Encrypt with public key; store that version as if it were a hash. Do authentication the normal way but instead of SHA/MD5 hashes ask for encryption with public key.
In case law enforcement asks for the passwords, use private key to decrypt them.
Of course the private key does not need to be present on the live system, indeed should be kept physically away from that system (keep the private key stored on USB keys that are locked in a safe or something like that).
Problem solved. Except maybe for the part where you ask client to send encrypted instead of hashed password... and where the client doesn't know how to handle that...
Long time ago (as in before the term "blog" was invented and when Geocities was gave you a whopping 5 MB to set up your free web site) this got an Internet version already: "everybody can be famous for 15 people".
I'm sure this still applies for Twitter, and Blogger, and related sites. As for Twitter I'm also in the "I don't get it" category. Twittering about having just finished a tough meeting or having an egg with your breakfast is so uninteresting, and the 140 character limit doesn't allow for any more information that that. Let alone elaborating a bit on stuff. Maybe that's why it's very popular with politicians: it's great for one-liners, and no need (actually no way) to actually explain your position.
Personally one of the most remarkable achievements of mankind is not just that we send out a probe so far into space, but that we can still measure its exact position to such a precision that heat produced on the craft has to be accounted for in its flight path. And also that we can predict its flight path with such a precision considering the number of variables that has to be taken into account.
You mean that was not an html standard? I didn't know. And boy do I remember that... horrible. Makes the text involved so hard to read, especially when used on not a single word but a complete paragraph. My regard of the html standards board just went up:) At least they didn't invent that horror.
There is one reason to trust the big guys more than the little guys: the big guys have more to lose for doing things wrong.
In general one may assume that a business is there to do business, and make money, long term. Trust is one of their main assets: lose it, and you lose your business.
However the prerequisite for this is proper government regulation of businesses (big or small), and proper checks and balances, in an open society. When it comes to privacy these days the US government unfortunately can not be trusted any more, and with that US companies lose a lot of trust for me as well. European governments are better though also deteriorating recently. So I can understand you don't trust companies for that reason.
I wonder if this is a real issue in the real world.
It would mean, after all, that a burglar would be targeting specific individuals, and research that specific location before making their move (and finding out they have proper locks and bolts). I can imagine that happening for specific high-profile targets; not for Joe Sixpack.
Many burglars are opportunists. Targeting houses where they suspect the owners are not at home that day (e.g. by walking by a few times and noticing lights off all evening and no car in the driveway).
They want their FRIENDS typically to know where they are (or, for bragging rights, have been); usually not realising the other potential uses of such information, and how much it reveals about them for outsiders. They don't realise it also reveals where they live, where they work, and when they're usually not at home.
Some countries had to amend copyright laws in the early era of computing.
After all, installing software from floppy disk onto your hard disk means making a copy of the software. And that was illegal under the law, which stated no copies allowed.
You know the difference already.The difference is Amazon doing it or the user doing it. The first is Amazon's responsibility, the second is the user's responsibility. And yes that's a big difference.
2) Even if this particular industry doesn't rely as much on long-term forecasts (e.g. I don't see why a factory churning out Android phones can't be quickly reconfigured to churn out WP7 phones),
I don't think it's that easy to switch. The factory is of course not the problem: they just solder components together and install software on it.
The organisation behind it, that's the problem. It will take significant time and effort to switch software engineers from Android to WP7. They have to learn a new environment, with its specific quirks and features. They will probably also have to switch to a new programming language. They may pick it up fast, it's still not instant or easy. And for many years the company will have to continue to support the legacy system. There may be a six-month cycle in this market, many models remain for sale for much longer than that (this cycle's high end is the next cycle's mid end), and remain in use for years after having been sold.
The market place is also an issue, nowadays mobile phones live or die with the availability of third-party apps (partly what keeps Windows alive too). If a market share is too small, it may fail to get enough critical mass.
And finally IP rights may be an issue. Google I understand is very liberal in its licensing, Microsoft tends to be pretty restrictive.
