Yep, Scientific American is as sad and pathetic as the name implies.
Everything wrong with American science education and the general level of science awareness and knowledge of the American populace is distilled and fermented (that MUST be where the delay comes from) then spewed onto the pages this once great, but not any more, rag.
Great breadth and depth across science and medicine. Very quick in getting stories out on new developments. And most of their articles provide links to the original research paper or news release.
Nature abhors a naked Singularity. Perhaps this is a necessary step for humanity to reach the Singularity. An event horizon must form across which no information can pass.
OK, and how much is the no contract price for service monthly? Including the unlimited data plan, etc. that you will need to pay for to get the equivalent service from your FreeRunner?
Get back to me with a full cost comparison for equivalent level of service and functionality and we'll talk.
Um..except for the fact that you kinda have to have a contract with somebody to use it anyway. Since none of the carriers is going to give you that subsidy money in cash, or lower contract prices, you are pretty much just giving your carrier a big fat payday by going with a non-subsidized phone. And in fact, you are paying the extra by not being able to take advantage of the subsidy.
Since most people become semi-religious about their carrier, and very few people swap carriers on time frames shorter than the contract period, there really isn't any advantage, cost wise, to going with a no contract phone.
Love your sig. I lost my 4 digit several years ago. Bad thing is, I was only using three different passwords in rotation back then, but none of them work. *sigh* What I get for trying to be 'ultra secure' by coming up with a new one I guess.
Oh, so in other words, all this does is create a huge market for constantly original child porn instead of all the same old 70's nudist images floating around?
The idea...it's brilliant!
And the Senate will decide that there is no liability for the home manufacturer when they provide the 'complimentary drug analysis' to the DEA on request with no warrant.
You must be a blessed man. I tried this idea, and not only did she turn out not to be silent (far from it) but the on-going maintenance costs were way beyond what I thought the initial purchase price was going to be.
Even worse, the divorce and replacement costs would be enough to bankrupt me, so I'm stuck with this old model.
Oliver is being held without bail, a police statement said, because he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in San Diego and was on parole when Dodele was killed.
Gee, it sure seems like the guy convicted of assault with a deadly weapon had a much higher recidivism rate. Not to mention that the guy he killed never molested a child, or a male. Maybe we should just have an offender registry that lists everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime? After all, maybe you don't want to buy that house on the same block as the lady who has received 5 speeding tickets... your kids wouldn't be safe in the front yard. After all speeders are notoriously recidivist, and the cause of many highway fatalities.
Your point, is only the point that anyone who has been interested in privacy protection in the last several thousand years has discovered and brought up. It boils down to the fact that if you are using encryption to protect your privacy, and you are one of a very few people doing so, then it is very obvious that you are hiding something. To anyone interested in you, they are naturally going to wonder what you are hiding, and try to force you to reveal it.
One of the very first PGP How-Tos I ever read mentioned that sending regular emails was like sending all your messages written on postcards, and PGP was like putting it in an envelope. It went on to discuss the hazard of being the only person mailing envelopes, when everyone else was content with postcards, and used that illustration to try to get the reader to get everyone on their address book using PGP for every message.
Your complaint, and proposed solution, is just that there be ubiquitous encryption so that one person who really wants or needs it doesn't stand out from the crowd by using something that is obviously different from "normal". You, just like the original writer of that long-ago How-To, are completely correct, however, just like him, you are doomed to disappointment. Until you can either get the majority of people to stop using Microsoft OS, or get Microsoft to include secure encryption, with no government back-door, turned on by default, anyone using any form of encryption is going to stand out when investigators come knocking. And yes, you can build your own linux distro with these features, but as you point out, could you even get a significant number of linux users to move to it, let alone the masses of people it would take for it to be consideered 'normal'? Not only that, but even if everyone was using envelopes, they would still know that you used an envelope, and would want the key to open it.
So, is the solution to just sit back and whine that you can't use encryption, because all the other poopy-heads won't use it, or can you do something else to allow yourself some privacy, and ability to deny wrong doing?
That is where Truecrypt comes in. Plausible deniability does not mean that they can't tell you are using encryption. No one has come up with a reliable way to do that (steganography) that doesn't still need something at either end to encode and decode that message, and that is a tip off to outsiders. You can hide the encryption in transit, but at the write and read points, you will have to have something to interpret it. Yes, TrueCrypt will be a tip off that you are using encryption, and it may be known for having the ability for hidden volumes. The key is that there is no way to prove there is a hidden volume. No matter what you do, you can't hide that you are using encryption. They can always prove that you are using it, and force you to reveal your key. But they can not prove you have a hidden volume. Thus you have the ability to plausibly deny that there is a hidden volume, and they cannot know if you are lying or not, unlike any attempt to deny using cryptography at all.
