but this looks like its still based on speculation and hope rather than any empirical evidence.
History provides all the empirical evidence that is needed. Jobs are constantly destroyed by technology, and yet the economy hasn't collapsed. Skilled workers are usually in skilled jobs. That speaks for itself. The jobs will shift around, efficiency will increase, and the displaced will bitch for a while, and then either adapt or die. It's the way it's always been.
Of course it is. You make it sound like profit is a bad thing or something. Do you think the paycheck fairy comes every week and cuts the paychecks?
The corporations want to make more profit, and the way to do it is to get rid of expensive American workers and get cheap over-sea's labor.
That's one way to do it. If companies are doing this, that means that US labor is not competitive, and thus should be eliminated, or priced down to a level where it is competitive.
You can also thank various social programs for keeping taxes so high that it makes hiring employees a less attractive option. Remember, your employer pays at least an additional 50% in addition to what you get paid to keep you as an employee. Bug your politicians to quit wasting money on social programs, to make the US more competitive again.
Your skills don't mean squat to them.
Every employee was hired for one reason or another. A free market works when trades are mutually beneficial. If a trade is no longer beneficial for one side, then that side looks elsewhere to get the things they need. It's freshman economics, I don't know why it's so difficult to understand.
Wake the fuck up and start doing something about it before we're all working at Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
Technology thoughout history has always destroyed jobs, and it's always created them too. Technology now allow anyone anywhere to work with anyone else anywhere. For people like you to prevail is akin to the Luddites stopping the industrial revolution.
Because Slashdot is generally about destroying the "IT Industry" as we know it today. That's the point of free software.
That's a good thing, for most of us at least. Like that Red Hat guy said, "We want to take a multi-billion dollar market, and turn it into a multi-million dollar market".
Most of us believe that writing software shouldn't be something that is done once, then marketed forever. We care more about the quality of software, and we believe in the inherent economic worthlessness of something that can be infinitely copied.
There will still be plenty of jobs in IT, support, programmers, hardware stuff... It just won't be the sort of sleezy industry that IT had become over the last 20 years. It will be a service industry, not one that sells you some overpriced license and then demands even more money if you want any actual service. We are rebalancing the market, taking the power out of the hands of those who had become unresponsive to market forces.
I think most free software advocates are ultimately free market advocates, even though their philosophy may look like communism to the untrained eye. Software is unlike any other marketable item.
I'm positive I don't speak for everyone. However, I'm sure when I say "we", I'm not alone.
Well, that's fine if you are writing a web page for a language that is written vertically, but english is a right to left language, which mean horizontal scrolling is usually very very bad.
Yeah, I understand that aspect of password cracking, but you are taking this in a completely different direction from the original assertion, that an 8 character random string is trivial to crack when MD5'd.
That was the assertion I was responding to, but if you want to take it up another level, the start of this thread was that MD5 was too weak to stand up in court, when applied to several MB files. DNA evidence stands up in court, even though their is a chance of collision, MD5s chance of collision is probably even smaller.
So far I haven't seen any convincing arguments to the contrary, only some very strange logic that doesn't seem to make sense. I'll admit I may just be too ignorant to understand the implications, but it doesn't seem quite like sound logic.
That's the normal way things work, but here in bizarro world, the prosecutors have agendas, and relay such stupid statements from the accused to the press.
Is it not their responsibility to teach the kid the proper respect for a firearm, and to supervise them?
It is, and I'm not saying they are totally separate from the matter. However, it's a jump to say they are responsible for the actions of someone else.
It's that kind of logic that gets us multi-billion dollar tobacco lawsuits, people suing over fatty foods, idiotic warning labels on products, criminals suing when they are hurt in the process of a crime, etc.
The foundation of our country is responsibility for one's actions.
shouldn't they be punished?
Maybe. I think the proper channel would be civil lawsuits, which there is already a framework for suing parents of children who commit a tort. There's no need for new criminal laws in regard to this. Any such law would set a dangerous precedent. No current criminal law punishes a person for the actions of someone else, with a few slim exceptions.
Whoever gave them the guns obviously did something wrong with regards to their firearm education.
Correct. It was obviously a mistake to give them a gun, especially if they didn't give them the requsite education and training to learn how to use it for recreation properly and respect it, which is highly likely.
But when you go as far to say that someone else is responsible for their actions, I think that's taking it way too far.
Psychologists already trace most mental defects that lead to murder to the killer's childhood, so how far should this vicarious liability be taken?
That is such bullshit. For years, kids had.22 rifles for recreation and sport, and no one thought that it was a crime to give their son a gun after he was 11 or 12 and old enough to know how to use it responsibly.
It's all about teaching the child proper respect for the firearm, and supervising them until you know they have it.
If you wonder why so many people are growing up to be irresponsible people, you might look at how people like you seek to protect them for having any real responsibility for anything until they are 18. They killed someone, and they should be held fully responsible for that, not their parents.
Re:how odd, not the situation here in UK
on
Blaster Writer Caught
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He's sorta right, it's similar here in the US. Anytime you are detained, you are technically under arrest. If you say "Can I leave now" and they say "no", then you are basically under arrest. At that time it's best to not say anything more.
