SOPA / PIPA go far beyond just being a geek issue. Breaking DNSSEC isn't good by any means, but the biggest problem they present is the trampling of freedom of speech and the automatic assumption of guilt. Your average American won't care or even know about DNSSEC not working, but they'll be rather upset when they suddenly can't post comments because sites can't afford to risk users creating a SOPA violation that will take them down without warning or input.
You brought up constitution shredding and forgot to mention NDAA and SOPA / PIPA. The latter two of course aren't law yet, but there's a good chance they will be and if nothing else their broad support demonstrates that something is seriously wrong.
It isn't really hard to download keepass, and if you use keepass portable it doesn't even need to install and can just run in place. If you don't want to download it you can keep it on a flash drive and run it right off of it. Or (on Android) put it on your phone's SD card and plug it in and run it right off of it.
I guess it depends on how often you end up needing to do it, but for me the occasions in which I need to manually type out passwords is so rare that it's worth the bother. Also, you might find that there are just certain sites that you would tend to do this with so those sites could use a shorter password or a custom made one that you've memorized.
....until the light turns yellow, and oncoming drivers continue to pass through the intersection. Oh no, the light is now red, there is intersecting traffic, and youre blocking one of the traffic lanes. At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.
Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.
Everyone in Michigan enters the intersection and waits to turn until it's clear. If that means that it is after the light changes then it's after the light changes. It works fine and it isn't dangerous at all. You're not completing a turn ACROSS moving traffic after the light changes. And no one is jumping right into the intersection to block your way somehow either. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation you're describing, but I can't see how this would be dangerous. And under Michigan law, if you've entered the intersection during a green light, you have the right to complete your turn when traffic clears regardless of the color of the light.
At some intersections (with no dedicated left turn light) it's the only way traffic is able to turn at times when it is busy. The one or two or three cars that can fit into the intersection just sit there until the light changes and then they're finally able to complete the turn. It doesn't make traffic worse, it actually makes it better. I think the throughput of intersections would be degraded if no one went into the intersection to prepare for a left turn. I really hate it when I'm behind someone who won't venture into the intersection. There's no telling how many cycles of the light I might have to sit there through if they won't venture out to ensure they can make their turn that cycle.
I can't stand it when people back up when they were already in the intersection. They have the right to complete their turn and by moving back it just makes anyone who comes in behind them have to wait longer to make their turn.
Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.
Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.
To me, the expectation for a group of people to remain celibate is demeaning and a way of mistreating them. Sex is a very basic human function. It is unrealistic to expect a group to be able to do so even if they say that they choose to. And for the vast majority that don't choose to, expecting that is flat out demeaning. So to me, this an anti-gay position that they attempt to mask quite poorly.
"Rolf Olsen, an 'amateur' astronomer in 'New' Zealand, took an amazing 'photo' of a 'disk' of material around the 'star' Beta Pictoris, the first time this has been seen outside of 'professional' observatories. Incredibly, he snagged it with just a 25 'cm' (10") telescope! A comparison with an earlier 'pic' from a much larger 'observatory' indicates he nailed it, making this a 'milestone' for 'amateur' astronomy."
I'd estimate that there's a 10% chance RSA will be useless within 20 years. Whatever the odds, some of the data we send over ssh and ssl today should remain private for a century, and we simply can't guarantee secrecy anymore using the algorithms with which we have become complacent.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I pretty much assume that every algorithm that we have now could well be effectively useless in 20 years. And I would never presume to think any of them even has a chance of lasting 100 years, or even close to that.
Computers will get faster. Weakness will be found in algorithms. Any other number of things that no can predict might happen. It would be silly to assume things encrypted today, left untouched, would be safe in 20 years and completely naive to have even a sliver of hope they'd be safe in 100, quantum computers or not.
On the rare occasion that I need to input a phone number onto a phone keypad I use my thumb. I either use a cell phone or a landline phone that has the keys on the phone itself, like on a portable (landline) phone.
It's interesting to note the difference, but speaking for myself at least, I can't imagine being: 1) Using a phone of a type where I wouldn't just use my thumb frequently enough to notice, and 2) Inputing phone numbers manually often enough to notice. Also, I would think that I'd be more likely to want a phone with reversed digits than a calculator and keyboard with reversed digits.
