Actually, for most phones the encryption keys *are* kept in the phone and obfuscated; they're kept in tamper-resistant hardware storage (which must be rather effective, otherwise the spies wouldn't be complaining).
IIRC, the keys are encrypted with the users PIN or password, and the (good) hardware is designed in a way which doesn't let you either dump the keys for offline bruteforcing or guess the PIN on the device itself. So you still need the PIN to actually access the keys.
You're right in that PIN based security is really a form of obfuscation though, which is why earlier iPhone models could be cracked relatively easily - they had flaws which allowed you to brute-force the PIN. On the other hand my android phone is encrypted with a 16+ character password, and the PIN only unlocks the screen, so if the device is turned off when you get your hands on it you're not brute-forcing it. If it's turned on you might conceivably be able to bypass the lock screen, but I think even that is pretty difficult on newer versions of android.
But it's not so easy to obtain that in places where free speech is stifled and elections are corrupt.
That's part of the problem, sure, but what I was trying to point out is that when people talk about how we should have stayed out of a particular war they're almost universally basing that assessment on the result rather than the situation which actually led up to the war. You can most clearly see this in how they talk about Korea vs Vietnam. Those who actually know about the Korean war almost universally agree that it was a good war well worth fighting, but the same people will then turn around and say we should never have been in Vietnam. Yet the situations and objectives leading up to both of those wars were nearly identical; the only difference between them was the outcome.
If your objection to a particular war is based entirely on the fact that we didn't win it's safe to say that your input on foreign policy decisions isn't going to be all that valuable.
That's kinda begging the question. How do you determine who wants to be saved? Many people in Iraq and Afghanistan welcomed our intervention; did the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want to be saved? How about the people of Vietnam? Korea? The Balkans? By which criteria are you determining which states "want to be saved"? Or are you just going based on a simplistic "if we succeeded then they wanted to be saved" kind of retroactive assessment?
People asking "why do I have to be the one to do something?" is how you end up with dozens of people walking by a violent mugging, and nobody stopping to help.
They're not family or friends, so why is this our problem?
Because some of us are no longer beholden to such a tribal mentality. Concerning yourself only with family and friends might have been fine 10,000 years ago; today we tend to have a wider outlook. If you exepct us to turn back the clock, the onus is on you to explain why.
You're confusing different things. DRM and copy protection are relatively easily cracked because the keys used for decryption have to be available to the software/device in order for it to function; they're just obfuscated in various ways that make them difficult to obtain. On the other hand, when you encrypt a device yourself the encryption key/password does not need to be stored anywhere other than in your head.
Finding a key which is recorded but obfuscated is not at all similar to finding a key which only exists in the brain of an individual. Especially if you're not allowed to use torture, or if the person in question is already dead.
Most fast food joints have people working there who hate their jobs, and it clearly shows in the service you're getting.
I think that comes down more to the area we are talking about than the job in question. I've been in some cities where even waiters making good money on tips are rude and condescending. Meanwhile in my current city, the workers at every fast food joint including the local McDonalds are friendly, similing, say things like "thank you" and "have a nice day"... just generally pleasant to interact with.
However, even though the local service is excellent, I would still prefer to place an automated order given the option. Maybe I'm just an antisocial grouch but I don't particularity feel the need for meaningless human interaction, regardless of how pleasant the other person may be. And with a machine I don't have to repeat my order 3 times, and then correct it again after I get the wrong items.
He's an asshole because he doesn't want to give you free shit?
Talk about an entitlement mentality. What kind of parasite believes he's entitled to the fruits of other people's labour just as a consequence of being born?
"Like us" meaning shared values, not shared melanin content. This is why the old "melting pot" concept is in every way superior to the "multiculturalism" model. The former encourages people to find commonality and integrate the best of each others cultures; the later celebrates and encourages differences, while whining about "cultural appropriation".
When a candidate loses by 2.2% of the votes, there is no way the Electoral College should be going against such a clear popular result.
Do you want a civil war? Because that's how you get a civil war.
The Balkans in the 90s exploded exactly because individual states felt that their voice was being ignored by the central government. They decided to cecide, and war and ethnic cleansing followed. If you decide that you can rule the US by the fiat of the most populous states, violence will be the most likely result.
