How were the documents found in heavily encrypted files? The paranoid part of my mind is hoping no one has a way to break encryption like AES or RSA.
I know it's been suspected that the NSA may a way of cracking some of the more common encryption methods (they do hire more mathmeticians than anyone else) and if there's one area the government will show it's cards in in this area it'd be with something like this.
First off this is proof that evolution can happen... and in all likelihood has happened in the past. However no matter how much you want it, it does not disprove creation. No amount of science and proof can destroy religion as long as people believe in that religion.
I've always believed that Hillary winning the nomination would be the best thing for republicans mainly because no one is more hated by republicans (and I'm not just talking about the republican base) than Hillary. Her on the ballot would be the best way for the republican party to get the usual nonvoting republicans out to vote, basically the democratic party would be doing the republicans a big favor. This is one area which I think was overlooked by the media and everyone else, it's not just how many votes you get in your party, it's how many to give to the other party by simply being there. A good example, how many more democrats would vote and vote the party line if Jeb Bush had the nomination instead of Mccain?
On the contrary, they come from fear. Everyone is born fearing the unknown and the strange. It's what helped keep our ancestors alive. Hatred, racism and bigotry isn't taught it comes from a long history of different being potentially dangerous, and unfortunately it's in us all. Think tribal times, a new tribe suddenly appearing in your area is a scary thing because odds are they want what up until then you have. It's survival of the fitest and that may not be you. Also the racism, hatred and bigotry isn't taught away it's learned away (this is one area where experience is better than being taught). When the strange aren't strange any more all three problems tend to go away. In short more than likely the parents weren't taught by their children, but rather they eventually (even if it was subconsciously) realized that the new comers weren't a danger or a threat.
I know it's in bad form to reply to yourself but I just had an idea on how to improve this. Since AVIs will only play to the where the index ends you can append say a 1MB avi to the front of your truecrypt file and call it bsg.avi. The the file will play in a movie player and the following will allow it to be mounted.
to hide the file cat sample.avi personal.tc > hidden.avi shred personal.tc shred sample.avi
to mount tail --bytes=104857600 hidden.avi > personal.tc truecrypt personal.tc/mnt/tmp
Of course I wouldn't script those commands but they are pretty easy to remember.
Do like I do, I have an encrypted file for files I don't want anyone else to have and I gave it an mp4 extension. Truecrypt opens it just fine in linux. The file command reports it as just data. If anyone asks about it I'll reply with "oh that's the new XYZ trailer... what it doesn't play... must have gotten corrupted, I'll delete it later, don't want to miss my next plane". To view it they'd have to know what type of file it really is and command to mount it. If they make an image of my hard disk I doubt they'd try to mount every file on my disk with truecrypt, pgp and all the other encryption products to see if it's actually an encrypted file system. I guess if you even more paranoid you could write garbage to the first meg of a file and using some fancy piping remove it with cut before you mount the volume. That way most encryption programs won't recognize the file anyways.
Wish I had mod points to give you. I think this will force countries like China to block many U.S. internet companies and effectively prevent those companies from operating in a very profitable region. I can easily see how a foreign version of google can overtake worldwide google because they are allowed in many developing countries simply because they obey the laws of those countries. Keep in mind when that in many cases when you want to search the internet you want to search the whole internet, not a subset. If google is blocked out of many countries a competitor is allowed that competitor has a significant advantage not just in the blocked country but worldwide. For example if I'm looking for the solution to a problem would I search in an engine that because of a law can't provide results in X number of large countries, or would I search in the global engine, (this assumes language wouldn't be a problem, which it may not be if search engines ever start indexing sites before and after they are translated).
Also take France and Germany for example, I believe Nazi related materials, documents and discussions aren't legal in those. Based on this law ebay, google, ms search, yahoo could be blocked by those countries because they make Nazi materials, documents or theologies available. Or will censoring unpopular views and materials now acceptable.
In my humble opinion censorship of almost anything is wrong, child pornography being one of the few areas I believe that one wrong is better than the other. But, it's important to realize that an internet company in this global economy needs to be able to operate within the laws of all the countries it operates otherwise we risk losing out on one of the fastest growing business opportunities the world has ever seen.
