Senators, rock stars, movie stars, etc, are public figures and in the public eye. You give up a lot of privacy when you become a public figure (i.e. the paparazzi are allowed to follow you). That goes along with the job description. And, you enter those professions knowing this to be the case. Police officers, while public servants, are typically not public figures.
What this woman did was stalk with intent to harass a police officer.
She identified officers involved in the various task forces.
She directly and indirectly placed those officers and their families in jeopardy.
She reduced the effectiveness of law enforcement in that town.
"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.
Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice) and puts the officers and their families at direct risk. Her behavior encourages the harassment of the officers by others. They do this in Iraq and Afghanistan and guess what? The police officers are hunted down and killed. Yes, people die. Of course, lest we forget the little boy who was abducted and tortured so that the terrorist could get at the boy's father - a local police officer.
And, just so you are aware, if you happen to pass a police officer laying in wait of speeders and signal on-coming cars to let them know the officer is there, you are obstructing justice. Most cops wouldn't charge you as you may have aided them in slowing down a speeder. But, think about the lunatic who has a cop-killing on his mind and now knows where the cop is. Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance - and if you are under surveillance, odds are YOU did something wrong or a person of interest. If you aren't, then they are guilty of harassment.
Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk. And, I assume it's safe to say that their families are probably NOT civil servants. At the very least, her actions constitute stalking and should be treated as such. On the outer edge, is could be considered an act of domestic terrorism. What was her real purpose for doing this? Were the police corrupt or is she just a wack job?
Keep in mind, in a similar manner, Megan's Law sites often publish the address of sex offenders. News crews often go to the homes of those offenders. My best friend's husband is a convicted pedophile. The news crews parked right in front of HER house (where he no longer lived), published the name of the street and showed a picture of her home (including the mailbox that had her house number) and indicated he also had two young children. She did nothing wrong. Yet, SHE felt compelled to move out for a while because she started getting harassed and her home vandalized while things legislation was passed to guarantee he wouldn't be able to return to his home. I deplore pedophiles. But, what the public and the news media did to my friend and her family was simply wrong.
Personally, it's this sort of rhetoric that makes me want to puke. For me, if he pulls such a s stunt, I will no longer purchase MS software. If enough people take this approach, MS will learn that their bottom line is dependent upon the people in THIS country. Screw our workers...we screw them.
Completely different technology. Contrary to popular belief, RFID is not an option except if they are trying to identify the child's body after an abduction.
Human tissue absorbs the GPS signals and having a transmitter in the body with sufficient power to reach a cell tower is not in anyone's best interest.
The Zoombak device (http://www.zoombak.com) is about the size of hotel bar of soap. It uses AGPS to acquire fixes and GSM to transmit the device's location. It was originally conceived for use on pets, but was soon adopted for other needs. The "Universal" device is probably what you are looking for (although they can't market the device for tracking children, I'm sure plenty of people do). I put one on my kid with ADHD when he goes on his scout trips. He knows it's there.
There are other products on the market, but I think the Zoombak device is the most capable. And, unlike products, it actually exists.
It provides a fix every 15 minutes and the rechargable battery life is about 5 days per charge. You can log into their web portal and request "Find Nows" or enter a continuous track mode.
You can also access the device's location using SMS. They have several models, Pet, Universal and Auto. I'd recommend the Universal since it provides other attachments that make it useful as a generic tracker.
They also have special deal going right now - I think it's 3 months free if you purchase the device.
Can you hack one of these devices or build your own? Not really. A lot of effort went into designing the device to obtain FCC certification - cell carriers in the US require that the device meet their specs before the device is allowed to attach to their network.
I'd recommend you obtain one of these devices and then bug the company to provide the other features you request. Or, perhaps, ask if they have an OEM version and toolkit.
Unfortunately, the problem with legal action is that I have two other children - one of which is still in that school. The effects on him would have been detrimental in the long run. We already had to deal with ramifications after compelling the school district to send our hard of hearing child to another school - one that had dealt with children with hearing disabilities and understood what they go through. The other school simply didn't understand the issues. It was the correct choice.
Note - lest ANYONE think this is a genetic issue and we should be removed from the gene pool - my youngest lost hearing in one ear after contracting bacterial menigitis - a common complication of the disease - and suffered multiple strokes as a result of the disease also when he was 5 months old. Other than the hearing, he made an almost complete recovery.
The parents of the kid causing the trouble did take some action - mom is pretty nice. Dad? He's nice but a gun-ho soldier. Considering the kid had been a problem child since pre-school and he surely had access to weapons - I would deem it credible.
