Q: Should I be concerned that encrypted password and encrypted payment information may have been exposed? Is the encryption unbreakable?
A: We use an MD-5 hash (scramble function) and salt (additional data) to encode passwords and payment information
So it seems pretty safe. I'm glad they reacted the way they did and use good security practices for storing info, I wish they reacted faster, I hope they did not detect the intrusion through user complaints but instead through routine checks so that no one lost anything.
I just wanted to introduce the fact that there currently is a very popular form of art that exists for its own sake: advertisement. This shows that there is no reason to assume that insecurity of profit means no art anymore.
Wow, you are obviously confusing "capability" and "freedom". Here we go :
capability: the possibility to act given the current means one possesses
freedom: the possibility to do what one wants to do, that doesn't defeat its own universality
Those two sets might overlap for the most part, but they're not identical.
This means that when I buy a handgun, I am not free to shoot you with it, because it defeats the very definition of freedom, by stopping you forever from undertaking whatever action you are capable of and want to do. Same goes if I steal your car: I'm not expressing my freedom but instead reducing your freedom to drive home, your freedom to exchange this car for something that pleases you better, etc... I'm free to flap my arms and fly around, it's just that I'm not capable of it, just like I'm free to print my views, but am not capable of at the moment because I don't own a printing press.
I think you got it in reverse: ad is a content, not the other way around.
Think about it: why do people buy an advertised product more than a non-advertised one, even though it means (all things being equal) that they pay the cost of advertising ? That's because they value the advertising itself as a form of art where the advertised product is the subject, commissionned by the maker of said product. That's also why viral marketing has had some successes. In this sense, advertising is a "degenerate art" sponsored by marketing departments, which (hopefully) pays for itself through the public, which chooses to fund it.
Information is a public good, you say. I see nothing implying it shouldn't be a public good. You define under-production as a problem for information, are you so sure of that ? For one, information can be infinitely and freely reproduced, unlike the public goods studied by economics that suffer the "tragedy of the commons". Also, you're wrong in assuming there is no way to charge for it: material support for information is not a public good. I mean this in the very large sense. There always has to exist a physical support for information for it to reach one's mind, and that's how you charge for it, be it through concert tickets, a paper copy, a DVD, electrical signal down your phone line or whatever means currently exist for that.
There is demand for new information, so there is money to be made in the production of this new content. Once distribution of an "old" work is done, very little money can be made on its distribution, so production of new information is desireable by the distributors. That's where the concept of "first publication right" of the author becomes useful. This is a concept put forward by some members of both the french and german Pirate Parties. In practice, it goes like this:
Authors (whether promising new ones or established old ones, there's market for both) get hired for creating works by, for example, a private P2P network (where money is made through subscriptions, because people are paying for being the first to get their hands on some known artist's works, or because they value the selection that the network does), or a public ad-supported P2P network. Once the works are distributed, the network's users can record, copy, share for free or even distribute them for profit.
Think this model cannot work ? Think again, that's how television channels work, although I'm not allowed to sell DVDs of my recordings of series... yet.
His point still applies: it can be infinitely and freely copied, in all actuality. Making it illegal won't make it impossible: DRM doesn't work at that because it provides the legit buyer with the encryption method, encrypted content and decryption key.
I think you are the one who missed the point here.
According to B. Fraser, stars hardly do deuterium fusion at all, they do fission by breaking heavy elements into lighter ones (Fe, Ni mostly). He suggests a mechanism for the creation of (actually, a conversion into) heavy elements in outer space, that gravitationally collect into nebulaes and then stars, and fuel those stars.
As anybody can tell you, culture crash isn't about the big things. It's about lots of really, really small ones. Like day-to-day patterns, ambient noise (or lack of) and stuff that just adds up to a very surreal feeling.
This condition shall henceforth be known as the "Faye Valentine syndrome";)
You can enforce different moral rules within different populations, that's in fact what different nations already do.
If A is moral (=illegal, ideally) for you, but moral (=legal, same) for me, what grounds do you have for stopping me from doing A, except if you have more to gain from stopping me from doing A than I have to gain from doing it ?
No, actually, I'd rather get rid of all taxes on all wealth transfers, since they are all counter-productive and injust. Refer to french economist Frédéric Bastiat's The Law for incisive, witty and insightful explanations about this.
Of course this is socialism. In fact you could get the same results with any other form of government autority.
