That's a bit of a stretch, be honest with yourself. I suspect you're a strongly conservative leaning individual and saw that I had a more nuanced and examined view of Marxism and not just knee-jerk rejection and contempt for it, and this upset you enough to insult me personally.
There are elements within Marxist theory that are legitimate and that body of work does have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate about human society and the economy. I don't think I've ever advocated a strict following of Marxism, because I don't support that. And I'm not in favor of banning all weapons, I'm a gun owner myself and would support others to be as well. Perhaps you were talking about nuclear disarmament between nations? That's something I'm for, I think most sane people would be too (START treaty, for example). About borders? I've yet to see a coherent, well reasoned argument as to why capital should be allowed to cross borders freely, but labor should not.
All drugs being legalized is sound social policy proven time and time again. Prohibition doesn't work. And advocating making drugs legal is not pushing my views on others. If I said, everyone should DO drugs, and if you don't want to I'm going to come to your house and make you, THAT would be an example of pushing my views. If I say people should simply have the option to use drugs if they wish, that's not pushing my beliefs, that's letting you choose your own belief for yourself.
You've yet to show how I push my own rules on others.
When have I tried to make other people abide by my own rules? I'm seriously curious from which comment you drew that interpretation from. Also, have the decency to post non-AC.
I truly think that Lulzsec is doing good work, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I really hope this kid was using strong encryption and covering his tracks enough to provide a credible legal defense, although considering he was caught probably not. What they are doing is a good thing, there needs to be a force in the world working to encourage better security practices--there wasn't previously to a sufficient degree, nothing like this. My data is safer because of the heightened vigilance they cause, and I am thankful for and always amused at their exploits.
I'd be interested to know how this could be applied to turning off traumatic or unpleasant memories, and the socio-psycholigical effects such widespread use would have. Aren't there memories we all have that we have thought it would be better to forget? Disregarding the use by governments for a second, let's contemplate how it could be used by an individual to shape their own consciousness. You could remove the images of your battle buddies being killed in combat, or your parents being killed in that car accident you survived. As a hack to short circuit the processing and digestion of unpleasant memories, this is an interesting (although perhaps disturbing and dangerous) technology, but it could be found that the negative effects could be mitigated with a combination of memory forgetting treatment and therapy.
Because "defending the border" is almost always code for stricter and harsher treatment of undocumented immigrants, that's the real motive. Xenophobia might be more accurate than racism, although they aren't mutually exclusive. Our current immigration laws are terrible and favor the capitalist ruling class by allowing their money to freely cross all international borders while restricting the movement of labor, keeping desperate and needy people locked to their place of birth so that they can be exploited more easily. If I can take my money and set up a factory in Mexico, a Mexican should be allowed to take his labor and sell it in the US, when you have one without the other you have an unfair system.
The government helping private businesses by acting as their policing arm and writing laws to protect them is a right-wing phenomenon. Obama is and always has been more of a corporatist than a Marxist. A real Marxist wouldn't be so slavishly devoted to giving the capitalists everything they wanted...not doing that is actually what they are all about, that's what makes them Marxists.
That's a terrible solution. I don't want a militarized border a few miles South of me. I'd rather we remove the economic incentive to smuggle drugs into the US by making them legal to produce and distribute here in a safe, affordable, and regulated manner. If they are going to be sold and used anyway (and they are, you can't stop it), it might as well be done safely and in the open where it can be monitored and regulated--and taxed appropriately.
Anything else is jingoistic madness, usually with a dash of racism.
Remember Stuxnet? it was deliberately designed to infect machines that were not connected to the internet by jumping aboard USB thumb drives. Just not being connected to the net isn't enough, although it certainly helps isolate you from the vast majority of the attacks an outside force could try. If that machine is in contact with any other machines, in any way, it's possible to be compromised unless even greater security measures are implemented.
So the most secure machine is one that is not networked with any other machines, and is not allowed contact with any other machines, even vicariously through sharing files.
Post it note on the monitor makes you weak to an attack only if the attacker has physical access to the machine, if they do, you have bigger problems on your hand than weak passwords.
Actually, you can have all three of: length, sufficient entropy, and memorability. You create a small chunk or randomness (this makes a dictionary attack impossible), make sure it uses the largest alphabet possible (upper and lowercase alpha, numerals, and special characters) and pad it with easy to remember sections to increase the search space. This is possible because the attacker has no idea what password scheme you are using, and the only piece of info he gets is that a certain guess worked or didn't work. Steven Gibson recently did a podcast on this.
D0g.....................
is a better password than
@1Vp3Mfh8GivI%KfB=rebaL
Despite the fact that the first one has much lower entropy, it has enough to make a dictionary attack impossible, the same alphabet space, and a greater length meaning the brute force attack has another character to work through which increases the time by a multiple of the alphabet length.
