Saturday, July 21, 2012
Well, That's Different...
Opening scene from HBO's new series The Newsroom. It's not exactly parroting the usual “Progressive” narrative:
Even Worse Than We Thought...
Many California state parks were permanently closed this year because there was no money in the budget to fund them. Really what that means is that some politician decided that other things (say, the high-speed train to nowhere) was a more important priority. This kind of brain-diseased budget prioritization is reason enough to leave California for some saner locale.
But today we learned that it's even worse than we thought. The state parks system was sitting on $54 million in surplus funds while they were closing parks. We also learned that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a secret vacation buyout program.
Bureaucrats.
Tree.
Rope.
Some assembly required.
But today we learned that it's even worse than we thought. The state parks system was sitting on $54 million in surplus funds while they were closing parks. We also learned that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a secret vacation buyout program.
Bureaucrats.
Tree.
Rope.
Some assembly required.
Self-Extincting Ideologies...
I have nothing to add to the discussion on the terribly sad events in Aurora, Colorado yesterday. I will make one observation, though, on a related phenomenon that just floors me. Every time there is an act of mass violence carried out using guns, there are (loud) cries from the Progressives of the world (Mayor “Nanny” Bloomberg, I'm looking at you!) for gun control. Usually they mean that in an absolutist sense: they would like to completely remove the right of U.S. citizens to bear arms. In other words, their reaction to the illegal use of guns is to outlaw guns altogether.
There are two parts of this reaction that I have trouble wrapping my brain around.
The first part is this: if someone is already willing to do something as vile (not to mention illegal) as murder, why on earth does anyone in their right mind think that making the purchase of guns illegal would deter them? There is much evidence that it would not, starting with the many murders with guns committed in areas where guns are illegal (both in the U.S. and outside the U.S.).
The second part is this: how could anyone believe that we're better off – by any measure at all – having our citizens be disarmed in the face of those willing to commit violence?
Ideologies that promote gun control are, I think, self-extincting. If they ever come to power, those with (illegal) guns will make sure that doesn't last long...
There are two parts of this reaction that I have trouble wrapping my brain around.
The first part is this: if someone is already willing to do something as vile (not to mention illegal) as murder, why on earth does anyone in their right mind think that making the purchase of guns illegal would deter them? There is much evidence that it would not, starting with the many murders with guns committed in areas where guns are illegal (both in the U.S. and outside the U.S.).
The second part is this: how could anyone believe that we're better off – by any measure at all – having our citizens be disarmed in the face of those willing to commit violence?
Ideologies that promote gun control are, I think, self-extincting. If they ever come to power, those with (illegal) guns will make sure that doesn't last long...
Friday, July 20, 2012
Feral Communists...
Another excellent Afterburner from Bill Whittle. It contains the phrase in the title, which tickled my fancy :-)
Crypto vs. Rubber Hose...
Hristo Bojinov of Stanford has come up with a way to thwart a “rubber hose” attack that tries to force an individual to give up a password. No, it's not training in pain tolerance – it's a different way to authenticate.
The basic idea is that you can learn subconciously (in fact, this is the way we learn most things), without even realizing that you've learned something. Passwords are not like this; those we very conciously learn (memorize).
The new technique involves learning how to play a special game. In the process of doing this, you learn – subconciously – a 30 character password made up of just six characters. This is a very secure password. If someone asked you to recite it, you wouldn't be able to do it – not even if they gave you the rubber hose treatment, and not even if you wanted to give them the password. You are not concious of it at all. To actually authenticate yourself to a computer, you have to play a round of their game. In doing so, you demonstrate to the computer that subconciously you really do know the password.
