Well firstly, the keys are generated by a trusted third party (Verisign or Thawte). What makes RSA encryption feasible is the concept of a trusted third party (TTP) . The TTP issues you your private key, and so of course they have a copy of it.
You can of course set up your own RSA key server. Its pretty easy to do, but that means that you are your own TTP which is fine for internal security, but definitely does not work on a public network for encryption where parties need to be identified.
I hate to burst your bubble. But the NSA have full access to the keys. Why do you think Mark Shuttleworth (Now of Ubuntu fame) was paid US$ 575 Million for Thawte? Becuase he controlled a sizable portion of the market, even though physically it was a very small operation.
There is a whole history here but in short, Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed. The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption. In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip. there was a public outcry and the program was shelved. No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly, so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market. So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption, use PGP, because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies.
The fact that the idiots are ruining it for us is the whole point of our current democratic system. It is easy enough to manipulate the majority of voters to vote how you want them to, If you have enough resources at your disposal. We are fucked before the gun goes off at the starting gate. It is a totally rigged system.
The only way we are ever going to change anything is to replace the democratic system as we know it with a computerized participatory system where ordinary citizens will have the right to vote on policy issues directly .
The Dealerships and the Auto Makers generally have a symbiotic relationship. Dealerships are generally franchises, that rely on the repeat business of the after service market.
I remember a few years ago a few auto makers touting the dealership holy grail - a sealed bonnet, with only a small flap to add fluids
So we have these large networks of franchise owners who have been promised market share by the Auto Makers. Wanting to take this away from them has surely caused some concern behind closed doors. It really is a fundamental problem. Its a bit like the music and film industry not embracing the internet, except that the Auto Industry at large has a greater influence on the outcome.
This is not entirely true. The EV1 project was more like a scaled down simulation of a large scale deployment. The fact that GM managed to recover some revenue through the leasing was a bonus.
Its actually quite simple really. Dealerships rely on after sales service for MOST of their revenue. Electric vehicles need very little maintenance when compared to vehicles relying on combustion engines. The real problem here is that it makes the dealerships not economically viable any more. This is why there is a huge push for complicated hybrid vehicles, while electric vehicles have been proving themselves for close to 100 years already.
Will the cost of the vehicle over its lifespan be comparable to a petrol model?
In macro economic terms buying an electric/hybrid vehicle that costs more over its lifetime will actually use up more natural resources than its petrol equivalent and is hence not more environmentally friendly.
The author has kind of missed the point. Communism is an economic system. It is not about communal behaviour at all. Communism is an alternative to Capitalism or Socialism. It is not an alternative to democracy.
Most of the systems the author speaks about are new social systems that operate within a Capitalist framework. They could not exist in a communist framework, unless sanctioned by the politburo, because in a communist everything is owned by the state.
One could also argue that there is no way to determine the exact content of the file being downloaded, until it has been downloaded, and opened.
The actual process of downloading a file is not copyright violation.
Right now around the world metropolis's have large camera networks. The next step, that is currently being worked on is real time facial recognition, and tracking. This means that in the near future, in real time camera networks will autonomously be able to pick up and track people.
Add security robots that can get deployed automatically to this mix, and suddenly a rather dark picture emerges of how easily we will be able to be controlled in the near future. And I don't like it.
No its not - for a deposit of $100, general banks can lend out 8-10X what they have in reserve. If you deposit $100 - they have $100 in reserve and can lend out $800-$1000. Citibank could lend out $4700 (47X )for every $you deposit.
What the parent poster was saying, is how people generally believe the banking system works. It used to, until fractional reserve banking came into play.
Fractional reserve banking also destroyed money. We no longer have money - we use a fiat currency, which is entirely based on debt. If every loan was repaid, there would not be one single cent of currency in circulation.
This is because, when you borrow currency from a bank, it gets created. A fiat currency is simply a debtors note. Banks can create as much debt/currency as their factor will allow.
What actually happened was that banks are allowed to keep securitised assets as part of their reserves. a lot of securities are based on tranches of Mortgages. so when the over inflated property bubble burst, suddenly banks were left holding securities that were almost worthless.
This meant that their declared reserves were too small, compared to the debt issued, so they could no longer create any loans/debt. the government bailout is intended to bolster their reserves so that they are in a position to be able to lend again.
For a deposit of $100 they can lend out $80, that gets deposited and lent out as $64, then $51, $40, etc.
No- I'm afraid you've got this totally wrong. Bankers can lend out multiples of what they have in reserve. At the peak of it, CitiBank's factor was 47 - meant that they could lend out 47 times of the value they had in reserve. This is why banks encourage saving.
