As I would have expected, and was the sole intent of these responses, the SCOX stock price took a nice step up on Monday following the interview in which SCO's CEO heighlighted SCO's other enterprises.
To preface, I don't belive this at all. Consider a photograph that has undergone a hue transformation, and is titled George W. Bush has blue face, see photo. It will have all the other properties of a real photo, but will be fake. Another example, consider a photograph of models.
But assuming this is possible, then I can make a fake photograph that is so convincing that they will belive it is true. First construct the photograph, and possibly include markings as to what are the edges of adjusted areas, etc, to aid in developing heuristics. Then search on slight modifications to the photograph until their fake detection algorithm detects the photograph as real.
The above descriped sketch of an algorithm is also a sketch of a proof that their method doesn't work.
You're misunderstanding the problem with "a piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box." If Sally wants to force Jim to vote a certain way, and has a lot of sway over Jim, she can force Jim to bring home the "piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box." Now Sally can control the way Jim votes. This is because Jim's electronic vote will be counted regardless of his deposit of the receipt. The only situation in which Sally's extra vote through Jim won't count is in a recount, and those are very rare, and at the very least she has kept Jim from voting in opposition to her. A "piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box" gives Sally a way to control Jim's vote.
Man, no commments after 2 hours. What's up?
To make this on-topic: I used wine once. It was ok. But it doesn't actually run anything, especially lotus programs.
I'll bet this doesn't post.
My grandfather invented the low-frequency sine function generator about 40~50 years ago, and sold it to HP. It worked in part because he was able to isolate a frequency standard from its output using an amplifier, which is now a fairly ubiquitous design. Tricks involving subdividing a signal to make it a higher frequency, or lowering the frequency by abandoning some portion of the signals are not only obvious and well known to anyone who has taken a physics instrumentation lab, but where well understood at that time too. This is not only unoriginal, it is so common that you could find prior art in a lower division college textbook.
However that is not the analogous because the kernel will load the module regardless of the contents of the license. It will display "kernel tainted" if the license doesn't match.
This is like the game console starting up whether or not the trademark call is made, and still calling the trademark.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 13:59:48 +0100, Paulo Marques wrote in message: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >This way, the module format doesn't change, but we can do additional > >verification in the loader. > > The way I see it, they know a C string ends with a '\0'. This is like > saying that a English sentence ends with a dot. If they wrote "GPL\0" they > are effectively saying that the license *is* GPL period. > > So, where the source code?:)
That's another (quite amusing:) point of view. Anybody willing to ask a lawyer?
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Easy - Say, the extra instructions are supposed perform a matrix convolution. Call extra instruction 1 with some random matrix. If it doesn't calculate the same thing as a slow version run in the regular RISC part you know extra instruction 1 has in some way failed and needs to be reprogrammed. Your virus software and OS etc should never have special instructions and are always run in the regular RISC part.
I highly doubt anyone is planning on making PCs with these. They are designed for being a processor in something like a data logging / control system, surveillance video compression, etc. Your system will probably have no need for virus detection any more specific than other more general regression and test suites it will need during operation.
Wow! The virus could execute arbitrary code! Just like if it could choose which of the existing instructions were executed by another processor. The core part of your virus could run faster, maybe in just one clock cycle!
A lot of people have posted that it would be much harder to give up the internet. It's not hard at all. When I moved into this apartment we didn't have internet access or phone service for about three weeks. I really missed the phone, but hardly even noticed the internet. I also don't miss it when I leave home for any sort of trip. I guess it's out of sight - out of mind.
What is harder is not giving it up. It is much harder to use it an apropriate amount (not reloading Slashdot / BBC / re-checking email) than it is to step away completely. My internet usage is never excesive when I'm only using it as an asside to another activity - like looking at overhead photos to find nice ways to bike out of the city or looking up documentation when coding.
That was my first though - B.S. Read on for the real most efficient electric motors in the world. Three phase motors do quite a lot better than that source quoted and can reach.9 power factor (output power / input power, integral over time makes it work / energy). Dr. Smith's single phase motors get near unity power factor, often better than the three phase motor they were built from, on a single phase supply. They also have amazingly low starting current, greatly easing peak loads for power companies. We should be using these things in all our refrigerators and small installations to conserve power. For example, he designed a 40 hp single phase motor for irrigation that runs at 94.4% efficiency!
