Earth has been hit by large asteroids before, not large enough to decimate the planet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen ever. Comets hit us and every other planet all the time; big ones too. In 94 Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter, that one was suposed to be over a mile wide before it broke into pieces. Earth has had close calls before, in 89 an asteroid a half a mile wide came within 400,000 miles of us. Seems like a large distance, but considering the whole of space, pretty fucking close. It's not a very likely situation, but at the same time it's not unreasonable to believe it could happen within our lifetime. Earth doesn't even have to be all out destroyed for an impact to be a signifigant problem. There are enviornmental repercussions, to say nothing of whoever happens to be under it.
Given the immense damage possible, how is a couple nasa guys brainstorming, or a study being done, constitute being blown out of proportion? Knowones panicing about the what ifs, just trying to answer them.
We can put a man on the moon so why has noone stood on the bottom of the ocean?
Actually in 1960, the US Navy sent the Trieste with 3 Navy personel to 'Challenger Deep' at the southern end of the Marianas Trench. At 10,920m (about 7 miles) deep it is the deepest known point on the planet.
Also what do you mean it's a simple tech problem?? Are you nuts? It's a fucking immense tech problem. Your talking about changing the trajectory of a piece of rock that could concievably be the size of a fucking state. In space where there's no stabilizing solid like the earth to exert on it's a serios problem. And why is this all of a sudden an either/or type thing? Do you think the people that know astrophysics are the same people that understand world economics??
Statistically it's gonna happen eventually. When it does what do you want the reaction to be, "hey, didn't they build something for that a while back..." or "uh....fuck". Knowones saying if we don't do this right now were all gonna die so throw your arms in the air and run screaming it's the apocylipse blah blah blah. But it's something to think about. Were not the first species that reigned supreme on this planet, but I'd certainly like to be the last.
No. The point is you can make a copy deck to deck for yourself and it's perfectly fine. Once you hand it out to others it's illigal. If I borrow a friends cd and burn a copy of it it's just as illigal as if I downloaded that same cd off the internet and burnt it.
The FSF attempts to control the way I can use the source code of GPL programs I obtain in the same way that the RIAA attempts to control their artists copyrighted materials.
How in the world is "we gave you this for free, you have to extend that same curtesy to others" even in the same ballpark as "you are not allowed to safeguard your property, if it breaks you'll just have to buy it from us again"...??
Both are control's, that much is true. But that's like comparing a murderer with a firefighter just because both wield an axe. CD's don't come with a license agreement that says you can do this... you can't do this... you can do this under these circumstances... etc. The FSF uses licenses which are openly available to read before you use the product, the RIAA uses legal mauvering and threats after the fact and it uses those techniques to control actions that have been determined by law to be legal! If I want to make a copy of my cd in case the original gets scratched it's my right to do that and when I bought that CD I damn sure never agreed to a license that said I couldn't.
Were all forgetting this phrase: "minority rights"
Most people don't really want freedom for everyone. They just want freedom for themselves. They accept freedom for everyone because it guarentees their own freedom.
To some Christians freedom of religion isn't a core value, christianity is a core value.
Some of the same are quashed here in the US also. 1, 4, and the american equivilent of 5 for purposes of national security. 3 is considered a weapon in the US and is subject to all the same restrictions (you can't take a book about cryptography onto an airline... technically). Not sure about 2. Also I'm not sure about where the actual line is drawn. If the US wan'ts something quashed and the paper wants something publish, I don't know what steps are taken from each side, and what amount of proof must be offered.
But that distinction is exactly where the problem lies if your argument on complicitness. If someone doesn't even accept the possibility of the fantasy becoming a reality then there is no percieved danger.
Actually, your going to have to do better. If something is to be censured then the burden of proof lies with those advocating the censure.
