If congress can 'extend' those protections as often as they like, is it really limited? If so, what is the limit?
ie: if you say it's 10 yeras, but 8 years from now extend it to 20, then 2 yeras before it's up extend it to 30, and before that is up, extend it to 75, etcetera, is it really limited? Could you not do this indefinately and still technically say "there is a limit"?
Really. What about a soundcard that can output AC3? Do you think it's impossible to rip a DIVX and include an ac3 audio stream? It's not, people do it all the time, so they can use their nice home theaters.
Re:PGP support in Windows mail clients
on
PGP 8.0 Beta Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are two methods of commonly sending PGP mail.
One is in the normal text of the message, the other is as a mime attachment.
The standard behavior, with the old pgp plugins anyway, was that, if it was the main body of the message, it would be decrypted automatically. If not, you would have to click on the attachment to decrypt it.. the benefit being the attachment method is a bit more 'standard', and perhaps a bit more secure, depending on the environment.
What we really need, though, is something that works equally well in all popular mailers.
(Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Netscape) and has a set of unix tools to allow the oss world to integrate as well.
And the interface needs to be easy.. easy for my Mom.
Outlook's imap support is crap; it won't even do imap & exchange server at the same time without a plugin; you have to set it up in 'internet only' mode.
"You have to use mozilla mail" is not an adequate solution for the masses.
Outlook Express, btw, worked fairly well with the old pgpfreeware plugins, as does eudora. it's just a bit too weird for joe average.
Any action taken by government *could* be the start of big brother.
Big brother is someone who is always hovering there, waiting to come out. Whenever people permit government, you permit big brother in to some degree or another.
Tha said, as a Canadian, this is cool.
You see, all these records are obtainable now.. but it's a pain in the ass to authenticate yourself to the proper agencies (go there in person, etc). It would be nice to have a lot of stuff online.. and I'd rather the issued me a private digital certificate for access than some dumb authentication mechanism like just my SIN number & birthdate.
As long as they aren't changing the rules reagarding the information they need to know... I'm okay with it.
ie: CCRA doesn't need to know my address if I don't live in the country. In fact, they don't need to know my address at all; all they need to know is where to send the tax forms/refunds/whatever, which does not have to be where I live.
Soft updates is not journalling, as you said. The choice of filesystem is about more than just journalling. Reiserfs is good for lots of small files, for instance.
The stuff about things being in the same place.... that's the same argument always used about BSD.
I have some debian boxes. Guess what, everything is in the same place on all of them. My cousin has a debian box too... and things are in the same place on his computer as on all of mine. I have debian boxes at work, and they too have files in the same places as the ones at home.
Take hundreds of BSD boxes administred by different people over the years, and you can expect to find files in different places all over. If the packages needed are in ports, yes, things will stay homogeneous... but when you get into building and compiling other stuff... that's where mess happens.
How did the IBM system deal with the human element?
When I'm waiting for a washroom on an aircraft, if I *really* need it in a hurry, perhaps becaue I'm sick.. I will ask the people waiting if I can go ahead. Usually they will say yes, if they can handle it. LIkewise, I will often let a small child or other person who looks really uncomfortable go ahead of me if I can bear it. It's called sharing. I got there first, okay, but I also sat closer to the washroom, perhaps. Or it took me less time to get out of my chair because I have an aisle seat. First come first serve is not always best; it should be more like most needed goes first.
I suppose if we all had some kind of squid detector (ibm patent #4332123) hooked up to our brains, wired into the aircraft central computer (ibm patent # 98344223), then they could actually let us know before we even realize it that we have to go to the washroom. By analyzing how fast an individual bladder or digestive system is working, it could even schedule such things ahead of time. Pre-boarding screening could be done in order to let people konw they cannot fly, because there will not be washroom time available on the current flight.
10 years is short? I don't know. 10 years sounds good to me.
If my mother reads me a new childrens book when I'm 3 years old, and it inspires me... by the time I hit highschool, 10 years later, it should be public domain, and new books should exist. This would ENCOURAGE more creative works from writers.
If I read something around the time I'm graduating from highschool, and heading to university, should I have to wait until I'm 60 years old until that work passes into the public domain? that's basically my entire adult life.
10 years is plenty. The only people who benefit after 10 yeras are publishers.... not the authors.
Why should Ebay do anything? They state very clearly that they only list the auctions, and that guarnateeing the security of your purchase is up to YOU. Caveat emptor.
They do what they can, but they are not the fraud police.
It would also open Ebay up to some serious risk of litigation, as they would be responsible for the honesty of their transactions; something they have tried to avoid as much as possible.
