Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Monitors for publishing (Score 1) 289

by billstewart (#48441593) Attached to: Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio

I did some work with the publishing industry back in the 80s, and one of the projects had some portrait-mode 200dpi monitors for editing. Absolutely wonderful things; we're only now starting to get that kind of resolution again.

As it was, I found it annoying enough to go from 1152x900 in 1992 down to 640x400 in 1993, and didn't get as good a monitor on my main work machine until maybe 2009 or 2010. (There were laptops with 1280 or more pixels before then, but we didn't have them; our Corporate IT department always preferred to get hardware with more color depth instead of more pixels, thinking for instance that 640x480 with 16-bit color was better than 800x600 with 8-bit color. Nope.)

Comment: Reading portrait-mode paper-shaped documents, duh (Score 1) 289

by billstewart (#48441551) Attached to: Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio

Yes, it's much nicer to read portrait-mode documents on a portrait-mode or at least square display, not on landscape. It's especially the case for PDF files in multi-column formats where you otherwise have to scroll up and down and up and down to read the things.

But that's not a friendly shape for a laptop, unfortunately. I'd probably be ok with a tiltable display to get 4x3 or 16x9-10 portrait mode, though it seems manufacturers assume you're going to be using displays to watch movies on so the default position is landscape.

+ - What Does The NSA Think Of Cryptographers? ->

Submitted by mikejuk
mikejuk (1801200) writes "A recently declassified NSA house magazine, CryptoLog, reveals some interesting attitudes between the redactions. What is the NSA take on cryptography?
The article of interest is a report of a trip to the 1992 EuroCrypt conference by an NSA cryptographer whose name is redacted.We all get a little bored having to sit though presentations that are off topic, boring or even down right silly but we generally don't write our opinions down. In this case the criticisms are cutting and they reveal a lot about the attitude of the NSA cryptographers. You need to keep in mind as you read that this is intended for the NSA crypto community and as such the writer would have felt at home with what was being written.
Take for example:
Three of the last four sessions were of no value whatever, and indeed there was almost nothing at Eurocrypt to interest us (this is good news!). The scholarship was actually extremely good; it’s just that the directions which external cryptologic researchers have taken are remarkably far from our own lines of interest.
It seems that back in 1992 academic cryptographers were working on things that the NSA didn't consider of any importance. Could things be the same now?
The gulf between the two camps couldn't be better expressed than:
The conference again offered an interesting view into the thought processes of the world’s leading “cryptologists.” It is indeed remarkable how far the Agency has strayed from the True Path.
The ironic comment is clearly suggesting that the NSA is on the "true path" whatever that might be.
Clearly the gap between the NSA and the academic crypto community is probably as wide today with the different approaches to the problem being driven by what each wants to achieve. It is worth reading the rest of the article."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 237

by Shakrai (#48439289) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US

Are you sure about that? Here's New York State's law:

S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.
[snip]
2. Lack of consent results from:
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct; or

S 130.55 Sexual abuse in the third degree.
A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter`s consent;

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 2) 301

by Shakrai (#48439035) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

You tell me how that does not constitute Soviet behavior.

Seriously? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and the EU member states are free to leave any time they wish.

Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.

Really? All of Europe you say? Even Great Britain? Finland?

Are you an American? If you are I wish you'd STFU; you're making the rest of us look bad. WW2 was a team effort. Could the Allies have beaten the Germans without the Russians? Possibly; we did in WW1 after the Russians quit. The butcher's bill would have been a lot higher though. The west (particularly the United States and Canada) got off pretty easy. As far as "Europe would have been under the Soviets", that's debatable. The example of Finland suggests there are limits to how far Stalin was willing to go to gain strategic depth. Germany certainly would have gotten a much rawer deal without American involvement, though ironically enough it was the United States that originally proposed turning Germany into a pastoral state after the conflict.

Sure, if you live in Greece and need the EU to fund your pension

Yeah, well, the same problem is brewing in the United States and I haven't heard a single mainstream politician from either party come up with a proactive way of dealing with it. And guess what? There's no provision for a State to file bankruptcy like Detroit did. What happens when one of the 50 can't meet its obligations? Nobody knows but we're apt to find out in the coming decades....

