The difference of course being that not being able to crack Diffie-Hellman relies on the difficulty of calculating something, but cracking it is definitely computable, while in a quantum crypto cracking it even given infinite time is physically impossible, if you use the generated key data as a one time pad. To me that difference seems in a sense quite significant, but then I'm a theoretical computer scientist:-)
Yes, but the US has done much less than other countries that push for the change.
Why do you think the Chinese would be willing to give away from what little they have when you in the US bath in material wealth and are unwilling to give even a little of your excess?
So everybody can circumvent CSS NOW, but back in 99, when it was difficult, it was still illegal...
Ah, but you make a mistake of reading too much into the ruling. Other poins were argued in the trial (yes, I was there), but the court did not rule on them. This definitely does not mean it has said it would have been illegal in 1999, the court just didn't need to consider that.
Well, it's a victory in this war in any case. We can't get everything from one case. While freedom of speech issues and such were argued in the court (I was there listening), the court didn't need to consider them because the case could be dismissed on the grounds that the protection is not effective. It raises the bar of effectiveness from what the drm mafia claims it is. Other aspects of the law might be considered in future cases.
You are right. They should call it something else if it doesn't compromise the entire system. That makes it a relatively isolated incident securitywise (not that it wouldn't be serious if they have compromised all your passwords, which I hope are different from your administrator password, bank account logins and credit card numbers).
Well, you had better, because if you don't, you'll have go through the same again. Many people learn from their mistakes, fortunately. Reasonable security even on Windows is not that hard, if you take the steps before the compromise.
In theory, yes, you can do that. In reality though in any reasonable system quite a number of configuration files have been modified, and the users have stuff in their home directories that does not directly come from any installation CD that could be used for at least a user-level exploit (which makes a root exploit dramatically easier). In such a system it is generally quite a bit less work actually to do a reinstall and reconfiguration than combing all the files with the kind of comb you need to catch all things evil. It's like trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack, except that the needles have been deliberately hidden and you don't know how many there are – and if you miss one, you lose.
People in the Windows world seem to ignore this until it becomes painfully obvious to them, but the only guaranteed solution, and the only solution real experts would offer (which I'm really glad is understood in the Unix world!) to you if it were of any importance that the malware be completely eradicated from your computer, to an administrator or system level compromise is a full reinstall or restore from backups before the compromise. Anything less than that and there is a way the malware can evade.
I know it's painful. But it's the only way. Admin or system level compromise is not a routine matter, no matter how much some people like to portray it as such.
While I consider the 1-click shopping patent ridiculous and the USPTO way out of control, I believe this is (well, roughly) how it should work. It's a legal struggle (of a sort), both sides need to present their legal arguments, and Amazon would be incredibly stupid to not do so. Of course it's not balanced when the big corporations have the best lawyers and even the small players contesting the patent need to spend lots of money, but that's another issue (and tells generally about the broken American legal system, not about specifically the patent system).
Malware is not annoying. It's downright hostile. Once untrusted code has run as administrator/root/system/whatever on your computer, it's the end of the game. You need to reinstall and never trust the compromised data again, as any competent security expert will tell you. Only the anti-malware corporations, unsurprisingly, tell you otherwise.
Maybe around 1 hour after the installation of Debian (which includes things like smtp configuration and stuff and might take a couple of hours with all the stuff I want to install). This does not include possible server things I might want to configure, like Apache (my home computer is both my desktop and my server, and I like it that way). Some stuff I do:
1. start KDE 2. change font sizes and fonts to something actually readable (like Bitstream Vera Sans/Mono 12) 3. change the icon size of the panel to bigger 4. disable stupid eye candy like fake transparencies and window open/close effects that I feel just slow me down 5. go through the KDE settings configuring things like
- my email address
- change the background to a solid color
- set KDE to have 8 virtual desktops
- set ctrl-arrows to change virtual desktops
- make icons bigger by default 6. open Konsole, set white on black, no menu bar, no tab bar, save settings 7. assign key bindings to opening Konsole, KOrganizer and Konqueror 8. copy my mutt configuration from some other computer (it might take some time to recreate it if I had to)
I'm glad the US government decided to answer themselves the very short-sighted people who are almost in the majority in every ICANN-shouldn't-be-controlled-by-the-US article who ask something like "Who would you trust more to control the Internet, the US government or a body where countries with poor human rights record have a say".