In addition, with the tools TrueCrypt gives you, and some intelligent planning, you can go a long way to increase your deniability. Your encrypted volume can be named anything... say... pagefile.sys on a secondary drive. Yes, someone who is really looking for things, and is good, may check your windows settings to see, if in fact, you have a multigig pagefile setup on that drive, but in itself it would not raise red flags. And you can always claim that you had that pagefile setup in a previous OS installation and it never got removed when you re-installed (I haven't yet found any other common, multigig binary file that would work). Run Truecrypt off a USB drive, or CD labeled as something completely different. Is an investigator going to scan everything on every CD near your computer? NSA probably, but not your local cop shop. The
Dr. Pournelle is absolutely correct, and he is correct that he hasn't had anything decent published recently. I am sure, as he notes, that he ekes out a meager living on residuals and reprints. The last Pournelle reprint I bought, a "The Mote In God's Eye" recent edition, fell apart before I was half way through the book. So, while I do not support downloading and reading his material for free when it is published on the net without his permission, I had zero qualms about buying a third printing edition from the local used book seller. As long as Pournelle supports the publication of his works in an utterly crappy product, I consider him a hypocrite of the highest order.
When you want to leech off me by forcing me to re-buy your book every time I want to re-read it, that is unreasonable. The entire reason I was buying a second copy, was because my original copy got worn out from re-reading and all of the moves over time. I look forward to enjoying my ewest copy for the next several years as well.
Actually, it's more that there is stuff everywhere else that interferes with the radiation we are detecting (the CMB) and in this region nothing is interfering with it, and we are seeing that not-interfered with radiation getting to us through the region. Actually there's stuff in front of and behind this area, it just that we can see those things through and in front of it, and determine their amount of interference.
That explanation is wrong on so many technical levels, I am sure I'll get roasted, but for a good lay description, it does the job.
Also, it's wrong to think of this as a "hole". Galaxies, and matter, seem to be distributed through space similar to the way liquid is distributed through foam, i.e. think the head on a beer, with the interior of the bubbles being empty space and the matter forming the surface of the bubbles. The standard model, and variations of String Theory, etc., all predict different values for the largest "bubble" that should be possible in this "foam". This observed void is much larger than any of the current theories suggest should be possible.
Your sparkling personality? I mean really, social networking sites aren't being used by people to find new friends and create new networks. Most of the folks I know on MS/FB have their list of friends filled with people they know and have met, at parties, at school, at work, etc. There are a couple who accept every single random friend request they get, but they are really pretty rare, at least in my group.
And to all the folks that whine about the information having to be updated in each and every different network, and no way for someone without a login to see the information, there is nothing stopping you from doing it the old fashioned way. Actually pay for webhosting, put your one and only, single site up that anyone with web access can see, and then, if you want to take advantage of the social networking sites, post a link to you webpage in your profile on each one. That way, you only have to update your main site, and for your few friends who care, they can click through and see what you've changed lately.
The reason these sites have taken off, and traditional websites have pretty much failed in the personal, non-commercial realm, is that setting up and changing your info is quick and easy, it's free, and once your particular group of friends settles on a single network, there really isn't a need to be on a lot of different networks.
Your powers of self-delusion and self-contradiction are truly impressive.
If you can sit there and in a few moments think of these things on your own, why in the world do you think the 'enemies' can't do it? I am sure that the 'enemies' have people just as sophisticated and intelligent as you. Digitally altering video backgrounds proves that. Many of them are probably/. regulars, and many are educated in western colleges. The press making a comment is not going to be the tip off to them on how to use technology to deceive you.
But, then, in your own post, you propose several very good ideas that an unsophisticated enemy might not have thought of, and that were never mentioned, or certainly not to the detail you went into, in any press story I've seen. And then have the gall to lambast the press for aiding the enemy, when your own post would be far more helpful to a lurking al-quaida member!
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, Scientific American is as sad and pathetic as the name implies.
Everything wrong with American science education and the general level of science awareness and knowledge of the American populace is distilled and fermented (that MUST be where the delay comes from) then spewed onto the pages this once great, but not any more, rag.
One of my main sources is the RSS feed and website of PhysOrg. http://www.physorg.com/
Great breadth and depth across science and medicine. Very quick in getting stories out on new developments. And most of their articles provide links to the original research paper or news release.
