Productivity-wise, the internet is a double edged sword. We know this to be true. But if the cost of a few minutes of work unrelated political browsing means someone can do a better job with the resources on the world wide web, then it's a good trade off.
There are only really three things that every need to be explained to children about the internet.
Everything you do online is monitored and recorded. Everything.
Everything you send or receive over the net is saved and stored in at least one place. Forever.
If you arrange to meet someone you met online in real life and something terrible happens to you, then it will be your fault and no-one else's.
That's really it. If your child is the greater fool, you may need to spell out some of these points in more detail. but overall a simple emphasis on taking responsibility for their own actions will be far, far more beneficial than vaguely hinting at dangers or outright denying access. Installing keyloggers is underhanded, creepy and frankly beneath contempt.
My basic point is that all you have to say is that there are griefers and perverts online and avoiding them is super-easy. Calmly make the point that quite apart from the loss of your child, knowing that they were stupid enough to get killed by someone they met online would stain the family reputation for generations. Show them newspaper clippings of children who have met such a fate and ask: "Do you want your face to be here someday; Above a sorid sex story and opposite the Page Three Girl? Is this how you want the world to remember you? Should this be your obituary.".
If you do this, you've done your bit. Your conscience is clear. Let them browse and come what may.
Comic books exploded in the 1930s. Why won't animated cartoon movies explode in the near future? There are lots of forgotten comics with lapsed copyrights that are out there. . ..
Your unstated mindset is part of the problem facing the entertainment industry today. You claim that the tools and willingness to create are there, but then implicitly claim that only content based on preexisting material is worth creating.
This is the mentality that has lead the entertainment industry to repackage to the same content over and over since before World War 2.
Making a movie, comic, video game, or tv show about characters that have been around longer than most nation states does not in my mind constitute the best use of creative talent. Perhaps some worthwhile effort will be expended in giving Batman some new motivation to defeat the Joker... again, but overall that talent would be better spent making some new characters, story and setting. And intellectual property laws won't get in the way of that either.
You know, sometimes I think the reason a lot of people like Japanese animes and mangas is because they're media where new content is created all the time. And while cliched formulas are present; bold, imaginative, and interesting new works are made virtually every year. Shows like Death Note and Gurren Lagann show what is possible in mainstream creative media when entirely new content is created. We won't get works like these if we insist on rehashing existing IP.
If the law is the law because it's the law, and breaking the law is bad because it's against the law, the law is always right, tautologically.
American's, as a rule, worship the law. It is a kind of national religion, regarded as sacrosanct, absolute and infallible.... but also as something which can be changed virtually at will under its own rules. A code to live life and run society by, but also one which can be used to impose will, shape behaviour and mould society. A kind of mix of Enlightenment thinking and Chinese Legalism.
The ultimate product of this mindset is the state of California, where voters routinely alter their written constitution to lower their taxes, raise their public expenditures and increase the size of chicken coops. There's very little reason involved in these decisions, which are instead driven by a blindâ"almost religiousâ"faith that once enshrined in law, these mandated changes somehow become reality.
The English by contrast understand the law. True they also obey it, but they understand that laws are not infallible, but are ultimately subject to interpretation by a court. Many Americans are liable to get offended by this notion, and decry "activist" judges. The English meanwhile are often reluctant to even make new laws when they can just rely on the precedent of court decisions.
The Irish meanwhile, do not really have laws so much as customs.
Basically, the Rule of Law is not a clearcut a thing as theorists would make it sound. Different nations treat their laws quite differently, and devils of all kinds are in the details.
Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I'm clearly no astronomer and claim no deep understanding of the stars, but what does this bring as "science"? This [routine observation] brings no insights and adds nothing. And frankly, the fact that it's funded by a new observatory in California makes it worse in my eyes. Places like California and New Mexico have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless telescope after another. This "science" project is about as scientific as having a toddler point to the night sky and gurgle.
Same ideas, different subject. We can't know in advance what we will see or discover when we look into the telescope. That's why we look at all. A similar thing can be said of art. We cannot know the impact or impression of a work until it is created.
Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint, and frankly I have a low opinion of modern artists. But this professor went out on a limb to create something entirely unprecedented, and that's about as close to creative research as I think art professors can get. So I'm willing to cut him some slack here.
In short, If I can spend time investigating the Goldbach Conjecture, I don't see why this guy can't bolt a camera to the back of his head.
Was it commissioned by the ministry for the bloody obvious?
Obvious to some perhaps, but an absurd conspiracy theory to others. However, these documents provide hard evidence of mafia-like activities by corporations.
