Ummm, no, it's not. The best you can do is to pull tricks like measuring time between arbitrary noncomputed events, such as keystrokes. But even those aren't actually random.
You can, as you say, select RNGs that have very similar statistical characteristics with actual randomness for a finite run, but they are not producing truly random numbers.
But all of that is irrelevant, since what is needed for an app like this isn't anything close to randomness anyway. Just using the standard library RNG combined with reseeding every so often would be more than adequate.
Exit points are not invisible. In all likelihood what happened was that the cops were watching the illegal site's traffic and traced packets back to the TOR exit point (TOR does nothing between the exit point and whatever site the traffic is being exchanged with).
So the cops raided the exit point because they literally had no trail to follow past that.
I never said that progress would permanently halt. What I assert is that there will always be things that humans do better than robots -- and if the day comes that a robot can do those things as well, they aren't robots. They're humans.
But, the less speculative answer is this: robots (like computers) are nothing more than prosthetics that extend the capability of humans. As a result, so far no robot has been able to even come close to performing as well at any task as a robot and a human combined. There is reasonable reason to suspect that this will always be true.
As a recently topical example, look at the recently acclaimed chess-playing robot. It can reliably beat human chess masters. However, it cannot beat even people with average chess skills if those people can use a computer to help decide moves. Computer + human is greater than computer alone.
Or, to look at it from a free market/capitalistic point of view, if a company automated to the point that no human workers were needed, that company will get crushed in the market by competitors who use both automation and humans.
Anyway, this is all a very simplified and incomplete explanation -- and, in all honesty, it is nearly as much speculation as the pessimistic assertion. Which is rather my point: none of this is even close to looking settled enough to lay odds one way or another, and so it's very very premature to raise alarm bells over it.
Re: Re: Improper raids aren't a bug, they're a feature....
"I'd much prefer a market of competing security/"policing" companies in which you pay for the security you want, consensually."
You really wouldn't. That's the way policing used to be done, in the early days of the US. And the disaster that it was is reason why that's not how we do it now.
As bad as the cops are now, they're positively saints compared to the sort of "cops" that private companies end up producing.
That's highly speculative and very debatable. Certainly a worthy conversation to have, certainly, but what you're talking about is nowhere near a sure thing. In my opinion, there's no solid reason to even think that it's likely (my reasoning why is a bit complex for a comment).
But even if that day does come, it won't be within the next few generations at the fastest.
The "dark net" is simply a network that operates over the internet but is not advertised or open to the public. Encryption is usually involved, but it need not be.
You are correct, though, in that Tor -- while it can be used to facilitate a "dark net" -- is not the dark net itself. In fact, it's not even used by a lot of the "dark net".
I hate the term "dark net" for the same reason that I hate the term "cloud": it's meaningless marketing babble.
The only things that the world hasn't seen before are matters of scale rather than substance. New automation is not fundamentally different than automation ever has been -- it's just cheaper and smaller.
Every time that technology has changed enough to be considered an "age" or somesuch, those who fear it argue that "this time it will be different" while articulating the same fears as before.
It's never been true yet. Well that's a half-lie. In reality, every time it is different, it's just different in a way that nobody expects. It's just change, and change happens. We humans hate and fear change, but we are pretty good at adapting to it.
Not for everybody. Some people really hate exercising, and doing it makes them actively unhappy. Some people find that after they have maintained an exercise regime long enough, it causes them to feel physically worse.
Different people need different things to maintain a healthy body and life. Exercise as a specific activity is a great thing for most people, but there are those for whom it's the exact opposite.
Everyone can do it. Yes, it's illegal (it's even illegal to tell someone how to do it)) -- but realistically, breaking DRM yourself for your own private use in your own home is something that you are nearly guaranteed to never get caught for.
In the article, one of the people at the hearing complained about the expense of broadband, and this fascinating exchange happened:
Flemming responded, “So if there was an ad-supported service available to you that was cheaper, a different model of service — is that something that would seem reasonable to you?”
“If they’re ads that are based on using my information to target things to me,” she answered, “then no, I’d rather not have it.”
Flemming challenged, “So you’d rather have ads that are not relevant to you?”
But the woman in the audience enthusiastically responded, “Yes!”
I find this incredibly telling because it indicates how deep the disconnect between the purveryors of targeted advertising and normal people are.
Flemming actually expected that the answer to "would you rather have untargeted ads" to be "no". As if no other answer would make any sense.
These people clearly either completely fail to understand the problem, are trying their hardest to not understand the problem, or are just straight-up lying. It doesn't matter which of the three it is, the results are equally bad.
Clearly, if you're using a service that needs to be able to contact you to work (confirmation of delivery, etc.), then you have to tell them who you are. However, all of that is optional extras, not requirements, so they don't count.
Whatever is correct. I don't put a return address on most of the letters and packages I send through the USPS, and it has never once been an issue.
On the post: All Those Evil Violent Video Games Apparently Failed At Turning Kids Into Deviant Murder-Terrorists
Re: "Different is not always better"
On the post: FOIA Documents Expose Details On TSA's $47,000 Coin Flipping App
Re: Re: Re: The Price Is Right-ish.
You can, as you say, select RNGs that have very similar statistical characteristics with actual randomness for a finite run, but they are not producing truly random numbers.
But all of that is irrelevant, since what is needed for an app like this isn't anything close to randomness anyway. Just using the standard library RNG combined with reseeding every so often would be more than adequate.
