All of these organizations try to hit YOUR hot buttons to elicit an emotional response, garner attention AND increase donations.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop paying attention and stop PAYING them. They will eventually go away when their funds dwindle.
When groups like these go away (and I include environmental extreme groups), we can begin to have a more effective dialogue about the real issues.
It would have been pedantry if you're analogy had anything to do with reality. I am still struglling with equating the protection of a persons right to use an invention (read:propery) under copyright/patent to a limitation of free speach. The right to invent something and then profit from it is a keystone of capitalism. I get the sense that you would prefer to "share things freely" which is a common expression of socialism. Sadly for you, this is capitalism and it isn't going away.
Back to the original thread, government protection of my right to own things is ok. Government attentuation of my rights to think and communicate as I choose is not ok.
Ummmmmm, that's not true, copyright and patent protect a persons intellectual property. Patents and copyrights do not limit your right to say something through print and wire; they limit your ability to use someone else's idea or invention without receiving their permission or paying them for the use of that invention. I have trouble making any connection between protecting someones right to retain their invention and how people communicate.
However, if you read the previous posts, what constitutes a thoughtcrime or fairness will depend on which party is in power. Do you really want your personal ability to publish your ideas to be limited by a republican OR a democrat? My vote is for neither. Both scare me. If you are a Marxist or Stalinist, then we will agree to disagree. However, you would then be in the scarce minority of people in the world.
I have to agree. I don't trust the media and read everything through my own lense. I REALLY don't trust a government idiot.
This entire idea is stupid. Fairness Doctrine is a slippery slope toward Thought Crimes and the like.
OK, the merchant cares because of the discount rate on credit vs. lower fees for PIN debit. And actually, the issuer couldn't care less, they just return an advice to the network. Enough on this point.
Actually, not enough. You are wrong, the what is technically happening is Credit, Debit, or PIN Debit. And wrong again, the issuer returns advice is based on an industry term called room-to-buy (on credit) and cash-on-account (for Debit and PIN Debit).
UGH, I give up;-)
Precisely! The buyer either barrows money or pays cash. When it really matters... the person who really knows the difference is the merchant. And VisaNet doesn't want to allow PIN debit over the Internet because they are already hermoraging at the Point of Sale:-)
Shame on PayPal for making this look like they have enabled PIN debit transactions over the Net. PayPal worded this VERY intentionally to make people in the transaction processing world pay attention; by calling it a virtual debit card the implication is PIN debit transactions.
This is just a copy cat of Citibanks long-standing program of temporary numbers.... and that systems works well.
I personally have experience configuring the HSM's and implementing the types of security referred to in this article. To understand how unlikely this hack is, I would have to go into a deep conversation with regard to how these HSM's are supposed to be configures and implemented.
The brief version: Typically, PIN's are stored by your card issuer ONLY in their encrypted format. The keys that do the encryption are stored in the HSM and SHOULDN'T be exportable. When enter your PIN at a POS or ATM, it is 3DES encrypted and sent over the wire as an encrypted pin block (EPB). When an inbound EPB is fed into the HSM, the originating bank pulls an encrypted version of your PIN and feeds that into the HSM. The HSM _should_ be a black box and decrypts both in inside of protected memory, makes a comparison of the two PIN's, and returns TRUE or FALSE.
PIN's are stored by the card issuer in encrypted form and are NEVER reversible to people. When you forget/lose your PIN, the card issuer will typically issue a new PIN. That's because they CAN'T read a PIN. The PIN is DES encrypted by a symetric 128-bit key that is encrypted by another key which is NEVER NEVER known to any human.
If this hack is proposing to repeatedly "guess" EPB's until they get one right, or do EPB->EPB translation until they get something that makes sense.... you would be better off buying lottery tickets. LOL
Being someone who is a wine professional of over a decade it has always been my goal to enhance wine knowledge in others and to help dispel the numerous misunderstanding and misnomers surrounding wine as a whole. I read through the original article published by the Australian Sunday Morning Herald and would like to make the following comments for consideration:
1) I find it difficult to understand how using Beaujolias Neveau as a "litmus test" lends validity to this technology. Beaujolais Neveau is not a wine that is meant to age and it is not aged in barrels. It is bottled extremely young and is ready to drink. Upon release, Neveau is a very smooth, mellow wine already, pretty much at its peak and will not improve with time. Neveau that has a year of bottle age or more is something that i would not, normally, recommend for consumption or appreciation.
2) the comment: "No need to invest in barrels" concerns me and leads me to believe that Mr. Hiroshi Tanaka does not fully understand the various reasons for barrel use. Used barrels, ones that will impart no wood charachter or additional tannins, are used to "round" the wine or introduce minute amounts of oxygenation needed to help the wine evolve. I can see where this technology might help with that but technology already exits to do that without barrels and it is called "Micr-ox" or micro oxygenation where minute amounts of oxygen can be dispersed into wine that is contained in large stainless steel vessels prior to bottling. But "new" or partially used barrels offer the introduction of "wood" in the wine. French, American or Hungarian oak offer flavor comments and a different type of tannin to the wine. This technology does not offer the ability to do that. That would be like saying that there is a technology available that can "zap" a few volts of electricity into cookie dough and it gives it the essence of chocolate chips.
3) Wine, being a living, breathing, product of nature, so to speak, is still not fully understood at the scientific level and some things are better left to nature and time. Artificially speeding the aging process of wine is something that lends itself to a lot of questions and concerns and i would advise remaining extremely skeptical of any technology claiming to do just that.
