You are confusing fascism with resistance to fascism.
No, I'm equating fascism (rightly or wrongly) with all statements of "might makes right".
There is a moral difference between state violence motivated by expediency and citizen violence against the state motivated by outrage.
There is; and when you're suggesting that someone be hanged by a lamppost because you disagree with them, the line has been crossed.
They control the media, and I can't shout loud enough. I could build a transmitter to get my views out but I would be arrested. There is always the Internet, but unless this post kicks off an anti-government protest, I think it is safe to say that will not work
Your view has been recorded here, on Slashdot an likely on Google. I will shout along with you, as long as you shout against all oppressors, those of aristocracy and those of the proletariat.
A choice between several different authoritarian corporate shills. Won't change a thing.
Perhaps. However, nothing stops you from getting nominated, now does it ? And a vote against major parties will most certainly make them realize they no longer represent you.
the jury box,
Spoken like someone who has never worked for the UK 'justice' system
True, I haven't. But I know that UK juries have acquitted people in the past, so it must be possible.
and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.
You are a moron, a sheep and a coward. Fear of violence is not pacifism, its just fear.
I am none of those. Nor am I afraid of violence; indeed, I've lived with the fear of it for most of my life. I simply understand, beyond all doubt, that might does not make right.
I wish to restate that. Might does not equal right. I don't care if it's the might of humans, of something supernatural, or of God himself. The ability to do something does not equal the right to do so. Us humans always seem to think that thinking of these things equals weakness, so I declare here and now: a curse to everyone who thinks so, from the lowliest human to the Almighty. There are moral imperatives that must be fulfilled, no matter what; And the chief along them is that you do not crush underfoot those that believe differently, and at the absolute most do the least you need to ensure you need survive.
Put yet another way: I wish to live in peace with anyone. Damnation to anyone who won't let me, up to God himself; but I don't think I will be, for I think this is the core of what he wants.
This is what I believe. Top that in the balls department if you can, you who calls me a coward.
I see the government as a stifling force, too easily caught up in its bureaucracy to function efficiently.
The government is supposed to be inefficient. That way, any change will take long enough for concerned citizens to react. Inefficiency in the government is not a bug, it's a feature. And an important feature at that, for a democratic government must be inefficient. Democratic control is not efficient enough in itself to keep an efficient government under control.
Do you really want your bank run by the government?
Yes, I do. That way, I can be certain I can get my money out again, even if they have to print brand new money just for me; and I can be certain that I have plenty of chance to react to any "brilliant" investment scheme thought up by the CEO.
Similarly, not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight
You mean, like slavery? One group decides to continue to tolerate it, and another group decides not to. A big bloody fight ensues. One side wins. The intolerable idea becomes insignificantly present in the resulting, altered culture. Or are you suggesting that we should tolerate it, because it's gosh darn socially awkward to tell someone that they're wrong?
I mean exactly what I said: not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight. Thank you for showing a good example of that.
Yeah, except for the part where there are some people who consider the very act of you living the way you want to, peacefully, with things like daughters who are allowed to read and write, and marry who they choose... to be sufficient grounds to kill you. And your family.
The issue under consideration was about whether we should tolerate bad ideas. I don't think anyone's argued that you should tolerate people trying to kill you. And I don't think that Young Earth Creationists in particular have threatened to kill anyone.
Can you really find moral comfort in that scenario by just physically removing yourself far enough away from the person who considers the nature of your day to day life to be an abomination requiring your death?
Dunno about moral comfort, but getting the hell away from people trying to kill me has worked just fine for me this far.
Does your eager embrace of tolerance for every point of view include tolerating someone who doesn't tolerate you, and feels a religious duty to erase you from the planet?
If you're in a position to bring social pressure against someone, the chances are that you are not fighting for your life.
Or simply demonstrating in very plain, obvious ways that it's wrong.
Go right ahead and do so. However, the grandparent talked about bringing "Cultural pressure" against such ideas to suppress them. That kinda implies more than merely demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
Or that embracing and pushing an incorrect world view or bad piece of information has consequences.
Actually, believing that the world is 6000 years old is unlikely to have any consequences. It's just weird, that's all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any believe that's actually likely to matter is also likely to be in line with reality, due to natural selection.
Are you really equating a solid science curriculum that actively looks to shut down absurd superstitions in its students with Stalinism?
No, I'm saying that "using social pressure to suppress memes" sounds suspiciously like Stalinism. I'm also saying that such a program will fail unless it's implementers are willing to go to the extent Stalin went. People are not going to let go of something they consider holy truth unless faced with death, and many not even then. Consequently, any such program short of Stalinism will fail to do anything except make a lot of people miserable, while any program that reaches the depths of Stalinism is undesirable for obvious reasons.
