Except per Swedish and EU law that would be illegal.
I don't know why you people keep bringing it up.
Because Assange has said that if Britain and Sweden would put forth a good-faith promise not to extradite him he would happily travel to Sweden to face the molestation charges.
If what you are saying is true then I don't know why Glenn Greenwald (a former lawyer) and others would have put together a document detailing exactly how the two governments could make that promise,
This is why this is so crucial: if Sweden (and/or Britain) would provide some meaningful assurance that Assange would not be extradited to the US to face espionage charges for WikiLeaks' journalism, then the vast majority of asylum supporters (including me) would loudly demand that he immediately travel to Stockholm to confront those allegations; Assange himself has said he would do so. That gives the lie to the ugly slander that those who have expressed support for Ecuador's asylum decision are dismissive of the sex assault claims or do not care about seeing them resolved.
Speaking for myself, I have always said the same thing about those allegations in Sweden from the moment they emerged: they are serious and deserve legal resolution. It is not Assange or his supporters preventing that resolution, but the Swedish and British governments, which are strangely refusing even to negotiate as to how Assange's rights against unjust extradition and political persecution can be safeguarded along with the rights of the complainants to have their allegations addressed.
Of course, Greenwald and the Guardian might be lying but, at this point, I trust them much more than I trust British and Swedish governments.
Patents were created to help protect the upfront capital investments required for creating physical goods. We came up with a set of rules that protect against utterly absurd misapplications of this temporary monopoly. The justices are trying to apply these baseline protections to an area of investment and innovation that is radically different. If only we could just pass a law saying "this is stupid" and move on....
I had the same thought, smartphones have plenty of physical hardware interfaces and can certainly make due. AFAIK, servers are the only place where we need a lot more entropy than a standard device and where (especially on virtual machines) there is a poverty of physical signals to mix in. Even here, however, you only need to ensure that the initial seed is random, hashing will take care of the rest. FWIW, Ubuntu 14 comes with a nifty random entropy seed protocol called pollinate.
I think the authors are just going out on an a limb to try and find some practical edge to the paper. Everyone's being pushed to do that now, it's a publicity stunt that (apparently) works.
I think CloudFlare and some of the other big CDN's would need to add this as an optional feature before it got big enough to matter. I just don't see Google adopting this.
No, I'm sorry, when I say "evidence" what I mean is, and try to follow along here, "evidence". Not anecdotes. Not scary bumping noises in the night. Evidence.
Okay, "When I flew away for an appointment, I installed four alarm systems in my apartment," Appelbaum told the paper after discussing other situations which he said made him feel uneasy. "When I returned, three of them had been turned off. The fourth, however, had registered that somebody was in my flat - although I'm the only one with a key. And some of my effects, whose positions I carefully note, were indeed askew. My computers had been turned on and off."
Who breaks into an apartment, turns off alarms, and politely tries to put everything back in its place? Do you want him to post video of agents too? Just listen to the man.
Oh, and it should be simple to enforce: have the priority queue queued up before their allotted time. You have to be there X minutes before the queue is scheduled to let out or you won't get into the queue. That gives you X minutes to inspect all of the vehicle plates.
However, couldn't this be implemented as a priority queue? When the the priority queue empties, the general queue gets out. People whom are able to break camp early, without waiting for others in their group, do so. If the group *must* leave camp at the same time, they all file into the general queue.
The length of the priority queue will fluctuate, but you could plan for fewer slots later in the day (for example).
ok, so Lambda expressions are cool, but are they critical?
Yes.
They allow you to distribute a job without doing all of threads and callbacks by yourself. Even if you ignore the electron wall Moore's law is hitting, "cloud" computing is all about doing many small computations simultaneously.
...saying something they had already put on the record. He has a great issue that the public is passionate about but Obama folds every hand he is dealt.
Why doesn't ARIN just charge more per IPv4 address? They could have easily setup rents to try and even out the price being paid by early adopters. Those who really cannot upgrade can continue to do so but those that can will do so more quickly. Give them something they can put into an Excel spreadsheet vs existential benifits to adopting IPv6 at a high financial cost... seems like an obvious solution to me.
Ugh, stop blaming firewalls as being too restrictive and then saying NAT doesn't have those problems. The "many techniques" you mention of getting around NAT don't work very well and are vastly simpler to impliment using standard firewalls. NAT is a shitty hack and it's not any harder to detect if a proper firewall is blocking a port or a certain address vs a NAT just not fowarding the requests properly. NAT comes broken by default.
