If the government has no confidence that you've turned over *all* the keys, won't they just put you in jail indefinitly even after you've turned over the keys?
Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent.
Couldn't they have found a few people who were guilty, guilty, guilty and taken them all the way, and nailed them to a tree? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just drop any suit if the defendent was in the least bit sympathetic?
Absolutely. I've heard of several cases where folks have been caught reusing the pads. The Soviets were caught by the British when they started to reuse their pads after a year. Who would have thought that your attacker would keep data over a year and compare it with new data?
Just a nitpick. OTP key transmittion just needs to be tamperproof, not completely secure. i.e. You can send a courier with a briefcase full of keys handcuffed to his wrist and no key to the case. If the courier is accosted along the way, you just discard those keys, and send another batch. Imagine what kind of bandwidth you can get with a briefcase full of BluRay disks.
The one time pad, where the key length = message length is still safe as long as you never reuse the key. (the "one time" in one time pad.
As simple proof of this is that for any encrypted text of length N, there exists a key also of length N that will decrypt the etext to any plain text of length N. Therefore there is no way for an attacker to determine if an attempted key is valid or not. There if an attacker were to try every single key of length N, which is possible on some super large future quantum computer, all he will get out is every single decryption of length N, with no way to determine which is correct.
Suppose the plain text was "attack at dawn" and the etext was "xbdhgfhwteriur". After the attacker used his q-computer he'd have "attack at dawn", "attach at noon" and "attack at fred", along with 64 quintillion other combinations.
Back when I was working on the Trident sub program (early 1980's), one of the veteran submariners told me about an incident on a sub. Subs have multiple generators, and the Navy was attached to manual controls. So, the procedure for brining a 2nd generator online, is to spin it up, watch the phase angle meter, and switch it in when there's 0 phase difference. What happened, was a new guy followed the procedure, but threw the switch when the two generators where 180 degress out of phase. The generator just stopped, twisting the armatures and destroying themselves in the process. The thing is, a simple set of lightbulbs wired between phases could tell you if it's safe to switch, or a relay that's powered by the difference could keep the switch from happening.
Correct, but your senario only takes out one generator. What the fine article talks about, from a DHS standpoint, is a coordinated attack, set to go off everywhere at the same time. Much chaos would ensue...
And their machines weren't even connected to the internet. So all the people who are saying, "Just disconnect it", well, that's not good enough. We have to engineer systems that are hardened and handle failure gracefully. And don't use stolen software.
Interestingly enough, FedEx does/did have satellites. Why you ask? In the 1980's what was then Federal Express worked with the fax companies to develop the Group III fax standard. Every FedEx station got one of these large fax machine complete with hard drives and a plain paper printer. The theory was, people would go to a FedEx location, have their documents faxed to somewhere else, where, for a fee, a courier would deliver it to the recipient. Alternately, high value customers, like law firms, would get a smaller thermal machines for mostly sending to the FedEx station which would forward it to the target station for delivery. The satellites were used to route the data between stations w/o using a phone line. Remember, this was before the Internet, and most companies who used fax would buy them in pairs to send between sites. Almost no one else would have a fax machine that could talk to your fax machine.
Federal Express spend *billions* on the system, and it failed utterly. What happened was the same companies that helped them develop the Group III standard made their thermal machines cheap and interoperatable. Soon, everyone had them, and the thermal paper wasn't too bad. You could always photocopy it once if you wanted a more permanent record. That, and falling long distance phone prices made it overall cheaper to fax a document than to have FedEx do it for you.
To sum up, FedEx has already been to space. They are looking at it, and it's always way too expensive for any kind of regular service. (except some data)
Who's paying this guy to harass you? Find out what agency he works for and have your VP give his VP a call. Make sure they know in no uncertain terms that no only will your company not be hiring from them, no company who's Cxx people play golf with your VP will be hiring from them either.
When a VP left FedEx during the dotcom boom, he started calling around trying to hire FedEx people he had worked with. Fred Smith (President & CEO) told him to back off and he did.
I think we should really make it clear to kids, that what they post about themselves, and others WILL become something that is nye impossible to remove once place on the internet.
What they post about themselves is only half the problem. With CyberBullying, it's what other people post about them that is the problem. That stuff will also be hard to erase.
B.t.w. There was a recent slashdot article about a company that could bury negative reviews about products, similar to search engine optimization. I imagine they could also do the same for a person. (for a fee)
In every successful company I have been employed, the executives almost always were the first ones in in the mornings and the last ones out. They regularly had weekend meetings and multi-day off site meetings,...
This is true, they also die earlier than the rest of us. At least at the companies I've worked for, the execs all seem to have at least one stress related disease or another. High blood pressure was the favorite.
