Hey, my descendents could be terrorists. Does that mean my balls can be classed as terrorist weapons? Maybe Bush, Blair and Cheney should get down there and have a look at them just in case.
I mean what the fucking Hell is it with people who consider Twitter a potential terrorist tool? And they're complaining that it's being used for disseminating extremist ideologies? Oh no - Bad Thoughts! We must eliminate Bad Thoughts.
I like the essence of your idea, but I can only imagine the annoyances of plugging an old drive into a new machine, or mounting something that wasn't originally created / organised by the current O/S installation with its database. Now the obvious thing to say is that the database for any particular file system should be self-contained upon that file system. But then you're getting very close to saying that the db might as well be integrated into the filesystem. And when you start wanting to mount that file system across different OS's, then you definitely want it to be integrated into the file system. And that's what a file system is at essence anyway - a means of locating files on a disk according to a specific criteria. So I think what you're asking for is better implemented as expanded file information in the file system, rather than something held at the OS level.
There has already been research done (I think in the US) on ways to prevent short term memory formation as a means to reduce trauma for soldiers. I.e. If the drug is taken before an attack, they wont feel guilty or traumatised by the things they do.
Well each their own. I did say that if it's what you like then fine. But my opinion is that most of the compiz stuff is more about attention seeking and showing off than it is about real substance. Hence my likening it to make-up and bling, rather than natural beauty which comes before both. You can turn it on or off, so it's good that it exists. And it does look cool. But I've got it turned off on mine. I pay more mind to what's underneath.;)
Well, telling someone who didn't quite understand something that they should go away and never come back, that the IT world doesn't need them, emotive phrasing such as "spouting ignorant crap," all suggest that you are venting anger at me. Do you really need someone to explain to you that you come across as very worked up? You should relax a bit. Or stop transferring issues in one area of your life onto people you'll never meet and don't know, which seems to be what is happening here as I find it hard to believe I'm getting you this irate myself.
That's technically an argument from information that you can't reasonably have. Not to mention it's a strawman. There's a difference between speaking out against a behavior and speaking out against an event.
A strawman is where I pretend you've made an argument so that I can attack it. You need to check your definitions. And it's not an argument from information I can't reasonably have. Unless you're saying that your comment contained no information whatsoever, then by causing you to post it, the total of information is greater. Do you disagree with that? Because that is what I have said and which you say is false.
The rest of your post contains some serious errors in logic. You started off correcting me, but now in your determination to have a go at me, you're starting to say things that are mistaken or unsupportable. It's not worth going through them all, but things like 'you forgot problems with implementation from [your list of] human error and physical security' just don't work. Do you think implementation errors are not human error? The specific context was deploying a provided technology.
Things like saying I am misogynistic because I implied you were a "bit of a tit" is just plain silly. If you call someone an arsehole does that mean you are prejudiced against creatures with anuses? Have you never said of someone: "they were being a dick" ? Calling you "a bit of a tit" is just a mild way of describing the personality trait of someone who launches off into aggressive tirade, against someone who misunderstood something. And yes, as you point out, it's "name calling." But I think someone who has told a stranger that they should leave a community and never come back, has kind of forfeited the right to get upset if they get called a [very mild] name in return. Don't you? : )
Give it up. We're having a chat in a quiet thread, now off-topic because it's just descended into vindictiveness (on your part), and I don't think anyone cares much but you. I'm mainly just responding because I'm killing time. So chill, eh?
More tarty make-up, than actual looks, imo. Looks is a clean intuitive interface the responds quickly. Wobbly window frames and cubic desktops are just lipstick and eyeshadow. i.e. attention-seeking flash. Of course that's what some go for and it's good to be able to apply it if you want it. But I would liken it to real looks.
I would be surprised if anyone cared about this other than you. Why are you so angry? Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses to my mistake than they would have if I hadn't made it so that's good. Mind you, they've also probably learnt that you're a bit of a tit. Sit back in the satisfaction that you were right and chill out. You may appreciate a friendlier attitude next time you are wrong about something.
As to the future of QKDS, however, I've done a little more reading since. I was misled by you talking about needing a secure optical cable between the sites. I see now that such technology is actually relatively cheap and can in fact use a lot of existing infrastructure. People have run such key exchanges over 140+ kilometres and have also actually done them through the air for similar distances. So it seems that such technology is certainly viable if there is a need for it, and there actually have been commercial uses of it so far. Which brings us back full circle to Bruce Schneier's assumption that other links in the chain are breakable. Now we know that the encryption algorithms themselves are pretty strong which leaves us with human error and physical security. It seems a bit much that anyone should say that these aspects are always weak therefore improving other links is worthless. If that were the case why bother with encryption in the first place? A company or private individual must believe that they have done what they can to secure these aspects because if they don't, they will take such actions as bring them to the point where they do.