All you have to do is convince the law-makers and/or the voting public that piracy destroys value overall, and thus that blocking all piracy will increase the total wealth of the country.
A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it.
Precisely. A government has the rights that its citizens give it, and nothing more. Do you have the legal or moral right to forcefully take your fellow citizen's money ? No, and neither shall any Government you delegate your rights to. Do you have the legal or moral right to decide what's right and wrong for your fellow, equal-in-rights citizen to do ? No, so neither shall your Government.
It's simple: every form of government authority implies that the whole population is pursuing the same goal, which is determined by whatever law-making process there is.
So if a lobby manages to get the Law to state that P2P is going against that common universal goal, tough luck. There's no place for any "minority" (or non-lobby) opinion in a system driven by votes: winner takes all.
Wouldn't the intense, repeated triggering of the filter attract the state's attention ?
It's better to use the method devised in TFA to determine what data triggers the filter, and fragment the packets in the middle of any such data, on the way up and down. I seriously doubt China has the practical means to keep track of the sequence of each and every connection with the rest of the world, and check whether the fragments, once united, match the filtering rules.
Any change in the filter's policy would be detected by the injection of bogus RST packets, so the bypassing system could even be updated in real-time.
When the rich (and that means most of us in the West) start to realize that giving(rather than flaunting) wealth garners the most prestige, the world will be a far better place.
I think you got it in the wrong order;)
When the rich start realizing that making use of the amassed wealth can directly make the world a better place for everyone (including themselves) and not just for themselves, they will get prestige.
In my tests I've determined that a 20 HP engine with two ducted contra-rotating propellers of 1' diameter can provide over 100 lbf of thrust at takeoff, and make the wing fly at up to 90 knots in level flight. JPX makes suitable engines for that, IIRC.
Slashdot Mirror
From the associated FAQ:
Q: Should I be concerned that encrypted password and encrypted payment information may have been exposed? Is the encryption unbreakable?
A: We use an MD-5 hash (scramble function) and salt (additional data) to encode passwords and payment information
So it seems pretty safe. I'm glad they reacted the way they did and use good security practices for storing info, I wish they reacted faster, I hope they did not detect the intrusion through user complaints but instead through routine checks so that no one lost anything.
Ad is content is ad is content, etc. agreed.
I just wanted to introduce the fact that there currently is a very popular form of art that exists for its own sake: advertisement. This shows that there is no reason to assume that insecurity of profit means no art anymore.
Those two sets might overlap for the most part, but they're not identical.
This means that when I buy a handgun, I am not free to shoot you with it, because it defeats the very definition of freedom, by stopping you forever from undertaking whatever action you are capable of and want to do. Same goes if I steal your car: I'm not expressing my freedom but instead reducing your freedom to drive home, your freedom to exchange this car for something that pleases you better, etc... I'm free to flap my arms and fly around, it's just that I'm not capable of it, just like I'm free to print my views, but am not capable of at the moment because I don't own a printing press.
I think you got it in reverse: ad is a content, not the other way around.
Think about it: why do people buy an advertised product more than a non-advertised one, even though it means (all things being equal) that they pay the cost of advertising ? That's because they value the advertising itself as a form of art where the advertised product is the subject, commissionned by the maker of said product. That's also why viral marketing has had some successes. In this sense, advertising is a "degenerate art" sponsored by marketing departments, which (hopefully) pays for itself through the public, which chooses to fund it.
Information is a public good, you say. I see nothing implying it shouldn't be a public good. You define under-production as a problem for information, are you so sure of that ? For one, information can be infinitely and freely reproduced, unlike the public goods studied by economics that suffer the "tragedy of the commons". Also, you're wrong in assuming there is no way to charge for it: material support for information is not a public good. I mean this in the very large sense. There always has to exist a physical support for information for it to reach one's mind, and that's how you charge for it, be it through concert tickets, a paper copy, a DVD, electrical signal down your phone line or whatever means currently exist for that.
There is demand for new information, so there is money to be made in the production of this new content. Once distribution of an "old" work is done, very little money can be made on its distribution, so production of new information is desireable by the distributors. That's where the concept of "first publication right" of the author becomes useful. This is a concept put forward by some members of both the french and german Pirate Parties. In practice, it goes like this:
Authors (whether promising new ones or established old ones, there's market for both) get hired for creating works by, for example, a private P2P network (where money is made through subscriptions, because people are paying for being the first to get their hands on some known artist's works, or because they value the selection that the network does), or a public ad-supported P2P network. Once the works are distributed, the network's users can record, copy, share for free or even distribute them for profit.
