31 pages. Far from 200. It's practically ending before you realize it. If this is coming from an "eat-all-you-can" monthly subscription ebook store, I would guess more people would go for lighter works to get more out of their money. So the data they tell us is practically useless to predict what is really wanted in a book.
Still - it looks like Clarke's first law could easily apply:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
A practical application of this is at http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ (with a plugin for a few common AIM application, most usefully for pidgin née gaim).
This one has an implementation called the "Socialist Millionaires Problem", which sounds the same, although I recall it being used only to tell if two secret values are the same on both side, thus augmenting the key exchange protocol with man-in-the-middle detection capabilities, provided the parties has shared knowledge about something (and something reasonably private).
government oversight would just cramp
what she says the private-sector investment created
Not government oversight, what she has problems with. It's inter-government
oversight. And so large problem, that she has to stress "burden", it occurs
three times in the letter. What it really means to me, that the US has problems
with communication to other governments, which is a strong point why it should
give up control, not forcefully retain.
A hacker isn't a mentality, it's a set of actions.
Ugh. When someone parked before the company tries to guess the root password of our systems, or finding ways around not knowing it is bad; how is this different purely from the actions of the system administrator trying to set a new password when another privileged user changed it to something (s)he doesn't remember now?
Apart from the forever question posed by any use of the word "hacker", this article is just another making all of us remember that "hacking" is mostly intensive tinkering with something interesting, challenging. Whatever.
We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights.
Yep. Maybe looking from another angle. Let them call it that way, and solve the following riddle: how could an intellectual property belong to anything else that to an intellect, that is, a single human.
The current enforcement of regulations what are collectively called as Intellectual Property are so wrong on "oh so many levels"..
Garage.. I think here it means the Stanford University. (Am I the only one remembering the google.stanford.edu address?).
So.. how that build-a-university program of yours is going, eh?
Not applicable. Base station handoff happens below even the network level (IP), not even just below the transport layer (TCP/UDP). Reducing handoff times may only make sense in a single network, where you can keep your IP address indefinitely. 802.11 networks are easy to transparently interconnect with ethernet equipment.
As it is, you can walk around with a laptop at our site with an SSH connection working at all times, even when you are connected/typing continously. You *might* notice some smaller, and some not-so-small delays, the latter being the problem for voip.
OTOH, the article talks about nothing that isn't debated daily on any mailing list of Linux wireless drivers.. Nothing to see here, IMHO.
Haven't you got the memo? Just look at paypal signup page, if your country is not selectable, you are in an insecure country.. Just as Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary. See you in the club:)
On the other
hand, there's another viewpoint: maybe all this is
just a conspiracy of a curious IT historian,
wishing to document the birth of Linux, and the
spread of it, day by day, hour by hour.:)
In the seventies [the NSA] recommended changes to DES, which in the early ninties were discovered to have made it more secure.
Meanwhile, according to Schneier, they thought that DES was a controlled hardware-only implementation. So, nothing is simple.. Which reminds me of my sig:)
Okay, then you should be able to cope with all those "hints" having gone bad.
When those hints are all bad, what do you do, Mr. D. Centralized Program?
Depend on my user to replace me with the latest version, which is available,
since not every user of that is a copyright-limit-explorer.
Pray that in those years multicast is finally implemented by the ISPs, and
listen to the next periodic update on the hash-dependent randomized multicast address.
Wonder who could shut down the whole Tor network (useful
for many things citizens really need to do), and how could they find all of the
tor-hidden 4914a6dfd3634e54f9f8457ca4cb6f39.onion hosts.
Just my two cents. I happen to be that bitter too sometimes, but I more and more believe
technology *will* be advancing us. Not as in entrepeneurs, but as humanity.
Without 48-bit addressing, the drives are limited to 137 GB. I understand this requires hardware
support. I am confused about your Pentium 120 being able to do 200 GB (which implies 48-bit addressing).
I base my research on this the ATA chip list
posted on linux-kernel in 2002. According to that, Intel chipset since PIIX3 "supports" LBA48. In fact, this support lies
mostly on the drive, the ATA interface can even be considered very dumb, most intelligence is in the drive logic. The earliest
chipsets could have been too smart being dumb...
Incidentally, PIIX3 is what "this" machine with a P166 is having, in which I plan to use a Maxtor 250G, so a P120 is not that
far off. It probably won't have UDMA, granted, but working it will be. It currently is in an ALI (the horror?) K6-2/400 based
machine with 2.6.10
.
