There's no need to encrypt it that far. A single pass with AES256 should be sufficient. There is no reason to believe that there is any organization on Earth (the NSA included) that can break AES.
If you're willing to go to the "insane" methods you talk about, then you're in the sort of inconvenience level where using one time pads would be worthwhile. You can transfer around gigabytes of OTP material relatively easily and securely these days. I mean you can hide one of those 4gb Micro SD cards just about anywhere, resistant even to a strip search. I mean, who's going to check the inside of your pee hole?
There we go people. Social commentary on the relative merits of sex, relationships and child rearing.
Brought to you by the wisdom of Slashdot's Anonymous Coward community.
Actually, as far as I know, plant based substrates are known as epoxys. While they have similar properties to plastics, they have a few differences. Most notably at this stage is that they cannot be as easily recycled directly. However, they can fairly easily be broken down, so I guess recycling could be breaking them down and using them as fertilizer on the next crop.
Natural plants do things far more effectively and efficiently than industrial plants (pun intended).
Sacrificing access to *all* electronics is not an option in reality. If you're going to make such a sacrifice, you'd pretty much have to also sacrifice just about all brands of clothes and shoes.
Saying "do without electronics" is a deliberately obtuse response to my point.
What does the ubiquity of unfair pay in electronics manufacturing have to do with his point, other than reinforcing it?
IOW, the fact that there are no "fairly" produced products in the electronics world and even people who are sensitive to this issue have no option but to buy parts that were manufactured by armies of workers on a pittance wage strengthens the point of the GP and the GGGP.
It's open to debate whether hordes of robotic cyborgs efficiently killing all human life is worse than hordes of malware infected devices spamming the Internet.
the fact that sweatshops are the only option to many is because stronger foreign companies have been allowed into the domestic markets, destroyed previously functioning economies and essentially turned the local economies into a gigantic factory.
I probably could be convinced to live with the destruction of the local economic ecosystem, if a fair share of the profits stayed in the country, or if the WTO wasn't used as a big stick to stop governments from preventing this from happening.
So no, sweatshop bashing is quite validly in that package because it the sweatshop phenomenon is just another, run of the mill economic exploitation method.
Democracy is not a form of government, it is a conception of social order, it is the structural manifestation of libertarianism, and capitalism is the economic face of libertarianism. They are all tightly related.
As for denying that the US engages in exploitation of the third world, perhaps a trip to your local library and some light reading in geopolitical history may be enlightening. Try to following keywords:
Then perhaps look at the way USAID operates, the "conditions" placed upon nations that receive its aid, and the results over the last few decades. Perhaps you'll slowly realize that USAID is really just a program of bribing local tinpots to allow US economic interests pillage the locals. Its then easy to point the finger and say "Hey, well, the locals are suffering because the guy we gave the aid to stole it, our expatriation of profits has nothing to do with it."
Well, US foreign policy is pretty much a rickrolling exercise.
<US> Become democratic, open your markets and your economy will flourish. <Poor_Country> That sounds great, we'll give that a shot. * US companies then enter and ravage what little wealth the locals have, expatriating funds and enslaving previously subsistent worker. <US> Haha gotcha! <Poor_Country>:(
Lol,we established a republic,not a democracy.Clue up.
Democracy, the word coing from Greek, literally, means "rule by the people". It is not a specific governmental structure. "Republic" refers to a particular set of characteristics that define a type of government. Thus, a republic can be democratic. That's what "of the people, by the people and for the people" means; a republic with democratic characteristics.
This points out the obviousness that the US government is no longer bound by the tenets of what was called "democracy", a concept that is fundamentally at odds with the concept of "sovereignty".
In a so-called democracy, the executive is only authorized to carry out the instructions of the legislature, and is subject to the judiciary in doing so.
If the courts are saying that the executive can break the laws set by the legislature, and are only subject to courts when they, the executive, consent to it, then the power being invested in the executive is that of the old notion of King as appointed by God as supreme authority over the land, whose word is Law and not subject to question.
