Let's see now... who's smarter, Al Gore or Ben Stein? No contest.
Money muddies the water quite a bit. Follow the money, and you'll see why there are academics who line up with Gore. And, follow the money, and you'll see why some scientists line up with Stein.
Bottom line, the scientists have not yet "proven" their case. Only those predisposed to their conclusions accept them as fact.
It would be useful if the dismount of an encrypted drive would overwrite the memory being used before releasing it. Assuming that a clean system shutdown performs a dismount, and assuming that you shut down your machine when you are leaving it unattended, you should be in pretty good shape. Of course sleep and hibernate are problematic -- not to mention merely logging off or locking the desktop.
> I wonder if even TrueCrypt's keyfile function is even thwarted. I mean even if they get your > encryption passphrase, wouldn't they still need the keyfile to mount the partition? And how would > they know the location of a hidden partition?
Truecrypt's keyfile is only a precursor to the actual decryption key. It is not accessed after the drive is mounted. Once the drive is mounted, everything that is needed to read the disk is in memory. (namely, the decryption key).
So, whatever drive or partition you have mounted (whether hidden or otherwise) is accessible to anyone who can read your computer's memory.
Previous versions for Linux required a kernel module. When they say 5.0 has "independence from the kernel internals", does that mean there no longer is a kernel module? Or that the kernel module is somehow portable across kernels??
And, does this mean you can mount a Truecrypt volume from the traveler mode as a guest on a system without having root or admin privileges?
For those who agree with RP on all the issues, who would be willing to give the government to the Democrats for four years in order to make a point, that might make some sense. But I don't think that thinking represents the typical conservative Republican.
Stem cell research: McCain supports, Romney and Huckabee oppose
Abortion: Huckabee supporters are left with a decision about whose conversion to pro-life to believe -- if either. McCain's support for stem cell research weighs against him with on the abortion issue. Romney has been more successful at persuading pro-life supporters that his current position is reliable.
> The very idea of "conservative", in the modern American context, > refers specifically to the coalition between business interests, > war hawks, and evangelical Christians
Conservatives want government to do just a few things and to do them well, and aside from that to leave everyone alone. The conservative agenda addresses things like taxes, immigration, national security, social issues, limited government, individual freedom. Those issues are not unique to evangelicals, nor "war hawks," nor "business interests."
> Huckabee and Romney aren't any more "conservative" than McCain
You just destroyed your own credibility. Do a little research.
> The very idea of conservatism is what's at stake in this Republican nomination.
> The very idea of "conservative", in the modern American context,
> refers specifically to the coalition between business interests,
> war hawks, and evangelical Christians
Conservatives want government to do just a few things and to do them well, and aside from that to leave everyone alone. The conservative agenda addresses things like taxes, immigration, national security, social issues, limited government, individual freedom. Those issues are not unique to evangelicals, nor "war hawks," nor "business interests."
> Huckabee and Romney aren't any more "conservative" than McCain
You just destroyed your own credibility. Do a little research.
> I would rather lose the general election and let the other side > take the blame for wrong policies than win the election and let > my side get blamed for a President's wrong policies that we don't > actually support.
I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives who agree with you. But there are other conservatives who would consider that a vote for Clinton/Obama. For those who hold conservative values, is it acceptable to allow the federal government to move even farther to the left? There will be real social and economic consequences if the Democrats win the general election. Some conservatives believe they have an obligation to do what they can to keep that from happening.
Huckabee supporters are quite conservative on most of the issues. If Huckabee were not in the race, most of his supporters would choose Romney over McCain, because Romney has much stronger conservative credentials than McCain, across all the issues. Bottom line, I think they would trust Romney more than they would trust McCain. Neither of them is a perfect fit for a core Huckabee supporter.
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
There seem to be a couple of unproven underlying assumptions in most of the comments on this thread:
1) The assumption that there is no benefit from stopping less than 100% of unauthorized copying.
2) The assumption that hardware mechanisms (hardened TPM for example) are not sufficient to prevent enough instances of unauthorized copying to be financially viable... and that they never will be sufficient.
I don't think content owners agree with either of those assumptions.
Too many people fail to recognize the differences between music and major motion pictures. Without a reliable way to require payment for viewing a movie, the expensive, dramatic effects we have come to expect will become a thing of the past. If you want to see these movies at home, there will be DRM.