Crackers work by generating all possible 8 character passwords, hashing the results, and comparing the hashes. That's fast.
Then why is it so slow?
The way people talk here, crackers should be several orders of magnitude faster than they are. John gets about 4000 guesses/sec on my machine, which is an Athlon 1500 or thereabouts.
I'm not really disputing their theories, since I don't really know enough to rebut them properly, but my rubber-hits-the-road experience shows that something is wrong with their logic. I find it hard to believe that the authors of John wouldn't have taken advantage of something that would make their cracker 1000 times faster.
Patents aren't the kind of thing you can really determine ahead of time. Even if it looks like you might infringe, if the owner doesn't care about enforcing it, then it won't matter. Most are so vague you'd never be able to build anything anyway if you really tried to be conservative about it.
Basically you just have to put your stuff out there and hope you aren't sued. If they sue you later and can prove you knew about their patent and willfully infringed, they can still screw it to you anyway. It's a fucked up situation.
An 8 character password has a huge brute force space.
Considering that MD5's can only be cracked at a much lower rate (maybe a few hundred a sec? It's been a while since I tried last) than the old crypt hashes, it would still take years to break an 8 character random password
Assuming 26+26+10 for upper/lower/numeric, that's conservative since a strong password has symbols too.
62^8 possible passwords = 2.18e14
Assuming you can do 2000 cracks a second, it would take 3400 years to go through the whole space.
weapons characterized by high calibre and high rates of fire... Uzi
You know the Uzi is a submachinegun, not a rifle. It fires a 9mm pistol round (as do all guns classified as a submachinegun), hardly high caliber, or high power. It's a short range weapon. It also is a very ineffective weapon, it empties its magazine in about 2 seconds when fired fully automatic.
The M16 fires the Nato 5.56mm round, again, a small caliber. It is a high power round though. The M16 fires in semiautomatic (single shot) and burst mode.
The AK47 russian/chinese versions shoot a 7.62x39mm round, but it can be chambered for.308 or.223 caliber (all small calibers, but high power).
You need a special license in the US to own any fully automatic firearm. It's not something you can go buy easily legally. Besides, an AK47 or an M16 is hardly a weapon you'd want to carry as a criminal. They are heavy, and largely useless for any sort of criminal activity. If you just want to scare people, a pistol does that just as well, I'd think.
I've never actually played "Redneck Rampage", whatever that is (the title gives me a mental image of a game similar to Duke Nukem but with Moonshine instead of shrink guns).
Pretty much. You drink moonshine and eat moon pies to get health. You'd often come upon a guy with a shotgun yelling "Git offa my land".
I do, however, watch the news and pay attention to what's going on. I was aluding to a case, in 1992, which occured in Texas where an unemployed truck driver shot two Japanese tourists who had just walked up to his porch to ask directions as they were lost
Sounds like a real whacko. Glad he got convicted. Do you really think that he represents anyone who advocates the right to own weapons? He's more like SCO, trying to twist the law to his own ends.
It is not unknown (infact it's bloody common) for second ammendment advocates to attempt to argue that you have carte blanche to use lethal force on anyone on your land uninvited.
Did the NRA defend this guy? I'd be a little surprised if they did.
What you are referring to is in home safety/women's defense courses, the students are taught: If you are in a situation where someone has broken into your house, and you are sure it really is a hostile person, then don't hesitate to shoot. Don't brandish the firearm and try to scare them off, just identify them, and shoot, if you feel your life is in danger.
That's not the same as shooting someone walking up your path, assumedly during day time. This guy would have a hard time arguing he felt his life was in danger.
I'm having a hard time finding any sort of authoritative information about this case, the only thing I see is an offhand mention on some web board with a peace sign in its logo. I'd think it would have at least been appealed, so it should be online, most precedent setting cases are.
How exactly do you command a GUI application with python and perl? The way I understand it, Applescript is the only way to automate many things in an OS that so desperately tries to candy coat everything.
What exactly is an "assualt rifle" and how is it different from a rifle?
I think you have been playing too much Redneck Rampage. Where I live, most people have guns, and most people will help you out the best they can if you ask them. I've had strangers pull my car out of a ditch, even after I walked up to their house at 11 pm and knocked on their door, getting mud all over thier floor. They could have told me to call a tow truck, but they didn't.
I'm sure the though never crossed their mind to get their gun and point it at me, at least not before making sure I was a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
but this looks like its still based on speculation and hope rather than any empirical evidence.
History provides all the empirical evidence that is needed. Jobs are constantly destroyed by technology, and yet the economy hasn't collapsed. Skilled workers are usually in skilled jobs. That speaks for itself. The jobs will shift around, efficiency will increase, and the displaced will bitch for a while, and then either adapt or die. It's the way it's always been.
Do you really think I'm going to respond to an ad hominem attack?
Why don't you try posting something to support your position instead?
I don't see how what I said could possibly be considered a troll.
This is all about profit
Of course it is. You make it sound like profit is a bad thing or something. Do you think the paycheck fairy comes every week and cuts the paychecks?