Comment: Re:EU is getting too powerful (Score 2) 301

by Shakrai (#48438523) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

That's because the EU is really an economic concern trying to masquerade as a country. It originally started as the European Coal and Steel Community. It has always been about economics. A handful of rich and powerful countries benefit from a common market and currency. Countries that would probably be better off outside of the Eurozone won't leave it because the rich and powerful therein benefit. Well monied interests calling the shots is hardly a uniquely American phenomenon.

Europe won't truly unite absent some sort of external and existential threat. It took such a threat to unify the United States back in the day and the American colonies had a shared culture, language, and no history of going to war with one another. Even at that there was a rather bloody Civil War and regional tensions that still simmer to this day...

Comment: Re:In an unrelated news item... (Score 1) 301

by Shakrai (#48438479) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Who ever made that claim and how is it even relevant?

The grandparent, in the stupid pissing contest EU vs. US thread. I really hate these threads; sure, we have quarrels, but we've also got a shared history, culture, and commitment to freedom. People would do well to remember that. They might also wish to remember that countries that share our values are most definitely in the minority on planet Earth; it's really fucking stupid to root for the EU to drag the US down or vice versa.

These idiots should get a bloody passport and go visit the "other side"; you'll find we're/they're not that much different from you.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1) 301

by Shakrai (#48438431) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU.

Devil's advocate, how do you stop Google from operating in the EU? Google does have a physical presence in the EU, data-centers and all that, but strictly speaking they could run the whole operation from outside the EU. What do you do then? Block them at the network edge? Hardly seems compatible with free speech.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1) 301

by Shakrai (#48438423) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.

The troll mods may have had something to do with these gems:

Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.

They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 237

by Shakrai (#48436557) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

"uber-feminist country?" Do you know a damn thing about Sweden or any of her neighbors? Have you ever visited or even bothered to peruse the internet on the subject of Swedish culture, customs, or her legal processes? It's awesome that you're willing to shit all over the criminal justice system of a country that I suspect you know nothing about, a country that Mr. Assange thought was just lovely until he happened to be accused of a crime by some of its citizens.

Frankly I don't know if he is a rapist or not. I do know that he's received due process of law in both Sweden and the United Kingdom and that there appears to be enough evidence to warrant a trial. I also know a thing or two about the judicial systems of the Nordic Countries; were I accused of a crime I didn't commit in one of them I would be willing to surrender myself and believe that I would receive as fair of a shake as I would get in my own country.

Comment: Re:innovation thwarted (Score 1) 132

by Shakrai (#48436395) Attached to: Aereo Files For Bankruptcy

If you think that crossing the street, and going into the cloud, is a rebroadcast, then you have a problem with every cloud service. If I upload a song to dropbox, then play it from the cloud, then by this definition it is a rebroadcast.

That's personal use; I do the same thing with my TiVo. What Aereo did would be analogous to you selling access to that dropbox'ed song to anyone willing to pay.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 237

by Shakrai (#48436119) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

We stupid foreigners actually know a little about the American legal system, and not purely from watching old Perry Mason episodes. One of the glaringly obvious things we know is that it isn't so much the facts of the matter that count, but who has the most money and thus influence. If you have political clout - and anyone rich enough can get it - no prosecutor will even be found to indict you..

This is patently false. Prosecutors love to take down high profile political targets. Have you heard the name Rod Blagojevich? Tom DeLay? Duke Cummingham? Those are just from memory. Want a whole list? Here's a list of Federal politicians. Here's one for State and Local politicians.

The law is so immense and complex that almost anyone can be charged with crimes that would lead to extremely long prison sentences - the main thing that protects the normal, innocent citizen is that the police have no particular reason to want to frame them up. Try reading (for instance) Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent".

I've read it; I've also read the US Federal Code and my own State's Penal Law. I don't commit three felonies a day. I don't commit one felony per day. That claim is massively overstated, just like everything else you've rambled about.

The most effective way the Feds have of getting the "innocent" is by jamming them up for obstruction. They ask you an incriminating (or just embarrassing) question that they already know the answer to, you lie to a sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and presto, you're under Federal Indictment. This technique ensnared Martha Stewart, amongst others. Thankfully it's easily avoided by invoking your right to remain silent; alas, many people are too arrogant for that and think they'll get away with lying to the Feds. Repeat after me: "I do not wish to make a statement without consulting with counsel. Am I free to leave now?"

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...