Everyone is a self interested person, good or bad. The difference is that good people are better at dealing with other people in a reasonable way.
We all want to get what we want but if someone can't treat their wife or gf right, they just aren't all that good at human relationships and there is no way around it.
Precisely. Encryption/cracking is just another arms race.
Although the algorith is known to my enemies, my secret is safe as long as they don't have the key with which it is encrypted. They can get a computer to try all possible combinations though (called brute force attack).
My defence against this is to increase the key length so much that all th computers in the wolrd working together would take longer than the age of the universe to test all possible keys.
If 'the enemy' can brute-force an encryption key that is (say) 1024 bits long, I can increase the key length by any number of bits. Each aditional bit will double the length of time needed to test every single possible combination. Adding 10 bits would multiply the time by one thousand, twenty bits would make the time needed one million times longer. Another thousand bits and 'the enemy' can forget about it: the universe is not going to exist long enough for them to crack my encrypted message with brute force atacks, no matter how many computers they use.
Please note that the above only applies to cracking my encrypted message with brute force. I f 'the enemy' is willing to do it they might get a better resutl grabbing me and putting a gun to my head. Or they might try some other method at cracking the encryption.
If they crack your number generator then they can figure out which keys will be created by your GNUPG, they'll have a complete list of all the possible keys GNUPG can create, and they'll just go down the list trying each one until it matches your key, and thats how they'll crack your encryption.
This is what happened with SSL, this is what happened with the pseudo random number generator in windows.
The input (including random numbers) becomes the output and if you simply input a very recognizable pattern to generate all your keys, all your keys will maintain that very recognizable pattern, and so will your cipher text.
That and you have to know how to use the encryption after it's set up. Either way, lack of knowledge in how to use it will make it a lot less useful in practice.
If you do encryption properly it's completely unbreakable. The banks do it properly. Governments do it properly. Really smart hackers do it properly.
The majority of people just don't do it properly.
The only reason a brute force attack can work is if the numbers used to generate the key are not completely random, if the numbers are created by a true random number generator, it's impossible to crack the encryption through brute force methods.
But lets be honest, how many of us actually have or know how to make a true random number generator? And even if we could make one, it probably wouldn't be all that useful if the encryption algorithm you use is weak.
For the most part the algorithm you choose isn't important, the most important part is the entropy, but a weak algorithm just makes it that much easier.
Well lets see... if I was a terrorist I would *gasp* encrypt my data?
But wait, I'm sure that any decent criminal organization would do that... so... wait who's the law supposed to effect? It would only really help with people who DON'T encrypt their data.
Wonder what the largest group of people who send non-encrypted data are.
I doubt the terrorists would be using modern computer systems at all. If you hate the west and everything it stands for, why would you trust western technology? Terrorists probably are using encrypted radio, which would have more military function than email. I just can't imagine Bin Laden or any of these IED building suicide bomber types, using the internet for anything other than releasing videos etc.
And video transmissions present a completely different problem from email, because even if we watch the videos we might not understand or see the signals.
If TCP/IP had been encrypted from the beginning, we'd be worse off, not better.
Why? Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today. So instead of an obviously insecure communications medium, you'd have an insecure communications medium that everyone thinks is secure because, hey, it's encrypted! It wouldn't change anything except make people more complacent.
If TCP/IP had been encrypted from the beginning, we'd be worse off, not better.
Why? Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today. So instead of an obviously insecure communications medium, you'd have an insecure communications medium that everyone thinks is secure because, hey, it's encrypted! It wouldn't change anything except make people more complacent.
Crypto today is still crackable because the majority of people who use crypto aren't using it properly. Most of the crypto is purely software crypto which is easier to crack by default simply because the key is stored on the harddrive, secondly pseudo random number generators aren't random and these can be cracked to determine what the keys will be for all systems.
PGP and GNUPG is a good idea, but it will never be implemented on a mass scale and the only people who will know how to use it properly will probably be it's inventors, and hackers and other bright folks, but not the sorts of people who need it most.