The documents are the definitive proof that private companies engage in the shadiest and most scurrilous of activities in an effort to further their own goals. It is the definitive proof that even in our age, private interests abuse their privileges and powers. The proof that a corporate underworld exists, that it attacks and abuses citizens, and that the law does not protect us from it.
Our society is based on several things, among them free speech and the rule of law. If private companies actively undermine these principles in the ways that this document proves, then why should we tolerate their continued state of existence?
There are those who say that we should not tolerate communists or islamists because they actively seek to undermine our way of life. I wonder where those people are right now?
Although the copyright holders use strong language, these notices are nothing simply warnings, and typically do not lead to legal action.
Isn't there a term for this? 'Legal Battery' or something? I think if Lawyers could lose their licences to practice over pulling these kinds of stunts then they'd think twice before sending these letters out... or else expect to get paid in advance to do so.
As is well known to competent users of cryptography, you create the computational effort by iterating the hash.....Typical iteration counts needed today are in the 100'000 - 1'000'000 range.
Is that sufficient, or indeed secure? Given enough resources, a hashtable chain of 1,000,000 iterations could be generated for all systems, then only the first table in the chain iteration is needed anyway for a final lookup.
Unless the system uses the salt at each hashing step? But in this case, does this affect the distribution of the hashes? I don't know the details, but simply iterating a simple hash does not seem like a true solution to the problem.
This is not the work that was done by Researcher likes Feynman and others, the "calculations" they did were simple assembly line work level.
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what Richard Feynman worked on during his time in Los Alamos during the development of the atomic bomb.
Feynman was in charge of a team of human computers, calculating expect bomb yields from theoretical equations or the like. They were using simple mechanical calculators to aid the process, but were otherwise simply "assembly line workers" as you put it. However, it turned out that simply regarding them in that way was not the best way to go about things. Feynman though they should be told what they were working on....
Then they came to work, and what they had to do was work on IBM machines-punching holes, numbers that they didn't understand. Nobody told them what it was. The thing was going very slowly. I said that the first thing there has to be is that these technical guys know what we're doing. Oppenheimer went and talked to the security and got special permission so I could give a nice lecture about what we were doing, and they were all excited: "We're fighting a war! We see what it is!" They knew what the numbers meant. If the pressure came out higher, that meant there was more energy released, and so on and so on. They knew what they were doing.
Complete transformation! They began to invent ways of doing it better. They improved the scheme. They worked at night. They didn't need supervising in the night; they didn't need anything. They understood everything; they invented several of the programs that we used.
So my boys really came through, and all that had to be done was to tell them what it was. As a result, although it took them nine months to do three problems before, we did nine problems in three months, which is nearly ten times as fast.
My guess is that a study of the history of human computers is likely to shed light on where many of our more esoteric computational algorithms originated from. There's probably an unwritten history of mathematical discovery that took place in these basements and number assembly lines.
This isn't about passwords, it's about using hash values to protect passwords even from people with the root password. Basically, not even root should be able to figure out any users password.
Normally this is done by never storing the users password, only a hash of the users password, it's MD5 value say. Now the user enters their password, this is hashed, and that value compared to the stored hash. We could talk about collisions etc, but lets assume this works for now. User can get in with the right password, but not even root knows what this is just by looking at the hash database.
Unless of course rootâ"or the attacker that has gained rootâ"has a precomputed table of hash values. Then they need only look up the hash and obtain the password directly. To prevent this, systems use "salts", random integers/strings, appended/XORed to the password before the hash is computed. In theory then, an attacker would need to generate a different hashtable for each individual system compromised. Infeasible, or so we think.
He's where TFA comes in. MD5 and SHA1 are optimised to some extend for speed. Now, suppose the attacker has gained root and now knows the salt. How long will it take to generate a hashtable which can be looked up to find user passwords. TFA argues that this will now take only 33 days on a single machine using GPU computation. That's ~24 hours with less than 50 GPUs. Salt or not, these hashes are crackable in hours, not years.
So basically, the speed of MD5 and SHA1 hashes is actively working against computer security by making computing hashtables easier. TFA argues that a more computationally difficult hash scheme is needed, subject to certain criteria, and offers the PBKDF2, Bcrypt, and HMAC algorithms as potential alternatives. You could also throw, say, the three body problem with initial conditions at the computer instead.
Basically, hashing will protect against people with root access, but only if the hashing algorithm is computational difficult.
No, they cower in paralytic fear when something goes wrong, or else call for help. The idea of the computer somehow defying or frustrating them is an alien a concept to someone who regards the machine as some kind of supreme authority on the task at hand.