Contrary to the cited article, not all DRM has been broken. Consider systems based upon just-in-time online delivery of a key tied to the viewing device and the specific content, with the ability to revoke the rights of uniquely identifiable players. That model seems viable for the forseeable future, and is probably the most important model IMO.
There were quite a few blunders on the user end of the Enigma. There would have been no hope of breaking it without those blunders. Polish research before the war was also crucial. They managed to communicate their discoveries to Britain before Hitler closed off Poland.
In theory there were a astronomically large number of possible combinations (3 x 10^114) of rotor wirings, pluggable wirings, and rotor positions in a three-rotor Enigma machine. That key space is incredibly far beyond the capabilities of modern computers to search. However, in reality there were only three rotors implemented at first (later there were five, from which three were chosen for each day). The allies knew the wiring of the three rotors before the war began, and deduced the other two. So instead of having to try all the theoretical combinations of rotors, they only had to try the combinations of the ones that actually were implemented.
The subs had a four-rotor machine, but the operators made a fatal mistake. In order for messages to be read on three-rotor machines, an operator encrypted the same message twice--once with three rotors and once with four. That gave the codebreakers the information they needed to deduce the fourth rotor. They built a machine for breaking the Enigma codes which, given what they knew about the rotors, they could break them quickly enough to be extremely useful in the war.
Also a German U-boat was captured, along with a code book showing the rotor positions for the next few months. With that information they learned enough about the four rotor system to be able to break those messages also.
I wonder how long it will be until some burglar figures out when he will be away for awhile and empties out his house. Or until some identity thief learns enough about him to empty out his retirement account. etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see now... who's smarter, Al Gore or Ben Stein? No contest. Money muddies the water quite a bit. Follow the money, and you'll see why there are academics who line up with Gore. And, follow the money, and you'll see why some scientists line up with Stein. Bottom line, the scientists have not yet "proven" their case. Only those predisposed to their conclusions accept them as fact.
Long live sneakernet!
It would be useful if the dismount of an encrypted drive would overwrite the memory being used before releasing it. Assuming that a clean system shutdown performs a dismount, and assuming that you shut down your machine when you are leaving it unattended, you should be in pretty good shape. Of course sleep and hibernate are problematic -- not to mention merely logging off or locking the desktop.
> I wonder if even TrueCrypt's keyfile function is even thwarted. I mean even if they get your
> encryption passphrase, wouldn't they still need the keyfile to mount the partition? And how would
> they know the location of a hidden partition?
Truecrypt's keyfile is only a precursor to the actual decryption key. It is not accessed after the drive is mounted. Once the drive is mounted, everything that is needed to read the disk is in memory. (namely, the decryption key).
So, whatever drive or partition you have mounted (whether hidden or otherwise) is accessible to anyone who can read your computer's memory.
Previous versions for Linux required a kernel module. When they say 5.0 has "independence from the kernel internals", does that mean there no longer is a kernel module? Or that the kernel module is somehow portable across kernels??
And, does this mean you can mount a Truecrypt volume from the traveler mode as a guest on a system without having root or admin privileges?
Do you always make condescending assumptions about people who disagree with you? Or are you trying it out for the first time today?
For those who agree with RP on all the issues, who would be willing to give the government to the Democrats for four years in order to make a point, that might make some sense. But I don't think that thinking represents the typical conservative Republican.
I don't think Romney's religion is a big deal to most conservatives.. except that, for some, it provides a reason to believe his integrity.
OTOH there are problems as you've pointed out. He's not a perfect conservative candidate -- just the best one conservatives have any shot of getting.
Nope. Romney is better aligned with conservatives than McCain:
Immigration: McCain same as Clinton, Obama, Edwards. Compare to Romney and Huckabee
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=immigration
McCain hurt his conservative credentials by partnering with Kennedy on the failed immigration bill.
Stem cell research: McCain supports, Romney and Huckabee oppose
Abortion: Huckabee supporters are left with a decision about whose conversion to pro-life to believe -- if either. McCain's support for stem cell research weighs against him with on the abortion issue. Romney has been more successful at persuading pro-life supporters that his current position is reliable.
> The very idea of "conservative", in the modern American context,
> refers specifically to the coalition between business interests,
> war hawks, and evangelical Christians
Conservatives want government to do just a few things and to do them well, and aside from that to leave everyone alone. The conservative agenda addresses things like taxes, immigration, national security, social issues, limited government, individual freedom. Those issues are not unique to evangelicals, nor "war hawks," nor "business interests."
