Between my $500 video card, two 28" monitors, quad-core CPU, and 8GB of high-speed RAM, it was definitely my shiny new OCZ Agility 3 that made the biggest impression on my when I booted my computer for the first time to install the OS. Those things are so fast it truly is ridiculous.
And you're assuming that Apple is the sole mobile OS company to do this? The Google Play store is in fact scanned regularly for malware, and it does get removed and developer accounts do get banned. The major difference between the Android and iOS environments is that on my phone I can download and install an app directly from a website. I don't need to do that, and I understand that those apps have not been vetted like apps in the Google Play store, but it remains an option for me. It's not an option for you.
I guess if your only 2 options were a walled garden or a "field of manure" then you might have a point. A malicious app that affected 200 people doesn't exactly taint the entire Android environment. Conversely, the walled garden approach does affect all non-jailbroken iOS users.
You also forgot to mention that he is only the lawyer, not the owner. FunnyJunk operates out of New York, Carreon is based right here in sunny Arizona. Matt Inman seems not to draw a line between the two (e.g., this picture of "your mom" seducing a bear could apply to either party), but FJ is the client, and Carreon is the attorney.
Just to be clear, TFA is the video attached to TFS, correct? There's no actual FA associated with this that I can go read? How about including a link to this, or perhaps this?
So the argument for using a hash/checksum algorithm with a smaller collision space is because it would be difficult to update the software, not for a technical reason? I'm looking for a single technical reason why someone would favor MD5 over SHA-1.
The reason so many details are needed in the application, I suspect, is to prevent a Chinese company from producing an exact knockoff
Explain how a US patent for anything prevents a Chinese company from doing anything. The Chinese have no problem producing knockoffs to compete against foreign products in Chinese markets.
For regular security needs, AES-128 is considered sufficient. For greater needs, there's AES-192 and AES-256.
I don't like that type of thought, it seems lazy. It's the reason why MD5 is still being used. What is "sufficient" today may not be sufficient in 10 years, so why choose lesser security when the difference between that and greater security is a bigger database field? And how would you quantify "regular security" versus "greater needs"?
I've never used RoR, I prefer to write correct PHP code. What exactly do you use MD5 for where SHA-1 would not be more appropriate (less prone to collisions, due to a larger hash space)?
I thought of this just as I hit the post button, but I would LOVE to see PHP deprecate and outright remove the MD5 function. Maybe copy-paste programmers will start paying attention at that point. If it breaks software, well, that software was already broken. PHP is just requiring that you fix it now.
I think at this point most people know md5 isn't as secure as once considered, but I don't think people realize just how insecure it is becoming.
Why not? Are they not paying attention? This is a quote from TFA:
In 2004, researchers revealed a number of weaknesses in regularly-used hash functions. Later in 2005, MD5 was declared “broken” by security expert Bruce Schneier.
I remember reading that back in 2005 (7 years ago!) and not being surprised. I mean, what the hell people? Who in 2012 is using MD5 for new systems thinking that it's "good enough"? It hasn't been "good enough" since SHA-1 came out in 1995. I mean, all other things being equal, MD5 results in a hash that is 128 bits, a SHA-1 hash is 160 bits. The hash space is larger for SHA-1, so why would anyone be using MD5 for anything at all, even CRC checks? Not even SHA-1 is good enough any more, so again, why would anyone think MD5 is fine to use? I just don't get it, if people in 2012 still think that MD5 is appropriate to use in any circumstance then they'll never learn.
Someone with gigantic balls of steel should file a FOIA on this basis.
It doesn't require any courage to file a FOIA request, only information.
It would be interesting to see if the request would even be acknowledged.
Doubtful. There's zero incentive to do so.
What makes the idea clever is that it's a public request (and publicise the hell out of it!) and it's powered by copyright. This is why the GPL is so effective...
Yes, watch how effective the GPL is as exactly nothing happens.
I believe we should teach the other side of every scientific theory.
I believe in a little equality. If religious folks want to see science teachers talk about religious beliefs, then I want to see priests teach evolution in church and present that as an alternative theory to religious creationism. Teach the controversy, right?
I specifically chose to avoid using the word "invent", and used "responsible for" instead, which is closer to his actual statement:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."
