The real problem, IMHO, is that nobody likes to do the intensive testing that is necessary to get a program to be truly robust. We do it here at IBM, and I promise you -- it's not something I would do if I weren't being paid to do it.
I wonder if it would be possible to remove the redactions from the documents? Obviously this is probably only semi-legal, but it would be in the public interest to at least attempt it.
Does anyone know of methods for distinguishing between various inks/toners placed on a page?
The decoders so far published are rudimentary at best. I have a full decoder, now available on my web page. Enjoy!
For those who are interested, it appears that the:Cat uses a modified base-64 encoding (not the MIME one!) and a little bit of XOR too. Check the decode() routine for details.
Although everyone here will go "it'll never work" or "it'll fail instantly", my experience with Windows 2000 is that, if properly set up, it can be quite a stable platform. We should all be watching closely, since this will be a real test to see whether Windows 2000 can meet or exceed an equivalent UNIX+Apache system.
It basically works by Bob sending Alice WHICH bits he received, but not the bit values themselves. Alice and Bob then share a secret, which can be used to create a key. The verification can be done by a challenge/response protocol, of which there are many.
It's a clever system, for sure. Now why don't we see more of them?
I've been trying to get involved in AI for a while now, but have noted a distinct lack of software which is easy to use/understand for someone without a good background in AI. In this case, I'm looking for a knowledge base + NLP + reasoning/prover, but have found nothing comprehensible for any of these parts. Do you have any recommendations for those of us who want to take advantage of recent advances in the field of AI?
RPK is a new (and patented) stream cipher which is based on mixture generators (related to shift registers). It is fast, relatively easy to implement, and can encrypt one bit at a time.
Note, however, that because you are not able to transpose bit positions or make them interdependent in any way, you _will_ lose strength in your cipher.
C'mon. You don't get something for nothing. The credit card companies charge these guys for processing transactions, but they're going to pay your friend the full amount? And it's all free? Where's the catch?
The problem with this is that, just like DVD vs DIVX, unprotected MP3's are much preferable to protected ones. If it weren't for this stupid lawsuit stuff, anyone trying to put out encrypted MP3s would fail, just as DIVX has failed.
Also, the point of having MP3s is to be able to play them in _many_ different places. On your computer, in your car, on your Rio. If this is just implemented on the Rio, who's gonna buy the encrypted music?
This is yet another example of the US export restrictions causing problems with software. The whole idea of software as some kind of material object which can be restricted by laws is entirely out of date.
I have to deal with this problem daily in my work with encryption, since the export restrictions are even tighter for software of that type. And it is wholly absurd to me that the only thing keeping me from releasing my software is a bunch of short-sighted legislators who are too afraid to acknowledge that they have lost control.
I find it equally hard to believe that companies are still, after all this hubbub about open source licensing, relying on the license to protect their collective butts. The only reason that the GPL is so successful is that it ensures freedoms, and the one restriction is enforceable (if someone decides to add new restrictions, then someone can always hunt down the original author, theoretically). Companies persist in thinking that they can get away with mixing old licensing restrictions with new open source licenses.
If I'm not mistaken, the GPL will allow anyone who buys the PSX development tools to then freely distribute them... so I don't really see how they can sanely charge for them.
Personally, I'm amazed and very pleased at the route this kind of thing is taking. Companies are clearly starting to realize that releasing the development tools to your product in an open manner merely increases the popularity of the platform, and consequently their income.
Unfortunately, censorship programs rarely work very well on things like pornography sites. There are only really two ways to catch things like that:
1) Trying to second-guess the URLs the sites will use. It's already been shown just how badly this works. The filters _invariably_ manage to filter out something that isn't really offensive.
2) Constantly updating site lists. This requires continuous maintenance, and therefore drives up the cost of the software (and our taxes, if the schools use it).
Both of these things result in a cat-and-mouse game to a certain extent, as some providers alter their sites to get past the filters, and the filter makers try to keep up the filtering lists.
To boot, who are these content providers to say what is offensive? Some religious parents may find the text of the bible offensive, and not want their children to read it...
IPP is host to a slew of problems, the worst of which is the lack of access control. Fax machines already suffer badly from junk faxes, and legislation had to be put into effect to try and deter that behavior. (Please correct me if I'm wrong... The rapidly changing legislation on privacy vs. free speech gets the better of me sometimes.)
From the cursory glance I gave HP's site of IPP a couple weeks ago, it didn't look like there was much of a standard for access control on the system. I mean, receiving a 100 page email is one thing -- you can delete it, and it doesn't use much in the way of material resources. However if someone uses IPP to send you a 100 page piece of junk, even if it's accidental (typed in the wrong ip?), it can cost quite a bit... Especially if it's a nice color transparency printer!
I'm all for standardizing printing protocols, but I really think IPP needs a little more work before it becomes mainstream. For now, I'm quite happy spooling stuff to port 515 on my printers:)
From having viewed the guidelines, it would appear that there is no automatic granting of Moderator access. Does that mean that you will periodically rescan the "ratings" list to find new moderators?
Software requires a 15-day review, and it only happens once. In fact, only the MODULE that does the encryption needs verification... I intend to take full advantage of this if this bill goes through.
It's a first step, anyway. You know the saying about the rock rolling down a hill...
Slashdot effect destroys major Internet web pages
on
Here Come Da Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Okay... you idiots all managed to slashdot eBay?! Wow.
There's no computer here, folks... it's just a stupid web browser in a box. I doubt it does telnet or ICQ or IRC or any of the other stuff that makes the world *really* great...
Slashdot Mirror
Something Joel on Software recommended managers look for also works well on resumes:
"Smart, and gets things done."
I meant to say "is very much more than that".
