See, and this is an example of how courts (well, a jury in this case) still don't really understand computers. The evidence for the obstruction charge is that he delete some photos (not related to the incident) and then defragmented his hard drive. Also, he uninstalled one web browser and cleared the cache in another. This interfered with the later forensic probe, sure, but obstruction of justice requires the/intent/ to interfere with an investigation. That defragging the hard drive was done with the intent of interfering with the forensic probe is not only open to reasonable doubt, but the allegation strains credibility. If he was really concerned about destroying the evidence, he would have reformatted the drive or physically destroyed it. And people clear browser caches for all sorts of reasons. I believe the jury was, on this charge, critically confused.
Are you certain of that? Have you ever tried it? I kind of doubt enough people want to do that that the state or federal treasuries would have a procedure for accepting donations.
Right, so that's why Apple just ignored the GNU Go DMCA notice.
Oh, wait, Apple didn't, because it doesn't work like that. Anyone distributing copyrighted material without authorization and without qualifying for exceptions like fair use is committing copyright infringement. Just like if I post some Scientology crap here, it's probably going to be Slashdot and not me that the CoS goes after with a DMCA notice. Apple qualifies for the DMCA safe harbor, so it avoids liability as long as it complies with the DMCA notices, but Apple _IS_ _COMMITTING_ copyright infringement.
> Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
You said it, man. That's totally how my typical day goes.
Okay, before anyone clicks that link, note that it is weird even relative to other Japanese cultural exports. I'd put it at about the level of tentacle porn, but more disturbing. Yes, more disturbing than tentacle porn. Oh, and it's NSFW.
I'm going to just say you probably don't want to click that. And even if you're not at work, you'll be reaching for brain bleach afterwards. You've been warned.
I recall universities (stupidly, imo -- just buy a few paper (or Braille, or whatever) textbooks for the tiny minority of students for whom Kindles are unacceptable) dropping e-textbook plans because of ADA concerns. I don't recall anyone saying that using the iPad instead would have alleviated these concerns.
Nothing in that link suggests that the government considers the iPad any better or that the Kindle would need any specific features found in the iPad to comply. I vaguely remember that Amazon was working on adding text-to-speech to the Kindle a while back to silence complaints about accessibility.
As far as I'm aware, WPA2 with AES is not crackable. Have you ever cracked a WPA2 network with AES using anything more sophisticated than brute-forcing the password, or do people just not use this setup often?
This is brilliant. The topic of the article is, "why are we losing vertical pixels". Thanks to Libertarian loonyism, I've now read through comments on land ownership and the big bad government, health care reform, and now overly dramatized, tough-guy hypotheticals, complete with gender stereotyping (hint: most mugging victims are male).
Libertarianism is the cancer that is killing Slashdot.
It's unsettled law in the U.S. whether an encryption key is protected under the 5th Amendment. Only district courts have considered the issue. The Boucher court decided that encryption keys are not protected, and the Kirschener court decided they are protected.
You said that no one can do anything against the wishes of another (including the transmission of a secret message) without resorting to the threat of violence to enforce that wish. You argued specifically that guns would be necessary to do this. I gave you a counterexample.
Now, granted, my post could have been more diplomatically worded, and I ranted a little, but your post annoyed me. I mean to attack your ideas, not you personally.
Two people meet and exchange keys. One of them broadcasts the message in some untraceable way (say, spray-painting it on the sidewalk). Everyone sees the message tomorrow, and one of them is able to read it with the key.
Where is the threat of violence? You can say they only did this because of the violence, but there's no threat of violence in the message transmission itself.
Now, you're head will spin, the little Libertarian hamster wheel inside will turn, and you'll come up with some plausible threat of violence that exists only in your blinkered mind. People like you are annoying, just like the people who think the whole world can be traced back to God. It's a cheap trick, and you don't even realize it. I could trace everything back to sex if I wanted to. Oh wait, Freud did and fooled the psychological establishment for decades in the process.
Sorted: Libya, United Kingdom, Singapore, France, United States, Brazil, Italy, Australia, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Portugal, Chile, Belgium, Taiwan, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, Turkey, Japan, Austria
I know what you're saying. Your argument boils down to, "because it's not provably perfect, someone in principle could discover some new cryptanalysis technique no one thought about and break the algorithm." You are right, in principle. Encryption is an eternal game between cryptologists and cryptanalysis.
My counterpoint is that, starting after World War 2, the cryptanalysts have been losing this game. And they've been losing really, really badly. I'm sure you're aware of the insecurity of DES. Well, the method that was used, in practice, to break DES-encoded data wasn't a fancy attack discovered by clever cryptanalysts: it was brute force. And key sizes are big enough now that brute force will never be effective again.