Given this development, things like warrantless wiretapping are not even the tip of the iceberg, they're a tiny lump of seagull shit on top of the tip of the iceberg.
How long do you think the price will stay at $14.99 when there is an industry that knows that there can be no further entrants?
One round of consolidation will give you a small cartel of companies that will take turns raising the price, just as any other high barrier to entry industry (oil is a good example, as is banking in many countries such as Australia).
If you look up, you will see my point hanging from the ceiling above you. Take it down, and have a second attempt at not missing it.
CAs prevent "phishing" attacks, and other attacks where a site impersonates another site. I'm saying that this risk profile does not apply to everyone, and forcing those to whom it does not apply is unfair.
And that's assuming that a CA system is even effective at this risk profile, which I also contest.
CAs are total ripoffs. Either we only allow trustworth CAs in the list, or we allow them all. Here are the results:
a) A small, highly cliqueish cabal of "trusted" operators who, by necessity, must prevent new entrants into the market for CA services, lest the web of trust be broken. RESULT: Webmasters are all screwed by the ridiculous prices for certs that will inevitably result from the monopoly or cartel, ultimately meaning fewer web sites can afford security at all and either stop operating or just don't use security. b) A highly diffuse CA industry that has no trust anyway, thus serving no purpose but to annoy web masters and users who must register with some two bit shitty company for a perfunctory cert that they could sign themselves.
Both options suck if you ask me.
Down with CAs. They are not necessary. Customers should just learn not to buy from www.amaz0n.com
Why is there a need for a whole business around this? Where's the whole industry preventing me from walking into a dark warehouse in a nasty part of town with a large sheet of carboard and a target logo drawn on it in crayon? It's called common sense. If you're going somewhere to spend money, exercise caution.
Caveat emptor. Just because it's in Latin doesn't mean it's irrelevant in the modern world.
How about * All sites for whom authenticity is a non-issue and data security is the only concern?
This policy adds an unnecessary and arbitrary cost to sites for whom the risk profile does not match the protections offered by authoritative CAs, forcing them to buy a product that they do not need.
Oh, and don't bother retorting that "they're not forced", let me preemptively shoot down that silliness right now.
The resolutions that matter are Security Council resolutions. These are the resolutions that can authorize the use of force (such as expelling Iraq from Kuwait).
Vetoes only apply at the Security Council. You are also ignoring the many Security Council resolutions vetoed by the Russians & Chinese on behalf of their Arab/Muslim client states.
Research this, you'll find the number of security council resolutions vetoed by the US on behalf of Israel vastly outnumbers the number of vetos by other nations (and by vastly, we're talking something like 100 for the US, 2 for Russia).
As a sovereign nation, Iran signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to its terms. Iran didn't have to do that. Having signed, Iran has deliberately, repeatedly violated the NPT.
Sorry, no cheese for you. Saying that Iran is in violation of the NPT is like saying Iraq had WMDs. Sorry, the world doesn't believe the BS spewed by the US and Israeli intelligence fabrication services any more.
While it is possible to criticize the policies of Israel without being antisemitic (and you might be one of these people), the vast majority of the critics of Israel criticize Israel because they hate jews.
Totally untrue. Incidentally, if the entire world hates Jews, does that reflect a problem with the entire world, or with the way the Jews interact with the entire world?
Here's an example. A black man is driving 10 mph over the speed limit, gets pulled over by a cop, and is given a ticket. Is this a racist act? The driver was speeding - doesn't sound racist to me. However, day after day, this cop only pulls over black drivers to give them speeding tickets. The cop ignores white drivers who travel 50 or 100 mph over the speed limit.
Straw man, totally irrelevant and inapplicable analogy. Are you saying that the world is only critical of Israel? Please point me to some evidence that the mass media is critical of Israel and forgiving of everyone else. And I mean examples from Fox, CNN, BBC etc, not some niche market circular from your local mosque.
So, how do you feel about those who carry out politics in the name of Islam? How do you feel about those who carry out violence in the name of Islam?