As for other action - we did manage to keep them having to be in the same class. Now, he's in middle school, has new friends that stick up for him when he gets picked on. Not that he can't fight his own battles - but, unlike his dad who fought PKA at 16 at 165 lbs. He'd get his butt whooped against the other kids - he just broke 100 lbs this year and has no interest in learning to fight - yeah..he's 14. Besides, in today's world, the school yard fight will get you arrested and expelled from school. Far different world that what I grew up in.
What he doesn't possess in physical prowess he makes up in intellectual ability. That has been a saving grace as he doesn't have to interact with the kid anymore.
Exactly. It isn't about the fact she created an account under a false name. It's what she used it for. Anonymity is good when you aren't using it to harm someone else. She was fully aware of the potential for harm in her actions.
Her behavior afterwards was like "What's the big deal - some little kid wacked herself - maybe mommy should have watched her more carefully".
The problem is that there aren't laws that govern cyberbulling that have any teeth to them. That will change soon.
I have kids of my own - one, now 14, who is bullied because he's much smaller than other kids his age, is smarter than several of them put together and has mild Asbergers. The school has a "Zero Tolerance Policy". Yet, when a kid threatened to slit his throat, nothing was done about it - we weren't even called by the school.
Life's tough on the kid and my wife and I worry about him all the time as he gets depressed easily. It's tough seeing him go through what he does every day.
As for her - Screw this bitch. What I would love to see is that nobody give her even the time of day. Fire her from her job - don't employ her. Heck - fire her husband too. Make her life miserable. Raise her credit card rates to 25%. And, please...don't give her her a book deal or pay her to speak. Let her suffer for what she's done. She deserves to live and rot in Hell.
Maybe, if there's a God, the fact that she was convicted of a crime may allow the girls parents to sue her for everything she's got - and actually win.
Exactly. Use of ECB mode is pointless. All ECB mode does is change one block value to another since they are encrypted the exact same way. Thus, two similar blocks will have exactly the same output.
If you're using AES and you supposedly know what you're doing, you use CBC or CFC or another chaining mode. These feed the results of the previous encryption operation rendering the type of attack discussed in the article moot.
I can't believe they gave them any press time on this. Argh!
We actually did this in college - pointed it at the paranoid administrators who thought we had nothing better to do than listen in on their conversations.
In retrospect, it probably didn't help that we drew attention by having a flickering red light, wore headphones and pointed at them and laughed. One time, they closed the curtains (like THAT would help).
Every time we'd stick it out the window, they'd send security guards - but, we'd take it down before they arrived.
It has been demonstrated that fundamental building blocks of live are available in some of the remotest parts of our solar system and on this planet as well.
They have discovered the presence of water in samples brought back from the moon. They have found the elements on Mars - and now are trying to confirm that liquid water once existed long enough for life to take hold.
Scientists have created amino acids and proteins in the lab by creating a primordial soup and hitting it with electricity. While this isn't life, per se, it is the fundamentals of life - and it was created by man. Amazingly, those amino acids also started combining to form proteins - more building blocks of life.
Supposed organisms created out of thin air? Not likely (unless the aliens leave them here when they visit). New organisms and species are created by the sharing of genetic material and evolutionary processes. The combinations of genetic material from two disparate but somehow compatible DNA results in new "species" aka life-forms - we see this all the time with bacteria as they absorb material from other antibiotic resistant bacteria and acquire that resistance as well. Doesn't happen all the time - but, at the rate they (bacteria) reproduce (much faster than humans), we can see how this process functions.
Genetic algorithms and programs (human creations) emulate standard genetic processes. They solve problems by randomly selecting elements of a solution (genes) into a container called a "chromosome". They exchange "genetic" material with other until a solution emerges that is a best fit solution. Weak solutions are discarded or may be subject to more genetic mutations. Those mutations might make them stronger and more likely to survive into the next generation.
In the case of new species, the best fit solution is that which still enables life. Nothing magical there - we only know that to be the case because we are alive and can see it for ourselves.
What is amazing is that the necessary conditions for this happen exist here on Earth. Our planet has a climate that allows liquid water to exist. It has an abundance of the amino building blocks. It has protection from excessive solar radiation through by way of the ozone layer - radiation that would break up the molecules.
Whether this is by chance or by design? That's for you to decide. But, please don't try to impart that logic or belief system on my children as "science" or on the rest of the population via gov't policy. It isn't science and, what science it does pro port to use is distorted and perverted to meet the needs of the ID belief system.
The fact that I chose this example does not, in any way, imply that Darwinism or evolution is incorrect.
Rather, it is the taking of an idea, in this particular case, evolution, and perverting it to the point of delusion. Then, giving those with this distorted sense or reality the ability to carry out that delusion to its inevitable end.
