i think germania realized that in order to prevent anything resembling what happened with Hitler and the Nazis, the citizens must be free to think as they want, must be able to go on with their lives with the privacy and freedom that all humans deserve.
It seems the bigger a mistake is, the greater an opportunity there is to grow and learn from that mistake.
okay, and it's not just because I use webwasher. It's because even if these slashdot guys got any money, they still wouldn't improve the quality of slashdot. Hire someone to do spell checking? Not gonna happen. Hire someone to check dupe/old stories? Not gonna happen. Hire someone to weed out the blatant commercials (Hey geeks check out this cool new product that you can buy now!) that's news? Gimme a break. Slashdot quality has continually declined since I've been reading it, and it's only occasionally I see something worth more than the usual JonKatz movie review.
I don't know how Beautiful Mind got past Nash and or the biographer, as it is riddled with falsehoods and mistruths. It neglects the fact that Nash was gay, that he had a child with a different woman who he neglected because she wasn't of the right class, etc. etc. Nash was a much more complicated person than the movie showed, not to mention he had far more accomplishments than just Nash's Equilibrium (which he did not think up the way that it was portrayed in the movie, btw. Nash wasn't interested in girls at all, even his eventual wife he married just because of the whole anti-homosexual movement back then).
Also, the whole "i'm a top secret army guy finding out the germans and their bomb thing" was bs, he believed he was in contact with aliens, not tracking german nukes in America.
Read the book, it's far more interesting and goes into details Hollywood would never touch.
if the NYTIMES wanted it to be _mandatory_ to login, they wouldn't have links that are public accessible to the ENTIRE internet, sans logins available. They don't care if we use them, because they are there. Simple.
that so ? i have 4-5 NTFS partitions and my fresh install didn't understand any of it (couldn't mount it at all). I'm a linux newbie, but i have some friends who live the os, practically, and their understanding is NTFS support is "not good". "there, but not good".
wow, where did you get math education? Cuz that number (1 in 1,000,000,000,000) is completely bogus (although it certainly sounds impressive because it is so big, or small depending on how you look at it) and it's nice how you didn't show the math behind it.
Let's say the system is 99.99% accurate (whereas we know it's actually around 66% accurate).
now, let's say we have a special airport, where there is only 5,000 passengers in one particular day (this is quite a small number, considering - each airplane can hold let's say, 150 people, that's only 33 flights). Now, out of all those passengers, let's say none are terrorists. (a reasonable assumption to make). How many people would be falsely identified, though?
Assuming the system is 99.99% accurate, then 0.01% of the time it would give a false reading. this means 50 false identifications (5000 * 0.01) of terrorists would be made at this airport.
Now, remember we had 33 flights. That means there has to be more than one flight where two people on it that were falsely identified, a pretty good chance that 3 were falsely identified, and a decent chance that 4 were falsely identified. ( based on a standard distribution of the passengers on the flights ). In fact, just to screw up your stats a bit more, let's say 99% of the flights didn't have someone who was falsely identified as a terrorist. That means 2 of the flights would have falsely accused terrorists. How many? Again, assuming a standard distribution, 25 passengers per plane! 4 wrongfully accused passengers one in a quaddrillion? Nope, more like practically guaranteed!
Let me explain why. You say "oh, you guys always just complain and never offer up a solution. quit picking away at the problems with our solutions, and give us a solution that works then, why don't you!". Sounds pretty much like what you just said?
Now, I think one of my greatest strengths is my ability to recognize that I don't know everything, and when I encounter a problem that I know I cannot solve, I'll say it. I'm not going to give a solution, pretend like I know everything, and then get mad when people point out problems.
It's much easier to point out flaws or potential problems in a solution then it is to find one that is perfect. Why? Because there are so many imperfect solutions as compared to (a possibly nonexistant) perfect solutions. What we can only hope for is that one day someone, or some people, figure out a solution that we can look at and say, "you know, I've tried to find some major issues with this thing, but I can't...".
I think it's much more constructive to weed out all the bad solutions, and that will eventually help us find a solution that isn't so bad.
People need to put aside their egos, and realize they do not know everything.
As an example, facial recognition everywhere. How are you going to wire it up? Or if it's wireless, what kind of crazy modulation are you using on the signals to a) not interfere with all the others, b) have sufficient banwidth to send the signals c) whose going to monitor these signals? Who will check out all the positives? d) whose going to make sure they aren't tampered with? Even accidentally?
Even a simple elevator system is much, much more complex than most people will ever know about. Why? Because it has to be safe. It has to act in a particular manner, responding to human input, responding to environmental conditions (not the weather, but what if there is no electricity?). Most people don't see this complexity because they don't even stop to think about it. And, most people, put to the task, would never even come close to designing a safe elevator system, simply because they haven't been trained, and the knowledge isn't there. It's ridiculous to think that these same people can come up with a system to stop terrorism, or even slow them down, when they couldn't even design a system to get people up and down a building.
interesting how a "Schneier fan" doesn't even bother to read the article.
