It depends. If I bought a lock that was advertised as safe and the kids picked it with a paper clip then I may very well sue the company responsible for that advertisement. I think software is no different. You have to look at what was promised and what was delivered. The sophistication of the hack - actually the hole - also matters in determining if there was negligence. If the kids used a backdoor program that the devs forgot to take out or if the devs forgot to do something as simple as defending against sql injection then I would call that negligent (if the product was advertised as secure that is).
While all orders must be lawful to be followed, there are not provisions for someone to say "Well it was a lawful order, but I thought it wasn't best for the American people."
Your argument that all lawful orders must be followed was the defense of Nazi officers in Nuremberg and the Allies (including the US) did not accept that defense. They responded that some orders should not have been followed because they were unethical. I'm not saying that keeping information secret is the equivalent as helping execute genocide but my point is that it has been established that a soldier should *not* follow orders if the order is unethical. Whether he can convince military tribunal that not leaking the information would have been unethical is another story.
Is it possible that the recidivism rate is lower *because* we treat them differently? Isn't that the entire point of programs like these - to lower the recidivism rate?
Sudoku is an np-c problem (actually the hitting set problem or graph coloring problem), so it's "hard" by definition. It may be easy to brute force a small grid but the problem gets exponentially more difficult as you increase the grid size and brute-force quickly becomes extremely slow.
He may be talking about obsolescence as opposed to durability. Back in the 90s a lot of people were upgrading their computers once a year because most new software required a relatively recent hardware to run well whereas now you can often get by with 5 year old pc. Every new computer I've gotten lasted longer than the previous one.
That's assuming that the brute force attack is done locally as opposed to sending login requests to the server - in which case the server, not the attacker, would use 1000x processing power.
The only way an attacker can brute force a hash locally is if they know the salt (i.e. the system has already been compromised) or if there is no salt, in which case just salting your hashes is much more efficient than double hashing them.
(hashed a number of times to slow down brute forcing)
Hashing a password multiple times does absolutely *nothing* to slow down brute forcing. Each brute force attempt still has a 1/2^n chance of succeeding.
who actually make popular, profitable and tangible products
A lot of people seem to have hang ups about FB not producing anything tangible but traditional media corporations such as Viacom don't produce anything tangible either and their business model has done just fine. Think of FB as a media corporation that has a global audience and the ability to display targeted ads. If Viacom is worth 25 billion then I don't find it so unreasonable to value FB twice as much.
What taxpayer money? They repaid their bailout (as have most financial institutions) a long time ago with interest.
I remember when the TARP was being discussed a lot of people would discuss what $700 billion could buy. Oh think about the number of schools, teachers, policemen firemen, or homeless people this money could go to. What those people failed to realize is that TARP was a loan, 90% of which has been repaid with interest.
Remember the good ol' days when "investing" actually meant "putting money in one basket to build a bigger company, to produce better products cheaper, to create more jobs"?
FB intends to use this money to hire more developers and build out their infrastructure. How does this not fall under "creating jobs" or "building a bigger company" or "building a better product"?
"...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
But that's only if you provide an offer instead of a copy of the source. If you accompany each binary with a source then your obligation ends there (gpl 3 6a, gpl 2 3a).
it's irrelevant whether the company has the resources to provide the source to everyone
gpl 2 specifically allows to charge to recover resources used in providing the source. gpl 3 has a similar provision but only if the source is distributed on physical media.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: If a customer downloads a firmware image from my site, then yes, I'm obliged to provide the source to that customer. But my obligation is only to provide the source to those who get the binaries directly from me. If the customer turns around and gives you a copy of the firmware then *they* must provide you with the source - not me.
You're right. In case someone thinks that police recordings are sufficient, here's a recent example that demonstrates why they're not. Two months ago 3 Dallas PD officers were caught beating a motorcyclist (who was not resisting) on camera and guess what one of the officers decided to do when he realized this was being recorded? He moved the camera to conceal the beating.
What if the situation were reversed, and American leaders were lying to the American public in order to have good relations (i.e. getting millions of dollars in bribes) with foreign leaders that the American people despised. Would you be singing the same tune, or would you be thanking Wikileaks for bringing to light the fact that your leaders were actually corrupt, and NOT the people you thought you elected?
