Slashdot Mirror

I should have added that steganography will probably still work. However, that is not what most people are using or seem to be talking about when they say "encryption". Shame, really.

• Brief overview (and mailing list?)
• Steganography in MP3

---

"Where do you come from?"

If you need ot keep things on you drive hidden use StegFS. It provides plausable deniablility for the things you keep on the drive, i.e. the cop show up, take you computer, force you to give them the password, you give them a pass word, they find some mildly incriminating stuff, they let you go with a wrist slap. There is no way the could prove that you had more incriminating stuff on the drive sine you have given them a password and they can not prove there are more passwords.

Seeing the idea of Steganography kicked around here, I'd like to point you guys to StegFS which can help a lot if you don't want to disclose data to anybody unwanted. This makes it impossible for somebody to disprove you saying that you don't have anything on your machine and in consequence to get at your crucial files. I don't know if it supports non-Linux OS's though.

While I cannot think of securely wiring money back to non-government-conforming organizations in Iran (or whatever country, incl. US) I would think about doing "business" solely in the so-called free world and ship non-monetary goods back to Iran, which of course can be dangerous itself.

Another I piece of software I didn't see mentioned here is Outguess, a steganography tool. Attaching (prepared) binary data to mail or newsgroup messages is probably not a bad idea. One should think of ways of secure communication if that fails though (via enemy sysadmins)

Nevertheless I applaud those people trying to squeeze out a little freedom in literally opressing situations with the help of modern technology. It takes a lot of courage. Good luck.

cheers,
Roland

Yes, I've heard of similar technology that allows the NSA to spy not only on television sets or monitors, but any electromagnetic emission such as what comes out of a CPU as it's working. This used to be called TEMPEST (transient electromagnetic pulse surveillance technology, or something along those lines), but is now referred to as EMSec (electromagnetic security). There's a guy called Ross Anderson who has an interesting article on how this works and how to defend against it. I'm not a physicist, but as far as I understand the only way to truly prevent someone from remotely eavesdropping on your computer is to build something called a faraday cage around your computer, which is a pretty hard thing to do. Worse, the technology to perform tempest-style eavesdropping is becoming cheaper and more available all the time. This is the ultimate form of spying because it is non-intrusive (i.e. no more sneaking into your target's office or place of residence to plant a microphone or camera, which may be discovered). As such, it is impossible to know if someone is spying on you. The transmission range of the average home computer is (apparently) up to one or two miles in good conditions. Scary stuff.
--

Yes, I've heard of similar technology that allows the NSA to spy not only on television sets or monitors, but any electromagnetic emission such as what comes out of a CPU as it's working. This used to be called TEMPEST (transient electromagnetic pulse surveillance technology, or something along those lines), but is now referred to as EMSec (electromagnetic security). There's a guy called Ross Anderson who has an interesting article on how this works and how to defend against it. I'm not a physicist, but as far as I understand the only way to truly prevent someone from remotely eavesdropping on your computer is to build something called a faraday cage around your computer, which is a pretty hard thing to do. Worse, the technology to perform tempest-style eavesdropping is becoming cheaper and more available all the time. This is the ultimate form of spying because it is non-intrusive (i.e. no more sneaking into your target's office or place of residence to plant a microphone or camera, which may be discovered). As such, it is impossible to know if someone is spying on you. The transmission range of the average home computer is (apparently) up to one or two miles in good conditions. Scary stuff.
--

All this innovation for the sake of innovation is stupid. Innovations must solve problems. Go ask Ross Anderson if he how he designed the system. Did he slap code together and say - there I call it the StegFS, or did he pose a problem about the issue that of encryption does not address, and then propose a solution.

OTOH, MS coming out with "focus" control technology is just that - a hammer in search of a nail. MS, in their backwards marketing-directed software development, is causing the software inductry to go in circles - going nowhere.

where he discusses the fact that he had to release the contents of a private mailing list due to a Netscape legal case

Luckily this ought to be a thing of the past. Take a look at the StegFS Filesystem. It's all about the plausible denial aspect when being faced somebody trying to get access to your encrypted data. With this you can say you have no / no more data without them being able to disprove you (as opposed to having obvious encrypted files lying around). The worst thing that could happen is the other party wiping you drive.

cheers,
Roland

The same applies to programming languages. For many programming tasks, the imperative model will serve you well, but there are times -- especially when repetitive, recursive or just plain mathematically complex tasks are involved -- that a good functional language is exactly what you need.