I realize this is too down in the threads for many to read it, but maybe you will:)
Many of the "bugs" listed above are arguable, and frequently disputed by qmail users and opponents. That is, many of them could not be a reason to single-handedly strike down qmail itself.
As an example.. From the above document:
All the contents of this document refer to qmail-1.03.
4.3. Bandwidth hogging (violates RFC-2821 SHOULD clause)
So.. qmail 1.03 was released in June 1998, RFC 2128 was released in April 2001. I'm inclined to say that calling this a "violation" is not that fair. Even more so if you consider that it might have been included in the RFC *in response* of qmail's behaviour by *ahem* some lobbyists. In contrast, qmail's behaviour was explicitly chosen by its author, and he directs anyone who claims this is "hogging", that they should "measure, not speculate" of the implications of the behaviour. What did he get?
And, allow me to say, in my opinion, a "SHOULD" clause is not violated if the "full implications" are "understood and carefully weighed", which has apparently happened.
So, what meant is, the picture is not so clear, you should not believe anything you hear or say on the internet... Not even about qmail.
I went for a 9200 only to find out that for some
reason the DVI output is hosed
...
Well, I'm using a Radeon 9200SE (with DVI+VGA+composite), but can't get the
proprietary driver up for anything useful, and no free software does anything
to the TV out port. So, no DVD watching through the PC, which is annoying, because
the output is routed to an 5.1 receiver, but the PC is not in the surround sweet spot...
On the other hand, I'm using it's DVI output happily with only a Samsung
173p connected. In 1280x1024, not a flaw. Oh, but you were getting a Dell...?:)
Indeed; let's just take a look on.tv: It always worked this way.. Why does noone complain that it messes up the.tv domain?
Yes, because it was always messed up;)
Interestingly, nowadays no one seems to remember that in '97-'98, there were basically three usable databases: Postgres95: sometimes difficult to compile and set up; mSql from Australia, which was popular, but was for non-commercial use only (thus they excluded themselves from many "markets"), and mysql, which at the time looked like a buggy clone of msql, but free to use.
Most of the people at that time usually heard about apache + msql, and then stormed over to apache + mysql. Me, I managed to get Postgres95 to work, and never longed for anything else:)
mSql, aka minisql tried to make a comeback lately, but I they botched their opportunity years ago with this "non-commercial use" stuff.
It's cynical, but it's also not an unreasonable fear based on anybody who's been
rationally observing the behavior of our government recently.
I would oppose any regulation with all my instincts, but let's look at it this way:
when was the last time an electrician, or architect/house-builder handed you a paper that with
the money you forked over, they can only make product only *this* good, and you
are responsible for any damage they may be causing, not them, and forced you signing/accepting it?
Slashdot Mirror
31 pages. Far from 200. It's practically ending before you realize it. If this is coming from an "eat-all-you-can" monthly subscription ebook store, I would guess more people would go for lighter works to get more out of their money. So the data they tell us is practically useless to predict what is really wanted in a book.
Still - it looks like Clarke's first law could easily apply: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
A practical application of this is at http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ (with a plugin for a few common AIM application, most usefully for pidgin née gaim).
This one has an implementation called the "Socialist Millionaires Problem", which sounds the same, although I recall it being used only to tell if two secret values are the same on both side, thus augmenting the key exchange protocol with man-in-the-middle detection capabilities, provided the parties has shared knowledge about something (and something reasonably private).
[CaptainObvious]Hah, you did not read the article![/CaptainObvious]
You probably missed the part where he's plugging Noank Media against the old establishment.
Not government oversight, what she has problems with. It's inter-government oversight. And so large problem, that she has to stress "burden", it occurs three times in the letter. What it really means to me, that the US has problems with communication to other governments, which is a strong point why it should give up control, not forcefully retain.
Ugh. When someone parked before the company tries to guess the root password of our systems, or finding ways around not knowing it is bad; how is this different purely from the actions of the system administrator trying to set a new password when another privileged user changed it to something (s)he doesn't remember now?
Apart from the forever question posed by any use of the word "hacker", this article is just another making all of us remember that "hacking" is mostly intensive tinkering with something interesting, challenging. Whatever.
Garage.. I think here it means the Stanford University. (Am I the only one remembering the google.stanford.edu address?). So.. how that build-a-university program of yours is going, eh?
