Adding ",none-cbc" to the ciphers list had the same result as just ",none" -- sshd rejected it.
It's not obvious that a null cipher must compromise
authentication, and I can think of lots of uses for
a channel that's authenticated but not bulk-encrypted, even without assuming that the
channel is encrypted by IPSEC.
This is a very sly article. Its overall level of articulateness and internal cohesion suggest that it was written by a Gartner customer and published more or less unchanged. Make no mistake, despite the apparent evenhandedness, this report is meant to muddy the water. If Free Software really offers only a "slight edge" here and there, and numerous "problem[s] replicating this [or that] technology", who would dare switch? The section headings, identified as "myths", are meant to be taken as false, when in fact they all remain substantially true despite the author's quibbling.
Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops.
Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would not be able to run current MS software versions anyhow.
Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch.
Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_apr il2003_approved.html.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
Try to guess which Gartner customer wrote this report.
Thanks, I had tried that. I have a Ciphers line
in my/etc/ssh/sshd_config already, so it will
default to aes128-cbc, fall back to blowfish-cbc,
and finally 3des-cbc. When I add "none" or "null",
sshd complains when it reads the file:
Bad SSH2 cipher spec.
I wonder if a plaintext cipher would compromise
authentication. (Not that it matters in this
case.)
The OpenSSH sources list a "null" cipher, but I have
had no success in establishing a connection using it. Is there a trick to it, or do I need to patch
the sources to get a connection that sends in
plaintext?
(Why? The traffic is already encrypted via IPSEC;
I just want to use SSH's cool port-forwarding
apparatus and its authentication, and don't want
to pay for for encrypting twice.)
Every SF story about machines taking over the world is really an allegory about takeovers by the constructs we really have -- governments,
religions, lately corporations -- exercising power
beyond anyone's ability to restrain them.
Without that connection, the story would hold no
interest.
The Matrix is no exception. The notion of humans
as "power sources" makes perfect sense, then: the
corporations still need votes to maintain their
hold, in the US and Europe. Now that they own all
the major news sources, it's easy to manipulate
the electorate with delusions that lead them to
vote any which way. (Over 50% of Americans
actually believe that Iraq had something to do
with Sept. 11. Very few know that Bush ordered
all investigations of Saudis abandoned several
months before it. That's power.)
As long as you think of the Matrix (and other
fiction, for that matter) as just escapist
fantasy, you miss most of its value.
First, Eiffel's generic support is not strong enough
to implement an equivalent to C++'s STL.
Second, the ability to, and habit of, multiply
inheriting from the same type demonstrates a
fundamental confusion about what types are for.
I went to a talk by Bertie Meyer back in '86 at
what was then Oregon Graduate Center. I drove for
45 minutes to his one-hour talk. He spent 15
minutes on Eiffel, and then 45 minutes hyping his
"Cepage" editor. Then I drove 45 minutes home.
That 15 minutes turned out to be enough. Why
pay attention to Eiffel, when its designer
considered Cepage more interesting? Is anybody
resurrecting Cepage?
Why do you have such a hard time getting along with
other people, particularly those whose goals are so
close to your own? We know about messy public
fallings-out with CodeWeavers and with DesktopLinux,
and there must be lots more that don't make the
news.
Is it a personality defect, or just skills
you've never developed? If you don't have time to
learn (e.g. read "Getting to Yes"), couldn't you
hire somebody with those skills to help keep you
from pissing off everybody who's ever tried to help you?
You also won't get a (programming) job if you can't
be bothered to pay attention to details.
In the posting, it says "your" when it should have
said "you're". (Oddly, it was right in one instance, and wrong two lines later.) The
Slashdot Disease is the habit of saying "it's"
when the poster (and, too often, the editor!) must have
meant to say "its". The differences between these
pairs of words is very easy to learn. Learning it
helps to distinguish you from the gum-chewers.
(Not chewing gum helps too.:-)
Ballmer's comment that, "By hook or by crook, so to speak, there will be 5-plus million servers, roughly, sold in the next 12 months," was very revealing. A Freudian slip?
"By hook" implies force. "By crook" implies deception. This really is how MS has always operated, but it's interesting that (1) its CEO feels free to express it so casually, and (2) that the interviewer lets it slide by.
The Yukon permafrost hadn't melted for thousands
of years -- until now. They can try to spin it
every way they like, but the fact is that something
really significant is happening to the worldwide
climate, and it's certainly the biggest since
writing was invented.
I'm frankly disappointed at each of you who is
falling for that spin game.
Why are these people waiting for Microsoft to
read them their rights? The EULA is right there.
First, read it, and see if it has any provisions
of interest to the case.
