Well no, that is the total amount now; so its more like the maximum benefit you can possibly expect if the backup cameras are 100% effective at preventing such deaths. You will not possibly save more than about 13 lives on average per year. Since any measure is unlikely to be 100% effective, it is actually less than that.
You are correct but I don't see how that is relevant. Yes, just about any software you choose to use COULD be backdoored. In fact, even having the source doesn't protect you from clever attacks that are well hidden.
The point remains, which is the point that was being made, and you responded to, that these international versions which were crippled actually made use of algorithms and key lengths that were already too weak to be recommended. THAT was the direct result of regulation, and the ONLY thing it was effective at doing. It certainly didn't prevent the worldwide dissemination of strong encryption tools...that happened in spite of their efforts.
Another effect, which I failed to mention, is that often the decision in the face of the restrictions was not to produce a US and crippled international version, but to JUST make the crippled exportable version.
"...Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers. Hey, you got a match?"
How? Easy for me, I was alive and paying attention.
The problem wasn't so much that good tools from American sources were unavailable, they were just subject to onerous restrictions, that made it hard to distribute. So producers of software were stuck either producing an "international" version which was easy to distribute and download, but had restrictive key length limits and a seperate, harder to download version for the US.
So yes, European tools were generally better, because they were not under such restrictions, and worked just fine in or outside the US. A lot of people in the US even used pgp "international" version just because it was easier.
It really was little more than a lame attempt to stuff a genie back in a bottle; after the bottom was smashed off. The ONLY thing it served to do was make the US into a laughing stock.
Some claim that even sleeping through the night is unnatural and the result of artificial light allowing us to stay up longer hours and get more tired, saying that it used to be much more common for people to go to sleep around dusk, and then awake and be up for some time in the middle of the night; then sleep again until morning.
Not entirely sure I buy it or that the evidence for it is so strong but it doesn't seem entirely far fetched either.
That is pretty much exactly why I don't use dropbox. I have enough ways to quickly share a few files, and this doesn't add much real convenience over others; for me anyway. I see why others may find it useful.
The thing is, the only gaps I have that dropbox would fill, are gaps I wouldn't trust it to fill.
> Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I > hardly ever do it. I
There was one study that actually looked at the crash data and found that people who get in accidents while using cell phones had a higher rate of accidents, even without cell phones. They also found that this particular subset of drivers actually drove less cautiously while using their phone, whereas drivers who did not get in accidents while using cell phones actually drove more cautiously while using them.
Perhaps the very fact that you feel that lack of focus is exactly the problem...there is a subset of people who are oblivious to whether or not they are paying attention and the cell phone acts as little more than a flag.
Its not that using the phone necessarily makes you a bad driver, its that bad drivers really like using their phone. Taking it away doesn't make them better drivers, it just makes them stand out less.
The GPL is entirely dependent on copyright yes. Without copyright, it has no point. In the absolute strictest of navel gazing senses, this is true.
However the GPL was written as a hack on copyright. The goal of the GPL is to foster a community of free software develpers who share code openly. The GPLs goals do not require the GPL, it is simply an attempt at forging such a community within the current environment without giving quarter to the enemy...that is...without helping the proprietary developers, who control so much of the software in use.
Yes without copyright, there would be little recourse...however, it would be worst for them, who would have no recourse against people who share their binaries. It would put all the onus on them of jealously protecting their own code, with the full risk of not doing so on them.
Well he is correct on that, but draws the wrong conclusion.
The GPL is anti-copyright. The entire purpose of the GPL is a hack on copyright to use copyright law to enforce a set of terms that are a direct assault on copyrights.
However, that is why its right that this attack be in court and makes perfect sense. The GPL is a hack that uses copyright law against people who try to jealously control works they derived from GPL works. How does it use that law without using it? This is the entire point of the GPL right here.... to give community contributers a way to put pressure on proprietary software makers who want to benefit from the community and not give back.
GPL is anti-copyright because it creates a community within which copyright law doesn't matter. As long as you have no intention to release binaries without source.... you are entirely unrestricted. You play fair with the community, you have blanket license to do as you will.
You cross that line however, and you are not part of that community. You are a parasite, and will be made to play by the rules outside that community. The rules like copyrights.
> This is essentially accessing information available to anybody without permission. But to call it > "hacking" is a complete joke.
absolutely. It isn't even much of a stretch to call this similar to walking up to the local cable company service center desk and asking for a copy of your account information. You would expect the person at the desk to make some attempt to verify who you are...ask your name... ask to see some ID...something.