> Huckabee and Romney aren't any more "conservative" than McCain
You just destroyed your own credibility. Do a little research.
> The very idea of conservatism is what's at stake in this Republican nomination.
On that you are correct.
> The very idea of "conservative", in the modern American context, > refers specifically to the coalition between business interests, > war hawks, and evangelical Christians Conservatives want government to do just a few things and to do them well, and aside from that to leave everyone alone. The conservative agenda addresses things like taxes, immigration, national security, social issues, limited government, individual freedom. Those issues are not unique to evangelicals, nor "war hawks," nor "business interests." > Huckabee and Romney aren't any more "conservative" than McCain You just destroyed your own credibility. Do a little research.
Yes, but a vote for Huckabee helps to cement McCain as the nominee. That's not an outcome most Huckabee supporters would want.
> I would rather lose the general election and let the other side
> take the blame for wrong policies than win the election and let
> my side get blamed for a President's wrong policies that we don't
> actually support.
I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives who agree with you. But there are other conservatives who would consider that a vote for Clinton/Obama. For those who hold conservative values, is it acceptable to allow the federal government to move even farther to the left? There will be real social and economic consequences if the Democrats win the general election. Some conservatives believe they have an obligation to do what they can to keep that from happening.
Huckabee supporters are quite conservative on most of the issues. If Huckabee were not in the race, most of his supporters would choose Romney over McCain, because Romney has much stronger conservative credentials than McCain, across all the issues. Bottom line, I think they would trust Romney more than they would trust McCain. Neither of them is a perfect fit for a core Huckabee supporter.
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
There seem to be a couple of unproven underlying assumptions in most of the comments on this thread:
1) The assumption that there is no benefit from stopping less than 100% of unauthorized copying.
2) The assumption that hardware mechanisms (hardened TPM for example) are not sufficient to prevent enough instances of unauthorized copying to be financially viable... and that they never will be sufficient.
I don't think content owners agree with either of those assumptions.
Trust takes a long time to build, but only a moment to lose. Microsoft has violated trust so often that restoring trust may be out of reach.
When they outlaw hidden volumes, only outlaws will have hidden volumes.
Parent post hits the nail on the head.
Too many people fail to recognize the differences between music and major motion pictures. Without a reliable way to require payment for viewing a movie, the expensive, dramatic effects we have come to expect will become a thing of the past. If you want to see these movies at home, there will be DRM.
Contrary to the cited article, not all DRM has been broken. Consider systems based upon just-in-time online delivery of a key tied to the viewing device and the specific content, with the ability to revoke the rights of uniquely identifiable players. That model seems viable for the forseeable future, and is probably the most important model IMO.
There were quite a few blunders on the user end of the Enigma. There would have been no hope of breaking it without those blunders. Polish research before the war was also crucial. They managed to communicate their discoveries to Britain before Hitler closed off Poland.
In theory there were a astronomically large number of possible combinations (3 x 10^114) of rotor wirings, pluggable wirings, and rotor positions in a three-rotor Enigma machine. That key space is incredibly far beyond the capabilities of modern computers to search. However, in reality there were only three rotors implemented at first (later there were five, from which three were chosen for each day). The allies knew the wiring of the three rotors before the war began, and deduced the other two. So instead of having to try all the theoretical combinations of rotors, they only had to try the combinations of the ones that actually were implemented.
The subs had a four-rotor machine, but the operators made a fatal mistake. In order for messages to be read on three-rotor machines, an operator encrypted the same message twice--once with three rotors and once with four. That gave the codebreakers the information they needed to deduce the fourth rotor. They built a machine for breaking the Enigma codes which, given what they knew about the rotors, they could break them quickly enough to be extremely useful in the war.
Also a German U-boat was captured, along with a code book showing the rotor positions for the next few months. With that information they learned enough about the four rotor system to be able to break those messages also.
If this doesn't lead to change in patent law, nothing will.
I wonder how long it will be until some burglar figures out when he will be away for awhile and empties out his house. Or until some identity thief learns enough about him to empty out his retirement account. etc...
The government is not the only threat out there.
A really bad idea. At least with a credit card or bank account, I can close the account if it is compromised, and get a new account number.
I wonder how many different places someone can go to get my drivers' license number...
I'm no fan of IE, but firefox is equally vulnerable to this issue. It's caused by the way SSL / TLS is used by the app on the server.