huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.
So long as your definition of security is one that is non-quantitative, sure.
If, on the other hand, your measurement of security is that none of your customers have ever been compromised using your product, I think any "hurdle", no matter how trivial it is to some attackers, can be worth it, so long as it is non-trivial to other attackers.
I completely agree with your definition and rebuttal to the grandparent, but can I just say that STO is often used as an excuse for poor secrecy? Yeah, it's great if you can write perfect code and implement an adequate encryption standard, but that's no reason to go advertising which encryption standard you're using, unless you really have to. If someone is intercepting traffic on the wire I'd rather make them know stuff about the entropy of common encryption standards and have to guess which one it is.. and then figure out how I'm doing block chaining and which packet envelope I'm using, etc, etc. If all that is published then they don't even have to look at the implementation. By forcing them to look at the implementation you're ruling out less sophisticated attackers.
Wow. Retarded reply gets modded up to the highest post.. I'd be surprised, but hey, it's a non-IT article on Slashdot.
How would you feel if I told you that teenagers have been using biobricks to do some of this "pipe dream" stuff for about 10 years now. That there's an annual international competition to showcase what they come up with and that has been running since 2003? That biobricks are a standard part of genetic engineering of microbes for industrial use? That basically everything you said was so horrendously outdated and ignorant that you sound like someone talking about the impossibility of heavier than air flight in 1913.
I know things have been bad around here for a long time and we've all come to just accept it, but would it be too much to ask that the moderation system undergo a little bit of review? I'm gunna ask the Taco.
An average idiot like you perhaps? Did ya know that DNA does not a virus make? Of course not. Basically what you're suggesting is that "oh no, someone might be able to download the plans for a nuclear weapon of the internets!!"
Seems that ordinary people may soon be able to do synthetic biology. No wet lab required.
I could imagine getting into that. Design a few "circuits", send away for them to be built, unpack the slides and.. expose em to ultraviolet light and see if they turn yellow, I guess.
VASIMR has not produced any thrust. Plasma generation has been tested at full power.. wooooooooop. Anyone with a vacuum chamber and a whole lot of charged up capacitors can do that. The thing they haven't gotten working yet is the magnetic nozzle..
VASIMR has yet to generate any thrust. They can pump plasma up with 200 kW of power, but they don't actually have a working magnetic nozzle. For some reason they think it will "just work" when they get it up to the ISS and for now NASA is humoring them.. but hey it's been that way for 32 years.
"Russian space program" "Desperate for cash" "[NASA] developing cutting-edge technology" "leave the commercialization of space to the private sector." "space elevator"
yep, you've definitely been listening to the western propaganda. Let me just fix a few of these up here:
1. It's Energia who is providing the flights, you know, a private corporation that sells flights on their rockets to anyone who will pay? 2. They are "desperate for cash" in the exact same way any company with a product they want to sell is. 3. NASA does indeed do some great research that occasionally makes it out of their little pork barrel and into the greater world, but not in rocketry.. their stuff is 1970s era technology compared to Energia's 60s era stuff, not a great leap forward. 4. Private sector eh, like, say, Energia? Or do you mean like the COTS program? Which NASA is doing everything possible to smother when it comes to crew launch. 5. Space elevator.. oh god, you're one them aren't you, you're one of them.
Dude, no-one is talking about sending a scientist up there, so you can stop your whining. Your choice is either:
* two army brats and an empty seat; or * two army brats and a paying third pair of hands.
There's no choice of:
* three ivy league trained professors
Know how many geologists the US sent to the Moon? One, and it was on the last mission. For the foreseeable future, especially since the shuttle is being retired, science in space remains a "pack it tight and make your handling instructions simple, and you might get it back in one piece if the parachutes open".
So, basically, you agree with me? If there's nothing you can do about it, stop whining?
And BTW, you don't need multimillion dollar loans, you need multimillion dollar *investment* and you'll find that's a lot easier to get if the people you're suggesting you compete with are as incompetent as you claim they are, or maybe you're just whining.
Your point being? There was market research 5 years ago that suggested people were ready to fly. They had a vehicle 5 years ago but they chose not to fly anyone - apparently it wasn't as reusable as they said it was cause it only ever flew to space twice. So they hyped up a market and then failed to deliver the product. You can't blame some global financial boogey man for this, it's simple time-to-market failure.
So what you're saying is that if you're a prisoner of a monopoly you should WHINE as loudly as you possibly can. Rather than, say, starting a competitor.. or just accepting that nothing you do in life matters.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/538/
I think that's more appropriate.
Everything you do at MIT is pointless.
You don't actually do anything at Harvard.
huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.
the finding does kinda sound like "we can't fix this loophole in this court, but try a higher court!"
You're declaring them ineffective apriori. I'm asking you why you consider them ineffective.
Performance losses with no real gain in security.
So long as your definition of security is one that is non-quantitative, sure.
If, on the other hand, your measurement of security is that none of your customers have ever been compromised using your product, I think any "hurdle", no matter how trivial it is to some attackers, can be worth it, so long as it is non-trivial to other attackers.
adding an insignificant hurdle to weed out less sophisticated attackers is pointless.