I propose we build better live CDs, and Linux needs a better pseudo random number generator.
And if you really want to be safe you have to generate your own random numbers.
If the average windows user uses PGP, it does provide a decent level of privacy, however it's not absolutely private because the pseudo random number generators are predictable, and this includes Linux.
The problem will be finding random numbers, and using PGP properly, and most probably wont do either of these things.
First, if a woman is interested in you she wont be complaining about her bf or ex bf's to you, just the fact that she does this is evidence that she doesn't see you in that way.
Now, on the other hand, if she gets nervous around you, or if she flirts with you, then you have a chance.
Usually when a woman wants to have sex with you she will send the signal, she will make it known.
You just have to learn to read the signals. It has nothing to do with your interest in them and everything to do with their interest in you, you are a product and you are selling the one night stand, you have to convince them to desire and want sex with you, it helps if you look good and are into the same things sexually that they are into, and it helps if you have power because that turns women on in general.
I think it would be a bad move, a stupid move, which at best could lead to them kissing but probably wont lead to anything serious.
If she's sexually attracted to bad boys there is nothing he can do to change this. It's simple, if he can't turn her on, he can't turn her on, it's more of a problem that he can't start her sexual engine even if she loves him emotionally.
By now if he were interested he should have told her.
The simple fact is, she's probably not interested in him sexually. Typically, women who like bad boys have a "bad boy" fetish where they prefer sex with bad boys.
If a guy is too nice perhaps he can kiss her and all, but it doesnt mean they'll be compatible in the bedroom so it wont matter. In the end he will probably end up hurt.
More than once I've been there to pick up the pieces after some Neanderthal has done his work. Nothing burns like having someone you care about in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..."
Like me, only an ape. Yeah, I know.
(Bitter? Me?)
There is a difference between being nice and being stupid. That's just stupid.
Instead of picking up the pieces from abused women as a strategy to get laid(which is the path to friendship not casual sex), why not just focus exclusively on getting laid and refine your approach so as to minimize wasting your time?
If you just want to get laid you don't have to listen to her whine about all that junk.
Bad boys attract a woman through her reptillian brain, not through her neocortex.
What this means is, women who are attracted to bad boys are not attracted to them for any serious rational reason. Most of these women aren't going to marry the bad boy types or even date them seriously.
Of course if all you want to do is get laid you don't have to be a bad boy, unless you are a dirt poor college student then perhaps.
Okay, there is a little stuff in there I'm uncomfortable about, but let me talk about what I agree with:
If you're looking for a wife, get out of the US. Our angry, second-wave-feminist, crybaby boomer mothers raised our generation for men to hate themselves and women to hate men. For no good reason. Find me a man who says "women should stay home, barefoot and pregnant!" or "women make great secretaries, but that's about it." No. One. Thinks. That. But we all have to grovel and supplicate to prove we're not one of those sexist straw men our mothers made up.
As a result, American, and most Western, women have become, in my opinion, untenable as life partners. I want equality in my marriage. By that I mean social equality. I don't want to be the bad guy. I just want to be someone's husband. Partner.
Why do American guys flip over Asian women? Just as the parent says, it's because it's the first time most guys have ever had a woman treat him kindly. On the other hand, why do Asian women often flip for Western guys? Because for them, it's often the first time a guy has treated them kindly. This is why you see so many successful married couples with Western guy and Asian woman. The cultures' gender roles, in the current generation, are complementary.
BUT...
And this is where the parent has kind of fallen down...
Don't expect it to stay like that forever. It won't. It can't. It shouldn't.
East Asian households are basically run by the women. They expect to control the finances. However, in my experience (my wonderful wife is Japanese), and that of my friends, they're pretty damned good at it. It bothered me at first, but then I had to admit we were living very comfortably, I had plenty of money for toys, and we were saving over a third of our income! So I let that go. YMMV.
