But if the problem are people who take seats for a long time, wouldn't the right thing be to make a policy against sitting there a long time? After all, the person sitting there for two hours looking out of the window is taking away the seat for a long time as well, while the person who just quickly checks his email on his iPad while drinking his coffee doesn't take the seat for long.
Maybe one should change the law so that on invalidation of a patent, everyone who licensed that patent gets everything they paid for licensing costs back from the holder of the invalidated patent, as well as any legal expense of fighting that patent, even if that law suit was settled. That way, at least junk patents would become a game of gambling, instead of being a sure way to make immoral profit.
When the wares drop in price but the money you own remains the same, it is more rational for you to wait with buying something as long as you can. This effect is the larger, the stronger the deflation. Why should I buy a new TV today, if next week I can buy both a new TV and a new computer for the same money?
And now imagine what effect this has on a modern capitalistic economy.
Because unlike normal fiat money, Bitcoins have tracking built-in?:-)
From the FAQ:
How does Bitcoin work?
Bitcoin utilizes public/private key digital signatures (ECDSA). A coin has its owner's public key on it. When a coin is transferred from user A to user B, A adds B’s public key to the coin and signs it with his own private key. Now B owns the coin and can transfer it further. To prevent A from transferring the already used coin to another user C, a public list of all the previous transactions is collectively maintained by the network of Bitcoin nodes, and before each transaction the coin’s unusedness will be checked.
In other words, whenever you do a transaction, the network will learn about it. In other words, everyone will be able to know everything about your financial transactions, as long as you do them with Bitcoins.
Well, the whole point of encryption is that the data is still secure if someone else gets the encrypted data. Otherwise, why bother to encrypt at all? If the encryption is easily broken, encrypting is just a waste of resources.
Now, is there any way to lock down a device with cryptography and not require authentication with a password, every time you pick it up? No, there really isn't.
Yes, there is. For example, you could implant an RFID tag in your hand, and have the phone unlock by communication with the RFID tag, using a short-distance reader. Well, you didn't say a practical way, did you?
What about Firefox's password storing ability? At least if you use a (reasonably secure) master password, you shouldn't be able to crack it even on a machine with root access, right? What about the Gnome password manager? Would you be able to crack that without knowing the user password?
But then, there's always the issue with a running session. You typically enter the master password only once per session, so if the attacker can break in while you are logged in/have the browser open (and already provided the master password), I guess the attacker could indeed access your passwords.
Unless you feel comfortable with your incompetence, it's definitely something worth cursing.
Indeed, I get much more angry if something bad happens because I made a stupid error than if something bad happens because of some error in a program or some hardware malfunction.
The point at which anyone is identified, they aren't anonymous. For the last time- anonymous is not a group, it is a quality- an adjective.
Yeah, and "Yahoo!" isn't a company but an expression of joy, "Apple" isn't a company but a fruit, and "/." isn't a web site but a way to name the root directory.
But what if you need to access an IPv6-only web site from your internal IPv4 computer? Will you have a giant NAT translating external IPv6 addresses into internal IPv4 addresses?
I did reply to the effect that sooner rather than later they'd have more customers than they had dynamic addresses to give out, but haven't had a reply.
Maybe their network cannot support more customers at the same time than they have IP addresses anyway.
A bigger problem they'll face it that as soon as some web sites will be available only on IPv6, the customers will demand that they can access those sites.
I would say they are not the same problem. I can protect myself against an app with a root kit by not installing it. I can't do that if it installs itself. Now you will probably counter that I usually won't know that there's a root kit in the app. Which is only partially true: While you never can be completely sure about it, there are apps which are more likely to have root kits than others. Moreover, generally the set of apps you knowingly install will be quite limited. An attacker would have to put the root kit into an app which you would want, but where you don't already have an equal or even better app. With an app which installs itself, the attacker doesn't even need to make the app appear interesting. I'll get it even if I don't want to.
So you think an app with a rootkit which you have to explicitly install is a bigger problem than an app with a rootkit which installs itself without user interaction?
Slashdot Mirror
But if the problem are people who take seats for a long time, wouldn't the right thing be to make a policy against sitting there a long time? After all, the person sitting there for two hours looking out of the window is taking away the seat for a long time as well, while the person who just quickly checks his email on his iPad while drinking his coffee doesn't take the seat for long.