In short I believe it's extremely hypocritical for the U.S. to ignore laws of other countries while simultaneously forcing our laws on everyone else.
Haven't read the account in a while so I may be a little off. It was basically a shoot out over my infant grandfather. My great grand parents were seperated and somehow my great grandfather got custody. My great grandmother and her brothers came forced him into the car at which time someone alerted my great great grandfather who came running with his gun. There was a fight over one of the guns in the car and my great grandfather got shot. Great great grandfather got to the car and managed to shoot the driver (I believe) and the car crashed. One of the brothers was dead, great grandfather was dead and great grandmother was shot in the chest (from the fight over the gun). The interesting thing is that my great grandmother was acquitted of the murder because my great grandfather "shot himself during the fight".
But the point of the post was to point out that movies didn't start the using a gun for defense idea.
As for killings at the hands of gun owners your correct, however my great grand mother obviously intended him harm (the six guns they found in the car is a good indication) and I think someone whose that intent on murder is going to let the let the lack of a gun stop them. In fact if my great grandfather had a gun with him I doubt my great grand mother and her brothers would have been as willing to attack him.
The most moronic part of the whole incident is that though DNS testing we've discovered that my grand father wasn't even my great grandfather's son. So he got shot trying to keep a son that wasn't even his.
It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Guns protected people long before TV. My great grandfather was shot by my great grandmother's brother's, the only think that kept them from getting away was my great great grandfather's good aim with the pistol he was carrying, (he managed to shoot the driver). This was in 1920, and unfortunately he was unable to get in shooting range in time and my great grandfather didn't survive.
So using a gun to defend your property or family wasn't an invention of the movies.
The 5 years was only meant as an example, basically I was trying to say (aparently not well), that sooner or later there won't be anything that can play the disks and at that point it doesn't matter if the disks still work.
I'm not knowledgeable about how drugs or virus work, but wouldn't it be possible to hook the inactive cocaine to say an active common cold virus, then intentionally spread it throughout the country? Such a move (if possible) could easily be done without being able to trace it to the culprit, and once done it can't be undone. In addition such a virus/vaccine could easily spread worldwide. Even if the US government or some random mad genius wouldn't do it, what about countries like China or North Korea, or even Columbia (which I'm sure has huge interests in killing the cocain business)? I can easily see the antismoking crowd doing this for the nicotine vaccine, those guys are some of the most rabid fun killers I've known.
Actually according to the article it sounds like the vast amount of that $144 was interest she supposedly earned. Remember she got paid 33 cents an hour and put the earnings in the bad bank. I'm not sure how much she actually put into savings but we know it wasn't the full amount.
TFA doesn't state if the $700,000 was the amount put in or the supposed return on the investment. If this woman really only earned 33 cents an hour then I suspect she really only put in a couple of dollars and the exaggerated return on investment bumped it up considerably to $144. If I'm right then the actually amount stolen was far less that $700,000. To put it another way if I tell you that if you give me one dollar I'll give you ten back, then when I get the dollar I just off, did I steal ten dollars?
This article is nothing but paranoia. First off yes, the American spy agencians sponsor papers, this isn't and shouldn't be news to anyone. Secondly the NSA isn't as evil as this article make them out to be. Take for example one product that the NSA bought with tax payer money. SE Linux. This could arguably be the most secure operating system on the planet and they made their changes/additions free and open source. They took your taxpayer money and provided in open source a version of linux that was more secure than anything freely available. Should they have been prevented from doing so because it "may" have been used to secure torture data. You could look at everything that way. For example look at the CDC, they could, should and probably do fund research on new diseases expected to hit the world population. Should the world bitch that they are looking for new biological warfare weapons? If I were so inclined I could probably find may grants from CDC on such research, but I don't think I need to wear a tin foil hat or a biochemical suit. Any research if looked at from a tin foil hat mind can be used against mankind. I could go on about how mankind is "evil" by nature, and people would and will find fault in any research, but those who wear the tin foil won't listen, comprehend or care. This is another case of the stupid getting something to the front page that should made it there.