All in all switching operating systems is not that easy, even if it doesn't really matter for the factory itself. So choosing which one to go for is a strategic decision that should not be taken lightly.
Of course. Four years ago - early 2007 - no-one would have predicted ANY market share for Android. After all this OS was revealed to the public only in November of that year.
The language part is just personal experience. I live in Hong Kong, and visit the mainland regularly.
Most people across the border speak 2-3 languages already, just not English as that's no use in daily life. In Guangdong for example most people speak the language of their home town when at home; Cantonese when visiting other areas; Mandarin at school etc. and with people from other provinces. Don't forget that mandarin (the official Chinese) is a second language for the vast majority of Chinese people. And with vast majority you have to think of >90%. I've seen statistics that just 5% of the Chinese is native mandarin speaking (defined as: language the person uses when talking to their parents). They all speak their local language first, and later learn mandarin in school. Even a leader like Mao Zedong was known to struggle with his mandarin.
After all what is the value of a particular bit of research? You would say the invention of the transistor was very valuable, but what about the enormous amount of research that went on to get to this point? The discovery of semiconductors, for example. The manufacturing techniques to actually make those parts. A bit of research never comes on its own, and it's anyway hard to put a value on it.
The information coming out of the LHC for example one person would consider fantastic and very valuable as it tells us more about how matter is built up; others will argue it's useless as while interesting to know it's not something that goes into making a new product. At least not yet. The inventor of the semiconductor also never would have thought that it would make web sites like this one possible. You don't know what the quality of a scientific discovery is.
Back to quality of scientific output: the best way probably to measure it, is citations. The more a paper is cited by other papers, the more researchers think it's valuable information and good research.
However with Chinese papers in the mix I expect two problems: one is the "link farm" effect (they cite each other), the other is language: many Chinese don't master English well enough to order a cup of coffee, let alone to write even the summary of a research paper (this is personal experience - even with university students in Hong Kong where English is the medium of education!). A lot is published in Chinese and as such pretty much inaccessible to non-Chinese researchers. The rest of the world publishes in English, which in turn is largely inaccessible to Chinese students.
[...] progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.
Don't forget religious and cultural ideas.
For example astronomy is a subject that was held up for long time for religious/cultural reasons. For example, for very long astronomers tried anything to just be able to explain the movements of the planets on the assumption that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. They just wouldn't/couldn't accept the idea that the Sun is the centre of our solar system - let alone that even the Sun is not the centre of our universe.
Various cultures have various ideas on how the world is working, and this meta-ideas can very easily open or close certain doors to scientific advancement.
And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out - so there is a very strong incentive for copying work from others and add maybe a bit of your own just to push out yet another paper. It's normal for a PhD at a Chinese university to have a dozen or two papers on his name when graduating; against just a few for PhDs at European or American universities.
Cheating is considered a large problem within universities in China - not only universities but also other parts of the whole education system. I've read about doctors working in hospitals with bought certificates. Recently it was pilots flying commercial Chinese airliners without having actually passed the exams. It's a real problem - and arguably part of the problem is the lack of checks and balances. These pilot licenses should have been verified with the school that purportedly issued them, for example, yet airliners were too busy expanding that they didn't do this. I wouldn't be surprised if more bribes were involved in not having those licenses checked.
Quality of Chinese research in general is still low. They will surely pick up to the game sooner or later, and there are definitely very good Chinese researchers around. Just have a look at the top universities in the US: many of their top researchers nowadays are Chinese nationals. Oh and that they are working in the US and not in their home country is not just because.
Submitter is ambiguous there. It seems to me it's the OS-X part that's bugging her most. People tend to not distinguish hardware from software really: it's first of all a laptop, the package. Just like asking for "a Windows" laptop - no specific hardware requirements (keyboard layout, pointer type/behaviour).
I program for fun; have an app out on the market that's free, and not even ad supported. Even if it's tax deductible (I could of course book it on my company) that doesn't help much as on my income my tax liability just a few % of my income.
a mix of discarded food, charcoal, shell tools, and broken pottery
While of course people do not likely live on top of their trash, lack of motorised transport means that trash likely wasn't moved far away. Especially charcoal which can be re-used as fuel. Broken pottery well from daily accidents. Shell tools just left behind. Discarded food smells and attracts predators so that one is something they would likely try to at least take to the perimeter of their settlement.