What makes you believe the US has the capability of becoming the tech king again after the next Sputnik? What's so much fundamentally better in how you do things in the US? The traditionally less developed countries are becoming more and more developed, and big wars that have destroyed the economies of the participating countries are mostly a thing of the past, at least for now. I fail to see the definitive advantage that would help US regain this seat.
While 64 MB/s reads are definitely fast compared to =2.5" hard disks, can anyone explain what caps the access rate to 64 MB/s? I'd think the bus should be able to go way higher. Is flash memory inherently slow?
I know RoughlyDrafted's author is very pro-Apple, but I don't think he's a liar. After all, simply looking at screenshots confirms that PalmOS is way behind the times, Windows Mobile has inherited Microsoft's ugly gene, and Symbian phones don't look particularly modern, either. So really, if you look at things impartially, or try to, his analysis seems sound.
I'm definitely not pro-Apple (I'm an OSS only user), but I can confirm that Symbian is something unimaginably horrible for the programmer, from the little experience I gained before I started to categorically refuse to have anything to do with programming it.
That's one of the reasons why I actually like living in Europe. Of course Americans usually dismiss all privacy regulations as censorship, because their first amendment (and the balances struck by the courts, which most Americans of course don't know of) is the Only True form of Freedom of Speech(tm).
Re:of course it was stolen
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I know. And I also think the EU system is going to degenerate into something similar (which I probably should support since I live in one of the smaller countries), even if the current US system is a cause for jokes.
Similarly, when you hear that the GPL is viral and can force proprietary code to become GPL, which a couple of lawyers have been saying, you'll know that isn't true. If you steal GPL code, you can expect an enforcement action. But this action can only be enforcement of a license, not a contract, and a forced release under the GPL can't be imposed on you under copyright law. It's not one of the choices, as Professor Moglen has explained. You do have a choice under the GPL: you can stop using the stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say "I choose neither," the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. Your code remains yours, as you can see, even in a worst case scenario.
Of course, you could avoid all such troubles in the first place by not stealing GPL code to begin with. But if something happens inadvertently and some rogue employee sneaks some GPL code into your proprietary product, the sky isn't falling. It's a manageable risk and a solvable problem. No one wants to steal your code in retaliation or force it to be something you don't want it to be. The GPL is unequivocally a license, and that's the truth.
So, if it were a contract, the infringer could be ordered by a court to disclose the code. Now that it's not, the worst that can happen is a court barring them from infringing it further.
By the way, I believe at least Debian has removed some of those (which they, arguably, have the right to do under the terms of the GPL). I don't remember from which specific pieces of software, though.
Re:of course it was stolen
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
This might be offensive, and I know this is sure to get many "troll" mods, but I feel like telling you this anyway.
Because of these recent elections, the attitude we perceive many Americans have (e.g. blindly asserting that you have the most free and democratic and otherwise best country in the world), and some other factors, the American "model" democracy is a running joke in most of the Europe.
Here in Finland we had after the last presidential elections, which were very close, a joke about the American elections: If Finland were the USA, Mr. Niinisto (the candidate who got around 48 % of the vote in the second round against the 52 % of Mrs. Halonen) would have been elected, since he got less votes.
Basically, I don't think there's anything very wrong with the American democracy. I, and many others, would just like to see you not being so full of shit about being the "model democracy". It's about as funny as the saying "as American as the apple pie", since the apple pie easily predates the finding of America by Columbus.:-) Many of us Europeans prefer our models 100-0 to yours, thank you very much.:)
Argh. When will people learn this? The GNU GPL is not a "licensing agreement", it's a license. It's a one-sided declaration that gives to the licensee rights they would not otherwise under the copyright law have (ie. the right to redistribute the software under some conditions, spelled out by the GPL). It doesn't demand anything at all in exchange, and the licensee does not need to "agree" to it or "accept" it for it to have effect (and not accepting it wouldn't make much sense, since it only gives additional rights).