They made it very clear from the beginning that it was up to the buyer to take measures to protect himself, and that they were just al isting service.
Escrow servies ARE available. They could have used them.
Yes, if Korea was like the US, they probably would do that.
But it's not like the US at all. You just made that whole thing up.
if we hooked you up to the same experiment, you would probably do the same thing, as would many, many mammals.
Same thing as drug addiction. Do you think people get addicted to cocaine or heroin because they are simply "stupid" or "self centered" or weak minded?
Yes, as many have stated already, a one-time pad encryption is TOTALLY UNBREAKABLE. Not "practically" or "nearly" unbreakable.. but TOTALLY and COMPLETELY unbreakable.
Nevermind all the people who are saying that your claim is rediculous... the answer to your question is: Patent it.
Then you have the protection you need. You can have it peer reviewed (because nobody is going to believe your claims otherwise), and then decide the terms you want to license it under. If you want to give it away after that, you are free to do so. If you want to keep it (provided your claims are true, you have a gold mine)
Of course, a great many cryptographers will tell you that they have a proof that says that a re-useable key is always breakable.
And that stuff about an OTP being vulnerable to a known plaintext attack makes no sense. If you know the plaintext, it doesn't MATTER if you konw the key. The point of an OTP is to obscure the plaintext.
Yes, you understand me correctly. Sorry if I sound mean.. you just seem to be missing the point.
Let's say I produce a work, and give you a copy. Now, standard copyright applies. You can use it, but you can't redistribute it, or distribute derivitave works, etctera. Right?
Now I offer to license it to you under the terms of the GPL. Those terms don't say ANYTHING about what I have to do; they only say what YOU are allowed to do. They grant you permission to make derived works and to distribute them, provided you also provide the source to those works to the people you distribute to, you see? It is only through distributing it that you bind yourself to the GPL.
I, as the original author, do not need a licence to distribute the work; I hold the copyright. And if someone IS distributing my work contrary to whatever license I issued it under, I am the only one who can sue them for copyright violation. Think about it. If the FSF could sue someone for violating a work that I had released under GPL, what happens if I just wait a couple weeks, let them spend money, and then grant that person a license to use it without the GPL? The FSF is in no position to decide how or what happens to my original work. What if I asked you to write the terms of a contract for me to license software to my clients; would YOU then be allowed to sue my clients for violating it simply because you wrote the language in the legal document that is the contract? No, you wouldn't.
It's not a fiddling detail about the GPL; it's a fundamental concept in how these licenses work with regards to original authors and copyright.
BSD is no different. If I release code under the BSD license, can those who wrote the original BSD license sue people for violating it? No, only I can. Am I obligated to put advertising in all versions I release? Of course not, it's my work in the first place. I am not bound by the license; only those who I license it to are.
Yes, MS could release the IE under GPL and keep the source code secret. Though that wouldn't really make any sense... because it would require anyone re-distributing their program to also provide the source, which they can't obtain. It would be kind of hard for MS to enforce the terms of the GPL and accuse someone of distributing the software without source if the court can show that they refuse to provide the source in the first place though;)
The GPL states the terms under which the person who it is licenced to can do certain things. IT does not at all state terms under which the person granting the license on the original work has to adhere to.
I'm not a GPL advocate. I prefer BSD, for the record. I think the whole argument of one versus the other is silly. Yes, from the point of view of a developer wanting to integrate code into a product, the BSD license offers him more freedom. Absolutely.
If we twist freedom to mean "freedom from being made into something closed and proprietary" then obviously the GPL provides that freedom to it's software, and BSD does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say you are at work. Your company compiles a database of information about something. This is how they make their money.
Then you make a copy of it, and give it away. Have you stolen from the company?
You better believe it.
If congress can 'extend' those protections as often as they like, is it really limited? If so, what is the limit?
ie: if you say it's 10 yeras, but 8 years from now extend it to 20, then 2 yeras before it's up extend it to 30, and before that is up, extend it to 75, etcetera, is it really limited? Could you not do this indefinately and still technically say "there is a limit"?
Really. What about a soundcard that can output AC3? Do you think it's impossible to rip a DIVX and include an ac3 audio stream? It's not, people do it all the time, so they can use their nice home theaters.
There are two methods of commonly sending PGP mail.
One is in the normal text of the message, the other is as a mime attachment.
The standard behavior, with the old pgp plugins anyway, was that, if it was the main body of the message, it would be decrypted automatically. If not, you would have to click on the attachment to decrypt it.. the benefit being the attachment method is a bit more 'standard', and perhaps a bit more secure, depending on the environment.
