It's nice to know they can detect leaks so small they're "100,000 times slower than what would cause a fire." What is that, about a few molecules a second?
'If they can't buy cleaned up versions of movies, the answer is (to them) to simply enact "decency" laws'
Or more likely don't buy those movies at all. The movie companies just screwed themselves out of revenue from not only the paying porn-prohibitive product-porting patrons, but also from those that would find this as a slap in the face to consumer choice. I wonder if anyone has stopped to consider school systems using these "cleaning services" so that certain relevant films can be used as teaching aids. I know that when I was in 8th grade history class, the teacher had us watch Last of the Mohicans, but had to stay highly attentive to fast forward over certain parts.
That's pretty humorous, and I know Minnesota has some pesky mosquitos, but I haven't seen Florida mentioned in all the replies. I've been to all the contiguous United States, as well as Mexico and Canada, but the nastiest mosquitos I've ever run across were in the Florida Everglades, just north of the keys. Visiting during the summer months, you'd think the military devised a new form of weapon with its own A.I. Fortunately they only follow you around for a couple hundred miles before giving up. I think my family lost the last Everglade Mosquito Mafia(tm) that was following us just north of KSC.
I was thinking something similar. However, at worst it is redundant, because the most basic definition for the term post is "mail." So it would be like saying "The mail mail address is." It was worth pointing out for the sake of clarity though. The original post should be reposted without a postal, a la post ad hoc.
One thing that is often overlooked is the person who just wants to know what other search engines are out there. At one point in history, Google did not exist and someone had to find it using Infoseek or some other engine already in existence. It's quite possible that even some analysts are tasked with finding out what search engines are available for business reporting purposes. Maybe even a student writing a paper about search engine technology needs to present a list of search engines, and describe what techniques each uses.
Otherwise I think any search engine that relies on Google for its business is asking for it. They should at least try to establish a presence through more conventional media (e.g. television ads, print ads, etc.). The chances of someone already using Google switching to another search engine are extremely slim.
They wouldn't make $500,000. The $500,000 is in the form of a promissory note. A promissory note is a loan. The strength of this as an incentive is only proportional to the amount they can afford to pay in interest and monthly payments against principal.
I was awaiting that question. I almost explained what was going on there in another response. No decision making code is running on the client. It's admittedly an elaborate system that makes heavy use of XML streaming (AJAX). The client essentially "talks" to the server, telling it what the user is doing at any given moment. The server responds with hashed decision codes that populate hidden fields in the form, so that when the user submits, the hashed values are compared to what the server has on record for that session.
'is it really that hard to generate plausible-looking timings based on human examples'
It's funny, because as a person who has worked on A.I., I've always said that anything a human can describe doing, a computer can do. That encompasses most things a human can do. In the case of dynamically created forms that have randomly hashed ID and name attributes, with its elements generated in random order, and the computer (server) watching to see how the user approaches filling out the form, it's very hard. Remember I mentioned it's a three tier system. A voyeuristic server is just one tier. The other two tiers force bots to show themselves.
'"I'm sorry, this site is not convinced you're human.'
That's certainly the general idea. Keeping track of the time taken to fill out a form is one angle, but for registration forms that are generic enough for browser auto-completion, that defeats a useful time saver for users. I prefer having the computer determine through studying the user's input patterns (and yes even browser auto-completed forms will pass the test) whether the user is human or not, rather than instruct the user to do crazy things. It's less obtrusive to real humans just trying to get things done. Visual CAPTCHAs have got to be one of the worst inventions for spam defense, given the high rate of human incomprehensibility. I think audio CAPTCHAs are a runner up since the deaf will have a hard time with those.
'However, what about something requiring mouse movement?'
I have something like that. In fact, it's a part of a three tier security measure I came up with last year. Having spent a lot of time programming A.I. and automation routines in the past, I realized there was a class of processes that could be guaranteed to work against automated spammers. One tier involves recognizing patterns of movement between fields on a form and data entry patterns. There is usually a very unique pattern to the way a human fills out a form. There are a plethora of options to the spam-blocking people if they simply consider far more interactive (e.g. think data streams and anthropological forms) solutions. It's much harder for a computer to pretend to be a human in most situations than a computer to tell the difference. It's like a one-way social algorithm.
I agree that HTML structure is important, and it's a great thing that the code is cleaned up, but the premise of the contest was to change the look of the site. You don't have to take my word for it.
"But the key goal here is to create the new look & feel for Slashdot." - CmdrTaco on Wednesday April 26, @12:59PM
Yes. They showed up shortly after the story showed up (i.e. after my comment). If you were watching it from the beginning, it started out with square corners, then off-colored round corners were quickly added. Now the round corners are the right color. You might have noticed that I wasn't the only one to point this out.
'Or I could do this voluntary judging for the National Inventors Hall of Fame (non-profit) and the History Channel. I took the high integrity one.'
It sounds like you picked the right one. American Inventor had some pretty horrible ideas overall. The percentage of useful inventions coming from that show was miniscule, and in inverse proportion to "entertaining" personalities and microcosmic arrogance.
