Unfortunately, the problem won't go away until all vulnerable versions of PGP are eradicated: the sender who is responsible for encrypting to the ADKs, not the recipient.
So? It is also the sender who is responsible for not sending the unencrypted document to anyone else, either intentionally or unintentionally. When you receive an encrypted document, you have no guarantees whatsoever that you are the only person who has access to the unencrypted document. You never have, you never will.
We need to get this technology extended to real life. Then the next time I'm on a date and it's going bad, I can substitute in Nicole Kidman, on the fly.
One thing I've also noticed is the not so obvious removal of Sony logos on TVs and logos on shirts, giving the attitude from the producers that "If you don't pay for your logo to be on TV, we'll take it off" even for simple things like a television or a shirt.
I wonder if the makers of the T-shirts could claim copyright infringement, since you're copying their shirt design. Sure, without modification this would fall under fair use, but with modification?
This is great news for the GPL. Now you have one of the biggest corporations in the US defending the legality of the GPL. Isn't it great to have AOL lobbyists on your side?
"16. Why don't you just release the source under both the NPL and the GPL right from the start?
The NPL and GPL are incompatible, as we explain in the question about using code covered by the GPL with code covered by the NPL. If we were to take this tack, we would cause an immediate and irreparable split in development on the Mozilla code base. This split would greatly minimize the benefit that Netscape would see from free source development, and because of this, the company is not able to consider releasing its code under the GPL."
"There are a number of reasons for this. The first three points speak to the necessity for the NPL, and the fourth addresses the question of why we didn't just release the code under the NPL and the GPL.
4. Netscape is interested in encouraging the use and development of the Communicator source code by other commercial developers. Netscape was concerned that these other companies would hesitate to engage in this development if the code were regulated by a license as strict as the GPL, requiring that all related software also be released as free source. At the very least, every other commercial developer would have to look very closely at the legal ramifications of embarking on free source development. This initial hurdle alone might be enough to keep them from starting at all, so it was decided to remove the hurdle by using a somewhat less restrictive license."
I've always thought that was a bullshit response, and now we see that they could have done it all along, and just chose not to.
Re:But will they actually get the money?
on
The Virtual Tip Jar
·
· Score: 1
"Stop the insanity! Keep your MP3s, pay bands directly with Fairtunes, and sleep well again at night."
Yeah, sleep well at night, giving the money to rich people like courtney love, instead of to my grandmother, who owns Time Warner.
mozilla is a failure. It's still an unusable product, and will continue to be forever. Admit defeat, and opensource 4.74, or else give up on the open source route completely. Along with abandoning all work on mozilla, GPL it. Maybe someone other than you lame asses can figure out how to do it (although I doubt it). But at least come out with a successor to the 4.7 line. I'd rather have a proprietary competitor to microsoft than a not-really-free-as-in-freedom piece of shit. You already fired the dumbass Andreesen who got you into this mess, now you're going down the same misguided path. JWZ had the right idea a year and a half ago... Give up.
When they break up microsoft, and Bill Gates goes on to lead the applications company, I bet this project will be getting a huge investment, from Bill Gates himself.
I lost a 60 gig drive that was 95% full of MP3s -- backup is a big problem at that size. All due to the f%cking highpoint controller card. Next time I'm buying a promise controller and setting up RAID, which is surprisingly the cheapest backup method...
I am no lawyer, too, but I know a bit of copyright law because I am teaching web design, and I know pretty well that you need a license for other peoples intellectual property to use it. By posting material to USENET, you give an implicit license to use this material in the context of USENET, and use of my message in answers is even covered by fair use provisions.
At the very most, you are giving an implicit licence to use the material in unaltered form. Just because slashdot puts up a website, this doesn't give an ISP, say MSN, the right to add advertisements in the middle of it. That would certainly hold up in court, and if you could afford the lawyers, so would your argument here.
"I'll do ya one better. Why shouldn't a letter sent via electronic means not enjoy the same protections as a letter sent by the post office? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but tapping into a phone line isn't a federal offense, where as opening someone's postal mail most certainly is."
This is public data. You're sending it unencrypted through a public network. Why shouldn't this enjoy the same protections as a POSTCARD sent through the post office, i.e., they can't interfere with the delivery, but reading it is perfectly legal. If you go in front of a police office and start yelling about crimes you've committed, is it an illegal search for the cops to listen to it?
bell atlantic has this available in parts of New York state (Infospeed). I had to install the passive filters myself, and the guy never even had to come into my apartment. They had software which came with the package, which worked on Win98, but not on 2000 or FreeBSD, but I've bought a Linksys DSL router which has 4 ethernet ports, and connected it to the DSL modem, my win2000 box, and my FreeBSD box. It has a built in firewall, and automatically reconnects.
