My biggest wish is that vendors would stop dictating how people use a tool and stop adding noise that can not be disabled. Remember google was supposed to have that no-nonsense interface for a reason... To be useful rather than 'pretty'.
There was a really nice new feature added recently I love. This allows me to remove sites from search results which always appear but never have any useful content to begin with (experts exchange, ask and associated spam link farms).
The only catch is that you have to be logged in to use it. Which I didn't used to mind until just recently...Now when I'm logged in +1 appears everywhere and there is no way to turn it off. That animated +1 icon designed specifically to catch my attention when I don't give a flying rats ass about telling my 'friends' every URL I like is annoying as hell.
The inability to click in a window with google search to gain focus to that window without accidently turning on the stupid site preview option with no way to disable still pisses me off to this day.
The inability to fully collapse the useless sidebar is also annoying.
It really feels like google is going out of their way to piss me off more and more with each passing month and I don't know why. We have spent thousands on adwords placement.
We haven't gotten fusion to be a net energy gain here on Earth yet (outside tritium-boosted or thermonuclear atomic bombs). While I'm sure it will eventually happen, what makes it so that it's easier to make fusion work in space, compared to Earth?
How is Taiwan to blame? Google is the one you should be mad with. The law is good, but google's reaction to it just plain sucks
Really a week to make up your mind about a $1 app? That plain sucks in my view. What stops people from using it for a week and returning it after they get tired of it?
Most legit and useful apps provide free versions as demos for the paid version so you have an idea of what your getting. I agree google has all kinds of quality problems that need to be addressed but I tend to favor a solution where people have reasonable tools to make an informed decision about what they are getting up front.
Seems to me that a low-level kernel in FLASH, which can only be upgraded with a hardware key inserted (e.g., the kernel FLASH blocks can only be written when there is a physical device plugged into the system), which then supports a number of different OS images using virtual machine concept, is the way to go.
I don't like it because it makes patching more difficult and does nothing to protect the end users data due to ownage of the guest.
I believe a better policy would just be to not allow untrusted execution of code on lower protection rings even for administrators/root.
Windows CE had a scheme like you describe. When you messed up your PDA you could instantly restore to factory default.
And of course we can't forget AIX which existed on RS6000 with its hardware key at a time when the rest of us were "smart little rodents hideing in the rocks".
I loved flying back in the days when you got wings, playing cards and meals. The pilot was always giving kids tours of the cockpit.
Now it is all about squeezing the last dime out of flights and politically driven security theatre. Not much fun for anyone.
While I want someone to stick it to the TSA for the scanners I think it is unlikely they have a case.
There are simply not that many TSA agents in the world to produce a statistically significant cancer signal without exposure at the level that would produce visible signs of poisioning or at least easily spotted with portable dosimeters able to detect low energy x-rays.
It would have to be trivial for TSA to make an exposure case simply by measuring the environment in which they work.
I always thought the reason so much time and energy is spent making sure phases are consistant was for the sanity and proper functioning of the grid itself. With distributed generation, long runs and loads yanking on the waveform it would be total chaos to stop paying careful attention to phase matching. Obviously while the comments made by McClelland might have been stupid from a PR perspective these people are not...What am I missing?
Does anyone understand the issue or tolerances involved? How do the utilities actually benefit from this arrangement and how is it safer for the grid???
I would say you fears are unjustified, most laptop can run fine on 85 to 140 volts and from 50 Hz to 70 Hz while on grid power.
Have you ever actually tried to run your notebooks PSU at 120v @ 50hz? The last time I tried that mine went nuts hunting continously on and off AC power. This is with a rather expensive unit accepting 120/240, 12 and 15v inputs.
120v @ 60hz and 240 @ 50hz work great but don't expect arbitrary variations to work with real world equipment.
Shannon says there is plenty of room for more effecient use of the pipes we have already laid.
I'm a big fan of more bandwidth but really for video distribution the most effecient method is to use some sort of shared cache/CDN to store data closer to the user to signficantly reduce global consumption.