Not everyone needs greater depravity. I like my normal porn, I have no desire to 'up the ante' as you put it. People prone to depravity are the ones that are going to need that. If the desire is to do something depraved, then the act you committed yesterday is never going to be a depraved today as it was yesterday. And people with an intense desire for depravity are going to seek it out reguardless of whether they find it on the internet or not. All these obsessions existed before the creation of the internet, and censuring the internet wont make them go away.
True, and children definitly don't need to be seeing that. Thats a wonderful argument, but I believe its an argument in support of child lock software and parental supervision, not an argument to remove those sites from the internet.
I've always heard that about Wierd Al, that he's very respectful towards the people he jokes, that its all in good fun. I read that he actually always asks their permission before doing the parody, but I guess that wasn't the case with Eminem.
To do a cover that is to appear in an ablum you must credit the original artist, pay a blanket liscencing fee to the Harry Fox agency, and perform the song with the original vocals and title intact. As far as I know you can't legally be denied the right to do a cover.
That's totally incorrect. In fact, the weakest link is almost never the key size. The failure point in protocols often has nothing to do with the security of the underlying cryptographic primative.
When I said the weakest point was the key I wasn't refering to key length, I was actually refering to failure to protect the key. I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of failures occur in the protocols and have nothing to do with the security of the encryption.
It is unbreakable but people often sing it's praises and neglect the fact you have to get this key to the other party you want to communicate with. Since the One time pad (OTP) is the *same* size as the plain-text you want to communicate then surely it's just as easy to communicate the actual message?
Well, the encryption can't be broken per se. The only way to 'break' this type of encryption is to guess the key. When computers were still relatively new random number generators were actually pseudo-random, meaning that if you obtained a portion of the key it was possible to reconstruct the algorithm that produced it. That made it feasable to attempt that type of attack. But nowadays there are real-random algorithms who's results cannot be reproduced. Its worth noting that these are considered real-random because the results can not be recreated or predicted by techniques we are aware of, which is exactly why older pseudo-random generators were thought to be real random.
Also, your argument about message size, I don't understand why you think size is relevant. Storage mediums are so fantastically huge nowadays the issue of size is unimportant. The idea remains that only one message must be securely sent, all other messages can be encrypted and then transmitted openly.
Bigger keys do not have a huge impact on performance if your using a block cipher... Smaller keys are better because they're easier to protect. The only need to be big enough to resist brute-force and there is no use in increasing the size further
Admittedly I don't know as much about DES and block ciphers as I do about RSA and public encryption schemes. In RSA, which is based in modular arithmetic, key size adds to the number of calculations required, which adds to processing time. Also sense breaking RSA is equivilent to factoring the key into its primes, larger keys take more time to factor and hence are more secure. Whether the same is true of DES I am not entirely sure. I would argue that even if one is only concerned about brute force attacks a larger key is still safer. M.J. Wiener published 2 papers titled "Efficient DES Key Search" that showed that a machine capable of executing a brute force attack against DES's 56 bit key standard would cost only 1 million and could perform the attack in 3 and a half hours. Those papers were published in 93 and 94, and the cost of that machine was predicted to drop by a factor of 5 every 10 years. It's common sense to assume that the NSA has built a machine like this and Harris Corp did actually build one using a Cray Y-MP; although I believe it was based on contextual algorithms that ruled out sets of keys based on partial solutions, I'm not sure how efficient that is compared to Wiener's method. Rumors abound that the NSA can crack DES in 3 to 15 minutes and considering DES has been the standard for about 20 years now I wouldn't be terribly suprised if that was true.
That argument has long sense been proven inadequate. Do you consider people who want their right to privacy respected as having something to hide? Rights are not just for the guilty.
Yes, your under that governments jurisdiction. But your rights as they apply to how the US government treats you shouldn't change because of where you live.
Information that one entity gathers is done because that entity requires it for buisness. The phone company keeps records of calls made for billing and other purposes. The point of their record keeping is to facilitate their buisness, not to facilitate law enforcement. When law enforcement deems it necessary to review that information they can retrieve it from the phone company. They should not, however, be permitted to automatically review all phone logs and draw conclusions from them.