If someone goes to the cable company office and says "Say, can I have this persons bill?" who is at fault when they give it up? The person who asked, or the company that handed out the information.
Fact is...he asked in the form of an http query. He made no attempt to obscure who he really was. No attempt to impersonate the legitimate user, he just asked and they gave it to him with no attempt made to ensure its going to the right person.
> Well, did you buy your door locks from the local hardware store?
No. I mean, the locks have been there quite a while, I can't actually recall them being changed. I THINK they were changed when my parents and grandparents swapped units in the house, but I was pretty young then. Based on the way they are all done, I assume it was actually done by a locksmith.
> They only make a few different keys. Buy enough of the locks, and quite literally, someone has the keys to enter your house, and many others.
I knew that actually, but there are some issues; not the least of which is multiple manufacturers, and the cost of buying so many locks could easily cost a thousand dollars or more before you are done. Then you have to physically try each key until you get a hit.
I have never heard of anyone doing this, but I think its likely because nobody bothers attacking locks when there are easier ways to break into houses. OTOH locks can be trivially upgraded. A home automation system gets hard as the pieces have to talk to eachother.
If my locks get compromised and abused, that sucks, but I can get new locks. If my home automation system is.... that isn't a quick fix for a few hundred bucks.
I looked at X10, nice and all....but.... you mean anybody could buy some X-10 equipment and trivially fuck with me? I heard about the student who did up his whole dorm room with x-10 stuff and my first thought was....in a dorm? Thats asking for pranks.
So far, I have yet to hear any definite evidence that any of the off the shelf stuff is any good in this way. People just don't think about security until after they get bit, for the most part.
Whenever I have seen anyone look at any home automation equipment with an eye towards security, its always failed to hold muster, often failed to even try.
You wouldn't install a lock on your house that allowed anyone who bought a similar device to use it to enter your house, would you? So why give anyone who wants to poke around access to devices inside?
Unless there is some process for negotiating keys and authorizing each new device onto the automation system....then its just not secure. It may not even be secure then, but without that, you can be sure of it.
Not sure I agree. when the topic is taxes, government waste is definitely on topic....because it calls into question how much they actually need. We are talking about the government that is handing out money left and right to militarise local police all over the country and fund useless project. We are talking about a government that seems to have no problem placing orders for more equipment than the military asks for (C-130s anyone? Congress has only approved 5000% more be purchased than were ever requested...and they even did it just before the "sequestors" hit too).
Honestly, they have too much money. The only discussion we should have about taxes these days are how to decrease them and eliminate useless programs.
I am familiar with these concepts, as familiar as I am with many fictions. Just because I think its ridiculous, doesn't mean I don't understand the claim.
> There is no connection between doing the right thing and success or failure
I hope you realize that was, in fact, the entire point; which I thought was pretty clear from saying it didn't make sense.
> Your poker example ignores the fact that in the scenario (there is only one scenario, with two > outcomes) you are aware that you COULD be beaten, and should therefore bet accordingly.
Well sure but, it is rare that you actually have the nuts in any given situation. Honestly, losing a big stack in that situation is exactly what you would expect to happen even to the best of players.
That said, if the particular opponent was raised or even re-raised pre-flop, you SHOULD strongly suspect you are dominated and bow out. However, if he slow played pre-flop and limped in? No reason to suspect.
Also, aside from "could be beat", Ace-rag would have trip aces, so you have to expect anyone raising and reraising could have that, but they also could have KK or KQ or even AJ/AT - all of which would have trips and be feeling really good about it. (KQ or KJ might feel good too, but they shouldn't)... never mind the bluffers who put you on a nervous mid-hand.
In any case, the only hand that beats you is AK, and there is only 1A and 3K unaccounted for, and 47 cards you haven't seen..... so for a random hole, the chances that those two cards he has are AK, before you take any betting into account...is about a 1% chance.
If you don't lose money in that situation, you played it wrong. if you lose your life savings on that, you also played it wrong, but for different reasons.
> and the anti-vaxxers that won't accept any level of evidence.
OMG What year is it? People are still talking about Vaxes in 2014? When was the last one even rolled out? Shit, I almost took one home from a scrap heap... 14 years ago.
Actually "Apple Juice" is usually used to mean filtered Cider, whereas Cider usually refers to unfiltered or lightly filtered (strained with cheese cloth). Apple juice is often clear and light light yellow/brown in color; whereas cider is opaqe and brown.