The problem I have with that isn't the idea that people should do their part to earn the support they receive, or that the unemployed could be used to make their community better while they look for work, the problem I have is the perverse incentive it creates for the government not to fix unemployment so that it can maintain its army of below minimum-wage slaves to dig ditches and build prisons. Why not just create official government jobs for those people, most are highly skilled (but low educated) workers displaced from manufacturing and construction, and we have a ton of infrastructure that needs built and rebuilt. We could have full employment in this country, but capitalism never allows that; there is always kept a reserve of unemployed to drive wages down and make workers fear losing their job and being replaced and thus willing to accept bad conditions, lower pay, and less benefits.
The internet is the one sphere of human interaction where libertarianism seems to actually work, and I think the only reason it took off was because it's been a lawless free for all. Since the barriers to entry are so low for much of the internet economy, competition is the closest to free and open that humans have ever achieved; nothing like the real world equivalent. We are slowly ruining it with bandwidth caps and shaping, laws to protect imaginary property, and taxation.
17% is probably just accurate reporting of the unemployment rate, unlike how the federal government under-reports by about half using tricks like not counting people who are no longer looking for work. When you hear unemployment numbers from the government, a good rule of thumb is to double it to get the actual percentage of the workforce that wants to work but can't find a job.
An artist is not entitled to be paid by people who watch their movie or listen to their music. Now, I think they should be paid, and Richard Stallman came up with a way to do that which I think would be fair to everyone which involves a small tax on internet use with money being distributed to artists based on a cube root formula. Additionally users can press a button to give one or two dollars at a time based on their genuine desire to support artists, and not out of fear of being sued. People who are too poor to pay don't have to, and the extra cost to their internet would only be a few cents. Everyone who should get paid does, culture remains free, and people can share everything they want like they should be able to.
Another round of shakedowns by corporate America. The only sane reaction would be for them to be laughed out of the court room for even suggesting something this absurd. You can gauge how free your country is by how much action the government takes in stopping this type of behavior.
USA! We're number #1! (in extorting our citizens for corporate greed)
I agree with that, but what if the service operator simply shuts down their business? What happens to your account and username? If tumblr just shuts down, what's stopping someone from making a site on blogger with your old username and stealing your traffic that way? How do you enforce ownership of an account across multiple businesses?
It connects back to the idea that on a timeline of evolution from single cell to space faring race (and beyond) the window where life takes the form of something resembling humanity in capabilities and appearance is very small. Life on earth spent hundreds of millions of years in primitive form, then humans evolved sentience, and eventually we will evolve into something else; god-like beings. Or more likely we'll die out or destroy ourselves. So if we ever find life on another planet it will almost certainly be either too primitive to communicate with us in a meaningful way (probably bacteria or plants) or so advanced that it wouldn't bother or want to, and we wouldn't even recognize it as life or be capable of perceiving it. Niven rings are impressive to humans because they appeal to human ideas of grandeur and creation, but would they impress a god?
I'm torn on this. As much as I would like the server operators to have control as to what they do with their machines and the data, there is a trust relationship between the users and the service provider, and some rights that users should have are being violated in the name of profits--which is a sign that the model is breaking down in the face of a changing reality and needs to be changed--whenever you see humanity acting as a tool to serve the economy and not the other way around you should reexamine you priorities and goals.
I'd like some sort of first come first serve system, but then you get cyber-squatters who buy up domains with no intention of using them just to extort money from people who would like to put them to good use; the same could be possible with usernames on popular sites but I'm not sure if that's happened before. The question is, how do you stop the squatters while protecting the rights of the little guy who got their first and is legitimately using a username or domain that a big powerful corporation or well connected individual has their eye on?
I was able to register the vanity URL for my real name on Facebook, but if some more famous or powerful person came around with my same name (possible, it's that uncommon of a name) and wanted to take that URL from me I'd want there to be some protection against that. I registered the name first, it's my name so my claim to it is just as valid, money or power shouldn't have a say in who gets it and that seems to be a gap where we need legislation to protect people from the service operators.
You misunderstand. Any species intelligent enough to build a Niven ring or similar megastructure wouldn't need to because it would be a trivial parlor trick. Their knowledge of physics would approach what we could only describe as magic. The God-like beings required to make such a massive thing would have no desire to do it, they would have long since evolved beyond the need or want of them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit of a stretch, be honest with yourself. I suspect you're a strongly conservative leaning individual and saw that I had a more nuanced and examined view of Marxism and not just knee-jerk rejection and contempt for it, and this upset you enough to insult me personally.