Females are far more sexist and closed-minded than any male I know....
No, females are not the under-privileged sex anymore, if they ever were....
How many guys do you know who want to be in on a baby shower?...
A woman just has to sit back and let her body just do its animal functions, because there will always be a man to rush in and save her whether personally or by proxy of government assistance....
Woman-knowledge, on the other hand, is always about transient, animal things, like their period or their pregnancy, things they feel in the moment. Woman-knowledge is always renewed, but yet stagnant. Woman-knowledge is not knowledge for building and improving, like man-knowledge is....
But hey, if you had that deal, would you want to give it up?
Ah, Slashdot!: Where no creative idea is too good to be voiced without being shot down by a dozen technical objections before it can even take flight.
The OP's idea is speculative, but could be a good way of saving fuel in the first few seconds of rocket flight. But if the general community of engineers has the kind of attitude on display around here, I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.
If this place had been around in earlier years, I doubt space flight, microwave ovens or integrated circuits would have ever been created in the face of a tsunami of derision and pedantic objection from the armchair engineers in the peanut gallery.
The entire Western legal code is built on the idea that if you cannot be penalized for something without the right to defend yourself in court.
The Western Legal system sold itself out long before even the bankers did. It no longer represents anything resembling justice or its supposed philosophical principles. It's a tool of monied and corporate interestsâ"when it isn't being a another soulless bureaucracy.
Looking for justice in the courts is like looking for prudence in a bank manger. You're 40 years too late. The courts don't care about your property or other rights; not unless you've got enough money to pay them handsomely for the trouble of trying the case.
Your assuming a false dichotomy between choosing dual stack IPv6 or choosing nothing at all.
Embedding IPv4 within the IPv6 address space and allowing for a smooth transition was another option. As a society, we have chosen not to take that option. We have chosen uncertainty, confusion, and NAT instead.
The answer to this question depends on what US spaceplane plans the Chinese have been able to either, a) Obtain via espionage b) Obtain via bribery/coercion c) Obtain as part of a trade deal d) Outright purchase from designers in the US.
Basically my point is, like everything else nowadays, this plane was most likely designed in California, but built in Shanghai.
The story is almost certainly a hoax. Someone went to the trouble of setting up a remote bomb detonator via a mobile phone, but didn't take into account unexpected spam messages setting it off? Remember that scene in "The Specialist" wasn't it(my memory is hazy), where Ray is making the bomb and placing a detonator in it? You're telling me the guy who put the thing together actually turned on the phone and jammed it into a few pounds of semtex when it could have gone off at any time?
This story smacks of the typical kind derogatory propaganda that come out of the Kremlin these days. Stories that make the regime's opponents look foolish or undignified. I'm reminded of Kasparov being griefed by a flying penis. This is the caliber of political maneuvering that can be expected form the Putin regime.
This story is probably nothing more than a KGB sourced urban legend, designed to make Chechen separatists look incompetent and backwards. Anything to distract from the Government's inability to protect its capital city from people who live 2000km away.
This order really doesn't say much about the ability of courts in the US to follow even basic procedures.
"Hotz is ordered to appear before the court at 10:00am on January __ 2011."
There's a scribble about parties arranging their own hearing date after that, but this is simply unacceptable. Hotz is supposed to engage with a team of Sony legal sharks and the court expects them to act honestly? They could arrange one date with the court and give him another.
I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.
Slashdot Mirror
All while the bosses spend their time surfing for porn?
Productivity-wise, the internet is a double edged sword. We know this to be true. But if the cost of a few minutes of work unrelated political browsing means someone can do a better job with the resources on the world wide web, then it's a good trade off.
There are only really three things that every need to be explained to children about the internet.
That's really it. If your child is the greater fool, you may need to spell out some of these points in more detail. but overall a simple emphasis on taking responsibility for their own actions will be far, far more beneficial than vaguely hinting at dangers or outright denying access. Installing keyloggers is underhanded, creepy and frankly beneath contempt.
My basic point is that all you have to say is that there are griefers and perverts online and avoiding them is super-easy. Calmly make the point that quite apart from the loss of your child, knowing that they were stupid enough to get killed by someone they met online would stain the family reputation for generations. Show them newspaper clippings of children who have met such a fate and ask: "Do you want your face to be here someday; Above a sorid sex story and opposite the Page Three Girl? Is this how you want the world to remember you? Should this be your obituary.".
If you do this, you've done your bit. Your conscience is clear. Let them browse and come what may.
