Slashdot Mirror

Why don't they use helium?!

Wait a minute, you mean that cold fusion doesn't exist?

--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

Obnoxius people showing us photos of their kids, vacations, whatever. Digital photography just made things worse, and now they want to preserve them for eternity!!!

--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

And the happy ending is, that you are still in business?
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

You are right, but only theorically. Because in practice, all those granular permissions are wasted, by applications which just ignore the standards.

You have to recognize, that, in the current state, it is almost imposible to a non privileged user to use a windows box. He HAS to be given full permission. This is due to fundamental flaws in Windows design, that won't be corrected by any amount of security embellishment that Microsoft will add, because:

-Third party Software developers will ignore them, because they are unnecesary to their application
-Microsoft itself doesn't enforce them.

On the other hand, the simpler Unix security schemes work because:

-Even if you ignore them, the OS will impose them (unless you run everything as root, which may happen, as more clueless users arrive to the plataform)
-Eventually, when you need root access to install a program, you don't need root access to run them afterwards (almost universally). In Windows, some program won't run unless you are administrator.

Do also note that some people have been advocating the creation of a Linux Registry, and it may happen, as Desktops Managers like KDE and Gnome are trying to present an unified configuration center to the system, like windows has (and which is a good thing, but not totally necessary , IMHO)

--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

In soviet russia, the tools blame YOU!

(I should know, with my user name and all)

Really, there are better languages than C/C++, but none has the support that those have.
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

Amazon has had "reviews" for Halo 2 since February 2003.

Slashdot editors, bring some new stories please.
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

To wich I say "WTF"? I can't see anything different re: the fonts.Can you?

You mean like this?

The definitive online resource for algorithms is NISTS's Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures. There is a list of algorithm resources, and you can also find some free e-books using The Assayer.

In print you should be looking for "Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edition". It is the bible of the field. Other excellent candidates are "Data Structures and Algorithms" ( / in Java / in C).

Google will also tell you to look here, here and here.

I have compiled a list of IT books available online for your reading & enjoyment.

The description that I wrote for each of them is in spanish, but they are written in english. I've read all of them and I can assure you they are among the best.

Fh

The same is true if some people send "terminologically-enhanced email" around in quantity; some analyst is reasonably likely to notice it, and find some way of filtering it to some degree.

What would be more likely to cause consternation would be to have larger quantities of encrypted traffic. If, for instance, CVS and FTP archives started using GPG to encrypt all file transfer information in transit, this would cause more traffic where it may make it hard to tell if it's suspicious or not.

The entertaining option would be to use something like unto stenography...

This would involve taking "raw" messages, compressing and encrypting them using something like Blowfish. And then transforming them into masses of "dangerous terminology," compressing and maybe again encrypting that, and then transmitting this.

Thus, if we start with message "M," we do: % cat M | gzip - | blowfish -e -k "tata, NSA" > N We now have a file, N, that's hopefully small, and reasonably encrypted.

Now, pass it through a transformation where we turn it into a sequence of "dangerous words." The simplest option looks like:

• ASCII 0 maps to "NSA"
• ASCII 1 maps to "President"
• ASCII 3 maps to "Ortega"
• ASCII 4 maps to "Semtex"
• and so forth...

The obvious answer here is to pick the 256 best "dangerous words;" having only 64 would amount to a perverse equivalent to Base64 encoding; having 4000 words makes life more entertaining.

Another alternative would be not to pick words, but rather to pick phrases in some manner from some controversial essays/books, so that we're not merely getting random words, but rather sets of words that go together to appear to be in a vaguely meaningful sequence. Information Retrieval: Algorithms and Data Structures might have something to offer here. The idea is to pick from the ways that words were phrased in some text, so that the results at least vaguely look like something one might write.

You'll then get the original 500 byte message to expand out to something like 50K of "steganography." Fortunately, that 50K will be highly compressible English text. (Unless, of course, you picked some subversive book written in Russian as the "steganographic dictionary," in which case it'll be 50K of highly compressible Russian text.)

Compress again, encrypt into submission, and send that CVS patch over to the GnuCash archives...