The point being it'd take a huge amount of effort for your to protect your anonymity (flying to china, getting a leased line, etc...). You pretty much have to "opt-out" of releasing this (and so much other) information in the internet age.
That's kind of parallel to direct marketing, where it's now illegal for a vendor to say "Hey, since we have your credit card number already, what we're going to do is ship you this product and charge you for it if you don't return it to us in 10 days. If you do return it, we'll still recoup a 30% restocking fee."
Things like that have been tried in the past until they were explicitly outlawed. Why must an individual have to opt out of providing this information, rather than being asked to provide it. It makes a big difference, in my eyes...
And on to a slightly different subject. Has anyone figured out what the point of this ID is? Intel won't use it to track counterfeiters. You can't look up your own ID on intel's site to see what the speed of your chip is supposed to be. A unique ID doesn't aid e-commerce really. Instead it's the Random number generator... The ID just seems to have been rolled into that, where they say the ID aids e-commerce.
What I meant about being great for programmers would be better phrased as "for programming". In that, it facilitates programming because everyone can get their hands into the source code. But yes, it definetly seems to me to be extremely restrictive, in that you really don't have any control over your code once it's released. BSD allows you really, it seems, to do whatever you please, so long as you leave the prior copyright notices visible. If you want to distribute a modified work, you have to give credit to the people that originated it, but you don't need to release their source or your changes.
So far as the GPL goes... I think it still is really theoretical in nature. When/If someone violates it and is found to have done so and is required to pay penalties (monetary or otherwise), then it'll actually hold more weight. Until that time, it really seems like an idealism transcribed into a pseudo-software license.
You know, the device he built in WW2 that cracked enigma's encryption... Pretty much it was a mechanical computer... Built out of necessity, in a relatively short period of time. It did onething, but one thing good. That's got to be on the list somewhere, because if it weren't for that, we'd be living in a much darker world.
Linus, on of the top 10 hackers of all time? I'm sure my emailbox is going to get crammed for saying this, but Linux is only Unix, which was already invented, cheapened with free source.
Yes, it's a great OS.
Yeah, it's pretty cool that it made source code widely available to people.
But he didn't really create anything... Even the development model was already established before he did what he did.
With your Orwellian sig, I'd think you'd be more worried...
Say you plug said computer in, and sign up to an ISP. You probably need to pay via credit card, so there goes your complete anonymity. Then, though you'd have a different IP address everytime you dial in, if there were a function enabled in your browser to send the serial number back up stream, websites could collect a LOT of information on you, because they'ed all have the SN as a key to link it all back together.
It's not like you need so much to worry about Slashdot or anything. But companies like, my personal favorite, DoubleClick.net, who's ads appear across slews of websites, could learn for instance, what sites you like, what articles you read, when you sign on, when you sign off, etc...
Problem is, laws aren't in place that prevent the sharing of this information. Some information is protected, but other information isn't. And if one company abuses it's new found power, well then... I don't know about you, but i'd rather not have my complete psycholical profile stored in many computers across the internet.
Personally, I like the BSD license much more as compared to the GPL, but I'm not a programmer. You just need to make a decision of what is more important to you:
1 - Having thousands of people potentially debugging your code for you.
2 - Having complete control over the modification and distribution of your work.
I think that GPL is great for programmers, but I can't see how it can make great business sense, since it allows everyone in the world to potentially be your competitor with no cash or time outlay. Maybe Redhat will prove me wrong... Time will tell, I guess.
I'm sure we've gone over this many a time on Slashdot, but OTP (in my mind at least) is essentially useless when mentioned in a conversation concerning public key crypto. If i have to revert to physically handing a CD of padding material to everyone I wish to commincated with, then basically it's useless compared to what PK has been for many years.
And besides, "anything thats important to encrypt...". My thought says you shouldn't do it that way. Just encrypt everything so as not to have anything jump out as automatically being the "interesting" file....
The tools still need to exist (in Law Enforcement's eyes) in order to decode encrypted data upon issuance of a warrant. But just because those tools do or could exist does not mean that they will automatically be abused.
As more and more of the world goes digital (or whatever term you care to use), and especially as it pertains to "white collar" crime, pretty much all the evidence linked to a crime could end up being encrypted. For instances like that, there needs to be a means to access that data in relation to an investigation.
So long as you're not doing anything wrong, then there isn't any reason why anyone in a position to use such a machine would want to see what you've been reading or writing. If you are doing something wrong, then... tough luck, i guess.