"high levels of accuracy, this would amount to a few people per airport per day". Now, the other responses have addressed what this would mean (eg, for every 1 bad guy, something like 10,000 people would have to be heavily searched and focused on). The fact of the matter is though, that if you had read the article, you'd know the system is no where near that good. They aren't getting 99.999% accuracy. They are getting maybe 66% accuracy under controlled conditions. that is, people having their photographs taken at good light and from several angles.
You won't do the math, so i'll make it simple. 1 in 3 people, that is if you and 2 of your friends went to the airport, at least ONE OF YOU would be stopped and assumed to be a terrorists because the computer said so. You'd have to be treated as such, searched and interrogated, generally delaying your flight by several hours for them to make sure. And let's say you and your family went, assuming 6 people. That means 2 of you would be stopped and given this treatment. Now, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to see what kinda numbers this leads to at _any_ airport.
Read the article before you post anything, sheesh!
guh, read the article! the error rate (false positives) is 1 in 3!!! not 1 in 1000! that means to try and catch a terrorist, every third person would have to be pulled aside, interrogated, searched, and bothered!
AND this error rate was in controlled laboratory tests, where the subjects were photographed several times in good light and from several different angles.
From a security perspective, it just isn't a good solution, or even a helpful component to a solution. It's unfortunate, I myself thought their systems could be a bit better than wrong 33% of the time, but it isn't!
These mp3's were legal, but because of the hysteria of "mp3 == bad" arround then (and still arround today), I lost something ver dear to me.
Not that I use OGG, or am a big fan of it (i have never even tried it) but this makes a case for it. "MP3's on my web site? No way! those are illegal! I only have OGG files, and you've never even heard of those have u? Cuz they aren't illegal!"
The question shouldn't be "why not" it should be "who".
Whose responsible for the lax security in the #1 email client?
Who lets the idiot users that use their idiot software run attachments?
I'll give ya a hint. They have plenty o' cash, and his name is Bill. Last name Gates. Works for Microsoft. In Redmond, Washington. He's friggen rich, dumbass! Sue that guy! now your damn ISP which is gonna go out of business anyway! Good grief!
if you are posting as AC, you could at least give us a juicy tidbit on how to win money with those things. like hold this button and then pull the lever at such and such a rate and then you'll get lucky sevens more often. sheesh, the quality of ac info nowadays is goin down the drain...
that article is completely pathetic. The guy is obviously a Gibson-dittohead. I mean, look at this line, from the article:
By running applications like Gibson's Zone Alarm you can -- right now -- severely limit the use of TCP/IP by applications on your PC.
Gibson's Zone Alarm?? I bet Zonelabs would take quite an exception to that! In addition, the guy spews on about raw sockets and their evilness. He does make some good points about M$ not shipping secure products because they wouldn't have a good impact on the market share, but misses the point even there. M$ would increase their market share by producing secure, safer products. It's just the fact that they don't seem to know HOW to.
From the article: agents, without a wiretap order, recorded a suspect's computer keystrokes.
So before people start flapping their mouths bout how this mafia probably got what he deserved, the agents didn't have a court order to do this. Think about it. If FBI agents have enough "probably cause" and figure they should tap your computer cause you're under suspicision of doing something illegal, and they don't even have to go see a judge to approve it, then your privacy and civil rights have gone right out the window.
Don't let the DMCA happen to Canada! Think Canadian politika are any better? READ THE LINK!
-set out a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including performers and record producers, to make their works available on-line to the public;
-prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,
-prohibit tampering with rights management information.
Do you REALLY want this!? Hell no! Don't submit a reply here, don't respond to the/. article, WRITE TO THE PROVIDED EMAIL ADDRESS:
The departments would appreciate your comments on any aspect of these documents. We would ask that you provide written responses by September 15, 2001.
Written comments may be sent by e-mail (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word or HTML formats) to:
Slashdot Mirror
i think germania realized that in order to prevent anything resembling what happened with Hitler and the Nazis, the citizens must be free to think as they want, must be able to go on with their lives with the privacy and freedom that all humans deserve.
It seems the bigger a mistake is, the greater an opportunity there is to grow and learn from that mistake.
okay, and it's not just because I use webwasher. It's because even if these slashdot guys got any money, they still wouldn't improve the quality of slashdot. Hire someone to do spell checking? Not gonna happen. Hire someone to check dupe/old stories? Not gonna happen. Hire someone to weed out the blatant commercials (Hey geeks check out this cool new product that you can buy now!) that's news? Gimme a break. Slashdot quality has continually declined since I've been reading it, and it's only occasionally I see something worth more than the usual JonKatz movie review.
