The southern baptists are the group of religious fundies who mess things up over here. The most recent asshattery they were involved in was the whole fuss over Janet Jackson's breast; most people didn't really care about the whole ordeal.
And call me a tadger all you want. My "tadger" gets more use in a couple weeks than you probably get in years. Maybe because I know that obnoxious pricks, like nazis and yourself, are always going to be here, and as such, there's no real use in trying to legislate them away. I'd rather have such people known about so I can laugh at them in public. They're much more fun that way, much less likely to breed resentment, and more likely to realize they're being cunts about things.
I'm sorry, but I can get a much faster, nicer looking workstation that can do more than just run photoshop with my Linux box. I'd rather deal with the occasional klunkiness that is Linux than the ugly-ass gulag that is OS X.
How mature of you. Calling something you disagree with thought polluting bile. You oughtta join up with the Southern Baptists. You seem to think a lot alike, wanting disagreeable content banned.
It's just a bandaid. Yeah, adding the plaintext hash makes it more difficult when hashing hello world, but it doesn't do much for binaries in the long run. If you've trojaned a specific binary, you just need the application to run similar enough to the original program. A clever cracker could introduce lots of padding bytes though jumps, nops, etc, to get space to get the 256+ bytes needed to perturb the program enough to create a collision.
While it's true that the world won't end quite yet, the odd thing about cryptography is that once a hole is open, that hole seems to get wider and wider as more people look at it. While right now, it's just a collision between two random strings of numbers, it is now more likely, both due to the fact that a method for exposing a specific weak hash, and the fact that lots of people are going to be poreing over the SHA algorithm looking for similar weaknesses, some which may be able to be used in combination with this new SHA attack to get a collision much faster than statistics would dictate otherwise.
I wonder if the attack on these algorithms has something to do with the number of bits used as input. Intuitively it seems that the larger the number of bits in the input stream, the more unique (widely distributed) the hash should be. So if you used small inputs then collision might be more likely.
It's actually more likely to have a collision with a greater bitsize. Suppose you have a 256 bit hash. Assuming you are hashing a set of 128 bit numbers, and that the has is evenly porportioned -- that is, it doesn't colide -- you will get a different has for every value, ensure the uniqueness of the number. For a 256 bit hash, assuming that the algorithm isn't flawed, and that there is an even distribution of hash values, again, you will have unique hashes for each value. For a 512 bit number, for each hash, there are going to be two possible inputs. For a 1024 bit value, there are going to be 4 collisions, etc. Thus, for hashing functions, a collision is far less likely if you have an input size less than the hash size. Conversely, greater inputs are, by definition, going to have a greater hash size. The whole point of a hash, however, is that these collisions are supposed to be rare enough as to not see them in the real world. If a hashing algorithm is broken, however, this assumption changes, and certain inputs are more likely than others to collide, which runs counter to the entire point of a hash.
Ah, but RSA is a lot less secure per bit than standard encryption. Because you're dealing with prime numbers, you can automatically get rid of half the keyspace straight out. Then you can get rid of a third of the remaining numbers, etc, and eventually, you can get to a comparably reasonable keysize to brute force. RSA has already been cracked. It's just that very large prime numbers, like a 2048 bit number, are still mathematically too expensive to be feasible to brute force. IIRC, we're up to the low 200 bits as far as RSA private keys that are considered unusable. 2048 is most likely going to be cracked within the next couple decades, even without quantum crypto.
Raven's already mentioned in the article as having licensed the engine for Q4. I don't think that Raven would be mentioned and then be the unnamed licensee
Actually, these discs would be more durable. The polycarbonate side can be scratched pretty badly before you ruin the disk. It's the more fragile label side which is usually what causes discs to go bad. As there is no label side, you stand a greater chance of the disc still being playable.
Bad analogy. People migrating with such tools know that there is a chance for failure, and if they have more than a couple brain cells floating around, will back up their email beforehand. Additionally, most likely, the big problems will be it not importing all the messages and settings, not total data loss.
don't think the tablet/pda's going to happen. Jobs killed the crazy awesome Newton, essentially saying that that wasn't the direction that Apple was going to take. And Jobs has too much pride to go back and try to retake a market. Especially a developed market like PDAs
So we shouldn't research new technology for supersonic planes because current technology makes it unprofitable? Sounds like a rather silly reason to me. Of course, I'm not imparted by a fear of anything with a military designation like some people here...
Wrong. OS X is irrevocably tied to Apple's hardware. The licensing of the OS states that it can only be used on Apple's hardware, which is the real reason why there are no mac clones, not your flimsy argument that the other guys' PPC hardware isn't powerful enough. Try again, apple boy.