From experience, I know that around 30TB is about $1M. I can't see how 50TB is more than that...
(The 30TB came from IBM.)
Just use find . -type f | xargs -ixx cp xx xx.bak
The real problem, IMHO, is that nobody likes to do the intensive testing that is necessary to get a program to be truly robust. We do it here at IBM, and I promise you -- it's not something I would do if I weren't being paid to do it.
Taral
WARN_(accel)("msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n");
I wonder if it would be possible to remove the redactions from the documents? Obviously this is probably only semi-legal, but it would be in the public interest to at least attempt it.
Does anyone know of methods for distinguishing between various inks/toners placed on a page?
For those who are interested, it appears that the :Cat uses a modified base-64 encoding (not the MIME one!) and a little bit of XOR too. Check the decode() routine for details.
Although everyone here will go "it'll never work" or "it'll fail instantly", my experience with Windows 2000 is that, if properly set up, it can be quite a stable platform. We should all be watching closely, since this will be a real test to see whether Windows 2000 can meet or exceed an equivalent UNIX+Apache system.
It basically works by Bob sending Alice WHICH bits he received, but not the bit values themselves. Alice and Bob then share a secret, which can be used to create a key. The verification can be done by a challenge/response protocol, of which there are many.
It's a clever system, for sure. Now why don't we see more of them?
I've been trying to get involved in AI for a while now, but have noted a distinct lack of software which is easy to use/understand for someone without a good background in AI. In this case, I'm looking for a knowledge base + NLP + reasoning/prover, but have found nothing comprehensible for any of these parts. Do you have any recommendations for those of us who want to take advantage of recent advances in the field of AI?
Note, however, that because you are not able to transpose bit positions or make them interdependent in any way, you _will_ lose strength in your cipher.
C'mon. You don't get something for nothing. The credit card companies charge these guys for processing transactions, but they're going to pay your friend the full amount? And it's all free? Where's the catch?
The problem with this is that, just like DVD vs DIVX, unprotected MP3's are much preferable to protected ones. If it weren't for this stupid lawsuit stuff, anyone trying to put out encrypted MP3s would fail, just as DIVX has failed.
Also, the point of having MP3s is to be able to play them in _many_ different places. On your computer, in your car, on your Rio. If this is just implemented on the Rio, who's gonna buy the encrypted music?
20,000,000 JPY = 166,251.04 USD
Courtesy of The Universal Currency Converter
This is yet another example of the US export restrictions causing problems with software. The whole idea of software as some kind of material object which can be restricted by laws is entirely out of date.
I have to deal with this problem daily in my work with encryption, since the export restrictions are even tighter for software of that type. And it is wholly absurd to me that the only thing keeping me from releasing my software is a bunch of short-sighted legislators who are too afraid to acknowledge that they have lost control.
I find it equally hard to believe that companies are still, after all this hubbub about open source licensing, relying on the license to protect their collective butts. The only reason that the GPL is so successful is that it ensures freedoms, and the one restriction is enforceable (if someone decides to add new restrictions, then someone can always hunt down the original author, theoretically). Companies persist in thinking that they can get away with mixing old licensing restrictions with new open source licenses.
It doesn't work.
If I'm not mistaken, the GPL will allow anyone who buys the PSX development tools to then freely distribute them... so I don't really see how they can sanely charge for them.
Personally, I'm amazed and very pleased at the route this kind of thing is taking. Companies are clearly starting to realize that releasing the development tools to your product in an open manner merely increases the popularity of the platform, and consequently their income.
How come it took so long?
Unfortunately, censorship programs rarely work very well on things like pornography sites. There are only really two ways to catch things like that:
1) Trying to second-guess the URLs the sites will use. It's already been shown just how badly this works. The filters _invariably_ manage to filter out something that isn't really offensive.
2) Constantly updating site lists. This requires continuous maintenance, and therefore drives up the cost of the software (and our taxes, if the schools use it).
Both of these things result in a cat-and-mouse game to a certain extent, as some providers alter their sites to get past the filters, and the filter makers try to keep up the filtering lists.
To boot, who are these content providers to say what is offensive? Some religious parents may find the text of the bible offensive, and not want their children to read it...
IPP is host to a slew of problems, the worst of which is the lack of access control. Fax machines already suffer badly from junk faxes, and legislation had to be put into effect to try and deter that behavior. (Please correct me if I'm wrong... The rapidly changing legislation on privacy vs. free speech gets the better of me sometimes.)
:)
From the cursory glance I gave HP's site of IPP a couple weeks ago, it didn't look like there was much of a standard for access control on the system. I mean, receiving a 100 page email is one thing -- you can delete it, and it doesn't use much in the way of material resources. However if someone uses IPP to send you a 100 page piece of junk, even if it's accidental (typed in the wrong ip?), it can cost quite a bit... Especially if it's a nice color transparency printer!
I'm all for standardizing printing protocols, but I really think IPP needs a little more work before it becomes mainstream. For now, I'm quite happy spooling stuff to port 515 on my printers
From having viewed the guidelines, it would appear that there is no automatic granting of Moderator access. Does that mean that you will periodically rescan the "ratings" list to find new moderators?
Software requires a 15-day review, and it only happens once. In fact, only the MODULE that does the encryption needs verification... I intend to take full advantage of this if this bill goes through.
It's a first step, anyway. You know the saying about the rock rolling down a hill...
Okay... you idiots all managed to slashdot eBay?! Wow.
There's no computer here, folks... it's just a stupid web browser in a box. I doubt it does telnet or ICQ or IRC or any of the other stuff that makes the world *really* great...
Don't throw your computers away yet!
Well, I run xfsft, and have all those Microsoft truetype fonts available in X :)