(7) If you want to be take responsibility then remember that your are responsible for every life that gun you own takes. If it gets stolen then you did not secure it well enough. If a kid gets a hold of it you did not secure it well enough.
I don't know about that. You kick a 6 year old in the throat as he's coming towards you he's gonna drop pretty hard. Then you draw a moustache on him with the marker.
This is the fatal flaw with any kind of mail encryption or signing system. It's not easy to use, and it's not easy to make it easy to use. Someone has to vouch for the fact that you are who you say you are. Current systems do this by having you apply for and receive an X.509 certificate from the likes of Verisign. Everyone trusts Verisign so if Verisign says that I am Jason von Nieda, you can be guaranteed that I am Jason von Nieda. The problem with this, of course, is that before I can use the system I have to go through that process.
If there were a real demand for this, support could be added to mail clients to quickly and easily request a certificate from a certifying authority, but you still have the problems of losing your certificate, forgetting your password, needing to send mail from another computer and so on.
This is why client/personal based authentication fails. Users just generally can't be bothered. Making it the sysadmin's burden, or the ISP's makes it possible to quickly secure and authenticate a large group of people instead of just one person here and there that's willing to spend some time on it.
The old Netscape mail client way back in the day had S/MIME support. Outlook and Outlook Express have had it for years as well.
My sent mail only stretches back to 1997, but I have S/MIME encrypted and signed messages from that year using: X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
This technology has been readily available for a long time. The reason that people don't use it is because managing certificates and their infrastructure is a pain in the ass.
It's unfortunate from a hacker's perspective. From a user's perspective it doesn't really matter. From mine though, I want to build devices that remote control the iPod but instead of a fairly simple device that speaks some protocol that says "Play song X" I need a fairly complex device that can mount a firewire drive, read Fat32 or HFS, decode MP3s and play sound. My iPod already does all those things so it would be nice if I could just send it a command like "Play artist, album, track"
That's pretty unfortunate. I was hoping Alpine had come up with something better than I did. It's too bad Apple doesn't publish some specs on that thing. It's so hackaliscious.
I would love to know more about this. I've been thinking about doing the same thing a little more genericly but I have not been able to find much information about the iPod dock connector and whatever protocol it might support.
Is this head unit actually going to control the iPod (and most importantly) use the iPod's output, or is it just going to use the iPod's drive as a slave storage device and play the music itself?
The factory isn't the only place that can make something that responds to the signals a RFID scanner sends. If it can read the wave that comes back, so can you produce it.
Thats where you're wrong. If the purchased the movie they should be able to view it where ever the hell they'd like.
They can. They just need to license the technology to do it. It's really quite simple. If you want to play DVDs you need to purchase a DVD player. If they don't come in the color you like, suck it up. This is called being a consumer. If you do not like being a consumer, be a producer and start a Linux DVD player company.
I think it's wonderful that the interviewer chose to take Valenti onto unfamiliar ground, to show the Jackass how much he truly doesn't know about his job.
It's not Jack Valenti's job to make sure there are legal DVD players for Linux. It's his job to make sure that there are NOT illegal DVD players for Linux. His point is perfectly valid. It's possible today for someone to license the technology needed to make a legal DVD player for Linux, but everyone in the position to do so knows that the Linux users will just use the illegal players for free rather than pay for the legal ones.
Linux users do not have a God or country given right to watch American Wedding on their Linux box. Just like when DVDs started to get popular people had to replace their VCRs with DVD players, Linux users need to give up their technology that doesn't work correctly and use that which does.
P.S. I define "correctly" in this context as what is legal. So settle down cowboy.
This is the entire point of quantum crypto, which should actually be called quantum key exchange. Quantum crypto is used to transfer a perfectly random one time pad with no way for an attacker to see the pad. One time pads are provably 100% secure, it's just a matter of getting the key there. Quantum crypto solves the one time pad key transfer problem.
I can't understand how people just continue to ignore simple facts. People really are pirating music a lot now. Some of those downloads are going to result in lost sales. While not everyone would have bought the CD if they couldn't download it, at least some are. Maybe's it 7%...
Now, I know the RIAA is evil and they don't pay artists enough and CDs are too expensive and they are suing people (who are stealing music) but pretending that they don't have a right to do that is absurd.
Before you fly off into a fit of frothing rage, ask yourself this: Do people get commercial music today without paying for it? The answer is yes. Oh, I realize YOU don't. No Slashdotter listens to popular music, or downloads anything they didn't buy, or would have bought it anyway, but a hell of a lot of people do and it can't be denied.
On a side note most popular CDs can be had at Best Buy for around $10. Comon folks, that ain't that expensive for something you'll likely enjoy for years and years. If you can't get it at Best Buy you can probably find it online for about the same. Stop being such cheap asses.
This is such an important point. Some friends and I were just discussing this as to why Linux still isn't ready for the desktop.