You've got it backwards. By not licensing Fairplay, Apple has now denigrated their technology to being obsolete as people find workarounds for a company unwilling to license their files. Now, everyone is simply going to write their own patches to the iPod code to hack in their own DRM solution, instead of having one standardized API and one set of calls to put protected music into the iPod and potentially other media players. Yes, refusing to license a technology is a lucrative move now, when the market is still very young, but a couple years from now, when music players and music stores are both commodities, you suddenly find yourself stuck with a dwindling share of profits as someone else's protection technology, which is just as good, takes root because they were more willing to license it to both player makers and music store makers.
Apple could have stopped this battle months ago and licensed FairPlay to real. Instead, they decided to take the whole pie and keep ITMS the only game in town. So, Real did what anyone with any sense of spirit and cojones would do and worked around the flaw by reverse engineering fairplay enough to let real stick their protected content onto the iPod. It doesn't unlock the files bought from iTMS, it merely lets another store put content in there too. And if the fate of all online music depends on a company that is being a prick about licensing its tech, did we ever really stand a chance anyways?
I was once called over to my sister's house to fix a broken computer. The night before, she had hastily unplugged it after billows of smoke began pouring from the case. I get there with a few spare parts, like an extra power supply, expecting that there was no way in hell this thing would work. For shits and giggles, I plug the power supply in, and surprise surprise, it boots beautifully. System's still working with all the same parts to this day, about 3+ years later.
Second story. Typing, and I get distracted so I get out from my seat and come back, not noticing that I knocked over my almost full bottle of code red mountain dew. A while later, I come back, noticing that while typing, certin keys aren't working. I pick up the keyboard and notice that it's in a puddle of caffeine, food coloring, carbonated water and suger. I unplug it, and plug another keyboard in. I figured the keyboard was dead so I just set it aside to be tortured at a later date.
A few months later, I killed the replacement keyboard, and I start hunting for a new keyboard when I come across the SGI. "It couldn't work," I thought, but plugged it in anyway. It worked beautifully.
Yes, but it's a pain in the ass to do it. He's a backpacker, which probably means that if he's going to be hiking a major trail, like pacific crest, or even soemthing like the John Muir trail, he's going to want to be able to have a week or so's worth of music available. It's a lot easier to pop in a couple of AAs than it is to disassemble an iPod.
No, that's a regex in languages such as sed for a global search and replace. In vi, it would just search and replace any instances on the current line.
*shrug* should have given the URL to a now forgotten link I saw on the subject. Seemed like the cooper had a few more gaskets to change, a few more odd-sized bolts, and a few more housings to remove than my trusty old Plymouth Acclaim. Still well within the realm of a moderately competant person. Probably the thing which confused the matter was the fact that many of those parts, like the filter, are dealer-only items. Couple that with an overzealous maintenance guy and you've got the chance for distorting the situation.
From what I've read, changing the oil filter on the mini cooper is a pain in the ass to do. While you can do it yourself, it's probably one of those things were the dealer "strongly recommends" because it's a bit more difficult than the typical drain the oil, unscrew the old filter, put on a new filter, put in 5 quarts oil change of older cars.
It's a shame the marketers ruined the meta tag, because that would be perfect for what you described. A few words to describe a page's contents to make spidering easier. Perhaps combining your suggestion with user-defined keywords for a site? Use meta tags as a suggestion but let the user override when needed.
Slashdot Mirror
reread his comment. Use it if it's available, don't use it if it's not. What's so bad about that?
Really now? I think the odds are a lot better than that. I mean, if I can have sex, hell, if I can be involved in a foursome, I think any of you can.
And call me a tadger all you want. My "tadger" gets more use in a couple weeks than you probably get in years. Maybe because I know that obnoxious pricks, like nazis and yourself, are always going to be here, and as such, there's no real use in trying to legislate them away. I'd rather have such people known about so I can laugh at them in public. They're much more fun that way, much less likely to breed resentment, and more likely to realize they're being cunts about things.
I'm sorry, but I can get a much faster, nicer looking workstation that can do more than just run photoshop with my Linux box. I'd rather deal with the occasional klunkiness that is Linux than the ugly-ass gulag that is OS X.
How mature of you. Calling something you disagree with thought polluting bile. You oughtta join up with the Southern Baptists. You seem to think a lot alike, wanting disagreeable content banned.
It's just a bandaid. Yeah, adding the plaintext hash makes it more difficult when hashing hello world, but it doesn't do much for binaries in the long run. If you've trojaned a specific binary, you just need the application to run similar enough to the original program. A clever cracker could introduce lots of padding bytes though jumps, nops, etc, to get space to get the 256+ bytes needed to perturb the program enough to create a collision.
While it's true that the world won't end quite yet, the odd thing about cryptography is that once a hole is open, that hole seems to get wider and wider as more people look at it. While right now, it's just a collision between two random strings of numbers, it is now more likely, both due to the fact that a method for exposing a specific weak hash, and the fact that lots of people are going to be poreing over the SHA algorithm looking for similar weaknesses, some which may be able to be used in combination with this new SHA attack to get a collision much faster than statistics would dictate otherwise.