You might ask yourself (I certainly did) “But how does this help with the rubber hose attack? The trained authenticator could still be forced to play the little game!” The authors of the paper assert that there must be a “liveness test” – in other words, you can't use their method for remote authentication, but rather only for authentication when physically present at the system you're trying to authenticate to. Presumably someone would then notice if you were being beaten with the rubber hose. There are some problems with that, as there are ways to coerce people that don't require the coercer to be physically present with the coerced (for example, your spouse or child could be held hostage until you authenticate). Worse, I think, is that if you subject a password authentication system to a liveness test, then its security is enhanced in the same way. In other words, it seems to me that a large part of the benefit of this new system is derived from the liveness test, rather than the method itself.
But all that carping aside, there are some genuinely interesting security ideas in here. How practical they are is another matter altogether, but the general notion of using subconcious memory strikes me as worth exploring.
Authentication to a computer system is a really tough problem, far harder than most people realize. It's the basis for many of the kinds of computer security that average people run into every day (like, say, access to your bank account) – and yet we are still lacking good, secure, reliable solutions. Passwords are by far the most common approach, and they are demonstrably feeble. Biometric authentication (fingerprints, iris patterns, etc.) are stronger, but are defeatable and less reliable than most people consider acceptable. So I'm always interested in anything that might improve the situation...
The basic idea is that you can learn subconciously (in fact, this is the way we learn most things), without even realizing that you've learned something. Passwords are not like this; those we very conciously learn (memorize).
The new technique involves learning how to play a special game. In the process of doing this, you learn – subconciously – a 30 character password made up of just six characters. This is a very secure password. If someone asked you to recite it, you wouldn't be able to do it – not even if they gave you the rubber hose treatment, and not even if you wanted to give them the password. You are not concious of it at all. To actually authenticate yourself to a computer, you have to play a round of their game. In doing so, you demonstrate to the computer that subconciously you really do know the password.
You might ask yourself (I certainly did) “But how does this help with the rubber hose attack? The trained authenticator could still be forced to play the little game!” The authors of the paper assert that there must be a “liveness test” – in other words, you can't use their method for remote authentication, but rather only for authentication when physically present at the system you're trying to authenticate to. Presumably someone would then notice if you were being beaten with the rubber hose. There are some problems with that, as there are ways to coerce people that don't require the coercer to be physically present with the coerced (for example, your spouse or child could be held hostage until you authenticate). Worse, I think, is that if you subject a password authentication system to a liveness test, then its security is enhanced in the same way. In other words, it seems to me that a large part of the benefit of this new system is derived from the liveness test, rather than the method itself.
But all that carping aside, there are some genuinely interesting security ideas in here. How practical they are is another matter altogether, but the general notion of using subconcious memory strikes me as worth exploring.
Authentication to a computer system is a really tough problem, far harder than most people realize. It's the basis for many of the kinds of computer security that average people run into every day (like, say, access to your bank account) – and yet we are still lacking good, secure, reliable solutions. Passwords are by far the most common approach, and they are demonstrably feeble. Biometric authentication (fingerprints, iris patterns, etc.) are stronger, but are defeatable and less reliable than most people consider acceptable. So I'm always interested in anything that might improve the situation...
This Is Just Wrong...
The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) zealously protects its use of the word “Olympic” – if it finds another business trying to associate itself with the Olympic Games without having paid a license fee, it goes after them for trademark infringement. That's fine, as stated. The problem here is this: the word “Olympic” has multiple meanings. It's the name of several mountains or mountain ranges around the world, and it's closely associated with many things Greek.
Now the USOC has successfully forced the owner of the Olympic Gyros to change the name of his business – 30 years after the business was founded, and despite the rather obvious fact that the “Olympic” in “Olympic Gryos” refers to things Greek, and not the Olympic Games.
For shame, USOC, for shame – for even trying to do this. And what the hell has happened to our legal system that the USOC could prevail in this travesty?
Now the USOC has successfully forced the owner of the Olympic Gyros to change the name of his business – 30 years after the business was founded, and despite the rather obvious fact that the “Olympic” in “Olympic Gryos” refers to things Greek, and not the Olympic Games.
