But there will be less deaths of American soldiers, and that's all that most people in the country really care about, eh?
I think you're still being too optimistic. Since Vietnam, the number of battles the US is willing to fight has been limited by the number of casualties the US public is willing to tolerate. Any technology that leads to fewer US casualties per battle will simply increase the number of battles; the number of US casualties will remain constant. However, since every other country lags behind the US when it comes to military technology, the overall number of casualties will increase.
I don't believe Guy Fawkes provides long-term nonrepudiation, because all the passwords are eventually revealed, so an attacker can change everything except the first two blocks, which are covered by the initial digital signature. Alice doesn't initially know whether she will be sending "foo bar baz bam" or "foo bar baz quux", so it must be possible to produce valid signature chains for both files using the same initial signature. Only Alice can produce a valid signature chain during the transmission, but anyone can do it after the fact: block i is only nonrepudiable until block i+2 is transmitted, unless I've misunderstood the protocol (which is likely!).
As far as I can tell you don't need Guy Fawkes to prevent someone from modifying earlier signatures. Just establish a shared secret in the usual way (eg station to station), and each time you use the secret, hash it and overwrite the old value with the hash. That way even if someone can read the current value of the secret from memory, they can't calculate any of the previous values. (If you're worried about the hash function getting trapped in a cycle you can XOR the secret with a non-wrapping counter before hashing it.)
Subusers: ordinary users should be able to create 'subusers' with subsets of their privileges. That would make it easy for ordinary users to run applications in sandboxes.
For example, I should be able to create a www subuser that has access to my bookmarks and cache, but can only access other parts of the filesystem when I explicitly authorise it. (Authorisation can be seamless: make the file selection dialog into a separate setuid process that runs with my full privileges.)
What kernel changes are needed? The UID field needs to be split into two parts (user ID and subuser ID), and any operation that's allowed for a subuser must also be allowed for that subuser's owner (same user ID, subuser ID == 0). The C library will need to mask out the subuser ID for things like getpwuid. And that's about it. Extra security for users who want it, no extra hassle for users who don't, and no extra hassle for administrators.
There's a bunch of case law that indicates that this operation was Constitutional.
Please cite it.
Someone who was actually listened to could sue.
Not true. According to this ruling, they would have to prove that they had been listened to before they could sue, and they have no way to discover whether they have been listened to.
Of course at SOME point, maybe in 20 years or so, the names of who the government was spying on will have to become a non-secret
Just like we now have all the facts about Iran/Contra? In 20 years they'll declare that the details could jeopardise ongoing operations and need to be kept secret for another 20 years.
Yup, they're now recruiting for Retrieving Body Parts from Tree Branches and Reassembling them for Burial Camp. You should see the brochure for that one.
I assume the articles in German will be written. But to the invention of web language digester Babelfish giving thanks, entire Worldsurface from this gift benefit can. Among others I wish our new machine translated feudal barons to welcome!
Absolutely true, and that's why I believe a lot of wars are caused by internal political influences that don't serve the overall interests of the warring nations, but serve the interests of certain small groups within those nations. That's not exactly a novel or profound conclusion of course, but I was just trying to point out that the statement "people profit from selling arms, and that causes problems" doesn't boil down to "arms should be abolished".
What else does "need to be kept from killing themselves and others" imply? By phrasing it as "they need to be kept" rather than "we need to keep them" or "we can profit by keeping them" you suggest that concern for somebody else's well-being is the motivation.
But eliminating "guns and bombs" just leaves us defenseless and at the mercy of the other human animals.
The GP didn't say guns and bombs should be eliminated. There's a huge difference between saying that guns and bombs are necessary for self-defence and saying that it's justifiable to provoke wars in order to make a profit. War is unavoidable, but not all wars are unavoidable. The political influence of the arms industry is a major strategic problem for the West because it makes it difficult for us to avoid conflicts that damage our overall security and prosperity (although of course they enrich a small segment of the population).
Quite frankly, these types un-neutered by the 'easy life' we lead need to be kept from killing themselves and others.
