I submitted this story at around 5pm yesterday and linked to the official NASA news release. Apparently it didn't have enough pretty artists renderings so mine was rejected.
One of the problems facing the space program in its earliest days was how to re-fire liquid fueled rockets in a weightless environment. If you think about it, just exactly how do you get the fluids in a tank half full of rocket fuel to take a position over and in the sump of the tank so the pumps can supply reliable measures of fuel and oxidizer to the engines combustion chamber.
The innovative solution was to mix the fuel and oxidizer with a ferrous based additive so that a large magnet at the sump of the tank would draw the fuel and oxidizer to the sump. This isn't a magnetic fluid but it is one of the ingenious solutions to a myriad of engineering challenges facing our space program.
I'm not familiar with this, do you have a source for this?
The solution that NASA typically used to solve this problem was to fire the maneuvering thrusters briefly which would impart an acceleration onto the fuel and force it to the proper part of the fuel tank.
Isn't it strange how "Encryption" is bad, but "Secure" is good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals encrypt their transmissions but Bankers make "secure transmissions"
This is a classic ploy of our government and the corporate media.
For example, whenever an enemy of ours is holding people against their will they are called "hostages," and whenever an ally is holding people they are called "prisoners."
It's also unlikely that you'll ever see positive images of Arabs in the corporate media. Generally we only see them shooting guns into the air.
If you know what to look and listen for you can make a fun game of it.:-)
It seems like ignorance among general populace is like a widespread disease, and what is even worse is the fact that the individuals such as yourself try to "educate" others with your own lack of knowledge...
No offense, but no wonder there are more macs there right now when so-called audio engineers such as yourself spread the false info to the even-more-ignorant consumers.
Sadly the world is full of many "would be" audio engineers. They think because they know the Mac and have stuck a mic in front of someone's face that they're an engineer.
I've seen it all too often. My old boss at a medium sized studio near Syracuse NY still thinks that phase doesn't matter.
He got a real shocker when one of the band members (of a band he recorded) wanted to make some mono Real Audio files from tracks on their CD... and all of the rhythm guitars, AND the snare drum DISAPPEARED.
I still believe that this case will ultimately be dismissed in time.
I suspect this because I believe that the corporations and the government know they got away with one this time and they don't want this law overturned, which it might be by a high court.
They will wait an appropriate amount of time to let Skyarlov know that "they really meant it," slap his wrist, and send him home.
HEY! How would an English teacher get their letters out of order? ^
The correct order is 'bcd' not 'cdb'.:-)
I always enjoy having a good editor at my side. Good suggestions, thanks!:-)
I must confess however, I was in a VERY angry mood when I wrote that and I did choose the "you" words to personalize it. As in "you fascists.":-) (YOU as in congress, not the fine slashdot readers):-)
Your final sentence is also a good idea.
My friend Matt who is a very good editor usually looks my stuff over before I publish, but I didn't feel like bothering him with this one.
One week ago today, I wrote essentially the same thing to my congress people. Here is my letter in case anyone else would like to send it to their congress critters:
------
Honorable Senator xxxxxx,
I am writing to bring to your attention the pointlessness of Senator Judd Gregg's new legislation mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products. I could make many arguments that discuss our civil liberties and the right to be secure within our papers and possessions, but that argument while true and immensely important, is not even required in this case.
Simply put, with respect to strong cryptographic software, the "cat is out of the bag." The world is already full of good, secure cryptographic products with no backdoors. That is the case now, and was PRIOR to Congress' reduction of ITAR restrictions that kept us from exporting strong cryptographic products.
The world is full of smart people many of whom do not work for the NSA, and do not live within the United States. These people in the civilian cryptographic world are constantly researching and developing new cryptographic techniques, which Senator Gregg's legislation WILL NOT AFFECT. No matter how many laws you pass, NOTHING will keep the BAD GUYS from being able to download this cryptographic software from European and other web sites.
If Europe latches on to Senator Gregg's idea of mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products, then the people who want to use cryptographic products with no backdoors will simply write their own, or copy VERBATIM the computer source code for strong cryptographic software that already exists in many hundreds of published books.