P.S. While probably not the best way to compare languages, you might want to check out this web page that compares how you'd get verious programming languages to output the complete lyrics to the "99 bottles of beer" song. (At last, an almost on-topic posting about beer!)

ftp://cavan.jesus.cam.ac.uk/pub/tbg m/Xenon2.MP3

Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!

• G -- 00
• A -- 01
• T -- 10
• C -- 11

This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!

• G -- 00
• A -- 01
• T -- 10
• C -- 11

This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

Oh really? Does any Windows have a Steganographic Filesystem? Authored by Microsoft?

It is pointless to develop stronger and stronger crypto for these kinds of problems because ultimately, the digital content is presented in the clear for the end user. The only way to prevent the user from copying the digital content at this point is by mandating the use of specific software (or hardware) players that don't have hooks for output redirection or copying. This will never work for two reasons:

1. Software can be reverse engineered
2. 
   Motivated hackers can disassemble the player, find the buffer holding the unencrypted content, and provide hooks to copy this buffer. In the case of hardware players, the process is similar. "Tamper-proof" hardware is anything but (Ross Anderson has a nice paper illustrating this here). Note that layers of industrial strength crypto mean absolutely nothing at this point.
3. Analog Route
4. 
   If the above "perfect copy" method doesn't work or is too difficult, one can always revert to analog methods:
   take a picture of the image, record the music from the speaker with a microphone, etc.

   Basically, once you give someone unencrypted information, there is no way to take it back. If they want to copy it at that point, they will.

The trick is to not let them know you've got anything there, encrypted or not.

Check out StegFS

StegFS is a Steganographic File System for Linux. Not only does it encrypt data, it also hides it such that it cannot be proved to be there.

---

OpenBSD can use Blowfish passwords. Not Serpent or Twofish but Blowfish. Why?

Password checking for user authentication is performed in software on a general-purpose computer. Brute-force password cracking can be carried out on specialized hardware. Algorithms that run much faster in hardware than in software are bad choices for password hashing.

The design of Blowfish makes it difficult to speed up in hardware. Twofish and Serpent, on the other hand, were designed for fast hardware implementation. Blowfish is also more scalable, which lets you keep up with Moore's Law.

A paper (PostScript format) on OpenBSD's rationale for choosing Blowfish can be found here. A short presentation is here.

------

Good point... many times it's not the algorithm that's the problem, it's how people go about the exchanging of keys, storing the keys, etc, that compromise a system.

Almost every time, actually. Ross Anderson did a study of ATM systems some years ago, and found that almost all were insecure due to bad implementation, system design, or human errors (rather than attacks based on the algorithms used, typically DES/3DES and RSA).

Is there any evidence for string theory? I was under the impression that this is somewhat-elegant-but-not-great-friends-with-Occams 's-razor theory which is a long, long way from getting any empirical support.
Don't hold your breath. It's not the sort of subject where empirical evidence is easily available. Nowadays string theory has evolved into m-theory, which basically adds another dimension to our already burgeoning universe. Check out here

The link to the computer page directly: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk /cosmos/Public/tour_index.html

Simple: various tasks need different amounts of bandwidth between the nodes to perform the calculation. For distributed.net and SETI@home, every data block is completely independent - the nodes don't need to communicate at all, so you just pipe the work units over the Internet.

Most problems don't break up this well, though - individual parts of the problem can interact with their neighbours, meaning individual nodes need to communicate with each other fairly quickly - a Beowulf cluster, for example. Lots of normal PCs on a fairly fast LAN.

Then, you have a handful of BIG number-crunching problems - like this one - where every part of the problem interacts with every other one. Think of it like a Rubik's cube: you can't just work one block at a time, you need to look at the whole object at once. This take serious bandwidth: the top-end SGI Origin 2800s run at something like 160 Gbyte/sec between nodes (in total).

Here in Cambridge, the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics has an SGI Origin 2000 series box with 64 CPUs - homepage here. (There's a photo of Stephen Hawking next to it somewhere on that site - this is his department.)