Now not only Microsoft bad for the help of my computer but bad for my health as well. What's next my car... oh wait they're trying to get in there also, stereo - nope trying there, phone - ditto. I know, Microsoft isn't bad for health of my dog - yet. I can see it now microsoft dog, won't do what you say, will eat all of my documents not created in word or excel, will help burglars by opening the door for them and will need to be kicked every couple of days because it turns blue and keels over.
Seriously I'm not sure I'd be against this if it keeps the 13 year olds out of the game. I'm tired of getting my ass handed to me by someone whose balls haven't even dropped:-)
First off you may be extremely intelligent and know a little about electronics, but to assume the rest of the world is the same is just crazy. Secondly if the people who guard our safety have suspicion that something is a bomb I'd prefer they investigate and not give it the benefit of doubt. To suggest they shouldn't investigate is assine at best. Secondly if they thought it was a bomb others would think the same thing, which no matter how you put it is a risk to the safety of the people around this girl. I may have been able to tell it posed no threat, but is BillyBob next to me going to be able to or is he going to panic scream bomb and get people hurt as they try to flee?
The police were completely justified in arresting her. I'm fairly sure she wasn't aware of the problem she was getting herself into, and I feel bad for her but hopefully the prosecutors will be lenient and not run her life, but she's probably gonna have to accept some punishment.
This article made me deeply think about about this site and you know, I consider myself a conservative and even gasp a republican. But I find myself more and more fighting the draw into becoming paranoid about big brother. I suspect a lot of the reason I'm becoming that way is because I read slashdot. Is it just me or is there a lot of paranoid discussion on it. Or am I really seeing the light now. I suspect it's a little of both, unfortunately the louder of the two camps controls this site so I'm not sure I can cleanly digest the facts of what's going on in our country while reading this board anymore. I think I need to take a break from/. and try to figure things out without the bias that the "loud" slashdot community has.
I know this is a personal rambling, probably influenced by the many beers I've had but I'm not sure slashdot is where I should be going for "news for nerds, news that matters" anymore.
Pardon me if I'm a little stupid, I've had a few drinks. But at 200 million pounds that would pay for 400,000 extra police at 50,000 pounds for 10 years. Wouldn't 400,000 extra cops be a muc better deterent than any number of cameras.
On another note, I'm curios where the 200 mil number came from, at 10,524 cameras that comes out to almost 20,000 pounds each. I know there's infrastructure costs involved but this just seems a little overblown. I'd love to see the actual data involved with this. Also what isn't stated is the crime rate in the areas with the cameras. Say for example an area without cameras has 100 crimes, 25 of which are solves. 25% solve rate. The areas with cameras say have 4 crimes, 1 is solved. This says something about the cameras as well but that data is missing from this article.
Basically it comes down to this being a group with an agenda got a reporter to write an article, without all the data it's completely useless and biased.
It's easy to get them to stop, don't use any credit. However credit is a necessity for most, and someone loaning you the 200k for your new house wants to be sure you'll pay your bills. Don't like it, save up and pay for everything in cash, including that 200k house. Otherwise your playing their game, and have to play by their rules.
Aside from the obvious politcal spin this is trying to accomplish I have a big problem with what continues to be a major issue in my opinion. Videos and photos of dead enemy comabatants. We strongly condemn it when our dead troups are photographed or video taped, however we aparently have no problems doing the same to our enemies. And before anyone says it, I firmly believe they are either enemy comabatants and subject to the laws of the Geneva Convention or they are terrorist, and since terrorists get trials.... well you get it.
I still use a straight razor, and I shave without cream in the shower. Works fine, even when I don't shave for a week... Of course I have noticed I'm getting a leatherly look, maybe I should try some cream:-)
Slashdot Mirror
How were the documents found in heavily encrypted files? The paranoid part of my mind is hoping no one has a way to break encryption like AES or RSA.