Today, secure keys are exchanged by courier. That is in fact less secure than this method of QKD in that it introduces a human element. It is also less convenient than using an existing fibre line. And as we should all be aware, inconvenience is where lack of adherance to good practice starts to fail. Given that it looks like this technology will have pretty low underlying costs, it may well be the case that we see greater commercial use of it in the future. After all, it's breaking into an existing market (people do physical key exchanges all the time in big business) and offering a more convenient, potentially as cheap way of doing things with a possibility of greater security (the key need never be handed over to a third party).
It will be interesting to see how things develop, imo. You can go back to name calling now, if you like, but as I said at the start, I doubt many people really care and I'm not one of them so I don't know what function you think you're fulfilling, here.
No, I think after the bashing I've just received from all you lot, I'm now pretty well-informed on what QKDS does and doesn't. I appreciate the education.
Regards,
-H.
Fair enough. But as you point out, I'm ignorant and it's beyond my skill set to verify the technical aspects of a security method (I can only verify my configuration of it against my reading). So from my position of ignorance, all I can do is choose what appears to be the most powerful method of encryption based on my reading. And it's important to note that I'm not merely interested in current security but future security. If you read the article (which I have, incidentally), you find that it discusses only the current state of play, dismissing futuristic code breaking methods (based on quantum computing) as being "years away from being practical." I'm young enough that I can be concerned about what the technology will be fifteen years from now. Fifteen years from now, I intend to be in some quite serious positions in life and I'm discussing things using encryption [i]now[/i] that I may very well not want being brought out even then. As I understand it, a QKDS can give me greater confidence in long term security. I really do get what the article is saying, and I understand it. No point putting up a hundred foot spike instead of a fifty foot spike when in both cases the opponent will go around it. But I have a number of methods by which I try to ensure that my theoretical opponents cannot go around it, so my intent is to guard against any current or future spike removal technology.
In any case, one aspect of the article is wrong - he says it has no commercial future. QKD systems [i]do[/i] offer an advantage and whether only "ignorant" people such as myself consider it worthwhile or not, we'll be buying it.;)
Taking care of the human and physical security is my business. It's the encryption technology that I can't control / verify. So give me encryption that I can trust and I'll be able to assess my security based on the things that I can control / verify myself. Schneier has no business telling me "your set up is flawed so there's no point in giving you secure encryption." It's for me to judge and all I want is to ensure that no weak links come in from outside my control, i.e. a flawed algorithm or technology.
I get what you're saying but I've tried developing with both Django and Joomla (and others). Django is far beyond any other competitor I've tried. It's an absolute joy to work with and extremely well thought out. You're right of course when you say that one-size doesn't fit all, but Django is very, very good. Certainly beats the Hell out of anything I've seen done with PHP frameworks.
Not if they're recording all the data. They have as long as they like - once they've cracked the first one, they'll catch up rapidly. Yes - it's an additional constraint, though.
I'd add to that the OP's extreme opinion as counting against his or her argument. If the OP says: "Open Office's Writer isn't as good as MS Office's Word, there are a few things missing for me," that would be a supportable statement. It might not be universal (most people only use the most basic features of either application), but it can be valid for some. Saying there is a "huge difference in features" I don't think is supportable and makes it look like a troll. They are pretty similar now in feature sets with not a great deal of difference.
Interesting. We're running a Moodle system for our University which replaced Blackboard. It's still spreading in usage across the departments and hasn't hit saturation yet. We're having some scaling problems though. I'm currently trying to find some ways to optimise the code to improve efficiency. We've pretty much thrown all the hardware we can at it without going into the next order of magnitude. Hasn't been helped by the choice of MySQL as a backend imo, but that was after I started and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Google: least harm
microsoft: most lock-in
Yahoo!: possible lock-in
Google least lock-in? No way - they'll own your calendars, your email accounts, your social networking, your website if you let them... Try shifting your online identity away from Google once you've been with them for a bit. I'm still waiting for the day someone loses their job because their Gmail account is suspended and the person has all their work stuff run through Google. I see some businesses trusting all their data to Google's external servers sometimes! And if the institution is considering Google, they need to ask serious questions about where its hosted, privacy and marketing, etc.