You (and the submitter) might want to have a look at http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/531 which talks about "known-key attacks" on "AES-like permutations". The goal of these types of attacks is to distinguish AES-encrypted data from random noise. Right now, all they can do is break 8 rounds of AES-128, so the answer to OP's question is "right now, AES-encrypted data is indistinguishable from noise".
We know you can brute-force AES. We also know that if you had a computer the size of the Earth where every piece of matter the size of a grain of sand was an ALU, you wouldn't be able to do it in thousands of years. The only hope attackers have is more sophisticated cryptanalysis techniques. This may or may not happen within 30 years.
The OP may not have been railing against Amerocentrism so much as expressing his displeasure that you obviously didn't bother looking any of this up, since you're mostly wrong:
Oh, it doesn't have rights? Well, then I guess you have no objection to abortions. You should make yourself more clear. If it doesn't have rights, it doesn't matter what a woman does to it.
If a woman who doesn't/want/ to have a baby has a miscarriage, I would not classify that as a tragedy. If she does, then it might be an emotional thing for her and her husband, and I'd feel sorry for them, but it's nowhere near the level of someone dying.
If a zygote doesn't implant, it's like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. It's quite like that because it's a non-sentient entity dying with no impact on anything whatsoever. The woman didn't know she was pregnant, so no emotional trouble for her. And a brainless clump of cells can't think and can't feel pain, so its death is about the same as the death of a tree. Oh, except we can't even get anything useful like wood out of it. So it's more like the death of a blade of grass. Well, a cute bunny might eat that so, no, let me think.
I've got it! It's like the crushing of the world's smallest violin!
---linuxrocks123
P.S.: Don't take any of this personally. I'm in a sarcastic mood and Slashdot is a great place to vent. And I think you're so wrong, and, well: http://xkcd.com/386/
Slashdot Mirror
See, and this is an example of how courts (well, a jury in this case) still don't really understand computers. The evidence for the obstruction charge is that he delete some photos (not related to the incident) and then defragmented his hard drive. Also, he uninstalled one web browser and cleared the cache in another. This interfered with the later forensic probe, sure, but obstruction of justice requires the /intent/ to interfere with an investigation. That defragging the hard drive was done with the intent of interfering with the forensic probe is not only open to reasonable doubt, but the allegation strains credibility. If he was really concerned about destroying the evidence, he would have reformatted the drive or physically destroyed it. And people clear browser caches for all sorts of reasons. I believe the jury was, on this charge, critically confused.
---linuxrocks123
How does one go about it?
---linuxrocks123
Are you certain of that? Have you ever tried it? I kind of doubt enough people want to do that that the state or federal treasuries would have a procedure for accepting donations.
---linuxrocks123
Right, so that's why Apple just ignored the GNU Go DMCA notice.
Oh, wait, Apple didn't, because it doesn't work like that. Anyone distributing copyrighted material without authorization and without qualifying for exceptions like fair use is committing copyright infringement. Just like if I post some Scientology crap here, it's probably going to be Slashdot and not me that the CoS goes after with a DMCA notice. Apple qualifies for the DMCA safe harbor, so it avoids liability as long as it complies with the DMCA notices, but Apple _IS_ _COMMITTING_ copyright infringement.
Freetards: 1, SteeldrivingJon: 0
---linuxrocks123
> Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
You said it, man. That's totally how my typical day goes.
---Batman
Okay, before anyone clicks that link, note that it is weird even relative to other Japanese cultural exports. I'd put it at about the level of tentacle porn, but more disturbing. Yes, more disturbing than tentacle porn. Oh, and it's NSFW.
I'm going to just say you probably don't want to click that. And even if you're not at work, you'll be reaching for brain bleach afterwards. You've been warned.
---linuxrocks123
I recall universities (stupidly, imo -- just buy a few paper (or Braille, or whatever) textbooks for the tiny minority of students for whom Kindles are unacceptable) dropping e-textbook plans because of ADA concerns. I don't recall anyone saying that using the iPad instead would have alleviated these concerns.
---linuxrocks123
Nothing in that link suggests that the government considers the iPad any better or that the Kindle would need any specific features found in the iPad to comply. I vaguely remember that Amazon was working on adding text-to-speech to the Kindle a while back to silence complaints about accessibility.
---linuxrocks123
You're going to need a cite on this federal law or I call BS. Googling "iPad Kindle ADA" turned up zilch.
---linuxrocks123
As far as I'm aware, WPA2 with AES is not crackable. Have you ever cracked a WPA2 network with AES using anything more sophisticated than brute-forcing the password, or do people just not use this setup often?