He did not, in any situation, need his family to testify on his behalf. That's ridiculous.
That's the mysterious part that leads me to believe that his family was pressured by the DA or cops. Either that or an extremely incompetant lawyer. Or he's just plain crazy. Wouldn't be the first time someone truely paranoid is picked up and the police just send them packing instead of to an institution. For all we know, he may not have any family at all.
Here are some quotes from the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" attributed to his lawyer:
Righi's attorney, Ian Friedman, said Wednesday that the Brooklyn prosecutor dropped the charge after Friedman agreed that police did nothing wrong.
Asked why Righi abandoned his fight, Friedman said, "I think that time passed since the incident and all parties felt this was a reasonable way to end it. Righi is not charged with a crime and the city is happy. It's over. Otherwise, it would have been a long, drawn-out process that could have been costly."
Why didn't his lawyer think he could win "a long, drawn-out process", and win big bucks? Couldn't Righi find an ambulance chaser willing to take on the city on contigincy? What's the real story?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.
Does that come from the Constitution, Congressional Statute, or an old episode of "Father Knows Best"?
It sounds good, but is it realistic for anyone to know all the law? It's not like Congress sends you a memo everytime they change things. As a matter of fact, they're still trying to decide if the law books are public domain, or can be owned by the few publishers that publish them.
There is a theory that the law is compartmentalized enough that you can just read the parts that apply to you, and not worry about the rest. Stuff like corporate accounting isn't applicable to most people, so skip those. The thing is, I've never seen it proven. There is a "Law for Dummies" book, but even it disclaims being definative.
Do you really think it's reasonable for the cop to get on the blower and call back every time someone tells him he might not be following the law? Do the dispatchers even have 24hr access to lawyers to give the beat cops advice? I doubt most cops have access to all the law books, much less someone skilled in interpreting them.
In this particular case, I didn't see any downside for the cop involved, so the best advice to him would be to do the same thing again. Arrest first, let the lawyers straighten it out. rinse/lather/repeat. There was no downside for the city either. They don't get sued, or spend money in a trial. If you were the DA, what would you tell the cops? I imagine it was "Good job, keep bringing them in, I'll figure it all out."
Cops are not lawyers, not even close. There's no reason to expect them to know all the laws, or all of your rights. Do you even know all your rights? Many cases before the SCOTUS have ended in split decisions, so that means that there exist some very smart legal minds that would have done the wrong thing. (If they had been the cop or the arrestee)
A real police state would bring everyone in for questioning at least once a year and random times in between just for questioning, just in case they had done something wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.*
* Note for the humor impaired, yes, this is satire.
The thing is, cops are not lawyers. Like the common citizens, they can't know all the law. So the best policy is to just arrest everyone, and let the lawyers sort it out.
It sounds like the city pressured his family members to get him to sign. Where were they in this story before they called him to sign? Why didn't he hold out for not sueing but having the city pay for his legal fees? Paying the small legal fees now, would have been much cheaper for the city vs. going to trial.
If you don't have the channel, there's no chance for you or anyone in your family to watch it, so they lose. If you have it but don't watch it, you might accidently flip to it, and one of their blipverts would get you.
Also, it makes it easier for the providers to lie to the advertizers about how many people *might* be watching.
The original document isn't as archane as many lawyers would like you to believe.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...shall not be violated..."
These are not archane and unclear words. The constitution is purposely vague in places.
"...without just compensation."
"...right to a speedy and public trial..."
"Excessive bail shall not be required..."
The framers could have said "compensation must be $20 per acre, trial within 2 weeks, or bail exceeding $500. In fact they did say, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." Twenty dollars could buy a lot more back then, and they should have built in some kind of adjustment. They did build in an amendment system, which was a good idea.
The framers knew when it was important to be vague. Much of the vagueness was caused by the fact that slavery was still legal, and they knew that the slave states wouldn't sign the document unless there was compromise. (The same for the declaration of independence) Give those dudes a little more credit. When they said "Congress shall make no law.." that's what they meant. They didn't mean "No law unless the SCOTUS looks the other way" or "No law unless someone complains really loud". They built in the amendment provision so that we wouldn't be stuck with bisarro archane laws that no longer apply, but the goverment is supposed to use it, not just decide that that old document isn't so important anymore.
Anyway, we're all human, and even the goverment screws up sometimes. They make mistakes, big ones, and sometimes don't get around to correcting them until the people screwed over are dead. (Which doesn't help the dead people too much, but I think it's important to at least apologize. An admittance of mistakes should help to keep them from happening again)
B.t.w. Props for recognizing the 1856 reference, but which amendment am I misreading? Break it down for us. Thanks.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
It's been realized since Roman times that War is something special where the normal rules of civilized behaviour is suspended. The framers of the constitution also knew this.