Now don't get me wrong here. I value my privacy as much as everyone else. I just think that just because something can allow something to happen, doesn't automatically mean its going to be abused.
I completely agree with you here. By now we know that webservers are not the most secure of systems. We don't need it proved anymore. A simple email to the sysadmin would probably accomplish the same goal, if said goal were to notify people that their site's were insecure.
Aside from that, this is the White Houses website. It's not just Joe's Site About His Pet's.com. It's the whitehouse. The fine for spraypainting the side of a building in New York is probably much less than that for spraypainting the whitehouse. I know it's not the same, but an example needs to be made.
If someone does that, and expects that the FBI isn't going to be involved and that he's not going to be tracked down and therefore he won't face any consequences, well, this is Darwinism at it's finest.
Question: Just because a Quantum computer can (it seems, by this discussion) process all possible inputs and outputs at once, how does it know which output is the correct answer?
If the CPU is square shaped and fits into a socket on the motherboard, it's a K-6... If the CPU is in a big black box and plugs into a slot in the motherboard, that's an Athlon.
That's all assuming that they're AMD chips, but that's not too hard to verify.
Discovering radio waves from a galaxy hundreds of light years away that were inadvertently beamed this way is not going to have that great an effect on our society or world. Yes, it will be a triumphant discovery. But what are they saying? When were they sent? What did those creatures look like? Without answering those questions, the average citizen just won't care.
If on the otherhand the aliens show up on our doorstep, yes, everyone on the world will stop and take notice, and yes, it could have profound effects on our lives. But simply identifying radio frequencies that appear to be non-naturally occuring in a galaxy so far away that we don't stand a chance of us or our kids or our kids kids see what originated it, well, that'll end up being something that really only scientists and "geeks/nerds/fill in the blank" will care about.
Well, across the years, Microsoft has proven over and over they don't really care for their users so long as said users are *forced* to buy what Microsoft offers...
So the one time that they talk relatively sanely, do you expect me to just go "oh, okay"... No. Once there's a standard in place, that's when Microsoft will subvert it.
If it were any other company spearheading the adoption of an open instant messaging standard, I'd be all behind it. But it's Microsoft. They don't care for their users or the general community, only their bottom line. While that's good business practice (to make money), it doesn't make me want to trust and/or help them.
Imagine what the hub-bub would be if instead of AOL, MSN was the dominant ISP. Then this little company comes along and says "Hey we want open standards. AND we want to use your servers until those standards appear". How long do you think they would be in existance after that? MSFT would break them, buy them, or bankrupt them.
But this time, since they happen to be the underdog, they whine whine whine, and say they're the white knights riding in to save us from horrible AOL. Like I said earlier, if it were anyone but Microsoft, I might just believe them.
Look at SGI's contributions. Linus nixed a few and incorporated others. No offense intended to Linus, but I'd certainly trust SGI to have a lot more knowledge of what makes an OS scalable compared to Linus. That's their territory. It's not his fault though. Those machines cost $$$, so no developer is going to independantly purchase one just to develop a more scalable SMP kernel.
Fine. I get your point. Please don't take this as a personal attack of any sort, because it's not. It's just the way I happen to see things. Okay?
My question is this: Would you use or purchase cryptography software from somewhere that is even the slightest bit sloppy as to the phrasing of what their product does?
One of the entire points of the crypto is being a stickler for detail. Like making sure that the algorythm takes the same amount of time to run regardless of the inputs and outputs. Like making sure that the random number generator actually generates random numbers, rather than just numbers that appear to the eye to be random.
With so many places available to get VPN software, why would one wish to use a product which was developed by people that can't even describe the process correctly. It's not that hard, you know...
Extending that, whose advice would you want to take on such subjects? Not mine. But I'm not offering any, either... I'm just pointing out a fault I saw.
That's all...
Moderators, bring it on... I've got the karma to burn
What's the current situation? Does the quake package contain all the binaries, but the sales just get reported as being for "Windows"?
That's what happened a few years back with other Mac software... We'd have to buy the cross-platform version only to find our purchases were reported as being Windows sales and the publishers would pull back Mac support because of cited "lack of interest"..
How did that become insightful? No offense... But if someone made something called stop dot com with a yellow traffic light and a big red circle, that would probably be a violation, or dilution, or something, seeing that they're in the same market.