We are not going to be able to fix climate change. It is a natural phenomena beyond our control, and inevitable.
What we need to fix is peoples attitude towards it. It is going to happen, and some coastal areas are going to be flooded. On the bright side, the warming will create new green areas on the planet. (Some deserts will turn green again) All in all, the earth will be much more of a tolerable place to live in a warmer climate.
Well, I've been to a few in my time. How do you think churches are funded? Divine intervention?
Churches are very profitable institutions that generally have very large land holdings. Churches sell 'fine and lovely' to their members. Paying for 'fine and lovely' generally guarantees it as part of the deal. Christian churches have set a guideline to pay 10% of what you earn. Some churches even enforce this payment among members. i.e. pay for your 'fine and lovely' or go to hell.
Very nice tool. The thing is, WC3 compliance does not guarantee that your HTML will be able to be viewed in most/all browsers. Its easy to pass the buck and say that browser developers should sort their shit out, but the reality is that they haven't.
What I am proposing is a web-server plugin that will generate HTML that will be able to be parsed by the client browser according to the design, irrespective of what it is - basically a babelfish for a web server.
The purpose of this plugin/web server would be to seriously remove the current major headache from the otherwise enjoyable pastime of web development.
Nice site. I didn't really express myself correctly. What I really meant to say was that a web server that could take source HTML and parse it to be compliant with the client browser on the fly would be a boon us poor developers who currently spend waaayyy too much time trying to make HTML work in different browsers. We could simply write once, and the Web Server would be intelligent enough to serve compliant HTML.
Something like this could probably be implemented as a plugin for Apache, although I haven't spent any time researching this...
Cutting back on advertising is the worst mistake a business that relies on advertising as their primary market communications medium can make.
In fact the correct strategy is to increase the spend, while possibly altering the message to suite the financial mood.
If you need to cut costs, cut them in other areas of your business - not on your advertising spend.
Slashdot Mirror
Well firstly, the keys are generated by a trusted third party (Verisign or Thawte). What makes RSA encryption feasible is the concept of a trusted third party (TTP) . The TTP issues you your private key, and so of course they have a copy of it.
You can of course set up your own RSA key server. Its pretty easy to do, but that means that you are your own TTP which is fine for internal security, but definitely does not work on a public network for encryption where parties need to be identified.
In this TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html , Burt Rutan makes a very compelling argument for the Commercialised space industry.
I hate to burst your bubble. But the NSA have full access to the keys. Why do you think Mark Shuttleworth (Now of Ubuntu fame) was paid US$ 575 Million for Thawte? Becuase he controlled a sizable portion of the market, even though physically it was a very small operation.
There is a whole history here but in short, Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed. The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption. In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip. there was a public outcry and the program was shelved. No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly, so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market. So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption, use PGP, because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies.
The fact that the idiots are ruining it for us is the whole point of our current democratic system. It is easy enough to manipulate the majority of voters to vote how you want them to, If you have enough resources at your disposal. We are fucked before the gun goes off at the starting gate. It is a totally rigged system.
The only way we are ever going to change anything is to replace the democratic system as we know it with a computerized participatory system where ordinary citizens will have the right to vote on policy issues directly .
Um, turn safe search on.
The Dealerships and the Auto Makers generally have a symbiotic relationship. Dealerships are generally franchises, that rely on the repeat business of the after service market.
I remember a few years ago a few auto makers touting the dealership holy grail - a sealed bonnet, with only a small flap to add fluids
So we have these large networks of franchise owners who have been promised market share by the Auto Makers. Wanting to take this away from them has surely caused some concern behind closed doors. It really is a fundamental problem. Its a bit like the music and film industry not embracing the internet, except that the Auto Industry at large has a greater influence on the outcome.
This is not entirely true. The EV1 project was more like a scaled down simulation of a large scale deployment. The fact that GM managed to recover some revenue through the leasing was a bonus.
Its actually quite simple really. Dealerships rely on after sales service for MOST of their revenue. Electric vehicles need very little maintenance when compared to vehicles relying on combustion engines. The real problem here is that it makes the dealerships not economically viable any more. This is why there is a huge push for complicated hybrid vehicles, while electric vehicles have been proving themselves for close to 100 years already.
Will the cost of the vehicle over its lifespan be comparable to a petrol model?
In macro economic terms buying an electric/hybrid vehicle that costs more over its lifetime will actually use up more natural resources than its petrol equivalent and is hence not more environmentally friendly.
