That's only half the story: shortly after his time as minister of the interior, he joined the board of directors of SAFE ID Solutions AG, a company specializing in - you guessed it - "integrated security solutions to the global ID market with systems optimized for new generation electronic documents".
I dunno if you were modded funny on purpose or as a typo - but what you wrote is completely true.
As much as it bothers me to have centralized databases of ANYTHING, if there is anything that needs a centralized database, it's identification.
That's a terrible justification. You make absolutely no evaluation of how well it will work. We've already seen the japanese immigration fingerprint system publicly exploited with no insider help, twice in the last year. Other than the PR hype, why do you think that a system like this is going to have any significant effect on whatever problems it is being pitched to solve?
in the context of a country that can claim the dubious honor of being the most likely terrorist target in the industrialized world.
Ever think about the chances are that a system like this will be used to ratchet up some of the policies that result in all those terrorist attacks?
We both understood that if air travel is the path of most resistance, a real terrorist would choose the path of least resistance.
Did he also understand that as long as most of the ground crew are not subjected to equal or better screening, that what he was doing wasn't even adding resistance to the path of air travel as a target, just resistance to the path of air travel as a useful service?
From now on, when officials notice circular scars or other shaped scars around fingertips, they will probably have the person undergo further testing.
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
And this is only one attack vector. We've already seen the korean woman last year who used a practical application of the gummy bear trick to fool the japanese too.
The thing to remember is that these systems will only get less effective as time goes by. All the hype when proposed about how great they are, for whatever intended purpose, represents the best they will ever be - the more familiarity people get with the systems, the more ways people will figure out how to circumvent them.
You don't need to trust your ISP, they are legally binded to protect your privacy on most of the countries.
I don't know about what countries you are thinking of, but that is certainly not the case in the USA. They've got carte blanch do anything they want with whatever info they can glean out of their users.
It worked because 200 years ago the only people who had say in gov't were wealthy white land owning men. A fairly homogeneous class that didn't have too many internal divisions. Now-a-days we have a huge spectrum of voters which makes it much harder to agree on anything.
And yet, almost all of them seem to agree to limit their votes to two parties.
No respectable sources, but I have seen it for myself a few times on 4chan.
How do you know it is real?
Think about this for a second - who is telling these people that the URL is FBI link-bait? Are they reading it from the court documents years after the fact? Or is someone from the FBI deliberately disclosing this information while it is still active and thus committing the felony of interfering with an ongoing federal investigation?
Sorry man, when you responded to a direct and explicit question with a non-answer that presumed my ignorance of basic facts, I kinda took that as you being an asshole first.
FBI linkbait was actually covered on Slashdot itself last year.
Yeah, I am fully aware of that. Maybe you are not aware that the article and discussion you have linked to have no evidence of rick-rolling with the bait. The only URLs mentioned come from court documents and are undoubtedly long gone by now. So you haven't answered my question.
Show me evidence of 3rd parties deliberately rick-rolling innocents with FBI controlled kiddie porn URLs or go home.
So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page.
While I would so love to believe your story, I don't. Please provide a link to one credible story documenting this kiddie porn rick-rolling.
Slashdot being the motherlode of deluded malcontents, though, perhaps I should not be surprised.
Slashdot being the motherload of randian ubermen living in their mom's basements with fascist delusions of grandeur, though, perhaps I should not be surprised at your ridiculously authoritarian framing of the issue.
I think SETI@home is great and all, but it sounds like the school board didn't authorize this person to install the software on the machines in question.
The man was not some local school tech with a screwdiver or rogue physics teacher - he was the technology supervisor for the school district. If minutia like what software to run is something that the school board must micro-manage, then his job is a no-op. So, either the board is seriously dysfunctional to the point of needing to be disbanded and reorganized with brand new people, or he had plenty of authority to decide all on his own.
Free markets with sufficient competition in no way favor corporations.
That competition is key. Whether the state creates monopolies or the market creates them, they are no good for the general population and are of great value to the members of the monopoly.
Or have you not thought deeply about where these draconian laws originate?
Yeah... I think you are having a little bit of difficulty with the word unregulated...
This is an abuse of regulation, i.e. the legal system and its laws, and thus by definition is regulated. No one says that regulation has to be for the good. In fact, misuse is pretty much the only complaint anyone ever has with regulation.