This could wind up going to the supreme court, as it goes to the very nature of what laws fall under "[promoting] the progress of science and useful arts." Unfortunately, what is more likely is that the RIAA will get scared that they will lose their copyright completely, and will settle out of court.
Not necessarily. Let's say I have a 16 character unix password. It is encrypted with two 40 bit keys, one for the first 8 characters, one for the second 8 characters. Come up with a brute force algorithm to decrypt the password which is better than this:
while (key1=0; key12^40; key1++) { while (key2=0; key22^40; key2++) { decryptedpassword=decrypt(encryptedpassword, key1, key2); if (trytobreakinusing(decryptedpassword)) return key1*(2^40)+key2; } }
which takes 2^80 trials worst case (2^79 average case). you can't, since you can't tell whether the first half is right seperately from whether the second half is right.
Seems to me that at one point or another we're going to have to settle for analog recordings of the "put the mic up to the speaker" variety. The problem of course is shitty quality. But what if you make a shitty quality copy N number of times, then combine those N copies using an algorithm which "cleans" the signal, sort of taking the average, or eliminating the abnormalities. For instance, if you record the first time, and the speaker pops at 2:49 into the recording, but the second time it pops at 2:23, and the third time it pops at 1:59, you take all three recordings, and take majority rules. Now multiply by 10, 100, 1000, 10000 recordings.
patent pending for this process. license to use the process hereby granted for all public domain software products.
>I'm assuming that any of the hardware used for playing back the sound >is tamper proof, i.e all the hacks around encryption at the hardware >and software level have been eliminated (an impossibility im sure, but >for the sake of argument)
>Not possible. The hardware has to assembled and a speaker/some means >of generating physical sound attached.
Certainly *possible*. Imagine a closed box which immediately self-destructs (blows up) when you come within a 5 meter radius of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the problem won't go away until all vulnerable versions of PGP are eradicated: the sender who is responsible for encrypting to the ADKs, not the recipient.
So? It is also the sender who is responsible for not sending the unencrypted document to anyone else, either intentionally or unintentionally. When you receive an encrypted document, you have no guarantees whatsoever that you are the only person who has access to the unencrypted document. You never have, you never will.
We need to get this technology extended to real life. Then the next time I'm on a date and it's going bad, I can substitute in Nicole Kidman, on the fly.
One thing I've also noticed is the not so obvious removal of Sony logos on TVs and logos on shirts, giving the attitude from the producers that "If you don't pay for your logo to be on TV, we'll take it off" even for simple things like a television or a shirt.
I wonder if the makers of the T-shirts could claim copyright infringement, since you're copying their shirt design. Sure, without modification this would fall under fair use, but with modification?
This is great news for the GPL. Now you have one of the biggest corporations in the US defending the legality of the GPL. Isn't it great to have AOL lobbyists on your side?
From AOL's page (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html):
"16. Why don't you just release the source under both the NPL and the GPL right from the start?
The NPL and GPL are incompatible, as we explain in the question about using code covered by the GPL with code covered by the NPL. If we were to take this tack, we would cause an immediate and irreparable split in development on the Mozilla code base. This split would greatly minimize the benefit that Netscape would see from free source development, and because of this, the company is not able to consider releasing its code under the GPL."
From AOL's page (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html):
"There are a number of reasons for this. The first three points speak to the necessity for the NPL, and the fourth addresses the question of why we didn't just release the code under the NPL and the GPL.
4. Netscape is interested in encouraging the use and development of the Communicator source code by other commercial developers. Netscape was concerned that these other companies would hesitate to engage in this development if the code were regulated by a license as strict as the GPL, requiring that all related software also be released as free source. At the very least, every other commercial developer would have to look very closely at the legal ramifications of embarking on free source development. This initial hurdle alone might be enough to keep them from starting at all, so it was decided to remove the hurdle by using a somewhat less restrictive license."
I've always thought that was a bullshit response, and now we see that they could have done it all along, and just chose not to.
"Stop the insanity! Keep your MP3s, pay bands directly with Fairtunes, and sleep well again at night."
Yeah, sleep well at night, giving the money to rich people like courtney love, instead of to my grandmother, who owns Time Warner.
mozilla is a failure. It's still an unusable product, and will continue to be forever. Admit defeat, and opensource 4.74, or else give up on the open source route completely. Along with abandoning all work on mozilla, GPL it. Maybe someone other than you lame asses can figure out how to do it (although I doubt it). But at least come out with a successor to the 4.7 line. I'd rather have a proprietary competitor to microsoft than a not-really-free-as-in-freedom piece of shit. You already fired the dumbass Andreesen who got you into this mess, now you're going down the same misguided path. JWZ had the right idea a year and a half ago... Give up.