The author has kind of missed the point. Communism is an economic system. It is not about communal behaviour at all. Communism is an alternative to Capitalism or Socialism. It is not an alternative to democracy.
Most of the systems the author speaks about are new social systems that operate within a Capitalist framework. They could not exist in a communist framework, unless sanctioned by the politburo, because in a communist everything is owned by the state.
Yip. Those pipes definitely need Guard Rails!
Species - taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
End of post.
One could also argue that there is no way to determine the exact content of the file being downloaded, until it has been downloaded, and opened.
The actual process of downloading a file is not copyright violation.
Right now around the world metropolis's have large camera networks. The next step, that is currently being worked on is real time facial recognition, and tracking. This means that in the near future, in real time camera networks will autonomously be able to pick up and track people.
Add security robots that can get deployed automatically to this mix, and suddenly a rather dark picture emerges of how easily we will be able to be controlled in the near future. And I don't like it.
No its not - for a deposit of $100, general banks can lend out 8-10X what they have in reserve. If you deposit $100 - they have $100 in reserve and can lend out $800-$1000. Citibank could lend out $4700 (47X )for every $you deposit. What the parent poster was saying, is how people generally believe the banking system works. It used to, until fractional reserve banking came into play.
Fractional reserve banking also destroyed money. We no longer have money - we use a fiat currency, which is entirely based on debt. If every loan was repaid, there would not be one single cent of currency in circulation.
This is because, when you borrow currency from a bank, it gets created. A fiat currency is simply a debtors note. Banks can create as much debt/currency as their factor will allow.
What actually happened was that banks are allowed to keep securitised assets as part of their reserves. a lot of securities are based on tranches of Mortgages. so when the over inflated property bubble burst, suddenly banks were left holding securities that were almost worthless.
This meant that their declared reserves were too small, compared to the debt issued, so they could no longer create any loans/debt. the government bailout is intended to bolster their reserves so that they are in a position to be able to lend again.
For a deposit of $100 they can lend out $80, that gets deposited and lent out as $64, then $51, $40, etc.
No- I'm afraid you've got this totally wrong. Bankers can lend out multiples of what they have in reserve. At the peak of it, CitiBank's factor was 47 - meant that they could lend out 47 times of the value they had in reserve. This is why banks encourage saving.
We are not going to be able to fix climate change. It is a natural phenomena beyond our control, and inevitable.
What we need to fix is peoples attitude towards it. It is going to happen, and some coastal areas are going to be flooded. On the bright side, the warming will create new green areas on the planet. (Some deserts will turn green again) All in all, the earth will be much more of a tolerable place to live in a warmer climate.
I know this is an April fools joke, but I wouldn't put it past Steve Balmer to try and pull a stunt like this...
Imagine what good could have been done for education if the Gates Foundation had donated $ 2 billion to the OLPC project...
Well, I've been to a few in my time. How do you think churches are funded? Divine intervention?
Churches are very profitable institutions that generally have very large land holdings. Churches sell 'fine and lovely' to their members. Paying for 'fine and lovely' generally guarantees it as part of the deal. Christian churches have set a guideline to pay 10% of what you earn. Some churches even enforce this payment among members. i.e. pay for your 'fine and lovely' or go to hell.
Ever heard of anyone making money by saying everything will be fine and lovely?
Pop down to your local church of choice next Sunday...
Very nice tool. The thing is, WC3 compliance does not guarantee that your HTML will be able to be viewed in most/all browsers. Its easy to pass the buck and say that browser developers should sort their shit out, but the reality is that they haven't.
What I am proposing is a web-server plugin that will generate HTML that will be able to be parsed by the client browser according to the design, irrespective of what it is - basically a babelfish for a web server.
The purpose of this plugin/web server would be to seriously remove the current major headache from the otherwise enjoyable pastime of web development.
Nice site. I didn't really express myself correctly. What I really meant to say was that a web server that could take source HTML and parse it to be compliant with the client browser on the fly would be a boon us poor developers who currently spend waaayyy too much time trying to make HTML work in different browsers. We could simply write once, and the Web Server would be intelligent enough to serve compliant HTML.
Something like this could probably be implemented as a plugin for Apache, although I haven't spent any time researching this...
How about a new web server that can parse correct/compliant HTML for the myriad of different browsers on the market...
Cutting back on advertising is the worst mistake a business that relies on advertising as their primary market communications medium can make.
In fact the correct strategy is to increase the spend, while possibly altering the message to suite the financial mood.
If you need to cut costs, cut them in other areas of your business - not on your advertising spend.