I also enjoy using google voice. And of course when I need to input a number manually there, I use my keyboard's number pad.
Unfortunately, the ony way I can see securing wireless right now is to replace it with a wire.
Use WPA2 with a strong password and you're pretty much bulletproof. There are no known shortcuts to cracking it and it's extremely slow. Even cracking a minimum length (8 char) random password is pretty much infeasible for a single computer.
The strong password is the key point. If you use a regular word or something easy like a couple of words or a word followed by a number then it becomes easy to crack fairly quickly. But if you choose something longer ( 20 or 30 chars....you can go up to 64) and at least partially random then there's no way anyone without serious resources are going to crack it.
Having the "key" is entirely relevant. If an attacker doesn't have the key, they can't even begin to attempt a brute force crack. Once the key has been obtained it becomes possible.
Furthermore, many people use stupidly simple passwords. The attacker will be able to find these passwords within just hours. Without the key though, even a crappy password is unbreakable.
Of course, that doesn't just leave everyone's password out in the open, the passwords still have to be guessed. But there's a wide gap between impossible and may take a while but is doable for many passwords. Having the key is completely relevant.
At a place I used to work at, there was one particular computer that was older than the rest. Specifically, it didn't have enough memory to do the job. It wasn't doing anything fancy, just running XP and then some in-house software for collecting data, but once everything was loaded it was left with no free physical memory so it was constantly going to the swap file whenever you wanted to use it for anything.
I explained all of this to the IT department. They could have doubled the memory for less than $20, but apparently that just wasn't feasible. They thought it made more sense to have people sit there in front of it and wait a few minutes a dozen times a day when it was used.
Fortunately, soon after that, the hard drive crashed mysteriously and they swapped out the box with a better one.
All of my devices use DC already. They always have. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC right after it comes out of the wall. That's how we do it in the US anyways, maybe it's different in the UK.
2. and anyway, that a HD encrypted by Google wouldn't be so (apparently) easy to break.
That was my first thought as well. Given how much most people know about encryption though, I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't even encrypted. There was probably some aspect of the data that was encoded in some way and the official(s) who wrote and/or gave the statement just said encryption.
Newsflash: We Brits left America over three hundred years ago, basically because we couldn't afford it. That's when the United States needed an armed militia. A home invasion is not likely I'm afraid, and you have this thing called the armed forces these days. Difficult to believe, I know.
When the GP said "home invasion" I don't think he was talking about being invaded by a foreign country. I think he meant criminals coming into your home to steal from, harm, or kill you. Of course, the invaders don't need a gun to accomplish this. I'm sure it happens in Britain as well.
Part of gun safety is storing guns in a manner that makes it difficult for people to steal them or for children to use them without adult supervision. A lot of guns used by criminals are stolen from law-abiding citizens' homes, who were not using a gun safe...
Although I agree with you on locking up stored guns, I think it's worthwhile to point out that criminals only really prefer stolen guns because there isn't a paper trail that leads back to them (and possibly they're cheaper (especially if you're the one who stole it in the first place!)... I haven't compared the price of stolen guns vs retail lately). If everyone started locking up their guns it wouldn't really reduce the number of criminals using them.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
That's not true at all. Police use guns everyday in an effective manner without killing people (which isn't to say that police don't kill people with their guns, just that the vast majority of the time that they point one at someone they don't). Police can use their guns to kill people to defend themselves or others if necessary, but most powerful aspect is the threat of such a thing happening that allows them to better control situations.
That same aspect applies to people wanting to protect their homes from invaders and pretty much any other situation where a gun is pointed at a person as well. Even someone committing armed robbery need not kill anyone.
Pretty much no one buys a gun planning to kill someone with it. And very very few of those said people or guns will end up killing a person. I'm willing to bet that better than 99.9% of the time a gun is used there is no killing of people going on.
Of course, they may end up killing someone by accident, or in a fit of rage, or in self defense. People may even end up having their gun taken from them and end up being killed by it. I'd even say that in a way, guns make it far too easy for people to kill each other. But that isn't the point. The point is that saying that guns only purpose is to kill people is far off the mark.
---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"
not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.
Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.
-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.
That analogy is known as Russell's teapot, and it originated from Bertrand Russell.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he has that perfect civil liberties stance of being against gay marriage.
