Pick a certian book off your shelf.
Third word down (left hand, first word) on page 51.
Suppose the word is "broken". Capitalize first/last letter, and password is...
B51roke3N
All I have to remember is which book, page, how many words down. This is often easy, because you can remember what the page looks like, especially if you pick a page with pictures on it.
Or would that be Closed Open formats? I'm confused.
Let's leave "proprietary" and "free" out of it. Open usually means that you can use and build upon something. An "open" system. i.e. the IBM PC was open, while Mac was criticized for being "closed" (despite that you could get everything about the machine practically down to the schematics).
Open is a lot less confusing than "Free".
Closed is a lot less confusing than "Proprietary".
Microsoft Doublespeak(tm) at its best. In the great tradition of marketing doublesqueak.
New Free <stuff> for only a nominal fee.
New Used <stuff>!
Genuine Immitation <stuff>.
Re:No, no, they should BLOCK all BLOGS by default.
on
Google Cans Comment Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This new tag will not restrict blogs from comming up in search results. It only restricts the Spamvertised sites from search results, not the blog with the spam links.
This is seriously one of the dumbest lists I ever seen.
It is from Forbes. Shouldn't that tell you enough? This is the publication that, even as of August 2004, thinks that SCO has such a wonderful case. That alone should tell you something about Forbes credibility.
if you had a dual, would it be more efficient to have each processor run 50% of two OS'es or each CPU running one OS?
Each OS on both CPUs. If one OS was mostly idle, then the other OS could take advantage of both processors.
There might be real advantages to having one OS for "server" processes (www, dns, etc.) and another for desktop use. No reason to limit one OS to only using one processor.
iamnotacrook,
It was a post I originally wrote on Groklaw some time ago.
It was intended to be extremely funny. Apparently some people agree.
I'm sorry that you do not get the joke.
Personally I have found that if you use a double layer of tinfoil when fashioning your headwear that it more than doubles the effectiveness! This is due to a resonance effect between the two layers of tinfoil which resonates precisely at the frequency of the government's invisible brain lasers.
In addition, if you fashion two antennas on the top of your hat instead of the usual one, it increases the effectiveness by an additional 37 percent.
Fraud by downloading GPL software? Why would SCO post it if they were just going to claim fraud?
It is not Fraud because the software is GPL. It is Fraud because, as SCO has claimed in their recent court filing, IBM hacked into SCO's anonymous ftp server, in order to obtain the GPL software.
Even worse, evil IBM earlier admitted doing the dastardly deed.... In an earlier court declaration by an IBM employee, "I supervised while a member of my team..." logged into SCO's anonymous ftp server and downloaded the kernel sources, which include source code copyrighted by IBM, and which SCO is distributing in violation of the GPL.
It sounds like entrapment, or bait and switch, to me
I would be careful of making such libelous statements that could tarnish the valuable unblemished reputation of a paragon of virtue such as The SCO Group.
Don't forget to pay your $699 license fee to SCO for your Linux kernel which includes SCO's copyrighted <errno.h> file.
Isn't this the same news organization that has such wonderful writers as Daniel Lyons, and publishes glowing articles about what a wonderful case SCO has? Wern't they buying SCO's story even as of August 2004?
One design problem this would solve is how to power teeny tiny packet sniffers. Such packet sniffers would be smaller than a pack of cigarettes, and run Linux. They connect to an IRC at night waiting for a command to cough up any interesting passwords they sniffed during the day.
A purely hypothetical exercise, of course.
Until power over ethernet, one problem has always been how to you power these packet sniffers?
You can hide the sniffers in a suspended ceiling, sometimes, even inside the large wall jack junction box, or other places. Even insde of a switch or router. But they had to have a separate AC adapter aligator clipped onto or plugged into an outlet somewhere.
The sniffer acts like an ethernet-level bridge by day. Dutifully forwarding packets, and arps, etc. Therefore, hard to detect, only introducing some latency. It has no IP address, or even Mac address of its own.