I assume you mean sources on AES vulnerabilities, which include timing attacks and potential XSL attacks. The point is, that even if there's just a hint of vulnerability publicly suggested for a certain cipher, there exists a great deal of work, accomplished in private, going into economizing an attack. It could be described as the iceberg of cryptanalysis.
'Which means that unless I'm talking to the government, there's no reason they should be listening.'
Unless the telecommunications company shares it with them, which is what started this whole "government snooping" scandal. Let's not confuse "no reason" with "no right" either. Again, the government does not prohibit keeping information from them, just don't say the information is private when it travels through non-personal channels.
'Is talking to someone in my house private because the house effectively carries the encryption concept?'... 'Application of encryption doesn't necessarily mean something is private.'
There are two types of "private" and you're muxing the distinct application of the two. In the case of the envelope, private means: "1.a. Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others." On the other hand, if you are talking about personally private, definition 4.a. applies: "Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government" However, that requires you own what it is that you expect should be private. So one is about whether it is seen, and the other is about who owns it. I tried to alleviate the confusion by referring to the later as personally private, rather than just private.
'I have an inalienable right to live at the moment. However there are laws on the books disallowing people from impeding that right.'
If you're referring to the death penalty, it is well established that convicted criminals lose certain rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
'The existence of the agreement may just mean that they recognize that there are people who don't respect that rights of personal privacy'
But you just said in your other post, "why are there laws against snooping on cell phones? tapping phone lines, etc?" If there are rights being violated, and laws against invasion of privacy already exist, there would be no need for an agreement.
'The salesman has an agenda... either he thinks I might need a vacuum, or he thinks he can make me thing I do.'
Another statement based on over-analysis. The salesman's agenda is to sell vacuum cleaners, not convince you that you need one. That's only one tactic some salesman might use. Many people buy things they know they don't need, and the salesman knows they don't need. The bottom line is just selling. Are you offended every time you see a weight-loss commercial because you think they're implying you're overweight?
'I'm concerned about my privacy and I hoped that he may become concerned as well and support legislation to keep things in proper check.'
When the government tells me that I can't use encryption or envelopes; or that I can't hold private meetings on my property, I'll be concerned. In fact, I'll be outraged. I think it's ridiculous to assume that your conversation is personally private when traveling through a channel you don't own or have any control over. With the government being much like a parent, you can't expect to hide everything. I mean they already have all your personal information.
'I thought that when you sent a letter to another person, it was still considered private'
It is private, just not personal (as in it isn't just yours). For example, I can say something in private to someone, but once I've said it, we both own the message.
'For counter examples, sending a postcard would not be private'
Exactly! And the reason it isn't private is because you didn't employ a form of encryption, an envelope. The government doesn't stop people from using encryption or envelopes.
'reasonably expected to be private'
Only to the extent of a privacy agreement, and that's only applicable to other private enterprise. Just the fact that there exists a privacy agreement at all proves there is no inalienable right to personal privacy in this situation.
'Besides, if cell conversations aren't private, why are there laws against snooping on cell phones?'
Because those who would do the "snooping" do not own the channel either.
'If they weren't private, there would be no need to define those as off limits'
That's like saying there's no reason for laws.
'I have to apply his logic to it after the fact'
You don't have to do anything but take what people say at face value. You are a victim of your own logic. If a door-to-door salesman comes to you and tries to sell you a vacuum cleaner, does that mean he implies you need one, or is he just trying to sell you one? I maintain that in the world of politics, people are just selling, not accusing.
'that I don't have a "right" to what I am saying I have the "freedom" for'
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. It sounds like you're saying the opposite of what I said.
'which would fall under "papers" in the above'
How do you figure? A letter can actually be in your possession. Once the letter leaves your possession, such as giving it to someone else, it is no longer yours. With a telecommunications network you don't own the channel. You're skipping over the key term in the amendment, "their."
'Something I say in private'
I attest that a cell phone conversation is not private. Face-to-face conversation on your property is "in private." Writing a journal and keeping it in your desk drawer is "in private."
'Since you have only now brought up extremes'
I brought up the obvious, not the extreme. Extreme rarely happens. The obvious is what you take for granted it happens so often.
'I take from your last post that you put the "right to privacy" in the same category as the right to drive drunk'
You take incorrectly. There were two different issues I was addressing. 1) I was saying that "rights" (related to freedoms) are sometimes limited for our own good. This was in direct response to your concern that others have an impact on your freedoms. In other words, sometimes the impact is necessary. 2) Personal privacy is not at stake in the situation in question. You have a "right to [personal] privacy" but as I've said several times now, telecommunications is not personally private by definition. Others have to be custodians to your message in order for the whole thing to work.
'since it doesn't appear you believe we have such a right.'
Again, you're drawing a conclusion based on a misinterpretation of what I said. You have a right to personal privacy. Telecommunications is not personally private. Writing a note and handing it to someone is private.