Huh? It weeds out less sophisticated attackers.. how is that pointless?
Defense in depth means multiple layers of in-theory-solid defenses, not multiple layers of broken defenses meant to annoy attackers
What's wrong with having both?
Nope, not a troll. "Traitor of the revolution" is putting it nicely. I hope Miguel gets cancer. Really.
I completely agree with your definition and rebuttal to the grandparent, but can I just say that STO is often used as an excuse for poor secrecy? Yeah, it's great if you can write perfect code and implement an adequate encryption standard, but that's no reason to go advertising which encryption standard you're using, unless you really have to. If someone is intercepting traffic on the wire I'd rather make them know stuff about the entropy of common encryption standards and have to guess which one it is.. and then figure out how I'm doing block chaining and which packet envelope I'm using, etc, etc. If all that is published then they don't even have to look at the implementation. By forcing them to look at the implementation you're ruling out less sophisticated attackers.
You're a fucking scumbag Miguel.
Wow. Retarded reply gets modded up to the highest post.. I'd be surprised, but hey, it's a non-IT article on Slashdot.
How would you feel if I told you that teenagers have been using biobricks to do some of this "pipe dream" stuff for about 10 years now. That there's an annual international competition to showcase what they come up with and that has been running since 2003? That biobricks are a standard part of genetic engineering of microbes for industrial use? That basically everything you said was so horrendously outdated and ignorant that you sound like someone talking about the impossibility of heavier than air flight in 1913.
I know things have been bad around here for a long time and we've all come to just accept it, but would it be too much to ask that the moderation system undergo a little bit of review? I'm gunna ask the Taco.
An average idiot like you perhaps? Did ya know that DNA does not a virus make? Of course not. Basically what you're suggesting is that "oh no, someone might be able to download the plans for a nuclear weapon of the internets!!"
Seems that ordinary people may soon be able to do synthetic biology. No wet lab required.
I could imagine getting into that. Design a few "circuits", send away for them to be built, unpack the slides and.. expose em to ultraviolet light and see if they turn yellow, I guess.
VASIMR has not produced any thrust. Plasma generation has been tested at full power.. wooooooooop. Anyone with a vacuum chamber and a whole lot of charged up capacitors can do that. The thing they haven't gotten working yet is the magnetic nozzle..
"Costa Rican scientist and former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz created the VASIMR concept and has been working on its development since 1977."
This deserves a new category of vaporware.. plasmaware?
VASIMR has yet to generate any thrust. They can pump plasma up with 200 kW of power, but they don't actually have a working magnetic nozzle. For some reason they think it will "just work" when they get it up to the ISS and for now NASA is humoring them.. but hey it's been that way for 32 years.
The game in my sig was actually played in a tournament though.
Sigh. Reality, you should look into it sometime.
"Russian space program"
"Desperate for cash"
"[NASA] developing cutting-edge technology"
"leave the commercialization of space to the private sector."
"space elevator"
yep, you've definitely been listening to the western propaganda. Let me just fix a few of these up here:
1. It's Energia who is providing the flights, you know, a private corporation that sells flights on their rockets to anyone who will pay?
2. They are "desperate for cash" in the exact same way any company with a product they want to sell is.
3. NASA does indeed do some great research that occasionally makes it out of their little pork barrel and into the greater world, but not in rocketry.. their stuff is 1970s era technology compared to Energia's 60s era stuff, not a great leap forward.
4. Private sector eh, like, say, Energia? Or do you mean like the COTS program? Which NASA is doing everything possible to smother when it comes to crew launch.
5. Space elevator.. oh god, you're one them aren't you, you're one of them.
Dude, no-one is talking about sending a scientist up there, so you can stop your whining. Your choice is either:
* two army brats and an empty seat; or
* two army brats and a paying third pair of hands.
There's no choice of:
* three ivy league trained professors
Know how many geologists the US sent to the Moon? One, and it was on the last mission. For the foreseeable future, especially since the shuttle is being retired, science in space remains a "pack it tight and make your handling instructions simple, and you might get it back in one piece if the parachutes open".
So, basically, you agree with me? If there's nothing you can do about it, stop whining?
And BTW, you don't need multimillion dollar loans, you need multimillion dollar *investment* and you'll find that's a lot easier to get if the people you're suggesting you compete with are as incompetent as you claim they are, or maybe you're just whining.
It's really not. You've just gotta start at the bottom.. something Americans don't like doing anymore.
Your point being? There was market research 5 years ago that suggested people were ready to fly. They had a vehicle 5 years ago but they chose not to fly anyone - apparently it wasn't as reusable as they said it was cause it only ever flew to space twice. So they hyped up a market and then failed to deliver the product. You can't blame some global financial boogey man for this, it's simple time-to-market failure.
So what you're saying is that if you're a prisoner of a monopoly you should WHINE as loudly as you possibly can. Rather than, say, starting a competitor.. or just accepting that nothing you do in life matters.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhhhh.. I tell ya. Talking to morons on Slashdot is tiring.
They do the same thing as the cosmonauts.
Get it through your thick skull.. Christ.