It's nice of you to assume ignorance on my part, but I'm quite aware of what's been going on in the EU. Their negative interest rates were a result of the fact that the EU was absolutely desperate to try and stimulate the economy. From an individual investor point of view negative rates are absolutely retarded, and anyone with a lick of sense would never put their money into a stock or bond with a negative return. A long term negative rate just drives people to pull their money out of banks and either hold cash or put it into gold, silver, etc.
If you had a negative rate nobody would lend you the money in the first place. I mean really, you come into my bank, and tell me you want to borrow $1,000 at a -2% interest rate so that, in a year, you can pay me back $980? What kind of moron do you take me for?
That's part of the problem with deflationary economies right there; even without a negative rate, people are unlikely to lend you money.
If an economy is inflationary, at 2% that means my $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $980 next year. So if I don't want to lose that $20 it makes sense for me to lend it to you, at say a 3% interest rate, so that I will retain the value of my money and even make a small profit.
With a 2% deflationary economy, on the other hand, the $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $1,020 next year. I don't need to lend it to you, and take the chance that you won't pay me back; I can just leave it sitting there and it will still be worth more the next year. I would have to be a total moron to risk having you run off with it AND also give you a "negative rate" which guarantees that you pay me back less than you borrowed.
Slashdot Mirror
small ISPs no spying
lol. That's adorable. I never expected to see this kind of naivete on Slashdot.
Well, at least you're consistent.
Actually, for most phones the encryption keys *are* kept in the phone and obfuscated; they're kept in tamper-resistant hardware storage (which must be rather effective, otherwise the spies wouldn't be complaining).
IIRC, the keys are encrypted with the users PIN or password, and the (good) hardware is designed in a way which doesn't let you either dump the keys for offline bruteforcing or guess the PIN on the device itself. So you still need the PIN to actually access the keys.
You're right in that PIN based security is really a form of obfuscation though, which is why earlier iPhone models could be cracked relatively easily - they had flaws which allowed you to brute-force the PIN. On the other hand my android phone is encrypted with a 16+ character password, and the PIN only unlocks the screen, so if the device is turned off when you get your hands on it you're not brute-forcing it. If it's turned on you might conceivably be able to bypass the lock screen, but I think even that is pretty difficult on newer versions of android.
But it's not so easy to obtain that in places where free speech is stifled and elections are corrupt.
That's part of the problem, sure, but what I was trying to point out is that when people talk about how we should have stayed out of a particular war they're almost universally basing that assessment on the result rather than the situation which actually led up to the war. You can most clearly see this in how they talk about Korea vs Vietnam. Those who actually know about the Korean war almost universally agree that it was a good war well worth fighting, but the same people will then turn around and say we should never have been in Vietnam. Yet the situations and objectives leading up to both of those wars were nearly identical; the only difference between them was the outcome.
If your objection to a particular war is based entirely on the fact that we didn't win it's safe to say that your input on foreign policy decisions isn't going to be all that valuable.
That's kinda begging the question. How do you determine who wants to be saved? Many people in Iraq and Afghanistan welcomed our intervention; did the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want to be saved? How about the people of Vietnam? Korea? The Balkans? By which criteria are you determining which states "want to be saved"? Or are you just going based on a simplistic "if we succeeded then they wanted to be saved" kind of retroactive assessment?
People asking "why do I have to be the one to do something?" is how you end up with dozens of people walking by a violent mugging, and nobody stopping to help.
They're not family or friends, so why is this our problem?
Because some of us are no longer beholden to such a tribal mentality. Concerning yourself only with family and friends might have been fine 10,000 years ago; today we tend to have a wider outlook. If you exepct us to turn back the clock, the onus is on you to explain why.
You know what we should do to prevent terrorism? Stop pissing off the terrorists.
Appeasement is the best policy! This is why I always tell women that the best way to prevent rape is to stop saying "no".
You're confusing different things. DRM and copy protection are relatively easily cracked because the keys used for decryption have to be available to the software/device in order for it to function; they're just obfuscated in various ways that make them difficult to obtain. On the other hand, when you encrypt a device yourself the encryption key/password does not need to be stored anywhere other than in your head.
