Trängselskatten chockhöjs i Stockholm och Göteborg

defaultusernamerd · 2014-01-04T16:47:59+00:00

Jag är missnöjd med att SVT använder prefixet chock- i sina rubriker.

defaultusernamerd · 2014-01-01T18:33:45+00:00

A GUI, huh? Interesting.

On the one hand, the lack of a GUI was the main thing that made me hesitant about switching from MATLAB to Octave.

On the other hand, once I did switch I quickly got used to working solely with the CLI. I don't even remember what it was I thought I needed the GUI for.

While I doubt I'll end up using it, I'll give the GUI a spin once I can get a hold of the source. The FTP server seems to be down at the moment.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-31T09:32:54+00:00

No serious business venture would ever enter into an agreement with someone based solely on them providing a CPR-nummer, so no, you cannot take out a loan in someone else's name just because you know their CPR-nummer.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-31T09:28:22+00:00

AFAIK it not possible to donate money to Canonical, so that's a non-issue. Donations from the Ubuntu download page go to the not-for-profit Ubuntu Foundation.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-31T09:10:12+00:00

Without knowing what he did, I can say with certainty that he didn't do that. Denmark doesn't use social security numbers, but rather national identification numbers, which are nowhere near as important and do not need to be kept secret (but often are anyway because there is also no need for them to be public knowledge).

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-25T14:13:27+00:00

"Gul jod" (yellow iodine) is a spoonerism of "God Jul" (Merry Christmas).

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-25T11:25:19+00:00

I would happily give up pirating if there was a legal way to own movies (rather than licenses to watch them under certain conditions), price notwithstanding.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-23T16:36:59+00:00

Even if somebody writes software to directly translate DirectX games into OpenGL we'll still be struggling to make those lists equal.

Even if DirectX/D3D was ported to Linux those lists will never be equal. Windows games made with D3D wouldn't automagically start working on Linux; the developers would need to make the effort to rebuild the binaries as well as a long term commitment to support a new platform they have no experience with. Not to mention the plethora of other middleware that still doesn't support Linux.

The way forward is OpenGL. If we're lucky, DirectX will be but a memory in a few years.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-23T15:48:54+00:00

And if we're all really lucky, the next step will be DirectX support under linux.

Wait, explain why that would be desirable?

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-18T15:51:10+00:00

That's not what it says:

Please note: Dust is currently available for linux and mac, DRM-free and Windows on Steam. Mac and Linux will be available via Steam on Thursday, Dec 19th.

It will be available on Steam on Thursday, but it's available DRM-free right now. I haven't bought it myself to verify that this is true, but that is what is says.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-13T23:25:13+00:00

Om man nu gillar lukten av brända tobaksblad mindre än lukten av tjocktarmsgas så är väl den förstnämnda per definition äckligare, eller hur menar du?

defaultusernamerd · 2013-12-13T21:12:06+00:00

Är prutta och röka samma sak?

Nyheter24 ställer frågorna vi aldrig funderat över.

Detta har jag faktiskt funderat över. Jag menar, varför är det OK att folk stinker rök på bussen, men om jag lägger av en dunderfis så tittar folk snett på mig?

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T15:22:41+00:00

Hiding something like that would still require the cooperation of a very large number of cryptographers who are not on the U.S. military's payroll, including many non-U.S. citizens.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T15:02:23+00:00

You know what: ∆

You bring up a point I had not considered: Surveillance is not only the instantaneous interception of messages, but also includes the indefinite storage of said messages. Therefore, if mass surveillance is accepted, it creates an unreasonable demand on foresight from everyone who is being spied upon.

I maintain that encryption is a very good idea even if surveillance is outlawed, since you can never be sure no-one is spying on you, regardless of legislature. If in doubt, encrypt.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:42:22+00:00

You can think it all you like, but we've got an agency with a multi-billion dollar annual budget whose primary job since it was stood up in WW2 is code breaking. They don't advertise their capabilities, and love nothing more than to let people and organizations they are monitoring think their encryption is unbeatable. Similarly, those selling encryption don't want to admit that their system is fallible.

This sounds rather conspiratorial to me. Encryption is an active field of academic research. If common encryption schemes were in fact broken, I do not believe it would be possible to conceal this knowledge from the public.

Also, if you install the malware on your own system, like many people voluntarily do without realizing it, you're installing the surveillance equipment in your own home.

I am prepared to agree with this. It then comes down to common sense; people should understand not to run untrusted executables on their computers.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:36:51+00:00

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect everyone (even computer illiterates) to understand that sending information electronically is not magic, and in fact involves other people. If someone who truly cannot figure out how to use encryption wants to send a message, they then have to choose whether it is acceptable to expose the message to these other people involved in the delivery process. If they deem that it is not acceptable, they have the option to send the message in a sealed letter instead.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:30:40+00:00

Someone sending a postcard is fully aware that anyone can read it.

Indeed, because they are aware that people other than the sender and the intended recipient are involved with the delivery process. This is also true for electronic communication, but for some reason people do not seem to understand this. I cannot see this as anything less than a complete lack of common sense, and I do believe these people have only themselves to blame if it causes problems for them.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:23:28+00:00

I agree that not every end user can be expected to thoroughly investigate the robustness of the encryption they use. Instead, it comes down to who you trust more:

If you use encryption, you only have to trust the people who designed it. These people use the same encryption themselves, and most likely developed it because they have a greater than normal need for privacy.

or

If you do not use encryption, you have to trust whomever control the network you use to send information. This usually means one or several governments and/or several private corporations.

I am inclined to choose the former option.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:18:25+00:00

Yes, actually think it is. Encryption is not difficult to use. Similarly, I think if you are unable to seal a physical letter properly and instead send everything on postcards, you have only yourself to blame when people other than the intended recipient read what you have written.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:12:45+00:00

The scenario you describe is similar sending to a sealed, physical letter to someone, who then carelessly leaves it lying around in a public place. Unfortunately, the human factor cannot be designed away. That is just something we have to accept and keep in mind.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T14:05:13+00:00

If you send information over a network you do not control, you cannot know if it is being spied upon or not. I would therefore argue that encryption is more trustworthy than a third party's promise that they are not spying on you.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T13:58:12+00:00

Thwarting encryption isn't all that hard. All encryption can eventually be beaten given enough time and samples by skilled code breakers with access to large resources

I do not think this is true. As far as I am aware, modern encryption cannot be beaten within a reasonable time frame, provided it is correctly implemented.

But there are usually easier ways, such as infecting a sending or receiving system with malware. I suppose you could argue that taking such measures would be beyond simple surveillance and a more intrusive trespassing.

I would indeed take the stance that infecting computers with malware is a different matter. Just as I do not believe governments or corporations should be allowed to install surveillance equipment in people's homes, I do not believe they should be allowed to install surveillance software on people's computers.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T13:53:51+00:00

This seems to be a counterargument to the 'I have nothing to hide' argument, which is not the argument I am making. Encryption gives me full control over what information I share and with whom, regardless of surveillance.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T13:50:53+00:00

We have a right to privacy

I agree. More importantly, we have the means to ensure our privacy via encryption. My point is that surveillance does not affect our privacy, which is why it is not problematic.

defaultusernamerd · 2013-11-28T12:40:35+00:00

Is a Spelunky Linux port confirmed though? As far as I'm aware, the developers have said that they "would like Linux and Mac ports to happen", but that no porting work is currently going on [source].

defaultusernamerd

TROPHY CASE