Actually, it *is* really good for "3D stuff". I'm not sure where you get the idea that it wouldn't be. At Linux World Boston, Emperor Linux was demoing a Sharp laptop with similar technology. They had it running PyMoL in 3D mode, and it was very impressive.
Dear moderators: the parent post isn't actually a troll, despite your moderation. It's a (very valid) criticism of the style of argument put forth in the original post.
Although it may be offtopic, but non-free software vendors aren't the only ones dropping support for popular products and disappointing their loyal users. Mozilla recently did that with Seamonkey, so that they could focus on Firefox.
Actually, it's very relevant, because it's exactly the point: since Mozilla is open source, if enough people are interested, it's easy for the browser suite version to live on even if the original maintainers are no longer pursuing it. And, it turns out that enough people are, so we get a solid maintainer transition plan and a workable future for Mozilla SeaMonkey. No such thing is possible with BitKeeper.
Please post an analysis of the impact on the root servers.
Negligable. It's not like this would increase the number of domains actually registered by orders of magnitude. Right now, the root servers basically have to deal with a flat namespace within.com/.net/.org + a few random others. If anything, encouraging diversity at that level should *help*.
Do you really expect Walmart to be happy with Walmart.com, and not also snap up Walmart.biz, Walmart.org, Walmart.biz, Walmart.us, and anything else that comes up?
That's why any arbitrary tld ought to be allowed. (There's *no* technical reason not to.) Walmart *could* buy walmart.[everypossiblecombinationofletters], but even they will run out of money eventually.
You can do this with some RPMs, but unfortunately, much software has hard-coded expectations for file locations (config and data files are typical examples). It's hard to make this flexible without actually recompiling at package install time. (Which has its own various downsides, of course.)
"We won't sue you for infringing on our patents if you don't sue us for infringing on the GPL"
Also, would that even be legal to accept an agreement like that? Nevermind that it would probably be a bad thing for OSS.
Yes, it would be legal -- you (the owner of the GPL'd software) would be effectively granting a dual license to the patent holder, in exchange for them licensing their patent to you.
However, if you weren't the sole copyright owner of the software, you couldn't do it. And, your GPL'd software probably wouldn't be distributable to anyone else unless the patent license explictly covered all users, since it would count as an additional restriction, which the GPL doesn't allow.
That's not even necessary. (Look at Microsoft's trademark on "Windows", for example!)
Trademarks based on real words are in general harder to defend, and trademarks that *are* real words even harder, but there's certainly millions of them.
Like the one when I played CrossCountryUSA on an Apple IIe at school? Now that was some slow graphics!
That's right -- with an, if I remember right, 8 K video RAM area. But there was a weird thing with the 80 column card.... see, now this counts as ancient to me. But relatively speaking, we're pretty young too.:)
Ooh, there's some really good property law bits in the next part:
Deuteronomy 23:24: If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25. If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.
Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee...
I've been in a lot of churches of all faiths, but have never seen one yet without an indoor privy.
Cute, but it only applies to church camps -- look at verse 23:9, which leads into that passage. (Note yours begins with "and".)
(Not that there aren't plenty of wacky commandments in there.)
Interesting. But your link has (at least) a factual error of its own -- Edison's electric chair didn't use DC. His own systems used DC, and he wanted to show that Tesla's AC was horribly dangerous -- so, basically, he made the thing run on AC as a marketting ploy.
"This is an uber-r4ndom s3ntencE. Try to cracK it."
Try reading some of the other responses here before posting.
By changing capitalization and substituting "standard" numbers, you've expanded the namespace -- but not hugely. It's still possible to generate a dictionary which covers these and is significantly smaller than you seem to think. You don't have a 40-character passphrase -- you have a ten-word one.
What you've got is still going to be pretty decent, since it is 10 words (much longer than examples from the article) and, despite what it claims, is *two* sentences. But it's not as good as you think.
I'd be inclined to estimate 70000+ word vocabularies.
As suggested in the link I gave. But that doesn't make huge amount of difference to the overall picture -- and, if your goal is only to crack *someone's* password, you can probably get away with using the smaller list.
1) it's just as easy (give or take the odd case where you're just able to sample a few bytes) to sniff a passphrase as a password
2) if most people's passphrases are made of dictionary words take from their active vocabularies, dictionary attacks are still very possible. If we figure a typical vocabulary of 25000 words and a six-word phase, hmmm, some quick math indicates we're in the range of a 14-character random alphanumeric+punctunation password -- not too bad. (Especially if you grant people bigger vocabularies....) But, suddenly, we're open to language-based attacks -- there's probably thesis project in here for someone to come up with good algorithms to narrow down the required attack dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it *is* really good for "3D stuff". I'm not sure where you get the idea that it wouldn't be. At Linux World Boston, Emperor Linux was demoing a Sharp laptop with similar technology. They had it running PyMoL in 3D mode, and it was very impressive.
Dear moderators: the parent post isn't actually a troll, despite your moderation. It's a (very valid) criticism of the style of argument put forth in the original post.
Although it may be offtopic, but non-free software vendors aren't the only ones dropping support for popular products and disappointing their loyal users. Mozilla recently did that with Seamonkey, so that they could focus on Firefox.
Actually, it's very relevant, because it's exactly the point: since Mozilla is open source, if enough people are interested, it's easy for the browser suite version to live on even if the original maintainers are no longer pursuing it. And, it turns out that enough people are, so we get a solid maintainer transition plan and a workable future for Mozilla SeaMonkey. No such thing is possible with BitKeeper.