ID discards scientific knowledge and facts (not implying evolution is fact - it is only a theory derived from observational and experimental data) in an attempt to satisfy a need for certain individuals that their species did not evolve from lower life forms or to discount evidence that the Earth is far older than 6000 years.
Assuming that the universe was created roughly 6000 years ago, there is this thing called background radiation and the laws of thermodynamics. Simply put, the universe is a temperature that started at some point and has cooled over billions of years to its current point. And, do you really think that a Supreme being would put fossilized dinosaur bones at different geological layers just to confuse us and make us think the world is older than it really is? Just why would a Supreme being do such a thing? Why would a Supreme being give us the ability to think and obtain knowledge but hide this from us? Why would a Supreme being seek to deceive us in this fashion?
The logic behind such thoughts as presented by ID is delusional. Giving people who think that way political or military power is a very scary thing indeed.
All this being said - What came before the big? There's something to ponder and doesn't throw out the possibility of a Supreme being.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
Exactly. A teacher's job is to impart knowledge and accepted theories to allow for some critical thinking. If they want to grow up and do research into ID and can demonstrate that it can stand to scientific scrutiny then, and only then, should it be taught in our public school system.
If those ignorant of accepted science and who think and act on religious beliefs find their way on to somebody's National ticket, I will vote for the other guy by default. What one wants to believe for themselves, in their own time - that's their prerogative and I endorse it. However, it's another thing making National or State policy on those beliefs. Never put the control of weapons into the hands of the delusional- only bad things can happen. Case in point? 1930-1940s Germany.
...you'll see that most of the influential Comp Sci people had no formal training in the field at all
And, they all currently work on Vista, right?
Seriously, it isn't the degree that makes you a good programmer or the ability to code - almost anyone can code. It's the ability to think creatively and having the necessary skills to implement your ideas that makes you a successful programmer or, for that matter, a successful person.
My experience has been the individual with little , if any, formal training often can excel in individual or small group work. Larger projects require more formal discipline (no spank me jokes, please) to get the job done. You will also be expected to hold a degree (advanced, preferred) to advance in larger corporations.
Those with little training will need to acquire the necessary skills from someplace - on the job (if your employer is patient) or taking skill classes in order to be successful in larger corporations - genius isn't always enough.
Unfortunately, any decent physicist would be able to model, with all the small stuff, to show that you, like any mass bending space, create a gravitational field but yet still fail to explain the principle of ignorance.;-)
Interestingly, one of my first scientific programs was a multi-body modeling program that displayed stellar movements in 3d - on an Iris workstation and also on a MacPlus in 1987. Yes, I honestly can claim I wrote a lot of the "small stuff" that my senior advisor used in his award winning research on galaxy and globular cluster formation.
Anyone can be a programmer - hell, even physicists program.
Physicists not only can write software - but, they have the mathematical and physics background to boot. Without the aid of good physicists, I doubt there would be very many realistic games out there - most are based on rather sophisticated physics and algorithms conceived of by, none other, physicists.
I transitioned away from being a rocket scientist a long time ago - but, the knowledge I acquired as one has made me one hell of a systems engineer and programmer.
Your "public" certificate is MEANT to be shared. Having a third party sign your certificate implies that the signer trusts your certificate.
So, how does the signer trust the certificate in theh first place? The creator of the certificate self-signs it. Since this signature can be verified by anyone who receives the certificate via its public key, they know the signer holds both the public and private key.
For a third party to reliably sign a certificate, originally it was suggested having a notary verify your identity before signing. Most people don't go that far any more and send the certificate by email. This does not verify the holder of the cert is who they say they are - only that they hold the private key. For most people, that's good enough.
It's perfectly fine to generate your own self-signed certificates - in fact you might want to issue certificates to users and sign those certs yourself. This can be used as a method to limit who can access an encrypted system -if they have a valid client certificate - they can be authenticated. Naturally, you should still use a two factor authentication system - the certs are just one piece of the puzzle.
There is a thing called age of consent. A child of 13, in most jurisdictions, is not considered an adult and unable to give consent. This also is why children under the age of consent are not suitable as sexual partners for adults, btw. If this action were sexual in nature, it would be rape - pure ad simple. This was, for lack of a better term, emotional rape. At the very least, it's emotional abuse.
Additionally, as any adult knows (and recent studies have shown), teenagers are emotionally young and immature and subject to extreme emotional swings. We give too much credit to young teens that we think are our emotional equivalents. They aren't.
What we have here is a 13 year old girl, allegedly known to be suicidal, who is allegedly manipulated by an ADULT for the purpose of causing extreme emotional distress in that child.
