Its sad how people have such skewed priorities. The government taxes us avg. 25% on income and 22% of the money we spend also flows back to them, they are nearly 50% of our economy, and yet people only care about trivial issues like blocking a few http websites and how we treat a few boat people. Its sad.
Did it occur to you that you are in a minority? Internet is cheap because the majority of users use very little. The claim that you would pay more means nothing. If there were enough people willing to pay more, don't you think the market would serve this need and take your money? Of course they would.
If net neutrality was a problem for a significant amount of people, it would be feasable to run an ISP that specifically promoted itself as being unrestricted, no such company exists because its not profitable. By definition forcing such companies to adopt such a stance it MUST riase the price of the internet. There is not getting around this economic fact that net neutrality will force ISPs to provide a service they would otherwise not bother to provide.
Net neutrality provides less options, as it adds regulation. No net neutraility is the most options, as it is unregulated.
Thats an economical fallacy. Companies always try to get the most profit. If one raises prices the other can move just below it because it will still be the best option. This has nothing to do with price fixing or price gouging. If there really was obsene profit, more competition would enter the market.
I know that most people here are internet techies, but why do most of you not understand that net neutrality is a BAD thing.
With net neutrality you only have one option for internet access: untampered internet. With net neutrality you will have many options, some with peer2peer tampering some without. The ones with tampering will be cheaper. The ones that do other dodgy things like insert adds will be ever cheaper. The neutrality of a ISP will be reflected in its price and people will vote with their feet.
Net neutrality is a bad idea because it allows a minority (heavy peer2peer users) to force their taste for internet onto the majority (average users). If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users, which is disproportion to their usage, only heavy users should bare the increase. Why do you think companies do all these things like shaping of only peer2peer? For fun? They do it because if they didn't prices would have to go up.
Because so many people were coming from XP, ubuntu always look like a step in the right direction. But with so many people on windows 7, Ubuntu now is a step behind.
Also, does the new look feel like a dated MacOSX to anyone else?
Obviously not many electronic engineers around slashdot...
The main point of the chip is that the eink display driving is direct, this will save about $5. if you don't believe me you can get the cpu that does the same for $8 and the display chip for $6.50....
I don't know why people would even suggest using raid for backing up.
Harddisks when they sit around for long periods of time tend to fail out-right because of the bearings lubricant. 2-3TB isn't much. Why have the hassle of raid? You want it future proof. You don't have to have to be tied to a specific raid card and plugged in the write way etc. just to get data off, you want to be able to slap the drive in anywhere and get it. I would just make 3 copies on 3 different brands of harddisks and store at 3 different places.
I think many people are missing the point. Ubisoft *are* aware of the risks here. They know more than anyone about the rates of piracy and sales rates.
Ubisoft are close to the point where the simple porting of console games to PC isn't even making a profit - let alone developing a PC game.
The next Grand Theft Auto probably isn't going to come out on PC at all. They have tried no DRM (GTA:SA) to rediculous DRM on (GTA4) and neither worked. Currently plans are not to bother with a PC version at all. I mean how sad is that? Most games ride of their console sales.
Crytek nearly went broke over Crysis - ironically it was the consoles that saved them. They have hinted that they won't even be making for PC anymore.
If or not DRM is 'bad' has nothing to do with it. The market is going to find the 'sweet' spot. And I think online saves/loads and online verification are going to become standard in pretty much every game from now on.
Proper plausible deniability is actually pretty easy.
For example if you truecrypt non-system whole drives, the entire drive is encrypted. There is no way to prove one way or the other that that the drive is encrypted and not just over-written with random data. Because truecrypt exists installed on another drive means nothing, just throw a few container files in.
These people are getting done because they have no plausible deniability at all.