I know it's been suspected that the NSA may a way of cracking some of the more common encryption methods (they do hire more mathmeticians than anyone else) and if there's one area the government will show it's cards in in this area it'd be with something like this.
First off this is proof that evolution can happen... and in all likelihood has happened in the past. However no matter how much you want it, it does not disprove creation. No amount of science and proof can destroy religion as long as people believe in that religion.
BTW, I am and always have been an agnostic.
I thought it only makes plastic parts, how it going to make the copper leads on a circuit board?
I've always believed that Hillary winning the nomination would be the best thing for republicans mainly because no one is more hated by republicans (and I'm not just talking about the republican base) than Hillary. Her on the ballot would be the best way for the republican party to get the usual nonvoting republicans out to vote, basically the democratic party would be doing the republicans a big favor. This is one area which I think was overlooked by the media and everyone else, it's not just how many votes you get in your party, it's how many to give to the other party by simply being there. A good example, how many more democrats would vote and vote the party line if Jeb Bush had the nomination instead of Mccain?
On the contrary, they come from fear. Everyone is born fearing the unknown and the strange. It's what helped keep our ancestors alive. Hatred, racism and bigotry isn't taught it comes from a long history of different being potentially dangerous, and unfortunately it's in us all. Think tribal times, a new tribe suddenly appearing in your area is a scary thing because odds are they want what up until then you have. It's survival of the fitest and that may not be you. Also the racism, hatred and bigotry isn't taught away it's learned away (this is one area where experience is better than being taught). When the strange aren't strange any more all three problems tend to go away. In short more than likely the parents weren't taught by their children, but rather they eventually (even if it was subconsciously) realized that the new comers weren't a danger or a threat.
I know it's in bad form to reply to yourself but I just had an idea on how to improve this. Since AVIs will only play to the where the index ends you can append say a 1MB avi to the front of your truecrypt file and call it bsg.avi. The the file will play in a movie player and the following will allow it to be mounted.
/mnt/tmp
to hide the file
cat sample.avi personal.tc > hidden.avi
shred personal.tc
shred sample.avi
to mount
tail --bytes=104857600 hidden.avi > personal.tc
truecrypt personal.tc
Of course I wouldn't script those commands but they are pretty easy to remember.
Do like I do, I have an encrypted file for files I don't want anyone else to have and I gave it an mp4 extension. Truecrypt opens it just fine in linux. The file command reports it as just data. If anyone asks about it I'll reply with "oh that's the new XYZ trailer... what it doesn't play... must have gotten corrupted, I'll delete it later, don't want to miss my next plane". To view it they'd have to know what type of file it really is and command to mount it. If they make an image of my hard disk I doubt they'd try to mount every file on my disk with truecrypt, pgp and all the other encryption products to see if it's actually an encrypted file system. I guess if you even more paranoid you could write garbage to the first meg of a file and using some fancy piping remove it with cut before you mount the volume. That way most encryption programs won't recognize the file anyways.
Wish I had mod points to give you. I think this will force countries like China to block many U.S. internet companies and effectively prevent those companies from operating in a very profitable region. I can easily see how a foreign version of google can overtake worldwide google because they are allowed in many developing countries simply because they obey the laws of those countries. Keep in mind when that in many cases when you want to search the internet you want to search the whole internet, not a subset. If google is blocked out of many countries a competitor is allowed that competitor has a significant advantage not just in the blocked country but worldwide. For example if I'm looking for the solution to a problem would I search in an engine that because of a law can't provide results in X number of large countries, or would I search in the global engine, (this assumes language wouldn't be a problem, which it may not be if search engines ever start indexing sites before and after they are translated). Also take France and Germany for example, I believe Nazi related materials, documents and discussions aren't legal in those. Based on this law ebay, google, ms search, yahoo could be blocked by those countries because they make Nazi materials, documents or theologies available. Or will censoring unpopular views and materials now acceptable. In my humble opinion censorship of almost anything is wrong, child pornography being one of the few areas I believe that one wrong is better than the other. But, it's important to realize that an internet company in this global economy needs to be able to operate within the laws of all the countries it operates otherwise we risk losing out on one of the fastest growing business opportunities the world has ever seen. In short I believe it's extremely hypocritical for the U.S. to ignore laws of other countries while simultaneously forcing our laws on everyone else.