Think this model cannot work ? Think again, that's how television channels work, although I'm not allowed to sell DVDs of my recordings of series... yet.
His point still applies: it can be infinitely and freely copied, in all actuality. Making it illegal won't make it impossible: DRM doesn't work at that because it provides the legit buyer with the encryption method, encrypted content and decryption key.
I think you are the one who missed the point here.
the protections due [citizens] was a clear matter of the public's best interests.
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Well, then Jupiter's the Sun's companion star, albeit a brown dwarf star. Arthur C. Clarke would be proud.
It is utterly pointless to buy your own customers.
According to B. Fraser, stars hardly do deuterium fusion at all, they do fission by breaking heavy elements into lighter ones (Fe, Ni mostly). He suggests a mechanism for the creation of (actually, a conversion into) heavy elements in outer space, that gravitationally collect into nebulaes and then stars, and fuel those stars.
"I suppose he *could* try and get them into court for some kind of criminal offense, but what would it be?"
A RICO violation ?
... impending, inevitable nuclear war with the Soviets...
Funny how we forgot that, considering how pervasive it was in every media and in our culture. Welcome to the Terrorism era !
As anybody can tell you, culture crash isn't about the big things. It's about lots of really, really small ones. Like day-to-day patterns, ambient noise (or lack of) and stuff that just adds up to a very surreal feeling.
;)
This condition shall henceforth be known as the "Faye Valentine syndrome"
When inside the machine, you have access to all the code and data, so yes, you should be bale to understand the machine.
You can enforce different moral rules within different populations, that's in fact what different nations already do.
If A is moral (=illegal, ideally) for you, but moral (=legal, same) for me, what grounds do you have for stopping me from doing A, except if you have more to gain from stopping me from doing A than I have to gain from doing it ?
No, actually, I'd rather get rid of all taxes on all wealth transfers, since they are all counter-productive and injust. Refer to french economist Frédéric Bastiat's The Law for incisive, witty and insightful explanations about this.
Of course this is socialism. In fact you could get the same results with any other form of government autority.
All you have to do is convince the law-makers and/or the voting public that piracy destroys value overall, and thus that blocking all piracy will increase the total wealth of the country.
A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it.
Precisely. A government has the rights that its citizens give it, and nothing more. Do you have the legal or moral right to forcefully take your fellow citizen's money ? No, and neither shall any Government you delegate your rights to. Do you have the legal or moral right to decide what's right and wrong for your fellow, equal-in-rights citizen to do ? No, so neither shall your Government.
It's simple: every form of government authority implies that the whole population is pursuing the same goal, which is determined by whatever law-making process there is.
So if a lobby manages to get the Law to state that P2P is going against that common universal goal, tough luck. There's no place for any "minority" (or non-lobby) opinion in a system driven by votes: winner takes all.
Wouldn't the intense, repeated triggering of the filter attract the state's attention ?
It's better to use the method devised in TFA to determine what data triggers the filter, and fragment the packets in the middle of any such data, on the way up and down. I seriously doubt China has the practical means to keep track of the sequence of each and every connection with the rest of the world, and check whether the fragments, once united, match the filtering rules.
Any change in the filter's policy would be detected by the injection of bogus RST packets, so the bypassing system could even be updated in real-time.
So your justification to this additional taxation is ... that there already are many taxes ? I'm blinded by your logic.
When the rich (and that means most of us in the West) start to realize that giving(rather than flaunting) wealth garners the most prestige, the world will be a far better place.
;)
I think you got it in the wrong order
When the rich start realizing that making use of the amassed wealth can directly make the world a better place for everyone (including themselves) and not just for themselves, they will get prestige.
Rich, poor, middle-class. It's just vocabulary. People like to think of anyone who earns twice as much as them as "rich", whatever the figure is.
Those who are trying to achieve a meritocracy should be foresquare against huge transfers of capital to the next generation.
WRONG !
They should be in favor of being able to choose who that huge pile of capital goes to (that is, not necessarily their children).
In my tests I've determined that a 20 HP engine with two ducted contra-rotating propellers of 1' diameter can provide over 100 lbf of thrust at takeoff, and make the wing fly at up to 90 knots in level flight. JPX makes suitable engines for that, IIRC.