If only we could get that fact stated into the parliamentary record.
"Mr speaker, I feel it would be remiss of me to not point out, for the sake of official record, to the parliament and indeed all of my fellow Australians that Senator Conroy's head is, in fact, lodged firmly in his arse."
"Duly noted, the user socceroos is to be thanked for his informative contribution."
My girlfriend is a theoretical, non-human imaginary being you insensitive clod! The government had better not dare try to deprive Nubiliana of her rights!
As a traveler I hare airlines. They are a bunch of snivelling money grubbing slime balls who would never give anyone an inch more room than they paid for in blood.
That said, SWA's response does sound quite reasonable, much as it pains me to admit.
This is one problem I have no issue with. I pine for the days that the Internet had a high signal to noise ratio, but a small footprint of knowledge. Back then, you still had to actually research your desired search term and read up more than just the first 2 results on Google.
Since we are now stuck in an Internet of Facebook tards and contentless blogs, a profusion of junk, in a way, destroys the ability of the average person to read a couple of search results and consider themselves an expert.
Huge amounts of inaccurate information will re-teach us what Google made us lazy enough to forget: Learning requires effort.
You're playing fast and loose with the definition of a fact. If you take your attempt here, then nothing is copyrightable, because it is a "fact" that the writing on the pages of this particular book are what they are, therefor nothing is copyrightable.
You can't just meta factualise the entire universe and render copyright law null.
Maybe, but the damage that can be done by lies is often irreparable. Just ask a doctor or teacher who has been accused but acquitted of sexual crimes. The reputation just cannot be repaired, no matter how comprehensive their vindication may be.
Another part of the problem is the absurd legal system that makes people forget that unforseen risks are just that: unforseen.
If you die in an accident that could have been avoided, but only if someone had foreknowledge of the future, then well, you died expanding humans' knowledge. Accidents, even death, are just a part of life. We need to live with them.
And yes, before some smartass youngun tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm old enough to know what its like losing family members to accidents. I'm not being callous, I've just realized that no amount of hand wringing and fist shaking will bring them back, or even mitigate the feeling of loss. This realization actually makes grief easier to deal with, not harder.
Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech". What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?
The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.
This brings about a good discussion point: I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine. No really, I still use pine. How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet? I recognize that technology has moved forwards, however, I am left wondering how would we move the *values* back to what they were? Was it the massive influx of average people that did this to the Internet community? Or was it the megacorps who eventually found ways to monetize Internet users?
While I live in "modern" city in Australia, I come from South Africa. I grew up in the country. I've traveled extensively in the third world.
I think that am in a position to say that technology and medical advances are not unfettered positives. "Primitive" lifestyles have many benefits no person who'd only ever lived a "modern" lifestyle could ever understand.
No, I won't travel back 100 years and apologize when I come back, I've spent months in "backwards" places, and loved it thankyou very much.
100 years ago we were promised an age of new enlightenment while washing machines, dish washers, vacuum cleaners and other then-cutting edge devices took over all the manual labor that dominated work at that time. Women were supposed to be able to ignore housework and concentrate on childrearing and other higher social activities.
Did that happen? No, the industrial capitalists just found new ways to put us (and now our wives too, who are no longer required for housework thanks to all these appliances) to work for their own insatiable greed. Men and women now work side by side in gigantic cube farms while children rot in day care or roam the streets with little to no guidance from the more experienced members of society.
This is stupid. Anyone able to camp for a month could just go live in the bush. Or draw as much cash as you'd need and go hire a camper van for a month if you're a sissy for the outdoors. Double points if you find a way to park your camper van 100 yards from the offices of the guys holding this competition. Triple points if you wear a disguise and use their lobby toilets every day.
AES and DH are both involved in SSH2 session establishment. An ongoing session uses AES whereas repeatedly logging out and in uses DH repeatedly. The difference between constant sessions and repeated reconnects changes which scheme you rely on more.
I am not comparing apples and unicorns, I'm saying that in a meal consisting of unicorn steak and apple sauce, you have to look at both as when considering the risk of having an allergic reaction to the meal
This is the wrong place to ask. I doubt we'll get a single response from a person on the cutting edge of cryptanalysis who can give you a meaningful answer on the relative strength of Diffe-Hellman vs AES, which is what your question comes down to.