To someone who doesn't know better, who asks you "did Al Gore invent the internet", you can either say "yes" and talk about his legislation that helped foster that technology, or you can say "no" and talk about people like Tim and Vint. To people like us, the contributions of Tim and Vint are more widely-recognized as the contributions which directly led to the internet existing today. They created the technological foundation, Gore helped with the legislative issues. They're both responsible in their own ways, and no single person can claim to have "invented" or "created" the entire internet as we know it. But in the statement above, it does sound like Al is trying to take majority credit.
Yeah. And you can't blame killers for killing people (it's their nature). With that kind of argument, we could as well eradicate the whole 'good and bad' categories. Let's go fully moral-relativistic and make this planet an evil madhouse for good.
That's exactly my point. Oracle is an evil company. You can expect them to try and squeeze whatever they can out of anyone else. Maybe I didn't use the right terminology, you can't really excuse that behavior, but you can expect it.
Thankfully, asserting that APIs are copyrightable isn't the only thing Oracle does. Hell, the name "Oracle" is even synonymous with one of their products, in context at least. "I'm working on an application that uses C++ and Oracle."
Why do Opera fanboys feel the need to convince everyone that Opera invented the web?
We really only do that when someone makes a factually incorrect statement that attributes some "new" feature as being invented by a recent browser, when J.S. von Tetzchner and his friends were deciding how to actually implement it over a decade ago.
When Al Gore claimed to be responsible for the internet, were you content with letting people believe that or did you feel the need to point out that people like Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Between my $500 video card, two 28" monitors, quad-core CPU, and 8GB of high-speed RAM, it was definitely my shiny new OCZ Agility 3 that made the biggest impression on my when I booted my computer for the first time to install the OS. Those things are so fast it truly is ridiculous.
That sounds like a hell of a lot of work just to get a broad into Star Trek. Do you have something in the "month or two" timeframe?
Also, don't fucking go on a massive rant about Subject X. If she asks, "What is Warp?" Just say, "It lets the ship go faster than light."
How do they respond if you chuckle a little and say "that's cute"?
as a committed Star Trek junkie even I had a hard damn time pushing through many of them. I mean, I've read a lot of the novels and some of the comics
I think you left out the part where you give the advice on what to start with.
that hasn't stopped one popular idea from spawning a company dedicated to discovering avant-garde new pairings
Next up: patenting food combinations as "inventions".
I prefer some test phone in a lab do that for me.
And you're assuming that Apple is the sole mobile OS company to do this? The Google Play store is in fact scanned regularly for malware, and it does get removed and developer accounts do get banned. The major difference between the Android and iOS environments is that on my phone I can download and install an app directly from a website. I don't need to do that, and I understand that those apps have not been vetted like apps in the Google Play store, but it remains an option for me. It's not an option for you.
I guess if your only 2 options were a walled garden or a "field of manure" then you might have a point. A malicious app that affected 200 people doesn't exactly taint the entire Android environment. Conversely, the walled garden approach does affect all non-jailbroken iOS users.
You also forgot to mention that he is only the lawyer, not the owner. FunnyJunk operates out of New York, Carreon is based right here in sunny Arizona. Matt Inman seems not to draw a line between the two (e.g., this picture of "your mom" seducing a bear could apply to either party), but FJ is the client, and Carreon is the attorney.
Just to be clear, TFA is the video attached to TFS, correct? There's no actual FA associated with this that I can go read? How about including a link to this, or perhaps this?
Unless you can show proof that Windows has negative value to consumers, it might be you who is clueless.
Well, there's no reason to ask for directions if you never get lost.
Ditto GPS/location services since they are driving the kids around.
I think you meant to say "because men never get lost."
So the argument for using a hash/checksum algorithm with a smaller collision space is because it would be difficult to update the software, not for a technical reason? I'm looking for a single technical reason why someone would favor MD5 over SHA-1.
The reason so many details are needed in the application, I suspect, is to prevent a Chinese company from producing an exact knockoff
Explain how a US patent for anything prevents a Chinese company from doing anything. The Chinese have no problem producing knockoffs to compete against foreign products in Chinese markets.
For regular security needs, AES-128 is considered sufficient. For greater needs, there's AES-192 and AES-256.