Go right along and show evidence that the world is older than 6000 years; simply understand that you won't convince everyone, and accept that. You won't gain anything with "social pressure", and there's always the temptation to go just a bit further, and that's a slippery slope which will indeed end up with Stalinism. That's human nature for you.
Man, it must be exhausting to work so hard at moral relativism.
Actually, I'm a moral absolutist. For example, I believe that it is always wrong to try to force - no matter how subtly, for example with "social pressure" -
Your comment implies that there is no merit to demonstrating intolerance to bad ideas. That's a very popular conception, and I think that, as a liberal policy, it's been utterly disastrous. Now, clearly, it can be effective in a discussion or argument to assume that the other person is capable of meaningfully participating in that discussion or argument, but that's not the same as tolerating bad ideas. Cultural pressure is one of the great factors in meme progression and suppression, and it needs to be used.
Saying that an idea is good is the same as saying that you think it's correct. Consequently, tolerating only good ideas is equivalent to tolerating only ideas you agree with. That has been shown to result in disaster, time and again. That's why we have freedom of religion nowadays: the alternative is constant religious warfare. Similarly, not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight.
Liberal policy of live and let live is really all about the first part. You will never be left to live in peace unless you're willing to do the same to others; and that means tolerating their ideas, no matter how imbecilic they might be. Your only alternatives are to use force or to pick on your neighbours until they snap and use it on you.
Finally... Meme suppression ? You do realize that suppressing a meme requires oppressing the people who would pick it up or keep it ? I believe Stalin did something like that - for the benefit of society, of course - and is forever afterwards remembered as a brutal, murderous tyrant for it; I really don't think that it would be a good idea to try it here.
Yes. Lets have another cuppa and roll out the red carpet for those who are no better than the fascists we fought again two generations ago.
Fascists - you mean those people infamous for killing lots of people because they didn't like them ? That's the best example you could come up with to justify lynch mobs ? The most infamous lynch mob in history ?
As for your idiotic strawman, no, you don't have to roll out the red carpet for fascists. You have many tools in your disposal to oppose them: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.
The killing of Mussolini was such an act of insanity, they should've just written a strongly worded letter to il duce
By the time he was killed, Mussolini was no longer Il Duce. He had been deposed and was fleeing. He was already beaten. The only thing killing him did was make it impossible to drag his ass into court to try him like any other criminal. It was a victory for fascism; which, ultimately, is simply one variance of the old idea that "might makes right".
Mussolini wasn't beaten by democracy or freedom; he was killed by fascism. He was shot by people who thought like him: I have a gun, therefore I am law.
Just an other incentive to design a tracker-less Torent protocol...
BitTorrent already supports tracker-less torrents. The only problem is that there's at least two completing mutually incompatible versions, the Azureus one and the mainline (official client) one. Then again, there's a "mainline DHT" plugin for Azureus, so I guess that problem's pretty much solved now.
For that matter, nearly every P2P protocol still in use supports download meshes, which are basically the same as BitTorrent, so downloading large files even from the venerable Gnutella is reasonably fast nowadays.
No, the next step is getting Freenet up and running, to hide who's downloading what from whom. Tor, while it already gives this capability, is vulnerable to DOS attacks (in fact there's several going on there right now) and a kind of attack where you time node outages with server outages to figure out where a hidden server is located at. The current versions of Freenet are quite usable, as long as you forget browsing and use a searching/batch downloading tool like Thaw.
File sharing has a very negative association with it, and many in Government positions will just take it to mean "piracy", as groups such as the RIAA and MPAA (and their overseas counterparts) imply it to be synonymous.
File sharing has an extremely positive association with it, sometimes called with the misnomer of "piracy", which means it can be used to retrieve disinfected versions of such DRM-laden games as Spore, or out-of-stock items you couldn't otherwise find on your local warehouse, as well as circumvent censorship. It is only "negative" to groups of ill repute such as the RIAA, MPAA and censorship boards. People who don't count either the Mafia nor the Soviet Union amongst their role models need not fear it.
You can be effectively fired for refusing to break a law in an environment where law-breaking is so serious that if you were to draw attention to it with a wrongful dismissal suit, there would be no employment to come back to.:)
You can crush them at will, so they pull the shots. Makes sense:).
You can't right wrongs by reducing other people's rights. (TM)
True. But you could use those same rights to find a Church of Xenu and explain that you don't literally worship Xenu, but that he represents your megalomaniacal space-villainy side. That would be epic trolling, if nothing else;).