If I am under suspicion then they will keep track of me. I should not, on the other hand, be susceptible to falling under suspicion because they are already keeping track of me.
Stupid people will do stupid things with or without the Patriot Act.
True, so why give them more power to do stupid things with?? This specific event may not have anything to do with the patriot act, but it shows that people can and will abuse their power. That in of itself is the main reason why the US was founded on giving away as little power as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Music can't cancel snoring. It can drown it out and maybe your mistaking that for cancelling, but it's not the same thing, trust me.
Playing low music to cover up another sound isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about essentially deleting sound waves from the air.
If you know how to play it your odds are better in blackjack anyway....
I would assume that it's liscensed that way the customer can get tech support for the OS.
How are they gonna serve you if they're broke??
Given the immense damage possible, how is a couple nasa guys brainstorming, or a study being done, constitute being blown out of proportion? Knowones panicing about the what ifs, just trying to answer them.
Yea... kinda forgot that end tag for italics.....my bad.
Actually in 1960, the US Navy sent the Trieste with 3 Navy personel to 'Challenger Deep' at the southern end of the Marianas Trench. At 10,920m (about 7 miles) deep it is the deepest known point on the planet.
Also what do you mean it's a simple tech problem?? Are you nuts? It's a fucking immense tech problem. Your talking about changing the trajectory of a piece of rock that could concievably be the size of a fucking state. In space where there's no stabilizing solid like the earth to exert on it's a serios problem. And why is this all of a sudden an either/or type thing? Do you think the people that know astrophysics are the same people that understand world economics??
Statistically it's gonna happen eventually. When it does what do you want the reaction to be, "hey, didn't they build something for that a while back..." or "uh....fuck". Knowones saying if we don't do this right now were all gonna die so throw your arms in the air and run screaming it's the apocylipse blah blah blah. But it's something to think about. Were not the first species that reigned supreme on this planet, but I'd certainly like to be the last.
No. The point is you can make a copy deck to deck for yourself and it's perfectly fine. Once you hand it out to others it's illigal. If I borrow a friends cd and burn a copy of it it's just as illigal as if I downloaded that same cd off the internet and burnt it.
How in the world is "we gave you this for free, you have to extend that same curtesy to others" even in the same ballpark as "you are not allowed to safeguard your property, if it breaks you'll just have to buy it from us again"...??
Both are control's, that much is true. But that's like comparing a murderer with a firefighter just because both wield an axe. CD's don't come with a license agreement that says you can do this... you can't do this... you can do this under these circumstances... etc. The FSF uses licenses which are openly available to read before you use the product, the RIAA uses legal mauvering and threats after the fact and it uses those techniques to control actions that have been determined by law to be legal! If I want to make a copy of my cd in case the original gets scratched it's my right to do that and when I bought that CD I damn sure never agreed to a license that said I couldn't.
Most people don't really want freedom for everyone. They just want freedom for themselves. They accept freedom for everyone because it guarentees their own freedom.
To some Christians freedom of religion isn't a core value, christianity is a core value.
Some of the same are quashed here in the US also. 1, 4, and the american equivilent of 5 for purposes of national security. 3 is considered a weapon in the US and is subject to all the same restrictions (you can't take a book about cryptography onto an airline... technically). Not sure about 2. Also I'm not sure about where the actual line is drawn. If the US wan'ts something quashed and the paper wants something publish, I don't know what steps are taken from each side, and what amount of proof must be offered.
But that distinction is exactly where the problem lies if your argument on complicitness. If someone doesn't even accept the possibility of the fantasy becoming a reality then there is no percieved danger.
I believe there have been several cases of the pizza boy being the intended meal.....