What's not supposed to happen, is for the President to just decide he doesn't like some foreigner and send goons to kill him when there's not a war going on. There was a presidential no assassination rule.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government has no confidence that you've turned over *all* the keys, won't they just put you in jail indefinitly even after you've turned over the keys?
Anyway, I don't think civilians will ever see these, but the military will find uses.
Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent.
Couldn't they have found a few people who were guilty, guilty, guilty and taken them all the way, and nailed them to a tree? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just drop any suit if the defendent was in the least bit sympathetic?
Absolutely. I've heard of several cases where folks have been caught reusing the pads. The Soviets were caught by the British when they started to reuse their pads after a year. Who would have thought that your attacker would keep data over a year and compare it with new data?
Just a nitpick. OTP key transmittion just needs to be tamperproof, not completely secure. i.e. You can send a courier with a briefcase full of keys handcuffed to his wrist and no key to the case. If the courier is accosted along the way, you just discard those keys, and send another batch. Imagine what kind of bandwidth you can get with a briefcase full of BluRay disks.
The one time pad, where the key length = message length is still safe as long as you never reuse the key. (the "one time" in one time pad.
As simple proof of this is that for any encrypted text of length N, there exists a key also of length N that will decrypt the etext to any plain text of length N. Therefore there is no way for an attacker to determine if an attempted key is valid or not. There if an attacker were to try every single key of length N, which is possible on some super large future quantum computer, all he will get out is every single decryption of length N, with no way to determine which is correct.
Suppose the plain text was "attack at dawn" and the etext was "xbdhgfhwteriur". After the attacker used his q-computer he'd have "attack at dawn", "attach at noon" and "attack at fred", along with 64 quintillion other combinations.
You're not the only one.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
This guy has "proof" that we are living in a simulation.
This could explain where the aliens and time travelers are. They're just not part of the simulation.
Ok, you self described hackers. Find the bugs in the universe and viola, you can do anything you want.
Back when I was working on the Trident sub program (early 1980's), one of the veteran submariners told me about an incident on a sub. Subs have multiple generators, and the Navy was attached to manual controls. So, the procedure for brining a 2nd generator online, is to spin it up, watch the phase angle meter, and switch it in when there's 0 phase difference. What happened, was a new guy followed the procedure, but threw the switch when the two generators where 180 degress out of phase. The generator just stopped, twisting the armatures and destroying themselves in the process. The thing is, a simple set of lightbulbs wired between phases could tell you if it's safe to switch, or a relay that's powered by the difference could keep the switch from happening.
Correct, but your senario only takes out one generator. What the fine article talks about, from a DHS standpoint, is a coordinated attack, set to go off everywhere at the same time. Much chaos would ensue...
We know that, because *we* did it to the Soviets. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002
And their machines weren't even connected to the internet. So all the people who are saying, "Just disconnect it", well, that's not good enough. We have to engineer systems that are hardened and handle failure gracefully. And don't use stolen software.
Interestingly enough, FedEx does/did have satellites. Why you ask? In the 1980's what was then Federal Express worked with the fax companies to develop the Group III fax standard. Every FedEx station got one of these large fax machine complete with hard drives and a plain paper printer. The theory was, people would go to a FedEx location, have their documents faxed to somewhere else, where, for a fee, a courier would deliver it to the recipient. Alternately, high value customers, like law firms, would get a smaller thermal machines for mostly sending to the FedEx station which would forward it to the target station for delivery. The satellites were used to route the data between stations w/o using a phone line. Remember, this was before the Internet, and most companies who used fax would buy them in pairs to send between sites. Almost no one else would have a fax machine that could talk to your fax machine.
Federal Express spend *billions* on the system, and it failed utterly. What happened was the same companies that helped them develop the Group III standard made their thermal machines cheap and interoperatable. Soon, everyone had them, and the thermal paper wasn't too bad. You could always photocopy it once if you wanted a more permanent record. That, and falling long distance phone prices made it overall cheaper to fax a document than to have FedEx do it for you.
To sum up, FedEx has already been to space. They are looking at it, and it's always way too expensive for any kind of regular service. (except some data)
Alternatively, have everyone start making outrageous salary demands. "I would love to come work for XYZ, let's talk $200,000/year"
This actually worked for a fried of my dad's. He was in government work, and when they came back with an offer that was 90% of outrageous, he jumped.
Who's paying this guy to harass you? Find out what agency he works for and have your VP give his VP a call. Make sure they know in no uncertain terms that no only will your company not be hiring from them, no company who's Cxx people play golf with your VP will be hiring from them either.