So, instead of call waiting being one of the most annoying new phone features, we can now expect "Hang on, I've got to reboot my phone" , too.
*sigh*
I don't know how Beautiful Mind got past Nash and or the biographer, as it is riddled with falsehoods and mistruths. It neglects the fact that Nash was gay, that he had a child with a different woman who he neglected because she wasn't of the right class, etc. etc. Nash was a much more complicated person than the movie showed, not to mention he had far more accomplishments than just Nash's Equilibrium (which he did not think up the way that it was portrayed in the movie, btw. Nash wasn't interested in girls at all, even his eventual wife he married just because of the whole anti-homosexual movement back then).
Also, the whole "i'm a top secret army guy finding out the germans and their bomb thing" was bs, he believed he was in contact with aliens, not tracking german nukes in America.
Read the book, it's far more interesting and goes into details Hollywood would never touch.
Embedded software. When was the last time your TV crashed on you?
When was the last time your VCR stopped blinking 12:00 ?
most likely because you are a doofus.
if the NYTIMES wanted it to be _mandatory_ to login, they wouldn't have links that are public accessible to the ENTIRE internet, sans logins available. They don't care if we use them, because they are there. Simple.
I have like 20GB of mp3's anyway, not like they're really going to fit on anything out there
creative has released a 20gb jukebox.
http://www.americas.creative.com/
that so ? i have 4-5 NTFS partitions and my fresh install didn't understand any of it (couldn't mount it at all). I'm a linux newbie, but i have some friends who live the os, practically, and their understanding is NTFS support is "not good". "there, but not good".
wow, where did you get math education? Cuz that number (1 in 1,000,000,000,000) is completely bogus (although it certainly sounds impressive because it is so big, or small depending on how you look at it) and it's nice how you didn't show the math behind it.
Let's say the system is 99.99% accurate (whereas we know it's actually around 66% accurate).
now, let's say we have a special airport, where there is only 5,000 passengers in one particular day (this is quite a small number, considering - each airplane can hold let's say, 150 people, that's only 33 flights). Now, out of all those passengers, let's say none are terrorists. (a reasonable assumption to make). How many people would be falsely identified, though?
Assuming the system is 99.99% accurate, then 0.01% of the time it would give a false reading. this means 50 false identifications (5000 * 0.01) of terrorists would be made at this airport.
Now, remember we had 33 flights. That means there has to be more than one flight where two people on it that were falsely identified, a pretty good chance that 3 were falsely identified, and a decent chance that 4 were falsely identified. ( based on a standard distribution of the passengers on the flights ). In fact, just to screw up your stats a bit more, let's say 99% of the flights didn't have someone who was falsely identified as a terrorist. That means 2 of the flights would have falsely accused terrorists. How many? Again, assuming a standard distribution, 25 passengers per plane! 4 wrongfully accused passengers one in a quaddrillion? Nope, more like practically guaranteed!
It's people like you that annoy me the most.
Let me explain why. You say "oh, you guys always just complain and never offer up a solution. quit picking away at the problems with our solutions, and give us a solution that works then, why don't you!". Sounds pretty much like what you just said?
Now, I think one of my greatest strengths is my ability to recognize that I don't know everything, and when I encounter a problem that I know I cannot solve, I'll say it. I'm not going to give a solution, pretend like I know everything, and then get mad when people point out problems.
It's much easier to point out flaws or potential problems in a solution then it is to find one that is perfect. Why? Because there are so many imperfect solutions as compared to (a possibly nonexistant) perfect solutions. What we can only hope for is that one day someone, or some people, figure out a solution that we can look at and say, "you know, I've tried to find some major issues with this thing, but I can't...".
I think it's much more constructive to weed out all the bad solutions, and that will eventually help us find a solution that isn't so bad.
People need to put aside their egos, and realize they do not know everything.
As an example, facial recognition everywhere. How are you going to wire it up? Or if it's wireless, what kind of crazy modulation are you using on the signals to a) not interfere with all the others, b) have sufficient banwidth to send the signals c) whose going to monitor these signals? Who will check out all the positives? d) whose going to make sure they aren't tampered with? Even accidentally?
Even a simple elevator system is much, much more complex than most people will ever know about. Why? Because it has to be safe. It has to act in a particular manner, responding to human input, responding to environmental conditions (not the weather, but what if there is no electricity?). Most people don't see this complexity because they don't even stop to think about it. And, most people, put to the task, would never even come close to designing a safe elevator system, simply because they haven't been trained, and the knowledge isn't there. It's ridiculous to think that these same people can come up with a system to stop terrorism, or even slow them down, when they couldn't even design a system to get people up and down a building.
interesting how a "Schneier fan" doesn't even bother to read the article.
