consider Russia's take on Sklyarov's eBook processor vs the US's take. one country thinks it protects the consumers rights to IP they paid for. another thinks it violates the producers rights over the same IP.
and now for something completely different:
forget IP laws! what about countries that don't respect IP headers? or TCP headers? I for one am sick and tired of the tcp urgent flag being ignored by rogue nation states!
if we treat them all identically? I mean, if Microsoft is the only entity legally entitled to microsoft.com, microsoft.co.uk, microsoft.ru, microsoft.biz and so on, then what's the point? I thought that multiple top level domains existed in order to create a larger namespace then we'd have without them. Hmm, I guess they really only exist to inflate the income of domain registrars.
I don't get your argument. It seems that since the Internet is global, and laws aren't, then there shouldn't be an international organization with this sort of power, since the copyright laws that are being enforced aren't globally applicable. No?
Well, it also has a lot to do with the fact that the publisher specified 8 points for the font size. I mean, who really wants to read a several page article in 8 point text? (though I do have to give them props for at least not using specifying the size in pixels, as so many others do.)
Turning off cascading style sheets in Netscape should proove to be an easy way to fix it.
Oops- when I said that relying on hardware for encryption is short sighted, I forgot to include "for consumer use". There are some times when hardware is ideal for encryption, such as when you have a gigabit of bandwidth between two buildings and you want to encrypt it. In such cases, dedicated hardware is the only way to go.
Come on, man. Nobody expects wireline ethernet hardware to come with strong encryption built into the hardware. Why do people insist on this for wireless? Because it's easier to tap? Not by much...
Relying on hardware for your encryption is short-sighted, since flaws in the crypto mean you need to buy new hardware. Plus, I want end-to-end encryption (think SSL, ssh, etc), not endpoint-to-accesspoint.
I just wish that 802.11b hardware came with NO encryption built in, that way people wouldn't suffer from the false sense of security that's been sold to them.
It gets worse. Even if you have a high-powered device like a laptop, the industry expects you to have both. You'll need Bluetooth to talk to your cell phone and PDA, and 802.11 to talk to your wireless lan. Forget that! Laptops are pricey enough as it is.
It gets worse. Even if you have a high-powered device like a desktop, the industry expects you to have both. You'll need a floppy disk drive to talk to share files with your coworkers, and a CD-ROM to install software from. Forget that! Desktops are pricey enough as it is.
Actually, randomness makes piss poor concealment. Any data encrypted by a decent algorithm looks random. And that makes it looks suspicious to the spooks ("Yup, he's sending another 10MB of "random" data to the anonymous remailer again.").
The whole point of steganography is to hide a message in innocuous data. The kind of data that people send most frequently, and is likely to go unnoticed. Stuff like digital photos, audio, etc.
Your average image has a fairly predicable amount of randomness in it. What he's done is basically found a statistical way to identify if an image has more randomness than you'd expect in a similar picture. Your random image would probably set off all kinds of alarm bells in his system.
In yesterday's Crypto-Gram, Bruce Schneier took the unexpected stance of also putting part of the Code Red blame on eEye. One particularly salient quote: "You can argue that eEye did the right thing by publicizing this vulnerability, but I personally am getting a little tired of them adding weapons to hackers' arsenals."
What's the world coming to when everyone's favorite security guru starts blaming the messenger, too?
Too much regulation or just stupid business decisions?
actually, they're shutting down due to being unable to compete with companies that don't face enough regulation and who are making smart business decisions. remember, what's good for the consumer is rarely what's good for the shareholder!
Stop being so paranoid. There are other broadband providers in the world.
Um, not for long. I'm watching Covad slowly die, which will take Speakeasy (my ISP) with it, leaving me with no choice but to use Verizon for DSL. So I'll be forced to switch from a nice SDSL connection with static IP addresses and freedom to do whatever the hell I want with it, to a crappy, filtered ADSL connection with all that associated DHCP and PPPoE nonsense.
what's wrong with the fact that some people have installed software that brings them to proper websites (i.e. Ford) when they mistakenly click on a link to the wrong site (i.e. Chevy)?
if people want to install that sort of crap, let them. it's silly to try to write laws that define what a web browser must do when presented with a URL.
If computers do get smarter than humans, wouldn't we be able to follow a set of rules to predict an outcome?
Yes. That set of rules would be exactly the program that is running on the smart computer. Probably no simpler set of rules would completely define it's behavior.
I believe that you are confusing 'deterministic' with 'predictable' and thinking that determinism makes prediction easy.
There are things that we cannot even imagine. One of them is the workings of our own brains.
Excuse me? I can imagine the workings of my own brain quite well, even though I can't (yet) understand them. There is no reason that we are incapable of understanding the workings of the human brain, and therefore I think it rather likely that we will understand the workings of the human brain eventually (assuming that humankind lasts long enough).
Every PC, PDA, cell phone, and dog collar will be running a Microsoft OS and accessing its data over.NET.
*cough*Mono*cough*
What happens when the.NET version of Code Red comes out? What then? All my data is wrapped up in.NET. Everything I do is on a server somewhere but the wireless.NET is too bottlenecked for me to get to it.
*cough*DotGNU*cough*
When are people going to get the hint that despite all their propoganda, Microsoft is not good for anyone.
People will only get the hint when compelling alternatives are produced.
...they call the owner of the companie's kid, who doesn't know anything at all about security, he manages to know a few simple things about computer hardware,
but not that a motherboard with an AGP1x does not work well with AGPPro cards
and that is relevant to system administration in general, or security specifically, how?
