All UK ISPs already filter for child porn; the government forced them to all "voluntarily" install blocking software by threatening to make it mandatory if they did not.
Of course, the (secret) list of blocked sites, maintained by an organisation called the IWF, now includes other things as well as child porn, such as "racial abuse". If the government decided to have a crackdown on file sharing they could easily force ISPs to add other sites, such as (for example) the Pirate Bay, to the banned list.
More likely, the people with secrets would just use some other method to communicate them.
Given that this project is (according to TFA) partnered by the Ministry of Defence, this smells to me like someone spending a lot of money defending against a non-existent threat. What's the betting they used the magic word "terrorism" in their grant application?
On the other hand: the instructions affected by this aren't used very much, so if you want optimizations, a good candidate would be to not clear the flag unless it is needed. If the ABI were simply changed to allow this, no existing code would break (obviously), and future code could both conform to the new ABI *and* avoid the overhead of unnecessary instructions to clear the flag when it is not being used.
I suppose the only barrier to this optimization would be the political effort needed to get everyone to agreee to change the ABI.
The first time I went in a starbucks, being unfamiliar with the brand and wanting a coffee, I asked for an espresso. The person serving me looked at me as though I were a stain on the floor, and said "you *do* know what that is, don't you"?
It turned out to be a small cardboard (!) cup of disgusting coffee. Now I know why everyone else buys coffee-flavoured milk in those places.
The difference is that, in a classical system such as your DRAM array, the state of the cells before we read them is either 0 or 1: we just don't happen to know which. The switching between states happens at the time when the UV light hits the cell.
In the case of the electron, when we read the spin we always get either "up" or "down", but if we read "up" this doesn't mean that the spin was "up" immediately before we read it. Instead, the electron was in a weird condition where its spin was a mixture of "up" and "down", and the switching into a definite state only happens when we measure the state.
The person with political "cover" to create the blacklist is forced to spend all his time looking at web sites that have been reported as child porn, and is immune to prosecution for this. That's a pretty good job to have if you're a pervert.
Actually, no: anyone making notes about who is going in and out of a government building is likely to be arrested as a terrorist (see, for example, here).
The government would stop you looking at satellites too, if they could. At the moment, they can't. But if I lived in the US, I would think twice about publishing that sort of stuff on a web site.
It's worse: the commissioners are not ministers of the individual European countries (who would therefore at least have been elected in their own country). For example, Peter Mandelson got his job as the UK's commissioner after he had twice been forced to resign from the UK parliament because of corruption. The previous holders of the job were people who had lost elections to the UK parliament.
Why wouldn't you name the company? Are you afraid they will sue you for telling us that they have an AUP? Or do you think that it would be good for us to have to google to find out which company changed hands recently and charges £40?
It was TorrentSpy. The judge told them that they had to start keeping logs, so they did do. But they couldn't be prosecuted for not keeping logs before they were told to do so.
So, if the university had a policy of not keeping logs, their students would be safe up to the point when the RIAA got a court order to force them to start logging. Then the university could simply say to their students "we have been forced to start logging: stop your filesharing now, because the RIAA are watching".
The reason that universities don't do this is that they want logs for their own purposes, for example to track down infected machines, or people posting rude messages about the vice-chancellor.
That's already happened. These people were only released because they were charged under the 2000 act; under the new 2006 act they would surely have been convicted for "encouragement of terrorism" or "disseminating terrorist publications" (7 years in prison) or even "preparation for terrorist acts" (life imprisonment).
It would still not be sufficient for the attacker to revoke the key: in order to make the data inaccessible, the attacker would have to delete the key (including deleting it from all the places where it is backed up).
Still, if you're worried, the simple solution is to buy a security product from one of the commercial sponsors of this report. Then, when you lose your key, you will be able to pay a hacker some money to recover your data using the back-door that the NSA forced them to incorporate into their product.
Because the British government have made a specific promise that these ID cards will be "voluntary". So it is looking for every possible method to make people "volunteer" to have them: for example, by making you produce your ID card when you get a job, so everyone is forced to either "volunteer" for a card, or else be unemployed.
So the solution is simply to do your searches on register.com if you're going to buy from them, and not to go to networksolutions.com at all.
Although: if ICANN eliminate the free tasting period, so that it costs network solutions some money for each domain they "protect from domain tasters" in this way, it would surely be fun to go to networksolutions.com and do a few hundred more searches for random domain names.
Actually, its share price is doing very well. The FTSE (London stock exchange average) fell 5% today, but Northern Rock shares are up 25%.
Some people might be naive enough to thing that, if a bank becomes insolvent and requires to be bailed out with £60 billion of government money to repay its investors, then the owners of the bank would lose their money. In fact they seem to be making a fat profit out of the situation.
So, if it's "just another format", how come Microsoft are paying for reporters to fly to Redmond? How come Microsoft have bribed whole countries to take part in previous votes? If we take your attitude, Microsoft will take over the world while we're not looking.
