I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your money.
I hire a lawyer who convinces a judge to tell you to give me your money or a man with a gun will come and point it at you until you give me the money (police, contempt of court, prison).
Civilization is very nice, because we don't walk around with guns in our faces most of the time. HOWEVER, it is important to realize that we have merely put some buffers up and we are still under the control of people with guns and the people who control them.
The gloves may be velvet, but the fists inside them are still iron.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I dunno...just stream of consciousness, really. I get your point, but in that particular book (Cryptonomicon), there's plenty that I think would make an interesting movie.
Snow Crash...been a couple of years since I read it, but I think you're probably right. The Diamond Age would be cool, though...
Would you pay to watch Randy Waterhouse eat a bowl of Cap'n Crunch
Would you pay to watch a valve in a submarine's nuclear reactor? Clancy spent something like a page and a half on this in "Hunt for Red October" and it was cool. It was not in the movie, but the movie was cool anyway.
As he mentions, novels are not really suitable fodder for two-hour movies; there is too much subtlety in them. The most you can hope to capture is the essence. It is rather like translating a calculus textbook into a pre-literate child's picture book.
I would pay to watch Randy's grandfather bicycle with Alan Turing and demonstrate his computing machine to the future head of the CIA.
In any real-world photograph, the stars are invisible, they are far far darker than anything else in the scene
But in most any real-world experience that takes place outside after dark, the stars ARE visible. A camera is not as flexible as a human eye. Directors doesn't want the FX to simulate photography; they want it to simulate reality (or at least some verisimilitude of reality).
Or how 'bout this..."To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You don't even have to go to an amendment for this. Progress is hindered when improvement is impossible. Quashing discoveries of problems eliminates the possibility of improvement. The DMCA, among other things, can make it a crime to announce vulnerabilities in security code and devices (if those are intended to protect copyright). Ergo, the DMCA is unconstitutional.
Is it possible that Escher's brain was wired in a particular way that allowed him to create works of art based on mathetic principles without knowing the underlying structure?
Yeah, same as everyone else's. Ever draw a circle? Know all the properties of a circle? Ever draw a cloud? Know all the properties of the fractal structure of clouds?
In the end, does it really matter that escher left a hole in the picture, or that people wonder why the hole is there? In the end is the heat death of the universe. Sooner than that, in the end is our own death. In the end, none of it matters. But it's kinda cool no matter what.
What's your point, bub? The thing was implemented to make things easier for PROGRAMMERS. There are two types of people, as far as MS is concerned - users who like GUIs and baubles and shiny things, and programmers, who like pain and domination. The intermediate types - sysadmins - don't enter the equation...what else explains the dearth of command line utilities included with NT?
No. The phrase "security through obscurity" generally means that the security algorithm is kept a secret. The lock on your house is a good example - how the lock works is open, public information. The particular key that you use, however, is not. To unlock your door, someone must either learn what key you use or exploit weaknesses in the lock. A standard locksmith text, some standard locksmith tools, and a little time is all that's required to pick the standard lock. How the lock works is not obscured; what key you use is.
Since everyone knows how the lock works, everyone can see what the weaknesses are and everyone can try to correct them (this has been done over the last couple of centuries). If you used a non-standard lock with a mode of operation that only you knew, that would be security through obscurity. No one can learn to pick it by reading standard locksmith texts. The weaknesses would have to be learned through trial and error by someone on your front porch. Any lockpicker would have to learn not only what key you used but how to use it in the lock.
Public key encryption generally uses well-known algoorithms - this is what makes it not obscure. The keys are secret, just as with obscure systems. However, everyone can see whether or not the system is a strong one.