So indeed I think it's likely a combination: dryer patches where humans started to live, making the patches even dryer with their activities. And considering we're talking humans here, I wouldn't be surprised if those activities were intentional. Like bringing in rocks or soil, or even deliberately keeping their broken pottery as foundation, to make the area better to live on. Maybe they were involved in agriculture already? The article indeed mentions that in some cases there was clear evidence of trees and shrubs growing at that place before the arrival of the human settlers.
IIRC from previous discussions regarding this platform, is that the PS3 is particularly well suited for doing fourier transforms and related analyses - graphics cards were also very capable in filtering signals in the seti@home project. Sounds somewhat similar to me. Edge detection, for example. Filtering signals from the noise where the noise is almost as bad as the signal.
From those discussions I also recall that the PS3 is not considered strong in general purpose number crunching work; your run-of-the-mill Intel is doing much better across the board. It's these specific tasks where specialised units like the PS3 can shine. Them being marketed as gaming consoles of course helps in keeping volume up and cost down, making them almost disposable and at least easily replaceable in case of hardware failure.
At the time non of the major labels would have accepted non-DRM sales. Many of the smaller labels would also have required DRM. The non-DRM movement started only recently. While yes Real could have tried to pioneer non-DRM music, they would have been limited to unknown artists that were just desparate to become known, only to be abandoned by those same artists when they did become known and would start requiring DRM on their music. The time wasn't there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Use a decent two-factor encryption.
Encrypt with public key; store that version as if it were a hash. Do authentication the normal way but instead of SHA/MD5 hashes ask for encryption with public key.
In case law enforcement asks for the passwords, use private key to decrypt them.
Of course the private key does not need to be present on the live system, indeed should be kept physically away from that system (keep the private key stored on USB keys that are locked in a safe or something like that).
Problem solved. Except maybe for the part where you ask client to send encrypted instead of hashed password... and where the client doesn't know how to handle that...
Long time ago (as in before the term "blog" was invented and when Geocities was gave you a whopping 5 MB to set up your free web site) this got an Internet version already: "everybody can be famous for 15 people".
I'm sure this still applies for Twitter, and Blogger, and related sites. As for Twitter I'm also in the "I don't get it" category. Twittering about having just finished a tough meeting or having an egg with your breakfast is so uninteresting, and the 140 character limit doesn't allow for any more information that that. Let alone elaborating a bit on stuff. Maybe that's why it's very popular with politicians: it's great for one-liners, and no need (actually no way) to actually explain your position.
Personally one of the most remarkable achievements of mankind is not just that we send out a probe so far into space, but that we can still measure its exact position to such a precision that heat produced on the craft has to be accounted for in its flight path. And also that we can predict its flight path with such a precision considering the number of variables that has to be taken into account.
(anybody remember the NS blink tag?)
You mean that was not an html standard? I didn't know. And boy do I remember that... horrible. Makes the text involved so hard to read, especially when used on not a single word but a complete paragraph. My regard of the html standards board just went up :) At least they didn't invent that horror.
There is one reason to trust the big guys more than the little guys: the big guys have more to lose for doing things wrong.
In general one may assume that a business is there to do business, and make money, long term. Trust is one of their main assets: lose it, and you lose your business.
However the prerequisite for this is proper government regulation of businesses (big or small), and proper checks and balances, in an open society. When it comes to privacy these days the US government unfortunately can not be trusted any more, and with that US companies lose a lot of trust for me as well. European governments are better though also deteriorating recently. So I can understand you don't trust companies for that reason.
TFA and TFS both talk about "milestones" that have to be reached.
Unfortunately neither gives a clue on what those milestones are!
Anyone, please? I'm curious what the terms were (in simple human language, not legalese), and which MS reached and which not.
I wonder if this is a real issue in the real world.