By night, it pretends to be the Mac and IP address of some hapless PC that is "behind" it, but probably powered off. Even if the devide it masquerades as is not powered off, it can still forward packets that don't conflict with the port number it is using to talk to its master.
Now that the power issue may be solved, the only big issue left is the cost issue. These teeny tiny computers are still to pricy to deploy in large numbers.
Just goes to show you that not all profs lack social skills.
Profs like to lay their students.
Re: Obscure units? Bogus units?
on
Digital Packrats
·
· Score: 1
Instead of truckloads of paper, let's use a more suitable unit of measure. Beeeelions of dollars. (Raises pinky to lip.)
If each Briton stores 2000 files, that is 200 ripped off CD's, each worth $20, for a total of $4000 worth of music for each Briton. Multiply by the number of packrats, and we're talking Beeelions of dollars here! (raises pinky to lip) The British equivalent of the RIAA must be horrified.
All this money is being lost, preventing growth of the economy. If each Briton who had a portable digital device would spend that $4000 to buy their music, think of how much additional gross domestic product the British economy would have! (Nevermind where that $4000/person could come from, and where else that money would not have been spent. But remember RIAA new math "the equivalent of 400 CD burners".)
From TFA... "This is why vulnerabilities are so important," said Kaspersky. "We are against anyone who publishes vulnerabilities because it gives hackers a tool."
Wouldn't it be more important to be against anyone who creates vulnerabilities rather than those who inform us about them so we can patch or even shut off services if necessary?
Doesn't the law of diminishing returns have something to say about this?
Don't you mean the law of increasing profits? You yourself said "upgrade treadmill".
So all of the Star Wars, or LoTR fans who already have multiple redundant DVD's in different packaging formats, will all have to rush out and buy the New! Super! Duper! deluxe exclusive boxed Trilogy on Super-Wizbang-DVD disks that have slightly improved picture quality! And digitally re-re-re-mastered sound from the original analog recordings!
The longer digest is insignificant in this day of quarter Terabyte drives, Gigabyte memory, multi Gigahertz processors, etc. Suppose my concatenated digest were 8K bits wide! That is only 1K bytes. Trivial really. Something you could add as an extended attribute into the directory entry of every file on your system.
When exchanging P2P info about files, a very secure concatenated hash that fit into 1K bytes (and that is a long digest!) would still easily fit within a packet with a filename. Even better if the hash were say 1024 bits, and therefore only 128 Bytes.
In addition to the benefits that a more secure hash would give P2P applications against the RIAA; other applications of secondary importance would also benefit. Banking, commerce, digital signatures, digital certificates, password hashes in/etc/shadow files, etc.
You make a good point about multiple hashes being all very similar. If that is true, and I do not know this, then what you end up with is just a "wider" MD5.
I do not understand how combining any number of hashes could end up weaker than the strongest hash.
If I combine MD5 + weakHash1 + weakHash2, then the resulting hash is as strong as MD5. At a minimum I would have to expend the same effort to construct two files that are aliases under MD5, even if the cost were ZERO to get them to alias under weakHash1 and weakHash2 together. If weakHash1 and weakHash2 are any good at all, then the result is better than MD5 alone.
For instance, if weakHash1 were just CRC32, then you must find two files that alias under MD5, but in addition they must have the same CRC32.
Applied Cryptography, which I don't have with me at the moment, describes how to build a strong hash function out of a strong two-way cipher (such as AES or DES or the like). For instance, I could take strongTwoWayCrypto and make a strongHash function out of it. This hash function is not necessarily similar to MD5. Combining two hash functions cannot be worse than the strongest hash function, and is probably much better if the weakest hash function is any good at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Pick a certian book off your shelf.
Third word down (left hand, first word) on page 51.
Suppose the word is "broken". Capitalize first/last letter, and password is...
B51roke3N
All I have to remember is which book, page, how many words down. This is often easy, because you can remember what the page looks like, especially if you pick a page with pictures on it.
Now return the book back to your shelf.
OOo 2.0 is installed via either an RPM file or an MSI file.
