It is as much a non-story as anyone else going through "enhanced" screening, yes, but people seem to care more when it happens to a child. Of course, not screening children would open an obvious vulnerability -- nevermind the fact that body cavities, and the screeners themselves for that matter, are a much greater vulnerability. When can we stop pretending that security theater is anything other than a mild deterrent? Nobody who's willing to risk getting caught by a metal detector is going to be deterred by a body scan or a pat down, random or otherwise.
Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re
on
TSA Pats Down 3-Year-Old
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There's nothing wrong with searching people getting on flights.
Funny how we did just fine for 40+ years of commercial air travel without it. The risk of dying in a plane crash is tiny to start with -- about 1 in 11 million -- and the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is smaller still. This is a) a waste of taxpayer dollars in simple terms of ROI, b) a violation of the 4th Amendment by all but the most extreme of standards, c) a clear and present example of the "slippery slope" principle in action. First metal detectors, then x-rays, then luggage searches, then shoe removal, then body scanners, then pat downs, then "enhanced" pat downs (are those anything like enhanced interrogation techniques?), and what's next? It's obscene. It's allowing ourselves to behave in a terrorized fashion. And I have no qualms about someone seeing me naked, or irrational fear of what amounts to little more than background radiation. It's not about that. It's the principle of subjecting ourselves (and our loved ones) to degrading, unnecessary, ineffective, overreaching, and (IMO) unconstitutional practices just because someone yells "Boo!" It's outrageous that people allow themselves to be cowed like this.
Look, if the "turrists" want to get us, they can. There are ample opportunities where huge amounts of people congregate that dwarf the contents of any plane (or any 4 planes for that matter), many with little or no security. Even putting aside the idea that there's no such thing as foolproof security, even if we secure those locations, they'll just pick others. Playing whack-a-mole is not the way to win -- the way to win is not to play that game.
Pfft, that would just preserve it. Better to memorize the contents while under hypnosis such that nobody -- not even you -- can access your memory without the appropriate.. aw shit!
it is also theoretically possible to get a degree in engineering without having ever arrived at a correct answer, getting partial credit for following directions and keeping the work neat (graduate with a low C average). In practice, it never happens - people who can follow the directions and give answers that make sense in the context of the problem (correct sign, order of magnitude, and units) tend to be able to get the right answers.
Interesting hypotenuse. I take that as a challenge, sur.
The Beatles had a couple of things on their side that these others didn't and that was better recording equipment and more ability (ie. Money) to tool around the studio getting the sound that they wanted.
Nonsense.
Pink Floyd recorded Piper At The Gates Of Dawn in 1967 in Abbey Road studios - same place and same time when The Beatles were recording Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band. Various sources mention that both bands visited each other during the recording sessions in Spring 1967 (Pink Floyd visited The Beatles when the latter were recording It's Getting Better). 1. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~dekhtyar/pfdb/beatles.html 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd#The_Piper_at_the_Gates_of_Dawn
Floyd certainly admired the Beatles, and it would be splitting hairs to differentiate between admiration and influence -- they go hand in hand.
From the horses mouth, in an interview with Waters: You can draw a line between what I'm interested in and what I'm not interested in," he said. "On one side you can name Dylan and Lennon, who observe the world and have "feelings", and write songs directly from those feelings. On the vapid side you have pop groups who need material and write songs to fill the hole, rather than getting somebody else. But they might just as well get somebody else, because it's a manufacturing process. It's not poetry, because it doesn't spring from heart or guts or wherever John Lennon's or Dylan's songs came from.... That's taken over an awful lot of the business. You could say, 'Well, why shouldn't it?' Absolutely no reason, so long as it doesn't take over and squeeze out the Lennons and Dylans because they're too good for it. 1. http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rw/rwmusician92.html
Certainly the revolution between 1965 and 1975 was a group effort, with many musicians involved, but clearly the Beatles were leading the charge. (And for what it's worth, I don't like or own any of the Beatles' music, though I've owned almost every Floyd album released and several bootlegs. These days I'm ambivalent about music because I'm tired of the old, and there's little new of value being produced.)