It would mean, after all, that a burglar would be targeting specific individuals, and research that specific location before making their move (and finding out they have proper locks and bolts). I can imagine that happening for specific high-profile targets; not for Joe Sixpack.
Many burglars are opportunists. Targeting houses where they suspect the owners are not at home that day (e.g. by walking by a few times and noticing lights off all evening and no car in the driveway).
They want their FRIENDS typically to know where they are (or, for bragging rights, have been); usually not realising the other potential uses of such information, and how much it reveals about them for outsiders. They don't realise it also reveals where they live, where they work, and when they're usually not at home.
They got the meaning of DRM wrong. As usual. The R stands for Restrictions. Here another of those restrictions becomes apparent. No rights involved.
Some countries had to amend copyright laws in the early era of computing.
After all, installing software from floppy disk onto your hard disk means making a copy of the software. And that was illegal under the law, which stated no copies allowed.
Sounds like "job security!" to me.
You know the difference already.The difference is Amazon doing it or the user doing it. The first is Amazon's responsibility, the second is the user's responsibility. And yes that's a big difference.
Four years ago Android didn't exist, now they are at, what is it, 40% or so? Anything can happen.
2) Even if this particular industry doesn't rely as much on long-term forecasts (e.g. I don't see why a factory churning out Android phones can't be quickly reconfigured to churn out WP7 phones),
I don't think it's that easy to switch. The factory is of course not the problem: they just solder components together and install software on it.
The organisation behind it, that's the problem. It will take significant time and effort to switch software engineers from Android to WP7. They have to learn a new environment, with its specific quirks and features. They will probably also have to switch to a new programming language. They may pick it up fast, it's still not instant or easy. And for many years the company will have to continue to support the legacy system. There may be a six-month cycle in this market, many models remain for sale for much longer than that (this cycle's high end is the next cycle's mid end), and remain in use for years after having been sold.
The market place is also an issue, nowadays mobile phones live or die with the availability of third-party apps (partly what keeps Windows alive too). If a market share is too small, it may fail to get enough critical mass.
And finally IP rights may be an issue. Google I understand is very liberal in its licensing, Microsoft tends to be pretty restrictive.
All in all switching operating systems is not that easy, even if it doesn't really matter for the factory itself. So choosing which one to go for is a strategic decision that should not be taken lightly.
Of course. Four years ago - early 2007 - no-one would have predicted ANY market share for Android. After all this OS was revealed to the public only in November of that year.
The language part is just personal experience. I live in Hong Kong, and visit the mainland regularly.
Most people across the border speak 2-3 languages already, just not English as that's no use in daily life. In Guangdong for example most people speak the language of their home town when at home; Cantonese when visiting other areas; Mandarin at school etc. and with people from other provinces. Don't forget that mandarin (the official Chinese) is a second language for the vast majority of Chinese people. And with vast majority you have to think of >90%. I've seen statistics that just 5% of the Chinese is native mandarin speaking (defined as: language the person uses when talking to their parents). They all speak their local language first, and later learn mandarin in school. Even a leader like Mao Zedong was known to struggle with his mandarin.
I would argue: there isn't.
After all what is the value of a particular bit of research? You would say the invention of the transistor was very valuable, but what about the enormous amount of research that went on to get to this point? The discovery of semiconductors, for example. The manufacturing techniques to actually make those parts. A bit of research never comes on its own, and it's anyway hard to put a value on it.
The information coming out of the LHC for example one person would consider fantastic and very valuable as it tells us more about how matter is built up; others will argue it's useless as while interesting to know it's not something that goes into making a new product. At least not yet. The inventor of the semiconductor also never would have thought that it would make web sites like this one possible. You don't know what the quality of a scientific discovery is.
Back to quality of scientific output: the best way probably to measure it, is citations. The more a paper is cited by other papers, the more researchers think it's valuable information and good research.
However with Chinese papers in the mix I expect two problems: one is the "link farm" effect (they cite each other), the other is language: many Chinese don't master English well enough to order a cup of coffee, let alone to write even the summary of a research paper (this is personal experience - even with university students in Hong Kong where English is the medium of education!). A lot is published in Chinese and as such pretty much inaccessible to non-Chinese researchers. The rest of the world publishes in English, which in turn is largely inaccessible to Chinese students.