---linuxrocks123
And by "Minnesota", I mean "Montana" :)
---linuxrocks123
You're wrong, except in Minnesota:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30198.html
---linuxrocks123
This is brilliant. The topic of the article is, "why are we losing vertical pixels". Thanks to Libertarian loonyism, I've now read through comments on land ownership and the big bad government, health care reform, and now overly dramatized, tough-guy hypotheticals, complete with gender stereotyping (hint: most mugging victims are male).
Libertarianism is the cancer that is killing Slashdot.
---linuxrocks123
It's unsettled law in the U.S. whether an encryption key is protected under the 5th Amendment. Only district courts have considered the issue. The Boucher court decided that encryption keys are not protected, and the Kirschener court decided they are protected.
---linuxrocks123
You said that no one can do anything against the wishes of another (including the transmission of a secret message) without resorting to the threat of violence to enforce that wish. You argued specifically that guns would be necessary to do this. I gave you a counterexample.
Now, granted, my post could have been more diplomatically worded, and I ranted a little, but your post annoyed me. I mean to attack your ideas, not you personally.
---linuxrocks123
Your post is a complete non-sequitor to the scenario I posited.
Two people meet and exchange keys. One of them broadcasts the message in some untraceable way (say, spray-painting it on the sidewalk). Everyone sees the message tomorrow, and one of them is able to read it with the key.
Where is the threat of violence? You can say they only did this because of the violence, but there's no threat of violence in the message transmission itself.
Now, you're head will spin, the little Libertarian hamster wheel inside will turn, and you'll come up with some plausible threat of violence that exists only in your blinkered mind. People like you are annoying, just like the people who think the whole world can be traced back to God. It's a cheap trick, and you don't even realize it. I could trace everything back to sex if I wanted to. Oh wait, Freud did and fooled the psychological establishment for decades in the process.
---linuxrocks123
Sorted: Libya, United Kingdom, Singapore, France, United States, Brazil, Italy, Australia, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Portugal, Chile, Belgium, Taiwan, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, Turkey, Japan, Austria
I know what you're saying. Your argument boils down to, "because it's not provably perfect, someone in principle could discover some new cryptanalysis technique no one thought about and break the algorithm." You are right, in principle. Encryption is an eternal game between cryptologists and cryptanalysis.
My counterpoint is that, starting after World War 2, the cryptanalysts have been losing this game. And they've been losing really, really badly. I'm sure you're aware of the insecurity of DES. Well, the method that was used, in practice, to break DES-encoded data wasn't a fancy attack discovered by clever cryptanalysts: it was brute force. And key sizes are big enough now that brute force will never be effective again.
---linuxrocks123
Say, how's cryptanalysis of that Blowfish algorithm from 1993 coming along?
---linuxrocks123
You (and the submitter) might want to have a look at http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/531 which talks about "known-key attacks" on "AES-like permutations". The goal of these types of attacks is to distinguish AES-encrypted data from random noise. Right now, all they can do is break 8 rounds of AES-128, so the answer to OP's question is "right now, AES-encrypted data is indistinguishable from noise".
---linuxrocks123
Yes. People do.
We know you can brute-force AES. We also know that if you had a computer the size of the Earth where every piece of matter the size of a grain of sand was an ALU, you wouldn't be able to do it in thousands of years. The only hope attackers have is more sophisticated cryptanalysis techniques. This may or may not happen within 30 years.
---linuxrocks123
I lol'ed at "this is you recording Jupiter". NICE :)
---linuxrocks123
The OP may not have been railing against Amerocentrism so much as expressing his displeasure that you obviously didn't bother looking any of this up, since you're mostly wrong:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting.html
Basically, paraphrase it and you're fine.
---linuxrocks123
Oh, it doesn't have rights? Well, then I guess you have no objection to abortions. You should make yourself more clear. If it doesn't have rights, it doesn't matter what a woman does to it.
If a woman who doesn't /want/ to have a baby has a miscarriage, I would not classify that as a tragedy. If she does, then it might be an emotional thing for her and her husband, and I'd feel sorry for them, but it's nowhere near the level of someone dying.
If a zygote doesn't implant, it's like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. It's quite like that because it's a non-sentient entity dying with no impact on anything whatsoever. The woman didn't know she was pregnant, so no emotional trouble for her. And a brainless clump of cells can't think and can't feel pain, so its death is about the same as the death of a tree. Oh, except we can't even get anything useful like wood out of it. So it's more like the death of a blade of grass. Well, a cute bunny might eat that so, no, let me think.
I've got it! It's like the crushing of the world's smallest violin!
---linuxrocks123
P.S.: Don't take any of this personally. I'm in a sarcastic mood and Slashdot is a great place to vent. And I think you're so wrong, and, well: http://xkcd.com/386/