Not everyone needs greater depravity. I like my normal porn, I have no desire to 'up the ante' as you put it. People prone to depravity are the ones that are going to need that. If the desire is to do something depraved, then the act you committed yesterday is never going to be a depraved today as it was yesterday. And people with an intense desire for depravity are going to seek it out reguardless of whether they find it on the internet or not. All these obsessions existed before the creation of the internet, and censuring the internet wont make them go away.
True, and children definitly don't need to be seeing that. Thats a wonderful argument, but I believe its an argument in support of child lock software and parental supervision, not an argument to remove those sites from the internet.
I've always heard that about Wierd Al, that he's very respectful towards the people he jokes, that its all in good fun. I read that he actually always asks their permission before doing the parody, but I guess that wasn't the case with Eminem.
To do a cover that is to appear in an ablum you must credit the original artist, pay a blanket liscencing fee to the Harry Fox agency, and perform the song with the original vocals and title intact. As far as I know you can't legally be denied the right to do a cover.
When I said the weakest point was the key I wasn't refering to key length, I was actually refering to failure to protect the key. I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of failures occur in the protocols and have nothing to do with the security of the encryption.
It is unbreakable but people often sing it's praises and neglect the fact you have to get this key to the other party you want to communicate with. Since the One time pad (OTP) is the *same* size as the plain-text you want to communicate then surely it's just as easy to communicate the actual message?
Well, the encryption can't be broken per se. The only way to 'break' this type of encryption is to guess the key. When computers were still relatively new random number generators were actually pseudo-random, meaning that if you obtained a portion of the key it was possible to reconstruct the algorithm that produced it. That made it feasable to attempt that type of attack. But nowadays there are real-random algorithms who's results cannot be reproduced. Its worth noting that these are considered real-random because the results can not be recreated or predicted by techniques we are aware of, which is exactly why older pseudo-random generators were thought to be real random.
Also, your argument about message size, I don't understand why you think size is relevant. Storage mediums are so fantastically huge nowadays the issue of size is unimportant. The idea remains that only one message must be securely sent, all other messages can be encrypted and then transmitted openly.
Bigger keys do not have a huge impact on performance if your using a block cipher... Smaller keys are better because they're easier to protect. The only need to be big enough to resist brute-force and there is no use in increasing the size further
Admittedly I don't know as much about DES and block ciphers as I do about RSA and public encryption schemes. In RSA, which is based in modular arithmetic, key size adds to the number of calculations required, which adds to processing time. Also sense breaking RSA is equivilent to factoring the key into its primes, larger keys take more time to factor and hence are more secure. Whether the same is true of DES I am not entirely sure. I would argue that even if one is only concerned about brute force attacks a larger key is still safer. M.J. Wiener published 2 papers titled "Efficient DES Key Search" that showed that a machine capable of executing a brute force attack against DES's 56 bit key standard would cost only 1 million and could perform the attack in 3 and a half hours. Those papers were published in 93 and 94, and the cost of that machine was predicted to drop by a factor of 5 every 10 years. It's common sense to assume that the NSA has built a machine like this and Harris Corp did actually build one using a Cray Y-MP; although I believe it was based on contextual algorithms that ruled out sets of keys based on partial solutions, I'm not sure how efficient that is compared to Wiener's method. Rumors abound that the NSA can crack DES in 3 to 15 minutes and considering DES has been the standard for about 20 years now I wouldn't be terribly suprised if that was true.
Yes, but private corporations not respecting your privacy, while just as infuriating, are somewhat less unsettling then when the government does it.
That argument has long sense been proven inadequate. Do you consider people who want their right to privacy respected as having something to hide? Rights are not just for the guilty.
Yes, your under that governments jurisdiction. But your rights as they apply to how the US government treats you shouldn't change because of where you live.
We aren't at war.
If I am under suspicion then they will keep track of me. I should not, on the other hand, be susceptible to falling under suspicion because they are already keeping track of me.
True, so why give them more power to do stupid things with?? This specific event may not have anything to do with the patriot act, but it shows that people can and will abuse their power. That in of itself is the main reason why the US was founded on giving away as little power as possible.