And yet: in a perfectly competitive market, if someone is selling goods for more then the cost of production, a competitor will be able to produce them for the same cost and sell them cheaper, thereby driving prices down. Conversely, if someone is selling goods for less than the cost of production, they will go out of business; the resulting scarcity will drive prices up. So, on average, prices will tend to equal the cost of production (plus a small margin for profit).
The need for "in-flight testing of the safeguards" sounds like fun too. Perhaps it is to see whether the firewalls still work under reduced air pressure.
Not necessarily: forcing everyone to use the same DRM scheme would not, in itself, make that scheme less secure. If the DRM is well-designed, the "secret" need only ever be known by a handful of people.
On the other hand, it would give the owner of the chosen DRM scheme a government-enforced monopoly, and we all know what a good idea that is.
Actually, if you read TFA, it sounds as though they want Europe-wide licencing for media downloads. Having one standard DRM schema might or might not be part of this, but they also want to stop the practice whereby paid-for downloads are charged at different prices in different countries: for example, Apple notoriously charge more for itunes downloads in the UK than they do in euro-zone countries. The original purpose of the EU was to create a "common market" where this sort of abuse could not happen.
Re:well, not effortlessly
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 1
See, for example, here. It was similar enough to bsd sockets that Microsoft could claim "compatibility", and sufficiently different that in practice you had to re-write all your code.
I remember seeing a description of an excellent test done on some audiophiles some years ago (this was back in the old vinyl days, so no url, unfortunately).
A number of audiophile "experts" were invited to a public test of various brands of loudspeaker. The test was done by playing the same music through several well-known brands of speakers, some reasonably cheap and some extremely expensive, all laid out on a stage. There was an arrangement with a big knob and some indicator lights to switch the music from one set of speakers to another. The "experts" were all asked to rate the speakers and to write reviews of them on the spot.
After it was all over, the curtains at the back of the stage were pulled back to reveal that none of the speakers were connected to anything, and that the music all came from a small live orchestra.
Of course the reviews all basically said that the most expensive speakers sounded much better than the ones that were known to be cheaper.
Hushmail gives you precisely as much security as they possibly can, and no more.
I don't know much about Hushmail, but I looked at their website, and they seem to want about $50 per year for what is basically GPG, and therefore available free. Except that, since java applets are downloaded from the server, there's no way to be sure that what you're actually running is what they claim that you are running, so their system might have all sorts of insecurities and backdoors, even if their source code looks OK. So they might give you as much security as they can, or they might be a bunch of cowboys. How do you tell? I certainly wouldn't trust them with my secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
All UK ISPs already filter for child porn; the government forced them to all "voluntarily" install blocking software by threatening to make it mandatory if they did not.
Of course, the (secret) list of blocked sites, maintained by an organisation called the IWF, now includes other things as well as child porn, such as "racial abuse". If the government decided to have a crackdown on file sharing they could easily force ISPs to add other sites, such as (for example) the Pirate Bay, to the banned list.
More likely, the people with secrets would just use some other method to communicate them.
Given that this project is (according to TFA) partnered by the Ministry of Defence, this smells to me like someone spending a lot of money defending against a non-existent threat. What's the betting they used the magic word "terrorism" in their grant application?
On the other hand: the instructions affected by this aren't used very much, so if you want optimizations, a good candidate would be to not clear the flag unless it is needed. If the ABI were simply changed to allow this, no existing code would break (obviously), and future code could both conform to the new ABI *and* avoid the overhead of unnecessary instructions to clear the flag when it is not being used.
I suppose the only barrier to this optimization would be the political effort needed to get everyone to agreee to change the ABI.
The first time I went in a starbucks, being unfamiliar with the brand and wanting a coffee, I asked for an espresso. The person serving me looked at me as though I were a stain on the floor, and said "you *do* know what that is, don't you"?
It turned out to be a small cardboard (!) cup of disgusting coffee. Now I know why everyone else buys coffee-flavoured milk in those places.
The difference is that, in a classical system such as your DRAM array, the state of the cells before we read them is either 0 or 1: we just don't happen to know which. The switching between states happens at the time when the UV light hits the cell.
In the case of the electron, when we read the spin we always get either "up" or "down", but if we read "up" this doesn't mean that the spin was "up" immediately before we read it. Instead, the electron was in a weird condition where its spin was a mixture of "up" and "down", and the switching into a definite state only happens when we measure the state.
The person with political "cover" to create the blacklist is forced to spend all his time looking at web sites that have been reported as child porn, and is immune to prosecution for this. That's a pretty good job to have if you're a pervert.
Actually, no: anyone making notes about who is going in and out of a government building is likely to be arrested as a terrorist (see, for example, here).
The government would stop you looking at satellites too, if they could. At the moment, they can't. But if I lived in the US, I would think twice about publishing that sort of stuff on a web site.
It's worse: the commissioners are not ministers of the individual European countries (who would therefore at least have been elected in their own country). For example, Peter Mandelson got his job as the UK's commissioner after he had twice been forced to resign from the UK parliament because of corruption. The previous holders of the job were people who had lost elections to the UK parliament.