Half the time when you download some simple program you end up needing a dozen other libraries for it to run. Why the hell don't people staticly link this stuff? The APIs for many libraries are so unstable that the idea of "What if I wanna update libBlah later on?" doesn't work and it's not all that important that save on transit or hard drive space any more.
I write quite a few free programs, and I always staticly link them with everything they need. It might mean downloading an extra few hundred KB, or even a few MB but in the end the user is not put out of the way and it "just works". As the developer of the program I know what version of what my program needs, and I am more qualified than any one else to determine that. It should be my responsibility that my program includes it.
This has to be one of the most misleading articles, and even more misleading/. blurbs I have ever seen. This software has nothing to do with Windows. It's a stripped down version of Linux that has basic media center programs. It "integrates" with the BIOS by "booting" like every other operating system.
I use SpamAssassin on my mail server with Bayes filtering in place. I trained it once about a year ago and have not touched it since. I get maybe 1 or 2 spams in my INBOX every 2-3 days, and several hundred in my SPAM box every 2-3 days.
For the first few weeks when I was using it I would check through the SPAM looking for false positives but I eventually stopped bothering after never finding any.
I haven't bothered to actually take the step of immediatly deleting SPAM as it comes in since it's handy to have a pile around in case I decide I want to retrain, but if I were to just delete it as it came in it wouldn't be much different than what happens now.
I don't really even think about SPAM any more. SpamAssassin is good.
Mudbogging is to take a motor vehicle and drive it around wildly in the mud. It's popular in the south, and in rural areas in general. Bush is a hick, so presumably he might like to do some mudbogging.
Well, they were probably talking about digital SLRs and slipped up, but it can matter actually. The CMOS in the Canon 1Ds is the same size of a 35mm frame, so you get the exact same size picture you would with a 35mm film camera. In the Canon 10D, which is what I have, the CMOS is smaller than a 35mm frame so everything is effectivly magnified by 1.6x.
Because you use it. I know this is crazy and all, but sometimes when someone provides you a service you deem valuable (i.e. filtering out the crap) you can thank them in a moneytary fashion which let's them continue to do it.
Weird, huh? There should be a name for this "paying for products and services" system thing.
Slashdot Mirror
(7) If you want to be take responsibility then remember that your are responsible for every life that gun you own takes. If it gets stolen then you did not secure it well enough. If a kid gets a hold of it you did not secure it well enough.
This is complete bullshit. That is all.
I don't know about that. You kick a 6 year old in the throat as he's coming towards you he's gonna drop pretty hard. Then you draw a moustache on him with the marker.
And maybe some funny eyebrows.
This is the fatal flaw with any kind of mail encryption or signing system. It's not easy to use, and it's not easy to make it easy to use. Someone has to vouch for the fact that you are who you say you are. Current systems do this by having you apply for and receive an X.509 certificate from the likes of Verisign. Everyone trusts Verisign so if Verisign says that I am Jason von Nieda, you can be guaranteed that I am Jason von Nieda. The problem with this, of course, is that before I can use the system I have to go through that process.
If there were a real demand for this, support could be added to mail clients to quickly and easily request a certificate from a certifying authority, but you still have the problems of losing your certificate, forgetting your password, needing to send mail from another computer and so on.
This is why client/personal based authentication fails. Users just generally can't be bothered. Making it the sysadmin's burden, or the ISP's makes it possible to quickly secure and authenticate a large group of people instead of just one person here and there that's willing to spend some time on it.
The old Netscape mail client way back in the day had S/MIME support. Outlook and Outlook Express have had it for years as well.
My sent mail only stretches back to 1997, but I have S/MIME encrypted and signed messages from that year using:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
This technology has been readily available for a long time. The reason that people don't use it is because managing certificates and their infrastructure is a pain in the ass.
It's unfortunate from a hacker's perspective. From a user's perspective it doesn't really matter. From mine though, I want to build devices that remote control the iPod but instead of a fairly simple device that speaks some protocol that says "Play song X" I need a fairly complex device that can mount a firewire drive, read Fat32 or HFS, decode MP3s and play sound. My iPod already does all those things so it would be nice if I could just send it a command like "Play artist, album, track"
That's pretty unfortunate. I was hoping Alpine had come up with something better than I did. It's too bad Apple doesn't publish some specs on that thing. It's so hackaliscious.
I would love to know more about this. I've been thinking about doing the same thing a little more genericly but I have not been able to find much information about the iPod dock connector and whatever protocol it might support.
Is this head unit actually going to control the iPod (and most importantly) use the iPod's output, or is it just going to use the iPod's drive as a slave storage device and play the music itself?
The factory isn't the only place that can make something that responds to the signals a RFID scanner sends. If it can read the wave that comes back, so can you produce it.
Thats where you're wrong. If the purchased the movie they should be able to view it where ever the hell they'd like.
They can. They just need to license the technology to do it. It's really quite simple. If you want to play DVDs you need to purchase a DVD player. If they don't come in the color you like, suck it up. This is called being a consumer. If you do not like being a consumer, be a producer and start a Linux DVD player company.