Slashdot Mirror
The difference of course being that not being able to crack Diffie-Hellman relies on the difficulty of calculating something, but cracking it is definitely computable, while in a quantum crypto cracking it even given infinite time is physically impossible, if you use the generated key data as a one time pad. To me that difference seems in a sense quite significant, but then I'm a theoretical computer scientist :-)
Yes, but the US has done much less than other countries that push for the change.
Why do you think the Chinese would be willing to give away from what little they have when you in the US bath in material wealth and are unwilling to give even a little of your excess?
So everybody can circumvent CSS NOW, but back in 99, when it was difficult, it was still illegal...
Ah, but you make a mistake of reading too much into the ruling. Other poins were argued in the trial (yes, I was there), but the court did not rule on them. This definitely does not mean it has said it would have been illegal in 1999, the court just didn't need to consider that.
Well, it's a victory in this war in any case. We can't get everything from one case. While freedom of speech issues and such were argued in the court (I was there listening), the court didn't need to consider them because the case could be dismissed on the grounds that the protection is not effective. It raises the bar of effectiveness from what the drm mafia claims it is. Other aspects of the law might be considered in future cases.
Not necessarily. The relevant area of law is called antitrust.
You are right. They should call it something else if it doesn't compromise the entire system. That makes it a relatively isolated incident securitywise (not that it wouldn't be serious if they have compromised all your passwords, which I hope are different from your administrator password, bank account logins and credit card numbers).
Well, you had better, because if you don't, you'll have go through the same again. Many people learn from their mistakes, fortunately. Reasonable security even on Windows is not that hard, if you take the steps before the compromise.
In theory, yes, you can do that. In reality though in any reasonable system quite a number of configuration files have been modified, and the users have stuff in their home directories that does not directly come from any installation CD that could be used for at least a user-level exploit (which makes a root exploit dramatically easier). In such a system it is generally quite a bit less work actually to do a reinstall and reconfiguration than combing all the files with the kind of comb you need to catch all things evil. It's like trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack, except that the needles have been deliberately hidden and you don't know how many there are – and if you miss one, you lose.
People in the Windows world seem to ignore this until it becomes painfully obvious to them, but the only guaranteed solution, and the only solution real experts would offer (which I'm really glad is understood in the Unix world!) to you if it were of any importance that the malware be completely eradicated from your computer, to an administrator or system level compromise is a full reinstall or restore from backups before the compromise. Anything less than that and there is a way the malware can evade.
I know it's painful. But it's the only way. Admin or system level compromise is not a routine matter, no matter how much some people like to portray it as such.
While I consider the 1-click shopping patent ridiculous and the USPTO way out of control, I believe this is (well, roughly) how it should work. It's a legal struggle (of a sort), both sides need to present their legal arguments, and Amazon would be incredibly stupid to not do so. Of course it's not balanced when the big corporations have the best lawyers and even the small players contesting the patent need to spend lots of money, but that's another issue (and tells generally about the broken American legal system, not about specifically the patent system).
Malware is not annoying. It's downright hostile. Once untrusted code has run as administrator/root/system/whatever on your computer, it's the end of the game. You need to reinstall and never trust the compromised data again, as any competent security expert will tell you. Only the anti-malware corporations, unsurprisingly, tell you otherwise.
Maybe around 1 hour after the installation of Debian (which includes things like smtp configuration and stuff and might take a couple of hours with all the stuff I want to install). This does not include possible server things I might want to configure, like Apache (my home computer is both my desktop and my server, and I like it that way). Some stuff I do:
1. start KDE
2. change font sizes and fonts to something actually readable (like Bitstream Vera Sans/Mono 12)
3. change the icon size of the panel to bigger
4. disable stupid eye candy like fake transparencies and window open/close effects that I feel just slow me down
5. go through the KDE settings configuring things like
- my email address
- change the background to a solid color
- set KDE to have 8 virtual desktops
- set ctrl-arrows to change virtual desktops
- make icons bigger by default
6. open Konsole, set white on black, no menu bar, no tab bar, save settings
7. assign key bindings to opening Konsole, KOrganizer and Konqueror
8. copy my mutt configuration from some other computer (it might take some time to recreate it if I had to)
I think that's pretty much all.