When a VP left FedEx during the dotcom boom, he started calling around trying to hire FedEx people he had worked with. Fred Smith (President & CEO) told him to back off and he did.
B.t.w. There was a recent slashdot article about a company that could bury negative reviews about products, similar to search engine optimization. I imagine they could also do the same for a person. (for a fee)
I would us one time use cc#'s, or I can sign up for a CC, use it only for their products, then pay it off and cancel it.
What's the problem here?
If it had my address as well, I could use a MailBoxes Etc. mailing address, but I probably wouldn't go to the trouble.
Igpay Atinla uoldshay ebay oughenay otay oolfay isthay.
Here are some quotes from the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" attributed to his lawyer: Why didn't his lawyer think he could win "a long, drawn-out process", and win big bucks? Couldn't Righi find an ambulance chaser willing to take on the city on contigincy? What's the real story?
It sounds good, but is it realistic for anyone to know all the law? It's not like Congress sends you a memo everytime they change things. As a matter of fact, they're still trying to decide if the law books are public domain, or can be owned by the few publishers that publish them.
There is a theory that the law is compartmentalized enough that you can just read the parts that apply to you, and not worry about the rest. Stuff like corporate accounting isn't applicable to most people, so skip those. The thing is, I've never seen it proven. There is a "Law for Dummies" book, but even it disclaims being definative.
Do you really think it's reasonable for the cop to get on the blower and call back every time someone tells him he might not be following the law? Do the dispatchers even have 24hr access to lawyers to give the beat cops advice? I doubt most cops have access to all the law books, much less someone skilled in interpreting them.
In this particular case, I didn't see any downside for the cop involved, so the best advice to him would be to do the same thing again. Arrest first, let the lawyers straighten it out. rinse/lather/repeat. There was no downside for the city either. They don't get sued, or spend money in a trial. If you were the DA, what would you tell the cops? I imagine it was "Good job, keep bringing them in, I'll figure it all out."
Cops are not lawyers, not even close. There's no reason to expect them to know all the laws, or all of your rights. Do you even know all your rights? Many cases before the SCOTUS have ended in split decisions, so that means that there exist some very smart legal minds that would have done the wrong thing. (If they had been the cop or the arrestee)
A real police state would bring everyone in for questioning at least once a year and random times in between just for questioning, just in case they had done something wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.*
* Note for the humor impaired, yes, this is satire.
The thing is, cops are not lawyers. Like the common citizens, they can't know all the law. So the best policy is to just arrest everyone, and let the lawyers sort it out.
It sounds like the city pressured his family members to get him to sign. Where were they in this story before they called him to sign? Why didn't he hold out for not sueing but having the city pay for his legal fees? Paying the small legal fees now, would have been much cheaper for the city vs. going to trial.
If you don't have the channel, there's no chance for you or anyone in your family to watch it, so they lose. If you have it but don't watch it, you might accidently flip to it, and one of their blipverts would get you.
Also, it makes it easier for the providers to lie to the advertizers about how many people *might* be watching.
The original document isn't as archane as many lawyers would like you to believe.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...shall not be violated..."
These are not archane and unclear words. The constitution is purposely vague in places.
"...without just compensation."
"...right to a speedy and public trial..."
"Excessive bail shall not be required..."
The framers could have said "compensation must be $20 per acre, trial within 2 weeks, or bail exceeding $500. In fact they did say, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." Twenty dollars could buy a lot more back then, and they should have built in some kind of adjustment. They did build in an amendment system, which was a good idea.
The framers knew when it was important to be vague. Much of the vagueness was caused by the fact that slavery was still legal, and they knew that the slave states wouldn't sign the document unless there was compromise. (The same for the declaration of independence) Give those dudes a little more credit. When they said "Congress shall make no law.." that's what they meant. They didn't mean "No law unless the SCOTUS looks the other way" or "No law unless someone complains really loud". They built in the amendment provision so that we wouldn't be stuck with bisarro archane laws that no longer apply, but the goverment is supposed to use it, not just decide that that old document isn't so important anymore.
Anyway, we're all human, and even the goverment screws up sometimes. They make mistakes, big ones, and sometimes don't get around to correcting them until the people screwed over are dead. (Which doesn't help the dead people too much, but I think it's important to at least apologize. An admittance of mistakes should help to keep them from happening again)
B.t.w. Props for recognizing the 1856 reference, but which amendment am I misreading? Break it down for us. Thanks.
Try reading the actual document before commenting. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
It's been realized since Roman times that War is something special where the normal rules of civilized behaviour is suspended. The framers of the constitution also knew this.
What's not supposed to happen, is for the President to just decide he doesn't like some foreigner and send goons to kill him when there's not a war going on. There was a presidential no assassination rule.