Realistically, it makes no difference. Both mechanisms are highly secure, cutting edge cryptographic systems. I doubt that either have been broken by anyone. If there is someone powerful enough to break those systems *and* keep the discovery secret, they're waaay above the league where they'd be interested in your SSH connections. That is, unless you work for the military of a major world power and are known to be transmitting valuable intel.
The ability to secretly break DH or AES would be such a huge weapon that they wouldn't use it unless the stakes were high enough to risk losing the advantage if their capability were detected. Somehow, I think your connections to your servers aren't that important.
Steve Jobs said that because he'd rather we all bought netbook like devices that had no keyboard, and an OS so crippled that users don't even like it when it's on a *phone*.
Given that, as far as I can tell, the only difference between a laptop and a netbook is size, what he's really saying is that laptops are going to get smaller.
This has the support of both major parties and here in.au we have a de facto two party system. This situation highlights the fact that when western powers go militarily gallivanting around the developing word with armies while brandishing words like "freedom" and "democracy", they're actually engaging in bald-faced lies, because they neither understand those words nor do they desire them.
"But I also don't think just living on a cup of rice a week would be a target goal for a decent standard of living, either."
I never said that, but being from Africa, and traveling extensively in the third world, I can tell you that for the price of a large Big Mac meal, you can feed an entire family well for a week. The price of a single wide screen TV will feed that same family for a year. The price difference between an SUV and a smaller, cheaper, more practical vehicle will feed, clothe and provide sanitation for a village.
If the whole first world gave up unnecessary excess in their car purchases alone, the savings could bring Africa's poorest up to a reasonable standard of living which, at the moment, is light years beyond their reach.
To further illustrate this point, the food that the US throws in the bin (that is, the food scraps off your plate) has enough caloric value (according to the WHO average need per person) to feed all of Africa.
Slashdot Mirror
If only we could get that fact stated into the parliamentary record.
"Mr speaker, I feel it would be remiss of me to not point out, for the sake of official record, to the parliament and indeed all of my fellow Australians that Senator Conroy's head is, in fact, lodged firmly in his arse."
"Duly noted, the user socceroos is to be thanked for his informative contribution."
My girlfriend is a theoretical, non-human imaginary being you insensitive clod! The government had better not dare try to deprive Nubiliana of her rights!
As a traveler I hare airlines. They are a bunch of snivelling money grubbing slime balls who would never give anyone an inch more room than they paid for in blood.
That said, SWA's response does sound quite reasonable, much as it pains me to admit.
This is one problem I have no issue with. I pine for the days that the Internet had a high signal to noise ratio, but a small footprint of knowledge. Back then, you still had to actually research your desired search term and read up more than just the first 2 results on Google.
Since we are now stuck in an Internet of Facebook tards and contentless blogs, a profusion of junk, in a way, destroys the ability of the average person to read a couple of search results and consider themselves an expert.
Huge amounts of inaccurate information will re-teach us what Google made us lazy enough to forget: Learning requires effort.
You're playing fast and loose with the definition of a fact. If you take your attempt here, then nothing is copyrightable, because it is a "fact" that the writing on the pages of this particular book are what they are, therefor nothing is copyrightable.
You can't just meta factualise the entire universe and render copyright law null.
That's not a brief review. That's a comprehensive cover of the movie's entire plot, including a spoiler.
Maybe, but the damage that can be done by lies is often irreparable. Just ask a doctor or teacher who has been accused but acquitted of sexual crimes. The reputation just cannot be repaired, no matter how comprehensive their vindication may be.
Agreed except for "Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours."
More like "be suspicious when one looks after yours because it's totally not in their interests to do so".
Another part of the problem is the absurd legal system that makes people forget that unforseen risks are just that: unforseen.
If you die in an accident that could have been avoided, but only if someone had foreknowledge of the future, then well, you died expanding humans' knowledge. Accidents, even death, are just a part of life. We need to live with them.
And yes, before some smartass youngun tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm old enough to know what its like losing family members to accidents. I'm not being callous, I've just realized that no amount of hand wringing and fist shaking will bring them back, or even mitigate the feeling of loss. This realization actually makes grief easier to deal with, not harder.
"100 years ago, you were stuck where you where, with a life of hard labor, illness and nothing else."
Umm... that describes the vast majority of the working class in the first world.
Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech". What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?
The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.
