All humans alive are interracial to one degree or another, and yet through your apparently logical argument, your will to dilute the importance of this event is painfully clear.
What has changed is that the United States has become not only capable of electing a black president, but electing that black president on a landslide.
If that's not enough for you even one day into his "president elect" status, then you must have no brain or heart.
"encryption is the process of transforming information (referred to as plaintext) using an algorithm (called cipher) to make it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge"
What I'm talking about is the following:
The art and science of writing hidden messages in such a way that no-one apart from the sender and intended recipient even realizes there is a hidden message.
What I described is *precisely* correct under definition. Let me be more clear, using the example I used to offer students:
One is a process of conversion, the other is a process of obfuscation.
Combining the two is of course beyond the scope of this post, but is also an incredibly interesting discipline in itself.
I don't think I deserve that down-mod along with "zindorsky's" judgment here.
Let me explain.
This "zindorsky" person decided to pass no judgment or comment on the content of the post itself, but only stopped to correct my spelling and word usage, implying that not only was he already privy to the information contained in the post, but also that I'd misspelled the word in question--or more probably that I didn't know what the word was to begin with.
So this next part is for you, "zindorsky":
I have an agraphia aphemia, more precisely a Wernicke aphasia in morbid coupling with an ideomotor apraxia as a result of a brain injury some years ago. The result is interesting and bizarre---while I'm capable of typing well in excess of 120wpm on a low-travel keyboard, there are some words which are not accessible to my mind in written form. That means that I am capable of thinking of the word in my head, I can say it to myself, but I cannot imagine it spelled with letters at all, and I cannot even begin to type it. However, I've trained myself to cope with this minor issue by using very similar words and hope that context does the rest. And for about five years, up until now actually, it has.
You'll notice a few consistently wrong words in many of my posts---but which are phonetically close to the inaccessible word. You'll also see inexplicably missing words in many of my posts, which happens when I end my frustration by picking up typing speed. If I don't have a word ready to go at 120wpm or more, no word gets used in its place. The sentence goes on without it.
So, "zindorsky", do try to understand that sometimes it isn't so much that you have a superior intellect, but that you don't have enough information.
Wow, what a thoroughly embarrassing error that is. Thank goodness the rest of my post stands quite reasonably on it's own and contains no logical or factual errors, otherwise it may have been relevant to some sort of point to point out my consistent mistake.
I've always had a warm spot for stenography, and it's actually much handier for certain types of communications than others. For example, in the two nights preceeding the last Democratic National Convention that was held in Chicago (1996), a subversive media organization, armed with clunky digital cameras and a T-1 on the south side donated by the Teamsters photographed and filmed more than a hundred instances of police brutality, uploading them to the web with about a 30 minute delay.
You had to actually drive downtown to where the T-1 terminated to upload things in those days, see.
But how did we communicate our plans and schemes to actually be present at "hotspots" when the shit really went down? Stenography. It went like this:
I have a number, that number is 356-32395510. I tell you that number. Then I take an image file and UUencode it. (for those who don't remember what that does, it's great for turning a binary file into a flat text file without losing any data). Then I take the message that I want to give you and drop it manually into the UUencoded file, like this:
Every third character on every second line starting from line 910, (the third, fifth and sixth digits of the are decoys) counting whitespace. The numbers always changed and had to be memorized when received as they were never written down. Everything to the left of the dash tells you what digits to the right of the dash are decoys. Use the number to find the characters and you have the message. Pull them out and you can UUdecode your picture again and look at it. Leave them in and the file looks merely corrupt. Email the stenographed file to the recipient who's memorized your number and there you have it.
The upside to this method is plausible deniability. If the fuzz finds a corrupt file called "FATLADYSEXHAHA.uue" on your computer, they have nothing. However, if they find a PGP file that you refuse to open for them, there can be issues.
Of course it's possible to break that kind of thing, but the point of stenography is that the man does not know it's a message of any kind, let alone a radical one all about how awesome cuba is.
""[M]ost threats should be made irrelevant by eliminating vulnerabilities beforehand by either moving them 'out of band' (i.e., making them technically or physically inaccessible to the adversary), or 'designing them out' completely," the request for proposals adds."
