Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 6:17am
Re:
radius of the sun (photosphere) = 695,800 km surface area of a sphere = 4*pi*r^2
surface area of the photosphere of the sun = ~6,080,768,758,400 km^2
She's selling at 1 euro per square meter, and has 600 sales at that price, so apparently the market values her "land" at approximately 6,080,768,758,400,000,000 euros. Oh, minus the 1200 square meters she sold.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 2:36pm
I'll welcome the day I don't need to own a car, but until then I'll enjoy my brand spanking new Legacy that I just picked up from the dealership last Tuesday.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 11:54am
Step 1: Get someone to upload that 'glass tongues' poem via JPay to social media. Step 2: Get to a safe distance very very far away. Preferably another country. Or maybe the moon. Step 3: Watch fireworks.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 11:21am
Re: Re:
I occasionally watch ESPN but don't, and won't, pay for a sports package. I'm not unique in this.
Unless you're pirating cable, you *are* already paying and *will* pay for the sports package (ESPN) that is included in your basic rates.
That last time I looked up how the fees of a basic cable package got divided it was something like:
ABC: $0.20 NBC: $0.20 Discovery: $0.35 ...long list of channels all under $1.00 until the very last one... ESPN: $6.75
ESPN really doesn't want it obvious to most customers how much more their content costs compared to other things. So of course they'll fight Verizon on this.
Is Verizon likely to lose from a legal standpoint if the contract they signed with ESPN says they've gotta include it? Probably. However, ESPN will also lose, because the fat fees it gets to rake in will prevent it wanting to adapt to a very much changing market. Customers lose for paying for something they don't want, and many of which don't even realize what they're paying for. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 2:30pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: The stupid, it burns
That is correct for certain types of key sharing schemes - but not all, and there can still be major issues with implementing in the real world more robust schemes. This was a very simple explanation for people not familiar with crypto (like the idiots wanting to write the law to require backdoors).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 11:27am
Re: Re: The stupid, it burns
The NSA would secretly make it a priority to go after each party holding a part of that key and to obtain their part of the key.
Even if they don't get all of the key, knowing part of it can significantly reduce the effort to crack or brute-force the encryption. Anything that reduces the possible keyspace from the expected is a huge win to an attacker of a crypto system (cryptanalysis).
As a very simple example to explain the concept: I've got a safe with a 4 digit combination. 0000 through 9999. There are 10,000 possible combinations to this safe. I break my key up into two parts: the first two digits and the second two. I give you the first two, which happen to be 64##, to the safemaker. I give the second two ##32, to the police.
Q: How many tries would either the safemaker or the police need to try to get into the safe? A: Maximum, they would each need 100 tries.
The safe maker would try 6400, 6401, 6402, and so on. The police would try 0032, 0132, 0232, and so on. The average for either would only be 50, assuming they knew nothing else, like my penchant for choosing powers of 2 as a safe combination.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 8:28am
What about the money angle? There's a ton of government contractors getting contracts to supply equipment and services to the intelligence agencies. They're certainly lobbying to keep those budgets high and the gravy train flowing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Apr 2015 @ 10:32am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Entirely possible that one with an electronics background might find it difficult to navigate the patent,
Your own statement shows this patent is utter crap.
The entire point of a patent is to describe a invention that is non-obvious to someone skilled in the art such that the person skilled in the art could understand it.
The patent system is not a system to create jobs for patent lawyers skilled in navigating it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 9:36am
Karl doesn't advocate piracy, but I do. Simply because as stated, there's no other reasonable legal alternative.
I highly recommend paying for the content you enjoy - I do so as much as I can - but some companies refuse to give me any reasonable way to give them money. It's been mind-boggling for a decade, and every year that these companies leave so much money on the table becomes more mind-boggling that there aren't shareholder revolts.
So my monthly entertainment/content bill is something like this: -TimeWarnerCable absurdly crappy internet with absurdly crappier service: $60... no $70... no $80... fuck did they raise the bill again? Hurry up and wire my street GoogleFiber. -Spotify: $10 -Netflix: $9 -Techdirt: $5 -Patreon/Subbable support for various projects: $10-30 -Gaming: $50-100 a month for either games themselves or various in-game purchases/DLC
I'd be perfectly fine adding 1 or at most 2 more Netflix-like services if it will cover everything I'd want to view. But I'm not buying a cable tv subscription + HBO Go for 10 episodes of Game of Thrones a year. I'm not going to buy a console to have access to some Playstation or XBox exclusive content. I will pirate to make up for the gaps in reasonable services.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 10:30am
This whole saga is a perfect example of what happens when there is an intended security vulnerability in a product. If there is a security hole for one thing, it absolutely will be found and used for other things.
It relates perfectly to our discussions on encryption and "golden keys". Government wants a backdoor to an encryption scheme? That's a backdoor for everyone else, too - and they'll find it and use it. It might be some advertiser trying to track you to make a buck. It might be an organized crime doing identity theft. It might be a hostile government's intelligence service.
On the post: Sun-Owning Lady Sues eBay Because They Wouldn't Let Her Sell 'Plots' Of 'Land' On 'Her' Sun
Re:
surface area of a sphere = 4*pi*r^2
surface area of the photosphere of the sun = ~6,080,768,758,400 km^2
She's selling at 1 euro per square meter, and has 600 sales at that price, so apparently the market values her "land" at approximately 6,080,768,758,400,000,000 euros. Oh, minus the 1200 square meters she sold.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 28: Is Car Ownership On The Way Out?