A hundred years from now we'll be talking about paying reparations to packets that were discriminated against.
Hey, the way I look at it, if they provide them... Free Shirts!
Sennheiser HD 201... nuff said. The price is about the same as the Grado's, but the Grado's cause too much 'blooming' on strong bass lines.
my $0.02.
Nature abhors a naked Singularity. Perhaps this is a necessary step for humanity to reach the Singularity. An event horizon must form across which no information can pass.
You mean, until now, you actually thought you were getting more daylight?
Why in the world would I possibly ever want to use my cell phone as a router?
OK, and how much is the no contract price for service monthly? Including the unlimited data plan, etc. that you will need to pay for to get the equivalent service from your FreeRunner?
Get back to me with a full cost comparison for equivalent level of service and functionality and we'll talk.
Um..except for the fact that you kinda have to have a contract with somebody to use it anyway. Since none of the carriers is going to give you that subsidy money in cash, or lower contract prices, you are pretty much just giving your carrier a big fat payday by going with a non-subsidized phone. And in fact, you are paying the extra by not being able to take advantage of the subsidy.
Since most people become semi-religious about their carrier, and very few people swap carriers on time frames shorter than the contract period, there really isn't any advantage, cost wise, to going with a no contract phone.
They may be the lesser of two weevils... but they're still all a bunch of maggots.
Love your sig. I lost my 4 digit several years ago. Bad thing is, I was only using three different passwords in rotation back then, but none of them work. *sigh* What I get for trying to be 'ultra secure' by coming up with a new one I guess.
Oh, so in other words, all this does is create a huge market for constantly original child porn instead of all the same old 70's nudist images floating around? The idea...it's brilliant!
I read that as they should have let MirrorMask design it for them. Now that would be freaky!
And the Senate will decide that there is no liability for the home manufacturer when they provide the 'complimentary drug analysis' to the DEA on request with no warrant.
Yeah. The only part of this that I find really believable about features in a "House of Tomorrow" is the $15 Million price tag.
Yeah, but turning Pi upside down gets the floor messy.
Actually, the Universe has no other purpose than to provide me entertainment. Luckily, even the doubters like you help it succeed admirably.
"If there's anything more important than my ego
around, I want it caught and shot now."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox
You must be a blessed man. I tried this idea, and not only did she turn out not to be silent (far from it) but the on-going maintenance costs were way beyond what I thought the initial purchase price was going to be.
Even worse, the divorce and replacement costs would be enough to bankrupt me, so I'm stuck with this old model.
From the article:
Gee, it sure seems like the guy convicted of assault with a deadly weapon had a much higher recidivism rate. Not to mention that the guy he killed never molested a child, or a male. Maybe we should just have an offender registry that lists everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime? After all, maybe you don't want to buy that house on the same block as the lady who has received 5 speeding tickets... your kids wouldn't be safe in the front yard. After all speeders are notoriously recidivist, and the cause of many highway fatalities.
Your point, is only the point that anyone who has been interested in privacy protection in the last several thousand years has discovered and brought up. It boils down to the fact that if you are using encryption to protect your privacy, and you are one of a very few people doing so, then it is very obvious that you are hiding something. To anyone interested in you, they are naturally going to wonder what you are hiding, and try to force you to reveal it.
One of the very first PGP How-Tos I ever read mentioned that sending regular emails was like sending all your messages written on postcards, and PGP was like putting it in an envelope. It went on to discuss the hazard of being the only person mailing envelopes, when everyone else was content with postcards, and used that illustration to try to get the reader to get everyone on their address book using PGP for every message.
Your complaint, and proposed solution, is just that there be ubiquitous encryption so that one person who really wants or needs it doesn't stand out from the crowd by using something that is obviously different from "normal". You, just like the original writer of that long-ago How-To, are completely correct, however, just like him, you are doomed to disappointment. Until you can either get the majority of people to stop using Microsoft OS, or get Microsoft to include secure encryption, with no government back-door, turned on by default, anyone using any form of encryption is going to stand out when investigators come knocking. And yes, you can build your own linux distro with these features, but as you point out, could you even get a significant number of linux users to move to it, let alone the masses of people it would take for it to be consideered 'normal'? Not only that, but even if everyone was using envelopes, they would still know that you used an envelope, and would want the key to open it.
So, is the solution to just sit back and whine that you can't use encryption, because all the other poopy-heads won't use it, or can you do something else to allow yourself some privacy, and ability to deny wrong doing?
