I don't see anything wrong with this article. It states simply that etoys.com is "taking legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com." They use that statement to lead into the relevant topic of a group launching DoS attacks against etoys.com. Within the scope of this particular article, who cares which site was there first? That's irrelevant. It's just simply stating a fact, nothing more. This fact (etoys.com disputing etoy.com) was the catalyst that started the DoS attacks against etoys.com. That is all the article is saying.
I don't see any problem whatsoever.
Furthermore, nowhere in this article does it say anything about who is at fault in the etoys.com - etoy.com issue. So, it does not lay any foundation, whatsoever, that could be used for any misrepresentation of any kind.
With that in mind, it's easy to see that the poster is obviously reading way too much into this one sentence.
I fail to even see how this story even made it up on Slashdot.
I wonder how much the NYPD charges for their services? Maybe they have a "first time free" deal? I certainly could use them to run a few extra Xmas shopping errands for me.
I don't see anything creepy about the NYPD being able to track the package down. I mean, they have several ways to do it. I'm no specialist in the area, by far, but they could easily have obtained the address from MS (which is probably what happened.) They could also have gotten the UPS tracking number from MS, and then used that to determine where it was delivered, but the first method would be much faster.
Then again, if I did read the comment wrong, then maybe it was referring to the fact that the NYPD was called in at all to recover MS property, that was incorrectly mailed to the wrong address... which is certainly not a crime by any definition of the word.
It seems the majority of people posting on this thread share the common "the sky is falling" mentality about this.
It should be noted that it's not good to get too carried away with the evangilistic atitude towards privacy.
Yes, privacy is good. Yes, invasion of privacy is bad. However, keep in mind that information about your computer has been transmitted without your knowledge for years.
Tim Sweeney, from Epic, has stated in a post on VoodooExtreme, that UT does pretty much the same thing as Q3. He also states that information about our PCs is "transmitted by every internet client on earth."
"The IP protocol itself sends a protocol version number and (gasp) your IP address.
Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator send their version number, as well as info about frames support, to all web servers, so the server can send you a page that's compatible with your browser.
The POP3 protocol sends your mailer's version number."
Being able to view a dump of the memory at the state it was in when the crash occured is an invaluable piece of data for any developer, and/or support-type person.
It makes the PTF/patch process go so much more easier. Of course, that's when the stack in the dump hasn't been corrupted by "unexpected" behaviour. Then, all bets are off.
BTW, does anyone know if they have any tools tailored to viewing these dumps and being able to quickly navigate through the stack, popping/pushing when needed? That would be nice too, but I never noticed anything from the announcement, and I don't have a Linux system handy at the moment to check the package.
Well, they did reverse-engineer the Xing player in order to get the unencrypted key. The first key was not obtained by deduction, the remaining ones were. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that it's the first act they did of reverse-engineering the player, that is the source of what's going on now.
These flexible transistors can have a huge benefit to the medical community. Imagine, if you will, taking these transistors, and combining them with nano-technology. Albeit, that's at the far end of the spectrum, but still... it makes for some interesting ideas.
In the more immediate future, I can see them being used in prosthetic devices, tissue implants, etc.
Combine that with tissue cloning (not sheep cloning, and not full-blown human cloning either. I'm talking just a skin covering like the Borg gave Data in the 2nd Next Generation movie... the name escapes me at this time), and some serious AI (we're far from that still), and we'll have Cyborgs a la Terminator (a friendlier name will have to be thought of though. "Terminator" just does not emit a warm fuzy feeling. Neither does Teletubby. Something in-between would be good.)
All I know is that once upon I time, I purchased an AMD chip/motherboard combo, mainly because of the price (I was a student at the tme.) I had no problems with it either, until Command and Conquer was released.
Well, try as I might, Command and Conquer would not run reliably on my system. If I chose sound, the mouse wouldn't work. If I disabled sound, the mouse would work, but I wouldn't be able to hear if I was being attacked. This was a royal pain in the butt. Anyone who's played Command and Conquer will agree that sound is a somewhat important and/or helpful thing to have in this game.
