Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
I've come to understand that for a, surprisingly large, portion of the population, that is exactly the way they think. It's like they have no concept that it is the duty of the citizenry to judge the law.
There's a town somewhere in the US (can't remember where and I don't care to google it) that enacted a statute requiring every adult to possess and carry a handgun. Crime dropped like a stone. No Western reenactments on record yet
The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application.
That is standard cop-out language. It may be within their legal rights, but that's not the question. The question is "Is it the best choice given the likely effects?"
At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid."
Of course not. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A colleague who used to work for defense contractors once told me this interesting trick : If you have a boring document that you need every employee to read, instead of just handling it to them, make it secret and give them clearance. That will make them more curious and everybody will read it.
Your colleague was a liar. Anyone with a clearance knows that 99.999% of classified documents are snore-inducing borefests. To someone with a clearance, getting yet another classified document is just more hassle and is to be avoided if at all possible.
Being an asshat generally reaps likewise behavior.
Between equals yes. Police are given more authority which brings consequent responsibility to be above petty shit. They even receive training at the academy for avoiding being provoked.
I think it is in Penn. where people trying to film/record the cops in action have actually been convicted of illegal wiretapping and have felony charges (maybe even convictions).
Charged in many states, convictions in Massachusetts.
It's a by product. Nobody is talking about how to make health care more secure. Sure, they are talking about setting up rules around the databases, but everyone who has any say in the matter is gung-ho for tracking the crap out of people with these databases. The problem is that it's inevitable that these databases will be used for more than just personal healthcare - you can see it already with certain "law enforcement" exceptions in HIPAA. The information in these databases is extremely valuable to all sorts of people, the draw is just too strong. So as time goes by, those databases will be opened up little by little. It may never get to the level of the current credit-reporting agencies, but one thing you can count on is that eventually those databases will be used for things that are not to the individuals' direct benefit.
If they really cared about securing this stuff, they would be looking for ways to de-centeralize the information. Give each patient physical control of their own medical records by putting it on their smartphone or the like, encrypting it to prevent theft and then giving them the ability to grant one-time conditional access to specific portions of it as needed for treatment. Put all that DRM crap to use for good by developing systems for medical use that prevent muliti-generational copying of information and enforce data expiration. Sure there will be cheaters in the system who do things like take pictures of a screen to keep a permanent record of something they shouldn't, but the goal is to eliminate the systemic abuse that a centralized database essentially guarantees.
Not only are SSNs weak, predictable, and easily-forged; there is no way to protect or limit their usage by authoritzed or unauthorized parties. There also no way to protect how those parties store and safeguard them.
And that's a good thing because it prevents the current system from moving to the next level - the one where we end up having to show ID for everything, from buying groceries to driving a car to walking your dog at the city park. As long as the best the centralized system can do is half-assed there will always be (a) thousands of alternate id systems (b) stuff that's not worth the effort to track because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low
Yes, I am aware that many alternate id systems, like tollway transponders and credit cards can be cross-referenced through one or more hops. But maintaining each of those hops is major overhead and opportunity to screw the system up (e.g. my credit cards have my name spelled wrong - no human has ever noticed, but those systems which rely on cross-referencing by name have to work a lot harder - fyi in many cases you can get a credit card issued to a totally made up name, just tell the bank its for your "life partner' or some such and they will issue you a second card on tbe same account - your "life partner" will bear no fiscal responsibility for any debits they may run up though - it will still all be on you).
So, for the good of every citizen please do NOT do centralized ID right. If we must have it, better it be unreliable so that systemic abuses of it are also unreliable.
The only sure-thing I can think of is timing, but since you're dealing with distances of a few meters and the speed of light this just doesn't seem practical.
You could make the system require that a token be passed back and forth between the car and the fob for thousands of round trips and then measure the total time for the entire process rather than just one hop. Make the token contain a hop count and re-sign it on each hop to prevent replay attacks. The time to sign it should be constant and known ahead of time so that can be subtracted out to get the total transit. It should be reasonably easy to distinguish between the transit time for 3 meters x 1000 versus 500 meters x 1000.
I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance, but how to you put in after market systems these days? Can't remember the last time I saw a dash with a DIN shaped hole in it.
But I would settle for a 30 ft warning telling me that the guy in the next lane was doing stupid, dangerous stuff.
Used to be all you had to do was look at the other drivers to see if they had a hand up to the side of their head. Now with the laws requiring handsfree, even that visual warning system has been legislated away,
Which means that they should be shipping from Taiwan any day now.