Disney was quite worse though... Their's endless variations of the word go... but they had to choose a traffic light??? Sorry if i sounded like Steve Jobs there, but honestly... Let's see, an arrow for starters. A zooming word go. I'm sure i could figure out 50 more in the next hour if i wanted to.
"If you accessed this page for root CA certificate rollover instructions prior to October 25, 1999, send an e-mail to our Root Rollover Specialist at CA-rollover@verisign.com or call 650-429-3400 for more information and instructions."
It is after October 25th, so maybe that means something. Besides, it doesn't cost anything to email them and ask what their take on things is...
Granted, gigabit ethernet isn't exactly common, but 5 T-1's is not the be all end-all in terms of high bandwidth. A busy intranet could theoretically bog down one a linux box sooner than a NT box. Supposing you had a help system, which wouldn't require much dynamically generated pages, there you go.
A real world application that this test could apply to.
Even in the worstest case of scenarios and Bob Young did get kicked aside by "by more ruthless, agressive executives, to help appease the shareholder's thirst for blood & money", such is the life of being a publicly traded company.
If Redhat had decided that they were going to be more idealist rather than materialist, then they wouldn't have had their multi-billion dollar IPO. You really can't have your cake and eat it too.
So long as Linux is Linux, why would anyone really care about Redhat that much. As long as their delivering a good product they'll do good. If they start slipping (or slip even more as the word sometimes seems to be around here) there's no difficulty in taking your business elsewhere...
What is the point of comparing the speed of Apache which is a MultiTASK server with IIS which is a MultiTHREAD server?
Because they're comparing the performance of various webservers. Each implements it's functionality differently, but the end result in both cases is a client (browser) requests a page from the server. The server then sends that page to the client.
Whatever the server does during that makes no difference (to me, at least) so long as it gives the right page back to the client in a reasonable timeframe.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being it'd take a huge amount of effort for your to protect your anonymity (flying to china, getting a leased line, etc...). You pretty much have to "opt-out" of releasing this (and so much other) information in the internet age.
That's kind of parallel to direct marketing, where it's now illegal for a vendor to say "Hey, since we have your credit card number already, what we're going to do is ship you this product and charge you for it if you don't return it to us in 10 days. If you do return it, we'll still recoup a 30% restocking fee."
Things like that have been tried in the past until they were explicitly outlawed. Why must an individual have to opt out of providing this information, rather than being asked to provide it. It makes a big difference, in my eyes...
And on to a slightly different subject. Has anyone figured out what the point of this ID is? Intel won't use it to track counterfeiters. You can't look up your own ID on intel's site to see what the speed of your chip is supposed to be. A unique ID doesn't aid e-commerce really. Instead it's the Random number generator... The ID just seems to have been rolled into that, where they say the ID aids e-commerce.
CPU's worked fine before they put ID's in there
What I meant about being great for programmers would be better phrased as "for programming". In that, it facilitates programming because everyone can get their hands into the source code. But yes, it definetly seems to me to be extremely restrictive, in that you really don't have any control over your code once it's released. BSD allows you really, it seems, to do whatever you please, so long as you leave the prior copyright notices visible. If you want to distribute a modified work, you have to give credit to the people that originated it, but you don't need to release their source or your changes.
So far as the GPL goes... I think it still is really theoretical in nature. When/If someone violates it and is found to have done so and is required to pay penalties (monetary or otherwise), then it'll actually hold more weight. Until that time, it really seems like an idealism transcribed into a pseudo-software license.
You know, the device he built in WW2 that cracked enigma's encryption... Pretty much it was a mechanical computer... Built out of necessity, in a relatively short period of time. It did onething, but one thing good. That's got to be on the list somewhere, because if it weren't for that, we'd be living in a much darker world.
Linus, on of the top 10 hackers of all time? I'm sure my emailbox is going to get crammed for saying this, but Linux is only Unix, which was already invented, cheapened with free source.
Yes, it's a great OS.
Yeah, it's pretty cool that it made source code widely available to people.
But he didn't really create anything... Even the development model was already established before he did what he did.
With your Orwellian sig, I'd think you'd be more worried...
Say you plug said computer in, and sign up to an ISP. You probably need to pay via credit card, so there goes your complete anonymity. Then, though you'd have a different IP address everytime you dial in, if there were a function enabled in your browser to send the serial number back up stream, websites could collect a LOT of information on you, because they'ed all have the SN as a key to link it all back together.