I too wouldn't have made much distinction before I spent some time looking over recipes for cysers and ciders after hand pressing 30 lbs of apples last year (gets about a 2 gallons of cider)
hmmmm that is a challenge. Driving a car really doesn't directly involve making decisions based on hidden information. Generally a driver has eyes open and pointed in their direction of motion. If he is going faster than he can see past corners; most people would say he shouldn't be going so fast rather than simply second guess his attempt to swerve.
> There's a lot to be said for living to fight another day, and it seems like these people "get it" in that > regard. Why die for a lost cause that you may not really believe in?
What I think a lot of people miss is also, even if you do believe in it...there is a difference between believing in the cause, and believing that a particular action that is likely to bring about your death will further the cause.
I mean, if you come to my house and stick a gun in my face, and force me to give up my money, I will give it to you. I will firmly believe I have every right to defend myself and kill you. I will firmly believe you have no right to that money. However, getting myself killed will not prevent me from unfairly losing what is mine....so how is my death preferable to living through a robbery? These things don't logically follow at all; except in the minds of people trying to make arguments nearly entirely based on claiming others don't really believe what they are saying because they are not reckless and suicidal.
Wow.... I have heard a number of ridiculous arguments but.... that takes the cake. I guess every breath I take is the charity of the state letting me freely use its air too.
> I fail to see what they did wrong, even in hindsight.
That is because you are not applying the right standard. You see, anytime any effort fails, they, by definition did the wrong thing. Let me explain. Lets say, you have Ace Queen and the flop comes out Ace Ace King, then the a queen and a duece drop.
Now you have a full house, so if you bet and win, you did the right thing, However, if someone else had the king, and wins, you did the wrong thing, because you lost. Even though you had the same information available either way, and the negative outcome was extremely unlikely, by applying this standard retroactively, you made the wrong choice.
I know this may not make much sense, but that is because you are clearly stuck in antiqueted pre-9/11 world thinking where we could take the chance of allowing nuanced arguments that require deeper understanding than could be intuitively understood by a 4 year old.
Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.
Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.
Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.
I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.
I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.
Slashdot Mirror
> Now they know it does something. Only in stem cells. That's weird. And fun
So it is a boot sector infection.
Well no, that is the total amount now; so its more like the maximum benefit you can possibly expect if the backup cameras are 100% effective at preventing such deaths. You will not possibly save more than about 13 lives on average per year. Since any measure is unlikely to be 100% effective, it is actually less than that.
You are correct but I don't see how that is relevant. Yes, just about any software you choose to use COULD be backdoored. In fact, even having the source doesn't protect you from clever attacks that are well hidden.
The point remains, which is the point that was being made, and you responded to, that these international versions which were crippled actually made use of algorithms and key lengths that were already too weak to be recommended. THAT was the direct result of regulation, and the ONLY thing it was effective at doing. It certainly didn't prevent the worldwide dissemination of strong encryption tools...that happened in spite of their efforts.
Another effect, which I failed to mention, is that often the decision in the face of the restrictions was not to produce a US and crippled international version, but to JUST make the crippled exportable version.
"...Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers. Hey, you got a match?"
How? Easy for me, I was alive and paying attention.
The problem wasn't so much that good tools from American sources were unavailable, they were just subject to onerous restrictions, that made it hard to distribute. So producers of software were stuck either producing an "international" version which was easy to distribute and download, but had restrictive key length limits and a seperate, harder to download version for the US.
So yes, European tools were generally better, because they were not under such restrictions, and worked just fine in or outside the US. A lot of people in the US even used pgp "international" version just because it was easier.
It really was little more than a lame attempt to stuff a genie back in a bottle; after the bottom was smashed off. The ONLY thing it served to do was make the US into a laughing stock.
Some claim that even sleeping through the night is unnatural and the result of artificial light allowing us to stay up longer hours and get more tired, saying that it used to be much more common for people to go to sleep around dusk, and then awake and be up for some time in the middle of the night; then sleep again until morning.
Not entirely sure I buy it or that the evidence for it is so strong but it doesn't seem entirely far fetched either.
> You put someone in a place where there is bright sun early in the morning they wake up earlier.
Put me in a place where there is bright sun early, and.... I hang curtains.
That is pretty much exactly why I don't use dropbox. I have enough ways to quickly share a few files, and this doesn't add much real convenience over others; for me anyway. I see why others may find it useful.
The thing is, the only gaps I have that dropbox would fill, are gaps I wouldn't trust it to fill.