I don't like that type of thought, it seems lazy. It's the reason why MD5 is still being used. What is "sufficient" today may not be sufficient in 10 years, so why choose lesser security when the difference between that and greater security is a bigger database field? And how would you quantify "regular security" versus "greater needs"?
Also, I'm not sure HMAC MD5 is considered weak at all.
Maybe not, but would it be better to use HMAC MD5 or HMAC SHA-1? Or HMAC SHA-512? What is the argument for using a weaker alternative?
Firstly, a bad tool becoming so popular to the point where it's nearly impossible to convince people not to use it is not an uncommon effect.
Right, that's why I'd love to see PHP remove the MD5 function. It would force people to wonder why and look for alternatives.
I've never used RoR, I prefer to write correct PHP code. What exactly do you use MD5 for where SHA-1 would not be more appropriate (less prone to collisions, due to a larger hash space)?
I thought of this just as I hit the post button, but I would LOVE to see PHP deprecate and outright remove the MD5 function. Maybe copy-paste programmers will start paying attention at that point. If it breaks software, well, that software was already broken. PHP is just requiring that you fix it now.
Wishful thinking...
I think at this point most people know md5 isn't as secure as once considered, but I don't think people realize just how insecure it is becoming.
Why not? Are they not paying attention? This is a quote from TFA:
In 2004, researchers revealed a number of weaknesses in regularly-used hash functions. Later in 2005, MD5 was declared “broken” by security expert Bruce Schneier.
I remember reading that back in 2005 (7 years ago!) and not being surprised. I mean, what the hell people? Who in 2012 is using MD5 for new systems thinking that it's "good enough"? It hasn't been "good enough" since SHA-1 came out in 1995. I mean, all other things being equal, MD5 results in a hash that is 128 bits, a SHA-1 hash is 160 bits. The hash space is larger for SHA-1, so why would anyone be using MD5 for anything at all, even CRC checks? Not even SHA-1 is good enough any more, so again, why would anyone think MD5 is fine to use? I just don't get it, if people in 2012 still think that MD5 is appropriate to use in any circumstance then they'll never learn.
Someone with gigantic balls of steel should file a FOIA on this basis.
It doesn't require any courage to file a FOIA request, only information.
It would be interesting to see if the request would even be acknowledged.
Doubtful. There's zero incentive to do so.
What makes the idea clever is that it's a public request (and publicise the hell out of it!) and it's powered by copyright. This is why the GPL is so effective...
Yes, watch how effective the GPL is as exactly nothing happens.
I believe we should teach the other side of every scientific theory.
I believe in a little equality. If religious folks want to see science teachers talk about religious beliefs, then I want to see priests teach evolution in church and present that as an alternative theory to religious creationism. Teach the controversy, right?
I specifically chose to avoid using the word "invent", and used "responsible for" instead, which is closer to his actual statement:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."
To someone who doesn't know better, who asks you "did Al Gore invent the internet", you can either say "yes" and talk about his legislation that helped foster that technology, or you can say "no" and talk about people like Tim and Vint. To people like us, the contributions of Tim and Vint are more widely-recognized as the contributions which directly led to the internet existing today. They created the technological foundation, Gore helped with the legislative issues. They're both responsible in their own ways, and no single person can claim to have "invented" or "created" the entire internet as we know it. But in the statement above, it does sound like Al is trying to take majority credit.
Yeah. And you can't blame killers for killing people (it's their nature). With that kind of argument, we could as well eradicate the whole 'good and bad' categories. Let's go fully moral-relativistic and make this planet an evil madhouse for good.
That's exactly my point. Oracle is an evil company. You can expect them to try and squeeze whatever they can out of anyone else. Maybe I didn't use the right terminology, you can't really excuse that behavior, but you can expect it.
Thankfully, asserting that APIs are copyrightable isn't the only thing Oracle does. Hell, the name "Oracle" is even synonymous with one of their products, in context at least. "I'm working on an application that uses C++ and Oracle."
Why do Opera fanboys feel the need to convince everyone that Opera invented the web?
We really only do that when someone makes a factually incorrect statement that attributes some "new" feature as being invented by a recent browser, when J.S. von Tetzchner and his friends were deciding how to actually implement it over a decade ago.
When Al Gore claimed to be responsible for the internet, were you content with letting people believe that or did you feel the need to point out that people like Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee exist?