The more driven you seem to be, the less they have to grease the wheels to get you to sign up.
Tell me about it. A close friend's nephew was infatuated with a sergeant's daughter. His own father is a reasonably senior engineer who builds aircraft engines, so they are solidly upper-middle class with no fiscal need to sign up like most do. He dropped out of college to join the army as a grunt. He didn't even ask for any of the signing bonuses available to him - worth up to $30K. Why? Because the girl cheated on him and, though he's not able to admit it to anyone, he needed to 'win her back.'
Since the Torrent protocol already includes block checksumming there's no reason to also use TCP for that,
FYI - disabling the checksums in UDP packets fell out of favor 20 years ago when CPUs got fast enough to make the performance hit negligible. Nowadays, anyone running their UDP stack with checksums turned off is either completely clueless or has some ultra-specific application that nobody else cares about.
Over the last couple of years we have started to see day-and-date releases of movies in Russia, India, China, etc (region 5 plus some other specific countries) with barebones DVDs that are a lot cheaper than tstandard releases. Sometimes they are english-unfriendly - only carrying a dub audiotrack for the local language - but not always. These R5 discs are still more expensive than the bootleg copies, but maybe only 50% more expensive instead of %500.
Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" -- unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.
I stopped watching movies a few years ago, now all I watch are the trailers. They are free, you get 80% of the story, and it is always the best parts too. What's not to love?
Slashdot Mirror
That's only half the story: shortly after his time as minister of the interior, he joined the board of directors of SAFE ID Solutions AG, a company specializing in - you guessed it - "integrated security solutions to the global ID market with systems optimized for new generation electronic documents".
I dunno if you were modded funny on purpose or as a typo - but what you wrote is completely true.
As much as it bothers me to have centralized databases of ANYTHING, if there is anything that needs a centralized database, it's identification.
That's a terrible justification. You make absolutely no evaluation of how well it will work. We've already seen the japanese immigration fingerprint system publicly exploited with no insider help, twice in the last year. Other than the PR hype, why do you think that a system like this is going to have any significant effect on whatever problems it is being pitched to solve?
in the context of a country that can claim the dubious honor of being the most likely terrorist target in the industrialized world.
Ever think about the chances are that a system like this will be used to ratchet up some of the policies that result in all those terrorist attacks?
We both understood that if air travel is the path of most resistance, a real terrorist would choose the path of least resistance.
Did he also understand that as long as most of the ground crew are not subjected to equal or better screening, that what he was doing wasn't even adding resistance to the path of air travel as a target, just resistance to the path of air travel as a useful service?
From now on, when officials notice circular scars or other shaped scars around fingertips, they will probably have the person undergo further testing.
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
And this is only one attack vector. We've already seen the korean woman last year who used a practical application of the gummy bear trick to fool the japanese too.
The thing to remember is that these systems will only get less effective as time goes by. All the hype when proposed about how great they are, for whatever intended purpose, represents the best they will ever be - the more familiarity people get with the systems, the more ways people will figure out how to circumvent them.
Kinda warms my freedom loving heart it does.
No they don't. Look at turnout for US elections: apathy has had more votes than the winning party
A non-vote is a vote for the two ruling parties.
You don't need to trust your ISP, they are legally binded to protect your privacy on most of the countries.
I don't know about what countries you are thinking of, but that is certainly not the case in the USA. They've got carte blanch do anything they want with whatever info they can glean out of their users.
It worked because 200 years ago the only people who had say in gov't were wealthy white land owning men. A fairly homogeneous class that didn't have too many internal divisions. Now-a-days we have a huge spectrum of voters which makes it much harder to agree on anything.
And yet, almost all of them seem to agree to limit their votes to two parties.
(though not NC-17 since that falls under obscenity which isn't protected speech).
Since when is anything not appropriate for children under 17 the definition of obscenity?
What is this, Australia?
"...try and act..."
vs
"...try to act..."
You are wrong mr AC.
The first sentence denotes both trying and actually acting.
The second sentence only describes trying.
No respectable sources, but I have seen it for myself a few times on 4chan.
How do you know it is real?
Think about this for a second - who is telling these people that the URL is FBI link-bait?
