It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.
Well, there are no Arabs in Afghanistan, and we aren't at war with Iraq yet. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure That a Young, white, "patriot/militia" type person would be more likely to be a terrorist then an average Arab Muslim. (btw, how do you feel about Arab Christians? are they OK to you? The Israelis certainly don't think so...)
How does the average Muslim feel about the US? Well, how did the average Capitalist feel about the Soviet Union during the cold war? Would that mean that anyone with capitalist leanings in Russia be treated like a terrorist, harassed, searched, imprisoned, etc? Of course, BECAUSE THE USSR WAS A FUCKING POLICE STATE!
I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the stupidest thing the government has done since September 11 or just the most revolting.
Um, what about the thousands of people who were put into 'indefinite detainment' without access to a lawyer, their families, or anything else? In some cases, their families weren't even notified.
Stupid? Maybe not. Revolting? That doesn't even begin to describe the action. Certainly more revolting then this.
Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.
Well, the last ones did.
I doubt the next will. But then, I also think the next ones will get stomped on by the passengers, so honestly I don't see the point in any of this. But whatever.
Well, at least it's not racial profiling by morons who can't even tell one race from another.
But seriously, any kind of system that 'unevenly' applies security screening actually opens a door for terrorists. All they have to do is send their cell members on flights frequently, and see which ones get checked more often. Pack the weapons and stuff on the people who get checked less frequently, and now you're mission has a greater chance of success then with random checks.
"Well, why not just do both random and profiled checks?" you might ask, well, why not just do more random checks? I mean, either the airport can search everyone, or some other percentage. The best security would be gained by "spending" all your checks doing random checks. Any other system unevenly distributes the chances of being checked, and decreases security. br>
I saw a paper online about this a while ago. It was a bit more rigorous, but I can't dig up the link. Ah well.
Maybe I'm crazy but I care more about not getting killed in an airplane by terrorists than whether or not there is a big data base about me.
Well, good for you. I, on the other hand, am not. If the 9/11 hijackers tried to take control of a plane today, the rest of the passengers would take them down. (And, if they didn't the plane would be shot down. Not that it would do you any good, but still.)
The rest of this is just a power grab by the totalitarian element in our government.
I'd rather live in a place with occasional suicide bomber then in 1984land, personally.
I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.
Well, assuming that A) the system is infallible, and B) no one ever uses the data for 'bad things' either people with legit or illegitimate access.
For obvious reasons, those are not assumptions I'm going to make...
Customer: "I thought you said the ticket was $125!"
Ticket Girl: "Well, yes. But you owe taxes for 1987, have five unpaid parking tickets in NYC, and you, (pauses), heh, have an unpaid citation for, heh, urinating in public that you got in June of '92."
Customer: (red faced). "Uh, look, I was drunk, I mean, i looked.... *sigh*, just whatever. How much?"
Ticket girl: "that'll be $790.45"
Customer: "Fine, whatever" (hands her the money)
Ticket girl: "Remember, there are bathrooms conveniently located at the fore and aft of the plane" (makes stewardess hand gestures.
Wether or not they are 'supposed' to look like idiots dosn't change the fact that they do, and that people don't want to be 'like' an idiot wether they are or not.
Why not just use a two button mouse. Obviously, people don't have problems with it. Obvioulsly hitting 'control-click' or 'click+hold+for+one+second' is more difficult/annoying then just using another finger. It's like they're trying to prove a point.
Since when is a Gui "entertaining"? I mean, I realize that little animations and stuff for scrolling around on the dock (or whatever) might be fun for the first five minutes, I would certainly hope that apple users are brainwashed enough to pay $130 for that...
The people who never ever come up with a useful invention still get paid by the company.
Or maybe they get fired. I certainly wouldn't keep someone on my payroll if they had never thought up anything even theoretically useful...
And the people who come up with lots also get paid. If they worked on commission, the first group of people would get nothing and the second group would become rich.
Are you honestly saying that intelligent people should subsidize stupid people? If people can't think up shit, they should go flip burgers or something that actually helps society.