After many frustrating attempts to get it to work, and several messages to Westwood support, I gave up. A couple weeks later, Westwood added a section in their Command and Conquer FAQ describing my problem, and stated that it was an issue only with those people that owned a system with an AMD CPU.
Now, a lot of you are probably saying "so what, it's just a game". Well, yeah, it is just a game, but my point is it's just one program out of many that "could" have a similar problem. The end result now, is that I have not bought any other CPU since then, aside from one made by Intel.
Note, Intel may have a good reason for using FUD tactics against AMD now, but that still won't make any difference to me. My problems with that one game have done enough damage to my impression of AMD, that it will still take some time before I take the plunge and buy another of their CPUs.
Who knows? The story never mentioned anything about any testing (regression or functionality) being done. Since it takes hours to compile and link, I'd imagine that Loki/Activision will most likely have their own testers going over it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I too think this is great, but we have to exercise a little self-control here before we get too excited.
I'm sure Loki/Activision has several reasons for doing this. One reason that comes to my mind is that so they can take a look at some talent for future jobs (who knows?) Another is so they can take the ideas from the coders, and their code, and use them in future projects (without compensating the coders for their efforts.) Catered food, 1 hotel room to share, feeding egos?!? That's peanuts to them when they have the potential to make much, much more money (in the long term) from what these guys did.
What it all boils down to is this... sure Loki has gained the respect of Linux users by porting games, but they are only doing it to make money... that's the bottom line. They are a business, and like all business, they exist to earn profits. Sure they have statements on their website about supporting O.S.S., but to me that's just propoganda. Now, I'm not saying they are like Microsoft, but when you get right down to it, all companies act like Microsoft to some degree. You think they're going to tell the whole truth in their press releases, and their advertisements? No freaking way. They tell the public what they think they want to hear... it's called Public Relations.
*sigh* I'm sorry, but the cynical side of me just keeps screaming, "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is!"
After reading anything on ZDNet, it's obvious to me that the company is extremely biased towards Microsoft. This ZDNet SNAFU* is just another example of their unbiased approach towards information dissemination.
The problem I see with that, is that Bob would only receive part of the transmission. Eve will be intercepting the entire stream of photons, and then (in your suggestion) re-transmitting only part of the intercepted stream. Bob, in the end, would only receive a partial key. In which case, Mary and Bob would have to restart the transmission, using a new random key taken from the next page in the one-time pad. Of course, this all is based on the assumption that Mary and Bob would be smart/paranoid enough to transmit a new key _every_ single time they have to transmit, regardless of the reason why. After all, certain steps, aside from the technology being used, have to be taken to ensure a secure transmission. It's not all in the hands of the technology.
You could have the most unbreakable/uncrackable (or whatever you want to call it) method of transmitting data. That won't mean squat* if the individuals using the technology aren't willing or knowledgeable enough to take certain precautions to ensure an adequate and/or secure usage of said technology.
* squat - slang : the least amount : anything at all. Taken from diddly-squat.
"Bennett and Brassard proposed using photons polarised in different directions to represent 1 or 0. If Eve tried to intercept the key, she would have to measure the photons, which would effectively mean absorbing them. To avoid being spotted, Eve would have to retransmit the photon to Bob. However, because of the strange way that quantum particles work, Eve does not always measure the same polarisation that Alice sent. That in turn means that she cannot be sure that she is retransmitting the correct orientation. Thus Eve's interception will inevitably affect the transmission of the key, and Alice and Bob should be able to spot this, discard the key, and try again with a new one."