Maybe one should change the law so that on invalidation of a patent, everyone who licensed that patent gets everything they paid for licensing costs back from the holder of the invalidated patent, as well as any legal expense of fighting that patent, even if that law suit was settled. That way, at least junk patents would become a game of gambling, instead of being a sure way to make immoral profit.
Whose are standards?
Like your spelling? ;-)
Spoiler? It's written right in the summary!
Anyone who ever received money from you or has given money to you will have received your public key, and can easily connect it with your name.
When the wares drop in price but the money you own remains the same, it is more rational for you to wait with buying something as long as you can. This effect is the larger, the stronger the deflation. Why should I buy a new TV today, if next week I can buy both a new TV and a new computer for the same money?
And now imagine what effect this has on a modern capitalistic economy.
Because unlike normal fiat money, Bitcoins have tracking built-in? :-)
From the FAQ:
How does Bitcoin work?
Bitcoin utilizes public/private key digital signatures (ECDSA). A coin has its owner's public key on it. When a coin is transferred from user A to user B, A adds B’s public key to the coin and signs it with his own private key. Now B owns the coin and can transfer it further. To prevent A from transferring the already used coin to another user C, a public list of all the previous transactions is collectively maintained by the network of Bitcoin nodes, and before each transaction the coin’s unusedness will be checked.
In other words, whenever you do a transaction, the network will learn about it. In other words, everyone will be able to know everything about your financial transactions, as long as you do them with Bitcoins.
Won't help you if the right protocol is used (encryption/authentication to the RFID chip).
Well, the whole point of encryption is that the data is still secure if someone else gets the encrypted data. Otherwise, why bother to encrypt at all? If the encryption is easily broken, encrypting is just a waste of resources.
Yes, there is. For example, you could implant an RFID tag in your hand, and have the phone unlock by communication with the RFID tag, using a short-distance reader.
Well, you didn't say a practical way, did you?
What about Firefox's password storing ability? At least if you use a (reasonably secure) master password, you shouldn't be able to crack it even on a machine with root access, right?
What about the Gnome password manager? Would you be able to crack that without knowing the user password?
But then, there's always the issue with a running session. You typically enter the master password only once per session, so if the attacker can break in while you are logged in/have the browser open (and already provided the master password), I guess the attacker could indeed access your passwords.
2) Won't work if the user has JavaScript disabled.
Maybe his password was the PS3 master key? After all, that should be a perfectly safe password ... ;-)
Sounds like the right time for a massive rickrolling for that video ;-)
That's why it's used to implement all video codecs!
No, video codecs are implemented in Flash because Java always makes those ugly coffee blotches on the videos.
Unless you feel comfortable with your incompetence, it's definitely something worth cursing.
Indeed, I get much more angry if something bad happens because I made a stupid error than if something bad happens because of some error in a program or some hardware malfunction.
These are no curses. I'm just writing a text-mode user interface.
It's exactly a text terminal where you find curses ...
So we need a law that demands that everyone owns a home mesh router, with multiple fiber and wifi links? :-)
The point at which anyone is identified, they aren't anonymous. For the last time- anonymous is not a group, it is a quality- an adjective.
Yeah, and "Yahoo!" isn't a company but an expression of joy, "Apple" isn't a company but a fruit, and "/." isn't a web site but a way to name the root directory.
But what if you need to access an IPv6-only web site from your internal IPv4 computer? Will you have a giant NAT translating external IPv6 addresses into internal IPv4 addresses?
Maybe their network cannot support more customers at the same time than they have IP addresses anyway.
A bigger problem they'll face it that as soon as some web sites will be available only on IPv6, the customers will demand that they can access those sites.
Just wait until they face the IPv16 problem, because those stupid humans only used four bits for the version number ...
I would say they are not the same problem. I can protect myself against an app with a root kit by not installing it. I can't do that if it installs itself.
Now you will probably counter that I usually won't know that there's a root kit in the app. Which is only partially true: While you never can be completely sure about it, there are apps which are more likely to have root kits than others. Moreover, generally the set of apps you knowingly install will be quite limited. An attacker would have to put the root kit into an app which you would want, but where you don't already have an equal or even better app. With an app which installs itself, the attacker doesn't even need to make the app appear interesting. I'll get it even if I don't want to.
So you think an app with a rootkit which you have to explicitly install is a bigger problem than an app with a rootkit which installs itself without user interaction?
The high school physics isn't missing. It's only hidden by an invisibility cloak.