In the West, we've been programmed to think that a housewife or stay-at-home-mom is a slave. She's not. My wife doesn't work, and even though we could get more money otherwise, and it would of course be fine if she wanted to, it's awesome. I now see why that's been the dominant model in every society since the beginning of time. I work outside of the house, she makes sure the house is operating correctly. We get to spend a lot more leisure time together that way. We don't have to spend our weekends cleaning the house and doing laundry. We eat healthy, home-cooked food that bonds us socially. She's not a slave, she's my best friend and partner. I gladly work my ass off to make sure she's comfortable, and she gladly works her ass off to make sure I am. That, my friends, is a partnership. Just because I'm the one making the money doesn't mean I'm in a higher position. I'm in an equal position. We're taking the entire job of life and splitting it up and assigning roles.
For the record, if she could make more than me, I'd be delighted to stay at home and do the housework.
I guess what I'm saying is this:
If you are looking for a nice woman who wants a partnership, that's still in vogue in Asia.
As the parent said, don't be a dick. Learn the language and culture. This will ensure that you're not getting into something you don't understand.
Your preconceived notions are probably not complete. Asian women are strong and strong-willed. They expect to be given control of certain domains in your life, and you may need to go along with that, or work out a different deal, for your relationship to proceed harmoniously. Just because they don't treat men like crap doesn't mean they are Madame Butterfly. If that's what you want, um, well, you deserve to be unhappy and alone.
Realize that in a culture where women are nice to men, that niceness may or may not actually be indicative of anything special. I got really burned with my first girlfriend (only have had 2) in Japan. I fell head-over-heels for
It helps if you have the money to take her out to nice places and give her the shock and awe treatment.
It helps if you can buy her gifts, and keep her looking pretty.
Basically, the sugar daddies get even more women than the bad boys. The bad boys don't have money, or power, so the only way they have to get a woman is cave man style, they have to trick women into sleeping with them.
It's a lot easier if you can be yourself and have women trying chasing after you than to be the guy who chases them, and the way to have women chase after you is to be smooth and successful.
Just about every smooth and successful type has no problem with women. Meaning, you need a nice job, and you need to know how to talk to women.
that's why i put bad in quotes. I think being less self-conscious helps with getting casual sex is all. i don't see how you could disagree with that.
i agree with your statement as well.
Being "bad" is not the secret to getting laid.
You'd get laid more if you were smart and powerful, than weak and stupid.
Women want to be made to feel safe, they also want excitement. Bad boys often somehow are better at both of these. However if you have enough power and money it's not easy to outrank the bad boy, especially of the bad boy works a dead end career or worse, has no job at all.
This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a real story.
You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.
The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."
You had it right the first time. Bad boys don't make good husbands, they make good one night stands though, and thats what happens most of the time.
Besides, if it were your daughter would you let her marry a bad boy?
It's a competition for the women, thats why you spent so much time reading all those damn books and going to school, thats why you got your degree and your good job and nice car. You aren't fooling anybody.
Power is sexy, it always has been, and anyone who has it always attracts the hottest women. It's really the only true way to attract hot chicks.
It has nothing to do with being good or bad. All you need is a great job, a nice car, dress nice, speak properly, of course be polite and use the right words, be a bit mysterious, and you'll attract hot chicks.
It's simple, women are attracted to power. So go get some.
But it is not an excuse. Women who repeatedly get used in these types of relationships and then go cry to their geek friends deserve no sympathy. They should be smart enough to figure it out.
This study is flawed. You can be a good powerful guy and attract plenty of chicks, celebrities and rich good men attract women.
However if you aren't rich, and you aren't powerful, then you can't be boring, and lets face it, good guys are boring.
A lot of women like the excitement of being beat up, cheated on, abused, yelled at, cussed at, and perhaps the sex is better.
The solution, if you are good, prove yourself by making lots of money, because power is all that most women look for in a man. Just ask Trump.
linux, at least with the selinux security enhancements designed by the nsa, is extremely difficult to hack into via trojan. What makes it difficult are the file permissions.
I could get in for example, but unless you give my program root access it wont help me very much.