Basically, there are jobs clusters of PCs just can't handle. If the choice is between a $100k Beowulf cluster that can't do the job, and a $10m supercomputer which can, the latter is much better value.

Sure if you have the money to burn, go custom. But most of the computing projects out there do not require that kind of "big iron" and couldn't even afford it if they did. Besides, most of the time (unless you are in the DoD or NSA or such-like) you only end up with a small slice of that "big iron" which may or may not be roughly equivalent to being able to run your proggies on a computer that is all yours 24/7.

You're right - most projects don't need this kind of hardware. Some projects - including this one - do need it - either they cough up the big $$$, or the job doesn't get done.

Also, it sounds like you're arguing about ASICs vs. CPU's which is not what this is about at all. ASICs obviously are enormously useful (witness their vast dominance in the market), but it has nothing to do with whether or not you buy some custom supercomuter from SGI or build one yourself out of PCs and ethernet cabling for a fraction of the cost.

You can't build yourself a supercomputer out of PCs and Ethernet. You can build a cluster which will do almost all the jobs a supercomputer can - but not all of them. Some jobs need a supercomputer. A few very specialised jobs need even more muscle - like this one. It uses custom silicon, because that's the only way to get enough CPU horsepower.

I have a summary analysis here.

Desktop biometric scanners that transmit the biometric through an insecure network to a server for verification are a fraud and security through obscurity (don't laugh, people actually do this kind of thing). This device, while not perfect, looks like it can offer some real security because it performs the verification internally.

A quote from the article you are linking to:
"Biometrics are powerful and useful, but they are not keys. They are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier."

In this case there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier because they are both inside the same tamper-resistant pacakge (no, not tamper-proof, there is no such thing).

"Trusted" is always a relative term and depends on the resources available to your opponent. If your opponent is a foreign government then even secure (breakable) hardware and (bribable, killable) guards may not be enough.

I don't know how many casual attackers have access to a focused ion beam workstation and the knowledge required to operate it and try to crack a multilayer tamper-resistant chip. See this article for more information about the techniques used to crack smartcards. Remember that this device is thicker and more expensive than a smartcard and could theoretically provide much better tamper resistance.

Correctly applied biometrics can let you have some security even when facing intentional misuse. I'd rather have access to my medical information protected by this kind of biometric token rather than a password that will end up on a post-it note on the secretary's monitor or a smartcard that will be "shared" because it is not tied to a specific person. Experience has shown that most people will bypass security in every imaginable way. Biometrics can help enfore an organization's security policy under these conditions.

Personally, I will stick to my passphrases (6 words, at least 2 of them not in any dictionary...)

----

Development of a 1-D device is exactly what is in progress by a group in Cambridge. I was involved in the early stages of the project and we popped over to Stephen Hawking's office to see what his setup is capable of. Hawking is extremely good with his device, he has very fine temporal control with his button clicks. Basically common words/letters are highlighted by a moving bar and a click selects. It's basic, it's slow, but it works.

The new idea, known as `dasher', reverses text compression (arithmetic coding with a language modeller). The user input, in the form of clicks, mouse movement or even eye-tracking, effectively enters compressed information which is expanded into text. Very efficient, and speeds can be up to 40wpm or so.

It could probably be used effectively as input for PDAs, too.

Check out http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/djw30/dasher/ which also includes a demo.

Matt


Matt Davey
Oh, I can't stand scientists. Have they nothing better to do with their time

Development of a 1-D device is exactly what is in progress by a group in Cambridge. I was involved in the early stages of the project and we popped over to Stephen Hawking's office to see what his setup is capable of. Hawking is extremely good with his device, he has very fine temporal control with his button clicks. Basically common words/letters are highlighted by a moving bar and a click selects. It's basic, it's slow, but it works.

The new idea, known as `dasher', reverses text compression (arithmetic coding with a language modeller). The user input, in the form of clicks, mouse movement or even eye-tracking, effectively enters compressed information which is expanded into text. Very efficient, and speeds can be up to 40wpm or so.

It could probably be used effectively as input for PDAs, too.

Check out http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/djw30/dasher/ which also includes a demo.

