Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Disconnect between ... (Score 1) 283 283

Precisely.

Letting corporations and large banks borrow money at zero interest in order to purchase back their stocks and inflate asset prices is not the same as economic growth. Throw in massaged CPI numbers that underestimate inflation and we have what we see now, the outward appearance of economic growth in a declining economy.

mod parent up

Comment: Re:FEO (Score 2) 375 375

by dmt0 (#49162623) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

Don't be daft, good vs bad are not facts. Facts are things like when the bank bailout happened, which laws were used, who signed the laws, which banks benefited, how big of bonuses were given out etc. Ideally you base your opinion about good vs bad based on facts rather then bullshit and good vs bad is always an opinion. And how is it censorship if a private entity prints whatever it wants? You, I and Google are free to put whatever we want on sites we own. Everyone is free to visit which ever sites they want to visit and we're all free to stop visiting a site if we don't like/agree with its content. Google fucks up and they'll go the way of Alta Vista.

OK, that was a bad example. "Who plotted 9/11". That's a question regarding a fact that is disputed. But there is an official status quo version that is more widely accepted than others. Will that become a fact? Regarding censorship - yes, Google is not the only search engine out there. Let's see if Bing makes an announcement in the nearest future saying that they're implementing a similar technology to become more "competitive" against Google.

Comment: Re:FEO (Score 2, Insightful) 375 375

by dmt0 (#49162087) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
So, if enough of the high-ranking trustworthy sites like cnn.com tell you that the bailing out of the banks in 2008 was an unambiguously good thing, than that becomes a fact? And if you opine otherwise, you're ranked down? So what we have here is a full blown censoring of the web, nothing less.

Comment: Re:The relationship between Google and Uncle Sam (Score 1) 248 248

by dmt0 (#44803115) Attached to: Google Speeding Up New Encryption Project After Latest Snowden Leaks

That's right, because they're working for US gov, not for Chinese gov.

Ah, that explains chillingeffects.org, their switch to RC4, SSL by default, and their strong support of the EFF, right?

For chillingeffects.org read the rest of my last post.

RC4, and SSL are irrelevant because the gov gets the data unencrypted. Encryption just makes your data unavailable to anyone other than the government, because the government hates competition. :)

EFF - publicity, "don't be evil", and the same old self-serving goals.

Comment: Re:The relationship between Google and Uncle Sam (Score 1) 248 248

by dmt0 (#44801265) Attached to: Google Speeding Up New Encryption Project After Latest Snowden Leaks

For instance, unlike Yahoo and MS, Google famously has repeatedly refused to work with the Chinese government when they request details on dissidents.

That's right, because they're working for US gov, not for Chinese gov.

Who besides google works closely with the EFF, particularly with the ChillingEffects site?

Google is against software patents, and are known to invest a lot in lobbying against them. Unlike the pharmaceutical and financial companies that are on the other side of the fence. ChillingEffects (as awesome as that resource may be) _from Google's perspective_ can be considered an astroturfing campaign.

Who besides google has shown the guts to say "get a warrant" to unofficial government requests?

Knowing that such requests are followed by FISA orders that you mention later in your post, the only purpose this "get a warrant" message serves is publicity and nothing else.

Comment: Re:Uh... okay (Score 1) 607 607

by dmt0 (#44769477) Attached to: NSA Foils Much Internet Encryption

No cracks in commonly used encryption, just a lot of computing power to brute force it. I remember 10 years ago there was speculation that for a few billion dollars you could build a machine capable of cracking common codes in a few months, and that the some countries probably had them already.

You don't crack commonly known encryption, you just design flaws right into it at the standard level:

Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States’ encryption standards body, and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.

Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.”

“Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says

Comment: So much for open source... (Score 1) 607 607

by dmt0 (#44769143) Attached to: NSA Foils Much Internet Encryption
"Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States’ encryption standards body, and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.
Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.”

So much for having your source open. It takes time to find bugs even in standards that guide the way software is written. How many people are out there who are qualified to find such issues in the code?

The rate at which a disease spreads through a corn field is a precise measurement of the speed of blight.

Working...