So I'd have to convince you to give my binary program root access, thats going to be fairly difficult when you could just compile the source code yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is a self interested person, good or bad. The difference is that good people are better at dealing with other people in a reasonable way.
We all want to get what we want but if someone can't treat their wife or gf right, they just aren't all that good at human relationships and there is no way around it.
Not all of us can afford to take 50 non electives!
Although the algorith is known to my enemies, my secret is safe as long as they don't have the key with which it is encrypted. They can get a computer to try all possible combinations though (called brute force attack).
My defence against this is to increase the key length so much that all th computers in the wolrd working together would take longer than the age of the universe to test all possible keys.
If 'the enemy' can brute-force an encryption key that is (say) 1024 bits long, I can increase the key length by any number of bits. Each aditional bit will double the length of time needed to test every single possible combination. Adding 10 bits would multiply the time by one thousand, twenty bits would make the time needed one million times longer. Another thousand bits and 'the enemy' can forget about it: the universe is not going to exist long enough for them to crack my encrypted message with brute force atacks, no matter how many computers they use.
Please note that the above only applies to cracking my encrypted message with brute force. I f 'the enemy' is willing to do it they might get a better resutl grabbing me and putting a gun to my head. Or they might try some other method at cracking the encryption.
If they crack your number generator then they can figure out which keys will be created by your GNUPG, they'll have a complete list of all the possible keys GNUPG can create, and they'll just go down the list trying each one until it matches your key, and thats how they'll crack your encryption.This is what happened with SSL, this is what happened with the pseudo random number generator in windows.
The input (including random numbers) becomes the output and if you simply input a very recognizable pattern to generate all your keys, all your keys will maintain that very recognizable pattern, and so will your cipher text.
The algorithm to generate the keys must be good.
And the random number generator must be true.
That and you have to know how to use the encryption after it's set up. Either way, lack of knowledge in how to use it will make it a lot less useful in practice.
If you do encryption properly it's completely unbreakable. The banks do it properly. Governments do it properly. Really smart hackers do it properly.
The majority of people just don't do it properly.
The only reason a brute force attack can work is if the numbers used to generate the key are not completely random, if the numbers are created by a true random number generator, it's impossible to crack the encryption through brute force methods.
But lets be honest, how many of us actually have or know how to make a true random number generator? And even if we could make one, it probably wouldn't be all that useful if the encryption algorithm you use is weak.
For the most part the algorithm you choose isn't important, the most important part is the entropy, but a weak algorithm just makes it that much easier.
But wait, I'm sure that any decent criminal organization would do that... so... wait who's the law supposed to effect? It would only really help with people who DON'T encrypt their data.
Wonder what the largest group of people who send non-encrypted data are.
I doubt the terrorists would be using modern computer systems at all. If you hate the west and everything it stands for, why would you trust western technology? Terrorists probably are using encrypted radio, which would have more military function than email. I just can't imagine Bin Laden or any of these IED building suicide bomber types, using the internet for anything other than releasing videos etc.And video transmissions present a completely different problem from email, because even if we watch the videos we might not understand or see the signals.
If TCP/IP had been encrypted from the beginning, we'd be worse off, not better.
Why? Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today. So instead of an obviously insecure communications medium, you'd have an insecure communications medium that everyone thinks is secure because, hey, it's encrypted! It wouldn't change anything except make people more complacent.
If TCP/IP had been encrypted from the beginning, we'd be worse off, not better.
Why? Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today. So instead of an obviously insecure communications medium, you'd have an insecure communications medium that everyone thinks is secure because, hey, it's encrypted! It wouldn't change anything except make people more complacent.
Crypto today is still crackable because the majority of people who use crypto aren't using it properly. Most of the crypto is purely software crypto which is easier to crack by default simply because the key is stored on the harddrive, secondly pseudo random number generators aren't random and these can be cracked to determine what the keys will be for all systems.PGP and GNUPG is a good idea, but it will never be implemented on a mass scale and the only people who will know how to use it properly will probably be it's inventors, and hackers and other bright folks, but not the sorts of people who need it most.