I'm sure this isn't the "correct" answer, since nut crabs arn't extraordinarily well known. But it is the first answer I thought of. There's another answer that also grows on trees. How many answers can we come up with?
In the big PDF file, 1/2 of their argument (people are not corporations) falls apart on the first page. They assert that ("United States" => federal corporation) => (person => ~federal corporation) because person is not "United States". Could you make a more basic logical error? If X then Y does not mean if !X then !Y.
The other half of their argument is that federal law specifies income tax but does not specify that a person is liable for paying that income tax. Even if they are right about that, it would still be illegal to file the federal income tax forms with incorrect information (I, the undersigned,... under penalty of perjury...).
P.S. The accountant is probably right. You don't have to pay the taxes (as the state law is unconstitutional (Article 10 I think), but putting a 0 on the line could be seen as perjury. Best to leave it blank.
Great! Now I can find all the tech law websites I want with one simple command:
cat internet | egrep -i gr[:vowel:][:explosive\ consonant:]law
Which reminds me, I really wish multi-character atoms would work with reg-ex. The spec calls for them, but they haven't worked in any implementation I've used.
The first time I looked the bid was 9,000,100.00 pounds. About half an hour later it was only 7,000,100.00 pounds. Now it's 5,000,100.00 pounds. Can anyone familiar with E-Bay tell me what's going on?
I just tried out spidergraph from the install links on their website, as the parent suggested. Here's my experience. (Mozilla 1.4, Windows 2000).
Install went fine, restarted mozilla
First thing I noticed was it disables tabbed browsing - that's no good!
I tried clicking the big spidergraph button. It brought up a nifty little graph with two nodes. It wasn't a graph of websites I visited, and I could never get it to change.
Tried uninstalling it. It doesn't show up in preferences, and I couldn't find an uninstall feature anywhere, so I extracted it from chrome directory by hand.
After manual uninstall of spidergraph, the menu item View->Show/Hide->Tab Bar was still disabled, but right click would get me open in new tab. Good enough, but annoying.
Decided it wasn't good enough. Uninstalled mozilla 1.4 and installed 1.6. And behold, it's still that way. I almost never use Windows except for work and a few games, so I can live with it.
I have frequently wished that the history in a browser was a tree, so I could go back and then forwards along a different branch. The summary doesn't mention it, but the arangement of the pages in the space is a tree built by your browsing.
2. On the right side there is the login form. There are two links at the bottom of it. The first is for a new user. Click on it.
3. You will get a form with two inputs. In the first put your desired username. In the second put a working email address. Click on the submit button.
4. You will recieve an email with two web addresses. Follow the first one. It is supposed to take you to change password, but it took me to the regular home page.
5. On the left of the home page you'll see your nickname. Click on it.
6. The last link on the bar across the top of the user page is change password. Click on it.
7. There are two input boxes. Enter your new password in both of them. Click the button. You're done - your very own slashdot(.jp) 5 digit user ID!
n = numer of states in logic system i = number of inputs to the gate All gates have one output - if you want two outputs you can just use two gates
The number of possible input states is i^n Each of the possible input states is mapped to an output state - for each output state there are n possibilities. Total number of possible gates in a logic is: n^(i^n)
For binary logic n=2 and i is typically 2. That makes 4 possible input states, and 2^4 or 16 output mappings. 16 possible 2 input gates for binary.
For a 4th order logic it would be n=4 i=2. There would be 4^2 = 16 possible input states, each mapped to one of 4 values makes 16^4 possible gates or 65536
It is possible to create every possible binary logic gate using NAND gates - there is probably a similar gate in a 4 state logic which can be used to create every other gate.
You're right. The phrase "security through obscurity" is usually asociated with obscurity of system design. It is a totally unacceptable security method, because the "obscurity" does not actually exist.
As I posited, security is based on obscure, or secret, information which you have and others do not. Why doesn't "security through obscurity" work? Because the "obscurity" is not really very obscure. Anyone with a similar system would know how it works. Do you trust everyone who uses or accesses the same system you do? Aditionally, such as in the case of hiding services on non standard port numbers, there may be methods of finding out the "obscure" information. If so, it isn't very obscure, invisible, or secret anymore. If it can be guessed in a small amount of time, or can be deduced easily, it is not very secure at all. That is why we use larger pieces of obscure information for more secure systems, such as "stronger" passwords, or larger keys, or challenge response systems whos' communiques will not function in a different session - to make it harder to guess or deduce the obscured information.