Allow me to quote Bruce Schneier, perhaps the United States' leading civilian cryptographic expert:
"To illustrate the ease with which a cryptosystem can be implemented, I present the full code necessary for establishing a secure cryptographic channel over the internet, called the Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange. Both people communicating do the following:
"1. Get public key (Y, P) of the other person. This is just a pair of large numbers.
"2. Raise Y to the power of X, where X is the private key, modulo P. The result is the secret key.
"Modular arithmetic is taught to fourth-graders under the name 'clock math,' and secret-key cryptosystems are just as easy to memorize and implement as public-key systems. I could teach any twelve-year-old how to reproduce from memory in under fifteen minutes a strong cryptosystem on any Windows machine. Any terrorist is quite capable of doing the same."
This speaks volumes about the current state of cryptographic software in the world today, and the ease with which it can be implemented.
If Senator Gregg's legislation is passed, it will have ZERO affect on the people who DO have things to hide from you, and will only harm the innocent citizens of the United States who wish nothing more than to insure that their banking records and private email conversations remain truly private.
His (badly worded) point was that you can whine all you want to and exercise your free speech till your blue in the face but your elected officials won't really care if you don't participate in the election process. You're a non-person, an Anonymous Coward, or a guest on Jerry Springer -- you're simply not important to the real world unless you vote.
I understood the subtext, but it's STILL wrong.
How is my congressman going to know whether or not I voted? Sure, I sign a book when I go vote, but he has no idea whether or not I voted in his particular race, or whether or not I simply went in, pulled no levers (we still do that here) and exited.
His subtext presumes my congressman reads my comments, checks to see whether I voted, and applies more or less weight to my comments based on that.
I doubt it.
As for your other point on "24th century Star Trek type technology" solving this problem -- it won't. Technology cannot be used to solve political problems of any kind except where it contributes to more sophistocated means of waging war.
I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about being attacked.
And until we can surround EVERY person, EVERY building, and our entire country with a power force field, this sort of attack CAN NOT be avoided.
I could go on at length about the politics of the issue, but that wasn't my point.
Email is a convienience. You can still snail mail someone something and not have it touched.
Assuming that's true, then that means the BAD GUYS can do this also.
This particular attack took YEARS to plan, so what makes you think they wouldn't mind waiting a few days for regular postal mail to receive information, than an instant email?
The Constitution does not cover freedom of easy communication.
Not specifically, but it does cover the right to free speech, so they do overlap. And it (was) required that law enforcement authorities get a court order before phone lines were tapped. So you're wrong. Phone calls are easy conveniences which WERE covered by privacy laws.
Oklahoma City did a lot to erode that, and the new law will also.
Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government.
Bull, my right to free speech is not regulated by whether or not I voted. Now or ever.
The right not to have to do something is just as important as the right to do it.
Having said that, I can't believe the number of people I've seen that are willing to GIVE their rights away, for the LIE that they will be safer by doing so.
Two or three days ago I sent a letter and en email to both senators and my congressman asking them to tell Americans the TRUTH. And that is that nothing short of 24th century Star Trek type technology can save us from this sort of thing.
They passed an "anti-terrorism" bill after Oklahoma City and THAT didn't stop it, what makes you think a few more draconian words written on paper will stop it now?
We live in (perhaps) the country with the most freedom in the world, and we have thousands of miles of water and land border. There simply aren't enough cops, or military to police every inch of them to keep the bad guys out.
Our war on drugs has failed miserably, and this attempt will too, BECAUSE we are free.
Perhaps all of you are willing to give your rights away, but I'm going down kicking and screaming.
Rich...
Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
One would hope we would have learned from these mistakes, but we never do...
That's because they weren't "mistakes."
They were active policy choices, and these same kind of foreign policy decisions are made every day.
You and I both know they're mistakes, but the various administrations don't see it that way because at the time, they served our foreign policy purpose.
Rich...