Go read Cryptonomicon for a fictional introduction to the perils of obscured cryptosystems, as well as the benefits of open ones. Then read Applied Cryptography for the real (ie technical and mathematical and correct) deal. Or just take my word for it like a happy little slashdotizen.:)
BTW, modern locks are the result of a couple hundred years of improvements and refinements; they are currently about as good as they need to be, given weaknesses of the door itself, the convenience of regularly using the mechanism, the cost of the lock and keys, etc. Cryptosystems are nowhere near that level yet. The internet is still a country town, in the sense that everyone leaves their house unlocked and their keys in the ignition of their car. Once everyone's been hacked a couple of times (and I do mean everyone), adoption of crypto will become widespread, and we'll begin to see sufficient standardization to make crypto comparable to real-life locks. Government officials don't whine about locks the way they do about crypto for good reason - they aren't much more than courtesy and inconvenience devices. Give me a good sledgehammer and I'll be in your door in five minutes. Give me a power saw and I'll make my own door. Betcha the standardized crypto will be similar.
Most people are already going to be a little embarrassed to put so much time and effort into such a childish indulgence/me looks up from painting wargaming miniatures and winces in shame.
That was my first thought, too, when I say the headline. I wonder if the company intended it as a tribute, albeit an arcane one. Regardless, it lends itself to all sorts of tasteless humor.
Without looking it up, tell me the ports for all the kerberos daemons. Or x400.
I can't tell you any of them. (I didn't even know that X.400 had well-defined TCP/IP ports.)
My stance is that my ignorance suggests either stupidity (I've looked 'em up a thousand times but I'm too dumb to remember) or inexperience (um...isn't Kerberos the dog who guards Hades? What does that have to do with computers?)
If you disagree with my stance, then you believe that my ignorance of Kerberos and X.400 ports tells you ZERO about my ability or experience with these products.
there is a lot more to the IT industry than the web or even the internet True. I picked a couple of examples. That's all they were. I stand by my statement - I would never hire someone to admin a mail server who didn't know the SMTP port; I would never hire someone to admin a web server who didn't know the HTTP port.
Memorizing lists of ports is the hallmark of a wannabe. Absolute agreement. Knowledge is not a predictor of success and doesn't necessarily suggest experience (did I mention that I passed several McTests for Windows NT without ever having even seen it?). That was not my point. My point was that ignorance is a predictor of failure.
Why bother to remember them? It's not a bother. I've telnetted to mail servers maybe ten times in my short career. The first 4-5 times I had to look up the port number. The last few times I've done so I haven't.
Save your memory for more important things. You can't save your memory. The brain remembers what it experiences frequently. I don't necessarily recommend that you review lists of port numbers thousands of times so that you can memorize them, but if you look up particular ports frequently, you WILL remember them.
I stand by my statements; if you haven't looked up the SMTP and HTTP ports frequently enough to remember them, you haven't worked with them enough for me to hire you to work on such servers.
you're elitest./I It's "elitist." And yes I am. It's not a bad thing; merely recognition that some people are better prepared for some tasks than other people are.
Yup...all those foreign-controlled pirated terrorist Linux computers will be replaced by good-old all-American Microsoft systems, and 6000 techs will be hired to run them. So arresting geeks who care about DMCA would be good for national security AND the economy.
port numbers and protocols are just something you can look up
In other words, either "I'm too stupid to remember stuff I've looked up fifty times" or "I'm so inexperienced that I haven't looked those up very much." If you don't KNOW that SMTP is 25 and HTTP is 80, I don't want you working on my mail or web servers.
The point I'm basically making is that Windows 2000 is a fine OS and would probably be up to the job, at least run-time wise.
Up to the job...well, as a desktop OS for a typical business, I'll agree with you. For an avionics platform, though, I'd be afraid to be on the plane until it had been in use for 3-4 years and proven itself safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your money.
I hire a lawyer who convinces a judge to tell you to give me your money or a man with a gun will come and point it at you until you give me the money (police, contempt of court, prison).
Civilization is very nice, because we don't walk around with guns in our faces most of the time. HOWEVER, it is important to realize that we have merely put some buffers up and we are still under the control of people with guns and the people who control them.
The gloves may be velvet, but the fists inside them are still iron.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I dunno...just stream of consciousness, really. I get your point, but in that particular book (Cryptonomicon), there's plenty that I think would make an interesting movie.