Shifting from one solution to another will always be a substantial piece of work, but if you own the data, it's under your control, it's going to be more viable than a setup where you don't.
Whatever happens to Yahoo, Zimbra wont be going anywhere. It's used, it's liked and it's a viable business. Were Yahoo taken over by a company that produced a rival system (i.e. Microsoft), then there might be some cause for concern long term, but that's not going to happen now. If Zimbra suits your needs, you should go with it. You really don't want to give all your power to a corporation like Google.
Evolution is still going on, but it is also circumvented by modern medicine. I would rather claim that medicine is the limiting factor for evolution.
If we can now take care of some of the genetic factors that would limit someone in a more primitive society, then we can start emphasizing the factors that provide advantages in a more sophisticated one. If someone is highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive, then that's a reason we want them and it's a plus if a no-longer issue prevents them from passing on their genes.
But your scenario is an edge case anyway. Far more of a factor is that modern medicine allows people who have been harmed through environmental factors to pass on their genes. Much of what you're probably thinking of as "limiting factors" have little to nothing to do with genetics and more to do with environment and life-affecting incidents. So even if you are taking a view on what qualifies someone as worthy of passing on their genes or not (something I recoil from with great speed), modern medicine is not often a factor in keeping these people from passing on their genes.
If there's someone you have a crush on, then you should let them know. It's probably best not to do it when you're drunk (though maybe you'll be more honest if you are), but I don't see much value in paying someone to stop you from telling them.
Actually, because I can't tell how serious or not you're being over the Internet, don't worry about it. I was more puzzled by your post than offended. For clarification, my amazement that such a service is actually offered as a commercial enterprise in Australia isn't so much about people's intelligence, as such, which probably would sound elitist, but more about people living such a life where they're having to keep such a close guard on their tempers and feelings that getting drunk is a serious risk. If you're that angry with your partner about something, you're probably better off telling them so (although not when drunk). Just seems an uncomfortable way to live your life. Possibly that does sound... well, I don't think selfish was the word you should have used, maybe smug. But it's not my intention. It's that it's at the point where people actually need to pay someone to help them keep things bottled up that worries me.
Pal, you are clearly too good at maths. We're going to have to get you a, I don't know, a Fine Arts test filter or something on your Slashdot account.;):)
Slashdot Mirror
Never have I been so sincere in saying this, but: I wish I had mod points.
Hey, my descendents could be terrorists. Does that mean my balls can be classed as terrorist weapons? Maybe Bush, Blair and Cheney should get down there and have a look at them just in case.
I mean what the fucking Hell is it with people who consider Twitter a potential terrorist tool? And they're complaining that it's being used for disseminating extremist ideologies? Oh no - Bad Thoughts! We must eliminate Bad Thoughts.
Maybe if you define terror as "really, really irritating."
I like the essence of your idea, but I can only imagine the annoyances of plugging an old drive into a new machine, or mounting something that wasn't originally created / organised by the current O/S installation with its database. Now the obvious thing to say is that the database for any particular file system should be self-contained upon that file system. But then you're getting very close to saying that the db might as well be integrated into the filesystem. And when you start wanting to mount that file system across different OS's, then you definitely want it to be integrated into the file system. And that's what a file system is at essence anyway - a means of locating files on a disk according to a specific criteria. So I think what you're asking for is better implemented as expanded file information in the file system, rather than something held at the OS level.
There has already been research done (I think in the US) on ways to prevent short term memory formation as a means to reduce trauma for soldiers. I.e. If the drug is taken before an attack, they wont feel guilty or traumatised by the things they do.
Sorry. Didn't read through all that. Bored now.
Regards,
H.
Well each their own. I did say that if it's what you like then fine. But my opinion is that most of the compiz stuff is more about attention seeking and showing off than it is about real substance. Hence my likening it to make-up and bling, rather than natural beauty which comes before both. You can turn it on or off, so it's good that it exists. And it does look cool. But I've got it turned off on mine. I pay more mind to what's underneath.
Regards,
H.
Well, telling someone who didn't quite understand something that they should go away and never come back, that the IT world doesn't need them, emotive phrasing such as "spouting ignorant crap," all suggest that you are venting anger at me. Do you really need someone to explain to you that you come across as very worked up? You should relax a bit. Or stop transferring issues in one area of your life onto people you'll never meet and don't know, which seems to be what is happening here as I find it hard to believe I'm getting you this irate myself.
A strawman is where I pretend you've made an argument so that I can attack it. You need to check your definitions. And it's not an argument from information I can't reasonably have. Unless you're saying that your comment contained no information whatsoever, then by causing you to post it, the total of information is greater. Do you disagree with that? Because that is what I have said and which you say is false.