What we really need, though, is something that works equally well in all popular mailers.
(Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Netscape) and has a set of unix tools to allow the oss world to integrate as well.
And the interface needs to be easy.. easy for my Mom.
Outlook's imap support is crap; it won't even do imap & exchange server at the same time without a plugin; you have to set it up in 'internet only' mode.
"You have to use mozilla mail" is not an adequate solution for the masses.
Outlook Express, btw, worked fairly well with the old pgpfreeware plugins, as does eudora. it's just a bit too weird for joe average.
Well, what about region coding on the games.
It would be a much weaker argument in court, of course.
Any action taken by government *could* be the start of big brother.
Big brother is someone who is always hovering there, waiting to come out. Whenever people permit government, you permit big brother in to some degree or another.
Tha said, as a Canadian, this is cool.
You see, all these records are obtainable now.. but it's a pain in the ass to authenticate yourself to the proper agencies (go there in person, etc). It would be nice to have a lot of stuff online.. and I'd rather the issued me a private digital certificate for access than some dumb authentication mechanism like just my SIN number & birthdate.
As long as they aren't changing the rules reagarding the information they need to know... I'm okay with it.
ie: CCRA doesn't need to know my address if I don't live in the country. In fact, they don't need to know my address at all; all they need to know is where to send the tax forms/refunds/whatever, which does not have to be where I live.
So now that I'm all juiced to try gentoo.. I'm at a stumbling block.
I want to try it on my sony vaio z505le...
I don't have a cdrom on the laptop.
The floppy drive is USB.
It won't read a 1.77 MB tomsrtbt image.
The debian rescue/root won't work because root won't load because USB isn't supported in the install kernel.
The mandrake install disk has no shell.
So.. where does that leave me? Anyone have any ideas?
Soft updates is not journalling, as you said.
The choice of filesystem is about more than just journalling. Reiserfs is good for lots of small files, for instance.
The stuff about things being in the same place.... that's the same argument always used about BSD.
I have some debian boxes. Guess what, everything is in the same place on all of them. My cousin has a debian box too... and things are in the same place on his computer as on all of mine. I have debian boxes at work, and they too have files in the same places as the ones at home.
Take hundreds of BSD boxes administred by different people over the years, and you can expect to find files in different places all over. If the packages needed are in ports, yes, things will stay homogeneous... but when you get into building and compiling other stuff... that's where mess happens.
Well, even a 9% increase in speed is significant. People pay hundreds of dollars for a 9% increase in processor speed..... why not compile?
Hey.. what if we had a better compiler?
How did the IBM system deal with the human element?
When I'm waiting for a washroom on an aircraft, if I *really* need it in a hurry, perhaps becaue I'm sick.. I will ask the people waiting if I can go ahead. Usually they will say yes, if they can handle it.
LIkewise, I will often let a small child or other person who looks really uncomfortable go ahead of me if I can bear it. It's called sharing. I got there first, okay, but I also sat closer to the washroom, perhaps. Or it took me less time to get out of my chair because I have an aisle seat. First come first serve is not always best; it should be more like most needed goes first.
I suppose if we all had some kind of squid detector (ibm patent #4332123) hooked up to our brains, wired into the aircraft central computer (ibm patent # 98344223), then they could actually let us know before we even realize it that we have to go to the washroom. By analyzing how fast an individual bladder or digestive system is working, it could even schedule such things ahead of time. Pre-boarding screening could be done in order to let people konw they cannot fly, because there will not be washroom time available on the current flight.
If you are forced to sign a contract at gunpoint, or otherwise under duress, is it not legally invalid?
10 years is short? I don't know.
10 years sounds good to me.
If my mother reads me a new childrens book when I'm 3 years old, and it inspires me... by the time I hit highschool, 10 years later, it should be public domain, and new books should exist. This would ENCOURAGE more creative works from writers.
If I read something around the time I'm graduating from highschool, and heading to university, should I have to wait until I'm 60 years old until that work passes into the public domain? that's basically my entire adult life.
10 years is plenty. The only people who benefit after 10 yeras are publishers.... not the authors.
That's why you filter traffic to/from the instance of UML at the host OS level.
Why should Ebay do anything? They state very clearly that they only list the auctions, and that guarnateeing the security of your purchase is up to YOU. Caveat emptor.
They do what they can, but they are not the fraud police.
It would also open Ebay up to some serious risk of litigation, as they would be responsible for the honesty of their transactions; something they have tried to avoid as much as possible.