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
The Oslo declarations and repeated statements by the PNA, amongst other organizations involved in the (now defunct, I suppose) peace process have strictly defined the legal boundaries of a proposed Palestinian state as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the portions of Israel that are beyond the "Red Line" crossed and occupied since the war of 1967. Prior to that war, that land was wholly occupied by the Palestinians and Jordanians.
Correct.
And there has been a UN resolution demanding that Israel return all illegally obtained land since the early 1970's.
Interesting how the US didn't enforce that resolution, but was quick to enforce the UN resolution against Iraq in 1991.
This seems incredible to me, that anyone playing someone of the caliber of Short can move all his pawns one square forward (giving Short 8 moves to develop his attack, essentially)---and still win! Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?
I am by no means a chess expert. My USCF rating is around 1600.
I have played white, while my opponent (a similarly rated player) did exactly this. Moved his pawns forward one square until they were all developed into that position.
This is nowehere near "book" opening play, and for me it was very hard to develop a good attack against this opening (and it does have a name).
We played 5 or 6 games in a row like this and I had very little success mounting a quick, early attack, despite the fact that he used this seemingly ridiculous opening.
Why couldn't this be Bobby Fischer? This seems like the best way for him to interact with people.
He seems to hate being in the limelight, and there's no reason to believe he's no longer active in chess on any level. So why not?
Sounds like an ideal forum for him to play, to me.
If any of you want to learn more about Bobby and his antics, read a book called 'Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest Of The World'. It's genius.
I used to have a local chess club (formed in 1991) called "The Bobby Fischer Memorial Chess Club", but then one year later he re-appeared. But we didn't rename the club since we knew he'd disappear again. The club's motto? "Not dead but what has he done for us lately?"
Let's say indeed someone launched 100 nuclear warheads at the US and we shot down 99 of them but one got through but through faulty upkeep didn't explode. I bet you would be pretty damn happy then wouldn't you.
Sort of a silly question, isn't it? I would say that MOST people are happier when they're not getting shot at.
You know.. we don't actually know jack about our defense capablities I don't think. Of course, if we did then our enemies would also, and they wouldn't be nearly as effective. For example, living in St. Louis, I was talking to someone from Boeing and mentioned how they must not too happy that their missile tests failed. He just laughed and said he couldn't talk about it's classified. Makes you wonder if maybe he was inferring that those public tests don't totally represent the actually success of the projects...
Well, in this case I would disagree.
When Reagan originally proposed SDI he actually spoke about a missile defense sheid that could not be penetrated. He then said we'd share the technology with the Soviets so that there would never be an attack since it would always fail.
In this case I would think we would WANT our enemies to know how good our capabilities at shooting down missiles are. This way they wouldn't attack.
Even if we had a 99% success rate with this system it would still benefit an enemy to launch 100 missiles so that one might get through.
So if anything, I would say we're lying and OVER-estimating our successes, just as we did in the Gulf War when we were told our Patriots were shooting down Scuds left and right, only to learn that we only had something like 2 successful intercepts, and in each of those cases the missile body was blown apart, but the Scud's warhead still fell to earth and exploded.
As always, this new SDI is just congress and the president paying off their corporate masters with HUGE defense contracts to repay them for their campaign contributions.
Rich...
I agree with you not to blame MICROS~1. Blaming them is like blaming a glass manufacturer for when a robber breaks a window, and steals your tv. Blame the damn virus writer! And blaming the sys admins is like blaming the owner of the house because he/she does not know that the glass they bought with the house is NOT bullet proof.
No, no, no.
When you buy a house, you know for a FACT that glass will break when hit with a hammer.
The people who buy MS products THINK they're getting something secure, since it's one of the many buzzwords (READ: lies) that MS always uses.
Your analogy just doesn't do justice to the situation.
really...come on...all it would take...(and there are many really easy ways around this but here is one)...is some one with a digital mixer to dump its tracks over and then cut a new cd....and that would even be a lot more effort than needed.
Interesting. I would how a digital console would react to such an incoming digital signal. The desk might balk and not recognize it at all.
It's in the paper. Each individual field gets hashed down to an (IIRC) 8-bit value.