It's shiny.
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Inducement to commit Copyright Infringement
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down Maroon 5's Own Video With A Copyright Claim
Re: Nothing wrong
But they did want it on Youtube, that's why they put it up on Maroon5's official Youtube channel in the first place.
Or are you saying that Interscope/Universal does not control their band's official channel?
On the post: Encryption: What The FBI Wants It Can Only Have By Destroying Computing And Censoring The Internet
Re: None of that other stuff
On the post: Prison 'Enforces' Messaging Company's 'IP' Rights By Sending Prisoner To Solitary
Step 2: Get to a safe distance very very far away. Preferably another country. Or maybe the moon.
Step 3: Watch fireworks.
On the post: Dear Tom Wheeler: I'm Sorry I Thought You Were A Mindless Cable Shill
Great post Karl.
On the post: ESPN Sues Verizon For Trying To Give Consumers What They Want
Re: Re:
Unless you're pirating cable, you *are* already paying and *will* pay for the sports package (ESPN) that is included in your basic rates.
That last time I looked up how the fees of a basic cable package got divided it was something like:
ABC: $0.20
NBC: $0.20
Discovery: $0.35
...long list of channels all under $1.00 until the very last one...
ESPN: $6.75
ESPN really doesn't want it obvious to most customers how much more their content costs compared to other things. So of course they'll fight Verizon on this.
Is Verizon likely to lose from a legal standpoint if the contract they signed with ESPN says they've gotta include it? Probably. However, ESPN will also lose, because the fat fees it gets to rake in will prevent it wanting to adapt to a very much changing market. Customers lose for paying for something they don't want, and many of which don't even realize what they're paying for. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
Re: Re: Re: Re: The stupid, it burns
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
Re: Re: The stupid, it burns
Even if they don't get all of the key, knowing part of it can significantly reduce the effort to crack or brute-force the encryption. Anything that reduces the possible keyspace from the expected is a huge win to an attacker of a crypto system (cryptanalysis).
As a very simple example to explain the concept:
I've got a safe with a 4 digit combination. 0000 through 9999. There are 10,000 possible combinations to this safe. I break my key up into two parts: the first two digits and the second two. I give you the first two, which happen to be 64##, to the safemaker. I give the second two ##32, to the police.
Q: How many tries would either the safemaker or the police need to try to get into the safe?
A: Maximum, they would each need 100 tries.
The safe maker would try 6400, 6401, 6402, and so on. The police would try 0032, 0132, 0232, and so on. The average for either would only be 50, assuming they knew nothing else, like my penchant for choosing powers of 2 as a safe combination.
Further info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Related-key_attack
On the post: Why Don't Surveillance State Defenders Seem To Care That The Programs They Love Don't Work?
On the post: Subway, McDonald's And Burger King Sued Over GPS Tracking Patent... Or Something
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your own statement shows this patent is utter crap.
The entire point of a patent is to describe a invention that is non-obvious to someone skilled in the art such that the person skilled in the art could understand it.
The patent system is not a system to create jobs for patent lawyers skilled in navigating it.
On the post: When Analyzing Cord Cutting Options, Most TV Analysts Continue To Pretend Piracy Simply Doesn't Exist
I highly recommend paying for the content you enjoy - I do so as much as I can - but some companies refuse to give me any reasonable way to give them money. It's been mind-boggling for a decade, and every year that these companies leave so much money on the table becomes more mind-boggling that there aren't shareholder revolts.
So my monthly entertainment/content bill is something like this:
-TimeWarnerCable absurdly crappy internet with absurdly crappier service: $60... no $70... no $80... fuck did they raise the bill again? Hurry up and wire my street GoogleFiber.
-Spotify: $10
-Netflix: $9
-Techdirt: $5
-Patreon/Subbable support for various projects: $10-30
-Gaming: $50-100 a month for either games themselves or various in-game purchases/DLC
I'd be perfectly fine adding 1 or at most 2 more Netflix-like services if it will cover everything I'd want to view. But I'm not buying a cable tv subscription + HBO Go for 10 episodes of Game of Thrones a year. I'm not going to buy a console to have access to some Playstation or XBox exclusive content. I will pirate to make up for the gaps in reasonable services.
On the post: EU Digital Commissioner: Net Neutrality Is A 'Taliban-Like' Issue
Re:
"Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda."
On the post: AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought
Re:
Just try opting out when AT&T is your only choice for broadband.
On the post: NSA Director: If I Say 'Legal Framework' Enough, Will It Convince You Security People To Shut Up About Our Plan To Backdoor Encryption?
Re: It's so simple
On the post: Lenovo In Denial: Insists There's No Security Problem With Superfish -- Which Is Very, Very Wrong.
Re:
On the post: Lenovo In Denial: Insists There's No Security Problem With Superfish -- Which Is Very, Very Wrong.
Re:
On the post: Disney So Desperate To Stop Leaks It Subpoenas ImageShack Over Single Blurry Still Image Of New Star Wars
Re:
The NDA is an agreement between Disney and possibly the person who uploaded it to ImageShack. ImageShack is not under the NDA.
On the post: Verizon Finally Buckles, Will Allow A Total Opt Out From Sneaky Super Cookies
It relates perfectly to our discussions on encryption and "golden keys". Government wants a backdoor to an encryption scheme? That's a backdoor for everyone else, too - and they'll find it and use it. It might be some advertiser trying to track you to make a buck. It might be an organized crime doing identity theft. It might be a hostile government's intelligence service.
Next >>