There is only one form of security for a publicly accessible interface: obscurity. What is a password? It is a piece of information that you know that someone else doesn't - it is obscurity. The key to your house is something you have that someone else doesn't. If they knew the obscure details of your key they could make one. What is a private key, a key for SSH, a kerberos function? They are all information you know which (hopefully) a potential attacker doesn't. This is obscurity.
If you have a security system for a public interface (the front door to your house, a computer port, etc...) that does not rely on obscurity you have a system better than any theoretical system anyone has ever thought of. (Biometrics don't count - they are just another piece of information that you have that someone else probably doesn't. That's obscurity.)
Slashdot Mirror
As I would have expected, and was the sole intent of these responses, the SCOX stock price took a nice step up on Monday following the interview in which SCO's CEO heighlighted SCO's other enterprises.
I'm sorry. I couldn't understand your sig. Would you explain it please?
To preface, I don't belive this at all. Consider a photograph that has undergone a hue transformation, and is titled George W. Bush has blue face, see photo. It will have all the other properties of a real photo, but will be fake. Another example, consider a photograph of models.
But assuming this is possible, then I can make a fake photograph that is so convincing that they will belive it is true. First construct the photograph, and possibly include markings as to what are the edges of adjusted areas, etc, to aid in developing heuristics. Then search on slight modifications to the photograph until their fake detection algorithm detects the photograph as real.
The above descriped sketch of an algorithm is also a sketch of a proof that their method doesn't work.
You're misunderstanding the problem with "a piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box." If Sally wants to force Jim to vote a certain way, and has a lot of sway over Jim, she can force Jim to bring home the "piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box." Now Sally can control the way Jim votes. This is because Jim's electronic vote will be counted regardless of his deposit of the receipt. The only situation in which Sally's extra vote through Jim won't count is in a recount, and those are very rare, and at the very least she has kept Jim from voting in opposition to her. A "piece of paper that the voter verifies BEFORE putting it in the ballot box" gives Sally a way to control Jim's vote.
Man, no commments after 2 hours. What's up? To make this on-topic: I used wine once. It was ok. But it doesn't actually run anything, especially lotus programs. I'll bet this doesn't post.
My grandfather invented the low-frequency sine function generator about 40~50 years ago, and sold it to HP. It worked in part because he was able to isolate a frequency standard from its output using an amplifier, which is now a fairly ubiquitous design. Tricks involving subdividing a signal to make it a higher frequency, or lowering the frequency by abandoning some portion of the signals are not only obvious and well known to anyone who has taken a physics instrumentation lab, but where well understood at that time too. This is not only unoriginal, it is so common that you could find prior art in a lower division college textbook.
Sigh. I guess it's about time for me to update the Knoppix data rescue guide on how to use knoppix to rescue data off dying windows machines.
This is like the game console starting up whether or not the trademark call is made, and still calling the trademark.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 13:59:48 +0100, Paulo Marques : :)
wrote in message
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >This way, the module format doesn't change, but we can do additional
> >verification in the loader.
>
> The way I see it, they know a C string ends with a '\0'. This is like
> saying that a English sentence ends with a dot. If they wrote "GPL\0" they
> are effectively saying that the license *is* GPL period.
>
> So, where the source code?
That's another (quite amusing:) point of view. Anybody willing to ask a
lawyer?
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
This has already been discussed in this thread
I highly doubt anyone is planning on making PCs with these. They are designed for being a processor in something like a data logging / control system, surveillance video compression, etc. Your system will probably have no need for virus detection any more specific than other more general regression and test suites it will need during operation.
Wow! The virus could execute arbitrary code! Just like if it could choose which of the existing instructions were executed by another processor. The core part of your virus could run faster, maybe in just one clock cycle!
From the article:
What is harder is not giving it up. It is much harder to use it an apropriate amount (not reloading Slashdot / BBC / re-checking email) than it is to step away completely. My internet usage is never excesive when I'm only using it as an asside to another activity - like looking at overhead photos to find nice ways to bike out of the city or looking up documentation when coding.