It's not like you need so much to worry about Slashdot or anything. But companies like, my personal favorite, DoubleClick.net, who's ads appear across slews of websites, could learn for instance, what sites you like, what articles you read, when you sign on, when you sign off, etc...
Problem is, laws aren't in place that prevent the sharing of this information. Some information is protected, but other information isn't. And if one company abuses it's new found power, well then... I don't know about you, but i'd rather not have my complete psycholical profile stored in many computers across the internet.
Personally, I like the BSD license much more as compared to the GPL, but I'm not a programmer. You just need to make a decision of what is more important to you:
1 - Having thousands of people potentially debugging your code for you.
2 - Having complete control over the modification and distribution of your work.
I think that GPL is great for programmers, but I can't see how it can make great business sense, since it allows everyone in the world to potentially be your competitor with no cash or time outlay. Maybe Redhat will prove me wrong... Time will tell, I guess.
I'm sure we've gone over this many a time on Slashdot, but OTP (in my mind at least) is essentially useless when mentioned in a conversation concerning public key crypto. If i have to revert to physically handing a CD of padding material to everyone I wish to commincated with, then basically it's useless compared to what PK has been for many years.
And besides, "anything thats important to encrypt...". My thought says you shouldn't do it that way. Just encrypt everything so as not to have anything jump out as automatically being the "interesting" file....
Just to play devil's advocate for a second....
The tools still need to exist (in Law Enforcement's eyes) in order to decode encrypted data upon issuance of a warrant. But just because those tools do or could exist does not mean that they will automatically be abused.
As more and more of the world goes digital (or whatever term you care to use), and especially as it pertains to "white collar" crime, pretty much all the evidence linked to a crime could end up being encrypted. For instances like that, there needs to be a means to access that data in relation to an investigation.
So long as you're not doing anything wrong, then there isn't any reason why anyone in a position to use such a machine would want to see what you've been reading or writing. If you are doing something wrong, then... tough luck, i guess.
Now don't get me wrong here. I value my privacy as much as everyone else. I just think that just because something can allow something to happen, doesn't automatically mean its going to be abused.
I completely agree with you here. By now we know that webservers are not the most secure of systems. We don't need it proved anymore. A simple email to the sysadmin would probably accomplish the same goal, if said goal were to notify people that their site's were insecure.
Aside from that, this is the White Houses website. It's not just Joe's Site About His Pet's.com. It's the whitehouse. The fine for spraypainting the side of a building in New York is probably much less than that for spraypainting the whitehouse. I know it's not the same, but an example needs to be made.
If someone does that, and expects that the FBI isn't going to be involved and that he's not going to be tracked down and therefore he won't face any consequences, well, this is Darwinism at it's finest.
Question: Just because a Quantum computer can (it seems, by this discussion) process all possible inputs and outputs at once, how does it know which output is the correct answer?
That's easy enough.
If the CPU is square shaped and fits into a socket on the motherboard, it's a K-6... If the CPU is in a big black box and plugs into a slot in the motherboard, that's an Athlon.
That's all assuming that they're AMD chips, but that's not too hard to verify.
Discovering radio waves from a galaxy hundreds of light years away that were inadvertently beamed this way is not going to have that great an effect on our society or world. Yes, it will be a triumphant discovery. But what are they saying? When were they sent? What did those creatures look like? Without answering those questions, the average citizen just won't care.
If on the otherhand the aliens show up on our doorstep, yes, everyone on the world will stop and take notice, and yes, it could have profound effects on our lives. But simply identifying radio frequencies that appear to be non-naturally occuring in a galaxy so far away that we don't stand a chance of us or our kids or our kids kids see what originated it, well, that'll end up being something that really only scientists and "geeks/nerds/fill in the blank" will care about.
1 - Who's "us"? Your profile says your a Microsoftie... Of course it helps "us" when "us" is Microsoft...
2 - The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
Well, across the years, Microsoft has proven over and over they don't really care for their users so long as said users are *forced* to buy what Microsoft offers...
So the one time that they talk relatively sanely, do you expect me to just go "oh, okay"... No. Once there's a standard in place, that's when Microsoft will subvert it.
If it were any other company spearheading the adoption of an open instant messaging standard, I'd be all behind it. But it's Microsoft. They don't care for their users or the general community, only their bottom line. While that's good business practice (to make money), it doesn't make me want to trust and/or help them.
