Let's face it. Publishers and through them, artists, used CD distribution in order to make insane amounts of money. Whatever is the new system, they will make less money and success will be measured differently than by number of clients.
And what should you have had about the Maginot line in the encyclopedias of the time ? The consensus truth was the only thing to have. In wikipedia you would have a "criticism" paragraph, in the same way that it gives some room for conspiracies theories. Some of these might be true, but the thing is, the wikipedia has no way of being smarter than the consensus. And it still is awesomely useful that way.
A benevolent dictator... is what every dictator claims to be.
It works for linux because it is software, but you can't decide to fork your own country.
This is a *sport* car. That can go to 60 MPH in less time than most Ferrarris and Porsches. Your regular telecommuter does not need this, your average eco-yuppie will love it.
Unrelated : Slashdot tells me I was to concise in my post and that I must wait 5 more minutes so I guess it is okay that I add garbage at the end of this post. Really, what purpose does this 'one post per 5 minutes' rule is supposed to bring ? Discussions on an article can only occur during its 3-4 hours of visibility, and usually by people who spend a 5 minutes break on the website. I am really tempted to make a second account...
Being ready to let new innovative businesses die to let old, obsolete businesses to live, whatever the social cost, is a bad policy. Tesla Motors could become the GM of the future. Or both could go bankrupt.
One-time pads that are only used one time can't be cracked by definition, so a secret communication remains secret even if Moore's Law speeds up by another level of exponentiation.
Well, one-time pads are inconvenient, they require you to have a key the size of the data, but it is secure over a lead wire, and used by armies, what is new in the quantum case ? You can have a one-time pad of a reduced size ?
And, precisely, how is this different from regular, eavesdropable optical communication ? If there is a shared secret at the beginning of any communication, you have a secure channel, even if there is a man in the middle.
Please do. From what I understand, quantum cryptography only prevents eavesdropping by taking a part of the signal. Nothing seems to forbid a man in the middle attack (take all the signal and reproduce it), or eavesdropping at a router location. Am I mis-leaded ?
I must say, the haircuts disturb me more than the ships designs. It really looks like a student-produced movie with the according casting. I guess there will be the jock, the geek, the goth, the pimp, the blonde...
I really get the feeling from the pictures and the faces (that doesn't work in real life but in a movie you can guess that much) that the characters will be completely, utterly shallow. Sorry, I'll stay on BSG for now. The Star Trek franchise needs a re-invention like they did on Battlestar, they are currently only cashing on nostalgia.
Of course, this is only if they can prove you have some encrypted data, but are unable to determine where it's hidden. This is rather unlikely, so the hiding is either going to be useless or prevent them from asking for the key in the first place.
Last time I gave this opinion here, I was retorted with a smart argument involving truecrypt : have an encrypted volume with personal but not so important data on it, then put an encrypted hidden volume inside the already encrypted volume. If you give the first key to law enforcement officers, they won't be able to determine if the data in the unallocated part of your first TC volume is really random or hides other data.
Well, yes, mathematically, it can be defined in another way than "the number you memorized" because it actually is "the encryption key that makes this seemingly random data look like a FAT32 or ext3 filesystem"
No. You need a way to check that the code you scrutinize is really the code running. Switching the score of two candidates probably only requires a 8 bytes swap.
You would need some cryptographic check that:
1. Your vote was taken into account
2. The total were tallied correctly
3. The number of votes matches the number of ballots cast.
All of this without relying on a third party, be it either a hardware vendor or the elections organizer, with anonymousity respected, and with the impossibility to prove who you voted for. I know of no cryptographic system that succeeds all this.
Sure, the paper ballot has issues. It has local issues that make the rigging of a census possible. E-voting has a huge potential for general issues that make the rigging of a whole national election possible. In the name of democracy, any sane citizen has to refuse it. It could very well be the tool that will bring all the big 21st century dictatorships into power.
The advice I got from someone working at MS:
Win2K ? But we're in 2008! Your scenario is not credible. It is not healthy to stay with outdated systems!
I think I am like most of the people who used it a bit when it was released : I find it neat, I'll probably use the open source fork with a few plugins. I am commited to look at it again in a few months.
I would add that the Loebner test fails at being a valid Turing test in my opinion. Well, it was true a few years ago, I guess it still is, I didn't check the latest but don't be fooled by this man's PR...
I would also like to add that Ubuntu is not the broken thing it used to be in its early days. My first attempts at Ubuntu a few years ago ended in frustration before the small number of packages and the incomplete GUI. I thought that day "okay, Debian forever". Recently I installed a Ubuntu at my work, I was really surprised by the ease of the process and the coherent package repository. I am still with my debian at home, but I'll probably make the switch on the next hardware change in a few months.
Slashdot Mirror
5. Get less money.
Let's face it. Publishers and through them, artists, used CD distribution in order to make insane amounts of money. Whatever is the new system, they will make less money and success will be measured differently than by number of clients.