Your unstated mindset is part of the problem facing the entertainment industry today. You claim that the tools and willingness to create are there, but then implicitly claim that only content based on preexisting material is worth creating.
This is the mentality that has lead the entertainment industry to repackage to the same content over and over since before World War 2.
Making a movie, comic, video game, or tv show about characters that have been around longer than most nation states does not in my mind constitute the best use of creative talent. Perhaps some worthwhile effort will be expended in giving Batman some new motivation to defeat the Joker... again, but overall that talent would be better spent making some new characters, story and setting. And intellectual property laws won't get in the way of that either.
You know, sometimes I think the reason a lot of people like Japanese animes and mangas is because they're media where new content is created all the time. And while cliched formulas are present; bold, imaginative, and interesting new works are made virtually every year. Shows like Death Note and Gurren Lagann show what is possible in mainstream creative media when entirely new content is created. We won't get works like these if we insist on rehashing existing IP.
I don't think it would have been as popular though.
Anonymous is not a group. It is a social movement, similar to grungers, hippies, and tea party members.
American's, as a rule, worship the law. It is a kind of national religion, regarded as sacrosanct, absolute and infallible.... but also as something which can be changed virtually at will under its own rules. A code to live life and run society by, but also one which can be used to impose will, shape behaviour and mould society. A kind of mix of Enlightenment thinking and Chinese Legalism.
The ultimate product of this mindset is the state of California, where voters routinely alter their written constitution to lower their taxes, raise their public expenditures and increase the size of chicken coops. There's very little reason involved in these decisions, which are instead driven by a blindâ"almost religiousâ"faith that once enshrined in law, these mandated changes somehow become reality.
The English by contrast understand the law. True they also obey it, but they understand that laws are not infallible, but are ultimately subject to interpretation by a court. Many Americans are liable to get offended by this notion, and decry "activist" judges. The English meanwhile are often reluctant to even make new laws when they can just rely on the precedent of court decisions.
The Irish meanwhile, do not really have laws so much as customs.
Basically, the Rule of Law is not a clearcut a thing as theorists would make it sound. Different nations treat their laws quite differently, and devils of all kinds are in the details.
Let's change the subject slightly
Same ideas, different subject. We can't know in advance what we will see or discover when we look into the telescope. That's why we look at all. A similar thing can be said of art. We cannot know the impact or impression of a work until it is created.
Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint, and frankly I have a low opinion of modern artists. But this professor went out on a limb to create something entirely unprecedented, and that's about as close to creative research as I think art professors can get. So I'm willing to cut him some slack here.
In short, If I can spend time investigating the Goldbach Conjecture, I don't see why this guy can't bolt a camera to the back of his head.
I dub this the "KWT Test for Brickedness" and do name thee duke of East Looe for thy services.
I don't understand what fungible means!
You must be new here!
Obvious to some perhaps, but an absurd conspiracy theory to others. However, these documents provide hard evidence of mafia-like activities by corporations.
The documents are the definitive proof that private companies engage in the shadiest and most scurrilous of activities in an effort to further their own goals. It is the definitive proof that even in our age, private interests abuse their privileges and powers. The proof that a corporate underworld exists, that it attacks and abuses citizens, and that the law does not protect us from it.
Our society is based on several things, among them free speech and the rule of law. If private companies actively undermine these principles in the ways that this document proves, then why should we tolerate their continued state of existence?
There are those who say that we should not tolerate communists or islamists because they actively seek to undermine our way of life. I wonder where those people are right now?
Isn't there a term for this? 'Legal Battery' or something? I think if Lawyers could lose their licences to practice over pulling these kinds of stunts then they'd think twice before sending these letters out... or else expect to get paid in advance to do so.
Is that sufficient, or indeed secure? Given enough resources, a hashtable chain of 1,000,000 iterations could be generated for all systems, then only the first table in the chain iteration is needed anyway for a final lookup.
Unless the system uses the salt at each hashing step? But in this case, does this affect the distribution of the hashes? I don't know the details, but simply iterating a simple hash does not seem like a true solution to the problem.
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what Richard Feynman worked on during his time in Los Alamos during the development of the atomic bomb.
Feynman was in charge of a team of human computers, calculating expect bomb yields from theoretical equations or the like. They were using simple mechanical calculators to aid the process, but were otherwise simply "assembly line workers" as you put it. However, it turned out that simply regarding them in that way was not the best way to go about things. Feynman though they should be told what they were working on....
My guess is that a study of the history of human computers is likely to shed light on where many of our more esoteric computational algorithms originated from. There's probably an unwritten history of mathematical discovery that took place in these basements and number assembly lines.