Luckily for the Air Force, they don't actually have to do any work at all to make this happen, since it's been not only possible, but actually implemented since at least 1998, when RFC 2341 was written all about Virtual Private Networks.
Helpful Hint for the Air Force: Pay your private sector computer engineers more and you'll get the innovation you're looking for.
What was the artist's commission on that design? Everyone already knows that open source is good for the "environment". But how good is it for an individual?
I achieved four nines (%99.99) 8 years ago with Netscape's broken mail server "Suite Spot" running on a (at the time) three year old Sun E450 with 4 gigs of RAM. As I recall, it served about 120,000 clients on a large cable network in Chicago.
This whole "new web" thing is very pretty, but it seems like about three steps back to me.
So, you're a "black hat" who believes that a political process can work? Sorry, in my experience these two qualities are mutually exclusive discrete humans.
I say that because during the decade that I considered myself a "black hat", part of the deal was that I believed that I was crafting a system of morals to follow unique to myself and my situation, and that if those morals happened to intersect with any law of the land then it wasn't anything more than a bit of luck. Because I had to deny the applicability of "law" to my own decisions, I by definition could not have recognized the authority of any government over me, and therefore could not possibly have supported any potential "political process" that could have "worked".
Also, any black hat I've ever known would have never called itself one.
So let me tell you what *I* see. What I see is a posturing adolescent of some sort, doing that implied superiority thing that most of Europe has been doing since we got Dubya in as president, but who also, by very point of living in Europe, most assuredly lives in a country whos history is a hundred times bloodier, horrific, and longer than that of the US.
I'm not entirely sure that you understand what PCI DSS is or what it's related to, but a quick google search should do you well on that one.
By the way, my first computer was on a Commodore PET in 1978. My second was with VAX/VMS in 1979, and from then I never looked back. I'll admit right here and now that I do not currently, nor have I EVER held a "certificate" of any sort of computing or networking. My career pre-dates their necessity.
I consider myself a person who runs a company that specializes in PCI DSS (and similar) certifications, and therefore must absolutely be the model for the best case scenario of the same.
Of course it's incredibly important to not just slam a ham-fist down on a desk and try to herd everyone into one's own philosophy without first being very careful to build a policy that makes sense in the environment.
In my case, everything absolutely must be encrypted inside the network. That very often means multiple layers (a truecrypt volume for example being read over NFS piped through SSH happens often) of encryption, just to be absolutely certain that things are being done correctly.
The reason I do things this way is because a long time ago I learned from a brilliant CTO that no matter what, the safety and integrity of customer data is far, far more important than the immediate comfort of any single or small group of employees.
That is, if a security policy is implemented that makes everyone miserable, it is of course the wrong policy and should be modified. But, if a security policy is implemented that makes four of six developers miserable and really no one else, then those four developers can just deal with modifying their habits (which by the way, are usually the worst in the loudest whiners).
I don't. I've been modding down randomly ever since I realized a couple of weeks ago that slashdot had been taken over by children while I was away. See, it's all part of my brilliant scheme--serious replies that are heavily weighted to mod up (it really isn't very hard to impress the current crop of modders, unfortunately) in order to generate strangely good karma and points.
Then I pretend I'm 16 years old again and know everything and just start modding everyone down who I think is even a little bit of a jerk, no matter what the content of their post. See, I'm fitting right in.
Don't worry, I'll get tired eventually and diminish back to reddit.
Maybe you should go look at some of my history, modder, before you make the decision of "flamebait", which says much more about your intellect than it does about my motivation.
I'm not a network administrator, though I used to be. Now I own the company, and the policy stands unbreakable, period. There is no compromise.
In return, 5 years of zero security breeches, zero data loss. I don't know about you, but I like to sleep well at night--and in my position, that's already difficult enough.
And of course the user's needs are seen to, but not to the detriment of security under any circumstances, ever.
I'm in agreement with Smertrios as well. It's easy to see why such a blanketing policy is necessary--have you ever worked with scientists? While possibly quite brilliant, most of them seem to have the same problem remembering to keep sensitive data encrypted. The only logical solution to this is to write a policy which requires everything to be encrypted.