That is where Truecrypt comes in. Plausible deniability does not mean that they can't tell you are using encryption. No one has come up with a reliable way to do that (steganography) that doesn't still need something at either end to encode and decode that message, and that is a tip off to outsiders. You can hide the encryption in transit, but at the write and read points, you will have to have something to interpret it. Yes, TrueCrypt will be a tip off that you are using encryption, and it may be known for having the ability for hidden volumes. The key is that there is no way to prove there is a hidden volume. No matter what you do, you can't hide that you are using encryption. They can always prove that you are using it, and force you to reveal your key. But they can not prove you have a hidden volume. Thus you have the ability to plausibly deny that there is a hidden volume, and they cannot know if you are lying or not, unlike any attempt to deny using cryptography at all.
In addition, with the tools TrueCrypt gives you, and some intelligent planning, you can go a long way to increase your deniability. Your encrypted volume can be named anything... say... pagefile.sys on a secondary drive. Yes, someone who is really looking for things, and is good, may check your windows settings to see, if in fact, you have a multigig pagefile setup on that drive, but in itself it would not raise red flags. And you can always claim that you had that pagefile setup in a previous OS installation and it never got removed when you re-installed (I haven't yet found any other common, multigig binary file that would work). Run Truecrypt off a USB drive, or CD labeled as something completely different. Is an investigator going to scan everything on every CD near your computer? NSA probably, but not your local cop shop. The
Dr. Pournelle is absolutely correct, and he is correct that he hasn't had anything decent published recently. I am sure, as he notes, that he ekes out a meager living on residuals and reprints. The last Pournelle reprint I bought, a "The Mote In God's Eye" recent edition, fell apart before I was half way through the book. So, while I do not support downloading and reading his material for free when it is published on the net without his permission, I had zero qualms about buying a third printing edition from the local used book seller. As long as Pournelle supports the publication of his works in an utterly crappy product, I consider him a hypocrite of the highest order.
When you want to leech off me by forcing me to re-buy your book every time I want to re-read it, that is unreasonable. The entire reason I was buying a second copy, was because my original copy got worn out from re-reading and all of the moves over time. I look forward to enjoying my ewest copy for the next several years as well.
Actually, it's more that there is stuff everywhere else that interferes with the radiation we are detecting (the CMB) and in this region nothing is interfering with it, and we are seeing that not-interfered with radiation getting to us through the region. Actually there's stuff in front of and behind this area, it just that we can see those things through and in front of it, and determine their amount of interference.
That explanation is wrong on so many technical levels, I am sure I'll get roasted, but for a good lay description, it does the job.
Also, it's wrong to think of this as a "hole". Galaxies, and matter, seem to be distributed through space similar to the way liquid is distributed through foam, i.e. think the head on a beer, with the interior of the bubbles being empty space and the matter forming the surface of the bubbles. The standard model, and variations of String Theory, etc., all predict different values for the largest "bubble" that should be possible in this "foam". This observed void is much larger than any of the current theories suggest should be possible.
Your sparkling personality? I mean really, social networking sites aren't being used by people to find new friends and create new networks. Most of the folks I know on MS/FB have their list of friends filled with people they know and have met, at parties, at school, at work, etc. There are a couple who accept every single random friend request they get, but they are really pretty rare, at least in my group.
And to all the folks that whine about the information having to be updated in each and every different network, and no way for someone without a login to see the information, there is nothing stopping you from doing it the old fashioned way. Actually pay for webhosting, put your one and only, single site up that anyone with web access can see, and then, if you want to take advantage of the social networking sites, post a link to you webpage in your profile on each one. That way, you only have to update your main site, and for your few friends who care, they can click through and see what you've changed lately.
The reason these sites have taken off, and traditional websites have pretty much failed in the personal, non-commercial realm, is that setting up and changing your info is quick and easy, it's free, and once your particular group of friends settles on a single network, there really isn't a need to be on a lot of different networks.
Your powers of self-delusion and self-contradiction are truly impressive.
If you can sit there and in a few moments think of these things on your own, why in the world do you think the 'enemies' can't do it? I am sure that the 'enemies' have people just as sophisticated and intelligent as you. Digitally altering video backgrounds proves that. Many of them are probably
But, then, in your own post, you propose several very good ideas that an unsophisticated enemy might not have thought of, and that were never mentioned, or certainly not to the detail you went into, in any press story I've seen. And then have the gall to lambast the press for aiding the enemy, when your own post would be far more helpful to a lurking al-quaida member!
You sir, are a true piece of work.