Snow Crash...been a couple of years since I read it, but I think you're probably right. The Diamond Age would be cool, though...
Read the FAQ on the site and check the publication date of your books. They don't appear to cover anything after 1990, when the 2nd edition came out.
Would you pay to watch Randy Waterhouse eat a bowl of Cap'n Crunch
Would you pay to watch a valve in a submarine's nuclear reactor? Clancy spent something like a page and a half on this in "Hunt for Red October" and it was cool. It was not in the movie, but the movie was cool anyway.
As he mentions, novels are not really suitable fodder for two-hour movies; there is too much subtlety in them. The most you can hope to capture is the essence. It is rather like translating a calculus textbook into a pre-literate child's picture book.
I would pay to watch Randy's grandfather bicycle with Alan Turing and demonstrate his computing machine to the future head of the CIA.
In any real-world photograph, the stars are invisible, they are far far darker than anything else in the scene
But in most any real-world experience that takes place outside after dark, the stars ARE visible. A camera is not as flexible as a human eye. Directors doesn't want the FX to simulate photography; they want it to simulate reality (or at least some verisimilitude of reality).
Or how 'bout this..."To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You don't even have to go to an amendment for this. Progress is hindered when improvement is impossible. Quashing discoveries of problems eliminates the possibility of improvement. The DMCA, among other things, can make it a crime to announce vulnerabilities in security code and devices (if those are intended to protect copyright). Ergo, the DMCA is unconstitutional.
Is it possible that Escher's brain was wired in a particular way that allowed him to create works of art based on mathetic principles without knowing the underlying structure?
Yeah, same as everyone else's. Ever draw a circle? Know all the properties of a circle? Ever draw a cloud? Know all the properties of the fractal structure of clouds?
In the end, does it really matter that escher left a hole in the picture, or that people wonder why the hole is there?
In the end is the heat death of the universe. Sooner than that, in the end is our own death. In the end, none of it matters. But it's kinda cool no matter what.
To those who think there is no art in this mathematical analysis:
"Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare."
I as a user or system manager would care about.
What's your point, bub? The thing was implemented to make things easier for PROGRAMMERS. There are two types of people, as far as MS is concerned - users who like GUIs and baubles and shiny things, and programmers, who like pain and domination. The intermediate types - sysadmins - don't enter the equation...what else explains the dearth of command line utilities included with NT?
No. The phrase "security through obscurity" generally means that the security algorithm is kept a secret. The lock on your house is a good example - how the lock works is open, public information. The particular key that you use, however, is not. To unlock your door, someone must either learn what key you use or exploit weaknesses in the lock. A standard locksmith text, some standard locksmith tools, and a little time is all that's required to pick the standard lock. How the lock works is not obscured; what key you use is.
:)
Since everyone knows how the lock works, everyone can see what the weaknesses are and everyone can try to correct them (this has been done over the last couple of centuries). If you used a non-standard lock with a mode of operation that only you knew, that would be security through obscurity. No one can learn to pick it by reading standard locksmith texts. The weaknesses would have to be learned through trial and error by someone on your front porch. Any lockpicker would have to learn not only what key you used but how to use it in the lock.
Public key encryption generally uses well-known algoorithms - this is what makes it not obscure. The keys are secret, just as with obscure systems. However, everyone can see whether or not the system is a strong one.
Go read Cryptonomicon for a fictional introduction to the perils of obscured cryptosystems, as well as the benefits of open ones. Then read Applied Cryptography for the real (ie technical and mathematical and correct) deal. Or just take my word for it like a happy little slashdotizen.
BTW, modern locks are the result of a couple hundred years of improvements and refinements; they are currently about as good as they need to be, given weaknesses of the door itself, the convenience of regularly using the mechanism, the cost of the lock and keys, etc. Cryptosystems are nowhere near that level yet. The internet is still a country town, in the sense that everyone leaves their house unlocked and their keys in the ignition of their car. Once everyone's been hacked a couple of times (and I do mean everyone), adoption of crypto will become widespread, and we'll begin to see sufficient standardization to make crypto comparable to real-life locks. Government officials don't whine about locks the way they do about crypto for good reason - they aren't much more than courtesy and inconvenience devices. Give me a good sledgehammer and I'll be in your door in five minutes. Give me a power saw and I'll make my own door. Betcha the standardized crypto will be similar.