I propose we build better live CDs, and Linux needs a better pseudo random number generator.
And if you really want to be safe you have to generate your own random numbers.
And it's these sorts of people who reduce security, privacy, and liberty for the rest of us.
Wouldn't the internet be a better place of these individuals never came online?
If the average windows user uses PGP, it does provide a decent level of privacy, however it's not absolutely private because the pseudo random number generators are predictable, and this includes Linux.
The problem will be finding random numbers, and using PGP properly, and most probably wont do either of these things.
But it's still better than nothing.
You act like women don't have minds of their own.
First, if a woman is interested in you she wont be complaining about her bf or ex bf's to you, just the fact that she does this is evidence that she doesn't see you in that way.
Now, on the other hand, if she gets nervous around you, or if she flirts with you, then you have a chance.
Usually when a woman wants to have sex with you she will send the signal, she will make it known.
You just have to learn to read the signals. It has nothing to do with your interest in them and everything to do with their interest in you, you are a product and you are selling the one night stand, you have to convince them to desire and want sex with you, it helps if you look good and are into the same things sexually that they are into, and it helps if you have power because that turns women on in general.
I think it would be a bad move, a stupid move, which at best could lead to them kissing but probably wont lead to anything serious.
If she's sexually attracted to bad boys there is nothing he can do to change this. It's simple, if he can't turn her on, he can't turn her on, it's more of a problem that he can't start her sexual engine even if she loves him emotionally.
By now if he were interested he should have told her.
The simple fact is, she's probably not interested in him sexually. Typically, women who like bad boys have a "bad boy" fetish where they prefer sex with bad boys.
If a guy is too nice perhaps he can kiss her and all, but it doesnt mean they'll be compatible in the bedroom so it wont matter. In the end he will probably end up hurt.
What makes you think she's worth being kissed?
Shouldn't she have picked you in the first place?
If she really do say that isn't that more or less an invite? Have you tried kissing her once she say it? If not the blame is on you my friend.
Why would he want to date girl who dates losers?If she is not rational enough to date good guys, why exactly would you want to date her? She probably doesnt know what she wants yet.
More than once I've been there to pick up the pieces after some Neanderthal has done his work. Nothing burns like having someone you care about in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..."
Like me, only an ape. Yeah, I know.
(Bitter? Me?)
There is a difference between being nice and being stupid. That's just stupid.Instead of picking up the pieces from abused women as a strategy to get laid(which is the path to friendship not casual sex), why not just focus exclusively on getting laid and refine your approach so as to minimize wasting your time?
If you just want to get laid you don't have to listen to her whine about all that junk.
But there are different ways to attract women.
Bad boys attract a woman through her reptillian brain, not through her neocortex.
What this means is, women who are attracted to bad boys are not attracted to them for any serious rational reason. Most of these women aren't going to marry the bad boy types or even date them seriously.
Of course if all you want to do is get laid you don't have to be a bad boy, unless you are a dirt poor college student then perhaps.
Okay, there is a little stuff in there I'm uncomfortable about, but let me talk about what I agree with:
If you're looking for a wife, get out of the US. Our angry, second-wave-feminist, crybaby boomer mothers raised our generation for men to hate themselves and women to hate men. For no good reason. Find me a man who says "women should stay home, barefoot and pregnant!" or "women make great secretaries, but that's about it." No. One. Thinks. That. But we all have to grovel and supplicate to prove we're not one of those sexist straw men our mothers made up.
As a result, American, and most Western, women have become, in my opinion, untenable as life partners. I want equality in my marriage. By that I mean social equality. I don't want to be the bad guy. I just want to be someone's husband. Partner.
Why do American guys flip over Asian women? Just as the parent says, it's because it's the first time most guys have ever had a woman treat him kindly. On the other hand, why do Asian women often flip for Western guys? Because for them, it's often the first time a guy has treated them kindly. This is why you see so many successful married couples with Western guy and Asian woman. The cultures' gender roles, in the current generation, are complementary.