Sounds to me like the IT department in question knows what it's doing, and who it's clients are. It's rarely mentioned outside an IT department, but I'll share one of the big secrets: 98% of the job of any IT department is to protect users from their own stupidity. The smartest users are the ones who realize this and give the IT department enough space to operate, while at the same time learning as much as they can about what they do so they have a real understanding of how to specifically follow the rules while at the same time getting everything done.
There is no misunderstanding the question. A $USER is frustrated because the security is slowing him down. $IT_DEPT is frustrated because $USER does not understand why it's so important and keeps whining about it.
In the Right World, where all things are Right, and all people only think the Right thing at all times, $IT_DEPT wins.
What will happen here is anyone's guess, but really all $USER needs to do is adapt to a changed environment, which is never, never as difficult as designing that environment in the first place. $USER doesn't know how good he's got it.
Absolutely. As I read the article, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why anyone cares about his opinions on these matters. Lots of people have always thought the internet was "built broken", and not one of his arguments is anything I haven't heard from any one of a hundred engineers between 1989 and now.
But the plain fact of the matter is that despite its architecture, the internet does appear to work and also be capable of a pretty fair level of security if you're the kind of person who likes to pay attention to things like that.
I mean after all, we're only now starting to understand that a pretty good way pull the energy out of oil is to convert it to gasoline and detonate the vapors and allow that kinetic force to turn a drive shaft attached directly to the point of the machine---but a better way is to convert it to gasoline and detonate the vapors and allow that kinetic force to instead turn an electromagnetic generator and fill up batteries, bleeding the stored energy from them instead to directly turn a drive shaft attached to the point of the machine......and how long have we been building cars now?
Massive architecture changes to the internet will be powered by consumer spending and steered by marketing departments all over the world--if at all, despite what Twitter Guy wants. But to whine without a sincere offer of assistance with its alleged "brokenness" is just lame
Slashdot Mirror
All humans alive are interracial to one degree or another, and yet through your apparently logical argument, your will to dilute the importance of this event is painfully clear.
Why are you doing that?
What has changed is that the United States has become not only capable of electing a black president, but electing that black president on a landslide.
If that's not enough for you even one day into his "president elect" status, then you must have no brain or heart.
Why don't you furnish me with your identity and email address and we can discuss the issue, if you're actually interested and not just being a jerk.
You're fired, Thomas. You know the drill. You have 300 seconds to say your goodbyes and bitch about how evil I am to fire you via Slashdot reply.
But hell, it's not like it's got a better use these days.
Encryption is the following:
"encryption is the process of transforming information (referred to as plaintext) using an algorithm (called cipher) to make it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge"
What I'm talking about is the following:
The art and science of writing hidden messages in such a way that no-one apart from the sender and intended recipient even realizes there is a hidden message.
What I described is *precisely* correct under definition. Let me be more clear, using the example I used to offer students:
One is a process of conversion, the other is a process of obfuscation.
Combining the two is of course beyond the scope of this post, but is also an incredibly interesting discipline in itself.
I don't think I deserve that down-mod along with "zindorsky's" judgment here.
Let me explain.
This "zindorsky" person decided to pass no judgment or comment on the content of the post itself, but only stopped to correct my spelling and word usage, implying that not only was he already privy to the information contained in the post, but also that I'd misspelled the word in question--or more probably that I didn't know what the word was to begin with.
So this next part is for you, "zindorsky":
I have an agraphia aphemia, more precisely a Wernicke aphasia in morbid coupling with an ideomotor apraxia as a result of a brain injury some years ago. The result is interesting and bizarre---while I'm capable of typing well in excess of 120wpm on a low-travel keyboard, there are some words which are not accessible to my mind in written form. That means that I am capable of thinking of the word in my head, I can say it to myself, but I cannot imagine it spelled with letters at all, and I cannot even begin to type it. However, I've trained myself to cope with this minor issue by using very similar words and hope that context does the rest. And for about five years, up until now actually, it has.
You'll notice a few consistently wrong words in many of my posts---but which are phonetically close to the inaccessible word. You'll also see inexplicably missing words in many of my posts, which happens when I end my frustration by picking up typing speed. If I don't have a word ready to go at 120wpm or more, no word gets used in its place. The sentence goes on without it.
So, "zindorsky", do try to understand that sometimes it isn't so much that you have a superior intellect, but that you don't have enough information.