The rest of your post contains some serious errors in logic. You started off correcting me, but now in your determination to have a go at me, you're starting to say things that are mistaken or unsupportable. It's not worth going through them all, but things like 'you forgot problems with implementation from [your list of] human error and physical security' just don't work. Do you think implementation errors are not human error? The specific context was deploying a provided technology.
Things like saying I am misogynistic because I implied you were a "bit of a tit" is just plain silly. If you call someone an arsehole does that mean you are prejudiced against creatures with anuses? Have you never said of someone: "they were being a dick" ? Calling you "a bit of a tit" is just a mild way of describing the personality trait of someone who launches off into aggressive tirade, against someone who misunderstood something. And yes, as you point out, it's "name calling." But I think someone who has told a stranger that they should leave a community and never come back, has kind of forfeited the right to get upset if they get called a [very mild] name in return. Don't you? : )
Give it up. We're having a chat in a quiet thread, now off-topic because it's just descended into vindictiveness (on your part), and I don't think anyone cares much but you. I'm mainly just responding because I'm killing time. So chill, eh?
Regards,
H.
More tarty make-up, than actual looks, imo. Looks is a clean intuitive interface the responds quickly. Wobbly window frames and cubic desktops are just lipstick and eyeshadow. i.e. attention-seeking flash. Of course that's what some go for and it's good to be able to apply it if you want it. But I would liken it to real looks.
I would be surprised if anyone cared about this other than you. Why are you so angry? Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses to my mistake than they would have if I hadn't made it so that's good. Mind you, they've also probably learnt that you're a bit of a tit. Sit back in the satisfaction that you were right and chill out. You may appreciate a friendlier attitude next time you are wrong about something.
As to the future of QKDS, however, I've done a little more reading since. I was misled by you talking about needing a secure optical cable between the sites. I see now that such technology is actually relatively cheap and can in fact use a lot of existing infrastructure. People have run such key exchanges over 140+ kilometres and have also actually done them through the air for similar distances. So it seems that such technology is certainly viable if there is a need for it, and there actually have been commercial uses of it so far. Which brings us back full circle to Bruce Schneier's assumption that other links in the chain are breakable. Now we know that the encryption algorithms themselves are pretty strong which leaves us with human error and physical security. It seems a bit much that anyone should say that these aspects are always weak therefore improving other links is worthless. If that were the case why bother with encryption in the first place? A company or private individual must believe that they have done what they can to secure these aspects because if they don't, they will take such actions as bring them to the point where they do.
Today, secure keys are exchanged by courier. That is in fact less secure than this method of QKD in that it introduces a human element. It is also less convenient than using an existing fibre line. And as we should all be aware, inconvenience is where lack of adherance to good practice starts to fail. Given that it looks like this technology will have pretty low underlying costs, it may well be the case that we see greater commercial use of it in the future. After all, it's breaking into an existing market (people do physical key exchanges all the time in big business) and offering a more convenient, potentially as cheap way of doing things with a possibility of greater security (the key need never be handed over to a third party).
It will be interesting to see how things develop, imo. You can go back to name calling now, if you like, but as I said at the start, I doubt many people really care and I'm not one of them so I don't know what function you think you're fulfilling, here.
Peace,
H.
It's seems my ignorance isn't actually lost at all. It's just moved host.:)
Regards,
H.
No, I think after the bashing I've just received from all you lot, I'm now pretty well-informed on what QKDS does and doesn't. I appreciate the education.
Regards,
-H.
Fair enough. But as you point out, I'm ignorant and it's beyond my skill set to verify the technical aspects of a security method (I can only verify my configuration of it against my reading). So from my position of ignorance, all I can do is choose what appears to be the most powerful method of encryption based on my reading. And it's important to note that I'm not merely interested in current security but future security. If you read the article (which I have, incidentally), you find that it discusses only the current state of play, dismissing futuristic code breaking methods (based on quantum computing) as being "years away from being practical." I'm young enough that I can be concerned about what the technology will be fifteen years from now. Fifteen years from now, I intend to be in some quite serious positions in life and I'm discussing things using encryption [i]now[/i] that I may very well not want being brought out even then. As I understand it, a QKDS can give me greater confidence in long term security. I really do get what the article is saying, and I understand it. No point putting up a hundred foot spike instead of a fifty foot spike when in both cases the opponent will go around it. But I have a number of methods by which I try to ensure that my theoretical opponents cannot go around it, so my intent is to guard against any current or future spike removal technology.