"high levels of accuracy, this would amount to a few people per airport per day". Now, the other responses have addressed what this would mean (eg, for every 1 bad guy, something like 10,000 people would have to be heavily searched and focused on). The fact of the matter is though, that if you had read the article, you'd know the system is no where near that good. They aren't getting 99.999% accuracy. They are getting maybe 66% accuracy under controlled conditions. that is, people having their photographs taken at good light and from several angles.
You won't do the math, so i'll make it simple. 1 in 3 people, that is if you and 2 of your friends went to the airport, at least ONE OF YOU would be stopped and assumed to be a terrorists because the computer said so. You'd have to be treated as such, searched and interrogated, generally delaying your flight by several hours for them to make sure. And let's say you and your family went, assuming 6 people. That means 2 of you would be stopped and given this treatment. Now, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to see what kinda numbers this leads to at _any_ airport.
Read the article before you post anything, sheesh!
guh, read the article! the error rate (false positives) is 1 in 3!!! not 1 in 1000! that means to try and catch a terrorist, every third person would have to be pulled aside, interrogated, searched, and bothered!
AND this error rate was in controlled laboratory tests, where the subjects were photographed several times in good light and from several different angles.
From a security perspective, it just isn't a good solution, or even a helpful component to a solution. It's unfortunate, I myself thought their systems could be a bit better than wrong 33% of the time, but it isn't!
that is perhaps one of the most stupidest things i've ever heard.
...heck, drop 128K in - more than enough!
"No LegoLander will ever need more than 128K!"
Bill Legates
Irregardless!
Americans sue who they want, when they want, over the stupidest things, and it doesn't have to make sense! that's the beauty of the system!
These mp3's were legal, but because of the hysteria of "mp3 == bad" arround then (and still arround today), I lost something ver dear to me.
Not that I use OGG, or am a big fan of it (i have never even tried it) but this makes a case for it. "MP3's on my web site? No way! those are illegal! I only have OGG files, and you've never even heard of those have u? Cuz they aren't illegal!"
The question shouldn't be "why not" it should be "who".
Whose responsible for the lax security in the #1 email client?
Who lets the idiot users that use their idiot software run attachments?
I'll give ya a hint. They have plenty o' cash, and his name is Bill. Last name Gates. Works for Microsoft. In Redmond, Washington. He's friggen rich, dumbass! Sue that guy! now your damn ISP which is gonna go out of business anyway! Good grief!
if you are posting as AC, you could at least give us a juicy tidbit on how to win money with those things. like hold this button and then pull the lever at such and such a rate and then you'll get lucky sevens more often. sheesh, the quality of ac info nowadays is goin down the drain...
anyone else notice that links posted to /. comments have a tendency to have extra " "'s inserted? what's up with that?
/. isn't exactly renowned for it's editing, but this seems to be a new low.
Before you go mouthing off about other people's poor grammar, check your own first.
awww you poor baby. we'll send someone over right away to change your diapers for you, you poor baby.
that article is completely pathetic. The guy is obviously a Gibson-dittohead. I mean, look at this line, from the article:
By running applications like Gibson's Zone Alarm you can -- right now -- severely limit the use of TCP/IP by applications on your PC.
Gibson's Zone Alarm?? I bet Zonelabs would take quite an exception to that! In addition, the guy spews on about raw sockets and their evilness. He does make some good points about M$ not shipping secure products because they wouldn't have a good impact on the market share, but misses the point even there. M$ would increase their market share by producing secure, safer products. It's just the fact that they don't seem to know HOW to.
From the article: agents, without a wiretap order, recorded a suspect's computer keystrokes.
So before people start flapping their mouths bout how this mafia probably got what he deserved, the agents didn't have a court order to do this. Think about it. If FBI agents have enough "probably cause" and figure they should tap your computer cause you're under suspicision of doing something illegal, and they don't even have to go see a judge to approve it, then your privacy and civil rights have gone right out the window.
Don't let the DMCA happen to Canada! Think Canadian politika are any better? READ THE LINK!
/. article, WRITE TO THE PROVIDED EMAIL ADDRESS:
-set out a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including performers and record producers, to make their works available on-line to the public;
-prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,
-prohibit tampering with rights management information.
Do you REALLY want this!? Hell no! Don't submit a reply here, don't respond to the
The departments would appreciate your comments on any aspect of these documents. We would ask that you provide written responses by September 15, 2001.
Written comments may be sent by e-mail (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word or HTML formats) to:
copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
two words to respond to your so called privacy "easy answer": keystroke monitoring.