I believe his actual stance on gay marriage is that it should be up to the states to decide. Thus, it doesn't really matter if he's for or against it.
SOPA / PIPA go far beyond just being a geek issue. Breaking DNSSEC isn't good by any means, but the biggest problem they present is the trampling of freedom of speech and the automatic assumption of guilt. Your average American won't care or even know about DNSSEC not working, but they'll be rather upset when they suddenly can't post comments because sites can't afford to risk users creating a SOPA violation that will take them down without warning or input.
You brought up constitution shredding and forgot to mention NDAA and SOPA / PIPA. The latter two of course aren't law yet, but there's a good chance they will be and if nothing else their broad support demonstrates that something is seriously wrong.
We'll see summary executions on the streets.
Although, this being a money-related crime, the executioners shall be wielding socks stuffed with lots of coins instead of axes.
Why would executioners wield socks stuffed with axes?
It isn't really hard to download keepass, and if you use keepass portable it doesn't even need to install and can just run in place. If you don't want to download it you can keep it on a flash drive and run it right off of it. Or (on Android) put it on your phone's SD card and plug it in and run it right off of it.
I guess it depends on how often you end up needing to do it, but for me the occasions in which I need to manually type out passwords is so rare that it's worth the bother. Also, you might find that there are just certain sites that you would tend to do this with so those sites could use a shorter password or a custom made one that you've memorized.
....until the light turns yellow, and oncoming drivers continue to pass through the intersection. Oh no, the light is now red, there is intersecting traffic, and youre blocking one of the traffic lanes. At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.
Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.
Everyone in Michigan enters the intersection and waits to turn until it's clear. If that means that it is after the light changes then it's after the light changes. It works fine and it isn't dangerous at all. You're not completing a turn ACROSS moving traffic after the light changes. And no one is jumping right into the intersection to block your way somehow either. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation you're describing, but I can't see how this would be dangerous. And under Michigan law, if you've entered the intersection during a green light, you have the right to complete your turn when traffic clears regardless of the color of the light.
At some intersections (with no dedicated left turn light) it's the only way traffic is able to turn at times when it is busy. The one or two or three cars that can fit into the intersection just sit there until the light changes and then they're finally able to complete the turn. It doesn't make traffic worse, it actually makes it better. I think the throughput of intersections would be degraded if no one went into the intersection to prepare for a left turn. I really hate it when I'm behind someone who won't venture into the intersection. There's no telling how many cycles of the light I might have to sit there through if they won't venture out to ensure they can make their turn that cycle.
I can't stand it when people back up when they were already in the intersection. They have the right to complete their turn and by moving back it just makes anyone who comes in behind them have to wait longer to make their turn.
If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.
The Salvation Army is not anti-gay. Sure, they are not pro-gay, but that doesn't make the anti-gay.
Decide for yourself.
From http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D
(Pick Homosexuality from the sidebar)
To me, the expectation for a group of people to remain celibate is demeaning and a way of mistreating them. Sex is a very basic human function. It is unrealistic to expect a group to be able to do so even if they say that they choose to. And for the vast majority that don't choose to, expecting that is flat out demeaning. So to me, this an anti-gay position that they attempt to mask quite poorly.
"Rolf Olsen, an 'amateur' astronomer in 'New' Zealand, took an amazing 'photo' of a 'disk' of material around the 'star' Beta Pictoris, the first time this has been seen outside of 'professional' observatories. Incredibly, he snagged it with just a 25 'cm' (10") telescope! A comparison with an earlier 'pic' from a much larger 'observatory' indicates he nailed it, making this a 'milestone' for 'amateur' astronomy."
This probably would have been more informative yesterday when amazon was selling them for $111.11.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I pretty much assume that every algorithm that we have now could well be effectively useless in 20 years. And I would never presume to think any of them even has a chance of lasting 100 years, or even close to that.
Computers will get faster. Weakness will be found in algorithms. Any other number of things that no can predict might happen. It would be silly to assume things encrypted today, left untouched, would be safe in 20 years and completely naive to have even a sliver of hope they'd be safe in 100, quantum computers or not.
On the rare occasion that I need to input a phone number onto a phone keypad I use my thumb. I either use a cell phone or a landline phone that has the keys on the phone itself, like on a portable (landline) phone.