A suicidal and emotionally unstable child can not handle the stresses the person allegedly put upon her and is not responsible for her actions.
So...stop blaming the victim - Stop assuming that a child can rationally understand the ramifications of acting upon their wildly swinging emotions. They most likely don't or can't.
The whole lot of people who took these actions against this young teenager need to be taught a lesson. The ring leader should not only go to jail for her actions but should also lose everything in a civil lawsuit. In my mind, anyone who could do this to a child is no better than the sexual predators who prey on children. I'd like to think the prison population will think so also.
The bugger used to have his office in a medical office complex right down the road from where I used to live. One day, I noticed he had brown paper over the windows - through the cracks, you could see his server racks were empty. The next day, I read he skipped town.
He's surfaced a few times only to piss people off all over again only to then disappear yet again. Could he have been in the Witness Protection program? Has "The Eraser" been hired to help make him disappear and allow him to start a new life as a hot dog vendor? Details at 5:00.
These tools do not "predict" who will commit a crime - this isn't a "Minority Report" scenario - no precogs here.
They are simply tools that, when put into the hands of a capable analyst or detective, can assist in identifying links between people and property or determine patterns of criminal activity. It still takes good intelligence and smart detective work and some luck to solve and/or prevent crime.
What prevents crime is having more police on the streets, keeping them accountable for their behavior and giving them the tools they need to be safe and get the job done. There also needs to be laws and legislation that keeps the bad guys off the streets and put them away once they catch them rather than having a revolving door.
The technology exists - cops love having the latest and greatest tools - But, there are three primary issues preventing its wide deployment:
1) Cost - It is costly to deploy this technology in every vehicle. Many departments are small and funded primarily by the community. Hiring new officers or buying new data systems requires financial planning and tax dollars. After 911, there was a lot of grant money - but, it still comes down to the tax payer's wallet.
Additionally, there was talk of certain inquiries to certain data sharing systems being charged - i.e. for use of the network. This can get costly rather quickly - hence, the need to keep the number of queries down. Police departments have to be fiscally responsible and do their best to be so.
2) Vendor support - I've been at shows like IACP and this technology is often demonstrated - the company I worked for even considered partnering with one company at one time to obtain this technology. But, there has to be a genuine need by the departments (and a willingness to pay for it).
3) Privacy Legislation - To run a plate or other inquiry in most jurisdictions requires probable cause (i.e they are not allowed to run the plate of a the hot chick they met earlier). Other places, it's not such a big deal. In the NCIC system, EVERY query is logged. Departments and agencies are required to provide an audit log on demand to the FBI. Not good if you can't justify why a particular query was run.
In NJ, they can run what is a called a Random search. That query returns limited information. If they want more detail and have PC, they have to issue a standard query.
One Minnesota PD would drive through shopping center parking lots and running hundreds of plates a night. Of course, this taxed the NCIC infrastructure (and, the wireless network connecting the vehicle back to the departmental server).
In other cities, they equip their parking authority with cameras that scan the license plates of cars as they drive up and down the roads. So, it's out there.
The problem you describe is very real. Even between states, they use different codes (can't we all just get along). There are solutions to the problem you describe. We solved it - but, until they all standardize on their codes, the problem will continue to exist.
I, too, worked with law enforcement data sharing and, as a senior engineer for a (probably THE)leader in law enforcement software, wrote an interface for our Ohio customers to access the OLLEISN system (and about 10 other data sharing systems as well).
Personally, the company I worked for had a system that kicked the butts of the larger initiatives. It replicated in near real time, worked with incremental data, optimized network resources and bandwidth, fault tolerant, highly scalable (from local to national level), allowed the departments keep their information in data silos and, thus, controlled the release of the information. It was accessible using a desktop client or from our award winning mobile product.
Additionally, it has been recognized by several law enforcement publications. Yes, it was deployed in some large markets as well as some smaller implementations of just a few departments wishing to share data with one another and has proven itself highly effective. Yet, it was not listed in this article. Why? Damned good question.
GJXDM was limited. NIEM is not all that difficult to understand and it fixes a lot of problems of GJXDM. But, both models place some real restrictions on vendors as they need to be able to map their data model to the NIEM or other data sharing initiatives data model. It's not practical to rewrite a 25 year old, proven product just to conform to the NIEM, GJXDM or the next model that is touted as the standard. Hence, I had a job interfacing our system to all the data sharing systems out there.
No, I don't work there any more. I recently moved on to a new career. But, the work was highly rewarding and I support it wholeheartedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Senators, rock stars, movie stars, etc, are public figures and in the public eye. You give up a lot of privacy when you become a public figure (i.e. the paparazzi are allowed to follow you). That goes along with the job description. And, you enter those professions knowing this to be the case. Police officers, while public servants, are typically not public figures.