Then I would be upset at American leaders and I would be thankful to wikileaks for exposing that information. I would also be skeptical of the leak because the source of the leak would be the country that I despised.
Here's a question for you: If what Wikileaks has exposed results in the people in certain countries overthrowing their corrupt leaders and electing people that reflect their beliefs and values, how is that a bad thing?
Pretty sure I never argued that was a bid thing. I only wrote that the parent's argument that the US needed to be exposed was false. Your claim is that mideast leaders needed to be exposed and I actually agree with that but I don't believe that's the duty of a foreign country. I'll even go as far as saying that it's ethical for a country NOT to interfere in the politics of another country whether through war or propaganda (these cables were all written from the US point of view, so they make the US look favorable) so exposing corruption is good but that process needs to happen domestically because people have a right to self-determination.
Or is it only bad if it happens in a countries that don't share your beliefs and values?
It's only bad if it happens by foreign interference. Documents written by US officials should not determine the future of another country's government.
It's not about the stains. It's about the exposing. I didn't read anything in wikileaks about secret unethical US government activity. What I did read was that many mideast leaders lie to their public about relations with the US, Israel and Iran. They lie because having good relations with the US is not popular with their people. This is why secrecy is needed. Not because any stains got exposed but because we're in the unfortunate situation where foreign leaders feel the need to lie or at least be discreet about having good relations with us. It's possible that something like wikileaks would cause current leaders to be replaced by unfriendly leaders.
I understand that some believe in openness and honesty at any 'cost' and that's a legitimate argument. But your argument is that it needed to happen because something dirty needed to be exposed and that's not true.
What about when the power is out? How do you get the number to call hot food service X? or gym Y across town to see if they have power and hot showers? What if it's an extended outage and you are calling to see if grocery store Z is open (with or without power) to replenish your staples (food not brads)?
Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server
Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends. If I bought a lock that was advertised as safe and the kids picked it with a paper clip then I may very well sue the company responsible for that advertisement. I think software is no different. You have to look at what was promised and what was delivered. The sophistication of the hack - actually the hole - also matters in determining if there was negligence. If the kids used a backdoor program that the devs forgot to take out or if the devs forgot to do something as simple as defending against sql injection then I would call that negligent (if the product was advertised as secure that is).
While all orders must be lawful to be followed, there are not provisions for someone to say "Well it was a lawful order, but I thought it wasn't best for the American people."
Your argument that all lawful orders must be followed was the defense of Nazi officers in Nuremberg and the Allies (including the US) did not accept that defense. They responded that some orders should not have been followed because they were unethical. I'm not saying that keeping information secret is the equivalent as helping execute genocide but my point is that it has been established that a soldier should *not* follow orders if the order is unethical. Whether he can convince military tribunal that not leaking the information would have been unethical is another story.
Is it possible that the recidivism rate is lower *because* we treat them differently? Isn't that the entire point of programs like these - to lower the recidivism rate?
Sudoku is an np-c problem (actually the hitting set problem or graph coloring problem), so it's "hard" by definition. It may be easy to brute force a small grid but the problem gets exponentially more difficult as you increase the grid size and brute-force quickly becomes extremely slow.
He may be talking about obsolescence as opposed to durability. Back in the 90s a lot of people were upgrading their computers once a year because most new software required a relatively recent hardware to run well whereas now you can often get by with 5 year old pc. Every new computer I've gotten lasted longer than the previous one.
That's assuming that the brute force attack is done locally as opposed to sending login requests to the server - in which case the server, not the attacker, would use 1000x processing power.
The only way an attacker can brute force a hash locally is if they know the salt (i.e. the system has already been compromised) or if there is no salt, in which case just salting your hashes is much more efficient than double hashing them.
(hashed a number of times to slow down brute forcing)
Hashing a password multiple times does absolutely *nothing* to slow down brute forcing. Each brute force attempt still has a 1/2^n chance of succeeding.
who actually make popular, profitable and tangible products
A lot of people seem to have hang ups about FB not producing anything tangible but traditional media corporations such as Viacom don't produce anything tangible either and their business model has done just fine. Think of FB as a media corporation that has a global audience and the ability to display targeted ads. If Viacom is worth 25 billion then I don't find it so unreasonable to value FB twice as much.