Oh, silly me... if it's an 8-bit hash of each device that they're using, then figuring out which device is being used is easy. In fact there are probably enough harddrive models out there to cause multiple collisions in an 8-bit hash.
It's in the paper. Each individual field gets hashed down to an (IIRC) 8-bit value. So even though they can't reverse the hash to get
the hardware string, they do know that your CDROM identifier went from 0x55 to 0x7A. If four such fields change, it's reactivation Time.
I definitely understand that part. And I think they're cutting their own throats. Every consultant and IT person I know hates this. I have told everyone I KNOW not to run XP, and everyone I know is doing the same.
All we have to do in convince them to convince their bosses to convince THEIR bosses to switch to a MS alternative.
My reply was more addressing the idea that somehow MS knowing your hardware configuration was necessarily a bad thing, and while I hate MS, I don't really think they're going to be spending the CPU cycles to brute force those hash values for hundreds of thousands of their customers JUST to know their CDROM manufacturer.
Various strings are run through a hashing function and are stored in the key you read to the Microsoft rep over the phone (the Installation key). They are:
What hash are they using? If this is a cryptographically strong one-way hash, then there's no way for them to figure out what has changed, by analyzing the hash value. (let's just say it's computationally infeasible)
But then again, they might be able to brute force the answer since there aren't THAT many possible hardware configurations. They could start by using some default configurations that the bigger PC makers use.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
I submitted this story at around 5pm yesterday and linked to the official NASA news release. Apparently it didn't have enough pretty artists renderings so mine was rejected.
Rich...
I'm curious to know what values AREN'T subverted by corporate greed?
I certainly can't think of one.
Rich...
I'm not familiar with this, do you have a source for this?
The solution that NASA typically used to solve this problem was to fire the maneuvering thrusters briefly which would impart an acceleration onto the fuel and force it to the proper part of the fuel tank.
Seems a much cheaper and simpler solution, no?
Rich...
This is a classic ploy of our government and the corporate media.
For example, whenever an enemy of ours is holding people against their will they are called "hostages," and whenever an ally is holding people they are called "prisoners."
It's also unlikely that you'll ever see positive images of Arabs in the corporate media. Generally we only see them shooting guns into the air.
If you know what to look and listen for you can make a fun game of it. :-)
Rich...
Sadly the world is full of many "would be" audio engineers. They think because they know the Mac and have stuck a mic in front of someone's face that they're an engineer.
I've seen it all too often. My old boss at a medium sized studio near Syracuse NY still thinks that phase doesn't matter.
He got a real shocker when one of the band members (of a band he recorded) wanted to make some mono Real Audio files from tracks on their CD... and all of the rhythm guitars, AND the snare drum DISAPPEARED.
Nope, phase doesn't matter.
Rich...
I suspect this because I believe that the corporations and the government know they got away with one this time and they don't want this law overturned, which it might be by a high court.
They will wait an appropriate amount of time to let Skyarlov know that "they really meant it," slap his wrist, and send him home.
Rich...
Wow. :-)
:-)
I can't handle all of these nice things being said about me and my writing. The people closest to me aren't compliment givers.
Just doing my part. When I get angry I need a release.
Emotion, the basis of most art.
Rich...
HEY! How would an English teacher get their letters out of order? ^
The correct order is 'bcd' not 'cdb'.
I always enjoy having a good editor at my side. Good suggestions, thanks!
I must confess however, I was in a VERY angry mood when I wrote that and I did choose the "you" words to personalize it. As in "you fascists."
Your final sentence is also a good idea.
My friend Matt who is a very good editor usually looks my stuff over before I publish, but I didn't feel like bothering him with this one.
Rich....
One week ago today, I wrote essentially the same thing to my congress people. Here is my letter in case anyone else would like to send it to their congress critters:
------
Honorable Senator xxxxxx,
I am writing to bring to your attention the pointlessness of Senator Judd Gregg's new legislation mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products. I could make many arguments that discuss our civil liberties and the right to be secure within our papers and possessions, but that argument while true and immensely important, is not even required in this case.