What this woman did was stalk with intent to harass a police officer.
She identified officers involved in the various task forces.
She directly and indirectly placed those officers and their families in jeopardy.
She reduced the effectiveness of law enforcement in that town.
She should rot in jail.
"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.
Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice) and puts the officers and their families at direct risk. Her behavior encourages the harassment of the officers by others. They do this in Iraq and Afghanistan and guess what? The police officers are hunted down and killed. Yes, people die. Of course, lest we forget the little boy who was abducted and tortured so that the terrorist could get at the boy's father - a local police officer.
And, just so you are aware, if you happen to pass a police officer laying in wait of speeders and signal on-coming cars to let them know the officer is there, you are obstructing justice. Most cops wouldn't charge you as you may have aided them in slowing down a speeder. But, think about the lunatic who has a cop-killing on his mind and now knows where the cop is. Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance - and if you are under surveillance, odds are YOU did something wrong or a person of interest. If you aren't, then they are guilty of harassment.
Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk. And, I assume it's safe to say that their families are probably NOT civil servants. At the very least, her actions constitute stalking and should be treated as such. On the outer edge, is could be considered an act of domestic terrorism. What was her real purpose for doing this? Were the police corrupt or is she just a wack job?
Keep in mind, in a similar manner, Megan's Law sites often publish the address of sex offenders. News crews often go to the homes of those offenders. My best friend's husband is a convicted pedophile. The news crews parked right in front of HER house (where he no longer lived), published the name of the street and showed a picture of her home (including the mailbox that had her house number) and indicated he also had two young children. She did nothing wrong. Yet, SHE felt compelled to move out for a while because she started getting harassed and her home vandalized while things legislation was passed to guarantee he wouldn't be able to return to his home. I deplore pedophiles. But, what the public and the news media did to my friend and her family was simply wrong.
Personally, it's this sort of rhetoric that makes me want to puke. For me, if he pulls such a s stunt, I will no longer purchase MS software. If enough people take this approach, MS will learn that their bottom line is dependent upon the people in THIS country. Screw our workers...we screw them.
Or, purchase a Zoombak (the industry leader) for $99.99 and 3 months free service.
http://www.zoombak.com
Completely different technology. Contrary to popular belief, RFID is not an option except if they are trying to identify the child's body after an abduction.
Human tissue absorbs the GPS signals and having a transmitter in the body with sufficient power to reach a cell tower is not in anyone's best interest.
I do hope you meant "leashes" and not "leaches".
The Zoombak device (http://www.zoombak.com) is about the size of hotel bar of soap. It uses AGPS to acquire fixes and GSM to transmit the device's location. It was originally conceived for use on pets, but was soon adopted for other needs. The "Universal" device is probably what you are looking for (although they can't market the device for tracking children, I'm sure plenty of people do). I put one on my kid with ADHD when he goes on his scout trips. He knows it's there.
There are other products on the market, but I think the Zoombak device is the most capable. And, unlike products, it actually exists.
It provides a fix every 15 minutes and the rechargable battery life is about 5 days per charge. You can log into their web portal and request "Find Nows" or enter a continuous track mode.
You can also access the device's location using SMS. They have several models, Pet, Universal and Auto. I'd recommend the Universal since it provides other attachments that make it useful as a generic tracker.
They also have special deal going right now - I think it's 3 months free if you purchase the device.
Can you hack one of these devices or build your own? Not really. A lot of effort went into designing the device to obtain FCC certification - cell carriers in the US require that the device meet their specs before the device is allowed to attach to their network.
I'd recommend you obtain one of these devices and then bug the company to provide the other features you request. Or, perhaps, ask if they have an OEM version and toolkit.
Unfortunately, the problem with legal action is that I have two other children - one of which is still in that school. The effects on him would have been detrimental in the long run. We already had to deal with ramifications after compelling the school district to send our hard of hearing child to another school - one that had dealt with children with hearing disabilities and understood what they go through. The other school simply didn't understand the issues. It was the correct choice.
Note - lest ANYONE think this is a genetic issue and we should be removed from the gene pool - my youngest lost hearing in one ear after contracting bacterial menigitis - a common complication of the disease - and suffered multiple strokes as a result of the disease also when he was 5 months old. Other than the hearing, he made an almost complete recovery.
The parents of the kid causing the trouble did take some action - mom is pretty nice. Dad? He's nice but a gun-ho soldier. Considering the kid had been a problem child since pre-school and he surely had access to weapons - I would deem it credible.