OK, so for english speakers the Programming Ruby book is the best one, but following that, you have to check out Ruby Garden (www.rubygarden.org) which hosts the RubyWiki.
Also, ruby has excellent support on the ruby-talk mailing list (see http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ml.html) where you can chat with matz (author of the ruby language), Dave Thomas (authoer of the first english-language Ruby book), and a host of experienced, friendly ruby developers.
Slashdot Mirror
ouch.
who's idea of IP do they have to respect?
consider Russia's take on Sklyarov's eBook processor vs the US's take. one country thinks it protects the consumers rights to IP they paid for. another thinks it violates the producers rights over the same IP.
and now for something completely different:
forget IP laws! what about countries that don't respect IP headers? or TCP headers? I for one am sick and tired of the tcp urgent flag being ignored by rogue nation states!
the comment was meant as a joke to evoke thoughts of "OS X", not to equate "stupid author" with "Mac user".
Nope, that was a made-for-TV-movie , whereas I believe the original poster was referring to the made-for-TV-documentary
if we treat them all identically? I mean, if Microsoft is the only entity legally entitled to microsoft.com, microsoft.co.uk, microsoft.ru, microsoft.biz and so on, then what's the point? I thought that multiple top level domains existed in order to create a larger namespace then we'd have without them. Hmm, I guess they really only exist to inflate the income of domain registrars.
I don't get your argument. It seems that since the Internet is global, and laws aren't, then there shouldn't be an international organization with this sort of power, since the copyright laws that are being enforced aren't globally applicable. No?
must be a Mac user.
Turning off cascading style sheets in Netscape should proove to be an easy way to fix it.
Jesus christ, people. It was called Triumph of the Nerds, OK? Triumph!
Um, just what kind of hardware do you think the human brain runs on?
Oops- when I said that relying on hardware for encryption is short sighted, I forgot to include "for consumer use". There are some times when hardware is ideal for encryption, such as when you have a gigabit of bandwidth between two buildings and you want to encrypt it. In such cases, dedicated hardware is the only way to go.
Relying on hardware for your encryption is short-sighted, since flaws in the crypto mean you need to buy new hardware. Plus, I want end-to-end encryption (think SSL, ssh, etc), not endpoint-to-accesspoint.
I just wish that 802.11b hardware came with NO encryption built in, that way people wouldn't suffer from the false sense of security that's been sold to them.
Actually, randomness makes piss poor concealment. Any data encrypted by a decent algorithm looks random. And that makes it looks suspicious to the spooks ("Yup, he's sending another 10MB of "random" data to the anonymous remailer again.").
The whole point of steganography is to hide a message in innocuous data. The kind of data that people send most frequently, and is likely to go unnoticed. Stuff like digital photos, audio, etc.
Your average image has a fairly predicable amount of randomness in it. What he's done is basically found a statistical way to identify if an image has more randomness than you'd expect in a similar picture. Your random image would probably set off all kinds of alarm bells in his system.
What's the world coming to when everyone's favorite security guru starts blaming the messenger, too?
actually, they're shutting down due to being unable to compete with companies that don't face enough regulation and who are making smart business decisions. remember, what's good for the consumer is rarely what's good for the shareholder!
Um, not for long. I'm watching Covad slowly die, which will take Speakeasy (my ISP) with it, leaving me with no choice but to use Verizon for DSL. So I'll be forced to switch from a nice SDSL connection with static IP addresses and freedom to do whatever the hell I want with it, to a crappy, filtered ADSL connection with all that associated DHCP and PPPoE nonsense.
what sort of legislation do you propose?
what's wrong with the fact that some people have installed software that brings them to proper websites (i.e. Ford) when they mistakenly click on a link to the wrong site (i.e. Chevy)?
if people want to install that sort of crap, let them. it's silly to try to write laws that define what a web browser must do when presented with a URL.
Yes. That set of rules would be exactly the program that is running on the smart computer. Probably no simpler set of rules would completely define it's behavior.
I believe that you are confusing 'deterministic' with 'predictable' and thinking that determinism makes prediction easy.
Excuse me? I can imagine the workings of my own brain quite well, even though I can't (yet) understand them. There is no reason that we are incapable of understanding the workings of the human brain, and therefore I think it rather likely that we will understand the workings of the human brain eventually (assuming that humankind lasts long enough).
*cough*Mono*cough*
*cough*DotGNU*cough*
People will only get the hint when compelling alternatives are produced.
and that is relevant to system administration in general, or security specifically, how?
(that was toungue in cheek: I know there are some beta releases of some pieces of .NET out there.)
I also want this over and done with, but only with the proper outcome.
For iteration:
sum = 0
[1, 2, 3].each { |x| sum += x }
For generic methods:
def waitAndDo(delay)
sleep delay
yield # calls the passed code block
end
waitAndDo(60) { puts "Hello" }
As closures:
def getCounter(increment)
sum = 0
return proc { sum += 1 }
end
c = counter(2)
c.call
And much, much more!
OK, so for english speakers the Programming Ruby book is the best one, but following that, you have to check out Ruby Garden (www.rubygarden.org) which hosts the RubyWiki.
Also, ruby has excellent support on the ruby-talk mailing list (see http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ml.html) where you can chat with matz (author of the ruby language), Dave Thomas (authoer of the first english-language Ruby book), and a host of experienced, friendly ruby developers.