Most people are already going to be a little embarrassed to put so much time and effort into such a childish indulgence /me looks up from painting wargaming miniatures and winces in shame.
Silly coward...you've been speaking English for how many years and you've never heard of the subjunctive? I'm in no position to hire anyone.
affine transformations [rotations and scalings]
Actually, a combination of rotation, scaling, translation, and shearing.
Algebraically (and more precisely) (and more pedantically), in 2-D:
X=A1*X1+B1*Y1+C1
Y=A2*X1+B2*Y2+C2
I'd try to show it as matrix arithmetic but the lameness filter won't let me. More evidence that being a math geek (or even a former one) is lame.
I can't access the article unless I allow the New York Times to place access-tracking cookies on my system.
That was my first thought, too, when I say the headline. I wonder if the company intended it as a tribute, albeit an arcane one. Regardless, it lends itself to all sorts of tasteless humor.
Without looking it up, tell me the ports for all the kerberos daemons. Or x400.
I can't tell you any of them. (I didn't even know that X.400 had well-defined TCP/IP ports.)
My stance is that my ignorance suggests either stupidity (I've looked 'em up a thousand times but I'm too dumb to remember) or inexperience (um...isn't Kerberos the dog who guards Hades? What does that have to do with computers?)
If you disagree with my stance, then you believe that my ignorance of Kerberos and X.400 ports tells you ZERO about my ability or experience with these products.
there is a lot more to the IT industry than the web or even the internet
True. I picked a couple of examples. That's all they were. I stand by my statement - I would never hire someone to admin a mail server who didn't know the SMTP port; I would never hire someone to admin a web server who didn't know the HTTP port.
Memorizing lists of ports is the hallmark of a wannabe.
Absolute agreement. Knowledge is not a predictor of success and doesn't necessarily suggest experience (did I mention that I passed several McTests for Windows NT without ever having even seen it?). That was not my point. My point was that ignorance is a predictor of failure.
Tell me why you disagree.
Why bother to remember them?
It's not a bother. I've telnetted to mail servers maybe ten times in my short career. The first 4-5 times I had to look up the port number. The last few times I've done so I haven't.
Save your memory for more important things.
You can't save your memory. The brain remembers what it experiences frequently. I don't necessarily recommend that you review lists of port numbers thousands of times so that you can memorize them, but if you look up particular ports frequently, you WILL remember them.
I stand by my statements; if you haven't looked up the SMTP and HTTP ports frequently enough to remember them, you haven't worked with them enough for me to hire you to work on such servers.
you're elitest./I
It's "elitist." And yes I am. It's not a bad thing; merely recognition that some people are better prepared for some tasks than other people are.
Yup...all those foreign-controlled pirated terrorist Linux computers will be replaced by good-old all-American Microsoft systems, and 6000 techs will be hired to run them. So arresting geeks who care about DMCA would be good for national security AND the economy.
Rock on, my man...I'm laughing almost too hard to type.
port numbers and protocols are just something you can look up
In other words, either "I'm too stupid to remember stuff I've looked up fifty times" or "I'm so inexperienced that I haven't looked those up very much." If you don't KNOW that SMTP is 25 and HTTP is 80, I don't want you working on my mail or web servers.
Go here and learn to cook spam.
why does the plaque...
True. Why doesn't it display pi and e in binary?
You report four downtimes for your watch.
You report no downtimes for your friend's watch.
What was your point?
Paulina Porizkova
:)
You're showing your age, bud.
The point I'm basically making is that Windows 2000 is a fine OS and would probably be up to the job, at least run-time wise.
Up to the job...well, as a desktop OS for a typical business, I'll agree with you. For an avionics platform, though, I'd be afraid to be on the plane until it had been in use for 3-4 years and proven itself safe.