There are elements within Marxist theory that are legitimate and that body of work does have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate about human society and the economy. I don't think I've ever advocated a strict following of Marxism, because I don't support that. And I'm not in favor of banning all weapons, I'm a gun owner myself and would support others to be as well. Perhaps you were talking about nuclear disarmament between nations? That's something I'm for, I think most sane people would be too (START treaty, for example). About borders? I've yet to see a coherent, well reasoned argument as to why capital should be allowed to cross borders freely, but labor should not.
All drugs being legalized is sound social policy proven time and time again. Prohibition doesn't work. And advocating making drugs legal is not pushing my views on others. If I said, everyone should DO drugs, and if you don't want to I'm going to come to your house and make you, THAT would be an example of pushing my views. If I say people should simply have the option to use drugs if they wish, that's not pushing my beliefs, that's letting you choose your own belief for yourself.
You've yet to show how I push my own rules on others.
When have I tried to make other people abide by my own rules? I'm seriously curious from which comment you drew that interpretation from. Also, have the decency to post non-AC.
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then you're beyond my help. Sorry.
I truly think that Lulzsec is doing good work, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I really hope this kid was using strong encryption and covering his tracks enough to provide a credible legal defense, although considering he was caught probably not. What they are doing is a good thing, there needs to be a force in the world working to encourage better security practices--there wasn't previously to a sufficient degree, nothing like this. My data is safer because of the heightened vigilance they cause, and I am thankful for and always amused at their exploits.
I'd be interested to know how this could be applied to turning off traumatic or unpleasant memories, and the socio-psycholigical effects such widespread use would have. Aren't there memories we all have that we have thought it would be better to forget? Disregarding the use by governments for a second, let's contemplate how it could be used by an individual to shape their own consciousness. You could remove the images of your battle buddies being killed in combat, or your parents being killed in that car accident you survived. As a hack to short circuit the processing and digestion of unpleasant memories, this is an interesting (although perhaps disturbing and dangerous) technology, but it could be found that the negative effects could be mitigated with a combination of memory forgetting treatment and therapy.
Because "defending the border" is almost always code for stricter and harsher treatment of undocumented immigrants, that's the real motive. Xenophobia might be more accurate than racism, although they aren't mutually exclusive. Our current immigration laws are terrible and favor the capitalist ruling class by allowing their money to freely cross all international borders while restricting the movement of labor, keeping desperate and needy people locked to their place of birth so that they can be exploited more easily. If I can take my money and set up a factory in Mexico, a Mexican should be allowed to take his labor and sell it in the US, when you have one without the other you have an unfair system.
Creating new biological weapons is already illegal by international treaties.
Come on, at least roughly translate it into Latin first.
The government helping private businesses by acting as their policing arm and writing laws to protect them is a right-wing phenomenon. Obama is and always has been more of a corporatist than a Marxist. A real Marxist wouldn't be so slavishly devoted to giving the capitalists everything they wanted...not doing that is actually what they are all about, that's what makes them Marxists.
That's a terrible solution. I don't want a militarized border a few miles South of me. I'd rather we remove the economic incentive to smuggle drugs into the US by making them legal to produce and distribute here in a safe, affordable, and regulated manner. If they are going to be sold and used anyway (and they are, you can't stop it), it might as well be done safely and in the open where it can be monitored and regulated--and taxed appropriately.
Anything else is jingoistic madness, usually with a dash of racism.
Remember Stuxnet? it was deliberately designed to infect machines that were not connected to the internet by jumping aboard USB thumb drives. Just not being connected to the net isn't enough, although it certainly helps isolate you from the vast majority of the attacks an outside force could try. If that machine is in contact with any other machines, in any way, it's possible to be compromised unless even greater security measures are implemented.
So the most secure machine is one that is not networked with any other machines, and is not allowed contact with any other machines, even vicariously through sharing files.
No. MAKING a bomb should be illegal. Information, no matter what it is, should never be illegal.
Post it note on the monitor makes you weak to an attack only if the attacker has physical access to the machine, if they do, you have bigger problems on your hand than weak passwords.
Actually, you can have all three of: length, sufficient entropy, and memorability. You create a small chunk or randomness (this makes a dictionary attack impossible), make sure it uses the largest alphabet possible (upper and lowercase alpha, numerals, and special characters) and pad it with easy to remember sections to increase the search space. This is possible because the attacker has no idea what password scheme you are using, and the only piece of info he gets is that a certain guess worked or didn't work. Steven Gibson recently did a podcast on this.