I've been told, but have not personally verified, that even before the crack was public a lot of no-brand HDMI switches from china stripped off HDCP because the manufacturers were just too careless/cheap to enable HDCP on the switches' output ports.
I was just quoting the article. Personally, when I talk about these sorts of systems, I use the term "restriction technologies," because that is exactly what the systems are.
DRM = Digital Restriction Management. At least that's how I've been spelling it.
The keys rely on proximity. What the "attackers" did was to provide a boost to the signals sent out by the car, causing the key to respond at much larger distances from the car than normal.
Sounds a lot like what I said. They made the error of assuming a manual overhead - physical proximity - applied to an electronic automat-able system.
Last week I drove a friend's late-90s Nissan in Mountain View. It's got a plain old mechanical key. On my way out of a store I walked up to a sedan of the same color, unlocked it, and then realized it wasn't even a Nissan. I confirmed that the key worked by locking it again from the outside before fleeing a couple aisles to the correct car.
In true slashdot fashion I shall pontificate without RTFA. Sounds like the wireless key designers have just carried over the mentality from the mechanical key designers here - a couple of hundred, maybe thousand, different key patterns distributed semi-randomly over millions of cars gives you pretty good security because testing any particular key on any particular car is a physical act with lots of manual overhead. But with wireless keys it can all be automated - you can even test multiple cars simultaneously without exposing yourself as a potential thief - just sit in your own car and let the laptop do all the work broadcasting all the possible keys to all of the cars in the near vicinity until one of them spontaneously unlocks.
It should be possible to do completely unique wireless keys and do them in a highly secure fashion, say with public key crypto for example to prove knowledge of a shared secret. I bet these key guys haven't done it because they aren't crypto experts and they don't know enough to call in the crypto experts to give them good advice.
Does this mean that all rap music must also be purged of those words? Or only rap music presented in school music classes? At what level? Elementary, secondary, college?
All rap music that get's walmart distribution contract.
Lol. You are now agreeing that being born into the modern aristocracy was your original claim. Either that, or you think that the people so born are better than those born to other classes and not just lucky for it.
No, it does not. But it DOES rebut your statement, which claims that most of the wealthy are wealthy only because they are born wealthy. This is NOT TRUE.
You seem to think that the luck of being born into wealth is orthogonal with working hard. Far from it. BOTH are necessary for the vast majority of cases.
You are the one who is deliberately conflating the mega-wealthy with the merely comfortable. And I'm still waiting for your citation.
Like I said, I've posted the link twice in other parts of this thread. Go fetch.
You asked for evidence and then I gave it to you in the form of income tax figures (from taxfoundation.org if you care, not that you've gone and provided citations for any of your claims).
Except that this 'evidence' doesn't prove what you claim it does. It's ridiculous to draw conclusions about the parents from the children's current tax rates.
Meanwhile all you want to talk about is intergenerational mobility, which is NOT what the original statement is about. You want to pretend that people who have money have it because of an accident of birth rather than the hard work it requires to sustain a career capable of commanding a high income. And in the majority of cases, you are very wrong.
Blind sheep shit. The point is that poor people can work hard too but it doesn't do them anywhere near as much good as it does those who get a massive headstart. You deliberately conflate being born to the mega-wealthy to being born to the merely wealthy so you can dismiss that headstart they get over the other 80% as non-existent. And that "good little sheep" bit - just who do you think is leading this good little sheep? Huh? A conspiracy of poor people? Evil liberals?
There are about seven million people making $150k or better, most of them in the top two tax brackets (and the rest in the high end of the 28% bracket).
You fail to convey the relevance of this claim to the conversation.
Your statement comparing the chances of reaching the top 5% from low income roots is not sufficient.
You missed the other half where being in the top 20% gives you a 22% chance of making it into the top 5% - that's essentially static.
Now why don't you go back and document your own claims, before calling out someone else.
I have. Twice now in other posts in this thread. Where's yours? Yeah. That's what I thought.
There's a huge difference between the children of the mega-rich (who can lead a life of luxury purely on money handed down by their parents) and the children of middle-class families (who may have an easier path to a college degree, but are still going to have to work for a living). I'm talking about the latter. That's who makes up the majority of the higher tax brackets.
No it isn't. You are welcome to document your assertion to prove me wrong. Remember that the context of this discussion is the increased percentage of tax on income over $250K/yr. $150K/yr is currently the cut-off for the top 5%. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a similar site for WikiLeaks?
All that sites tells me is "Big fucking deal. What else?"
Apparently Obama can't do even the simplest of things without javascript and googleapis and twitter.
Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
I've come to understand that for a, surprisingly large, portion of the population, that is exactly the way they think. It's like they have no concept that it is the duty of the citizenry to judge the law.
There's a town somewhere in the US (can't remember where and I don't care to google it) that enacted a statute requiring every adult to possess and carry a handgun. Crime dropped like a stone. No Western reenactments on record yet
Kennesaw, Georgia
The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application.
That is standard cop-out language.
It may be within their legal rights, but that's not the question.
The question is "Is it the best choice given the likely effects?"
At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid."
Of course not. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.
I think you need a prescription for some high-grade woooosh!
A colleague who used to work for defense contractors once told me this interesting trick : If you have a boring document that you need every employee to read, instead of just handling it to them, make it secret and give them clearance. That will make them more curious and everybody will read it.
Your colleague was a liar. Anyone with a clearance knows that 99.999% of classified documents are snore-inducing borefests. To someone with a clearance, getting yet another classified document is just more hassle and is to be avoided if at all possible.
Being an asshat generally reaps likewise behavior.
Between equals yes. Police are given more authority which brings consequent responsibility to be above petty shit. They even receive training at the academy for avoiding being provoked.
I think it is in Penn. where people trying to film/record the cops in action have actually been convicted of illegal wiretapping and have felony charges (maybe even convictions).
Charged in many states, convictions in Massachusetts.
National Healthcare is about controlling people?
It's a by product. Nobody is talking about how to make health care more secure. Sure, they are talking about setting up rules around the databases, but everyone who has any say in the matter is gung-ho for tracking the crap out of people with these databases. The problem is that it's inevitable that these databases will be used for more than just personal healthcare - you can see it already with certain "law enforcement" exceptions in HIPAA. The information in these databases is extremely valuable to all sorts of people, the draw is just too strong. So as time goes by, those databases will be opened up little by little. It may never get to the level of the current credit-reporting agencies, but one thing you can count on is that eventually those databases will be used for things that are not to the individuals' direct benefit.
If they really cared about securing this stuff, they would be looking for ways to de-centeralize the information. Give each patient physical control of their own medical records by putting it on their smartphone or the like, encrypting it to prevent theft and then giving them the ability to grant one-time conditional access to specific portions of it as needed for treatment. Put all that DRM crap to use for good by developing systems for medical use that prevent muliti-generational copying of information and enforce data expiration. Sure there will be cheaters in the system who do things like take pictures of a screen to keep a permanent record of something they shouldn't, but the goal is to eliminate the systemic abuse that a centralized database essentially guarantees.
Not only are SSNs weak, predictable, and easily-forged; there is no way to protect or limit their usage by authoritzed or unauthorized parties. There also no way to protect how those parties store and safeguard them.
And that's a good thing because it prevents the current system from moving to the next level - the one where we end up having to show ID for everything, from buying groceries to driving a car to walking your dog at the city park. As long as the best the centralized system can do is half-assed there will always be
(a) thousands of alternate id systems
(b) stuff that's not worth the effort to track because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low
Yes, I am aware that many alternate id systems, like tollway transponders and credit cards can be cross-referenced through one or more hops. But maintaining each of those hops is major overhead and opportunity to screw the system up (e.g. my credit cards have my name spelled wrong - no human has ever noticed, but those systems which rely on cross-referencing by name have to work a lot harder - fyi in many cases you can get a credit card issued to a totally made up name, just tell the bank its for your "life partner' or some such and they will issue you a second card on tbe same account - your "life partner" will bear no fiscal responsibility for any debits they may run up though - it will still all be on you).
So, for the good of every citizen please do NOT do centralized ID right. If we must have it, better it be unreliable so that systemic abuses of it are also unreliable.
The only sure-thing I can think of is timing, but since you're dealing with distances of a few meters and the speed of light this just doesn't seem practical.
You could make the system require that a token be passed back and forth between the car and the fob for thousands of round trips and then measure the total time for the entire process rather than just one hop. Make the token contain a hop count and re-sign it on each hop to prevent replay attacks. The time to sign it should be constant and known ahead of time so that can be subtracted out to get the total transit. It should be reasonably easy to distinguish between the transit time for 3 meters x 1000 versus 500 meters x 1000.
Even being a youtube phenom isn't enough to be permitted to fly.
I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance, but how to you put in after market systems these days? Can't remember the last time I saw a dash with a DIN shaped hole in it.
Dremel!
But I would settle for a 30 ft warning telling me that the guy in the next lane was doing stupid, dangerous stuff.
Used to be all you had to do was look at the other drivers to see if they had a hand up to the side of their head. Now with the laws requiring handsfree, even that visual warning system has been legislated away,
Which means that they should be shipping from Taiwan any day now.