Next, see if they are actually enforceable under
copyright law. Since the license isn't a contract
-- you weren't asked to sign it before buying --
they can't take away any rights that copyright law
doesn't specifically identify. (Except in Maryland!)
If you want to copy their files to your customers'
machines, copyright law is involved. However,
if the product was advertised as if that right
to copy was included in the product you were
paying for, and the package didn't identify
restrictions on that copying, then the Uniform
Commercial Code says their EULA can't take away
whatever you had a reasonable belief that you were
getting when you paid. That is, the implied
contract of merchantability fitness trumps the
written EULA, every time. (Except in Maryland!)
The bulk of most EULAs is wastepaper, just hoping
to fool customers into giving up rights guaranteed
to them under the law without a fuss.
As others have noted, trying to tie the product to
Windows is a specific anti-trust violation for
Microsoft since it was formally identified as a
monopoly.
I am not a lawyer. (In Maryland, last I heard,
the UCITA was passed, overriding the UCC.)
These films are not about some possible future. Like all SF, they're about the here-and-now, but masked. What kind of power do the machine masters get from the duped people? Political power. What are these machines, descended from human constructions? Corporations.
The movies are a metaphor for the world you, personally, are living in right now. You are duped by years of schooling and television to limit yourself to being what amounts to a popsicle in a jar. The corporations still need your votes, so they use the media apparatus they own to mess with your perceptions of reality so much that you actually vote for their automatons.
Cut yourself off from the media feed, and meditate to still the yammering voices, and you may reprogram your own perceptual reality, as Neo does, and discover endless possibilities inconceivable to the dupes and pink boys.
These films are not about some possible future.
Like all SF, they're about the
here-and-now, but masked. What kind of power
do the machine masters get from the duped people?
Political power. What are these machines,
descended from human constructions? Corporations.
The whole thing is a metaphor for the world
you, personally, are living in right now. You
are duped by years of schooling and television
to limit yourself to being what amounts to a
popsicle in a jar. The corporations still need
your votes, so they use the media apparatus they
own to mess with your perceptions of reality so
much that you actually vote for their automatons.
Cut yourself off from the media feed, and
meditate to still the yammering voices, and you
may reprogram your own perceptual reality, as Neo
does, and discover endless possibilities
inconceivable to the dupes and pink boys.
The patent just expired, so it is now possible
to incorporate the result in further scientific
work, as per the scientific tradition, without
involving the lawyers. Only now is it appropriate
to treat the development as a pure scientific
achievement.
Because lots of people already have an
Xbox, and would like to make it useful. They got
it for xmas, or graduation, or something. Why let
it go to waste?
The great thing about the 007 trick is that you
can use it to demo Linux for anybody else who
happens to have an Xbox with just a USB key and
a CD.
What do you suppose AMD had to promise to MS
to get this announcement before the one for
Itanic? Probably not money.
Most likely, something in a future version that
would make it partly incompatible with Linux.
Maybe, some chipset feature remaining
undocumented, or something that to write code to
use would infringe a patent.
I'm trying to compile a list of successful,
popular mainstream Free Software written in
Java. (Sorry, no development tools, IDEs,
ASCII editors, web-server add-ons, XML mungers
-- I'm after stuff my brother might use.)
I have Limewire.org and DVarchive already.
I know about Moneydance, which might be popular
someday. Freenet might work well enough someday
to qualify. Anything else? If you got 'em,
post 'em.
Woo, 0.8 payback, very nice. (Remind me to hit you up for a loan someday.) Why not shoot for
100x payback? You need at least 3x to get
anything useful from the clunky steam turbines, and remember you have to pay for the
100-billion-dollar reactor facility that will last
only 20 years before you have to mothball it and
figure out what to do with all the radioactive
slag.
There's a reason for the title of this thread.
Fusion processes that only emit charged particles
make so much better sense, the only possible
rational motivation for spending billions on
thermal neutron emission is that what you really
are interested in is weapons research, and all
this talk about power generation is just a
smokescreen.
guybarr wrote, "An answer, should you have bothered to look it up, is here [fusor.net]"
Of course I did read that, and if you actually
read further, you find out that
The cross-section is fine at high voltages,
and
magnetizing the grids minimizes losses
from collisions with the grids, which was the
only known practical problem.
The latter point was Bussard's contribution.
Did you bother to look it up?
More to the point: with the amount spent in
any one month on the silly thermal systems,
they could long since have worked out all the
engineering details with kinetic approaches.
A problem with the proton-Boron reaction may
just be that tiny reactors are practical, making
big utilities no longer necessary; of course big
utilities are not going to want such work funded.