Not to mention an exhaustive rainbow table search would've taken about 5 minutes on an average desktop, and as a bonus you'd likely get all passwords up to 8 chars (depending on your particular table).
Also note he did not mention their cryptographic techniques, which is where I would expect them to be especially advanced.
From a design standpoint, it's cheaper and more effective to leverage solutions that can be widely vetted and tested than it is to work strictly in a closed environment implementing your own solution and hoping you thought of everything. I'd frankly be *very* surprised if the NSA had anything more than potential (if promising) avenues of exploration with regards to "next-gen" encryption, and certainly wouldn't expect that they'd be using untested solutions in the field.
I may or may not know what I'm talking about, but then, the person quoted in the article may or may not have been spreading misinformation.;)
No one is putting a gun to people's heads and telling them to buy lottery tickets, smoke tobacco, or give money to televangelists.
I'd agree with you on all counts but the last. At best, televangelists claim they will remove a third party's gun from your head, much like this very scam in fact.
Or you have kids in your house. I imagine some people also want to hide it from their spouse, though mine's favorite line seems to be "Not tonight.. go watch some porn."
"laying FTTH" of course is nice, but it's also mighty expensive and disruptive to break open all the streets and dig trenches to everyone's home.
Most recent developments already have underground conduits. It shouldn't require more than targeted digging where each individual feed branches from the main. Not cheap, but I would think it's better than tearing up a whole street.
Most older developments have phone poles. They're not ideal, but it's doable to run fiber along them, and less expensive than digging to boot.
At the very least we should mandate that fiber runs be included in the infrastructure of any new developments, if that isn't already the case. I know my home was built just over a decade ago during the dot com era, and some homes down the road were build less than three years ago, but none of us have fiber... maybe things have changed since then.
I don't really get to choose which CEOs to buy, except indirectly by not buying their stocks (which I don't) or not buying products produced by their company (which is not always feasible, though obviously it's technically possible).
My point is a larger one anyway -- boards are free to overvalue their CEOs the same way speculators overvalued real estate, or dot coms, or (I would argue heavily) gold right now, or whatever else. Bubbles aren't something I can control inherently, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend they don't exist either. Indeed, living in a society means I have to live with the consequences of other people's choices (which meant, for example, that I couldn't find a house at a reasonable price prior to the recent crash, though I'm quite glad I held out).
Frankly, I think we need a cap on officer compensation (including bonuses, retirements, and severances) for all publicly traded companies, and I can't think of any reason that shouldn't be limited to 2.5x the average employee salary. If your employees can live off of $50k (on average), then you can certainly live off of $125k or you can reevaluate the true worth of your employees. I think the dogfood principle should be in full effect, and yes, I think it should be law (for publicly traded companies), because no company would voluntarily impose such self-restraint absent external forces. Is that anti-free market? Not at all. It's anti-plutocracy. It would directly reward competence, and prevent officers from excluding themselves from the circumstances and consequences of their actions that directly affect their employees. If times are tight, then fine, but that should necessarily affect the CEO too. These things used to be common sense principles, but they've inched slowly toward the absurd disconnect that we have today. We can either correct it the easy way by imposing regulation, or the painful way when people can't afford to eat, but one way or the other, it must be corrected.
I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support. - Francis Crick
Slashdot Mirror
It is as much a non-story as anyone else going through "enhanced" screening, yes, but people seem to care more when it happens to a child. Of course, not screening children would open an obvious vulnerability -- nevermind the fact that body cavities, and the screeners themselves for that matter, are a much greater vulnerability. When can we stop pretending that security theater is anything other than a mild deterrent? Nobody who's willing to risk getting caught by a metal detector is going to be deterred by a body scan or a pat down, random or otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with searching people getting on flights.