Matt


Matt Davey
Oh, I can't stand scientists. Have they nothing better to do with their time

Development of a 1-D device is exactly what is in progress by a group in Cambridge. I was involved in the early stages of the project and we popped over to Stephen Hawking's office to see what his setup is capable of. Hawking is extremely good with his device, he has very fine temporal control with his button clicks. Basically common words/letters are highlighted by a moving bar and a click selects. It's basic, it's slow, but it works.

The new idea, known as `dasher', reverses text compression (arithmetic coding with a language modeller). The user input, in the form of clicks, mouse movement or even eye-tracking, effectively enters compressed information which is expanded into text. Very efficient, and speeds can be up to 40wpm or so.

It could probably be used effectively as input for PDAs, too.

Check out http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/djw30/dasher/ which also includes a demo.

Matt


Matt Davey
Oh, I can't stand scientists. Have they nothing better to do with their time

Please stop spreading misinformation (lies?) about Unicode. Unicode has no licence fees. Unicode is being implemented for GNU/Linux as we speak. See here for links to further info.

There is an easy way to do this without modifing a HD.. install StegFS (for Linux).

StegFS encrypts your drive with multiple levels (diffrent passwords). You give them the password to a level with no mp3s. They con not prove you have more levels which you are not releasing.

Now they can still watch you trade them on the internet, but that's a seperate problem.

Your question is too general. You do not need to install anything if your needs are limited to aligment of few DNA/protein fragments once a week. The web resources will be good enough for that. For any lab doing sequencing I highly recommend Staden The gap4 program, which is a part of a package is a category leader. You may also take a look at Sanger Centre web site: Software. Almost all what you may ever need is there. ;-)

Interesting, could this technology be combined with networking of household appliances (you know fridges that order extra milk for you etc..).
Leasding to the punchline...
Would a watched quantum kettle boil faster?

Also known as the Trojan Room Coffee Pot, which is located in the Trojan Room. It was around in 1991, but not connected to the internet (there wasn't one then) until later (see the biography).

A close relative (but much younger) is AT&T Laboratories Cambridge's Smart Beverage Dispenser. It, however, does not yet conform to rfc2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0), and rfc2325, Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2, "is not sufficiently flexible to represent the advanced multiple beverage dispenser". But, "Development of a revised MIB supporting multiple dynamic beverage options is under way". Hooray!

Also known as the Trojan Room Coffee Pot, which is located in the Trojan Room. It was around in 1991, but not connected to the internet (there wasn't one then) until later (see the biography).

A close relative (but much younger) is AT&T Laboratories Cambridge's Smart Beverage Dispenser. It, however, does not yet conform to rfc2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0), and rfc2325, Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2, "is not sufficiently flexible to represent the advanced multiple beverage dispenser". But, "Development of a revised MIB supporting multiple dynamic beverage options is under way". Hooray!

Also known as the Trojan Room Coffee Pot, which is located in the Trojan Room. It was around in 1991, but not connected to the internet (there wasn't one then) until later (see the biography).

A close relative (but much younger) is AT&T Laboratories Cambridge's Smart Beverage Dispenser. It, however, does not yet conform to rfc2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0), and rfc2325, Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2, "is not sufficiently flexible to represent the advanced multiple beverage dispenser". But, "Development of a revised MIB supporting multiple dynamic beverage options is under way". Hooray!

She launched a net trend, the webcam, which should definitely be counted as "news for nerds".

Surely everyone realises that webcams have been around for a lot longer than this. The Cambridge Coffee pot claims to be the first, dating back to 1991. It wasn't strictly a webcam at the time since the web hadn't been invented yet, but the principles the same.

shorten website

enjoy,

--

How does this system compare to Hyper-G ? Hyper-G is interesting because of the highly efficient P-Flood alogorythm used to distribute updates in a push fashion to other servers.

Ross Andersons' Cambridge crypto group have theorised a Steganographic distributed information system along these lines called The Eternity Service. Worth a look.

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could comment about the Freenet mission: how do you see this software affecting the world. I notice that files on freenet will disappear after disuse, for instance, since it is more of a distributed file cache rather than a data haven.

Some similar projects are clearly aimed at the distributed data haven issue, such as The Eternity Service, which due to nigh permanent cacheing is clearly aimed at a distributed data haven type problem domain, or intermemory which takes an approach somewhere in between the cache/haven solution.