Slashdot Mirror
I have lived a life of integrity and played nice. It doesn't get you ahead in life, but you sleep well. Make your choice.
All of these organizations try to hit YOUR hot buttons to elicit an emotional response, garner attention AND increase donations. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop paying attention and stop PAYING them. They will eventually go away when their funds dwindle. When groups like these go away (and I include environmental extreme groups), we can begin to have a more effective dialogue about the real issues.
It would have been pedantry if you're analogy had anything to do with reality. I am still struglling with equating the protection of a persons right to use an invention (read:propery) under copyright/patent to a limitation of free speach. The right to invent something and then profit from it is a keystone of capitalism. I get the sense that you would prefer to "share things freely" which is a common expression of socialism. Sadly for you, this is capitalism and it isn't going away. Back to the original thread, government protection of my right to own things is ok. Government attentuation of my rights to think and communicate as I choose is not ok.
However, if you read the previous posts, what constitutes a thoughtcrime or fairness will depend on which party is in power. Do you really want your personal ability to publish your ideas to be limited by a republican OR a democrat? My vote is for neither. Both scare me. If you are a Marxist or Stalinist, then we will agree to disagree. However, you would then be in the scarce minority of people in the world.
I have to agree. I don't trust the media and read everything through my own lense. I REALLY don't trust a government idiot. This entire idea is stupid. Fairness Doctrine is a slippery slope toward Thought Crimes and the like.
OK, the merchant cares because of the discount rate on credit vs. lower fees for PIN debit. And actually, the issuer couldn't care less, they just return an advice to the network. Enough on this point. Actually, not enough. You are wrong, the what is technically happening is Credit, Debit, or PIN Debit. And wrong again, the issuer returns advice is based on an industry term called room-to-buy (on credit) and cash-on-account (for Debit and PIN Debit). UGH, I give up ;-)
Precisely! The buyer either barrows money or pays cash. When it really matters... the person who really knows the difference is the merchant. And VisaNet doesn't want to allow PIN debit over the Internet because they are already hermoraging at the Point of Sale :-)
Shame on PayPal for making this look like they have enabled PIN debit transactions over the Net. PayPal worded this VERY intentionally to make people in the transaction processing world pay attention; by calling it a virtual debit card the implication is PIN debit transactions.
This is just a copy cat of Citibanks long-standing program of temporary numbers.... and that systems works well.
YAWN.
I personally have experience configuring the HSM's and implementing the types of security referred to in this article. To understand how unlikely this hack is, I would have to go into a deep conversation with regard to how these HSM's are supposed to be configures and implemented. The brief version: Typically, PIN's are stored by your card issuer ONLY in their encrypted format. The keys that do the encryption are stored in the HSM and SHOULDN'T be exportable. When enter your PIN at a POS or ATM, it is 3DES encrypted and sent over the wire as an encrypted pin block (EPB). When an inbound EPB is fed into the HSM, the originating bank pulls an encrypted version of your PIN and feeds that into the HSM. The HSM _should_ be a black box and decrypts both in inside of protected memory, makes a comparison of the two PIN's, and returns TRUE or FALSE. PIN's are stored by the card issuer in encrypted form and are NEVER reversible to people. When you forget/lose your PIN, the card issuer will typically issue a new PIN. That's because they CAN'T read a PIN. The PIN is DES encrypted by a symetric 128-bit key that is encrypted by another key which is NEVER NEVER known to any human. If this hack is proposing to repeatedly "guess" EPB's until they get one right, or do EPB->EPB translation until they get something that makes sense.... you would be better off buying lottery tickets. LOL
If you meant to question the authors leap to a conclusion as to the constitutionality of the surveilance, then yes!!
Being someone who is a wine professional of over a decade it has always been my goal to enhance wine knowledge in others and to help dispel the numerous misunderstanding and misnomers surrounding wine as a whole. I read through the original article published by the Australian Sunday Morning Herald and would like to make the following comments for consideration: 1) I find it difficult to understand how using Beaujolias Neveau as a "litmus test" lends validity to this technology. Beaujolais Neveau is not a wine that is meant to age and it is not aged in barrels. It is bottled extremely young and is ready to drink. Upon release, Neveau is a very smooth, mellow wine already, pretty much at its peak and will not improve with time. Neveau that has a year of bottle age or more is something that i would not, normally, recommend for consumption or appreciation. 2) the comment: "No need to invest in barrels" concerns me and leads me to believe that Mr. Hiroshi Tanaka does not fully understand the various reasons for barrel use. Used barrels, ones that will impart no wood charachter or additional tannins, are used to "round" the wine or introduce minute amounts of oxygenation needed to help the wine evolve. I can see where this technology might help with that but technology already exits to do that without barrels and it is called "Micr-ox" or micro oxygenation where minute amounts of oxygen can be dispersed into wine that is contained in large stainless steel vessels prior to bottling. But "new" or partially used barrels offer the introduction of "wood" in the wine. French, American or Hungarian oak offer flavor comments and a different type of tannin to the wine. This technology does not offer the ability to do that. That would be like saying that there is a technology available that can "zap" a few volts of electricity into cookie dough and it gives it the essence of chocolate chips. 3) Wine, being a living, breathing, product of nature, so to speak, is still not fully understood at the scientific level and some things are better left to nature and time. Artificially speeding the aging process of wine is something that lends itself to a lot of questions and concerns and i would advise remaining extremely skeptical of any technology claiming to do just that.