On the post: Verizon's Attempt To Woo Millennials Is Equal Parts Creepy, Expensive And Sad
Re: Expensive and sad, I understand, but...
On the post: Law Enforcement Raids Another Tor Exit Node Because It Still Believes An IP Address Is A Person
Re: Something else is fishy here...
So the cops raided the exit point because they literally had no trail to follow past that.
On the post: Law Enforcement Raids Another Tor Exit Node Because It Still Believes An IP Address Is A Person
Re: Re:
No, it's not. If he wanted to hide illegal activity then the worst thing he could do is run a TOR exit point (for obvious reasons).
On the post: For The Fifth Time Now, German Court Says Adblocking Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is lying. It is entirely possible (and common) to lie without stating a single thing that is factually incorrect.
On the post: DailyDirt: What Will The Robot Economy Look Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Automation Isn’t New
But, the less speculative answer is this: robots (like computers) are nothing more than prosthetics that extend the capability of humans. As a result, so far no robot has been able to even come close to performing as well at any task as a robot and a human combined. There is reasonable reason to suspect that this will always be true.
As a recently topical example, look at the recently acclaimed chess-playing robot. It can reliably beat human chess masters. However, it cannot beat even people with average chess skills if those people can use a computer to help decide moves. Computer + human is greater than computer alone.
Or, to look at it from a free market/capitalistic point of view, if a company automated to the point that no human workers were needed, that company will get crushed in the market by competitors who use both automation and humans.
Anyway, this is all a very simplified and incomplete explanation -- and, in all honesty, it is nearly as much speculation as the pessimistic assertion. Which is rather my point: none of this is even close to looking settled enough to lay odds one way or another, and so it's very very premature to raise alarm bells over it.
On the post: Citizens On Terrorist Watchlist - Including A 4-Year-Old Boy - Sue Government For Violating Their Rights
Re:
Started? I started years ago.
On the post: Law Enforcement Raids Another Tor Exit Node Because It Still Believes An IP Address Is A Person
Re: Re: Improper raids aren't a bug, they're a feature....
You really wouldn't. That's the way policing used to be done, in the early days of the US. And the disaster that it was is reason why that's not how we do it now.
As bad as the cops are now, they're positively saints compared to the sort of "cops" that private companies end up producing.
On the post: DailyDirt: What Will The Robot Economy Look Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Automation Isn’t New
That's highly speculative and very debatable. Certainly a worthy conversation to have, certainly, but what you're talking about is nowhere near a sure thing. In my opinion, there's no solid reason to even think that it's likely (my reasoning why is a bit complex for a comment).
But even if that day does come, it won't be within the next few generations at the fastest.
On the post: ISPs Now Charging Broadband Users A Steep Premium If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
Re:
That's an even greater sin than usage caps, right there.
On the post: 71% Want The Dark Net Shut Down, Showing Most Have No Idea What The Dark Net Is
Re: Technical misrepresentation
You are correct, though, in that Tor -- while it can be used to facilitate a "dark net" -- is not the dark net itself. In fact, it's not even used by a lot of the "dark net".
I hate the term "dark net" for the same reason that I hate the term "cloud": it's meaningless marketing babble.
On the post: For The Fifth Time Now, German Court Says Adblocking Is Legal
Re:
I disagree with the bit about it being "the entire economic model on which the internet is based", but ignoring that...
I hope and pray that your prediction ends up being correct. I think it would only result in good things for users.
On the post: DailyDirt: What Will The Robot Economy Look Like?
Re: Re: Automation Isn’t New
Every time that technology has changed enough to be considered an "age" or somesuch, those who fear it argue that "this time it will be different" while articulating the same fears as before.
It's never been true yet. Well that's a half-lie. In reality, every time it is different, it's just different in a way that nobody expects. It's just change, and change happens. We humans hate and fear change, but we are pretty good at adapting to it.
On the post: DailyDirt: You Know The First Guy To Run A Marathon Died Immediately After, Right?
Re: Re: You get out what you put in, apparently.
Different people need different things to maintain a healthy body and life. Exercise as a specific activity is a great thing for most people, but there are those for whom it's the exact opposite.
On the post: Canadian Hospital Strikes Deal In Gene Patents Battle, But Leaves Patentability Question Unanswered
Re: Re:
Failing to do that means that you're just slinging insults and saying nothing.
On the post: You Don't Actually Own What You Buy Volume 2,203: Google Bricking Revolv Smart Home Hardware
Re:
On the post: Head Of British Rights Group: Piracy Is Google's Fault Even If It's Not Actually Google's Fault
Re: Re: The British
On the post: AT&T Tries To Claim That Charging Users More For Privacy Is A 'Discount'
Another disconnect
I find this incredibly telling because it indicates how deep the disconnect between the purveryors of targeted advertising and normal people are.
Flemming actually expected that the answer to "would you rather have untargeted ads" to be "no". As if no other answer would make any sense.
These people clearly either completely fail to understand the problem, are trying their hardest to not understand the problem, or are just straight-up lying. It doesn't matter which of the three it is, the results are equally bad.
On the post: Another Federal Judge Says No Expectation Of Privacy In Cell Site Location Info Because Everyone Knows Phones Generate This Data
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thread 611
Whatever is correct. I don't put a return address on most of the letters and packages I send through the USPS, and it has never once been an issue.
Next >>