Haven't read the account in a while so I may be a little off. It was basically a shoot out over my infant grandfather. My great grand parents were seperated and somehow my great grandfather got custody. My great grandmother and her brothers came forced him into the car at which time someone alerted my great great grandfather who came running with his gun. There was a fight over one of the guns in the car and my great grandfather got shot. Great great grandfather got to the car and managed to shoot the driver (I believe) and the car crashed. One of the brothers was dead, great grandfather was dead and great grandmother was shot in the chest (from the fight over the gun). The interesting thing is that my great grandmother was acquitted of the murder because my great grandfather "shot himself during the fight". But the point of the post was to point out that movies didn't start the using a gun for defense idea. As for killings at the hands of gun owners your correct, however my great grand mother obviously intended him harm (the six guns they found in the car is a good indication) and I think someone whose that intent on murder is going to let the let the lack of a gun stop them. In fact if my great grandfather had a gun with him I doubt my great grand mother and her brothers would have been as willing to attack him. The most moronic part of the whole incident is that though DNS testing we've discovered that my grand father wasn't even my great grandfather's son. So he got shot trying to keep a son that wasn't even his. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Guns protected people long before TV. My great grandfather was shot by my great grandmother's brother's, the only think that kept them from getting away was my great great grandfather's good aim with the pistol he was carrying, (he managed to shoot the driver). This was in 1920, and unfortunately he was unable to get in shooting range in time and my great grandfather didn't survive. So using a gun to defend your property or family wasn't an invention of the movies.
Or you could just digitally sign the document using a key that you burn to disc, put somewhere that's safe and never use it for anything else.
The 5 years was only meant as an example, basically I was trying to say (aparently not well), that sooner or later there won't be anything that can play the disks and at that point it doesn't matter if the disks still work.
No the disc don't stop working, but when your HD DVD player does in 5 years they may as well not work.
I'm not knowledgeable about how drugs or virus work, but wouldn't it be possible to hook the inactive cocaine to say an active common cold virus, then intentionally spread it throughout the country? Such a move (if possible) could easily be done without being able to trace it to the culprit, and once done it can't be undone. In addition such a virus/vaccine could easily spread worldwide. Even if the US government or some random mad genius wouldn't do it, what about countries like China or North Korea, or even Columbia (which I'm sure has huge interests in killing the cocain business)? I can easily see the antismoking crowd doing this for the nicotine vaccine, those guys are some of the most rabid fun killers I've known.
Actually according to the article it sounds like the vast amount of that $144 was interest she supposedly earned. Remember she got paid 33 cents an hour and put the earnings in the bad bank. I'm not sure how much she actually put into savings but we know it wasn't the full amount. TFA doesn't state if the $700,000 was the amount put in or the supposed return on the investment. If this woman really only earned 33 cents an hour then I suspect she really only put in a couple of dollars and the exaggerated return on investment bumped it up considerably to $144. If I'm right then the actually amount stolen was far less that $700,000. To put it another way if I tell you that if you give me one dollar I'll give you ten back, then when I get the dollar I just off, did I steal ten dollars?
This article is nothing but paranoia. First off yes, the American spy agencians sponsor papers, this isn't and shouldn't be news to anyone. Secondly the NSA isn't as evil as this article make them out to be. Take for example one product that the NSA bought with tax payer money. SE Linux. This could arguably be the most secure operating system on the planet and they made their changes/additions free and open source. They took your taxpayer money and provided in open source a version of linux that was more secure than anything freely available. Should they have been prevented from doing so because it "may" have been used to secure torture data. You could look at everything that way. For example look at the CDC, they could, should and probably do fund research on new diseases expected to hit the world population. Should the world bitch that they are looking for new biological warfare weapons? If I were so inclined I could probably find may grants from CDC on such research, but I don't think I need to wear a tin foil hat or a biochemical suit. Any research if looked at from a tin foil hat mind can be used against mankind. I could go on about how mankind is "evil" by nature, and people would and will find fault in any research, but those who wear the tin foil won't listen, comprehend or care. This is another case of the stupid getting something to the front page that should made it there.