Finding a key which is recorded but obfuscated is not at all similar to finding a key which only exists in the brain of an individual. Especially if you're not allowed to use torture, or if the person in question is already dead.
I wrapped my laptop in tinfoil and now I'm going to sue because it's no longer connected.
I realise that you're exemplifying blind ideology when you assume I'm defending anyone.
Most fast food joints have people working there who hate their jobs, and it clearly shows in the service you're getting.
I think that comes down more to the area we are talking about than the job in question. I've been in some cities where even waiters making good money on tips are rude and condescending. Meanwhile in my current city, the workers at every fast food joint including the local McDonalds are friendly, similing, say things like "thank you" and "have a nice day" ... just generally pleasant to interact with.
However, even though the local service is excellent, I would still prefer to place an automated order given the option. Maybe I'm just an antisocial grouch but I don't particularity feel the need for meaningless human interaction, regardless of how pleasant the other person may be. And with a machine I don't have to repeat my order 3 times, and then correct it again after I get the wrong items.
He's an asshole because he doesn't want to give you free shit?
Talk about an entitlement mentality. What kind of parasite believes he's entitled to the fruits of other people's labour just as a consequence of being born?
Must be. I think I must have also imagined reusable rockets landing on autonomous barges. It's certainly hard to believe that it could be real.
God. Duh.
We all want to be with people like us.
"Like us" meaning shared values, not shared melanin content. This is why the old "melting pot" concept is in every way superior to the "multiculturalism" model. The former encourages people to find commonality and integrate the best of each others cultures; the later celebrates and encourages differences, while whining about "cultural appropriation".
When a candidate loses by 2.2% of the votes, there is no way the Electoral College should be going against such a clear popular result.
Do you want a civil war? Because that's how you get a civil war.
The Balkans in the 90s exploded exactly because individual states felt that their voice was being ignored by the central government. They decided to cecide, and war and ethnic cleansing followed. If you decide that you can rule the US by the fiat of the most populous states, violence will be the most likely result.
The majority do not act that way, but the majority do tacitly support it by agreeing with the same claims and goals. That's really the bigger problem.
Wtf does Weinstein have to do with equal pay for equal work?
Are you actually capable of having a reasonable discussion on this subject, or are you just going to hand wave and Gish gallop?
We listened, we examined, and we found that it's mostly bullshit. Now what?
Dslow, soft bump. Drive fast, hard bump.
So, just like a normal speed bump, then?
I would relive that moment and ask myself why I felt I had to shoot a man who I would later learn was unarmed.
I would assume you could then immediately answer that with "because I believed he was armed and did not want him to murder me or anyone else".
Pretty short discussion, really.
It's nice of you to assume ignorance on my part, but I'm quite aware of what's been going on in the EU. Their negative interest rates were a result of the fact that the EU was absolutely desperate to try and stimulate the economy. From an individual investor point of view negative rates are absolutely retarded, and anyone with a lick of sense would never put their money into a stock or bond with a negative return. A long term negative rate just drives people to pull their money out of banks and either hold cash or put it into gold, silver, etc.
If North America is Canada then what's North America?
If you had a negative rate nobody would lend you the money in the first place. I mean really, you come into my bank, and tell me you want to borrow $1,000 at a -2% interest rate so that, in a year, you can pay me back $980? What kind of moron do you take me for?
That's part of the problem with deflationary economies right there; even without a negative rate, people are unlikely to lend you money.
If an economy is inflationary, at 2% that means my $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $980 next year. So if I don't want to lose that $20 it makes sense for me to lend it to you, at say a 3% interest rate, so that I will retain the value of my money and even make a small profit.
With a 2% deflationary economy, on the other hand, the $1,000 sitting under my mattress will be worth $1,020 next year. I don't need to lend it to you, and take the chance that you won't pay me back; I can just leave it sitting there and it will still be worth more the next year. I would have to be a total moron to risk having you run off with it AND also give you a "negative rate" which guarantees that you pay me back less than you borrowed.