Anything not needing to be streamed live could be scheduled and downloaded as needed. The ability to know in advance which of 10 million people will want a file vs instant response on-demand is an extremely powerful idea opening huge opportunties for optimization.
An intelligent CDN could look to see who is requesting what where overlayed with network conditions and compute the most effecient distribution plan.
The same could be done using a P2P overlay but be centrally planned to make distribution both more effecient and faster.
Why not do something about those TV commercials which advertise virus protection and instantly fix your computer while of course also making the Internet faster? They are all worthless scams...whats the difference?
Again, not really a big concern. And wouldn't make any of it ok if it did.
But do try again. I find it interesting how much people want to turn pranks for lulz into some kind of really good thing for society. The only real gain is the few people that finally start maintaining more than one password
Do you think CTOs read about all of this high profile crap happening around them complete with massive losses due to liability and public humiliation and still feel no pressure of any kind to at least try and get their act together?
Heck IT shops flinch whenever defcon is in town. To think otherwise is exceedingly foolish.
Any pressure that can be brought to bear on society to take the security of their electronic shit seriously without having to suffer destructive attacks in order to learn ones lesson should be viewed as a godsend to all of us.
You see lulz and think mischief... I look at the space as a whole and see that security conciderations are not being properly externalized to the detriment to all. The market and society (lawmakers) will only respond to shame (lulz) or loss (criminals, state actors...) shame is the better evil.
In quantum crypto, the initial key is small, because once the quantum-generated key begins to grow, its small fraction is used for further authentication keys
Can it be proven a perfectly random, private yet untrusted OTP source would necessarily be better than any possible encryption algorithm given the same initial trust?
It might have to do with the fact that if/when someone gets a quantum computer RSA and ECC are effectively hosed. At that point, without a viable replacement, the world economy as we know it would disappear.
If we ever invent a real QC capable of running shors algorithm to break useful codes before our sun turns into a white dwarf the worlds economy is in for one hell of a roller coaster ride at warp 9 into the future.
My money is on it never being possible due to the decoherence tax. It stinks of something for nothing. I hope I'm wrong.
Lets assume for a second the quantum hardware itself works perfectly as advertised and cannot be compromised.
You still need classic (Such as a symmetric key) information to prove alice and bob are talking to each other rather than to malices quantum MITM proxy server.
Has anyone proved a perfect quantum OTP source improves actual security vs use of a zero knowledge algorithm to establish the same? Even if such an algorithm does not yet exist... Is it possible to construct one? Has it been shown this is not possible?
ICANN appears to be well on its way to loosing legitimacy. A poster child for what happens when an organization tasked with helping the network is rotted out from the inside out by money.
Fuck these retards. The only acceptable response should be for DNS, network operators and governments to take a stand and disallow queries to arbitrary TLDs. If these new TLDs can't actually be used they will have no value.
You go patent that tech and be sure to make licensing fees extra expensive so as Google and Microsoft continue to eat into your market share your "technology" grows incresingly irrelevent.
It is the height of hubris when one believes they have a market position allowing them to seek to actively prevent their customers from doing what they want with their devices. If you want to increase the rate of exodus to droid by all means full steam ahead.
We allow the fucking KKK, Scientologists and Nazi lovers to hold public gatherings and mr fuckwad Bill Haslam still thinks his bullshit is constitutional.
Just months ago the supreme court ruled overwhelmingly hecklers at dead soldiers funerals have the right to be offensive and belligerant. Is it really possible to offend a father more than that by sending an image over the Internet?
It is the same fucking oath to the constitution every single public official takes. It does not matter if you agree with it or not. It does not matter if you are a little pussy who does not have the stomach to tolerate shit you think is offensive. You swore an oath to uphold the US consitution - supremacy clause and all. Deal with it or step down.
If the data is sensitive, you should be encrypting it anyway before passing it along to a third party thatr has no business looking at it. If the data isn't sensitive enough to encrypt, why do you care where Google keeps it?