Imagine what the hub-bub would be if instead of AOL, MSN was the dominant ISP. Then this little company comes along and says "Hey we want open standards. AND we want to use your servers until those standards appear". How long do you think they would be in existance after that? MSFT would break them, buy them, or bankrupt them.
But this time, since they happen to be the underdog, they whine whine whine, and say they're the white knights riding in to save us from horrible AOL. Like I said earlier, if it were anyone but Microsoft, I might just believe them.
Look at SGI's contributions. Linus nixed a few and incorporated others. No offense intended to Linus, but I'd certainly trust SGI to have a lot more knowledge of what makes an OS scalable compared to Linus. That's their territory. It's not his fault though. Those machines cost $$$, so no developer is going to independantly purchase one just to develop a more scalable SMP kernel.
Fine. I get your point. Please don't take this as a personal attack of any sort, because it's not. It's just the way I happen to see things. Okay?
My question is this: Would you use or purchase cryptography software from somewhere that is even the slightest bit sloppy as to the phrasing of what their product does?
One of the entire points of the crypto is being a stickler for detail. Like making sure that the algorythm takes the same amount of time to run regardless of the inputs and outputs. Like making sure that the random number generator actually generates random numbers, rather than just numbers that appear to the eye to be random.
With so many places available to get VPN software, why would one wish to use a product which was developed by people that can't even describe the process correctly. It's not that hard, you know...
Extending that, whose advice would you want to take on such subjects? Not mine. But I'm not offering any, either... I'm just pointing out a fault I saw.
That's all...
Moderators, bring it on... I've got the karma to burn
You said to use RSA to exchange a 2048 byte key which would be used as the key for the symmetric cypher. Not me.
My grammar may not be the greatest today, but I don't say I'm working on crypto software and then mess up on the technical terms either.
What's the current situation? Does the quake package contain all the binaries, but the sales just get reported as being for "Windows"?
That's what happened a few years back with other Mac software... We'd have to buy the cross-platform version only to find our purchases were reported as being Windows sales and the publishers would pull back Mac support because of cited "lack of interest"..
How did that become insightful? No offense... But if someone made something called stop dot com with a yellow traffic light and a big red circle, that would probably be a violation, or dilution, or something, seeing that they're in the same market.
Disney was quite worse though... Their's endless variations of the word go... but they had to choose a traffic light??? Sorry if i sounded like Steve Jobs there, but honestly... Let's see, an arrow for starters. A zooming word go. I'm sure i could figure out 50 more in the next hour if i wanted to.
It also says:
"If you accessed this page for root CA certificate rollover instructions prior to October 25, 1999, send an e-mail to our Root Rollover Specialist at CA-rollover@verisign.com or call 650-429-3400 for more information and instructions."
It is after October 25th, so maybe that means something. Besides, it doesn't cost anything to email them and ask what their take on things is...
Go here: https://www.verisign.co m/server/cus/rootcert/webmaster.html which describes what's happening.
Then go here: http://verisign.netscape.com/securi ty/rootcert/" and download a new browser.
It used to be that you could just download the certificates that you needed, but the URL i had for that is now dead...
Gee, what's faster than a T-1?
T-3
OC-45 (?)
10 base T
100 base T
1000 base T
Granted, gigabit ethernet isn't exactly common, but 5 T-1's is not the be all end-all in terms of high bandwidth. A busy intranet could theoretically bog down one a linux box sooner than a NT box. Supposing you had a help system, which wouldn't require much dynamically generated pages, there you go.
A real world application that this test could apply to.
Even in the worstest case of scenarios and Bob Young did get kicked aside by "by more ruthless, agressive executives, to help appease the shareholder's thirst for blood & money", such is the life of being a publicly traded company.
If Redhat had decided that they were going to be more idealist rather than materialist, then they wouldn't have had their multi-billion dollar IPO. You really can't have your cake and eat it too.
So long as Linux is Linux, why would anyone really care about Redhat that much. As long as their delivering a good product they'll do good. If they start slipping (or slip even more as the word sometimes seems to be around here) there's no difficulty in taking your business elsewhere...
What is the point of comparing the speed of Apache which is a MultiTASK server with IIS which is a MultiTHREAD server?
Because they're comparing the performance of various webservers. Each implements it's functionality differently, but the end result in both cases is a client (browser) requests a page from the server. The server then sends that page to the client.
Whatever the server does during that makes no difference (to me, at least) so long as it gives the right page back to the client in a reasonable timeframe.