This isn't about passwords, it's about using hash values to protect passwords even from people with the root password. Basically, not even root should be able to figure out any users password.
Normally this is done by never storing the users password, only a hash of the users password, it's MD5 value say. Now the user enters their password, this is hashed, and that value compared to the stored hash. We could talk about collisions etc, but lets assume this works for now. User can get in with the right password, but not even root knows what this is just by looking at the hash database.
Unless of course rootâ"or the attacker that has gained rootâ"has a precomputed table of hash values. Then they need only look up the hash and obtain the password directly. To prevent this, systems use "salts", random integers/strings, appended/XORed to the password before the hash is computed. In theory then, an attacker would need to generate a different hashtable for each individual system compromised. Infeasible, or so we think.
He's where TFA comes in. MD5 and SHA1 are optimised to some extend for speed. Now, suppose the attacker has gained root and now knows the salt. How long will it take to generate a hashtable which can be looked up to find user passwords. TFA argues that this will now take only 33 days on a single machine using GPU computation. That's ~24 hours with less than 50 GPUs. Salt or not, these hashes are crackable in hours, not years.
So basically, the speed of MD5 and SHA1 hashes is actively working against computer security by making computing hashtables easier. TFA argues that a more computationally difficult hash scheme is needed, subject to certain criteria, and offers the PBKDF2, Bcrypt, and HMAC algorithms as potential alternatives. You could also throw, say, the three body problem with initial conditions at the computer instead.
Basically, hashing will protect against people with root access, but only if the hashing algorithm is computational difficult.
No, they cower in paralytic fear when something goes wrong, or else call for help. The idea of the computer somehow defying or frustrating them is an alien a concept to someone who regards the machine as some kind of supreme authority on the task at hand.
Mr Garrision...?
Ah, Slashdot!: Where no creative idea is too good to be voiced without being shot down by a dozen technical objections before it can even take flight.
The OP's idea is speculative, but could be a good way of saving fuel in the first few seconds of rocket flight. But if the general community of engineers has the kind of attitude on display around here, I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.
If this place had been around in earlier years, I doubt space flight, microwave ovens or integrated circuits would have ever been created in the face of a tsunami of derision and pedantic objection from the armchair engineers in the peanut gallery.
You're not. But the kind of people who make these sorts of phone calls will be delighted.
The Western Legal system sold itself out long before even the bankers did. It no longer represents anything resembling justice or its supposed philosophical principles. It's a tool of monied and corporate interestsâ"when it isn't being a another soulless bureaucracy.
Looking for justice in the courts is like looking for prudence in a bank manger. You're 40 years too late. The courts don't care about your property or other rights; not unless you've got enough money to pay them handsomely for the trouble of trying the case.
Your assuming a false dichotomy between choosing dual stack IPv6 or choosing nothing at all.
Embedding IPv4 within the IPv6 address space and allowing for a smooth transition was another option. As a society, we have chosen not to take that option. We have chosen uncertainty, confusion, and NAT instead.
The answer to this question depends on what US spaceplane plans the Chinese have been able to either,
a) Obtain via espionage
b) Obtain via bribery/coercion
c) Obtain as part of a trade deal
d) Outright purchase
from designers in the US.
Basically my point is, like everything else nowadays, this plane was most likely designed in California, but built in Shanghai.
The story is almost certainly a hoax. Someone went to the trouble of setting up a remote bomb detonator via a mobile phone, but didn't take into account unexpected spam messages setting it off? Remember that scene in "The Specialist" wasn't it(my memory is hazy), where Ray is making the bomb and placing a detonator in it? You're telling me the guy who put the thing together actually turned on the phone and jammed it into a few pounds of semtex when it could have gone off at any time?
This story smacks of the typical kind derogatory propaganda that come out of the Kremlin these days. Stories that make the regime's opponents look foolish or undignified. I'm reminded of Kasparov being griefed by a flying penis. This is the caliber of political maneuvering that can be expected form the Putin regime.
This story is probably nothing more than a KGB sourced urban legend, designed to make Chechen separatists look incompetent and backwards. Anything to distract from the Government's inability to protect its capital city from people who live 2000km away.
Someone clearly hasn't bought a smartphone.
This order really doesn't say much about the ability of courts in the US to follow even basic procedures.
"Hotz is ordered to appear before the court at 10:00am on January __ 2011."
There's a scribble about parties arranging their own hearing date after that, but this is simply unacceptable. Hotz is supposed to engage with a team of Sony legal sharks and the court expects them to act honestly? They could arrange one date with the court and give him another.
I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.