Couldn't a man-in-the-middle attack theoretically be launched on this type of encryption? "Bennett and Brassard proposed using photons polarised in different directions to represent 1 or 0. If Eve tried to intercept the key, she would have to measure the photons, which would effectively mean absorbing them. To avoid being spotted, Eve would have to retransmit the photon to Bob. However, because of the strange way that quantum particles work, Eve does not always measure the same polarisation that Alice sent. That in turn means that she cannot be sure that she is retransmitting the correct orientation. Thus Eve's interception will inevitably affect the transmission of the key, and Alice and Bob should be able to spot this, discard the key, and try again with a new one."
Also, what happens when the photons pass from, say, a fibre, to an uplink. Or when they pass through the sattelite? Won't they lose their polarisation? "Ultimately, they want to be able to fire individual photons to hit a satellite's receiver, which is only a few centimetres across and orbits at an altitude of 300 kilometres. The photons must pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed--so that the signal is not simply lost--and they must not change their polarisation. It's easy enough to make sure that the photons are not absorbed. You just have to choose a wavelength that the molecules in the atmosphere ignore. Hughes's team has opted for 770 nanometres. Longer wavelengths also pass through the air unscathed, but are more susceptible to turbulence, which changes the local refractive index of the air and thus twists the orientation of the photon's polarisation. Turbulence typically occurs on a scale of tens of centimetres, so 770 nanometres is short enough to avoid this."
And, finally, what about a pure mathematical attack, based on probability and stochastic principles? "This type (one-time pad) of code is impossible to crack because each element of Alice's key is random. Even if Eve were to use computational brute force to try every possible key, she'd find that many of them made some sort of sense, and wouldn't know how to choose between the alternatives. Bob, on the other hand, has a copy of the key, and can decipher the message by simply subtracting the key from the encrypted text."
As you can see, all of the answers to your questions were in the article. It really is a very interesting article, but (IMO) you probably should have some type of basic understanding of cryptography before you read it. By "basic", I don't mean "what is cryptography?", or anything like that. Those kind of questions, to me, are on the same level as learning how to walk and talk, and as such, are below even "basic" level knowledge. One book that describes a lot about cryptography, even "what is cryptography":), is called "Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed.", by Bruce Schneier. ISBN = 0-471-11709-0
For all intensive purposes, an ATX motherboard and power-supply combo can "power-off" a system. This "feature" can be set up (usually) by using a combination of the BIOS settings, and the operating system.
However, there will always be a small amount of electricity flowing through the components from the power supply when it is off. With that in mind, the power supply is never fully, completely off. This is why it is best to unplug the power cord from a system before any tinkering inside of it is done.
The ever-present lack of common sense from reporters, when it come to the internet (and computer's in general) has, once more, given us all something to laugh about.
This has got to be the absolute most idiotic and ridiculous use of statistics I have _ever_ seen.
Statistics alone are just bad. You can generate any type of statistics you want to illustrate any point that you want. By no means (and I mean, NO means) does that validate the point being illustrated.
I mean, come on!!! Lines of code being used as a measure of productivity!?!?! What a crock!
This story looks like something that belongs on The Onion.
Perhaps they should take a non-linear approach to theorizing about the creation of planets?
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist."
Now THAT would be sweet. Although, I'd prefer to start small, and just use one of those mini-refrigerators. One of those should be able to hold plenty of hardware for me (Not too little, not too much... jusssst right.)
Then, slap in a few mutli-processor MOBOs, a couple GBs of RAM, a few TBs of disk, and you got yourself one kickass Q3 and/or Linux server, or a mediocre NT server.
Slashdot Mirror
The next thing we know, we'll see them go after some nobody that runs's a website, who's first name just happens to be Leonardo.
This is got to be the most frivolous trademark lawsuit I have ever seen.
I'm not entirely sure, but is it even possible to trademark a person's name?
If so, we all had better run out and file those papers for our own first names, before some snot nosed bigass company beats us to it.
"On the other hand, if Roblimo loses some money in this guy's scam, maybe it would improve the editorial skepticism of Slashdot."
One can only hope.