Especially interesting is how hosts are added 87 per minute, every minute. Someone needs to teach netsizer about significant digits...
should we count google's 6000 clustered linux servers? They don't have public ip addresses, and I'd say we should.
When they break up microsoft, and Bill Gates goes on to lead the applications company, I bet this project will be getting a huge investment, from Bill Gates himself.
I lost a 60 gig drive that was 95% full of MP3s -- backup is a big problem at that size. All due to the f%cking highpoint controller card. Next time I'm buying a promise controller and setting up RAID, which is surprisingly the cheapest backup method...
60 gigs of MP3s? Backup is simple. DSL+napster.
I am no lawyer, too, but I know a bit of copyright law because I am teaching web design, and I know pretty well that you need a license for other peoples intellectual property to use it. By posting material to USENET, you give an implicit license to use this material in the context of USENET, and use of my message in answers is even covered by fair use provisions.
At the very most, you are giving an implicit licence to use the material in unaltered form. Just because slashdot puts up a website, this doesn't give an ISP, say MSN, the right to add advertisements in the middle of it. That would certainly hold up in court, and if you could afford the lawyers, so would your argument here.
So why can't they just automatically not allow posts which use foul language? "banuser() if ($post=~/(bird)|(pidgeon)/);"
"I'll do ya one better. Why shouldn't a letter sent via electronic means not enjoy the same protections as a letter sent by the post office? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but tapping into a phone line isn't a federal offense, where as opening someone's postal mail most certainly is."
This is public data. You're sending it unencrypted through a public network. Why shouldn't this enjoy the same protections as a POSTCARD sent through the post office, i.e., they can't interfere with the delivery, but reading it is perfectly legal. If you go in front of a police office and start yelling about crimes you've committed, is it an illegal search for the cops to listen to it?
bell atlantic has this available in parts of New York state (Infospeed). I had to install the passive filters myself, and the guy never even had to come into my apartment. They had software which came with the package, which worked on Win98, but not on 2000 or FreeBSD, but I've bought a Linksys DSL router which has 4 ethernet ports, and connected it to the DSL modem, my win2000 box, and my FreeBSD box. It has a built in firewall, and automatically reconnects.
or you could buy a Linksys Etherfast Cable/DSL Router... works great for me for my windows and my FreeBSD boxes simultaneously
"Broadband" is the wave of the future! POTS is good for fast and easy voice transmission, but admit it: it's dead for Internet.
Hmm, guess what... DSL uses POTS.
Actually, now that Time Warner and AOL are merging, napster will be in direct competition with at least one large member of the RIAA.
This could wind up going to the supreme court, as it goes to the very nature of what laws fall under "[promoting] the progress of science and useful arts." Unfortunately, what is more likely is that the RIAA will get scared that they will lose their copyright completely, and will settle out of court.
Not necessarily. Let's say I have a 16 character unix password. It is encrypted with two 40 bit keys, one for the first 8 characters, one for the second 8 characters. Come up with a brute force algorithm to decrypt the password which is better than this:
while (key1=0; key12^40; key1++) {
while (key2=0; key22^40; key2++) {
decryptedpassword=decrypt(encryptedpassword, key1, key2);
if (trytobreakinusing(decryptedpassword))
return key1*(2^40)+key2;
}
}
which takes 2^80 trials worst case (2^79 average case). you can't, since you can't tell whether the first half is right seperately from whether the second half is right.
how do you know if you guessed the first bit right?
Seems to me that at one point or another we're going to have to settle for analog recordings of the "put the mic up to the speaker" variety. The problem of course is shitty quality. But what if you make a shitty quality copy N number of times, then combine those N copies using an algorithm which "cleans" the signal, sort of taking the average, or eliminating the abnormalities. For instance, if you record the first time, and the speaker pops at 2:49 into the recording, but the second time it pops at 2:23, and the third time it pops at 1:59, you take all three recordings, and take majority rules. Now multiply by 10, 100, 1000, 10000 recordings.
patent pending for this process. license to use the process hereby granted for all public domain software products.
>I'm assuming that any of the hardware used for playing back the sound
>is tamper proof, i.e all the hacks around encryption at the hardware
>and software level have been eliminated (an impossibility im sure, but
>for the sake of argument)
>Not possible. The hardware has to assembled and a speaker/some means
>of generating physical sound attached.
Certainly *possible*. Imagine a closed box which immediately self-destructs (blows up) when you come within a 5 meter radius of it.
of watching it on the big screen, 405 was just plain bad.