Because Beta has exposed a fatal flaw in web- based communities, ie that the current owner of a domain around which a community has formed can choose to do whatever they like, the new official Slashdot is on Usenet, at comp.misc and I hope to see you all there.
Eternal September is a free Usenet provider, with the caveat that they do not carry binary (warez+porn) groups. Head on over and get your account today, and then we'll see each other on comp.misc!
The intersection of people who regularly read Usenet and the people pissed off at/. moving past it's late 90's development model is nearly perfect.
He makes the case for the currency over purely electronic by saying that 3rd world countries won't tolerate cell phones as it's too expensive. At the same time, he wants to trivialize that requirement when it comes to supporting his point of adding value to such a currency since 'anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone' can verify the currency.
If someone already has a cellphone with an NFC reader then it's basically a "free" PUF verifier. Even if you want scanner to verify those payments a PUF physical scanner would be cheaper and more secure than a credit card machine. But the real distinction comes when you are in markets which don't have access to credit card payment systems at all, in which case verifying the currency is still better than judging a bill by the number of creases it has.
The article assumes for some strange reason, that those countries use coins. Well hello to the reality, many countries have paper money only and no coins, or after inflation the coins are so worthless, that they're good as collectors items only.
Wtf are you talking about? The distinction is between physical and digital versions of a currency, not between paper vs. metal incarnations of the physical currency. And, huh, if you have hyper-inflation they are worthless.
Point taken, but the thing is before that has any value, the recipient of the currency must actually verify that data. There is no point in conveying that info in an expensive physical coin, because such infrastructure could just as easily be fed the data by electronic means or even a printed slip of paper. The physical coin aspect of it becomes the tail wagging the dog, an overpriced way of conveying the counterfeit resistant data. If the data is not actually envisioned to be verified at time of transaction, then it's as useless as the serial number on a dollar.
If you can start with a trusted reader (A.K.A. a trusted base, the premise with *all* cryptography) then you can sign all of that data. Even if you are able to crack the verification code and feed an offline reader faulty data you would have to control what coins that person comes in contact with. Read up on how UXTO extension works to verify transactions authenticity without having the full block chain.
The only thing holding Bitcoin from exploding in many markets is a lack of a physical incarnation.
Incredibly wishful thinking there. Bitcoin has a lot more problems than lack of a physical incarnation. Being outlawed by major governments, at the mercy of speculators without any regulation, and downright vulnerable to an attack by a critical mass of mining resources working together.
That is in reference to markets with hyperinflation. The whole point is that the local government is trying to force people to use a useless currency. Compared to falling back on physical dollars, physical Bitcoins can be seamlessly transferred to a digital account and used online. It's about extending the utility of the digital version to a physical version, just as we can do with dollars and PayPal, just without the banks and regulatory policies which blockade people from third-world countries.
rural farmers in 3rd world countries are not going to get a smartphone and a $100/month data plan just so they can accept Bitcoin.
Exactly! But just a few sentences above it says:
anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone can check if a coin is counterfeit.
You've come round full circle to the problem in the first place: You need functioning internet infrastructure (and a long time) to validate a transaction in the secure way. Without that, you could counterfeit any 'bitcoin' based currency just as easily as any other currency.
They have made cheap, $10 devices which can verify PUF's.
A viable alternative currency for micro-nations and dictatorships with hyper-inflation."
Another foolish statement. Again, people are incorrectly assuming there is a technological solution to a socioeconomic problem. The failure of such currencies are a symptom, not a root cause. If it were as simple as all that, the citizens could just as easily move around some stable foreign currency. You can't do a safe, 'sneaky' end run around the force that governs a citizenry. So long as they are empowered to prosecute, shut down internet infrastructure, or just send soldiers into the street, no currency trick is going to work in the face of the fundamental problem.
No, this is not a solution to the problem as a whole. However, in your words, it makes end-run arounds the forces that govern the local citizenry a hell of a lot easier and safer. This helps to weaken the power of a central government to force the citizens to use a currency which they have manipulated and thus weakens the power of such a government to manipulate their currencies to begin with.