I don't see anything wrong with this article. It states simply that etoys.com is "taking legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com." They use that statement to lead into the relevant topic of a group launching DoS attacks against etoys.com. Within the scope of this particular article, who cares which site was there first? That's irrelevant. It's just simply stating a fact, nothing more. This fact (etoys.com disputing etoy.com) was the catalyst that started the DoS attacks against etoys.com. That is all the article is saying.
I don't see any problem whatsoever.
Furthermore, nowhere in this article does it say anything about who is at fault in the etoys.com - etoy.com issue. So, it does not lay any foundation, whatsoever, that could be used for any misrepresentation of any kind.
With that in mind, it's easy to see that the poster is obviously reading way too much into this one sentence.
I fail to even see how this story even made it up on Slashdot.
Thawte ... Verisign ... certificates ... security ... all this talk is giving me a headache ... it's making me thirsty too ... I need another beer.
I wonder how much the NYPD charges for their services? Maybe they have a "first time free" deal? I certainly could use them to run a few extra Xmas shopping errands for me.
I don't see anything creepy about the NYPD being able to track the package down. I mean, they have several ways to do it. I'm no specialist in the area, by far, but they could easily have obtained the address from MS (which is probably what happened.) They could also have gotten the UPS tracking number from MS, and then used that to determine where it was delivered, but the first method would be much faster.
... which is certainly not a crime by any definition of the word.
Then again, if I did read the comment wrong, then maybe it was referring to the fact that the NYPD was called in at all to recover MS property, that was incorrectly mailed to the wrong address
I don't want just one fast AMD or Pentium CPU, I want 2. Slap those puppies in a dual mobo, and let the Q3A begin.
The only thing stopping me is money for the rig. *sigh*
It seems the majority of people posting on this thread share the common "the sky is falling" mentality about this.
It should be noted that it's not good to get too carried away with the evangilistic atitude towards privacy.
Yes, privacy is good. Yes, invasion of privacy is bad. However, keep in mind that information about your computer has been transmitted without your knowledge for years.
Tim Sweeney, from Epic, has stated in a post on VoodooExtreme, that UT does pretty much the same thing as Q3. He also states that information about our PCs is "transmitted by every internet client on earth."
"The IP protocol itself sends a protocol version number and (gasp) your IP address.
Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator send their version number, as well as info about frames support, to all web servers, so the server can send you a page that's compatible with your browser.
The POP3 protocol sends your mailer's version number."
Being able to view a dump of the memory at the state it was in when the crash occured is an invaluable piece of data for any developer, and/or support-type person.
It makes the PTF/patch process go so much more easier. Of course, that's when the stack in the dump hasn't been corrupted by "unexpected" behaviour. Then, all bets are off.
BTW, does anyone know if they have any tools tailored to viewing these dumps and being able to quickly navigate through the stack, popping/pushing when needed? That would be nice too, but I never noticed anything from the announcement, and I don't have a Linux system handy at the moment to check the package.
Well, they did reverse-engineer the Xing player in order to get the unencrypted key. The first key was not obtained by deduction, the remaining ones were. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that it's the first act they did of reverse-engineering the player, that is the source of what's going on now.
Of course, I could be (and probably am) wrong.
These flexible transistors can have a huge benefit to the medical community. Imagine, if you will, taking these transistors, and combining them with nano-technology. Albeit, that's at the far end of the spectrum, but still ... it makes for some interesting ideas.
... the name escapes me at this time), and some serious AI (we're far from that still), and we'll have Cyborgs a la Terminator (a friendlier name will have to be thought of though. "Terminator" just does not emit a warm fuzy feeling. Neither does Teletubby. Something in-between would be good.)
In the more immediate future, I can see them being used in prosthetic devices, tissue implants, etc.
Combine that with tissue cloning (not sheep cloning, and not full-blown human cloning either. I'm talking just a skin covering like the Borg gave Data in the 2nd Next Generation movie
All I know is that once upon I time, I purchased an AMD chip/motherboard combo, mainly because of the price (I was a student at the tme.) I had no problems with it either, until Command and Conquer was released.