As for other action - we did manage to keep them having to be in the same class. Now, he's in middle school, has new friends that stick up for him when he gets picked on. Not that he can't fight his own battles - but, unlike his dad who fought PKA at 16 at 165 lbs. He'd get his butt whooped against the other kids - he just broke 100 lbs this year and has no interest in learning to fight - yeah..he's 14. Besides, in today's world, the school yard fight will get you arrested and expelled from school. Far different world that what I grew up in.
What he doesn't possess in physical prowess he makes up in intellectual ability. That has been a saving grace as he doesn't have to interact with the kid anymore.
Exactly. It isn't about the fact she created an account under a false name. It's what she used it for. Anonymity is good when you aren't using it to harm someone else. She was fully aware of the potential for harm in her actions.
Her behavior afterwards was like "What's the big deal - some little kid wacked herself - maybe mommy should have watched her more carefully".
The problem is that there aren't laws that govern cyberbulling that have any teeth to them. That will change soon.
I have kids of my own - one, now 14, who is bullied because he's much smaller than other kids his age, is smarter than several of them put together and has mild Asbergers. The school has a "Zero Tolerance Policy". Yet, when a kid threatened to slit his throat, nothing was done about it - we weren't even called by the school.
Life's tough on the kid and my wife and I worry about him all the time as he gets depressed easily. It's tough seeing him go through what he does every day.
As for her - Screw this bitch. What I would love to see is that nobody give her even the time of day. Fire her from her job - don't employ her. Heck - fire her husband too. Make her life miserable. Raise her credit card rates to 25%. And, please...don't give her her a book deal or pay her to speak. Let her suffer for what she's done. She deserves to live and rot in Hell.
Maybe, if there's a God, the fact that she was convicted of a crime may allow the girls parents to sue her for everything she's got - and actually win.
Exactly. Use of ECB mode is pointless. All ECB mode does is change one block value to another since they are encrypted the exact same way. Thus, two similar blocks will have exactly the same output.
If you're using AES and you supposedly know what you're doing, you use CBC or CFC or another chaining mode. These feed the results of the previous encryption operation rendering the type of attack discussed in the article moot.
I can't believe they gave them any press time on this. Argh!
We actually did this in college - pointed it at the paranoid administrators who thought we had nothing better to do than listen in on their conversations.
In retrospect, it probably didn't help that we drew attention by having a flickering red light, wore headphones and pointed at them and laughed. One time, they closed the curtains (like THAT would help).
Every time we'd stick it out the window, they'd send security guards - but, we'd take it down before they arrived.
It has been demonstrated that fundamental building blocks of live are available in some of the remotest parts of our solar system and on this planet as well.
They have discovered the presence of water in samples brought back from the moon. They have found the elements on Mars - and now are trying to confirm that liquid water once existed long enough for life to take hold.
Scientists have created amino acids and proteins in the lab by creating a primordial soup and hitting it with electricity. While this isn't life, per se, it is the fundamentals of life - and it was created by man. Amazingly, those amino acids also started combining to form proteins - more building blocks of life.
Supposed organisms created out of thin air? Not likely (unless the aliens leave them here when they visit). New organisms and species are created by the sharing of genetic material and evolutionary processes. The combinations of genetic material from two disparate but somehow compatible DNA results in new "species" aka life-forms - we see this all the time with bacteria as they absorb material from other antibiotic resistant bacteria and acquire that resistance as well. Doesn't happen all the time - but, at the rate they (bacteria) reproduce (much faster than humans), we can see how this process functions.
Genetic algorithms and programs (human creations) emulate standard genetic processes. They solve problems by randomly selecting elements of a solution (genes) into a container called a "chromosome". They exchange "genetic" material with other until a solution emerges that is a best fit solution. Weak solutions are discarded or may be subject to more genetic mutations. Those mutations might make them stronger and more likely to survive into the next generation.
In the case of new species, the best fit solution is that which still enables life. Nothing magical there - we only know that to be the case because we are alive and can see it for ourselves.
What is amazing is that the necessary conditions for this happen exist here on Earth. Our planet has a climate that allows liquid water to exist. It has an abundance of the amino building blocks. It has protection from excessive solar radiation through by way of the ozone layer - radiation that would break up the molecules.
Whether this is by chance or by design? That's for you to decide. But, please don't try to impart that logic or belief system on my children as "science" or on the rest of the population via gov't policy. It isn't science and, what science it does pro port to use is distorted and perverted to meet the needs of the ID belief system.
The fact that I chose this example does not, in any way, imply that Darwinism or evolution is incorrect.
Rather, it is the taking of an idea, in this particular case, evolution, and perverting it to the point of delusion. Then, giving those with this distorted sense or reality the ability to carry out that delusion to its inevitable end.