Given that patents cost $1,000-$10,000 each just in fees to the USPTO and their multi-year backlog, why don't they just offer up bounties? They could assign them semi-randomly so that by the time a patent reaches an actual examiner, they would have plenty of independent reviews of the material. Given that it took Joel Joel Spolsky 10 minutes to kill a Microsoft patent, I would spend an hour or two for a cut on the fees.
imagine how much we could make those resources achieve if we used them with the attitude those people had towards their *limited* resources.
We would gain nothing, hell we would still have god-damn teletype machines if everyone was worried about wasting nanoseconds of compute time. We would get some multiple of compute increase but we would loose out on the exponential increases in human productivity that comes from dealing with all of those abstractions automatically.
But I think we agree in that we need to focus on fixing the problems that need fixing. It's more important to figure out what you need done and then figure out whether you will hand-craft machine code or whip-up some javascript hack.
So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals.
Neither Snowden nor Julian Assange are terrorists. Julian Assange may be more anti-american, but Wikileaks does not differ fundamentally from the NYT or the Guardian.
We need to protect such whistle blowers, not persecute them.
He can't refuse the order, but they can't stop him from terminating the service, and thereby making the order moot. A beautiful gesture.
Oh no, they can stop him from doing anything that would communicate to his clients that they are being surveilled. It doesn't matter if you communicated by *not* doing something, the judge would shoot that shit down very quickly. He is likely to face significant backlash for shutting down his operation like this. Think of the old Italian mafia, do you really think they wouldn't have tried similar tactics had they been legal?
Parent has gotten low scores, but it happens more often than you would think. I personally know someone the FBI tried to plant drugs on because they had not found any on his friends (whom they had already arrested). He saw it in the police car before he got in and refused to do so until they swept it up.
They just have to pretend to smell marijuana, coerce the drug dog into faking a "hit" or claim there was an anonymous tip and they can go ape-shit on your house. Granted, I would be willing to be that a majority of the time they are right. But there is a reason why low-income communities hate cops.
If you want trust 100% of the time, you have to be fair 100% of the time
Slashdot Mirror
Except per Swedish and EU law that would be illegal.
I don't know why you people keep bringing it up.
Because Assange has said that if Britain and Sweden would put forth a good-faith promise not to extradite him he would happily travel to Sweden to face the molestation charges.
If what you are saying is true then I don't know why Glenn Greenwald (a former lawyer) and others would have put together a document detailing exactly how the two governments could make that promise,
This is why this is so crucial: if Sweden (and/or Britain) would provide some meaningful assurance that Assange would not be extradited to the US to face espionage charges for WikiLeaks' journalism, then the vast majority of asylum supporters (including me) would loudly demand that he immediately travel to Stockholm to confront those allegations; Assange himself has said he would do so. That gives the lie to the ugly slander that those who have expressed support for Ecuador's asylum decision are dismissive of the sex assault claims or do not care about seeing them resolved.
Speaking for myself, I have always said the same thing about those allegations in Sweden from the moment they emerged: they are serious and deserve legal resolution. It is not Assange or his supporters preventing that resolution, but the Swedish and British governments, which are strangely refusing even to negotiate as to how Assange's rights against unjust extradition and political persecution can be safeguarded along with the rights of the complainants to have their allegations addressed.
Of course, Greenwald and the Guardian might be lying but, at this point, I trust them much more than I trust British and Swedish governments.
Patents were created to help protect the upfront capital investments required for creating physical goods. We came up with a set of rules that protect against utterly absurd misapplications of this temporary monopoly. The justices are trying to apply these baseline protections to an area of investment and innovation that is radically different. If only we could just pass a law saying "this is stupid" and move on....
I had the same thought, smartphones have plenty of physical hardware interfaces and can certainly make due. AFAIK, servers are the only place where we need a lot more entropy than a standard device and where (especially on virtual machines) there is a poverty of physical signals to mix in. Even here, however, you only need to ensure that the initial seed is random, hashing will take care of the rest. FWIW, Ubuntu 14 comes with a nifty random entropy seed protocol called pollinate.
I think the authors are just going out on an a limb to try and find some practical edge to the paper. Everyone's being pushed to do that now, it's a publicity stunt that (apparently) works.
I think CloudFlare and some of the other big CDN's would need to add this as an optional feature before it got big enough to matter. I just don't see Google adopting this.
Wikipedia OTOH....
A Tor developer? Being paranoid? Shocking!
No, I'm sorry, when I say "evidence" what I mean is, and try to follow along here, "evidence". Not anecdotes. Not scary bumping noises in the night. Evidence.
