existence any more than the British were eager to advertise their investment into "bombes" in WWII.
You don't get to demand that of people, sorry. Not until you've provided references for all of your astonshing claims that:
1. Andrew Wakefield was exonerated by the Walker-Smith decision. I have read some of the actual documents from that ruling and your claim appears to be a baldfaced lie.
2. That a lack of placebo controls have anything to do with hidden safety concerns. This actually isn't something you can fix with a source; it's more of a brain fart / "duurr, I think water isn't wet" sort of situation. Anyone of reasonable intelligence should immediately grasp that comparison with unvaccinated individuals is more than sufficient for uncovering safety concerns (although they may be false concerns. You can't know until after a placebo controlled study is done. But that speaks against your point, not for it.)
3. That smallpox eradication (not "decline", its ERADICATION FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH except in some high security labs) had something to do with nutrition or hygiene instead of the massive erradication campaign that wiped it out in first world and third world countries alike over a very short period of time.
No, sorry, until you provide citations or admit that you were wrong on stuff like this, no one owes you a damn bit of legwork.
but the claim that in the western world, with the improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions
Smallpox was prevalent in third world nations as well. It is gone now, even in places where there have been very little gains in hygiene or nutrition. Congratulations for changing the topic once again and refusing to admit that you have been making the most absurd, provably false claims.
My other response details your misunderstandings about the purpose of placebo controls. You clearly have no idea how or why placebos are used, to the point where you're even advocating that distilled water be used for the placebo. I'll let you discover on your own why this is a wonderful demonstration of your ignorance in these matters.