ID discards scientific knowledge and facts (not implying evolution is fact - it is only a theory derived from observational and experimental data) in an attempt to satisfy a need for certain individuals that their species did not evolve from lower life forms or to discount evidence that the Earth is far older than 6000 years.
Assuming that the universe was created roughly 6000 years ago, there is this thing called background radiation and the laws of thermodynamics. Simply put, the universe is a temperature that started at some point and has cooled over billions of years to its current point. And, do you really think that a Supreme being would put fossilized dinosaur bones at different geological layers just to confuse us and make us think the world is older than it really is? Just why would a Supreme being do such a thing? Why would a Supreme being give us the ability to think and obtain knowledge but hide this from us? Why would a Supreme being seek to deceive us in this fashion?
The logic behind such thoughts as presented by ID is delusional. Giving people who think that way political or military power is a very scary thing indeed.
All this being said - What came before the big? There's something to ponder and doesn't throw out the possibility of a Supreme being.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
Exactly. A teacher's job is to impart knowledge and accepted theories to allow for some critical thinking. If they want to grow up and do research into ID and can demonstrate that it can stand to scientific scrutiny then, and only then, should it be taught in our public school system.
If those ignorant of accepted science and who think and act on religious beliefs find their way on to somebody's National ticket, I will vote for the other guy by default. What one wants to believe for themselves, in their own time - that's their prerogative and I endorse it. However, it's another thing making National or State policy on those beliefs. Never put the control of weapons into the hands of the delusional- only bad things can happen. Case in point? 1930-1940s Germany.
...you'll see that most of the influential Comp Sci people had no formal training in the field at all
And, they all currently work on Vista, right?
Seriously, it isn't the degree that makes you a good programmer or the ability to code - almost anyone can code. It's the ability to think creatively and having the necessary skills to implement your ideas that makes you a successful programmer or, for that matter, a successful person.
My experience has been the individual with little , if any, formal training often can excel in individual or small group work. Larger projects require more formal discipline (no spank me jokes, please) to get the job done. You will also be expected to hold a degree (advanced, preferred) to advance in larger corporations.
Those with little training will need to acquire the necessary skills from someplace - on the job (if your employer is patient) or taking skill classes in order to be successful in larger corporations - genius isn't always enough.
Which is fine, because I suck at physics
Unfortunately, any decent physicist would be able to model, with all the small stuff, to show that you, like any mass bending space, create a gravitational field but yet still fail to explain the principle of ignorance. ;-)
Interestingly, one of my first scientific programs was a multi-body modeling program that displayed stellar movements in 3d - on an Iris workstation and also on a MacPlus in 1987. Yes, I honestly can claim I wrote a lot of the "small stuff" that my senior advisor used in his award winning research on galaxy and globular cluster formation.
Anyone can be a programmer - hell, even physicists program.
Physicists not only can write software - but, they have the mathematical and physics background to boot. Without the aid of good physicists, I doubt there would be very many realistic games out there - most are based on rather sophisticated physics and algorithms conceived of by, none other, physicists.
I transitioned away from being a rocket scientist a long time ago - but, the knowledge I acquired as one has made me one hell of a systems engineer and programmer.
RD
Your "public" certificate is MEANT to be shared. Having a third party sign your certificate implies that the signer trusts your certificate.
So, how does the signer trust the certificate in theh first place? The creator of the certificate self-signs it. Since this signature can be verified by anyone who receives the certificate via its public key, they know the signer holds both the public and private key.
For a third party to reliably sign a certificate, originally it was suggested having a notary verify your identity before signing. Most people don't go that far any more and send the certificate by email. This does not verify the holder of the cert is who they say they are - only that they hold the private key. For most people, that's good enough.
It's perfectly fine to generate your own self-signed certificates - in fact you might want to issue certificates to users and sign those certs yourself. This can be used as a method to limit who can access an encrypted system -if they have a valid client certificate - they can be authenticated. Naturally, you should still use a two factor authentication system - the certs are just one piece of the puzzle.
RD
And, if a billion years or so, we might find yet another use for them...as oil.
There is a thing called age of consent. A child of 13, in most jurisdictions, is not considered an adult and unable to give consent. This also is why children under the age of consent are not suitable as sexual partners for adults, btw. If this action were sexual in nature, it would be rape - pure ad simple. This was, for lack of a better term, emotional rape. At the very least, it's emotional abuse.
Additionally, as any adult knows (and recent studies have shown), teenagers are emotionally young and immature and subject to extreme emotional swings. We give too much credit to young teens that we think are our emotional equivalents. They aren't.