That was my first though - B.S. Read on for the real most efficient electric motors in the world. Three phase motors do quite a lot better than that source quoted and can reach .9 power factor (output power / input power, integral over time makes it work / energy). Dr. Smith's single phase motors get near unity power factor, often better than the three phase motor they were built from, on a single phase supply. They also have amazingly low starting current, greatly easing peak loads for power companies. We should be using these things in all our refrigerators and small installations to conserve power. For example, he designed a 40 hp single phase motor for irrigation that runs at 94.4% efficiency!
nut crab
nut sauce
I'm sure this isn't the "correct" answer, since nut crabs arn't extraordinarily well known. But it is the first answer I thought of. There's another answer that also grows on trees. How many answers can we come up with?
The other half of their argument is that federal law specifies income tax but does not specify that a person is liable for paying that income tax. Even if they are right about that, it would still be illegal to file the federal income tax forms with incorrect information (I, the undersigned, ... under penalty of perjury ...).
P.S. The accountant is probably right. You don't have to pay the taxes (as the state law is unconstitutional (Article 10 I think), but putting a 0 on the line could be seen as perjury. Best to leave it blank.
Great! Now I can find all the tech law websites I want with one simple command:
cat internet | egrep -i gr[:vowel:][:explosive\ consonant:]law
Which reminds me, I really wish multi-character atoms would work with reg-ex. The spec calls for them, but they haven't worked in any implementation I've used.
The first time I looked the bid was 9,000,100.00 pounds. About half an hour later it was only 7,000,100.00 pounds. Now it's 5,000,100.00 pounds. Can anyone familiar with E-Bay tell me what's going on?
Now where's the copycat mozilla plugin...?
How to get yours:
1. Go to slashdot.jp.
2. On the right side there is the login form. There are two links at the bottom of it. The first is for a new user. Click on it.
3. You will get a form with two inputs. In the first put your desired username. In the second put a working email address. Click on the submit button.
4. You will recieve an email with two web addresses. Follow the first one. It is supposed to take you to change password, but it took me to the regular home page.
5. On the left of the home page you'll see your nickname. Click on it.
6. The last link on the bar across the top of the user page is change password. Click on it.
7. There are two input boxes. Enter your new password in both of them. Click the button. You're done - your very own slashdot(.jp) 5 digit user ID!
The number of possible logic gates:
n = numer of states in logic system
i = number of inputs to the gate
All gates have one output - if you want two outputs you can just use two gates
The number of possible input states is i^n
Each of the possible input states is mapped to an output state - for each output state there are n possibilities. Total number of possible gates in a logic is:
n^(i^n)
For binary logic n=2 and i is typically 2. That makes 4 possible input states, and 2^4 or 16 output mappings. 16 possible 2 input gates for binary.
For a 4th order logic it would be n=4 i=2. There would be 4^2 = 16 possible input states, each mapped to one of 4 values makes 16^4 possible gates or 65536
It is possible to create every possible binary logic gate using NAND gates - there is probably a similar gate in a 4 state logic which can be used to create every other gate.
You're right. The phrase "security through obscurity" is usually asociated with obscurity of system design. It is a totally unacceptable security method, because the "obscurity" does not actually exist.
As I posited, security is based on obscure, or secret, information which you have and others do not. Why doesn't "security through obscurity" work? Because the "obscurity" is not really very obscure. Anyone with a similar system would know how it works. Do you trust everyone who uses or accesses the same system you do? Aditionally, such as in the case of hiding services on non standard port numbers, there may be methods of finding out the "obscure" information. If so, it isn't very obscure, invisible, or secret anymore. If it can be guessed in a small amount of time, or can be deduced easily, it is not very secure at all. That is why we use larger pieces of obscure information for more secure systems, such as "stronger" passwords, or larger keys, or challenge response systems whos' communiques will not function in a different session - to make it harder to guess or deduce the obscured information.
There is only one form of security for a publicly accessible interface: obscurity. What is a password? It is a piece of information that you know that someone else doesn't - it is obscurity. The key to your house is something you have that someone else doesn't. If they knew the obscure details of your key they could make one. What is a private key, a key for SSH, a kerberos function? They are all information you know which (hopefully) a potential attacker doesn't. This is obscurity.
If you have a security system for a public interface (the front door to your house, a computer port, etc...) that does not rely on obscurity you have a system better than any theoretical system anyone has ever thought of. (Biometrics don't count - they are just another piece of information that you have that someone else probably doesn't. That's obscurity.)