And what should you have had about the Maginot line in the encyclopedias of the time ? The consensus truth was the only thing to have. In wikipedia you would have a "criticism" paragraph, in the same way that it gives some room for conspiracies theories. Some of these might be true, but the thing is, the wikipedia has no way of being smarter than the consensus. And it still is awesomely useful that way.
CRT monitors used to leak a lot of EM. Is it still working with LCD screens ? I doubt it
"fag" is not an authorized callsign in the Caldari space... Gallente food
A benevolent dictator... is what every dictator claims to be.
It works for linux because it is software, but you can't decide to fork your own country.
This is a *sport* car. That can go to 60 MPH in less time than most Ferrarris and Porsches. Your regular telecommuter does not need this, your average eco-yuppie will love it.
Unrelated : Slashdot tells me I was to concise in my post and that I must wait 5 more minutes so I guess it is okay that I add garbage at the end of this post. Really, what purpose does this 'one post per 5 minutes' rule is supposed to bring ? Discussions on an article can only occur during its 3-4 hours of visibility, and usually by people who spend a 5 minutes break on the website. I am really tempted to make a second account...
Being ready to let new innovative businesses die to let old, obsolete businesses to live, whatever the social cost, is a bad policy. Tesla Motors could become the GM of the future. Or both could go bankrupt.
One-time pads that are only used one time can't be cracked by definition, so a secret communication remains secret even if Moore's Law speeds up by another level of exponentiation.
Well, one-time pads are inconvenient, they require you to have a key the size of the data, but it is secure over a lead wire, and used by armies, what is new in the quantum case ? You can have a one-time pad of a reduced size ?
Well... break it, observe it, emit the same. No ?
And, precisely, how is this different from regular, eavesdropable optical communication ? If there is a shared secret at the beginning of any communication, you have a secure channel, even if there is a man in the middle.
Please do. From what I understand, quantum cryptography only prevents eavesdropping by taking a part of the signal. Nothing seems to forbid a man in the middle attack (take all the signal and reproduce it), or eavesdropping at a router location. Am I mis-leaded ?
I must say, the haircuts disturb me more than the ships designs. It really looks like a student-produced movie with the according casting. I guess there will be the jock, the geek, the goth, the pimp, the blonde...
I really get the feeling from the pictures and the faces (that doesn't work in real life but in a movie you can guess that much) that the characters will be completely, utterly shallow. Sorry, I'll stay on BSG for now. The Star Trek franchise needs a re-invention like they did on Battlestar, they are currently only cashing on nostalgia.
Of course, this is only if they can prove you have some encrypted data, but are unable to determine where it's hidden. This is rather unlikely, so the hiding is either going to be useless or prevent them from asking for the key in the first place.
Last time I gave this opinion here, I was retorted with a smart argument involving truecrypt : have an encrypted volume with personal but not so important data on it, then put an encrypted hidden volume inside the already encrypted volume. If you give the first key to law enforcement officers, they won't be able to determine if the data in the unallocated part of your first TC volume is really random or hides other data.
Well, yes, mathematically, it can be defined in another way than "the number you memorized" because it actually is "the encryption key that makes this seemingly random data look like a FAT32 or ext3 filesystem"
Hindsight is always 20/20 (I'm talking about the Nobel Price committee)
It looks like a job for Buckaroo Banzai !
No. You need a way to check that the code you scrutinize is really the code running. Switching the score of two candidates probably only requires a 8 bytes swap. :
You would need some cryptographic check that
1. Your vote was taken into account
2. The total were tallied correctly
3. The number of votes matches the number of ballots cast.
All of this without relying on a third party, be it either a hardware vendor or the elections organizer, with anonymousity respected, and with the impossibility to prove who you voted for. I know of no cryptographic system that succeeds all this.
Sure, the paper ballot has issues. It has local issues that make the rigging of a census possible. E-voting has a huge potential for general issues that make the rigging of a whole national election possible. In the name of democracy, any sane citizen has to refuse it. It could very well be the tool that will bring all the big 21st century dictatorships into power.
The advice I got from someone working at MS :
Win2K ? But we're in 2008! Your scenario is not credible. It is not healthy to stay with outdated systems!
I am not a web developper, but do we really need anything more than optimized javascript + SVG ?
I think I am like most of the people who used it a bit when it was released : I find it neat, I'll probably use the open source fork with a few plugins. I am commited to look at it again in a few months.
I would add that the Loebner test fails at being a valid Turing test in my opinion. Well, it was true a few years ago, I guess it still is, I didn't check the latest but don't be fooled by this man's PR...
It is to watch the Simpsons. Seriously, do you need high quality for that ?
That is interesting : would it be considered piracy ?
I would also like to add that Ubuntu is not the broken thing it used to be in its early days. My first attempts at Ubuntu a few years ago ended in frustration before the small number of packages and the incomplete GUI. I thought that day "okay, Debian forever". Recently I installed a Ubuntu at my work, I was really surprised by the ease of the process and the coherent package repository. I am still with my debian at home, but I'll probably make the switch on the next hardware change in a few months.
And the first attacks are there as well...