You forgot about that, what was it called again.....
The Republic of Texas
A flood of e-mail notes will be ignored.
Microsoft has probably already sent someone a flood of notes. (green ones)
Or would that be Closed Open formats? I'm confused.
Let's leave "proprietary" and "free" out of it. Open usually means that you can use and build upon something. An "open" system. i.e. the IBM PC was open, while Mac was criticized for being "closed" (despite that you could get everything about the machine practically down to the schematics).
Open is a lot less confusing than "Free".
Closed is a lot less confusing than "Proprietary".
Microsoft Doublespeak(tm) at its best. In the great tradition of marketing doublesqueak.
New Free <stuff> for only a nominal fee.
New Used <stuff>!
Genuine Immitation <stuff>.
This new tag will not restrict blogs from comming up in search results. It only restricts the Spamvertised sites from search results, not the blog with the spam links.
This is seriously one of the dumbest lists I ever seen.
It is from Forbes. Shouldn't that tell you enough? This is the publication that, even as of August 2004, thinks that SCO has such a wonderful case. That alone should tell you something about Forbes credibility.
[China] have a much larger population and due to their current rate of progress many people will be getting computers.
I wonder what OS they will be running?
if you had a dual, would it be more efficient to have each processor run 50% of two OS'es or each CPU running one OS?
Each OS on both CPUs. If one OS was mostly idle, then the other OS could take advantage of both processors.
There might be real advantages to having one OS for "server" processes (www, dns, etc.) and another for desktop use. No reason to limit one OS to only using one processor.
iamnotacrook, It was a post I originally wrote on Groklaw some time ago. It was intended to be extremely funny. Apparently some people agree. I'm sorry that you do not get the joke.
Personally I have found that if you use a double layer of tinfoil when fashioning your headwear that it more than doubles the effectiveness! This is due to a resonance effect between the two layers of tinfoil which resonates precisely at the frequency of the government's invisible brain lasers.
In addition, if you fashion two antennas on the top of your hat instead of the usual one, it increases the effectiveness by an additional 37 percent.
(+5 Misinformative)
This sounds just completely insane.
Did you mean it sounds like typical SCO behavior? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Fraud by downloading GPL software? Why would SCO post it if they were just going to claim fraud?
It is not Fraud because the software is GPL. It is Fraud because, as SCO has claimed in their recent court filing, IBM hacked into SCO's anonymous ftp server, in order to obtain the GPL software.
Even worse, evil IBM earlier admitted doing the dastardly deed.... In an earlier court declaration by an IBM employee, "I supervised while a member of my team..." logged into SCO's anonymous ftp server and downloaded the kernel sources, which include source code copyrighted by IBM, and which SCO is distributing in violation of the GPL.
It sounds like entrapment, or bait and switch, to me
I would be careful of making such libelous statements that could tarnish the valuable unblemished reputation of a paragon of virtue such as The SCO Group.
Don't forget to pay your $699 license fee to SCO for your Linux kernel which includes SCO's copyrighted <errno.h> file.
Isn't this the same news organization that has such wonderful writers as Daniel Lyons, and publishes glowing articles about what a wonderful case SCO has? Wern't they buying SCO's story even as of August 2004?
I did the strip the telephone wire with my teeth once too. :-) You're not the only one.
One design problem this would solve is how to power teeny tiny packet sniffers. Such packet sniffers would be smaller than a pack of cigarettes, and run Linux. They connect to an IRC at night waiting for a command to cough up any interesting passwords they sniffed during the day.
A purely hypothetical exercise, of course.
Until power over ethernet, one problem has always been how to you power these packet sniffers?
You can hide the sniffers in a suspended ceiling, sometimes, even inside the large wall jack junction box, or other places. Even insde of a switch or router. But they had to have a separate AC adapter aligator clipped onto or plugged into an outlet somewhere.
The sniffer acts like an ethernet-level bridge by day. Dutifully forwarding packets, and arps, etc. Therefore, hard to detect, only introducing some latency. It has no IP address, or even Mac address of its own.