Simply put, with respect to strong cryptographic software, the "cat is out of the bag." The world is already full of good, secure cryptographic products with no backdoors. That is the case now, and was PRIOR to Congress' reduction of ITAR restrictions that kept us from exporting strong cryptographic products.
The world is full of smart people many of whom do not work for the NSA, and do not live within the United States. These people in the civilian cryptographic world are constantly researching and developing new cryptographic techniques, which Senator Gregg's legislation WILL NOT AFFECT. No matter how many laws you pass, NOTHING will keep the BAD GUYS from being able to download this cryptographic software from European and other web sites.
If Europe latches on to Senator Gregg's idea of mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products, then the people who want to use cryptographic products with no backdoors will simply write their own, or copy VERBATIM the computer source code for strong cryptographic software that already exists in many hundreds of published books.
Allow me to quote Bruce Schneier, perhaps the United States' leading civilian cryptographic expert:
"To illustrate the ease with which a cryptosystem can be implemented, I present the full code necessary for establishing a secure cryptographic channel over the internet, called the Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange. Both people communicating do the following:
"1. Get public key (Y, P) of the other person. This is just a pair of large numbers.
"2. Raise Y to the power of X, where X is the private key, modulo P. The result is the secret key.
"Modular arithmetic is taught to fourth-graders under the name 'clock math,' and secret-key cryptosystems are just as easy to memorize and implement as public-key systems. I could teach any twelve-year-old how to reproduce from memory in under fifteen minutes a strong cryptosystem on any Windows machine. Any terrorist is quite capable of doing the same."
This speaks volumes about the current state of cryptographic software in the world today, and the ease with which it can be implemented.
If Senator Gregg's legislation is passed, it will have ZERO affect on the people who DO have things to hide from you, and will only harm the innocent citizens of the United States who wish nothing more than to insure that their banking records and private email conversations remain truly private.
Regards,
-----
Rich...
For the most part, all employers... corporations in particular, have declared war on their labor.
I'd list the reasons but the apologists would just deny them. :-)
Rich...
I understood the subtext, but it's STILL wrong.
How is my congressman going to know whether or not I voted? Sure, I sign a book when I go vote, but he has no idea whether or not I voted in his particular race, or whether or not I simply went in, pulled no levers (we still do that here) and exited.
His subtext presumes my congressman reads my comments, checks to see whether I voted, and applies more or less weight to my comments based on that.
I doubt it.
I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about being attacked.
And until we can surround EVERY person, EVERY building, and our entire country with a power force field, this sort of attack CAN NOT be avoided.
I could go on at length about the politics of the issue, but that wasn't my point.
Rich...
Assuming that's true, then that means the BAD GUYS can do this also.
This particular attack took YEARS to plan, so what makes you think they wouldn't mind waiting a few days for regular postal mail to receive information, than an instant email?
Not specifically, but it does cover the right to free speech, so they do overlap. And it (was) required that law enforcement authorities get a court order before phone lines were tapped. So you're wrong. Phone calls are easy conveniences which WERE covered by privacy laws.
Oklahoma City did a lot to erode that, and the new law will also.
Rich...
Bull, my right to free speech is not regulated by whether or not I voted. Now or ever.
The right not to have to do something is just as important as the right to do it.
Having said that, I can't believe the number of people I've seen that are willing to GIVE their rights away, for the LIE that they will be safer by doing so.
Two or three days ago I sent a letter and en email to both senators and my congressman asking them to tell Americans the TRUTH. And that is that nothing short of 24th century Star Trek type technology can save us from this sort of thing.
They passed an "anti-terrorism" bill after Oklahoma City and THAT didn't stop it, what makes you think a few more draconian words written on paper will stop it now?
We live in (perhaps) the country with the most freedom in the world, and we have thousands of miles of water and land border. There simply aren't enough cops, or military to police every inch of them to keep the bad guys out.
Our war on drugs has failed miserably, and this attempt will too, BECAUSE we are free.
Perhaps all of you are willing to give your rights away, but I'm going down kicking and screaming.