For shame, USOC, for shame – for even trying to do this. And what the hell has happened to our legal system that the USOC could prevail in this travesty?
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Fun With “You Didn't Build That!”
Then of course there's the oh-so-revealing epic gaffe itself, here for your admiration and cherishing (about 1:40 into the video)...
Hope and Change, Proverb Edition...
Via Jim M. Old, obsolete proverb:
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and … you feed him for a lifetime.New proverb, inspired by Obama's hope and change:
Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes … and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
A Hole in Mars...
Via APOD, of course. Follow the link to get more explanation, but the short story is that there's some kind of a cavity at the bottom of this crater. Reminds me of an antlion's trap – but that hole at the bottom is over 100' across, so that would be one heck of an antlion!
Geek Help Wanted...
Here's a flood-fill algorithm, implemented on canvas in JavaScript, that exhibits behavior the author can't explain. He's looking for help understanding why his algorithm behaves as it does. Any takers? I haven't looked at it yet myself, but I'm fascinated by the visible behavior – it looks quite organic...
Prime Patterns...
Here's an interesting algorithmically-generated graphical pattern that highlights prime numbers. I'd love to see this expanded to larger numbers, to see what the pattern looks like...
LOST Goes Down to Defeat...
To my delight – and suprise – the Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate yesterday. John Yoo celebrates:
But those interested in national sovereignty were a bit more concerned about the rules of navigation, where it is really the power of the U.S. Navy, rather than parchment barriers, that keep the sea lanes open to all. Conservatives also opposed the treaty's creation of a new international bureaucracy that would give out property rights to the seabed, collect taxes, and redistribute income (and technology) to poorer countries. It was a welfare state for the oceans.Read the whole thing...
How Far Will They Go?
After viewing this video, I can only think of two explanations. Either:
1) Those treats are really, really good
– or –
2) The fact that Australians spend their lives upside-down really does have significant negative effects on brain function
You decide:
1) Those treats are really, really good
– or –
2) The fact that Australians spend their lives upside-down really does have significant negative effects on brain function
You decide:
Obama Is Driving Her Insane...
Rachel Lucas, on Obama's fatuous and progressive (but I repeat myself) tax comments:
Also throughout the speech, Obama kept talking about how maintaining the current tax rates for the rich would “cost” the government money. This idiotic verbal and rhetorical construction drives me insane. It is like my teenage niece saying it is “costing” her money if I don’t send cash on her birthday. But, she’d never say that or even think that, because she doesn’t feel entitled to my money since I am not her mommy. Amazing how a 15-year-old girl can see reality more clearly than 50% of the American electorate.Also, she continues her Paul Ryan crush...
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Quote of the Day...
Today's quote is from an unnamed “senior Democrat” on the topic of the coming “tax cliff” – the expiration at the end of 2012 of the Bush tax cuts. Recall that last year the Democrats and the Republicans passed yet another funding extension bill, but this one included an incentive for the two to compromise on a real funding bill: the “sequestration” that would automatically impose big cuts in defense and other discretionary spending if the two sides didn't agree.
They did not agree. Sequestration is looming (at the end of this year).
There's the context. Here's the quote from our unnamed “senior Democrat”:
And they may be right.
It's things like this that bring on the doom mood...
They did not agree. Sequestration is looming (at the end of this year).
There's the context. Here's the quote from our unnamed “senior Democrat”:
“We structured the sequester in a way that would be more comfortable for us than for Republicans.”The Democrats are expecting that the Republicans will just roll over and give up when threatened with across-the-board cuts to the Defense Department's budget.
And they may be right.
It's things like this that bring on the doom mood...
What He Said...
Yesterday I watched with dismay and disgust Obama's comments dismissing the achievements of entrepreneurs. Today I read about Paul Ryan's reaction, including this excerpt:
His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth.I couldn't find a complete transcript or video of the talk this excerpt was taken from. But he's speaking for me here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)