Or, it may be that this sort of reactor has no
useful weapons-research applications, which may
be the real point of the work being done, with
power generation potential just a budget excuse.
(Or both.)
All those billions of dollars wasted trying
get thermal fusion to work, and for what? Hot
neutrons? What good are hot neutrons? They heat
up your shielding, and irradiate everything else,
so you end up with hundreds of tons of low-level
radioactive waste (where you had a fusion plant,
before) every few years. You try to produce
power by using the shielding to boil water, at
punishing inefficiency.
We already know, more or less, how to get kinetic
fusion of (e.g.) protons with boron nuclei, which
produce nice charged particles that are easy to
extract the energy from, with high efficiency and
without the bloody neutrons. (Google for
"Farnsworth Hirsch Bussard" to find a nice article
on the design.) Simple, clean, small. A little
too practical, though, I suppose.
I'm reminded of a brilliant cartoon in the New
Yorker some years back. It showed a couple of
pandas in a cage, and one says, "If, as you say,
it's no crime to be a panda, how do you explain
the fact that we were arrested?"
BabyDave wrote, "I give this CD to my friend, and he copies the files onto his PC, or listens to the MP3s while I'm listening to the original CD somewhere else. This is copyright violation, and is illegal."
False. This is allowed under
Fair Use. Making a copy for a friend is allowed,
publication isn't. If you're not sure which it
is, it's probably publication, but don't just give
up hard-won rights for sheer laziness!
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I guess I should have googled for it myself.
It's not obvious that a null cipher must compromise authentication, and I can think of lots of uses for a channel that's authenticated but not bulk-encrypted, even without assuming that the channel is encrypted by IPSEC.
Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops.
Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would not be able to run current MS software versions anyhow.
Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch.
Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_apr il2003_approved.html.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
Try to guess which Gartner customer wrote this report.
I wonder if a plaintext cipher would compromise authentication. (Not that it matters in this case.)
The OpenSSH sources list a "null" cipher, but I have had no success in establishing a connection using it. Is there a trick to it, or do I need to patch the sources to get a connection that sends in plaintext?
(Why? The traffic is already encrypted via IPSEC; I just want to use SSH's cool port-forwarding apparatus and its authentication, and don't want to pay for for encrypting twice.)
benzapp wrote "I fail to see how you believe I made such an assertion."
Sorry, I was not disagreeing, I was enlarging on the topic. "You" referred to the reader, not to benzapp.
The Matrix is no exception. The notion of humans as "power sources" makes perfect sense, then: the corporations still need votes to maintain their hold, in the US and Europe. Now that they own all the major news sources, it's easy to manipulate the electorate with delusions that lead them to vote any which way. (Over 50% of Americans actually believe that Iraq had something to do with Sept. 11. Very few know that Bush ordered all investigations of Saudis abandoned several months before it. That's power.)
As long as you think of the Matrix (and other fiction, for that matter) as just escapist fantasy, you miss most of its value.
Second, the ability to, and habit of, multiply inheriting from the same type demonstrates a fundamental confusion about what types are for.
I went to a talk by Bertie Meyer back in '86 at what was then Oregon Graduate Center. I drove for 45 minutes to his one-hour talk. He spent 15 minutes on Eiffel, and then 45 minutes hyping his "Cepage" editor. Then I drove 45 minutes home. That 15 minutes turned out to be enough. Why pay attention to Eiffel, when its designer considered Cepage more interesting? Is anybody resurrecting Cepage?
Is it a personality defect, or just skills you've never developed? If you don't have time to learn (e.g. read "Getting to Yes"), couldn't you hire somebody with those skills to help keep you from pissing off everybody who's ever tried to help you?
In the posting, it says "your" when it should have said "you're". (Oddly, it was right in one instance, and wrong two lines later.) The Slashdot Disease is the habit of saying "it's" when the poster (and, too often, the editor!) must have meant to say "its". The differences between these pairs of words is very easy to learn. Learning it helps to distinguish you from the gum-chewers. (Not chewing gum helps too. :-)
Details matter. Are we not hackers?
"By hook" implies force. "By crook" implies deception. This really is how MS has always operated, but it's interesting that (1) its CEO feels free to express it so casually, and (2) that the interviewer lets it slide by.
I'm frankly disappointed at each of you who is falling for that spin game.
First, read it, and see if it has any provisions of interest to the case.
Next, see if they are actually enforceable under copyright law. Since the license isn't a contract -- you weren't asked to sign it before buying -- they can't take away any rights that copyright law doesn't specifically identify. (Except in Maryland!)