Then what is the use case? Backups? It would seem with this constraint your interaction with the network is essentially limited to a glorified FTP site?
Most extract value from hosting content and services on fat pipes they couldn't otherwise afford... I don't see how this could be possible without the hosted environment being able to decrypt your content.
The only successful attack-vector would be to have an active, complete man in the middle assault within the ongoing HTTPS session, with the ability to process your inputs, change the recipient of the money, and change the output data-stream on the fly without you or the bank software noticing it.
This is a really, really far-fetched scenario and is unlikely to present itself due to the complexity of the attack. However, while being THEORETICALLY possible, the transactions outbound from your own bank take two days to process, during which such scams can be reversed or audited.
Given this, the plausibility of your post hinges on a very, very frail thread.
If I have complete control over your computer why do I need to launch a man in the middle assault? What would be the point?
What would prevent me from snagging your banks interface and changing it to make you think your communicating directly with your bank? There are several toolkits available to do just this. It may take some time however this has been done successfully in the past and requires very little technical skill to implement.
That people trust schemes like these when it does nothing to protect the end user from their own computers (Very common "attack vector") is what I find far fetched.
We've been using one-time pads in Finland for a long time, and they do the job.
What's the issue?
I would love for you to explain to me how that would do you any good when your own system is compromised and an attacker can display anything they want on your screen. When you just entered your OTP you didn't just transfer $100k to the attacker did you? Ooops....
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest wish is that vendors would stop dictating how people use a tool and stop adding noise that can not be disabled. Remember google was supposed to have that no-nonsense interface for a reason... To be useful rather than 'pretty'.
There was a really nice new feature added recently I love. This allows me to remove sites from search results which always appear but never have any useful content to begin with (experts exchange, ask and associated spam link farms).
The only catch is that you have to be logged in to use it. Which I didn't used to mind until just recently...Now when I'm logged in +1 appears everywhere and there is no way to turn it off. That animated +1 icon designed specifically to catch my attention when I don't give a flying rats ass about telling my 'friends' every URL I like is annoying as hell.
The inability to click in a window with google search to gain focus to that window without accidently turning on the stupid site preview option with no way to disable still pisses me off to this day.
The inability to fully collapse the useless sidebar is also annoying.
It really feels like google is going out of their way to piss me off more and more with each passing month and I don't know why. We have spent thousands on adwords placement.
deltaV comes from the impulse that you can "eject"... the small ejection mass is the problem of ion thrusters
The point of thrusters is to increase the kinetic energy of what they are attached to. The formula for kinetic energy is .5mv^2
Note the exponent attached to the v term. Who cares what the ejection mass is if v is large enough?
We haven't gotten fusion to be a net energy gain here on Earth yet (outside tritium-boosted or thermonuclear atomic bombs). While I'm sure it will eventually happen, what makes it so that it's easier to make fusion work in space, compared to Earth?
Who said they were trying for net gain?
He can be used to spin webs and eat small crawlers that would otherwise find their way into your kitchen/cookie jar.
While quite friendly he loves to scare the living hell out of your neighbors and friends.
$1000 plus shipping and handling. Money back if your not terrorfied. Offer void anywhere thinking has been shown to cause cancer.
How is Taiwan to blame? Google is the one you should be mad with. The law is good, but google's reaction to it just plain sucks
Really a week to make up your mind about a $1 app? That plain sucks in my view. What stops people from using it for a week and returning it after they get tired of it?
Most legit and useful apps provide free versions as demos for the paid version so you have an idea of what your getting. I agree google has all kinds of quality problems that need to be addressed but I tend to favor a solution where people have reasonable tools to make an informed decision about what they are getting up front.
Seems to me that a low-level kernel in FLASH, which can only be upgraded with a hardware key inserted (e.g., the kernel FLASH blocks can only be written when there is a physical device plugged into the system), which then supports a number of different OS images using virtual machine concept, is the way to go.
I don't like it because it makes patching more difficult and does nothing to protect the end users data due to ownage of the guest.