[...] progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.
Don't forget religious and cultural ideas.
For example astronomy is a subject that was held up for long time for religious/cultural reasons. For example, for very long astronomers tried anything to just be able to explain the movements of the planets on the assumption that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. They just wouldn't/couldn't accept the idea that the Sun is the centre of our solar system - let alone that even the Sun is not the centre of our universe.
Various cultures have various ideas on how the world is working, and this meta-ideas can very easily open or close certain doors to scientific advancement.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.
And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out - so there is a very strong incentive for copying work from others and add maybe a bit of your own just to push out yet another paper. It's normal for a PhD at a Chinese university to have a dozen or two papers on his name when graduating; against just a few for PhDs at European or American universities.
Cheating is considered a large problem within universities in China - not only universities but also other parts of the whole education system. I've read about doctors working in hospitals with bought certificates. Recently it was pilots flying commercial Chinese airliners without having actually passed the exams. It's a real problem - and arguably part of the problem is the lack of checks and balances. These pilot licenses should have been verified with the school that purportedly issued them, for example, yet airliners were too busy expanding that they didn't do this. I wouldn't be surprised if more bribes were involved in not having those licenses checked.
Quality of Chinese research in general is still low. They will surely pick up to the game sooner or later, and there are definitely very good Chinese researchers around. Just have a look at the top universities in the US: many of their top researchers nowadays are Chinese nationals. Oh and that they are working in the US and not in their home country is not just because.
At least when choosing a laptop with Linux pre-installed you're not spoilt for choice!
2. the wife does not like it.
Submitter is ambiguous there. It seems to me it's the OS-X part that's bugging her most. People tend to not distinguish hardware from software really: it's first of all a laptop, the package. Just like asking for "a Windows" laptop - no specific hardware requirements (keyboard layout, pointer type/behaviour).
I'm a hobbyist. And indeed not exactly rich.
I program for fun; have an app out on the market that's free, and not even ad supported. Even if it's tax deductible (I could of course book it on my company) that doesn't help much as on my income my tax liability just a few % of my income.
The rubbish in this situation was
a mix of discarded food, charcoal, shell tools, and broken pottery
While of course people do not likely live on top of their trash, lack of motorised transport means that trash likely wasn't moved far away. Especially charcoal which can be re-used as fuel. Broken pottery well from daily accidents. Shell tools just left behind. Discarded food smells and attracts predators so that one is something they would likely try to at least take to the perimeter of their settlement.
So indeed I think it's likely a combination: dryer patches where humans started to live, making the patches even dryer with their activities. And considering we're talking humans here, I wouldn't be surprised if those activities were intentional. Like bringing in rocks or soil, or even deliberately keeping their broken pottery as foundation, to make the area better to live on. Maybe they were involved in agriculture already? The article indeed mentions that in some cases there was clear evidence of trees and shrubs growing at that place before the arrival of the human settlers.
IIRC from previous discussions regarding this platform, is that the PS3 is particularly well suited for doing fourier transforms and related analyses - graphics cards were also very capable in filtering signals in the seti@home project. Sounds somewhat similar to me. Edge detection, for example. Filtering signals from the noise where the noise is almost as bad as the signal.
From those discussions I also recall that the PS3 is not considered strong in general purpose number crunching work; your run-of-the-mill Intel is doing much better across the board. It's these specific tasks where specialised units like the PS3 can shine. Them being marketed as gaming consoles of course helps in keeping volume up and cost down, making them almost disposable and at least easily replaceable in case of hardware failure.
At the time non of the major labels would have accepted non-DRM sales. Many of the smaller labels would also have required DRM. The non-DRM movement started only recently. While yes Real could have tried to pioneer non-DRM music, they would have been limited to unknown artists that were just desparate to become known, only to be abandoned by those same artists when they did become known and would start requiring DRM on their music. The time wasn't there yet.