I'm glad the US government decided to answer themselves the very short-sighted people who are almost in the majority in every ICANN-shouldn't-be-controlled-by-the-US article who ask something like "Who would you trust more to control the Internet, the US government or a body where countries with poor human rights record have a say".
What makes you believe the US has the capability of becoming the tech king again after the next Sputnik? What's so much fundamentally better in how you do things in the US? The traditionally less developed countries are becoming more and more developed, and big wars that have destroyed the economies of the participating countries are mostly a thing of the past, at least for now. I fail to see the definitive advantage that would help US regain this seat.
While 64 MB/s reads are definitely fast compared to =2.5" hard disks, can anyone explain what caps the access rate to 64 MB/s? I'd think the bus should be able to go way higher. Is flash memory inherently slow?
Finland. Well, at least if you have claims against someone lives in China and who has never been to Finland. Which is quite like the case here.
I know RoughlyDrafted's author is very pro-Apple, but I don't think he's a liar. After all, simply looking at screenshots confirms that PalmOS is way behind the times, Windows Mobile has inherited Microsoft's ugly gene, and Symbian phones don't look particularly modern, either. So really, if you look at things impartially, or try to, his analysis seems sound.
I'm definitely not pro-Apple (I'm an OSS only user), but I can confirm that Symbian is something unimaginably horrible for the programmer, from the little experience I gained before I started to categorically refuse to have anything to do with programming it.
What, the feature to run Windows XP applications in Windows 2000 is in Windows XP? How clever.
Actually it would be interesting to know if this is legal, and if not, under what laws it can be forbidden.
That's one of the reasons why I actually like living in Europe. Of course Americans usually dismiss all privacy regulations as censorship, because their first amendment (and the balances struck by the courts, which most Americans of course don't know of) is the Only True form of Freedom of Speech(tm).
Yeah, I know. And I also think the EU system is going to degenerate into something similar (which I probably should support since I live in one of the smaller countries), even if the current US system is a cause for jokes.
So, if it were a contract, the infringer could be ordered by a court to disclose the code. Now that it's not, the worst that can happen is a court barring them from infringing it further.
Yes, that's horrible.
By the way, I believe at least Debian has removed some of those (which they, arguably, have the right to do under the terms of the GPL). I don't remember from which specific pieces of software, though.
This might be offensive, and I know this is sure to get many "troll" mods, but I feel like telling you this anyway.
:-) Many of us Europeans prefer our models 100-0 to yours, thank you very much. :)
Because of these recent elections, the attitude we perceive many Americans have (e.g. blindly asserting that you have the most free and democratic and otherwise best country in the world), and some other factors, the American "model" democracy is a running joke in most of the Europe.
Here in Finland we had after the last presidential elections, which were very close, a joke about the American elections: If Finland were the USA, Mr. Niinisto (the candidate who got around 48 % of the vote in the second round against the 52 % of Mrs. Halonen) would have been elected, since he got less votes.
Basically, I don't think there's anything very wrong with the American democracy. I, and many others, would just like to see you not being so full of shit about being the "model democracy". It's about as funny as the saying "as American as the apple pie", since the apple pie easily predates the finding of America by Columbus.
Argh. When will people learn this? The GNU GPL is not a "licensing agreement", it's a license. It's a one-sided declaration that gives to the licensee rights they would not otherwise under the copyright law have (ie. the right to redistribute the software under some conditions, spelled out by the GPL). It doesn't demand anything at all in exchange, and the licensee does not need to "agree" to it or "accept" it for it to have effect (and not accepting it wouldn't make much sense, since it only gives additional rights).