Steneography is completely different. Imagine for example that you had an image in BMP format. The least significant bits of the BMP image are usually noise and not noticable by the eye. So you could embed encrypted data into your images and it would be plasuible that they are just images, as they look like images with a tiny bit of random noise. You can do the same thing with music files. Uncompressed lossless formats like wav, you can simply encrypted data into the least significant bits of the wave. The noise will not be audible and it will be impossible to prove it wasn't just noise in the original recording. Of course even these are somewhat unplasible. Is it plasubile for someone to have gigabytes of bmp's or wav's or other highly compressible data?
Why is this news? This is worse than distributed.net brute forcing 56bit keys. Yes MD5 is crap, we don't need an example of everytime someone hooks up some new processors to break it.
True crypt does protect the contents of a drive that stolen. Thats not what is meant by physical control. Physical control is when someone sits down at your computer and changes something so when you put in your password you don't realise you are really giving them your password.
Secondly the creators are nont anonymous. I don't know why you think they are.
Thirdly you obviously have no read anything above.
Many people have suggested TC should has the MBR. This is so stupid it boggles the mind. All you do then is replace that version of truecrypt with one that doesn't really hash the MBR but just runs as if it was hashed and passed.
The only difference between bitlocker and truecrypt is that bitlocker uses trusted computing where as truecrypt tells you to secure your hardware since there is no trusted computing for it to use.
A scary amount of power is shown when places like wikipedia make you submit your work to the GFDL license AND any future versions. So it basically means they can port everyones submissions to whatever they want. One day this is going to back fire terribly.
Wikipedia has always been a joke though when it came to GFDL. I used to go around and remove content that was cut and copied between pages by non original authors, because it violated the GFDL because the original authors information was not kept in the edit histories, naturally I was banned.
Is anyone really ganna go though all the technicallities of the creative commons license? All the clauses it has are completely meaningless, because they can put out a new version with whatever clauses they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Its also interesting that your vote will be informal if you can be identified from the ballot paper.... very wierd.
Wow nice site. Very handy to look up preferences! Glad to see that libertarians recognise greens as the most socialist party!
3 mistakes? Unbelievable. But from what I read it means I can write 1,000,000 next to labour and it will still be a valid vote :-D
Its sad how people have such skewed priorities. The government taxes us avg. 25% on income and 22% of the money we spend also flows back to them, they are nearly 50% of our economy, and yet people only care about trivial issues like blocking a few http websites and how we treat a few boat people. Its sad.
Did it occur to you that you are in a minority? Internet is cheap because the majority of users use very little. The claim that you would pay more means nothing. If there were enough people willing to pay more, don't you think the market would serve this need and take your money? Of course they would. If net neutrality was a problem for a significant amount of people, it would be feasable to run an ISP that specifically promoted itself as being unrestricted, no such company exists because its not profitable. By definition forcing such companies to adopt such a stance it MUST riase the price of the internet. There is not getting around this economic fact that net neutrality will force ISPs to provide a service they would otherwise not bother to provide. Net neutrality provides less options, as it adds regulation. No net neutraility is the most options, as it is unregulated.
Thats an economical fallacy. Companies always try to get the most profit. If one raises prices the other can move just below it because it will still be the best option. This has nothing to do with price fixing or price gouging. If there really was obsene profit, more competition would enter the market.
I know that most people here are internet techies, but why do most of you not understand that net neutrality is a BAD thing. With net neutrality you only have one option for internet access: untampered internet. With net neutrality you will have many options, some with peer2peer tampering some without. The ones with tampering will be cheaper. The ones that do other dodgy things like insert adds will be ever cheaper. The neutrality of a ISP will be reflected in its price and people will vote with their feet. Net neutrality is a bad idea because it allows a minority (heavy peer2peer users) to force their taste for internet onto the majority (average users). If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users, which is disproportion to their usage, only heavy users should bare the increase. Why do you think companies do all these things like shaping of only peer2peer? For fun? They do it because if they didn't prices would have to go up.
Because so many people were coming from XP, ubuntu always look like a step in the right direction. But with so many people on windows 7, Ubuntu now is a step behind. Also, does the new look feel like a dated MacOSX to anyone else?