Well, try as I might, Command and Conquer would not run reliably on my system. If I chose sound, the mouse wouldn't work. If I disabled sound, the mouse would work, but I wouldn't be able to hear if I was being attacked. This was a royal pain in the butt. Anyone who's played Command and Conquer will agree that sound is a somewhat important and/or helpful thing to have in this game.
After many frustrating attempts to get it to work, and several messages to Westwood support, I gave up. A couple weeks later, Westwood added a section in their Command and Conquer FAQ describing my problem, and stated that it was an issue only with those people that owned a system with an AMD CPU.
Now, a lot of you are probably saying "so what, it's just a game". Well, yeah, it is just a game, but my point is it's just one program out of many that "could" have a similar problem. The end result now, is that I have not bought any other CPU since then, aside from one made by Intel.
Note, Intel may have a good reason for using FUD tactics against AMD now, but that still won't make any difference to me. My problems with that one game have done enough damage to my impression of AMD, that it will still take some time before I take the plunge and buy another of their CPUs.
Who knows? The story never mentioned anything about any testing (regression or functionality) being done. Since it takes hours to compile and link, I'd imagine that Loki/Activision will most likely have their own testers going over it.
... sure Loki has gained the respect of Linux users by porting games, but they are only doing it to make money ... that's the bottom line. They are a business, and like all business, they exist to earn profits. Sure they have statements on their website about supporting O.S.S., but to me that's just propoganda. Now, I'm not saying they are like Microsoft, but when you get right down to it, all companies act like Microsoft to some degree. You think they're going to tell the whole truth in their press releases, and their advertisements? No freaking way. They tell the public what they think they want to hear ... it's called Public Relations.
Now, don't get me wrong, I too think this is great, but we have to exercise a little self-control here before we get too excited.
I'm sure Loki/Activision has several reasons for doing this. One reason that comes to my mind is that so they can take a look at some talent for future jobs (who knows?) Another is so they can take the ideas from the coders, and their code, and use them in future projects (without compensating the coders for their efforts.) Catered food, 1 hotel room to share, feeding egos?!? That's peanuts to them when they have the potential to make much, much more money (in the long term) from what these guys did.
What it all boils down to is this
*sigh* I'm sorry, but the cynical side of me just keeps screaming, "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is!"
Of course, in the above, when I say "unbiased", I'm being sarcastic.
I forgot to make that clear.
After reading anything on ZDNet, it's obvious to me that the company is extremely biased towards Microsoft. This ZDNet SNAFU* is just another example of their unbiased approach towards information dissemination.
*SNAFU - situation normal all fucked up
The problem I see with that, is that Bob would only receive part of the transmission. Eve will be intercepting the entire stream of photons, and then (in your suggestion) re-transmitting only part of the intercepted stream. Bob, in the end, would only receive a partial key. In which case, Mary and Bob would have to restart the transmission, using a new random key taken from the next page in the one-time pad. Of course, this all is based on the assumption that Mary and Bob would be smart/paranoid enough to transmit a new key _every_ single time they have to transmit, regardless of the reason why. After all, certain steps, aside from the technology being used, have to be taken to ensure a secure transmission. It's not all in the hands of the technology.
You could have the most unbreakable/uncrackable (or whatever you want to call it) method of transmitting data. That won't mean squat* if the individuals using the technology aren't willing or knowledgeable enough to take certain precautions to ensure an adequate and/or secure usage of said technology.
* squat - slang : the least amount : anything at all. Taken from diddly-squat.
Your question is answered in the article:
"Bennett and Brassard proposed using photons polarised in different directions to represent 1 or 0. If Eve tried to intercept the key, she would have to measure the photons, which would effectively mean absorbing them. To avoid being spotted, Eve would have to retransmit the photon to Bob. However, because of the strange way that quantum particles work, Eve does not always measure the same polarisation that Alice sent. That in turn means that she cannot be sure that she is retransmitting the correct orientation. Thus Eve's interception will inevitably affect the transmission of the key, and Alice and Bob should be able to spot this, discard the key, and try again with a new one."