Now not only Microsoft bad for the help of my computer but bad for my health as well. What's next my car... oh wait they're trying to get in there also, stereo - nope trying there, phone - ditto. I know, Microsoft isn't bad for health of my dog - yet. I can see it now microsoft dog, won't do what you say, will eat all of my documents not created in word or excel, will help burglars by opening the door for them and will need to be kicked every couple of days because it turns blue and keels over.
Seriously I'm not sure I'd be against this if it keeps the 13 year olds out of the game. I'm tired of getting my ass handed to me by someone whose balls haven't even dropped :-)
First off you may be extremely intelligent and know a little about electronics, but to assume the rest of the world is the same is just crazy. Secondly if the people who guard our safety have suspicion that something is a bomb I'd prefer they investigate and not give it the benefit of doubt. To suggest they shouldn't investigate is assine at best. Secondly if they thought it was a bomb others would think the same thing, which no matter how you put it is a risk to the safety of the people around this girl. I may have been able to tell it posed no threat, but is BillyBob next to me going to be able to or is he going to panic scream bomb and get people hurt as they try to flee?
The police were completely justified in arresting her. I'm fairly sure she wasn't aware of the problem she was getting herself into, and I feel bad for her but hopefully the prosecutors will be lenient and not run her life, but she's probably gonna have to accept some punishment.
This article made me deeply think about about this site and you know, I consider myself a conservative and even gasp a republican. But I find myself more and more fighting the draw into becoming paranoid about big brother. I suspect a lot of the reason I'm becoming that way is because I read slashdot. Is it just me or is there a lot of paranoid discussion on it. Or am I really seeing the light now. I suspect it's a little of both, unfortunately the louder of the two camps controls this site so I'm not sure I can cleanly digest the facts of what's going on in our country while reading this board anymore. I think I need to take a break from /. and try to figure things out without the bias that the "loud" slashdot community has.
I know this is a personal rambling, probably influenced by the many beers I've had but I'm not sure slashdot is where I should be going for "news for nerds, news that matters" anymore.
Pardon me if I'm a little stupid, I've had a few drinks. But at 200 million pounds that would pay for 400,000 extra police at 50,000 pounds for 10 years. Wouldn't 400,000 extra cops be a muc better deterent than any number of cameras. On another note, I'm curios where the 200 mil number came from, at 10,524 cameras that comes out to almost 20,000 pounds each. I know there's infrastructure costs involved but this just seems a little overblown. I'd love to see the actual data involved with this. Also what isn't stated is the crime rate in the areas with the cameras. Say for example an area without cameras has 100 crimes, 25 of which are solves. 25% solve rate. The areas with cameras say have 4 crimes, 1 is solved. This says something about the cameras as well but that data is missing from this article. Basically it comes down to this being a group with an agenda got a reporter to write an article, without all the data it's completely useless and biased.
It's easy to get them to stop, don't use any credit. However credit is a necessity for most, and someone loaning you the 200k for your new house wants to be sure you'll pay your bills. Don't like it, save up and pay for everything in cash, including that 200k house. Otherwise your playing their game, and have to play by their rules.
Aside from the obvious politcal spin this is trying to accomplish I have a big problem with what continues to be a major issue in my opinion. Videos and photos of dead enemy comabatants. We strongly condemn it when our dead troups are photographed or video taped, however we aparently have no problems doing the same to our enemies. And before anyone says it, I firmly believe they are either enemy comabatants and subject to the laws of the Geneva Convention or they are terrorist, and since terrorists get trials.... well you get it.
Think they're doing a mass delete?
I still use a straight razor, and I shave without cream in the shower. Works fine, even when I don't shave for a week... Of course I have noticed I'm getting a leatherly look, maybe I should try some cream :-)