Actually, photographers are the only group that is true for. If you pay somebody to create something, then it should be yours at the end.
Authors also keep their copyright to their work, of course they usually write first and license to the publishing companies/magazines.
Film companies get a copyright, but when you think about how much work goes into making a film, it makes sense. Music companies get the copyright to their artist's music, but that's just because they've been able to rape musicians for a lot of money.
The government didn't know what buildings were going to have a plane imprint last time, dispite the fact that they already knew all about binladen and co.
The secret isn't the speckle pattern, but rather the output of the speckle pattern when tested from an arbitrary angle. even if you know the speckle patern, you can't computational figure out what the output would be with todays computers (or tommorow's, or the next years, etc.)
You just use the 'fob' as we're calling it here as any other one way function. Take say, 8 bits of data, and point the lazer at the fob at -128 to 127 degrees. Then take an 8 bit md5 hashcode of the result. Repeat as needed.
It would actualy be a pretty cool encryption system, basicaly data would be locked forever unless you had the card. You'd never have to worry about anyone getting access to your data, since they would need the card to read it. And, if for example the FBI was on your ass, just throw the card in the microwave:)
"whoops, I though it was secure" (e.g. the example in Cryptonomicon of the woman who peeks at the bingo balls and "makes it more random").
Except, if she had had her eyes shut like she was supposed to, it would have worked. Thats not a failing of the 'physical world' crypto, but rather the human brain's randomness generator.
OK. I sneak into a store at night, install a little dongle between the reader and the phone line (I'm using the credit card readers just as an example). I come back the next night, and I have all of the patterns sent out to be validated that day! Once I have the patterns, I don't need the reader, the fob or any physical item anymore.
except, the fob is a function, not a set of data, and can produce an infinite number of possible outputs. You only have the outputs for one input
One "obvious" solution to this is to encrypt the pattern at the device before it is sent, but now we're back into the standard encryption world, and we know that nothing is perfect there.
If by 'not perfict' you mean 'takes a million billion years to crack'
OK, so we change the pattern based on the date and time with a "protected" algorithm. Like that can't be solved.
huh, why? Did you have a million billion years of computer time to spare?
Well, then we'll use a system like the "SecureID" cards with each credit card unit including the random/automaticly generated token as part of the encryption effort. Well that would be a little more complex.
But in the end, all of these solutions can be applied to the current barcode read from credit cards before it is sent over the phone lines today. The use of a 3D number/key generator, which is really what this is, won't change that.
ok, not like any of that made any sense...
P.S. Don't ask me how this could be used at Websites.... Pardon me, while I send this huge bit representation of your 3D fob over this dinky 56Kb error prone phone line. Right....
Well, obviously we wouldn't as you. you don't even know what a hashcode is.
No, the actual token will produce infinite variations. When you authenticate, you check a random source.
Your spoofing technique would only work if the angle you chose and the angle randomly selected were the same, so the chances of it working would depend on how many angles for which the results are stored.
Also, you could 'challenge' by requesting two different angles to be checked, in which case you're system wouldn't work at all.
(I can't believe this got a four, Mysterious obviously either didn't read the artical, or didn't understand it)
As a group, the so-called "mainstream press" often appears to favor Microsoft and show an appalling lack of technical depth in its enthusiastic repetition of the latest Microsoft press release. There's been a lot of speculation on why this is and whether it even happens. So far, no definitive research provides answers one way or the other.
Hrm, is this guy trying to be funny, or is actualy that dry?
Start teaching kids very young, I mean like kindergarden/first grade to type well, and to type fast. Drill the correct encoding of enlish into them before they even start to get into the "IM culture".
No one would use those abriviations if they could type at a resonable rate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.
Well, there are no Arabs in Afghanistan, and we aren't at war with Iraq yet. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure That a Young, white, "patriot/militia" type person would be more likely to be a terrorist then an average Arab Muslim. (btw, how do you feel about Arab Christians? are they OK to you? The Israelis certainly don't think so...)