Are they reading it from the court documents years after the fact?
Or is someone from the FBI deliberately disclosing this information while it is still active and thus committing the felony of interfering with an ongoing federal investigation?
The answer seems obvious to me.
No need to be an asshole about it.
Sorry man, when you responded to a direct and explicit question with a non-answer that presumed my ignorance of basic facts, I kinda took that as you being an asshole first.
FBI linkbait was actually covered on Slashdot itself last year.
Yeah, I am fully aware of that. Maybe you are not aware that the article and discussion you have linked to have no evidence of rick-rolling with the bait. The only URLs mentioned come from court documents and are undoubtedly long gone by now. So you haven't answered my question.
Show me evidence of 3rd parties deliberately rick-rolling innocents with FBI controlled kiddie porn URLs or go home.
So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page.
While I would so love to believe your story, I don't.
Please provide a link to one credible story documenting this kiddie porn rick-rolling.
We aren't that fearfull of our fellow countrymen, our prime minister can go for a jog in the morning without a bullet proof vest and a small army,
That's greater sign of his low relevance than of the success of gun control laws.
Slashdot being the motherlode of deluded malcontents, though, perhaps I should not be surprised.
Slashdot being the motherload of randian ubermen living in their mom's basements with fascist delusions of grandeur, though, perhaps I should not be surprised at your ridiculously authoritarian framing of the issue.
I think SETI@home is great and all, but it sounds like the school board didn't authorize this person to install the software on the machines in question.
The man was not some local school tech with a screwdiver or rogue physics teacher - he was the technology supervisor for the school district. If minutia like what software to run is something that the school board must micro-manage, then his job is a no-op. So, either the board is seriously dysfunctional to the point of needing to be disbanded and reorganized with brand new people, or he had plenty of authority to decide all on his own.
Six lines of praise and not one single tangible reason someone should feel that they're holding a "computer milestone."
Check his sig.
Free markets in no way favor corporations.
Gotta correct that for you:
Free markets with sufficient competition in no way favor corporations.
That competition is key. Whether the state creates monopolies or the market creates them, they are no good for the general population and are of great value to the members of the monopoly.
Or have you not thought deeply about where these draconian laws originate?
Yeah... I think you are having a little bit of difficulty with the word unregulated...
This is an abuse of regulation, i.e. the legal system and its laws, and thus by definition is regulated. No one says that regulation has to be for the good. In fact, misuse is pretty much the only complaint anyone ever has with regulation.
It's not a matter of the stack, any app that does it's own checksumming is free to turn off UDP checksum generation.
SO_NO_CHECK is a linux-specific non-standard socket option. No other major OS supports it, everybody else uses a kernel tunable for all or nothing.
You had a history teacher when you were in Vietnam?
Most kids who go to school in Vietnam have history teachers.
The more driven you seem to be, the less they have to grease the wheels to get you to sign up.
Tell me about it. A close friend's nephew was infatuated with a sergeant's daughter. His own father is a reasonably senior engineer who builds aircraft engines, so they are solidly upper-middle class with no fiscal need to sign up like most do. He dropped out of college to join the army as a grunt. He didn't even ask for any of the signing bonuses available to him - worth up to $30K.
Why? Because the girl cheated on him and, though he's not able to admit it to anyone, he needed to 'win her back.'
Since the Torrent protocol already includes block checksumming there's no reason to also use TCP for that,
FYI - disabling the checksums in UDP packets fell out of favor 20 years ago when CPUs got fast enough to make the performance hit negligible. Nowadays, anyone running their UDP stack with checksums turned off is either completely clueless or has some ultra-specific application that nobody else cares about.
Some of what you suggest is already happening.
Over the last couple of years we have started to see day-and-date releases of movies in Russia, India, China, etc (region 5 plus some other specific countries) with barebones DVDs that are a lot cheaper than tstandard releases. Sometimes they are english-unfriendly - only carrying a dub audiotrack for the local language - but not always. These R5 discs are still more expensive than the bootleg copies, but maybe only 50% more expensive instead of %500.
Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" -- unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.
I stopped watching movies a few years ago, now all I watch are the trailers. They are free, you get 80% of the story, and it is always the best parts too. What's not to love?