Obviously not many electronic engineers around slashdot... The main point of the chip is that the eink display driving is direct, this will save about $5. if you don't believe me you can get the cpu that does the same for $8 and the display chip for $6.50....
I don't know why people would even suggest using raid for backing up. Harddisks when they sit around for long periods of time tend to fail out-right because of the bearings lubricant. 2-3TB isn't much. Why have the hassle of raid? You want it future proof. You don't have to have to be tied to a specific raid card and plugged in the write way etc. just to get data off, you want to be able to slap the drive in anywhere and get it. I would just make 3 copies on 3 different brands of harddisks and store at 3 different places.
I think many people are missing the point. Ubisoft *are* aware of the risks here. They know more than anyone about the rates of piracy and sales rates. Ubisoft are close to the point where the simple porting of console games to PC isn't even making a profit - let alone developing a PC game. The next Grand Theft Auto probably isn't going to come out on PC at all. They have tried no DRM (GTA:SA) to rediculous DRM on (GTA4) and neither worked. Currently plans are not to bother with a PC version at all. I mean how sad is that? Most games ride of their console sales. Crytek nearly went broke over Crysis - ironically it was the consoles that saved them. They have hinted that they won't even be making for PC anymore. If or not DRM is 'bad' has nothing to do with it. The market is going to find the 'sweet' spot. And I think online saves/loads and online verification are going to become standard in pretty much every game from now on.
Proper plausible deniability is actually pretty easy. For example if you truecrypt non-system whole drives, the entire drive is encrypted. There is no way to prove one way or the other that that the drive is encrypted and not just over-written with random data. Because truecrypt exists installed on another drive means nothing, just throw a few container files in. These people are getting done because they have no plausible deniability at all. Steneography is completely different. Imagine for example that you had an image in BMP format. The least significant bits of the BMP image are usually noise and not noticable by the eye. So you could embed encrypted data into your images and it would be plasuible that they are just images, as they look like images with a tiny bit of random noise. You can do the same thing with music files. Uncompressed lossless formats like wav, you can simply encrypted data into the least significant bits of the wave. The noise will not be audible and it will be impossible to prove it wasn't just noise in the original recording. Of course even these are somewhat unplasible. Is it plasubile for someone to have gigabytes of bmp's or wav's or other highly compressible data?
The attack broke one or two rounds, not the 10/14 rounds required to break AES as it is used in normal implementations.
Just boot from a CD rom. Infact forget the hash, just boot from the truecrypt rescue disk every time which restores your MBR.
Why is this news? This is worse than distributed.net brute forcing 56bit keys. Yes MD5 is crap, we don't need an example of everytime someone hooks up some new processors to break it.
True crypt does protect the contents of a drive that stolen. Thats not what is meant by physical control. Physical control is when someone sits down at your computer and changes something so when you put in your password you don't realise you are really giving them your password. Secondly the creators are nont anonymous. I don't know why you think they are. Thirdly you obviously have no read anything above.
Many people have suggested TC should has the MBR. This is so stupid it boggles the mind. All you do then is replace that version of truecrypt with one that doesn't really hash the MBR but just runs as if it was hashed and passed. The only difference between bitlocker and truecrypt is that bitlocker uses trusted computing where as truecrypt tells you to secure your hardware since there is no trusted computing for it to use.
A scary amount of power is shown when places like wikipedia make you submit your work to the GFDL license AND any future versions. So it basically means they can port everyones submissions to whatever they want. One day this is going to back fire terribly. Wikipedia has always been a joke though when it came to GFDL. I used to go around and remove content that was cut and copied between pages by non original authors, because it violated the GFDL because the original authors information was not kept in the edit histories, naturally I was banned. Is anyone really ganna go though all the technicallities of the creative commons license? All the clauses it has are completely meaningless, because they can put out a new version with whatever clauses they want.
Never heard of it. I asked everyone and they had never heard of it either. Pay to stream music! hahah good one. Stream music? hahah stupid.