I disagree with them, and I find it interesting that it was YOU that drew an analogy between terrorists and the state of Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need to encrypt it that far. A single pass with AES256 should be sufficient. There is no reason to believe that there is any organization on Earth (the NSA included) that can break AES.
If you're willing to go to the "insane" methods you talk about, then you're in the sort of inconvenience level where using one time pads would be worthwhile. You can transfer around gigabytes of OTP material relatively easily and securely these days. I mean you can hide one of those 4gb Micro SD cards just about anywhere, resistant even to a strip search. I mean, who's going to check the inside of your pee hole?
There we go people. Social commentary on the relative merits of sex, relationships and child rearing. Brought to you by the wisdom of Slashdot's Anonymous Coward community.
I fail at clicking "Post Anonymously".
English 101:
ïTHEIR != THERE != THEY'RE
Here's the lesson.
Here's a pop quiz for practice.
Brought to you by Slashdot's official AC English tutor.
Or "Iraq has WMDs". We'll find the proof when we invade.
Actually, as far as I know, plant based substrates are known as epoxys. While they have similar properties to plastics, they have a few differences. Most notably at this stage is that they cannot be as easily recycled directly. However, they can fairly easily be broken down, so I guess recycling could be breaking them down and using them as fertilizer on the next crop.
Natural plants do things far more effectively and efficiently than industrial plants (pun intended).
Sacrificing access to *all* electronics is not an option in reality. If you're going to make such a sacrifice, you'd pretty much have to also sacrifice just about all brands of clothes and shoes.
Saying "do without electronics" is a deliberately obtuse response to my point.
In the modern world, living without electronics is not an option realistically. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
What does the ubiquity of unfair pay in electronics manufacturing have to do with his point, other than reinforcing it?
IOW, the fact that there are no "fairly" produced products in the electronics world and even people who are sensitive to this issue have no option but to buy parts that were manufactured by armies of workers on a pittance wage strengthens the point of the GP and the GGGP.
+5 Awesomely appropriate, and perfectly executed movie reference.
It's open to debate whether hordes of robotic cyborgs efficiently killing all human life is worse than hordes of malware infected devices spamming the Internet.
Actually, it's not.
the fact that sweatshops are the only option to many is because stronger foreign companies have been allowed into the domestic markets, destroyed previously functioning economies and essentially turned the local economies into a gigantic factory.
I probably could be convinced to live with the destruction of the local economic ecosystem, if a fair share of the profits stayed in the country, or if the WTO wasn't used as a big stick to stop governments from preventing this from happening.
So no, sweatshop bashing is quite validly in that package because it the sweatshop phenomenon is just another, run of the mill economic exploitation method.
Democracy is not a form of government, it is a conception of social order, it is the structural manifestation of libertarianism, and capitalism is the economic face of libertarianism. They are all tightly related.
As for denying that the US engages in exploitation of the third world, perhaps a trip to your local library and some light reading in geopolitical history may be enlightening. Try to following keywords:
* Bechtel Bolivia water
* Pfizer Nigeria illegal trial
* Nike sweatshop Asia
* UFC Chile
* Chile copper Allende assassination
Then perhaps look at the way USAID operates, the "conditions" placed upon nations that receive its aid, and the results over the last few decades. Perhaps you'll slowly realize that USAID is really just a program of bribing local tinpots to allow US economic interests pillage the locals. Its then easy to point the finger and say "Hey, well, the locals are suffering because the guy we gave the aid to stole it, our expatriation of profits has nothing to do with it."
Get your head out of the sand.
Well, US foreign policy is pretty much a rickrolling exercise.
<US> Become democratic, open your markets and your economy will flourish. :(
<Poor_Country> That sounds great, we'll give that a shot.
* US companies then enter and ravage what little wealth the locals have, expatriating funds and enslaving previously subsistent worker.
<US> Haha gotcha!
<Poor_Country>
Democracy, the word coing from Greek, literally, means "rule by the people". It is not a specific governmental structure. "Republic" refers to a particular set of characteristics that define a type of government. Thus, a republic can be democratic. That's what "of the people, by the people and for the people" means; a republic with democratic characteristics.