Ah, but RSA is a lot less secure per bit than standard encryption. Because you're dealing with prime numbers, you can automatically get rid of half the keyspace straight out. Then you can get rid of a third of the remaining numbers, etc, and eventually, you can get to a comparably reasonable keysize to brute force. RSA has already been cracked. It's just that very large prime numbers, like a 2048 bit number, are still mathematically too expensive to be feasible to brute force. IIRC, we're up to the low 200 bits as far as RSA private keys that are considered unusable. 2048 is most likely going to be cracked within the next couple decades, even without quantum crypto.
Raven's already mentioned in the article as having licensed the engine for Q4. I don't think that Raven would be mentioned and then be the unnamed licensee
...and Doom3, and UT2K4, and Quake 3, etc, including a right proper shitload of games via WINE.
Actually, these discs would be more durable. The polycarbonate side can be scratched pretty badly before you ruin the disk. It's the more fragile label side which is usually what causes discs to go bad. As there is no label side, you stand a greater chance of the disc still being playable.
Bad analogy. People migrating with such tools know that there is a chance for failure, and if they have more than a couple brain cells floating around, will back up their email beforehand. Additionally, most likely, the big problems will be it not importing all the messages and settings, not total data loss.
don't think the tablet/pda's going to happen. Jobs killed the crazy awesome Newton, essentially saying that that wasn't the direction that Apple was going to take. And Jobs has too much pride to go back and try to retake a market. Especially a developed market like PDAs
So we shouldn't research new technology for supersonic planes because current technology makes it unprofitable? Sounds like a rather silly reason to me. Of course, I'm not imparted by a fear of anything with a military designation like some people here...
Wrong. OS X is irrevocably tied to Apple's hardware. The licensing of the OS states that it can only be used on Apple's hardware, which is the real reason why there are no mac clones, not your flimsy argument that the other guys' PPC hardware isn't powerful enough. Try again, apple boy.
You've got it backwards. By not licensing Fairplay, Apple has now denigrated their technology to being obsolete as people find workarounds for a company unwilling to license their files. Now, everyone is simply going to write their own patches to the iPod code to hack in their own DRM solution, instead of having one standardized API and one set of calls to put protected music into the iPod and potentially other media players. Yes, refusing to license a technology is a lucrative move now, when the market is still very young, but a couple years from now, when music players and music stores are both commodities, you suddenly find yourself stuck with a dwindling share of profits as someone else's protection technology, which is just as good, takes root because they were more willing to license it to both player makers and music store makers.
Apple could have stopped this battle months ago and licensed FairPlay to real. Instead, they decided to take the whole pie and keep ITMS the only game in town. So, Real did what anyone with any sense of spirit and cojones would do and worked around the flaw by reverse engineering fairplay enough to let real stick their protected content onto the iPod. It doesn't unlock the files bought from iTMS, it merely lets another store put content in there too. And if the fate of all online music depends on a company that is being a prick about licensing its tech, did we ever really stand a chance anyways?
Second story. Typing, and I get distracted so I get out from my seat and come back, not noticing that I knocked over my almost full bottle of code red mountain dew. A while later, I come back, noticing that while typing, certin keys aren't working. I pick up the keyboard and notice that it's in a puddle of caffeine, food coloring, carbonated water and suger. I unplug it, and plug another keyboard in. I figured the keyboard was dead so I just set it aside to be tortured at a later date.
A few months later, I killed the replacement keyboard, and I start hunting for a new keyboard when I come across the SGI. "It couldn't work," I thought, but plugged it in anyway. It worked beautifully.
Yes, but it's a pain in the ass to do it. He's a backpacker, which probably means that if he's going to be hiking a major trail, like pacific crest, or even soemthing like the John Muir trail, he's going to want to be able to have a week or so's worth of music available. It's a lot easier to pop in a couple of AAs than it is to disassemble an iPod.
:1,$ s/Mach/Warp/g
would be global search and replace in vi.
*shrug* should have given the URL to a now forgotten link I saw on the subject. Seemed like the cooper had a few more gaskets to change, a few more odd-sized bolts, and a few more housings to remove than my trusty old Plymouth Acclaim. Still well within the realm of a moderately competant person. Probably the thing which confused the matter was the fact that many of those parts, like the filter, are dealer-only items. Couple that with an overzealous maintenance guy and you've got the chance for distorting the situation.
From what I've read, changing the oil filter on the mini cooper is a pain in the ass to do. While you can do it yourself, it's probably one of those things were the dealer "strongly recommends" because it's a bit more difficult than the typical drain the oil, unscrew the old filter, put on a new filter, put in 5 quarts oil change of older cars.
It's a shame the marketers ruined the meta tag, because that would be perfect for what you described. A few words to describe a page's contents to make spidering easier. Perhaps combining your suggestion with user-defined keywords for a site? Use meta tags as a suggestion but let the user override when needed.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
return printf("Hello World!\n");
}
You can do whatever you want with the return function in the shell.