Okay, "When I flew away for an appointment, I installed four alarm systems in my apartment," Appelbaum told the paper after discussing other situations which he said made him feel uneasy. "When I returned, three of them had been turned off. The fourth, however, had registered that somebody was in my flat - although I'm the only one with a key. And some of my effects, whose positions I carefully note, were indeed askew. My computers had been turned on and off."
Who breaks into an apartment, turns off alarms, and politely tries to put everything back in its place? Do you want him to post video of agents too? Just listen to the man.
Oh, and it should be simple to enforce: have the priority queue queued up before their allotted time. You have to be there X minutes before the queue is scheduled to let out or you won't get into the queue. That gives you X minutes to inspect all of the vehicle plates.
However, couldn't this be implemented as a priority queue? When the the priority queue empties, the general queue gets out. People whom are able to break camp early, without waiting for others in their group, do so. If the group *must* leave camp at the same time, they all file into the general queue.
The length of the priority queue will fluctuate, but you could plan for fewer slots later in the day (for example).
ok, so Lambda expressions are cool, but are they critical?
Yes.
They allow you to distribute a job without doing all of threads and callbacks by yourself. Even if you ignore the electron wall Moore's law is hitting, "cloud" computing is all about doing many small computations simultaneously.
...saying something they had already put on the record. He has a great issue that the public is passionate about but Obama folds every hand he is dealt.
Why doesn't ARIN just charge more per IPv4 address? They could have easily setup rents to try and even out the price being paid by early adopters. Those who really cannot upgrade can continue to do so but those that can will do so more quickly. Give them something they can put into an Excel spreadsheet vs existential benifits to adopting IPv6 at a high financial cost ... seems like an obvious solution to me.
Great, so 30 years in and we might actually switch over.
Thank god the IETF hasn't bowed to pressure by idiots to impliment NAT in IPv6.
Ugh, stop blaming firewalls as being too restrictive and then saying NAT doesn't have those problems. The "many techniques" you mention of getting around NAT don't work very well and are vastly simpler to impliment using standard firewalls. NAT is a shitty hack and it's not any harder to detect if a proper firewall is blocking a port or a certain address vs a NAT just not fowarding the requests properly. NAT comes broken by default.
Because Beta has exposed a fatal flaw in web- based communities, ie that the current owner of a domain around which a community has formed can choose to do whatever they like, the new official Slashdot is on Usenet, at comp.misc and I hope to see you all there.
Eternal September is a free Usenet provider, with the caveat that they do not carry binary (warez+porn) groups. Head on over and get your account today, and then we'll see each other on comp.misc!
The intersection of people who regularly read Usenet and the people pissed off at /. moving past it's late 90's development model is nearly perfect.
He makes the case for the currency over purely electronic by saying that 3rd world countries won't tolerate cell phones as it's too expensive. At the same time, he wants to trivialize that requirement when it comes to supporting his point of adding value to such a currency since 'anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone' can verify the currency.
If someone already has a cellphone with an NFC reader then it's basically a "free" PUF verifier. Even if you want scanner to verify those payments a PUF physical scanner would be cheaper and more secure than a credit card machine. But the real distinction comes when you are in markets which don't have access to credit card payment systems at all, in which case verifying the currency is still better than judging a bill by the number of creases it has.
The article assumes for some strange reason, that those countries use coins. Well hello to the reality, many countries have paper money only and no coins, or after inflation the coins are so worthless, that they're good as collectors items only.
Wtf are you talking about? The distinction is between physical and digital versions of a currency, not between paper vs. metal incarnations of the physical currency. And, huh, if you have hyper-inflation they are worthless.
Point taken, but the thing is before that has any value, the recipient of the currency must actually verify that data. There is no point in conveying that info in an expensive physical coin, because such infrastructure could just as easily be fed the data by electronic means or even a printed slip of paper. The physical coin aspect of it becomes the tail wagging the dog, an overpriced way of conveying the counterfeit resistant data. If the data is not actually envisioned to be verified at time of transaction, then it's as useless as the serial number on a dollar.
If you can start with a trusted reader (A.K.A. a trusted base, the premise with *all* cryptography) then you can sign all of that data. Even if you are able to crack the verification code and feed an offline reader faulty data you would have to control what coins that person comes in contact with. Read up on how UXTO extension works to verify transactions authenticity without having the full block chain.