I believe a better policy would just be to not allow untrusted execution of code on lower protection rings even for administrators/root.
Windows CE had a scheme like you describe. When you messed up your PDA you could instantly restore to factory default.
And of course we can't forget AIX which existed on RS6000 with its hardware key at a time when the rest of us were "smart little rodents hideing in the rocks".
I loved flying back in the days when you got wings, playing cards and meals. The pilot was always giving kids tours of the cockpit.
Now it is all about squeezing the last dime out of flights and politically driven security theatre. Not much fun for anyone.
While I want someone to stick it to the TSA for the scanners I think it is unlikely they have a case.
There are simply not that many TSA agents in the world to produce a statistically significant cancer signal without exposure at the level that would produce visible signs of poisioning or at least easily spotted with portable dosimeters able to detect low energy x-rays.
It would have to be trivial for TSA to make an exposure case simply by measuring the environment in which they work.
I always thought the reason so much time and energy is spent making sure phases are consistant was for the sanity and proper functioning of the grid itself. With distributed generation, long runs and loads yanking on the waveform it would be total chaos to stop paying careful attention to phase matching. Obviously while the comments made by McClelland might have been stupid from a PR perspective these people are not...What am I missing?
Does anyone understand the issue or tolerances involved? How do the utilities actually benefit from this arrangement and how is it safer for the grid???
I would say you fears are unjustified, most laptop can run fine on 85 to 140 volts and from 50 Hz to 70 Hz while on grid power.
Have you ever actually tried to run your notebooks PSU at 120v @ 50hz? The last time I tried that mine went nuts hunting continously on and off AC power. This is with a rather expensive unit accepting 120/240, 12 and 15v inputs.
120v @ 60hz and 240 @ 50hz work great but don't expect arbitrary variations to work with real world equipment.
Shannon says there is plenty of room for more effecient use of the pipes we have already laid.
I'm a big fan of more bandwidth but really for video distribution the most effecient method is to use some sort of shared cache/CDN to store data closer to the user to signficantly reduce global consumption.
Anything not needing to be streamed live could be scheduled and downloaded as needed. The ability to know in advance which of 10 million people will want a file vs instant response on-demand is an extremely powerful idea opening huge opportunties for optimization.
An intelligent CDN could look to see who is requesting what where overlayed with network conditions and compute the most effecient distribution plan.
The same could be done using a P2P overlay but be centrally planned to make distribution both more effecient and faster.
Why not do something about those TV commercials which advertise virus protection and instantly fix your computer while of course also making the Internet faster? They are all worthless scams...whats the difference?
Again, not really a big concern. And wouldn't make any of it ok if it did.
But do try again. I find it interesting how much people want to turn pranks for lulz into some kind of really good thing for society. The only real gain is the few people that finally start maintaining more than one password
Do you think CTOs read about all of this high profile crap happening around them complete with massive losses due to liability and public humiliation and still feel no pressure of any kind to at least try and get their act together?
Heck IT shops flinch whenever defcon is in town. To think otherwise is exceedingly foolish.
Any pressure that can be brought to bear on society to take the security of their electronic shit seriously without having to suffer destructive attacks in order to learn ones lesson should be viewed as a godsend to all of us.
You see lulz and think mischief... I look at the space as a whole and see that security conciderations are not being properly externalized to the detriment to all. The market and society (lawmakers) will only respond to shame (lulz) or loss (criminals, state actors...) shame is the better evil.
Zero-knowledge authentication is impossible by definition. If you know nothing secret about someone, you can never verify his identity
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
In quantum crypto, the initial key is small, because once the quantum-generated key begins to grow, its small fraction is used for further authentication keys
Can it be proven a perfectly random, private yet untrusted OTP source would necessarily be better than any possible encryption algorithm given the same initial trust?
It might have to do with the fact that if/when someone gets a quantum computer RSA and ECC are effectively hosed. At that point, without a viable replacement, the world economy as we know it would disappear.