Couldn't a man-in-the-middle attack theoretically be launched on this type of encryption?
:), is called "Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed.", by Bruce Schneier. ISBN = 0-471-11709-0
"Bennett and Brassard proposed using photons polarised in different directions to represent 1 or 0. If Eve tried to intercept the key, she would have to measure the photons, which would effectively mean absorbing them. To avoid being spotted, Eve would have to retransmit the photon to Bob. However, because of the strange way that quantum particles work, Eve does not always measure the same polarisation that Alice sent. That in turn means that she cannot be sure that she is retransmitting the correct orientation. Thus Eve's interception will inevitably affect the transmission of the key, and Alice and Bob should be able to spot this, discard the key, and try again with a new one."
Also, what happens when the photons pass from, say, a fibre, to an uplink. Or when they pass through the sattelite? Won't they lose their polarisation?
"Ultimately, they want to be able to fire individual photons to hit a satellite's receiver, which is only a few centimetres across and orbits at an altitude of 300 kilometres. The photons must pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed--so that the signal is not simply lost--and they must not change their polarisation. It's easy enough to make sure that the photons are not absorbed. You just have to choose a wavelength that the molecules in the atmosphere ignore. Hughes's team has opted for 770 nanometres. Longer wavelengths also pass through the air unscathed, but are more susceptible to turbulence, which changes the local refractive index of the air and thus twists the orientation of the photon's polarisation. Turbulence typically occurs on a scale of tens of centimetres, so 770 nanometres is short enough to avoid this."
And, finally, what about a pure mathematical attack, based on probability and stochastic principles?
"This type (one-time pad) of code is impossible to crack because each element of Alice's key is random. Even if Eve were to use computational brute force to try every possible key, she'd find that many of them made some sort of sense, and wouldn't know how to choose between the alternatives. Bob, on the other hand, has a copy of the key, and can decipher the message by simply subtracting the key from the encrypted text."
As you can see, all of the answers to your questions were in the article. It really is a very interesting article, but (IMO) you probably should have some type of basic understanding of cryptography before you read it. By "basic", I don't mean "what is cryptography?", or anything like that. Those kind of questions, to me, are on the same level as learning how to walk and talk, and as such, are below even "basic" level knowledge. One book that describes a lot about cryptography, even "what is cryptography"
For all intensive purposes, an ATX motherboard and power-supply combo can "power-off" a system. This "feature" can be set up (usually) by using a combination of the BIOS settings, and the operating system.
However, there will always be a small amount of electricity flowing through the components from the power supply when it is off. With that in mind, the power supply is never fully, completely off. This is why it is best to unplug the power cord from a system before any tinkering inside of it is done.
The ever-present lack of common sense from reporters, when it come to the internet (and computer's in general) has, once more, given us all something to laugh about.
This has got to be the absolute most idiotic and ridiculous use of statistics I have _ever_ seen.
Statistics alone are just bad. You can generate any type of statistics you want to illustrate any point that you want. By no means (and I mean, NO means) does that validate the point being illustrated.
I mean, come on!!! Lines of code being used as a measure of productivity!?!?! What a crock!
This story looks like something that belongs on The Onion .
Perhaps they should take a non-linear approach to theorizing about the creation of planets?
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist."
Stephen Hawking
that said no one would _ever_ need more than 640k of RAM?
Now THAT would be sweet. Although, I'd prefer to start small, and just use one of those mini-refrigerators. One of those should be able to hold plenty of hardware for me (Not too little, not too much ... jusssst right.)
Then, slap in a few mutli-processor MOBOs, a couple GBs of RAM, a few TBs of disk, and you got yourself one kickass Q3 and/or Linux server, or a mediocre NT server.
It looks OK in MS IE5 on my system, but not with Netscape Communicator 4.51.
Designing for 800x600 is not the best idea either.
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com