BUT...
And this is where the parent has kind of fallen down...
Don't expect it to stay like that forever. It won't. It can't. It shouldn't.
East Asian households are basically run by the women. They expect to control the finances. However, in my experience (my wonderful wife is Japanese), and that of my friends, they're pretty damned good at it. It bothered me at first, but then I had to admit we were living very comfortably, I had plenty of money for toys, and we were saving over a third of our income! So I let that go. YMMV.
In the West, we've been programmed to think that a housewife or stay-at-home-mom is a slave. She's not. My wife doesn't work, and even though we could get more money otherwise, and it would of course be fine if she wanted to, it's awesome. I now see why that's been the dominant model in every society since the beginning of time. I work outside of the house, she makes sure the house is operating correctly. We get to spend a lot more leisure time together that way. We don't have to spend our weekends cleaning the house and doing laundry. We eat healthy, home-cooked food that bonds us socially. She's not a slave, she's my best friend and partner. I gladly work my ass off to make sure she's comfortable, and she gladly works her ass off to make sure I am. That, my friends, is a partnership. Just because I'm the one making the money doesn't mean I'm in a higher position. I'm in an equal position. We're taking the entire job of life and splitting it up and assigning roles.
For the record, if she could make more than me, I'd be delighted to stay at home and do the housework.
I guess what I'm saying is this:
Mr. Dr. Prof. or something like this.
It helps if you have the money to take her out to nice places and give her the shock and awe treatment.
It helps if you can buy her gifts, and keep her looking pretty.
Basically, the sugar daddies get even more women than the bad boys. The bad boys don't have money, or power, so the only way they have to get a woman is cave man style, they have to trick women into sleeping with them.
It's a lot easier if you can be yourself and have women trying chasing after you than to be the guy who chases them, and the way to have women chase after you is to be smooth and successful.
Just about every smooth and successful type has no problem with women. Meaning, you need a nice job, and you need to know how to talk to women.
that's why i put bad in quotes. I think being less self-conscious helps with getting casual sex is all. i don't see how you could disagree with that.
i agree with your statement as well.
Being "bad" is not the secret to getting laid.You'd get laid more if you were smart and powerful, than weak and stupid.
Women want to be made to feel safe, they also want excitement. Bad boys often somehow are better at both of these. However if you have enough power and money it's not easy to outrank the bad boy, especially of the bad boy works a dead end career or worse, has no job at all.
You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.
The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."
You had it right the first time. Bad boys don't make good husbands, they make good one night stands though, and thats what happens most of the time.Besides, if it were your daughter would you let her marry a bad boy?
It's a competition for the women, thats why you spent so much time reading all those damn books and going to school, thats why you got your degree and your good job and nice car. You aren't fooling anybody.
Power is sexy, it always has been, and anyone who has it always attracts the hottest women. It's really the only true way to attract hot chicks.
It has nothing to do with being good or bad. All you need is a great job, a nice car, dress nice, speak properly, of course be polite and use the right words, be a bit mysterious, and you'll attract hot chicks.
It's simple, women are attracted to power. So go get some.
But it is not an excuse. Women who repeatedly get used in these types of relationships and then go cry to their geek friends deserve no sympathy. They should be smart enough to figure it out.
This study is flawed. You can be a good powerful guy and attract plenty of chicks, celebrities and rich good men attract women.However if you aren't rich, and you aren't powerful, then you can't be boring, and lets face it, good guys are boring.
A lot of women like the excitement of being beat up, cheated on, abused, yelled at, cussed at, and perhaps the sex is better.
The solution, if you are good, prove yourself by making lots of money, because power is all that most women look for in a man. Just ask Trump.
linux, at least with the selinux security enhancements designed by the nsa, is extremely difficult to hack into via trojan. What makes it difficult are the file permissions.
I could get in for example, but unless you give my program root access it wont help me very much.
So I'd have to convince you to give my binary program root access, thats going to be fairly difficult when you could just compile the source code yourself.