I'm puzzled by this statement because it seems to imply that the West intervened in, for example, Vietnam or Iraq for humanitarian rather than strategic reasons. Do you really believe that?
To be fair here the big issue with cross in pee is that it was funded with public funds
If the public decides to pay people to engage in unrestrained, free-form self-expression then I have no sympathy if the public is subsequently offended by what it has paid for. Or to put it another way, if they wanted a Hallmark card why didn't they buy a Hallmark card?
Of course not, just set up a CCTV camera with a loudspeaker that barks "I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!" at random intervals. The kids will police themselves and you can go to the pub.
Slashdot Mirror
*slumps away and plots the downfall of the infidel West*
I don't believe Guy Fawkes provides long-term nonrepudiation, because all the passwords are eventually revealed, so an attacker can change everything except the first two blocks, which are covered by the initial digital signature. Alice doesn't initially know whether she will be sending "foo bar baz bam" or "foo bar baz quux", so it must be possible to produce valid signature chains for both files using the same initial signature. Only Alice can produce a valid signature chain during the transmission, but anyone can do it after the fact: block i is only nonrepudiable until block i+2 is transmitted, unless I've misunderstood the protocol (which is likely!).
As far as I can tell you don't need Guy Fawkes to prevent someone from modifying earlier signatures. Just establish a shared secret in the usual way (eg station to station), and each time you use the secret, hash it and overwrite the old value with the hash. That way even if someone can read the current value of the secret from memory, they can't calculate any of the previous values. (If you're worried about the hash function getting trapped in a cycle you can XOR the secret with a non-wrapping counter before hashing it.)
Why not? I read 1984 at that age and it made me the paranoid reclusive misanthrope I am today.
Subusers: ordinary users should be able to create 'subusers' with subsets of their privileges. That would make it easy for ordinary users to run applications in sandboxes.
For example, I should be able to create a www subuser that has access to my bookmarks and cache, but can only access other parts of the filesystem when I explicitly authorise it. (Authorisation can be seamless: make the file selection dialog into a separate setuid process that runs with my full privileges.)
What kernel changes are needed? The UID field needs to be split into two parts (user ID and subuser ID), and any operation that's allowed for a subuser must also be allowed for that subuser's owner (same user ID, subuser ID == 0). The C library will need to mask out the subuser ID for things like getpwuid. And that's about it. Extra security for users who want it, no extra hassle for users who don't, and no extra hassle for administrators.
Presumably the new copyright extensions won't apply to Pink Floyd's The Wall...
Ich weiss doch, aber ich bin englisch, so bin ich zu höflich es zu sagen. ;-p
Babelfish tells me the correct answer is "Es wurde bedeutet, um ein Witz zu sein." ;-)
I assume the articles in German will be written. But to the invention of web language digester Babelfish giving thanks, entire Worldsurface from this gift benefit can. Among others I wish our new machine translated feudal barons to welcome!
Absolutely true, and that's why I believe a lot of wars are caused by internal political influences that don't serve the overall interests of the warring nations, but serve the interests of certain small groups within those nations. That's not exactly a novel or profound conclusion of course, but I was just trying to point out that the statement "people profit from selling arms, and that causes problems" doesn't boil down to "arms should be abolished".
What else does "need to be kept from killing themselves and others" imply? By phrasing it as "they need to be kept" rather than "we need to keep them" or "we can profit by keeping them" you suggest that concern for somebody else's well-being is the motivation.
What could separate church and state more effectively than publicly funded blasphemy?
If the public decides to pay people to engage in unrestrained, free-form self-expression then I have no sympathy if the public is subsequently offended by what it has paid for. Or to put it another way, if they wanted a Hallmark card why didn't they buy a Hallmark card?
Sorry I can't make it, but I'll delete some e-books if that will help. Just email them to me.
Of course not, just set up a CCTV camera with a loudspeaker that barks "I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!" at random intervals. The kids will police themselves and you can go to the pub.
Very little - it's called topic drift. ;-)