"closed source has no real advantage on open source." -->Except for that little thing called "Developers getting paid"
Yes, and it'd be very nice if all of the creative work that anyone felt like they wanted to do could be highly paid.
Please post an analysis of the impact on the root servers.
.com/.net/.org + a few random others. If anything, encouraging diversity at that level should *help*.
Negligable. It's not like this would increase the number of domains actually registered by orders of magnitude. Right now, the root servers basically have to deal with a flat namespace within
Do you really expect Walmart to be happy with Walmart.com, and not also snap up Walmart.biz, Walmart.org, Walmart.biz, Walmart.us, and anything else that comes up?
That's why any arbitrary tld ought to be allowed. (There's *no* technical reason not to.) Walmart *could* buy walmart.[everypossiblecombinationofletters], but even they will run out of money eventually.
You can do this with some RPMs, but unfortunately, much software has hard-coded expectations for file locations (config and data files are typical examples). It's hard to make this flexible without actually recompiling at package install time. (Which has its own various downsides, of course.)
That's like asking if there are any nice versions of Hitler.
Funny you should mention Good Hitler, as I was just reading about him a few mintues ago.
(Note: not the famous evil link. The sadly somewhat less famous awesome webcomic. I swear on my sub-2000 slashdot user id.)
Er, that's not "actually". That's "what I just said".
I wonder if some company may eventually say:
"We won't sue you for infringing on our patents if you don't sue us for infringing on the GPL"
Also, would that even be legal to accept an agreement like that? Nevermind that it would probably be a bad thing for OSS.
Yes, it would be legal -- you (the owner of the GPL'd software) would be effectively granting a dual license to the patent holder, in exchange for them licensing their patent to you.
However, if you weren't the sole copyright owner of the software, you couldn't do it. And, your GPL'd software probably wouldn't be distributable to anyone else unless the patent license explictly covered all users, since it would count as an additional restriction, which the GPL doesn't allow.
That's not even necessary. (Look at Microsoft's trademark on "Windows", for example!)
Trademarks based on real words are in general harder to defend, and trademarks that *are* real words even harder, but there's certainly millions of them.
But please, oh, please, don't write this:
if (!strcmp(x,y))
Intuitively, that looks exactly backwards from what it's testing (equality).
Nah, you're just thinking of it wrong -- strcmp returns "difference". So, "if not-different x,y" -- exactly what it says, not backwards at all.
Like the one when I played CrossCountryUSA on an Apple IIe at school? Now that was some slow graphics!
:)
That's right -- with an, if I remember right, 8 K video RAM area. But there was a weird thing with the 80 column card.... see, now this counts as ancient to me. But relatively speaking, we're pretty young too.
"Remeber your ancient TNT graphics card that had 16MB of memory?"
Okay, I knew the average age of slashdotters wasn't exactly "is allowed in most bars", but, yeesh, 1999 is now ancient?
Cue the "I remember whens"!
Tesla and Westinghouse were working together. So, not "not Tesla" so much as "and Westinghouse".
This is a good excuse to bring up my favorite Tesla quote:
"Had Edison thought out his work and spent more time in preparation, he would not sweat so much."
It's biblical fair use!
Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee ...
I've been in a lot of churches of all faiths, but have never seen one yet without an indoor privy.
Cute, but it only applies to church camps -- look at verse 23:9, which leads into that passage. (Note yours begins with "and".)
(Not that there aren't plenty of wacky commandments in there.)
Interesting. But your link has (at least) a factual error of its own -- Edison's electric chair didn't use DC. His own systems used DC, and he wanted to show that Tesla's AC was horribly dangerous -- so, basically, he made the thing run on AC as a marketting ploy.
"This is an uber-r4ndom s3ntencE. Try to cracK it."
Try reading some of the other responses here before posting.
By changing capitalization and substituting "standard" numbers, you've expanded the namespace -- but not hugely. It's still possible to generate a dictionary which covers these and is significantly smaller than you seem to think. You don't have a 40-character passphrase -- you have a ten-word one.
What you've got is still going to be pretty decent, since it is 10 words (much longer than examples from the article) and, despite what it claims, is *two* sentences. But it's not as good as you think.
I'd be inclined to estimate 70000+ word vocabularies.
As suggested in the link I gave. But that doesn't make huge amount of difference to the overall picture -- and, if your goal is only to crack *someone's* password, you can probably get away with using the smaller list.
The simplest solution is to tie each user to a single computer and limit the password attempts to 5 or so before that user is locked out.
I was with you right until this point. Some sort of backoff maybe, but it's generally foolish to make it this easy to DoS someone's account.
1) it's just as easy (give or take the odd case where you're just able to sample a few bytes) to sniff a passphrase as a password
2) if most people's passphrases are made of dictionary words take from their active vocabularies, dictionary attacks are still very possible. If we figure a typical vocabulary of 25000 words and a six-word phase, hmmm, some quick math indicates we're in the range of a 14-character random alphanumeric+punctunation password -- not too bad. (Especially if you grant people bigger vocabularies....) But, suddenly, we're open to language-based attacks -- there's probably thesis project in here for someone to come up with good algorithms to narrow down the required attack dictionary.
Of course, it's only anonymous as long as no one is looking.
And I should add, I hate java and I wish it would die, so my opinion on its performance vs. C/C++ is unbiased. :)
How recently have you compared, and what were you testing? For many computational tasks, the differnce is negligible.