Perhaps you are not familiar with "Parallel Construction": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I would expect that if that were the answer, that it would never be the answer.
> Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I
> hardly ever do it. I
There was one study that actually looked at the crash data and found that people who get in accidents while using cell phones had a higher rate of accidents, even without cell phones. They also found that this particular subset of drivers actually drove less cautiously while using their phone, whereas drivers who did not get in accidents while using cell phones actually drove more cautiously while using them.
Perhaps the very fact that you feel that lack of focus is exactly the problem...there is a subset of people who are oblivious to whether or not they are paying attention and the cell phone acts as little more than a flag.
Its not that using the phone necessarily makes you a bad driver, its that bad drivers really like using their phone. Taking it away doesn't make them better drivers, it just makes them stand out less.
The GPL is entirely dependent on copyright yes. Without copyright, it has no point. In the absolute strictest of navel gazing senses, this is true.
However the GPL was written as a hack on copyright. The goal of the GPL is to foster a community of free software develpers who share code openly. The GPLs goals do not require the GPL, it is simply an attempt at forging such a community within the current environment without giving quarter to the enemy...that is...without helping the proprietary developers, who control so much of the software in use.
Yes without copyright, there would be little recourse...however, it would be worst for them, who would have no recourse against people who share their binaries. It would put all the onus on them of jealously protecting their own code, with the full risk of not doing so on them.
Well he is correct on that, but draws the wrong conclusion.
The GPL is anti-copyright. The entire purpose of the GPL is a hack on copyright to use copyright law to enforce a set of terms that are a direct assault on copyrights.
However, that is why its right that this attack be in court and makes perfect sense. The GPL is a hack that uses copyright law against people who try to jealously control works they derived from GPL works. How does it use that law without using it? This is the entire point of the GPL right here.... to give community contributers a way to put pressure on proprietary software makers who want to benefit from the community and not give back.
GPL is anti-copyright because it creates a community within which copyright law doesn't matter. As long as you have no intention to release binaries without source.... you are entirely unrestricted. You play fair with the community, you have blanket license to do as you will.
You cross that line however, and you are not part of that community. You are a parasite, and will be made to play by the rules outside that community. The rules like copyrights.
> This is essentially accessing information available to anybody without permission. But to call it
> "hacking" is a complete joke.
absolutely. It isn't even much of a stretch to call this similar to walking up to the local cable company service center desk and asking for a copy of your account information. You would expect the person at the desk to make some attempt to verify who you are...ask your name... ask to see some ID...something.
If someone goes to the cable company office and says "Say, can I have this persons bill?" who is at fault when they give it up? The person who asked, or the company that handed out the information.
Fact is...he asked in the form of an http query. He made no attempt to obscure who he really was. No attempt to impersonate the legitimate user, he just asked and they gave it to him with no attempt made to ensure its going to the right person.
> Well, did you buy your door locks from the local hardware store?
No. I mean, the locks have been there quite a while, I can't actually recall them being changed. I THINK they were changed when my parents and grandparents swapped units in the house, but I was pretty young then. Based on the way they are all done, I assume it was actually done by a locksmith.
> They only make a few different keys. Buy enough of the locks, and quite literally, someone has the keys to enter your house, and many others.
I knew that actually, but there are some issues; not the least of which is multiple manufacturers, and the cost of buying so many locks could easily cost a thousand dollars or more before you are done. Then you have to physically try each key until you get a hit.
I have never heard of anyone doing this, but I think its likely because nobody bothers attacking locks when there are easier ways to break into houses. OTOH locks can be trivially upgraded. A home automation system gets hard as the pieces have to talk to eachother.
If my locks get compromised and abused, that sucks, but I can get new locks. If my home automation system is.... that isn't a quick fix for a few hundred bucks.
I looked at X10, nice and all....but.... you mean anybody could buy some X-10 equipment and trivially fuck with me? I heard about the student who did up his whole dorm room with x-10 stuff and my first thought was....in a dorm? Thats asking for pranks.
So far, I have yet to hear any definite evidence that any of the off the shelf stuff is any good in this way. People just don't think about security until after they get bit, for the most part.
Whenever I have seen anyone look at any home automation equipment with an eye towards security, its always failed to hold muster, often failed to even try.
You wouldn't install a lock on your house that allowed anyone who bought a similar device to use it to enter your house, would you? So why give anyone who wants to poke around access to devices inside?
Unless there is some process for negotiating keys and authorizing each new device onto the automation system....then its just not secure. It may not even be secure then, but without that, you can be sure of it.