'does the fact that he implicitly believes that I am doing something wrong'
There was no such implicit message. He explicitly said, "live a good clean life, ignore outside influences, pay your taxes on time and you will have little to worry about." He didn't say anything about what you are currently doing, only what he is doing; and if you do what he is doing there is little to worry about. If you're willing extract a hidden meaning from that, you could just as easily say he thinks you have little to worry about, implying that you "live a good clean life."
"Are you really that unconcerned about how others who have an impact on your freedoms view your freedoms?"
I think the term "freedom" is tossed around too much. What most people fail to realize is that "freedom" is completely relative to what "rights" a person is deemed to have. I have no right to break into someone else's house, therefore I have no freedom to do so either. The only true freedom is anarchy, but I have no desire to live in that society. Some will make the argument that it's about personal privacy (as opposed to freedom). There's nothing personal about using a non-personal (as in you don't own it) communication network.
So to answer your question, no, but you're not asking the right question. I think there are many limitations on our "freedoms" that need to be there for our own sake. Drinking and driving comes to mind right away.
Keep in mind the length of time for brute force cracking has nothing to do with cryptanalysis. It isn't likely that the NSA would ever use brute force. Obviously if they know a key weakness that possibly nobody else knows, that's what they'll use, and it won't take 149 trillion years. By the way, AES can be susceptible to a side channel attack.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to know they can detect leaks so small they're "100,000 times slower than what would cause a fire." What is that, about a few molecules a second?
That's pretty humorous, and I know Minnesota has some pesky mosquitos, but I haven't seen Florida mentioned in all the replies. I've been to all the contiguous United States, as well as Mexico and Canada, but the nastiest mosquitos I've ever run across were in the Florida Everglades, just north of the keys. Visiting during the summer months, you'd think the military devised a new form of weapon with its own A.I. Fortunately they only follow you around for a couple hundred miles before giving up. I think my family lost the last Everglade Mosquito Mafia(tm) that was following us just north of KSC.
I was thinking something similar. However, at worst it is redundant, because the most basic definition for the term post is "mail." So it would be like saying "The mail mail address is." It was worth pointing out for the sake of clarity though. The original post should be reposted without a postal, a la post ad hoc.
One thing that is often overlooked is the person who just wants to know what other search engines are out there. At one point in history, Google did not exist and someone had to find it using Infoseek or some other engine already in existence. It's quite possible that even some analysts are tasked with finding out what search engines are available for business reporting purposes. Maybe even a student writing a paper about search engine technology needs to present a list of search engines, and describe what techniques each uses.
Otherwise I think any search engine that relies on Google for its business is asking for it. They should at least try to establish a presence through more conventional media (e.g. television ads, print ads, etc.). The chances of someone already using Google switching to another search engine are extremely slim.
Steve Ballmer is getting tired of throwing his own chairs. Robots will help to automate the process.
They wouldn't make $500,000. The $500,000 is in the form of a promissory note. A promissory note is a loan. The strength of this as an incentive is only proportional to the amount they can afford to pay in interest and monthly payments against principal.
'However, what about something requiring mouse movement?'
I have something like that. In fact, it's a part of a three tier security measure I came up with last year. Having spent a lot of time programming A.I. and automation routines in the past, I realized there was a class of processes that could be guaranteed to work against automated spammers. One tier involves recognizing patterns of movement between fields on a form and data entry patterns. There is usually a very unique pattern to the way a human fills out a form. There are a plethora of options to the spam-blocking people if they simply consider far more interactive (e.g. think data streams and anthropological forms) solutions. It's much harder for a computer to pretend to be a human in most situations than a computer to tell the difference. It's like a one-way social algorithm.
I agree that HTML structure is important, and it's a great thing that the code is cleaned up, but the premise of the contest was to change the look of the site. You don't have to take my word for it.
"But the key goal here is to create the new look & feel for Slashdot." - CmdrTaco on Wednesday April 26, @12:59PM
Yes. They showed up shortly after the story showed up (i.e. after my comment). If you were watching it from the beginning, it started out with square corners, then off-colored round corners were quickly added. Now the round corners are the right color. You might have noticed that I wasn't the only one to point this out.
Apparently. The biggest changes were just to the font and to use square corners.
Yeah, that local anaesthesia sure helps prevent involuntary amputation.
Wouldn't that make it five colors (Orange, Red, Yellow, Blue, Green) and four models if we were to be picky about it?
I assume you mean sources on AES vulnerabilities, which include timing attacks and potential XSL attacks. The point is, that even if there's just a hint of vulnerability publicly suggested for a certain cipher, there exists a great deal of work, accomplished in private, going into economizing an attack. It could be described as the iceberg of cryptanalysis.
Here, here! I wish there was a way to beat curiosity into people.
So to answer your question, no, but you're not asking the right question. I think there are many limitations on our "freedoms" that need to be there for our own sake. Drinking and driving comes to mind right away.
Keep in mind the length of time for brute force cracking has nothing to do with cryptanalysis. It isn't likely that the NSA would ever use brute force. Obviously if they know a key weakness that possibly nobody else knows, that's what they'll use, and it won't take 149 trillion years. By the way, AES can be susceptible to a side channel attack.