Octopi have only six arms. The other two are legs. (Six appendages for manipulating objects, two for pulling themselves along. And one of them doubles as a sex organ!)
The problem with this, of course, is that due to the Birthday Paradox, you will start creating a loop after (on average) sqrt(NUMBER_OF_POSSIBLE_HASH_OUTPUTS). For short messages, this is usually okay, but for long streams of "random" bytes, this is totally unacceptable.
Good point. I assumed that you'd loop after 2^hashlength, but of course even that has the same problem. I guess it just goes to once again show that cryptography should be implemented by real experts:).
How about using hash(n + previous_hash) ?-)
By the way, the reason you put the SEED after the consecutive strings is that if two different seeds result in the same hash state, it will not matter since they are editing the state instead of creating it initially. Assuming a secure hash, hash(A)==hash(B) does not imply that hash(C+A)==hash(C+B) although in all modern hashes that I know of, it usually implies that hash(A+C)==hash(B+C) since new data edits the old state, and old data has no chance of editing the new state.
/blockquote>
Why would that matter ? The attacker still knows the state of the hash just prior to inserting the SEED, so what do we gain from this ?
"Agnostic" is what someone claims to be because they do not understand the term Atheist, or want to sound like they have some mystical idea that sets them apart.
Once upon a time "atheist" meant someone who merely disbelieved that god(s) exist (or are worthy of worship - but I'll leave that out for simplicity's sake). Then there was a power struggle between the rising secularists and church(es), and consequently the term evolved (semi-purposefully, ironically enough) to mean someone who asserts that god(s) do not exist, rather than simply not believing that they do. This is why there is a tendency to classify the latter people as "agnostics" nowadays, despite the historic meaning of that term being someone who claims that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity.
TL;DR: There's lots of trolls calling themselves atheists, so most non-trolls don't want to, since they're thought to be one of those trolls if they do.
When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on.
Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse and would not go back, even if they had doubled my salary and given me a public apology. I went on to a different company and made it my personal crusade to steer every customer away from my earlier employer. Sometimes those types of layoffs come back in spades and bite you in the behind.
Religious fanaticism, discriminatory hiring practices and the glass ceiling are still a major problem in many American companies to this day.
If the director was re-hired, then clearly his religious practices or the lack of them were not a serious problem. You, on the other hand, apparently refused any possibility of re-hiring, threw a temper tantrum coupled with a physical assault, and are now wasting your time - sorry, your current employers time - in an attempt of getting vengeance on someone who dared to fire the great you. Which raises a question of how you behaved in your former workplace; did you pursue any other personal crusades on your employers time there ?
It makes me wonder if there really is a glass ceiling, or if it's just a myth people like you want to blame for their lack of success.
It is a fool who does not hire the most capable and talented individuals because of some personal bias caused by their own ignorance.
Unless, of course, those talents come bundled with violent immaturity. Who in their right mind wants to deal with that ?
My criteria was "does the hash generate a fixed-length output, or is the hash capable of also being used as a stream cipher".
Every hash function can be used as a stream cipher: you simply hash the password, then hash the resulting hash, and so on, and use each intermediate hash as input to a stream you then XOR the cleartext stream with to produce the ciphertext.
Of course for this to be secure, the hashes must be undistinguishable from random strings, but I'd imagine that's a requirement for a good hash function anyway.
The implementation on MD5 crypt on/etc/shadow would require about 10^73 yottabytes of a rainbow table to achieve the same end in the same way.
Since the whole idea of/etc/shadow is that it is not readable by anyone besides the root, rainbow tables would be of no use whatsoever against it. Well, I suppose you could use them as an optimized dictionary...
Besides, doesn't the use of salt prohibit the use of rainbow tables, or at least grow them beyond any feasibility; or did you take that into effect in those yottabytes ?
In my experience, the thing that java does the worst on performance-wise is arrays: it has to check to make sure you don't overflow the array. This can slow down an array-element access as much as 10 times.
What ? How the hell can a simple (i > -1 && i < array.length) take up 9 times as much time as the actual array lookup ? I have a very hard time believing this.
So yeah I agree with the article that's it's often cheaper to specify faster hardware, or more-expensive hardware, than to spend hours-and-hours on expensive engineers/programmers trying to save pennies.
Multiplied by how many servers, now that is the question ?
I mean, if you have a thousand-server farm already, then a speedup of just one percent is going to save you from having to buy (and power, manage and eventually replace) ten servers. How much developer time is that one percent really going to cost ? And this is assuming absolute scalability, which is almost certainly not the case.