If we ever invent a real QC capable of running shors algorithm to break useful codes before our sun turns into a white dwarf the worlds economy is in for one hell of a roller coaster ride at warp 9 into the future.
My money is on it never being possible due to the decoherence tax. It stinks of something for nothing. I hope I'm wrong.
Lets assume for a second the quantum hardware itself works perfectly as advertised and cannot be compromised.
You still need classic (Such as a symmetric key) information to prove alice and bob are talking to each other rather than to malices quantum MITM proxy server.
Has anyone proved a perfect quantum OTP source improves actual security vs use of a zero knowledge algorithm to establish the same? Even if such an algorithm does not yet exist... Is it possible to construct one? Has it been shown this is not possible?
ICANN appears to be well on its way to loosing legitimacy. A poster child for what happens when an organization tasked with helping the network is rotted out from the inside out by money.
Fuck these retards. The only acceptable response should be for DNS, network operators and governments to take a stand and disallow queries to arbitrary TLDs. If these new TLDs can't actually be used they will have no value.
Ethanol does not produce much more useful energy than is required to produce it.
It is immoral to bind the price of food and energy any more than necessary as the practice unecessarily disadvantages the poor.
You go patent that tech and be sure to make licensing fees extra expensive so as Google and Microsoft continue to eat into your market share your "technology" grows incresingly irrelevent.
It is the height of hubris when one believes they have a market position allowing them to seek to actively prevent their customers from doing what they want with their devices. If you want to increase the rate of exodus to droid by all means full steam ahead.
The same could easily be said about the sparc architecture.
The word "backup" is often confused with "practice" ... backups who needs backups?
We allow the fucking KKK, Scientologists and Nazi lovers to hold public gatherings and mr fuckwad Bill Haslam still thinks his bullshit is constitutional.
Just months ago the supreme court ruled overwhelmingly hecklers at dead soldiers funerals have the right to be offensive and belligerant. Is it really possible to offend a father more than that by sending an image over the Internet?
It is the same fucking oath to the constitution every single public official takes. It does not matter if you agree with it or not. It does not matter if you are a little pussy who does not have the stomach to tolerate shit you think is offensive. You swore an oath to uphold the US consitution - supremacy clause and all. Deal with it or step down.
If the data is sensitive, you should be encrypting it anyway before passing it along to a third party thatr has no business looking at it. If the data isn't sensitive enough to encrypt, why do you care where Google keeps it?
Then what is the use case? Backups? It would seem with this constraint your interaction with the network is essentially limited to a glorified FTP site?
Most extract value from hosting content and services on fat pipes they couldn't otherwise afford... I don't see how this could be possible without the hosted environment being able to decrypt your content.
The only successful attack-vector would be to have an active, complete man in the middle assault within the ongoing HTTPS session, with the ability to process your inputs, change the recipient of the money, and change the output data-stream on the fly without you or the bank software noticing it.
This is a really, really far-fetched scenario and is unlikely to present itself due to the complexity of the attack. However, while being THEORETICALLY possible, the transactions outbound from your own bank take two days to process, during which such scams can be reversed or audited.
Given this, the plausibility of your post hinges on a very, very frail thread.
If I have complete control over your computer why do I need to launch a man in the middle assault? What would be the point?
What would prevent me from snagging your banks interface and changing it to make you think your communicating directly with your bank? There are several toolkits available to do just this. It may take some time however this has been done successfully in the past and requires very little technical skill to implement.
That people trust schemes like these when it does nothing to protect the end user from their own computers (Very common "attack vector") is what I find far fetched.
We've been using one-time pads in Finland for a long time, and they do the job.
What's the issue?
I would love for you to explain to me how that would do you any good when your own system is compromised and an attacker can display anything they want on your screen. When you just entered your OTP you didn't just transfer $100k to the attacker did you? Ooops....
So the bad news is that this has to do with Twitter. The good news is that the star which went nova wasn't Betelgeuse
How is that good news? It would be awesome to see. Once in a lifetime photo op.