This is NOT off topic.
This points out the obviousness that the US government is no longer bound by the tenets of what was called "democracy", a concept that is fundamentally at odds with the concept of "sovereignty".
In a so-called democracy, the executive is only authorized to carry out the instructions of the legislature, and is subject to the judiciary in doing so.
If the courts are saying that the executive can break the laws set by the legislature, and are only subject to courts when they, the executive, consent to it, then the power being invested in the executive is that of the old notion of King as appointed by God as supreme authority over the land, whose word is Law and not subject to question.
Given this development, things like warrantless wiretapping are not even the tip of the iceberg, they're a tiny lump of seagull shit on top of the tip of the iceberg.
Which CA do you use for your SSH sessions?
How long do you think the price will stay at $14.99 when there is an industry that knows that there can be no further entrants?
One round of consolidation will give you a small cartel of companies that will take turns raising the price, just as any other high barrier to entry industry (oil is a good example, as is banking in many countries such as Australia).
If you look up, you will see my point hanging from the ceiling above you. Take it down, and have a second attempt at not missing it.
CAs prevent "phishing" attacks, and other attacks where a site impersonates another site. I'm saying that this risk profile does not apply to everyone, and forcing those to whom it does not apply is unfair.
And that's assuming that a CA system is even effective at this risk profile, which I also contest.
I tihnrd this complaint.
CAs are total ripoffs. Either we only allow trustworth CAs in the list, or we allow them all. Here are the results:
a) A small, highly cliqueish cabal of "trusted" operators who, by necessity, must prevent new entrants into the market for CA services, lest the web of trust be broken. RESULT: Webmasters are all screwed by the ridiculous prices for certs that will inevitably result from the monopoly or cartel, ultimately meaning fewer web sites can afford security at all and either stop operating or just don't use security.
b) A highly diffuse CA industry that has no trust anyway, thus serving no purpose but to annoy web masters and users who must register with some two bit shitty company for a perfunctory cert that they could sign themselves.
Both options suck if you ask me.
Down with CAs. They are not necessary. Customers should just learn not to buy from www.amaz0n.com
Why is there a need for a whole business around this? Where's the whole industry preventing me from walking into a dark warehouse in a nasty part of town with a large sheet of carboard and a target logo drawn on it in crayon? It's called common sense. If you're going somewhere to spend money, exercise caution.
Caveat emptor. Just because it's in Latin doesn't mean it's irrelevant in the modern world.
How about
* All sites for whom authenticity is a non-issue and data security is the only concern?
This policy adds an unnecessary and arbitrary cost to sites for whom the risk profile does not match the protections offered by authoritative CAs, forcing them to buy a product that they do not need.
Oh, and don't bother retorting that "they're not forced", let me preemptively shoot down that silliness right now.
And of course, they are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Although I do see your point, Mr Strawman.
Like these ones?
Research this, you'll find the number of security council resolutions vetoed by the US on behalf of Israel vastly outnumbers the number of vetos by other nations (and by vastly, we're talking something like 100 for the US, 2 for Russia).
Sorry, no cheese for you. Saying that Iran is in violation of the NPT is like saying Iraq had WMDs. Sorry, the world doesn't believe the BS spewed by the US and Israeli intelligence fabrication services any more.
Totally untrue. Incidentally, if the entire world hates Jews, does that reflect a problem with the entire world, or with the way the Jews interact with the entire world?
Straw man, totally irrelevant and inapplicable analogy. Are you saying that the world is only critical of Israel? Please point me to some evidence that the mass media is critical of Israel and forgiving of everyone else. And I mean examples from Fox, CNN, BBC etc, not some niche market circular from your local mosque.
I disagree with them, and I find it interesting that it was YOU that drew an analogy between terrorists and the state of Israel.
Like this?
The UN is dedicated to enacting resolutions against Israel?
Huh?
Victim complex, anyone?