So what all do you expect to see the distributed file cache used for?

Great work...keep it up! (BTW, if readers are interested, there exists a nice collection of information on these projects)

Mojotoad

My old astronomy lab have a group working on optical interferometry, and have a working optical interferometry complete with four (or possibly now five) telescopes linked together. If you are interested in the details, there is a good introduction and more detailed information here. Now the interesting thing here is that it is very important to keep the telescopes at exactly the same distance apart or compensate in some way (here there are trolleys running up and down a long (30m) optical bench and the telescopes are concreted into the ground. The problems inherent in doing optical interferometry in space present many of the same problems examined in this project, plus the limitation that you can't just stick an optical bench on a satellite and hope to get it off the ground. On the other hand, ten years ago people were highly sceptical of getting optical interferometry working on anything more than a rudimentary basis and felt that map making was many years away, so maybe those problems can be solved too.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

My old astronomy lab have a group working on optical interferometry, and have a working optical interferometry complete with four (or possibly now five) telescopes linked together. If you are interested in the details, there is a good introduction and more detailed information here. Now the interesting thing here is that it is very important to keep the telescopes at exactly the same distance apart or compensate in some way (here there are trolleys running up and down a long (30m) optical bench and the telescopes are concreted into the ground. The problems inherent in doing optical interferometry in space present many of the same problems examined in this project, plus the limitation that you can't just stick an optical bench on a satellite and hope to get it off the ground. On the other hand, ten years ago people were highly sceptical of getting optical interferometry working on anything more than a rudimentary basis and felt that map making was many years away, so maybe those problems can be solved too.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

As good as Cryptonomicon was, I get more and more convinced that a bunker-style data haven is the wrong way to go.

Why not make the data haven nuke-proof like the internet itself?

Anyway, if you're interested in this paradigm, check out the following projects:

Intermemory
The Eternity Service
FreeNet

And try cypherspace for a nice collection of related links.

Mojotoad

Robathome dun said (regarding someone's date of 31/4/15):

If April actually had 31 days, that would be possible.

Robathome no baka :)

Seriously...different countries have different formats of splitting up dates and all. In the US, the typical format tends to be

mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/yyyy

where mm=month, dd=day, and yy=year (non-Y2K-compliant version) or yyyy=year (if you don't want to confuse hell out of everyone).

Europeans do it different, like this:

dd/mm/yy or dd/mm/yyyy

where dd=day, mm=month, etc. etc.

In much of Latin America, including Brazil (don't give me that shocked look--there are a lot of folks from Brazil on the net now, and even other countries like Mexico) they do it in yet another format:

yy/mm/dd or yyyy/mm/dd

where yy=year, etc. etc. etc.

In fact, it's SO bad what with the confusion (not to mention that a lot of places, like, oh, damn near the entire Middle East, don't even USE the Gregorian calendar--and other places, like Japan, use it but with their own special "mutations" (in Japan, they have their own calendar year count--plus they tend to count by emperor's reigns, instead of calendar year)...) that there is actually an official ISO standard for references to dates--which, surprise, surprise, actually fits the Latin American standard:

yyyy-mm-dd

where yyyy=year, mm=month, etc.

So he was right after all. So are the other folks. :)

Myself, I think messing with numbers like that is a bother, so I just use dates like, oh, 15 April 31 (which was the date he mentioned, by the way--by that reckoning, Yshua of Nazareth might've gotten to see it, but we're almost two millennia late :) to be crystal clear. Or measure everything in the good, old, ACCURATE calendar that the Mayans used if I want to confuse hell out of everyone. :) (Which brings up an interesting point...the Maya knew about zero, probably knew about pi to make measurements, and the Long Count is actually measured in terms of base-20 increments...anyone know what pi would be in base 20 and what Pi Day would be in the Long Count? ;)

As I see it, the main problems with the current patent system are twofold:

A: They are often granted for ideas that do not involve a sufficiently inventive step.

B: They are often used to stifle innovation by refusing to license them to others in a fair way.

I am not sure how one would go about dealing with A, but I have been thinking about B, and can see several alternatives that would fix the problem quite easily.