In any case, one aspect of the article is wrong - he says it has no commercial future. QKD systems [i]do[/i] offer an advantage and whether only "ignorant" people such as myself consider it worthwhile or not, we'll be buying it.
Regards,
H.
Taking care of the human and physical security is my business. It's the encryption technology that I can't control / verify. So give me encryption that I can trust and I'll be able to assess my security based on the things that I can control / verify myself. Schneier has no business telling me "your set up is flawed so there's no point in giving you secure encryption." It's for me to judge and all I want is to ensure that no weak links come in from outside my control, i.e. a flawed algorithm or technology.
I get what you're saying but I've tried developing with both Django and Joomla (and others). Django is far beyond any other competitor I've tried. It's an absolute joy to work with and extremely well thought out. You're right of course when you say that one-size doesn't fit all, but Django is very, very good. Certainly beats the Hell out of anything I've seen done with PHP frameworks.
Not if they're recording all the data. They have as long as they like - once they've cracked the first one, they'll catch up rapidly. Yes - it's an additional constraint, though.
I'd add to that the OP's extreme opinion as counting against his or her argument. If the OP says: "Open Office's Writer isn't as good as MS Office's Word, there are a few things missing for me," that would be a supportable statement. It might not be universal (most people only use the most basic features of either application), but it can be valid for some. Saying there is a "huge difference in features" I don't think is supportable and makes it look like a troll. They are pretty similar now in feature sets with not a great deal of difference.
Interesting. We're running a Moodle system for our University which replaced Blackboard. It's still spreading in usage across the departments and hasn't hit saturation yet. We're having some scaling problems though. I'm currently trying to find some ways to optimise the code to improve efficiency. We've pretty much thrown all the hardware we can at it without going into the next order of magnitude. Hasn't been helped by the choice of MySQL as a backend imo, but that was after I started and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Google least lock-in? No way - they'll own your calendars, your email accounts, your social networking, your website if you let them... Try shifting your online identity away from Google once you've been with them for a bit. I'm still waiting for the day someone loses their job because their Gmail account is suspended and the person has all their work stuff run through Google. I see some businesses trusting all their data to Google's external servers sometimes! And if the institution is considering Google, they need to ask serious questions about where its hosted, privacy and marketing, etc.
Shifting from one solution to another will always be a substantial piece of work, but if you own the data, it's under your control, it's going to be more viable than a setup where you don't.
Whatever happens to Yahoo, Zimbra wont be going anywhere. It's used, it's liked and it's a viable business. Were Yahoo taken over by a company that produced a rival system (i.e. Microsoft), then there might be some cause for concern long term, but that's not going to happen now. If Zimbra suits your needs, you should go with it. You really don't want to give all your power to a corporation like Google.
If we can now take care of some of the genetic factors that would limit someone in a more primitive society, then we can start emphasizing the factors that provide advantages in a more sophisticated one. If someone is highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive, then that's a reason we want them and it's a plus if a no-longer issue prevents them from passing on their genes.
But your scenario is an edge case anyway. Far more of a factor is that modern medicine allows people who have been harmed through environmental factors to pass on their genes. Much of what you're probably thinking of as "limiting factors" have little to nothing to do with genetics and more to do with environment and life-affecting incidents. So even if you are taking a view on what qualifies someone as worthy of passing on their genes or not (something I recoil from with great speed), modern medicine is not often a factor in keeping these people from passing on their genes.
If there's someone you have a crush on, then you should let them know. It's probably best not to do it when you're drunk (though maybe you'll be more honest if you are), but I don't see much value in paying someone to stop you from telling them.
Actually, because I can't tell how serious or not you're being over the Internet, don't worry about it. I was more puzzled by your post than offended. For clarification, my amazement that such a service is actually offered as a commercial enterprise in Australia isn't so much about people's intelligence, as such, which probably would sound elitist, but more about people living such a life where they're having to keep such a close guard on their tempers and feelings that getting drunk is a serious risk. If you're that angry with your partner about something, you're probably better off telling them so (although not when drunk). Just seems an uncomfortable way to live your life. Possibly that does sound... well, I don't think selfish was the word you should have used, maybe smug. But it's not my intention. It's that it's at the point where people actually need to pay someone to help them keep things bottled up that worries me.
Pal, you are clearly too good at maths. We're going to have to get you a, I don't know, a Fine Arts test filter or something on your Slashdot account.
I'll see your obscure hamster reference and raise you an Ultra Pepe.