How does the average Muslim feel about the US? Well, how did the average Capitalist feel about the Soviet Union during the cold war? Would that mean that anyone with capitalist leanings in Russia be treated like a terrorist, harassed, searched, imprisoned, etc? Of course, BECAUSE THE USSR WAS A FUCKING POLICE STATE!
I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the stupidest thing the government has done since September 11 or just the most revolting.
Um, what about the thousands of people who were put into 'indefinite detainment' without access to a lawyer, their families, or anything else? In some cases, their families weren't even notified.
Stupid? Maybe not. Revolting? That doesn't even begin to describe the action. Certainly more revolting then this.
Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.
Well, the last ones did.
I doubt the next will. But then, I also think the next ones will get stomped on by the passengers, so honestly I don't see the point in any of this. But whatever.
Well, at least it's not racial profiling by morons who can't even tell one race from another.
But seriously, any kind of system that 'unevenly' applies security screening actually opens a door for terrorists. All they have to do is send their cell members on flights frequently, and see which ones get checked more often. Pack the weapons and stuff on the people who get checked less frequently, and now you're mission has a greater chance of success then with random checks.
"Well, why not just do both random and profiled checks?" you might ask, well, why not just do more random checks? I mean, either the airport can search everyone, or some other percentage. The best security would be gained by "spending" all your checks doing random checks. Any other system unevenly distributes the chances of being checked, and decreases security.
br> I saw a paper online about this a while ago. It was a bit more rigorous, but I can't dig up the link. Ah well.
Maybe I'm crazy but I care more about not getting killed in an airplane by terrorists than whether or not there is a big data base about me.
Well, good for you. I, on the other hand, am not. If the 9/11 hijackers tried to take control of a plane today, the rest of the passengers would take them down. (And, if they didn't the plane would be shot down. Not that it would do you any good, but still.)
The rest of this is just a power grab by the totalitarian element in our government.
I'd rather live in a place with occasional suicide bomber then in 1984land, personally.
I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.
Well, assuming that A) the system is infallible, and B) no one ever uses the data for 'bad things' either people with legit or illegitimate access.
For obvious reasons, those are not assumptions I'm going to make...
Identifying details in credit reports" - pay your bills or more branches of the government besides the IRS will be after you.
Oh, nononono... they don't care wether or not you actually paid. All they care about is what those bills are for.
As long as you never buy anything suspicious, you should be fine.
Customer: "I thought you said the ticket was $125!"
Ticket Girl: "Well, yes. But you owe taxes for 1987, have five unpaid parking tickets in NYC, and you, (pauses), heh, have an unpaid citation for, heh, urinating in public that you got in June of '92."
Customer: (red faced). "Uh, look, I was drunk, I mean, i looked.... *sigh*, just whatever. How much?"
Ticket girl: "that'll be $790.45"
Customer: "Fine, whatever" (hands her the money)
Ticket girl: "Remember, there are bathrooms conveniently located at the fore and aft of the plane" (makes stewardess hand gestures.
Customer: "Just, just shut up."
Wether or not they are 'supposed' to look like idiots dosn't change the fact that they do, and that people don't want to be 'like' an idiot wether they are or not.
Why not just use a two button mouse. Obviously, people don't have problems with it. Obvioulsly hitting 'control-click' or 'click+hold+for+one+second' is more difficult/annoying then just using another finger. It's like they're trying to prove a point.
Since when is a Gui "entertaining"? I mean, I realize that little animations and stuff for scrolling around on the dock (or whatever) might be fun for the first five minutes, I would certainly hope that apple users are brainwashed enough to pay $130 for that...
How much is apple paying you guys?
I mean, story after story about positive reactions to an advertising campaign.
WTF?
The people who never ever come up with a useful invention still get paid by the company.
Or maybe they get fired. I certainly wouldn't keep someone on my payroll if they had never thought up anything even theoretically useful...
And the people who come up with lots also get paid. If they worked on commission, the first group of people would get nothing and the second group would become rich.