In order to provoke debate, I propose the following ammentment to patent law:

1. Licensing of patents to third parties should be compulsary.
2. This licensing should be done through an easy, standard mechanism, allowing the third party to license several patents at once through the patent office.
3. The licensing cost should be registered, and not allowed to increase above the rate of inflation.
4. Licensing should be "per product installation".
5. Nobody, including the owner of the patent should be allowed to sell their own product for less than the combined value of the patents it uses, thus preventing inflated license costs.

This compremise would still allow open source software to use patents. Licenses would only be paid when someone new wanted to install the software, and not when source was passed around.

I don't think it would be practical, or desirable to abolish software patents all together as that would remove a lot of the motivation for companies to invest in research.

Any comments?

it's weird: the two guys in the photo must be the only researchers in the place without beards. Maybe they made them shave to be more photogenic for the popular press.

Anyone else think that the ACLU needs a political party? They'd be on our side on this one.

No, the ACLU is much more effective as a legal defence orginisation. Political parties just don't do very much. You are will win more support by convincing current elected officials that you are the good guys and that you will make their life hard if they vote against you. This is why lobists and lawyers with a sound logical argument about why something is bad (i.e. the ACLU) can get so much more accomplished.

The most effective way for most people to fight this stuff is to call your congress person and contribute to the ACLU and EFF.

Also, you can help projects which change the technology to make it impossible to implement this sort of crap. Like setting up your own anonymous remailer, working on an irc or email client which seamlessly integrates encryption, working on making encryption easy to install under Linux, or installing StegFS.

Actually, I would liketo see something like StegFS built into GPG standard. It would be nice to allow people to send you encrypted email which was encrypted at multiple levels, but where the higher levels could not be proved to exist.

Example: I create a special pgp key with is really 8 diffrent keys. Execpt many of the keys do not exists and you can not prove that they exists without factoring all 8 of the public keys. When someone sends me a message they really send me 8 messages, but you can not prove the higher level messages exist without the private key. This is a plausable deniabliity system which means that they can not prove that you are not revealing information which the court orders you to reveal.

Anyway, I feal there really are significant oppertunities to the government's ideas impossible, but we have not really implemented these protocolls now.

This sounds pretty similar to an Eternity Service, and I suggest that would be a less confusing name.

The Steganographic File System will do precisely that. (This link is to the homepage of an in-development implementation for Linux, with links to two papers describing the SFS.)

Calc actually has some good graphing capabilities; it interfaces with Gnuplot if it can find it on the system. I've produced some nice-looking 2D, 3D, and parametric graphs on my Linux system. My Win98 system has some problems, though.

Info for setting up Gnuplot for use with Calc can be found in the Calc info file or here.

This is a RPL Daemon that will allow you to boot those boards. I have one of those boards, I think (SIS chipset, one isa/pci slot)? It boots Linux wonderfully once you get the right driver to support the network card.

Good Luck

aclait@nospam.zincland.com

I read our local paper (The Ithaca Journal) every day, and i read The New York Times on tuesday and sunday. (tuesday primarily for the science tuesday section, sunday primarily for the week in review and the magazine).
There is a certain appeal to dead-tree-ware that is difficult to attain with electronic information. For one, in the days of the web, most really good stuff goes away, and short of doing a tedious recursive wget (which dynamic content, smart client side scripts that phone home, and stuff like that seems to serve no other purpose than to deliberately prevent effective mirroring) there is no way for me to take a clipping and add it to my scrapbook folder.
Also paper media don't have that transience that the internet does. Think about the DeCSS thing. When the shit hit the fan, the MPAA knew who to talk to when it needed to censor it, and they made it a little harder to get at.
Now, think about when some telephone lineman's technical journal didn't think before publishing all the control tones for Ma Bell's analog switches that enabled all the phone phreaks to have their fun, make their red and blue boxes, etc... Bell was out of luck, because the printed media got taken home by many students, people, etc... and it was too late.

For a more eloquent discussion of this difference between printed and electronic media, look at this link http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ users/rja14/eternity/eternity.html

Yes. this has been widely demonstrated in academia and other experiments. Two good sources are The Complete, Unofficial TEMPEST Information Page by Joel McNamara, and Ross Anderson's Soft Tempest pages. The latter is particularly mindbending and everyone on /. should give it a read....
--