If you want to copy their files to your customers' machines, copyright law is involved. However, if the product was advertised as if that right to copy was included in the product you were paying for, and the package didn't identify restrictions on that copying, then the Uniform Commercial Code says their EULA can't take away whatever you had a reasonable belief that you were getting when you paid. That is, the implied contract of merchantability fitness trumps the written EULA, every time. (Except in Maryland!)
The bulk of most EULAs is wastepaper, just hoping to fool customers into giving up rights guaranteed to them under the law without a fuss.
As others have noted, trying to tie the product to Windows is a specific anti-trust violation for Microsoft since it was formally identified as a monopoly.
I am not a lawyer. (In Maryland, last I heard, the UCITA was passed, overriding the UCC.)
These films are not about some possible future. Like all SF, they're about the here-and-now, but masked. What kind of power do the machine masters get from the duped people? Political power. What are these machines, descended from human constructions? Corporations.
The movies are a metaphor for the world you, personally, are living in right now. You are duped by years of schooling and television to limit yourself to being what amounts to a popsicle in a jar. The corporations still need your votes, so they use the media apparatus they own to mess with your perceptions of reality so much that you actually vote for their automatons.
Cut yourself off from the media feed, and meditate to still the yammering voices, and you may reprogram your own perceptual reality, as Neo does, and discover endless possibilities inconceivable to the dupes and pink boys.
Simple, albeit not easy.
These films are not about some possible future. Like all SF, they're about the here-and-now, but masked. What kind of power do the machine masters get from the duped people? Political power. What are these machines, descended from human constructions? Corporations.
The whole thing is a metaphor for the world you, personally, are living in right now. You are duped by years of schooling and television to limit yourself to being what amounts to a popsicle in a jar. The corporations still need your votes, so they use the media apparatus they own to mess with your perceptions of reality so much that you actually vote for their automatons.
Cut yourself off from the media feed, and meditate to still the yammering voices, and you may reprogram your own perceptual reality, as Neo does, and discover endless possibilities inconceivable to the dupes and pink boys.
Simple, albeit not easy.
The patent just expired, so it is now possible to incorporate the result in further scientific work, as per the scientific tradition, without involving the lawyers. Only now is it appropriate to treat the development as a pure scientific achievement.
The patent only just expired.
The great thing about the 007 trick is that you can use it to demo Linux for anybody else who happens to have an Xbox with just a USB key and a CD.
Liberate that machine from MS slavery!
Most likely, something in a future version that would make it partly incompatible with Linux. Maybe, some chipset feature remaining undocumented, or something that to write code to use would infringe a patent.
I wonder what it will turn out to be.
I have Limewire.org and DVarchive already. I know about Moneydance, which might be popular someday. Freenet might work well enough someday to qualify. Anything else? If you got 'em, post 'em.
Woo, 0.8 payback, very nice. (Remind me to hit you up for a loan someday.) Why not shoot for 100x payback? You need at least 3x to get anything useful from the clunky steam turbines, and remember you have to pay for the 100-billion-dollar reactor facility that will last only 20 years before you have to mothball it and figure out what to do with all the radioactive slag.
There's a reason for the title of this thread. Fusion processes that only emit charged particles make so much better sense, the only possible rational motivation for spending billions on thermal neutron emission is that what you really are interested in is weapons research, and all this talk about power generation is just a smokescreen.
Of course I did read that, and if you actually read further, you find out that
- The cross-section is fine at high voltages,
and
- magnetizing the grids minimizes losses
from collisions with the grids, which was the
only known practical problem.
The latter point was Bussard's contribution. Did you bother to look it up?More to the point: with the amount spent in any one month on the silly thermal systems, they could long since have worked out all the engineering details with kinetic approaches. A problem with the proton-Boron reaction may just be that tiny reactors are practical, making big utilities no longer necessary; of course big utilities are not going to want such work funded. Or, it may be that this sort of reactor has no useful weapons-research applications, which may be the real point of the work being done, with power generation potential just a budget excuse. (Or both.)
We already know, more or less, how to get kinetic fusion of (e.g.) protons with boron nuclei, which produce nice charged particles that are easy to extract the energy from, with high efficiency and without the bloody neutrons. (Google for "Farnsworth Hirsch Bussard" to find a nice article on the design.) Simple, clean, small. A little too practical, though, I suppose.
I'm reminded of a brilliant cartoon in the New Yorker some years back. It showed a couple of pandas in a cage, and one says, "If, as you say, it's no crime to be a panda, how do you explain the fact that we were arrested?"
False. This is allowed under Fair Use. Making a copy for a friend is allowed, publication isn't. If you're not sure which it is, it's probably publication, but don't just give up hard-won rights for sheer laziness!