Funny how we did just fine for 40+ years of commercial air travel without it. The risk of dying in a plane crash is tiny to start with -- about 1 in 11 million -- and the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is smaller still. This is a) a waste of taxpayer dollars in simple terms of ROI, b) a violation of the 4th Amendment by all but the most extreme of standards, c) a clear and present example of the "slippery slope" principle in action. First metal detectors, then x-rays, then luggage searches, then shoe removal, then body scanners, then pat downs, then "enhanced" pat downs (are those anything like enhanced interrogation techniques?), and what's next? It's obscene. It's allowing ourselves to behave in a terrorized fashion. And I have no qualms about someone seeing me naked, or irrational fear of what amounts to little more than background radiation. It's not about that. It's the principle of subjecting ourselves (and our loved ones) to degrading, unnecessary, ineffective, overreaching, and (IMO) unconstitutional practices just because someone yells "Boo!" It's outrageous that people allow themselves to be cowed like this.
Look, if the "turrists" want to get us, they can. There are ample opportunities where huge amounts of people congregate that dwarf the contents of any plane (or any 4 planes for that matter), many with little or no security. Even putting aside the idea that there's no such thing as foolproof security, even if we secure those locations, they'll just pick others. Playing whack-a-mole is not the way to win -- the way to win is not to play that game.
Pfft, that would just preserve it. Better to memorize the contents while under hypnosis such that nobody -- not even you -- can access your memory without the appropriate.. aw shit!
He wasn't apologizing for his language; only lamenting its shape!
RDRR
it is also theoretically possible to get a degree in engineering without having ever arrived at a correct answer, getting partial credit for following directions and keeping the work neat (graduate with a low C average). In practice, it never happens - people who can follow the directions and give answers that make sense in the context of the problem (correct sign, order of magnitude, and units) tend to be able to get the right answers.
Interesting hypotenuse. I take that as a challenge, sur.
The Beatles had a couple of things on their side that these others didn't and that was better recording equipment and more ability (ie. Money) to tool around the studio getting the sound that they wanted.
Nonsense.
Pink Floyd recorded Piper At The Gates Of Dawn in 1967 in Abbey Road studios - same place and same time when The Beatles were recording Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band. Various sources mention that both bands visited each other during the recording sessions in Spring 1967 (Pink Floyd visited The Beatles when the latter were recording It's Getting Better). 1. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~dekhtyar/pfdb/beatles.html 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd#The_Piper_at_the_Gates_of_Dawn
Floyd certainly admired the Beatles, and it would be splitting hairs to differentiate between admiration and influence -- they go hand in hand.
From the horses mouth, in an interview with Waters: You can draw a line between what I'm interested in and what I'm not interested in," he said. "On one side you can name Dylan and Lennon, who observe the world and have "feelings", and write songs directly from those feelings. On the vapid side you have pop groups who need material and write songs to fill the hole, rather than getting somebody else. But they might just as well get somebody else, because it's a manufacturing process. It's not poetry, because it doesn't spring from heart or guts or wherever John Lennon's or Dylan's songs came from. ... That's taken over an awful lot of the business. You could say, 'Well, why shouldn't it?' Absolutely no reason, so long as it doesn't take over and squeeze out the Lennons and Dylans because they're too good for it. 1. http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rw/rwmusician92.html
Certainly the revolution between 1965 and 1975 was a group effort, with many musicians involved, but clearly the Beatles were leading the charge. (And for what it's worth, I don't like or own any of the Beatles' music, though I've owned almost every Floyd album released and several bootlegs. These days I'm ambivalent about music because I'm tired of the old, and there's little new of value being produced.)
The best security advancements don't come from new theoretical math theory, they come from making security easy and convenient for average people.
Too bad, then, that security is inversely proportional to convenience.
Not to mention an exhaustive rainbow table search would've taken about 5 minutes on an average desktop, and as a bonus you'd likely get all passwords up to 8 chars (depending on your particular table).
Envelopers! Envelopers! Envelopers!
If you're not sharing your condom with someone, you're using it wrong.