They made it very clear from the beginning that it was up to the buyer to take measures to protect himself, and that they were just al isting service.
Escrow servies ARE available. They could have used them.
Yes, if Korea was like the US, they probably would do that.
But it's not like the US at all. You just made that whole thing up.
if we hooked you up to the same experiment, you would probably do the same thing, as would many, many mammals.
Same thing as drug addiction. Do you think people get addicted to cocaine or heroin because they are simply "stupid" or "self centered" or weak minded?
Okay. Let's talk tech here. NEvermind what's legal or not. Never mind cost (well, to a degree).
I live in Costa Rica. I want the best viewing pleasure I can get out of today's technology, without too many rediculous recurring costs.
Is it feasibly to use something like this on pirated DirecTV? What about other satellite services?
What about recording multiple channels at once.
If it's not truly random, it's not a OTP.
To be a OTP, it MUST be random.
One way encryption is not encryption; it's hashing.
IT's only encryption if it can be decrypted.
In the case of a password hash, it's not encryption, because there IS no way to go backwards. Information is lost.
Yes, as many have stated already, a one-time pad encryption is TOTALLY UNBREAKABLE.
Not "practically" or "nearly" unbreakable.. but TOTALLY and COMPLETELY unbreakable.
Nevermind all the people who are saying that your claim is rediculous... the answer to your question is: Patent it.
Then you have the protection you need. You can have it peer reviewed (because nobody is going to believe your claims otherwise), and then decide the terms you want to license it under.
If you want to give it away after that, you are free to do so. If you want to keep it (provided your claims are true, you have a gold mine)
Of course, a great many cryptographers will tell you that they have a proof that says that a re-useable key is always breakable.
And that stuff about an OTP being vulnerable to a known plaintext attack makes no sense. If you know the plaintext, it doesn't MATTER if you konw the key. The point of an OTP is to obscure the plaintext.
Well, that's the point. Now there is a market case for microsoft to provide that level of service. Before, there wasn't.
People are getting security (like C2 stuff) mixed up with bugs that allow that security to be compromised.
A c2 certified system can still have bugs that compromise it's integrity.
True.
I guess it would probably be a hybrid of both?
I'll say there is no way to determine the odds of him cheating; there is no relevant statistical information provided.
Yes, you understand me correctly.
;)
Sorry if I sound mean.. you just seem to be missing the point.
Let's say I produce a work, and give you a copy.
Now, standard copyright applies. You can use it,
but you can't redistribute it, or distribute derivitave works, etctera. Right?
Now I offer to license it to you under the terms of the GPL. Those terms don't say ANYTHING about what I have to do; they only say what YOU are allowed to do. They grant you permission to make derived works and to distribute them, provided you also provide the source to those works to the people you distribute to, you see? It is only through distributing it that you bind yourself to the GPL.
I, as the original author, do not need a licence to distribute the work; I hold the copyright.
And if someone IS distributing my work contrary to whatever license I issued it under, I am the only one who can sue them for copyright violation.
Think about it. If the FSF could sue someone for violating a work that I had released under GPL, what happens if I just wait a couple weeks, let them spend money, and then grant that person a license to use it without the GPL?
The FSF is in no position to decide how or what happens to my original work. What if I asked you to write the terms of a contract for me to license software to my clients; would YOU then be allowed to sue my clients for violating it simply because you wrote the language in the legal document that is the contract? No, you wouldn't.
It's not a fiddling detail about the GPL; it's a fundamental concept in how these licenses work with regards to original authors and copyright.
BSD is no different. If I release code under the BSD license, can those who wrote the original BSD license sue people for violating it? No, only I can.
Am I obligated to put advertising in all versions I release? Of course not, it's my work in the first place. I am not bound by the license; only those who I license it to are.
Yes, MS could release the IE under GPL and keep the source code secret. Though that wouldn't really make any sense... because it would require anyone re-distributing their program to also provide the source, which they can't obtain.
It would be kind of hard for MS to enforce the terms of the GPL and accuse someone of distributing the software without source if the court can show that they refuse to provide the source in the first place though
The GPL states the terms under which the person who it is licenced to can do certain things. IT does not at all state terms under which the person granting the license on the original work has to adhere to.
I'm not a GPL advocate. I prefer BSD, for the record. I think the whole argument of one versus the other is silly. Yes, from the point of view of a developer wanting to integrate code into a product, the BSD license offers him more freedom. Absolutely.
If we twist freedom to mean "freedom from being made into something closed and proprietary" then obviously the GPL provides that freedom to it's software, and BSD does not.