Not sure I agree. when the topic is taxes, government waste is definitely on topic....because it calls into question how much they actually need. We are talking about the government that is handing out money left and right to militarise local police all over the country and fund useless project. We are talking about a government that seems to have no problem placing orders for more equipment than the military asks for (C-130s anyone? Congress has only approved 5000% more be purchased than were ever requested...and they even did it just before the "sequestors" hit too).
Honestly, they have too much money. The only discussion we should have about taxes these days are how to decrease them and eliminate useless programs.
I am familiar with these concepts, as familiar as I am with many fictions. Just because I think its ridiculous, doesn't mean I don't understand the claim.
> There is no connection between doing the right thing and success or failure
I hope you realize that was, in fact, the entire point; which I thought was pretty clear from saying it didn't make sense.
> Your poker example ignores the fact that in the scenario (there is only one scenario, with two
> outcomes) you are aware that you COULD be beaten, and should therefore bet accordingly.
Well sure but, it is rare that you actually have the nuts in any given situation. Honestly, losing a big stack in that situation is exactly what you would expect to happen even to the best of players.
That said, if the particular opponent was raised or even re-raised pre-flop, you SHOULD strongly suspect you are dominated and bow out. However, if he slow played pre-flop and limped in? No reason to suspect.
Also, aside from "could be beat", Ace-rag would have trip aces, so you have to expect anyone raising and reraising could have that, but they also could have KK or KQ or even AJ/AT - all of which would have trips and be feeling really good about it. (KQ or KJ might feel good too, but they shouldn't)... never mind the bluffers who put you on a nervous mid-hand.
In any case, the only hand that beats you is AK, and there is only 1A and 3K unaccounted for, and 47 cards you haven't seen..... so for a random hole, the chances that those two cards he has are AK, before you take any betting into account...is about a 1% chance.
If you don't lose money in that situation, you played it wrong. if you lose your life savings on that, you also played it wrong, but for different reasons.
> and the anti-vaxxers that won't accept any level of evidence.
OMG What year is it? People are still talking about Vaxes in 2014? When was the last one even rolled out? Shit, I almost took one home from a scrap heap... 14 years ago.
My god let VMS die already.
Actually "Apple Juice" is usually used to mean filtered Cider, whereas Cider usually refers to unfiltered or lightly filtered (strained with cheese cloth). Apple juice is often clear and light light yellow/brown in color; whereas cider is opaqe and brown.
I too wouldn't have made much distinction before I spent some time looking over recipes for cysers and ciders after hand pressing 30 lbs of apples last year (gets about a 2 gallons of cider)
hmmmm that is a challenge. Driving a car really doesn't directly involve making decisions based on hidden information. Generally a driver has eyes open and pointed in their direction of motion. If he is going faster than he can see past corners; most people would say he shouldn't be going so fast rather than simply second guess his attempt to swerve.
> There's a lot to be said for living to fight another day, and it seems like these people "get it" in that
> regard. Why die for a lost cause that you may not really believe in?
What I think a lot of people miss is also, even if you do believe in it...there is a difference between believing in the cause, and believing that a particular action that is likely to bring about your death will further the cause.
I mean, if you come to my house and stick a gun in my face, and force me to give up my money, I will give it to you. I will firmly believe I have every right to defend myself and kill you. I will firmly believe you have no right to that money. However, getting myself killed will not prevent me from unfairly losing what is mine....so how is my death preferable to living through a robbery? These things don't logically follow at all; except in the minds of people trying to make arguments nearly entirely based on claiming others don't really believe what they are saying because they are not reckless and suicidal.
Wow.... I have heard a number of ridiculous arguments but.... that takes the cake. I guess every breath I take is the charity of the state letting me freely use its air too.
> I fail to see what they did wrong, even in hindsight.
That is because you are not applying the right standard. You see, anytime any effort fails, they, by definition did the wrong thing. Let me explain. Lets say, you have Ace Queen and the flop comes out Ace Ace King, then the a queen and a duece drop.
Now you have a full house, so if you bet and win, you did the right thing, However, if someone else had the king, and wins, you did the wrong thing, because you lost. Even though you had the same information available either way, and the negative outcome was extremely unlikely, by applying this standard retroactively, you made the wrong choice.
I know this may not make much sense, but that is because you are clearly stuck in antiqueted pre-9/11 world thinking where we could take the chance of allowing nuanced arguments that require deeper understanding than could be intuitively understood by a 4 year old.
Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.
Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.
Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.
I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.
I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.