This brings about a good discussion point: I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine. No really, I still use pine. How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet? I recognize that technology has moved forwards, however, I am left wondering how would we move the *values* back to what they were? Was it the massive influx of average people that did this to the Internet community? Or was it the megacorps who eventually found ways to monetize Internet users?
While I live in "modern" city in Australia, I come from South Africa. I grew up in the country. I've traveled extensively in the third world.
I think that am in a position to say that technology and medical advances are not unfettered positives. "Primitive" lifestyles have many benefits no person who'd only ever lived a "modern" lifestyle could ever understand.
No, I won't travel back 100 years and apologize when I come back, I've spent months in "backwards" places, and loved it thankyou very much.
I'm skeptical about the benefits of AI.
100 years ago we were promised an age of new enlightenment while washing machines, dish washers, vacuum cleaners and other then-cutting edge devices took over all the manual labor that dominated work at that time. Women were supposed to be able to ignore housework and concentrate on childrearing and other higher social activities.
Did that happen? No, the industrial capitalists just found new ways to put us (and now our wives too, who are no longer required for housework thanks to all these appliances) to work for their own insatiable greed. Men and women now work side by side in gigantic cube farms while children rot in day care or roam the streets with little to no guidance from the more experienced members of society.
Nothing moves us backwards faster than progress.
While I'm sure he appreciates your kind words, I think he needs to hear that from Steve himself.
This is stupid. Anyone able to camp for a month could just go live in the bush. Or draw as much cash as you'd need and go hire a camper van for a month if you're a sissy for the outdoors. Double points if you find a way to park your camper van 100 yards from the offices of the guys holding this competition. Triple points if you wear a disguise and use their lobby toilets every day.
AES and DH are both involved in SSH2 session establishment. An ongoing session uses AES whereas repeatedly logging out and in uses DH repeatedly. The difference between constant sessions and repeated reconnects changes which scheme you rely on more.
I am not comparing apples and unicorns, I'm saying that in a meal consisting of unicorn steak and apple sauce, you have to look at both as when considering the risk of having an allergic reaction to the meal
Also, your use of "your" is incorrect.
This is the wrong place to ask. I doubt we'll get a single response from a person on the cutting edge of cryptanalysis who can give you a meaningful answer on the relative strength of Diffe-Hellman vs AES, which is what your question comes down to.
Realistically, it makes no difference. Both mechanisms are highly secure, cutting edge cryptographic systems. I doubt that either have been broken by anyone. If there is someone powerful enough to break those systems *and* keep the discovery secret, they're waaay above the league where they'd be interested in your SSH connections. That is, unless you work for the military of a major world power and are known to be transmitting valuable intel.
The ability to secretly break DH or AES would be such a huge weapon that they wouldn't use it unless the stakes were high enough to risk losing the advantage if their capability were detected. Somehow, I think your connections to your servers aren't that important.
Do what the lefties did. Open a shop for your market. You could call it the Octaldactylorium.
Steve Jobs said that because he'd rather we all bought netbook like devices that had no keyboard, and an OS so crippled that users don't even like it when it's on a *phone*.
Given that, as far as I can tell, the only difference between a laptop and a netbook is size, what he's really saying is that laptops are going to get smaller.
Could this man, perhaps, be a captain of some sort?
That's the idea.
This has the support of both major parties and here in .au we have a de facto two party system. This situation highlights the fact that when western powers go militarily gallivanting around the developing word with armies while brandishing words like "freedom" and "democracy", they're actually engaging in bald-faced lies, because they neither understand those words nor do they desire them.
"reliable and accurate information on Internet"
Best. Oxymoron. Ever.
"But I also don't think just living on a cup of rice a week would be a target goal for a decent standard of living, either."
I never said that, but being from Africa, and traveling extensively in the third world, I can tell you that for the price of a large Big Mac meal, you can feed an entire family well for a week. The price of a single wide screen TV will feed that same family for a year. The price difference between an SUV and a smaller, cheaper, more practical vehicle will feed, clothe and provide sanitation for a village.
If the whole first world gave up unnecessary excess in their car purchases alone, the savings could bring Africa's poorest up to a reasonable standard of living which, at the moment, is light years beyond their reach.
To further illustrate this point, the food that the US throws in the bin (that is, the food scraps off your plate) has enough caloric value (according to the WHO average need per person) to feed all of Africa.
Or promoted, for being sensible.