The only thing holding Bitcoin from exploding in many markets is a lack of a physical incarnation.
Incredibly wishful thinking there. Bitcoin has a lot more problems than lack of a physical incarnation. Being outlawed by major governments, at the mercy of speculators without any regulation, and downright vulnerable to an attack by a critical mass of mining resources working together.
That is in reference to markets with hyperinflation. The whole point is that the local government is trying to force people to use a useless currency. Compared to falling back on physical dollars, physical Bitcoins can be seamlessly transferred to a digital account and used online. It's about extending the utility of the digital version to a physical version, just as we can do with dollars and PayPal, just without the banks and regulatory policies which blockade people from third-world countries.
rural farmers in 3rd world countries are not going to get a smartphone and a $100/month data plan just so they can accept Bitcoin.
Exactly! But just a few sentences above it says:
anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone can check if a coin is counterfeit.
You've come round full circle to the problem in the first place: You need functioning internet infrastructure (and a long time) to validate a transaction in the secure way. Without that, you could counterfeit any 'bitcoin' based currency just as easily as any other currency.
They have made cheap, $10 devices which can verify PUF's.
A viable alternative currency for micro-nations and dictatorships with hyper-inflation."
Another foolish statement. Again, people are incorrectly assuming there is a technological solution to a socioeconomic problem. The failure of such currencies are a symptom, not a root cause. If it were as simple as all that, the citizens could just as easily move around some stable foreign currency. You can't do a safe, 'sneaky' end run around the force that governs a citizenry. So long as they are empowered to prosecute, shut down internet infrastructure, or just send soldiers into the street, no currency trick is going to work in the face of the fundamental problem.
No, this is not a solution to the problem as a whole. However, in your words, it makes end-run arounds the forces that govern the local citizenry a hell of a lot easier and safer. This helps to weaken the power of a central government to force the citizens to use a currency which they have manipulated and thus weakens the power of such a government to manipulate their currencies to begin with.
RTFA, dollars are not impervious to counterfeiting and there is no way for locals to check the authenticity. With physical Bitcoins, you can get both.
Did you read the article? Physical bit coins are a solution for people that don't have the infrastructure required to make BTC work.
Please don't do this, I live in Seattle and no one cares what your area code is.
Given that patents cost $1,000-$10,000 each just in fees to the USPTO and their multi-year backlog, why don't they just offer up bounties? They could assign them semi-randomly so that by the time a patent reaches an actual examiner, they would have plenty of independent reviews of the material. Given that it took Joel Joel Spolsky 10 minutes to kill a Microsoft patent, I would spend an hour or two for a cut on the fees.
imagine how much we could make those resources achieve if we used them with the attitude those people had towards their *limited* resources.
We would gain nothing, hell we would still have god-damn teletype machines if everyone was worried about wasting nanoseconds of compute time. We would get some multiple of compute increase but we would loose out on the exponential increases in human productivity that comes from dealing with all of those abstractions automatically.
But I think we agree in that we need to focus on fixing the problems that need fixing. It's more important to figure out what you need done and then figure out whether you will hand-craft machine code or whip-up some javascript hack.
Ahh, engineering!
So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals.
Neither Snowden nor Julian Assange are terrorists. Julian Assange may be more anti-american, but Wikileaks does not differ fundamentally from the NYT or the Guardian.
We need to protect such whistle blowers, not persecute them.
He can't refuse the order, but they can't stop him from terminating the
service, and thereby making the order moot. A beautiful gesture.
Oh no, they can stop him from doing anything that would communicate to his clients that they are being surveilled. It doesn't matter if you communicated by *not* doing something, the judge would shoot that shit down very quickly. He is likely to face significant backlash for shutting down his operation like this. Think of the old Italian mafia, do you really think they wouldn't have tried similar tactics had they been legal?
Parent has gotten low scores, but it happens more often than you would think. I personally know someone the FBI tried to plant drugs on because they had not found any on his friends (whom they had already arrested). He saw it in the police car before he got in and refused to do so until they swept it up.
They just have to pretend to smell marijuana, coerce the drug dog into faking a "hit" or claim there was an anonymous tip and they can go ape-shit on your house. Granted, I would be willing to be that a majority of the time they are right. But there is a reason why low-income communities hate cops.
If you want trust 100% of the time, you have to be fair 100% of the time