Rich...
That's because they weren't "mistakes."
They were active policy choices, and these same kind of foreign policy decisions are made every day.
You and I both know they're mistakes, but the various administrations don't see it that way because at the time, they served our foreign policy purpose.
Rich...
Correct.
And there has been a UN resolution demanding that Israel return all illegally obtained land since the early 1970's.
Interesting how the US didn't enforce that resolution, but was quick to enforce the UN resolution against Iraq in 1991.
Rich...
I am by no means a chess expert. My USCF rating is around 1600. I have played white, while my opponent (a similarly rated player) did exactly this. Moved his pawns forward one square until they were all developed into that position.
This is nowehere near "book" opening play, and for me it was very hard to develop a good attack against this opening (and it does have a name).
We played 5 or 6 games in a row like this and I had very little success mounting a quick, early attack, despite the fact that he used this seemingly ridiculous opening.
Rich...
Why couldn't this be Bobby Fischer? This seems like the best way for him to interact with people.
He seems to hate being in the limelight, and there's no reason to believe he's no longer active in chess on any level. So why not?
Sounds like an ideal forum for him to play, to me.
If any of you want to learn more about Bobby and his antics, read a book called 'Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest Of The World'. It's genius.
I used to have a local chess club (formed in 1991) called "The Bobby Fischer Memorial Chess Club", but then one year later he re-appeared. But we didn't rename the club since we knew he'd disappear again. The club's motto? "Not dead but what has he done for us lately?"
Rich...
What's with the name calling?
Sort of a silly question, isn't it? I would say that MOST people are happier when they're not getting shot at.
Rich...
Well, in this case I would disagree.
When Reagan originally proposed SDI he actually spoke about a missile defense sheid that could not be penetrated. He then said we'd share the technology with the Soviets so that there would never be an attack since it would always fail.
In this case I would think we would WANT our enemies to know how good our capabilities at shooting down missiles are. This way they wouldn't attack.
Even if we had a 99% success rate with this system it would still benefit an enemy to launch 100 missiles so that one might get through.
So if anything, I would say we're lying and OVER-estimating our successes, just as we did in the Gulf War when we were told our Patriots were shooting down Scuds left and right, only to learn that we only had something like 2 successful intercepts, and in each of those cases the missile body was blown apart, but the Scud's warhead still fell to earth and exploded.
As always, this new SDI is just congress and the president paying off their corporate masters with HUGE defense contracts to repay them for their campaign contributions. Rich...
Doesn't this case DEFINE prior art?
Rich...
No, no, no.
When you buy a house, you know for a FACT that glass will break when hit with a hammer.
The people who buy MS products THINK they're getting something secure, since it's one of the many buzzwords (READ: lies) that MS always uses.
Your analogy just doesn't do justice to the situation.
Rich...
Interesting. I would how a digital console would react to such an incoming digital signal. The desk might balk and not recognize it at all.
It would be interesting to try this.
Rich...
Oh, silly me... if it's an 8-bit hash of each device that they're using, then figuring out which device is being used is easy. In fact there are probably enough harddrive models out there to cause multiple collisions in an 8-bit hash.
Rich...
I definitely understand that part. And I think they're cutting their own throats. Every consultant and IT person I know hates this. I have told everyone I KNOW not to run XP, and everyone I know is doing the same.
All we have to do in convince them to convince their bosses to convince THEIR bosses to switch to a MS alternative.
My reply was more addressing the idea that somehow MS knowing your hardware configuration was necessarily a bad thing, and while I hate MS, I don't really think they're going to be spending the CPU cycles to brute force those hash values for hundreds of thousands of their customers JUST to know their CDROM manufacturer.
Rich...
What hash are they using? If this is a cryptographically strong one-way hash, then there's no way for them to figure out what has changed, by analyzing the hash value. (let's just say it's computationally infeasible)
But then again, they might be able to brute force the answer since there aren't THAT many possible hardware configurations. They could start by using some default configurations that the bigger PC makers use.
Do we know what hash they're using?
Rich...