Not applicable. Base station handoff happens below even the network level (IP), not even just below the transport layer (TCP/UDP). Reducing handoff times may only make sense in a single network, where you can keep your IP address indefinitely. 802.11 networks are easy to transparently interconnect with ethernet equipment. As it is, you can walk around with a laptop at our site with an SSH connection working at all times, even when you are connected/typing continously. You *might* notice some smaller, and some not-so-small delays, the latter being the problem for voip. OTOH, the article talks about nothing that isn't debated daily on any mailing list of Linux wireless drivers.. Nothing to see here, IMHO.
Was this movie so bad, that only I am remembering it?
Haven't you got the memo? Just look at paypal signup page, if your country is not selectable, you are in an insecure country.. Just as Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary. See you in the club :)
I'm sure you can buy world maps in Canada too.
(*ducks*)
On the other hand, there's another viewpoint: maybe all this is just a conspiracy of a curious IT historian, wishing to document the birth of Linux, and the spread of it, day by day, hour by hour. :)
Meanwhile, according to Schneier, they thought that DES was a controlled hardware-only implementation. So, nothing is simple.. Which reminds me of my sig :)
What I don't get if that need to listen to muzak, because there is not enough people... why are there people to listen in on? Verrückte welt.
Just my two cents. I happen to be that bitter too sometimes, but I more and more believe technology *will* be advancing us. Not as in entrepeneurs, but as humanity.
I base my research on this the ATA chip list posted on linux-kernel in 2002. According to that, Intel chipset since PIIX3 "supports" LBA48. In fact, this support lies mostly on the drive, the ATA interface can even be considered very dumb, most intelligence is in the drive logic. The earliest chipsets could have been too smart being dumb...
Incidentally, PIIX3 is what "this" machine with a P166 is having, in which I plan to use a Maxtor 250G, so a P120 is not that far off. It probably won't have UDMA, granted, but working it will be. It currently is in an ALI (the horror?) K6-2/400 based machine with 2.6.10
.I realize this is too down in the threads for many to read it, but maybe you will :)
Many of the "bugs" listed above are arguable, and frequently disputed by qmail users and opponents. That is, many of them could not be a reason to single-handedly strike down qmail itself.
As an example.. From the above document:
So.. qmail 1.03 was released in June 1998, RFC 2128 was released in April 2001. I'm inclined to say that calling this a "violation" is not that fair. Even more so if you consider that it might have been included in the RFC *in response* of qmail's behaviour by *ahem* some lobbyists. In contrast, qmail's behaviour was explicitly chosen by its author, and he directs anyone who claims this is "hogging", that they should "measure, not speculate" of the implications of the behaviour. What did he get?
And, allow me to say, in my opinion, a "SHOULD" clause is not violated if the "full implications" are "understood and carefully weighed", which has apparently happened.
So, what meant is, the picture is not so clear, you should not believe anything you hear or say on the internet... Not even about qmail.
No, the normal procedure is to come up with "scientific" research *before* the release of a movie.
Well, I'm using a Radeon 9200SE (with DVI+VGA+composite), but can't get the proprietary driver up for anything useful, and no free software does anything to the TV out port. So, no DVD watching through the PC, which is annoying, because the output is routed to an 5.1 receiver, but the PC is not in the surround sweet spot...
On the other hand, I'm using it's DVI output happily with only a Samsung 173p connected. In 1280x1024, not a flaw. Oh, but you were getting a Dell...? :)
Of course, but umm, what prevents me now relabeling the bar codes in a store? And it's not that high tech either..
Indeed; let's just take a look on .tv: It always worked this way.. Why does noone complain that it messes up the .tv domain?
Yes, because it was always messed up ;)
Uh, oh, someone is bad at math...
I don't think VA's unknown numbered G5 park is about 2^448th more powerful than 100 PC(?) nodes. I don't think it's possible.
Or, I simply have been trolled :)
On the other hand, let me check my sig again...
Interestingly, nowadays no one seems to remember that in '97-'98, there were basically three usable databases: Postgres95: sometimes difficult to compile and set up; mSql from Australia, which was popular, but was for non-commercial use only (thus they excluded themselves from many "markets"), and mysql, which at the time looked like a buggy clone of msql, but free to use.
Most of the people at that time usually heard about apache + msql, and then stormed over to apache + mysql. Me, I managed to get Postgres95 to work, and never longed for anything else :)
mSql, aka minisql tried to make a comeback lately, but I they botched their opportunity years ago with this "non-commercial use" stuff.
I would oppose any regulation with all my instincts, but let's look at it this way: when was the last time an electrician, or architect/house-builder handed you a paper that with the money you forked over, they can only make product only *this* good, and you are responsible for any damage they may be causing, not them, and forced you signing/accepting it?
Thought so. In software, it's called the EULA.