The bigger site you already have, the more it makes sense to buy programmer time instead of hardware, because program optimizations are multiplied by site size.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm equating fascism (rightly or wrongly) with all statements of "might makes right".
There is; and when you're suggesting that someone be hanged by a lamppost because you disagree with them, the line has been crossed.
Your view has been recorded here, on Slashdot an likely on Google. I will shout along with you, as long as you shout against all oppressors, those of aristocracy and those of the proletariat.
Perhaps. However, nothing stops you from getting nominated, now does it ? And a vote against major parties will most certainly make them realize they no longer represent you.
True, I haven't. But I know that UK juries have acquitted people in the past, so it must be possible.
I am none of those. Nor am I afraid of violence; indeed, I've lived with the fear of it for most of my life. I simply understand, beyond all doubt, that might does not make right.
I wish to restate that. Might does not equal right. I don't care if it's the might of humans, of something supernatural, or of God himself. The ability to do something does not equal the right to do so. Us humans always seem to think that thinking of these things equals weakness, so I declare here and now: a curse to everyone who thinks so, from the lowliest human to the Almighty. There are moral imperatives that must be fulfilled, no matter what; And the chief along them is that you do not crush underfoot those that believe differently, and at the absolute most do the least you need to ensure you need survive.
Put yet another way: I wish to live in peace with anyone. Damnation to anyone who won't let me, up to God himself; but I don't think I will be, for I think this is the core of what he wants.
This is what I believe. Top that in the balls department if you can, you who calls me a coward.
Bullshit. Most files are read sequentially. Which is why most hard drive OS-level caches have read precaching.
The government is supposed to be inefficient. That way, any change will take long enough for concerned citizens to react. Inefficiency in the government is not a bug, it's a feature. And an important feature at that, for a democratic government must be inefficient. Democratic control is not efficient enough in itself to keep an efficient government under control.
Yes, I do. That way, I can be certain I can get my money out again, even if they have to print brand new money just for me; and I can be certain that I have plenty of chance to react to any "brilliant" investment scheme thought up by the CEO.
More to the point, seeing how the private business interests run everything anyway, why not cut out the middleman ?
I mean exactly what I said: not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight. Thank you for showing a good example of that.
The issue under consideration was about whether we should tolerate bad ideas. I don't think anyone's argued that you should tolerate people trying to kill you. And I don't think that Young Earth Creationists in particular have threatened to kill anyone.
Dunno about moral comfort, but getting the hell away from people trying to kill me has worked just fine for me this far.
If you're in a position to bring social pressure against someone, the chances are that you are not fighting for your life.
Go right ahead and do so. However, the grandparent talked about bringing "Cultural pressure" against such ideas to suppress them. That kinda implies more than merely demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
Actually, believing that the world is 6000 years old is unlikely to have any consequences. It's just weird, that's all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any believe that's actually likely to matter is also likely to be in line with reality, due to natural selection.
No, I'm saying that "using social pressure to suppress memes" sounds suspiciously like Stalinism. I'm also saying that such a program will fail unless it's implementers are willing to go to the extent Stalin went. People are not going to let go of something they consider holy truth unless faced with death, and many not even then. Consequently, any such program short of Stalinism will fail to do anything except make a lot of people miserable, while any program that reaches the depths of Stalinism is undesirable for obvious reasons.
Go right along and show evidence that the world is older than 6000 years; simply understand that you won't convince everyone, and accept that. You won't gain anything with "social pressure", and there's always the temptation to go just a bit further, and that's a slippery slope which will indeed end up with Stalinism. That's human nature for you.
Actually, I'm a moral absolutist. For example, I believe that it is always wrong to try to force - no matter how subtly, for example with "social pressure" -
Saying that an idea is good is the same as saying that you think it's correct. Consequently, tolerating only good ideas is equivalent to tolerating only ideas you agree with. That has been shown to result in disaster, time and again. That's why we have freedom of religion nowadays: the alternative is constant religious warfare. Similarly, not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight.
Liberal policy of live and let live is really all about the first part. You will never be left to live in peace unless you're willing to do the same to others; and that means tolerating their ideas, no matter how imbecilic they might be. Your only alternatives are to use force or to pick on your neighbours until they snap and use it on you.
Finally... Meme suppression ? You do realize that suppressing a meme requires oppressing the people who would pick it up or keep it ? I believe Stalin did something like that - for the benefit of society, of course - and is forever afterwards remembered as a brutal, murderous tyrant for it; I really don't think that it would be a good idea to try it here.