Are you honestly saying that intelligent people should subsidize stupid people? If people can't think up shit, they should go flip burgers or something that actually helps society.
Actually, photographers are the only group that is true for. If you pay somebody to create something, then it should be yours at the end.
Authors also keep their copyright to their work, of course they usually write first and license to the publishing companies/magazines.
Film companies get a copyright, but when you think about how much work goes into making a film, it makes sense. Music companies get the copyright to their artist's music, but that's just because they've been able to rape musicians for a lot of money.
Read Atlas Shrugged.
Actualy, Don't.
since copyrights and patents are not the same theng.
Slashdot sucks. Sckienle should save himself before its to late!@
The government didn't know what buildings were going to have a plane imprint last time, dispite the fact that they already knew all about binladen and co.
The secret isn't the speckle pattern, but rather the output of the speckle pattern when tested from an arbitrary angle. even if you know the speckle patern, you can't computational figure out what the output would be with todays computers (or tommorow's, or the next years, etc.)
You just use the 'fob' as we're calling it here as any other one way function. Take say, 8 bits of data, and point the lazer at the fob at -128 to 127 degrees. Then take an 8 bit md5 hashcode of the result. Repeat as needed.
:)
It would actualy be a pretty cool encryption system, basicaly data would be locked forever unless you had the card. You'd never have to worry about anyone getting access to your data, since they would need the card to read it. And, if for example the FBI was on your ass, just throw the card in the microwave
Actualy, there's an easy way to get around what you're saying. Use phosphors or an LED or something so that your film is 'always' glowing.
Of course, none of this matters, since the above poster basicaly didn't understand what the whole thing does anyway.
"whoops, I though it was secure" (e.g. the example in Cryptonomicon of the woman who peeks at the bingo balls and "makes it more random").
Except, if she had had her eyes shut like she was supposed to, it would have worked. Thats not a failing of the 'physical world' crypto, but rather the human brain's randomness generator.
except, the fob is a function, not a set of data, and can produce an infinite number of possible outputs. You only have the outputs for one input
One "obvious" solution to this is to encrypt the pattern at the device before it is sent, but now we're back into the standard encryption world, and we know that nothing is perfect there.
If by 'not perfict' you mean 'takes a million billion years to crack'
OK, so we change the pattern based on the date and time with a "protected" algorithm. Like that can't be solved.
huh, why? Did you have a million billion years of computer time to spare?
Well, then we'll use a system like the "SecureID" cards with each credit card unit including the random/automaticly generated token as part of the encryption effort. Well that would be a little more complex.
But in the end, all of these solutions can be applied to the current barcode read from credit cards before it is sent over the phone lines today. The use of a 3D number/key generator, which is really what this is, won't change that.
ok, not like any of that made any sense...
P.S. Don't ask me how this could be used at Websites.... Pardon me, while I send this huge bit representation of your 3D fob over this dinky 56Kb error prone phone line. Right....
Well, obviously we wouldn't as you. you don't even know what a hashcode is.
No, the actual token will produce infinite variations. When you authenticate, you check a random source.
Your spoofing technique would only work if the angle you chose and the angle randomly selected were the same, so the chances of it working would depend on how many angles for which the results are stored.
Also, you could 'challenge' by requesting two different angles to be checked, in which case you're system wouldn't work at all.
(I can't believe this got a four, Mysterious obviously either didn't read the artical, or didn't understand it)
As a group, the so-called "mainstream press" often appears to favor Microsoft and show an appalling lack of technical depth in its enthusiastic repetition of the latest Microsoft press release. There's been a lot of speculation on why this is and whether it even happens. So far, no definitive research provides answers one way or the other.
Hrm, is this guy trying to be funny, or is actualy that dry?
Start teaching kids very young, I mean like kindergarden/first grade to type well, and to type fast. Drill the correct encoding of enlish into them before they even start to get into the "IM culture".
No one would use those abriviations if they could type at a resonable rate.