Why wouldn't you name the company? Are you afraid they will sue you for telling us that they have an AUP? Or do you think that it would be good for us to have to google to find out which company changed hands recently and charges £40?
It was TorrentSpy. The judge told them that they had to start keeping logs, so they did do. But they couldn't be prosecuted for not keeping logs before they were told to do so.
So, if the university had a policy of not keeping logs, their students would be safe up to the point when the RIAA got a court order to force them to start logging. Then the university could simply say to their students "we have been forced to start logging: stop your filesharing now, because the RIAA are watching".
The reason that universities don't do this is that they want logs for their own purposes, for example to track down infected machines, or people posting rude messages about the vice-chancellor.
That's already happened. These people were only released because they were charged under the 2000 act; under the new 2006 act they would surely have been convicted for "encouragement of terrorism" or "disseminating terrorist publications" (7 years in prison) or even "preparation for terrorist acts" (life imprisonment).
It would still not be sufficient for the attacker to revoke the key: in order to make the data inaccessible, the attacker would have to delete the key (including deleting it from all the places where it is backed up).
Still, if you're worried, the simple solution is to buy a security product from one of the commercial sponsors of this report. Then, when you lose your key, you will be able to pay a hacker some money to recover your data using the back-door that the NSA forced them to incorporate into their product.
Simple solution: pay for a copy, throw it in the bin, and install a stolen copy instead.
Because the British government have made a specific promise that these ID cards will be "voluntary". So it is looking for every possible method to make people "volunteer" to have them: for example, by making you produce your ID card when you get a job, so everyone is forced to either "volunteer" for a card, or else be unemployed.
So the solution is simply to do your searches on register.com if you're going to buy from them, and not to go to networksolutions.com at all.
Although: if ICANN eliminate the free tasting period, so that it costs network solutions some money for each domain they "protect from domain tasters" in this way, it would surely be fun to go to networksolutions.com and do a few hundred more searches for random domain names.
Actually, its share price is doing very well. The FTSE (London stock exchange average) fell 5% today, but Northern Rock shares are up 25%.
Some people might be naive enough to thing that, if a bank becomes insolvent and requires to be bailed out with £60 billion of government money to repay its investors, then the owners of the bank would lose their money. In fact they seem to be making a fat profit out of the situation.
So, if it's "just another format", how come Microsoft are paying for reporters to fly to Redmond? How come Microsoft have bribed whole countries to take part in previous votes? If we take your attitude, Microsoft will take over the world while we're not looking.
And yet: in a perfectly competitive market, if someone is selling goods for more then the cost of production, a competitor will be able to produce them for the same cost and sell them cheaper, thereby driving prices down. Conversely, if someone is selling goods for less than the cost of production, they will go out of business; the resulting scarcity will drive prices up. So, on average, prices will tend to equal the cost of production (plus a small margin for profit).
The need for "in-flight testing of the safeguards" sounds like fun too. Perhaps it is to see whether the firewalls still work under reduced air pressure.
Not necessarily: forcing everyone to use the same DRM scheme would not, in itself, make that scheme less secure. If the DRM is well-designed, the "secret" need only ever be known by a handful of people.
On the other hand, it would give the owner of the chosen DRM scheme a government-enforced monopoly, and we all know what a good idea that is.
Actually, if you read TFA, it sounds as though they want Europe-wide licencing for media downloads. Having one standard DRM schema might or might not be part of this, but they also want to stop the practice whereby paid-for downloads are charged at different prices in different countries: for example, Apple notoriously charge more for itunes downloads in the UK than they do in euro-zone countries. The original purpose of the EU was to create a "common market" where this sort of abuse could not happen.
See, for example, here. It was similar enough to bsd sockets that Microsoft could claim "compatibility", and sufficiently different that in practice you had to re-write all your code.
I remember seeing a description of an excellent test done on some audiophiles some years ago (this was back in the old vinyl days, so no url, unfortunately).
A number of audiophile "experts" were invited to a public test of various brands of loudspeaker. The test was done by playing the same music through several well-known brands of speakers, some reasonably cheap and some extremely expensive, all laid out on a stage. There was an arrangement with a big knob and some indicator lights to switch the music from one set of speakers to another. The "experts" were all asked to rate the speakers and to write reviews of them on the spot.
After it was all over, the curtains at the back of the stage were pulled back to reveal that none of the speakers were connected to anything, and that the music all came from a small live orchestra.
Of course the reviews all basically said that the most expensive speakers sounded much better than the ones that were known to be cheaper.
Hushmail gives you precisely as much security as they possibly can, and no more.
I don't know much about Hushmail, but I looked at their website, and they seem to want about $50 per year for what is basically GPG, and therefore available free. Except that, since java applets are downloaded from the server, there's no way to be sure that what you're actually running is what they claim that you are running, so their system might have all sorts of insecurities and backdoors, even if their source code looks OK. So they might give you as much security as they can, or they might be a bunch of cowboys. How do you tell? I certainly wouldn't trust them with my secrets.
Since its foundation circa 3000BC, in what is now Turkey.