By night, it pretends to be the Mac and IP address of some hapless PC that is "behind" it, but probably powered off. Even if the devide it masquerades as is not powered off, it can still forward packets that don't conflict with the port number it is using to talk to its master.
Now that the power issue may be solved, the only big issue left is the cost issue. These teeny tiny computers are still to pricy to deploy in large numbers.
I can't find a post here that says how much money was spent to run this ad.
Just goes to show you that not all profs lack social skills.
Profs like to lay their students.
Instead of truckloads of paper, let's use a more suitable unit of measure. Beeeelions of dollars. (Raises pinky to lip.)
If each Briton stores 2000 files, that is 200 ripped off CD's, each worth $20, for a total of $4000 worth of music for each Briton. Multiply by the number of packrats, and we're talking Beeelions of dollars here! (raises pinky to lip) The British equivalent of the RIAA must be horrified.
All this money is being lost, preventing growth of the economy. If each Briton who had a portable digital device would spend that $4000 to buy their music, think of how much additional gross domestic product the British economy would have! (Nevermind where that $4000/person could come from, and where else that money would not have been spent. But remember RIAA new math "the equivalent of 400 CD burners".)
Did you pay sails tacks on that? Did you get a re-seat? Was it all just an op tickle illusion?
From TFA...
"This is why vulnerabilities are so important," said Kaspersky. "We are against anyone who publishes vulnerabilities because it gives hackers a tool."
Wouldn't it be more important to be against anyone who creates vulnerabilities rather than those who inform us about them so we can patch or even shut off services if necessary?
I don't see the average consumer wanting to buy into a new format so soon after upgrading an aging VHS collection to DVD.
Silly you. That is why they must be forced to "buy into" the new format. Key word being "buy" and profits.
Doesn't the law of diminishing returns have something to say about this?
Don't you mean the law of increasing profits? You yourself said "upgrade treadmill".
So all of the Star Wars, or LoTR fans who already have multiple redundant DVD's in different packaging formats, will all have to rush out and buy the New! Super! Duper! deluxe exclusive boxed Trilogy on Super-Wizbang-DVD disks that have slightly improved picture quality! And digitally re-re-re-mastered sound from the original analog recordings!
I did mean "concatenate" when I say "combine".
/etc/shadow files, etc.
The longer digest is insignificant in this day of quarter Terabyte drives, Gigabyte memory, multi Gigahertz processors, etc. Suppose my concatenated digest were 8K bits wide! That is only 1K bytes. Trivial really. Something you could add as an extended attribute into the directory entry of every file on your system.
When exchanging P2P info about files, a very secure concatenated hash that fit into 1K bytes (and that is a long digest!) would still easily fit within a packet with a filename. Even better if the hash were say 1024 bits, and therefore only 128 Bytes.
In addition to the benefits that a more secure hash would give P2P applications against the RIAA; other applications of secondary importance would also benefit. Banking, commerce, digital signatures, digital certificates, password hashes in
You make a good point about multiple hashes being all very similar. If that is true, and I do not know this, then what you end up with is just a "wider" MD5.
I do not understand how combining any number of hashes could end up weaker than the strongest hash.
If I combine MD5 + weakHash1 + weakHash2, then the resulting hash is as strong as MD5. At a minimum I would have to expend the same effort to construct two files that are aliases under MD5, even if the cost were ZERO to get them to alias under weakHash1 and weakHash2 together. If weakHash1 and weakHash2 are any good at all, then the result is better than MD5 alone.
For instance, if weakHash1 were just CRC32, then you must find two files that alias under MD5, but in addition they must have the same CRC32.
Applied Cryptography, which I don't have with me at the moment, describes how to build a strong hash function out of a strong two-way cipher (such as AES or DES or the like). For instance, I could take strongTwoWayCrypto and make a strongHash function out of it. This hash function is not necessarily similar to MD5. Combining two hash functions cannot be worse than the strongest hash function, and is probably much better if the weakest hash function is any good at all.