Also note he did not mention their cryptographic techniques, which is where I would expect them to be especially advanced.
From a design standpoint, it's cheaper and more effective to leverage solutions that can be widely vetted and tested than it is to work strictly in a closed environment implementing your own solution and hoping you thought of everything. I'd frankly be *very* surprised if the NSA had anything more than potential (if promising) avenues of exploration with regards to "next-gen" encryption, and certainly wouldn't expect that they'd be using untested solutions in the field.
I may or may not know what I'm talking about, but then, the person quoted in the article may or may not have been spreading misinformation. ;)
I sort of wish he had succeeded, if only so I could turn in my old boss for infringement. :(
Even if they can trademark it, it's long since lost its novelty and value. A day late and a dollar short, so to speak.
Actually let's give them that phrase instead, then everyone wins.
No one is putting a gun to people's heads and telling them to buy lottery tickets, smoke tobacco, or give money to televangelists.
I'd agree with you on all counts but the last. At best, televangelists claim they will remove a third party's gun from your head, much like this very scam in fact.
Or you have kids in your house. I imagine some people also want to hide it from their spouse, though mine's favorite line seems to be "Not tonight.. go watch some porn."
"laying FTTH" of course is nice, but it's also mighty expensive and disruptive to break open all the streets and dig trenches to everyone's home.
Most recent developments already have underground conduits. It shouldn't require more than targeted digging where each individual feed branches from the main. Not cheap, but I would think it's better than tearing up a whole street.
Most older developments have phone poles. They're not ideal, but it's doable to run fiber along them, and less expensive than digging to boot.
At the very least we should mandate that fiber runs be included in the infrastructure of any new developments, if that isn't already the case. I know my home was built just over a decade ago during the dot com era, and some homes down the road were build less than three years ago, but none of us have fiber... maybe things have changed since then.
I don't really get to choose which CEOs to buy, except indirectly by not buying their stocks (which I don't) or not buying products produced by their company (which is not always feasible, though obviously it's technically possible).
My point is a larger one anyway -- boards are free to overvalue their CEOs the same way speculators overvalued real estate, or dot coms, or (I would argue heavily) gold right now, or whatever else. Bubbles aren't something I can control inherently, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend they don't exist either. Indeed, living in a society means I have to live with the consequences of other people's choices (which meant, for example, that I couldn't find a house at a reasonable price prior to the recent crash, though I'm quite glad I held out).
Frankly, I think we need a cap on officer compensation (including bonuses, retirements, and severances) for all publicly traded companies, and I can't think of any reason that shouldn't be limited to 2.5x the average employee salary. If your employees can live off of $50k (on average), then you can certainly live off of $125k or you can reevaluate the true worth of your employees. I think the dogfood principle should be in full effect, and yes, I think it should be law (for publicly traded companies), because no company would voluntarily impose such self-restraint absent external forces. Is that anti-free market? Not at all. It's anti-plutocracy. It would directly reward competence, and prevent officers from excluding themselves from the circumstances and consequences of their actions that directly affect their employees. If times are tight, then fine, but that should necessarily affect the CEO too. These things used to be common sense principles, but they've inched slowly toward the absurd disconnect that we have today. We can either correct it the easy way by imposing regulation, or the painful way when people can't afford to eat, but one way or the other, it must be corrected.
Hunger strikes don't need marginalizing; they're the grown-up version of holding one's breath.
The time of a CEOs literally costs more, their time is valuable, the job is incredibly demanding and very hard to get right.
Right, because we know the market *never* horrendously overvalues commodities.
I would accept the roll of the dice that I would be one of those people.
Your mom probably disagrees vehemently and, if rumors are to be believed, so does mine. :/
I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support. - Francis Crick
I want to make a pair of pants that's opaque to this technology. I wonder if there's anything we could weave into the fabric other than lead?
For that you are a stupendous
Oh yeah? Well, you're a... pianist.
How do you accidentally anything?