It's interesting to note the difference, but speaking for myself at least, I can't imagine being: 1) Using a phone of a type where I wouldn't just use my thumb frequently enough to notice, and 2) Inputing phone numbers manually often enough to notice. Also, I would think that I'd be more likely to want a phone with reversed digits than a calculator and keyboard with reversed digits.
I also enjoy using google voice. And of course when I need to input a number manually there, I use my keyboard's number pad.
Er, I should have said a max of 63 chars.
Use WPA2 with a strong password and you're pretty much bulletproof. There are no known shortcuts to cracking it and it's extremely slow. Even cracking a minimum length (8 char) random password is pretty much infeasible for a single computer.
The strong password is the key point. If you use a regular word or something easy like a couple of words or a word followed by a number then it becomes easy to crack fairly quickly. But if you choose something longer ( 20 or 30 chars....you can go up to 64) and at least partially random then there's no way anyone without serious resources are going to crack it.
Having the "key" is entirely relevant. If an attacker doesn't have the key, they can't even begin to attempt a brute force crack. Once the key has been obtained it becomes possible.
Furthermore, many people use stupidly simple passwords. The attacker will be able to find these passwords within just hours. Without the key though, even a crappy password is unbreakable.
Of course, that doesn't just leave everyone's password out in the open, the passwords still have to be guessed. But there's a wide gap between impossible and may take a while but is doable for many passwords. Having the key is completely relevant.
At a place I used to work at, there was one particular computer that was older than the rest. Specifically, it didn't have enough memory to do the job. It wasn't doing anything fancy, just running XP and then some in-house software for collecting data, but once everything was loaded it was left with no free physical memory so it was constantly going to the swap file whenever you wanted to use it for anything.
I explained all of this to the IT department. They could have doubled the memory for less than $20, but apparently that just wasn't feasible. They thought it made more sense to have people sit there in front of it and wait a few minutes a dozen times a day when it was used.
Fortunately, soon after that, the hard drive crashed mysteriously and they swapped out the box with a better one.
All of my devices use DC already. They always have. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC right after it comes out of the wall. That's how we do it in the US anyways, maybe it's different in the UK.
According to NFL Films president Steve Sabol, it is the first since Super Bowl II.
My first thought as well.
When are we going to graduate from this democracy myth and start calling the US the plutocratic oligarchic republic that it is?
At least it's a more accurate name than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...
That was my first thought as well. Given how much most people know about encryption though, I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't even encrypted. There was probably some aspect of the data that was encoded in some way and the official(s) who wrote and/or gave the statement just said encryption.
When the GP said "home invasion" I don't think he was talking about being invaded by a foreign country. I think he meant criminals coming into your home to steal from, harm, or kill you. Of course, the invaders don't need a gun to accomplish this. I'm sure it happens in Britain as well.
Although I agree with you on locking up stored guns, I think it's worthwhile to point out that criminals only really prefer stolen guns because there isn't a paper trail that leads back to them (and possibly they're cheaper (especially if you're the one who stole it in the first place!)... I haven't compared the price of stolen guns vs retail lately). If everyone started locking up their guns it wouldn't really reduce the number of criminals using them.
That's not true at all. Police use guns everyday in an effective manner without killing people (which isn't to say that police don't kill people with their guns, just that the vast majority of the time that they point one at someone they don't). Police can use their guns to kill people to defend themselves or others if necessary, but most powerful aspect is the threat of such a thing happening that allows them to better control situations.
That same aspect applies to people wanting to protect their homes from invaders and pretty much any other situation where a gun is pointed at a person as well. Even someone committing armed robbery need not kill anyone.
Pretty much no one buys a gun planning to kill someone with it. And very very few of those said people or guns will end up killing a person. I'm willing to bet that better than 99.9% of the time a gun is used there is no killing of people going on.
Of course, they may end up killing someone by accident, or in a fit of rage, or in self defense. People may even end up having their gun taken from them and end up being killed by it. I'd even say that in a way, guns make it far too easy for people to kill each other. But that isn't the point. The point is that saying that guns only purpose is to kill people is far off the mark.
they still won't have a download client.
The only download client needed is a web browser. That is as it should be.
Bah. The only download client I need is wget. ;)
---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"
not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.
Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.
-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.
That analogy is known as Russell's teapot, and it originated from Bertrand Russell.