D0g.....................
is a better password than
@1Vp3Mfh8GivI%KfB=rebaL
Despite the fact that the first one has much lower entropy, it has enough to make a dictionary attack impossible, the same alphabet space, and a greater length meaning the brute force attack has another character to work through which increases the time by a multiple of the alphabet length.
The problem I have with that isn't the idea that people should do their part to earn the support they receive, or that the unemployed could be used to make their community better while they look for work, the problem I have is the perverse incentive it creates for the government not to fix unemployment so that it can maintain its army of below minimum-wage slaves to dig ditches and build prisons. Why not just create official government jobs for those people, most are highly skilled (but low educated) workers displaced from manufacturing and construction, and we have a ton of infrastructure that needs built and rebuilt. We could have full employment in this country, but capitalism never allows that; there is always kept a reserve of unemployed to drive wages down and make workers fear losing their job and being replaced and thus willing to accept bad conditions, lower pay, and less benefits.
The internet is the one sphere of human interaction where libertarianism seems to actually work, and I think the only reason it took off was because it's been a lawless free for all. Since the barriers to entry are so low for much of the internet economy, competition is the closest to free and open that humans have ever achieved; nothing like the real world equivalent. We are slowly ruining it with bandwidth caps and shaping, laws to protect imaginary property, and taxation.
17% is probably just accurate reporting of the unemployment rate, unlike how the federal government under-reports by about half using tricks like not counting people who are no longer looking for work. When you hear unemployment numbers from the government, a good rule of thumb is to double it to get the actual percentage of the workforce that wants to work but can't find a job.
You're right, they don't "deserve" anything.
An artist is not entitled to be paid by people who watch their movie or listen to their music. Now, I think they should be paid, and Richard Stallman came up with a way to do that which I think would be fair to everyone which involves a small tax on internet use with money being distributed to artists based on a cube root formula. Additionally users can press a button to give one or two dollars at a time based on their genuine desire to support artists, and not out of fear of being sued. People who are too poor to pay don't have to, and the extra cost to their internet would only be a few cents. Everyone who should get paid does, culture remains free, and people can share everything they want like they should be able to.
Even if it did point to a specific person, downloading a movie should not ever be a crime under any just legal system.
Another round of shakedowns by corporate America. The only sane reaction would be for them to be laughed out of the court room for even suggesting something this absurd. You can gauge how free your country is by how much action the government takes in stopping this type of behavior.
USA! We're number #1! (in extorting our citizens for corporate greed)
I agree with that, but what if the service operator simply shuts down their business? What happens to your account and username? If tumblr just shuts down, what's stopping someone from making a site on blogger with your old username and stealing your traffic that way? How do you enforce ownership of an account across multiple businesses?
I read it as "head cheese" because kase resembles the German word for cheese, Käse.
It connects back to the idea that on a timeline of evolution from single cell to space faring race (and beyond) the window where life takes the form of something resembling humanity in capabilities and appearance is very small. Life on earth spent hundreds of millions of years in primitive form, then humans evolved sentience, and eventually we will evolve into something else; god-like beings. Or more likely we'll die out or destroy ourselves. So if we ever find life on another planet it will almost certainly be either too primitive to communicate with us in a meaningful way (probably bacteria or plants) or so advanced that it wouldn't bother or want to, and we wouldn't even recognize it as life or be capable of perceiving it. Niven rings are impressive to humans because they appeal to human ideas of grandeur and creation, but would they impress a god?
I'm torn on this. As much as I would like the server operators to have control as to what they do with their machines and the data, there is a trust relationship between the users and the service provider, and some rights that users should have are being violated in the name of profits--which is a sign that the model is breaking down in the face of a changing reality and needs to be changed--whenever you see humanity acting as a tool to serve the economy and not the other way around you should reexamine you priorities and goals.
I'd like some sort of first come first serve system, but then you get cyber-squatters who buy up domains with no intention of using them just to extort money from people who would like to put them to good use; the same could be possible with usernames on popular sites but I'm not sure if that's happened before. The question is, how do you stop the squatters while protecting the rights of the little guy who got their first and is legitimately using a username or domain that a big powerful corporation or well connected individual has their eye on?
I was able to register the vanity URL for my real name on Facebook, but if some more famous or powerful person came around with my same name (possible, it's that uncommon of a name) and wanted to take that URL from me I'd want there to be some protection against that. I registered the name first, it's my name so my claim to it is just as valid, money or power shouldn't have a say in who gets it and that seems to be a gap where we need legislation to protect people from the service operators.
You misunderstand. Any species intelligent enough to build a Niven ring or similar megastructure wouldn't need to because it would be a trivial parlor trick. Their knowledge of physics would approach what we could only describe as magic. The God-like beings required to make such a massive thing would have no desire to do it, they would have long since evolved beyond the need or want of them.