Wow, what a thoroughly embarrassing error that is. Thank goodness the rest of my post stands quite reasonably on it's own and contains no logical or factual errors, otherwise it may have been relevant to some sort of point to point out my consistent mistake.
I've always had a warm spot for stenography, and it's actually much handier for certain types of communications than others. For example, in the two nights preceeding the last Democratic National Convention that was held in Chicago (1996), a subversive media organization, armed with clunky digital cameras and a T-1 on the south side donated by the Teamsters photographed and filmed more than a hundred instances of police brutality, uploading them to the web with about a 30 minute delay.
You had to actually drive downtown to where the T-1 terminated to upload things in those days, see.
But how did we communicate our plans and schemes to actually be present at "hotspots" when the shit really went down? Stenography. It went like this:
I have a number, that number is 356-32395510. I tell you that number. Then I take an image file and UUencode it. (for those who don't remember what that does, it's great for turning a binary file into a flat text file without losing any data). Then I take the message that I want to give you and drop it manually into the UUencoded file, like this:
Every third character on every second line starting from line 910, (the third, fifth and sixth digits of the are decoys) counting whitespace. The numbers always changed and had to be memorized when received as they were never written down. Everything to the left of the dash tells you what digits to the right of the dash are decoys. Use the number to find the characters and you have the message. Pull them out and you can UUdecode your picture again and look at it. Leave them in and the file looks merely corrupt. Email the stenographed file to the recipient who's memorized your number and there you have it.
The upside to this method is plausible deniability. If the fuzz finds a corrupt file called "FATLADYSEXHAHA.uue" on your computer, they have nothing. However, if they find a PGP file that you refuse to open for them, there can be issues.
Of course it's possible to break that kind of thing, but the point of stenography is that the man does not know it's a message of any kind, let alone a radical one all about how awesome cuba is.
""[M]ost threats should be made irrelevant by eliminating vulnerabilities beforehand by either moving them 'out of band' (i.e., making them technically or physically inaccessible to the adversary), or 'designing them out' completely," the request for proposals adds."
Luckily for the Air Force, they don't actually have to do any work at all to make this happen, since it's been not only possible, but actually implemented since at least 1998, when RFC 2341 was written all about Virtual Private Networks.
Helpful Hint for the Air Force: Pay your private sector computer engineers more and you'll get the innovation you're looking for.
What was the artist's commission on that design? Everyone already knows that open source is good for the "environment". But how good is it for an individual?
I achieved four nines (%99.99) 8 years ago with Netscape's broken mail server "Suite Spot" running on a (at the time) three year old Sun E450 with 4 gigs of RAM. As I recall, it served about 120,000 clients on a large cable network in Chicago.
This whole "new web" thing is very pretty, but it seems like about three steps back to me.
So, you're a "black hat" who believes that a political process can work? Sorry, in my experience these two qualities are mutually exclusive discrete humans.
I say that because during the decade that I considered myself a "black hat", part of the deal was that I believed that I was crafting a system of morals to follow unique to myself and my situation, and that if those morals happened to intersect with any law of the land then it wasn't anything more than a bit of luck. Because I had to deny the applicability of "law" to my own decisions, I by definition could not have recognized the authority of any government over me, and therefore could not possibly have supported any potential "political process" that could have "worked".
Also, any black hat I've ever known would have never called itself one.
So let me tell you what *I* see. What I see is a posturing adolescent of some sort, doing that implied superiority thing that most of Europe has been doing since we got Dubya in as president, but who also, by very point of living in Europe, most assuredly lives in a country whos history is a hundred times bloodier, horrific, and longer than that of the US.
Give us time. We'll catch up.
I'm not entirely sure that you understand what PCI DSS is or what it's related to, but a quick google search should do you well on that one.
By the way, my first computer was on a Commodore PET in 1978. My second was with VAX/VMS in 1979, and from then I never looked back. I'll admit right here and now that I do not currently, nor have I EVER held a "certificate" of any sort of computing or networking. My career pre-dates their necessity.
I consider myself a person who runs a company that specializes in PCI DSS (and similar) certifications, and therefore must absolutely be the model for the best case scenario of the same.
Of course it's incredibly important to not just slam a ham-fist down on a desk and try to herd everyone into one's own philosophy without first being very careful to build a policy that makes sense in the environment.