What we have here is a 13 year old girl, allegedly known to be suicidal, who is allegedly manipulated by an ADULT for the purpose of causing extreme emotional distress in that child.
A suicidal and emotionally unstable child can not handle the stresses the person allegedly put upon her and is not responsible for her actions.
So...stop blaming the victim - Stop assuming that a child can rationally understand the ramifications of acting upon their wildly swinging emotions. They most likely don't or can't.
The whole lot of people who took these actions against this young teenager need to be taught a lesson. The ring leader should not only go to jail for her actions but should also lose everything in a civil lawsuit. In my mind, anyone who could do this to a child is no better than the sexual predators who prey on children. I'd like to think the prison population will think so also.
The bugger used to have his office in a medical office complex right down the road from where I used to live. One day, I noticed he had brown paper over the windows - through the cracks, you could see his server racks were empty. The next day, I read he skipped town.
He's surfaced a few times only to piss people off all over again only to then disappear yet again. Could he have been in the Witness Protection program? Has "The Eraser" been hired to help make him disappear and allow him to start a new life as a hot dog vendor? Details at 5:00.
These tools do not "predict" who will commit a crime - this isn't a "Minority Report" scenario - no precogs here.
They are simply tools that, when put into the hands of a capable analyst or detective, can assist in identifying links between people and property or determine patterns of criminal activity. It still takes good intelligence and smart detective work and some luck to solve and/or prevent crime.
What prevents crime is having more police on the streets, keeping them accountable for their behavior and giving them the tools they need to be safe and get the job done. There also needs to be laws and legislation that keeps the bad guys off the streets and put them away once they catch them rather than having a revolving door.
RD
The technology exists - cops love having the latest and greatest tools - But, there are three primary issues preventing its wide deployment:
1) Cost - It is costly to deploy this technology in every vehicle. Many departments are small and funded primarily by the community. Hiring new officers or buying new data systems requires financial planning and tax dollars. After 911, there was a lot of grant money - but, it still comes down to the tax payer's wallet.
Additionally, there was talk of certain inquiries to certain data sharing systems being charged - i.e. for use of the network. This can get costly rather quickly - hence, the need to keep the number of queries down. Police departments have to be fiscally responsible and do their best to be so.
2) Vendor support - I've been at shows like IACP and this technology is often demonstrated - the company I worked for even considered partnering with one company at one time to obtain this technology. But, there has to be a genuine need by the departments (and a willingness to pay for it).
3) Privacy Legislation - To run a plate or other inquiry in most jurisdictions requires probable cause (i.e they are not allowed to run the plate of a the hot chick they met earlier). Other places, it's not such a big deal. In the NCIC system, EVERY query is logged. Departments and agencies are required to provide an audit log on demand to the FBI. Not good if you can't justify why a particular query was run.
In NJ, they can run what is a called a Random search. That query returns limited information. If they want more detail and have PC, they have to issue a standard query.
One Minnesota PD would drive through shopping center parking lots and running hundreds of plates a night. Of course, this taxed the NCIC infrastructure (and, the wireless network connecting the vehicle back to the departmental server).
In other cities, they equip their parking authority with cameras that scan the license plates of cars as they drive up and down the roads. So, it's out there.
RD
The problem you describe is very real. Even between states, they use different codes (can't we all just get along). There are solutions to the problem you describe. We solved it - but, until they all standardize on their codes, the problem will continue to exist.
I, too, worked with law enforcement data sharing and, as a senior engineer for a (probably THE)leader in law enforcement software, wrote an interface for our Ohio customers to access the OLLEISN system (and about 10 other data sharing systems as well).
Personally, the company I worked for had a system that kicked the butts of the larger initiatives. It replicated in near real time, worked with incremental data, optimized network resources and bandwidth, fault tolerant, highly scalable (from local to national level), allowed the departments keep their information in data silos and, thus, controlled the release of the information. It was accessible using a desktop client or from our award winning mobile product.
Additionally, it has been recognized by several law enforcement publications. Yes, it was deployed in some large markets as well as some smaller implementations of just a few departments wishing to share data with one another and has proven itself highly effective. Yet, it was not listed in this article. Why? Damned good question.
GJXDM was limited. NIEM is not all that difficult to understand and it fixes a lot of problems of GJXDM. But, both models place some real restrictions on vendors as they need to be able to map their data model to the NIEM or other data sharing initiatives data model. It's not practical to rewrite a 25 year old, proven product just to conform to the NIEM, GJXDM or the next model that is touted as the standard. Hence, I had a job interfacing our system to all the data sharing systems out there.
No, I don't work there any more. I recently moved on to a new career. But, the work was highly rewarding and I support it wholeheartedly.