Fascists - you mean those people infamous for killing lots of people because they didn't like them ? That's the best example you could come up with to justify lynch mobs ? The most infamous lynch mob in history ?
As for your idiotic strawman, no, you don't have to roll out the red carpet for fascists. You have many tools in your disposal to oppose them: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.
By the time he was killed, Mussolini was no longer Il Duce. He had been deposed and was fleeing. He was already beaten. The only thing killing him did was make it impossible to drag his ass into court to try him like any other criminal. It was a victory for fascism; which, ultimately, is simply one variance of the old idea that "might makes right".
Mussolini wasn't beaten by democracy or freedom; he was killed by fascism. He was shot by people who thought like him: I have a gun, therefore I am law.
You forgot the taxes.
The grandparent is too good to use borrowed words like "hubris". His supremacy deserves better.
BitTorrent already supports tracker-less torrents. The only problem is that there's at least two completing mutually incompatible versions, the Azureus one and the mainline (official client) one. Then again, there's a "mainline DHT" plugin for Azureus, so I guess that problem's pretty much solved now.
For that matter, nearly every P2P protocol still in use supports download meshes, which are basically the same as BitTorrent, so downloading large files even from the venerable Gnutella is reasonably fast nowadays.
No, the next step is getting Freenet up and running, to hide who's downloading what from whom. Tor, while it already gives this capability, is vulnerable to DOS attacks (in fact there's several going on there right now) and a kind of attack where you time node outages with server outages to figure out where a hidden server is located at. The current versions of Freenet are quite usable, as long as you forget browsing and use a searching/batch downloading tool like Thaw.
Global warming.
File sharing has an extremely positive association with it, sometimes called with the misnomer of "piracy", which means it can be used to retrieve disinfected versions of such DRM-laden games as Spore, or out-of-stock items you couldn't otherwise find on your local warehouse, as well as circumvent censorship. It is only "negative" to groups of ill repute such as the RIAA, MPAA and censorship boards. People who don't count either the Mafia nor the Soviet Union amongst their role models need not fear it.
You can crush them at will, so they pull the shots. Makes sense :).
True. But you could use those same rights to find a Church of Xenu and explain that you don't literally worship Xenu, but that he represents your megalomaniacal space-villainy side. That would be epic trolling, if nothing else ;).
Except in Japan, where all of them do ;).
Good point. I assumed that you'd loop after 2^hashlength, but of course even that has the same problem. I guess it just goes to once again show that cryptography should be implemented by real experts :).
How about using hash(n + previous_hash) ?-)
Careful. You wouldn't want to be declared Fair Game, now would you ?
Once upon a time "atheist" meant someone who merely disbelieved that god(s) exist (or are worthy of worship - but I'll leave that out for simplicity's sake). Then there was a power struggle between the rising secularists and church(es), and consequently the term evolved (semi-purposefully, ironically enough) to mean someone who asserts that god(s) do not exist, rather than simply not believing that they do. This is why there is a tendency to classify the latter people as "agnostics" nowadays, despite the historic meaning of that term being someone who claims that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity.
TL;DR: There's lots of trolls calling themselves atheists, so most non-trolls don't want to, since they're thought to be one of those trolls if they do.
Every hash function can be used as a stream cipher: you simply hash the password, then hash the resulting hash, and so on, and use each intermediate hash as input to a stream you then XOR the cleartext stream with to produce the ciphertext.
Of course for this to be secure, the hashes must be undistinguishable from random strings, but I'd imagine that's a requirement for a good hash function anyway.
Since the whole idea of /etc/shadow is that it is not readable by anyone besides the root, rainbow tables would be of no use whatsoever against it. Well, I suppose you could use them as an optimized dictionary...
Besides, doesn't the use of salt prohibit the use of rainbow tables, or at least grow them beyond any feasibility; or did you take that into effect in those yottabytes ?
What ? How the hell can a simple (i > -1 && i < array.length) take up 9 times as much time as the actual array lookup ? I have a very hard time believing this.
Into what ? Assembly is processor-specific, the OS only affects which system calls are available and how they are made.
There will be small differences in how files are read, for example, but they aren't significant. The real differences lay in the OS side of the calls.
In Soviet Russia, making overseas calls is a cause to have people shoot at you !
Multiplied by how many servers, now that is the question ?
I mean, if you have a thousand-server farm already, then a speedup of just one percent is going to save you from having to buy (and power, manage and eventually replace) ten servers. How much developer time is that one percent really going to cost ? And this is assuming absolute scalability, which is almost certainly not the case.
The bigger site you already have, the more it makes sense to buy programmer time instead of hardware, because program optimizations are multiplied by site size.