In my case, everything absolutely must be encrypted inside the network. That very often means multiple layers (a truecrypt volume for example being read over NFS piped through SSH happens often) of encryption, just to be absolutely certain that things are being done correctly.
The reason I do things this way is because a long time ago I learned from a brilliant CTO that no matter what, the safety and integrity of customer data is far, far more important than the immediate comfort of any single or small group of employees.
That is, if a security policy is implemented that makes everyone miserable, it is of course the wrong policy and should be modified. But, if a security policy is implemented that makes four of six developers miserable and really no one else, then those four developers can just deal with modifying their habits (which by the way, are usually the worst in the loudest whiners).
I don't. I've been modding down randomly ever since I realized a couple of weeks ago that slashdot had been taken over by children while I was away. See, it's all part of my brilliant scheme--serious replies that are heavily weighted to mod up (it really isn't very hard to impress the current crop of modders, unfortunately) in order to generate strangely good karma and points.
Then I pretend I'm 16 years old again and know everything and just start modding everyone down who I think is even a little bit of a jerk, no matter what the content of their post. See, I'm fitting right in.
Don't worry, I'll get tired eventually and diminish back to reddit.
Eh, fine. Shouldn't you be getting to class?
Maybe you should go look at some of my history, modder, before you make the decision of "flamebait", which says much more about your intellect than it does about my motivation.
I'm not a network administrator, though I used to be. Now I own the company, and the policy stands unbreakable, period. There is no compromise.
In return, 5 years of zero security breeches, zero data loss. I don't know about you, but I like to sleep well at night--and in my position, that's already difficult enough.
And of course the user's needs are seen to, but not to the detriment of security under any circumstances, ever.
I'm in agreement with Smertrios as well. It's easy to see why such a blanketing policy is necessary--have you ever worked with scientists? While possibly quite brilliant, most of them seem to have the same problem remembering to keep sensitive data encrypted. The only logical solution to this is to write a policy which requires everything to be encrypted.
Sounds to me like the IT department in question knows what it's doing, and who it's clients are. It's rarely mentioned outside an IT department, but I'll share one of the big secrets: 98% of the job of any IT department is to protect users from their own stupidity. The smartest users are the ones who realize this and give the IT department enough space to operate, while at the same time learning as much as they can about what they do so they have a real understanding of how to specifically follow the rules while at the same time getting everything done.
It's not impossible at all.
There is no misunderstanding the question. A $USER is frustrated because the security is slowing him down. $IT_DEPT is frustrated because $USER does not understand why it's so important and keeps whining about it.
In the Right World, where all things are Right, and all people only think the Right thing at all times, $IT_DEPT wins.
What will happen here is anyone's guess, but really all $USER needs to do is adapt to a changed environment, which is never, never as difficult as designing that environment in the first place. $USER doesn't know how good he's got it.
Hear that? That's the sound of 4294967296 pots and 4294967296 kettles all crashing into each other simultaneously.
Indeed. It's right here:
:)
OliverKrueger install ssh keys.
and a backdoor.
Bad IRC-Fu on the part of the forking kids. If I'd seen that I would have had everyone locked the hell out in under ten seconds as well.
...for precisely the same reasons.
Absolutely. As I read the article, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why anyone cares about his opinions on these matters. Lots of people have always thought the internet was "built broken", and not one of his arguments is anything I haven't heard from any one of a hundred engineers between 1989 and now.
But the plain fact of the matter is that despite its architecture, the internet does appear to work and also be capable of a pretty fair level of security if you're the kind of person who likes to pay attention to things like that.
I mean after all, we're only now starting to understand that a pretty good way pull the energy out of oil is to convert it to gasoline and detonate the vapors and allow that kinetic force to turn a drive shaft attached directly to the point of the machine---but a better way is to convert it to gasoline and detonate the vapors and allow that kinetic force to instead turn an electromagnetic generator and fill up batteries, bleeding the stored energy from them instead to directly turn a drive shaft attached to the point of the machine......and how long have we been building cars now?
Massive architecture changes to the internet will be powered by consumer spending and steered by marketing departments all over the world--if at all, despite what Twitter Guy wants. But to whine without a sincere offer of assistance with its alleged "brokenness" is just lame