I think it's wonderful that the interviewer chose to take Valenti onto unfamiliar ground, to show the Jackass how much he truly doesn't know about his job.
It's not Jack Valenti's job to make sure there are legal DVD players for Linux. It's his job to make sure that there are NOT illegal DVD players for Linux. His point is perfectly valid. It's possible today for someone to license the technology needed to make a legal DVD player for Linux, but everyone in the position to do so knows that the Linux users will just use the illegal players for free rather than pay for the legal ones.
Linux users do not have a God or country given right to watch American Wedding on their Linux box. Just like when DVDs started to get popular people had to replace their VCRs with DVD players, Linux users need to give up their technology that doesn't work correctly and use that which does.
P.S. I define "correctly" in this context as what is legal. So settle down cowboy.
You need to spend some time reading and understanding the protocols used. Authentication happens in an out of band channel.
This is the entire point of quantum crypto, which should actually be called quantum key exchange. Quantum crypto is used to transfer a perfectly random one time pad with no way for an attacker to see the pad. One time pads are provably 100% secure, it's just a matter of getting the key there. Quantum crypto solves the one time pad key transfer problem.
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
Man, I used to have to browse the comments for my daily dose of trollism but now I can get it right there on the front page! Hooray for progress!
I can't understand how people just continue to ignore simple facts. People really are pirating music a lot now. Some of those downloads are going to result in lost sales. While not everyone would have bought the CD if they couldn't download it, at least some are. Maybe's it 7%...
Now, I know the RIAA is evil and they don't pay artists enough and CDs are too expensive and they are suing people (who are stealing music) but pretending that they don't have a right to do that is absurd.
Before you fly off into a fit of frothing rage, ask yourself this:
Do people get commercial music today without paying for it?
The answer is yes. Oh, I realize YOU don't. No Slashdotter listens to popular music, or downloads anything they didn't buy, or would have bought it anyway, but a hell of a lot of people do and it can't be denied.
On a side note most popular CDs can be had at Best Buy for around $10. Comon folks, that ain't that expensive for something you'll likely enjoy for years and years. If you can't get it at Best Buy you can probably find it online for about the same. Stop being such cheap asses.
This is such an important point. Some friends and I were just discussing this as to why Linux still isn't ready for the desktop.
Half the time when you download some simple program you end up needing a dozen other libraries for it to run. Why the hell don't people staticly link this stuff? The APIs for many libraries are so unstable that the idea of "What if I wanna update libBlah later on?" doesn't work and it's not all that important that save on transit or hard drive space any more.
I write quite a few free programs, and I always staticly link them with everything they need. It might mean downloading an extra few hundred KB, or even a few MB but in the end the user is not put out of the way and it "just works". As the developer of the program I know what version of what my program needs, and I am more qualified than any one else to determine that. It should be my responsibility that my program includes it.
And job.
In other news today, smoking has been found to be harmful to humans and everyone is expected to quit smoking very soon.
This has to be one of the most misleading articles, and even more misleading /. blurbs I have ever seen. This software has nothing to do with Windows. It's a stripped down version of Linux that has basic media center programs. It "integrates" with the BIOS by "booting" like every other operating system.
I use SpamAssassin on my mail server with Bayes filtering in place. I trained it once about a year ago and have not touched it since. I get maybe 1 or 2 spams in my INBOX every 2-3 days, and several hundred in my SPAM box every 2-3 days.
For the first few weeks when I was using it I would check through the SPAM looking for false positives but I eventually stopped bothering after never finding any.
I haven't bothered to actually take the step of immediatly deleting SPAM as it comes in since it's handy to have a pile around in case I decide I want to retrain, but if I were to just delete it as it came in it wouldn't be much different than what happens now.
I don't really even think about SPAM any more. SpamAssassin is good.
Yea, because surely Microsoft will take your credit card number and go buy cars and hookers and liquor. Comon, get a grip.
Maybe I missed something but I searched Google for "sheena stuntwoman" and the first link I got was her resume with links to tons of pictures and BIO.
U TF -8&q=sheena+stuntwoman&spell=1
. ht m
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
http://www.v10stunts.com/gloria_fontenot_resume
Mudbogging is to take a motor vehicle and drive it around wildly in the mud. It's popular in the south, and in rural areas in general. Bush is a hick, so presumably he might like to do some mudbogging.
Well, they were probably talking about digital SLRs and slipped up, but it can matter actually. The CMOS in the Canon 1Ds is the same size of a 35mm frame, so you get the exact same size picture you would with a 35mm film camera. In the Canon 10D, which is what I have, the CMOS is smaller than a 35mm frame so everything is effectivly magnified by 1.6x.
Because you use it. I know this is crazy and all, but sometimes when someone provides you a service you deem valuable (i.e. filtering out the crap) you can thank them in a moneytary fashion which let's them continue to do it.
Weird, huh? There should be a name for this "paying for products and services" system thing.
Oh sure, but my version Runs Everywhere! ;-)