What taxpayer money? They repaid their bailout (as have most financial institutions) a long time ago with interest.
I remember when the TARP was being discussed a lot of people would discuss what $700 billion could buy. Oh think about the number of schools, teachers, policemen firemen, or homeless people this money could go to. What those people failed to realize is that TARP was a loan, 90% of which has been repaid with interest.
Remember the good ol' days when "investing" actually meant "putting money in one basket to build a bigger company, to produce better products cheaper, to create more jobs"?
FB intends to use this money to hire more developers and build out their infrastructure. How does this not fall under "creating jobs" or "building a bigger company" or "building a better product"?
Maybe a lot of articles will suddenly become related to products. Pass
"...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
But that's only if you provide an offer instead of a copy of the source. If you accompany each binary with a source then your obligation ends there (gpl 3 6a, gpl 2 3a).
it's irrelevant whether the company has the resources to provide the source to everyone
gpl 2 specifically allows to charge to recover resources used in providing the source. gpl 3 has a similar provision but only if the source is distributed on physical media.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: If a customer downloads a firmware image from my site, then yes, I'm obliged to provide the source to that customer. But my obligation is only to provide the source to those who get the binaries directly from me. If the customer turns around and gives you a copy of the firmware then *they* must provide you with the source - not me.
why don't you md5 some of your guesses to see if the hash matches? this assumes they didn't salt the md5 hashes
If you don't mind could you please share more about your setup and what your user experience is compared to any other x86 systems you have? Thanks
We need -both-.
You're right. In case someone thinks that police recordings are sufficient, here's a recent example that demonstrates why they're not. Two months ago 3 Dallas PD officers were caught beating a motorcyclist (who was not resisting) on camera and guess what one of the officers decided to do when he realized this was being recorded? He moved the camera to conceal the beating.
Dallas Police Charge 3 Officers In Alleged Beating
video
What if the situation were reversed, and American leaders were lying to the American public in order to have good relations (i.e. getting millions of dollars in bribes) with foreign leaders that the American people despised. Would you be singing the same tune, or would you be thanking Wikileaks for bringing to light the fact that your leaders were actually corrupt, and NOT the people you thought you elected?
Then I would be upset at American leaders and I would be thankful to wikileaks for exposing that information. I would also be skeptical of the leak because the source of the leak would be the country that I despised.
Here's a question for you: If what Wikileaks has exposed results in the people in certain countries overthrowing their corrupt leaders and electing people that reflect their beliefs and values, how is that a bad thing?
Pretty sure I never argued that was a bid thing. I only wrote that the parent's argument that the US needed to be exposed was false. Your claim is that mideast leaders needed to be exposed and I actually agree with that but I don't believe that's the duty of a foreign country. I'll even go as far as saying that it's ethical for a country NOT to interfere in the politics of another country whether through war or propaganda (these cables were all written from the US point of view, so they make the US look favorable) so exposing corruption is good but that process needs to happen domestically because people have a right to self-determination.
Or is it only bad if it happens in a countries that don't share your beliefs and values?
It's only bad if it happens by foreign interference. Documents written by US officials should not determine the future of another country's government.
Wow slashdot is turning into a tabloid. First idle now this. I guess you can't blame them. Tabloids are what people want.
I understand that some believe in openness and honesty at any 'cost' and that's a legitimate argument. But your argument is that it needed to happen because something dirty needed to be exposed and that's not true.
I suspect that the purpose of the interpol warrant is to get him in custody so the US government can charge him with espionage.
How about The North Face? They've been around since the 60s ...
I like this idea. espn3.com already does this
What about when the power is out? How do you get the number to call hot food service X? or gym Y across town to see if they have power and hot showers? What if it's an extended outage and you are calling to see if grocery store Z is open (with or without power) to replenish your staples (food not brads)?
1-800-GOOG-411
Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server
Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.
One of the few levelheaded responses I've read/heard about the economic meltdowns in the past few years.