I've been told, but have not personally verified, that even before the crack was public a lot of no-brand HDMI switches from china stripped off HDCP because the manufacturers were just too careless/cheap to enable HDCP on the switches' output ports.
Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.
They did, it's called Disney.
I was just quoting the article. Personally, when I talk about these sorts of systems, I use the term "restriction technologies," because that is exactly what the systems are.
DRM = Digital Restriction Management. At least that's how I've been spelling it.
The keys rely on proximity. What the "attackers" did was to provide a boost to the signals sent out by the car, causing the key to respond at much larger distances from the car than normal.
Sounds a lot like what I said. They made the error of assuming a manual overhead - physical proximity - applied to an electronic automat-able system.
Last week I drove a friend's late-90s Nissan in Mountain View. It's got a plain old mechanical key. On my way out of a store I walked up to a sedan of the same color, unlocked it, and then realized it wasn't even a Nissan. I confirmed that the key worked by locking it again from the outside before fleeing a couple aisles to the correct car.
In true slashdot fashion I shall pontificate without RTFA. Sounds like the wireless key designers have just carried over the mentality from the mechanical key designers here - a couple of hundred, maybe thousand, different key patterns distributed semi-randomly over millions of cars gives you pretty good security because testing any particular key on any particular car is a physical act with lots of manual overhead. But with wireless keys it can all be automated - you can even test multiple cars simultaneously without exposing yourself as a potential thief - just sit in your own car and let the laptop do all the work broadcasting all the possible keys to all of the cars in the near vicinity until one of them spontaneously unlocks.
It should be possible to do completely unique wireless keys and do them in a highly secure fashion, say with public key crypto for example to prove knowledge of a shared secret. I bet these key guys haven't done it because they aren't crypto experts and they don't know enough to call in the crypto experts to give them good advice.
Does this mean that all rap music must also be purged of those words? Or only rap music presented in school music classes? At what level? Elementary, secondary, college?
All rap music that get's walmart distribution contract.
I accept your concession, sir. Good day.
Lol. You are now agreeing that being born into the modern aristocracy was your original claim. Either that, or you think that the people so born are better than those born to other classes and not just lucky for it.
No, it does not. But it DOES rebut your statement, which claims that most of the wealthy are wealthy only because they are born wealthy. This is NOT TRUE.
You seem to think that the luck of being born into wealth is orthogonal with working hard. Far from it. BOTH are necessary for the vast majority of cases.
You are the one who is deliberately conflating the mega-wealthy with the merely comfortable. And I'm still waiting for your citation.
Like I said, I've posted the link twice in other parts of this thread. Go fetch.
You asked for evidence and then I gave it to you in the form of income tax figures (from taxfoundation.org if you care, not that you've gone and provided citations for any of your claims).
Except that this 'evidence' doesn't prove what you claim it does. It's ridiculous to draw conclusions about the parents from the children's current tax rates.
Meanwhile all you want to talk about is intergenerational mobility, which is NOT what the original statement is about. You want to pretend that people who have money have it because of an accident of birth rather than the hard work it requires to sustain a career capable of commanding a high income. And in the majority of cases, you are very wrong.
Blind sheep shit. The point is that poor people can work hard too but it doesn't do them anywhere near as much good as it does those who get a massive headstart. You deliberately conflate being born to the mega-wealthy to being born to the merely wealthy so you can dismiss that headstart they get over the other 80% as non-existent. And that "good little sheep" bit - just who do you think is leading this good little sheep? Huh? A conspiracy of poor people? Evil liberals?
There are about seven million people making $150k or better, most of them in the top two tax brackets (and the rest in the high end of the 28% bracket).
You fail to convey the relevance of this claim to the conversation.
Your statement comparing the chances of reaching the top 5% from low income roots is not sufficient.
You missed the other half where being in the top 20% gives you a 22% chance of making it into the top 5% - that's essentially static.
Now why don't you go back and document your own claims, before calling out someone else.
I have. Twice now in other posts in this thread. Where's yours?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
And neither am I, but thanks for the strawman.
There's a huge difference between the children of the mega-rich (who can lead a life of luxury purely on money handed down by their parents) and the children of middle-class families (who may have an easier path to a college degree, but are still going to have to work for a living). I'm talking about the latter. That's who makes up the majority of the higher tax brackets.
No it isn't. You are welcome to document your assertion to prove me wrong. Remember that the context of this discussion is the increased percentage of tax on income over $250K/yr. $150K/yr is currently the cut-off for the top 5%. Good luck.