The corporations want to make more profit, and the way to do it is to get rid of expensive American workers and get cheap over-sea's labor.
That's one way to do it. If companies are doing this, that means that US labor is not competitive, and thus should be eliminated, or priced down to a level where it is competitive.
You can also thank various social programs for keeping taxes so high that it makes hiring employees a less attractive option. Remember, your employer pays at least an additional 50% in addition to what you get paid to keep you as an employee. Bug your politicians to quit wasting money on social programs, to make the US more competitive again.
Your skills don't mean squat to them.
Every employee was hired for one reason or another. A free market works when trades are mutually beneficial. If a trade is no longer beneficial for one side, then that side looks elsewhere to get the things they need. It's freshman economics, I don't know why it's so difficult to understand.
Wake the fuck up and start doing something about it before we're all working at Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
Technology thoughout history has always destroyed jobs, and it's always created them too. Technology now allow anyone anywhere to work with anyone else anywhere. For people like you to prevail is akin to the Luddites stopping the industrial revolution.
Because Slashdot is generally about destroying the "IT Industry" as we know it today. That's the point of free software.
That's a good thing, for most of us at least. Like that Red Hat guy said, "We want to take a multi-billion dollar market, and turn it into a multi-million dollar market".
Most of us believe that writing software shouldn't be something that is done once, then marketed forever. We care more about the quality of software, and we believe in the inherent economic worthlessness of something that can be infinitely copied.
There will still be plenty of jobs in IT, support, programmers, hardware stuff... It just won't be the sort of sleezy industry that IT had become over the last 20 years. It will be a service industry, not one that sells you some overpriced license and then demands even more money if you want any actual service. We are rebalancing the market, taking the power out of the hands of those who had become unresponsive to market forces.
I think most free software advocates are ultimately free market advocates, even though their philosophy may look like communism to the untrained eye. Software is unlike any other marketable item.
I'm positive I don't speak for everyone. However, I'm sure when I say "we", I'm not alone.
Well, that's fine if you are writing a web page for a language that is written vertically, but english is a right to left language, which mean horizontal scrolling is usually very very bad.
Yeah, I understand that aspect of password cracking, but you are taking this in a completely different direction from the original assertion, that an 8 character random string is trivial to crack when MD5'd.
That was the assertion I was responding to, but if you want to take it up another level, the start of this thread was that MD5 was too weak to stand up in court, when applied to several MB files. DNA evidence stands up in court, even though their is a chance of collision, MD5s chance of collision is probably even smaller.
So far I haven't seen any convincing arguments to the contrary, only some very strange logic that doesn't seem to make sense. I'll admit I may just be too ignorant to understand the implications, but it doesn't seem quite like sound logic.
That's the normal way things work, but here in bizarro world, the prosecutors have agendas, and relay such stupid statements from the accused to the press.
Is it not their responsibility to teach the kid the proper respect for a firearm, and to supervise them?
It is, and I'm not saying they are totally separate from the matter. However, it's a jump to say they are responsible for the actions of someone else.
It's that kind of logic that gets us multi-billion dollar tobacco lawsuits, people suing over fatty foods, idiotic warning labels on products, criminals suing when they are hurt in the process of a crime, etc.
The foundation of our country is responsibility for one's actions.
shouldn't they be punished?
Maybe. I think the proper channel would be civil lawsuits, which there is already a framework for suing parents of children who commit a tort. There's no need for new criminal laws in regard to this. Any such law would set a dangerous precedent. No current criminal law punishes a person for the actions of someone else, with a few slim exceptions.
Whoever gave them the guns obviously did something wrong with regards to their firearm education.
Correct. It was obviously a mistake to give them a gun, especially if they didn't give them the requsite education and training to learn how to use it for recreation properly and respect it, which is highly likely.
But when you go as far to say that someone else is responsible for their actions, I think that's taking it way too far.
Psychologists already trace most mental defects that lead to murder to the killer's childhood, so how far should this vicarious liability be taken?
Who's looking for the scapegoat here? You seek to blame their parents, which is just another scapegoat.
That is such bullshit. For years, kids had .22 rifles for recreation and sport, and no one thought that it was a crime to give their son a gun after he was 11 or 12 and old enough to know how to use it responsibly.
It's all about teaching the child proper respect for the firearm, and supervising them until you know they have it.
If you wonder why so many people are growing up to be irresponsible people, you might look at how people like you seek to protect them for having any real responsibility for anything until they are 18. They killed someone, and they should be held fully responsible for that, not their parents.
There's not any tractor-trailers in GTA.
Sorry Mr. Prosecutor, got to come up with something better than that.
The word you guys want is "affect".
Yeah, it's a stupid grammar nitpick.
He's sorta right, it's similar here in the US. Anytime you are detained, you are technically under arrest. If you say "Can I leave now" and they say "no", then you are basically under arrest. At that time it's best to not say anything more.
Crackers work by generating all possible 8 character passwords, hashing the results, and comparing the hashes. That's fast.
Then why is it so slow?
The way people talk here, crackers should be several orders of magnitude faster than they are. John gets about 4000 guesses/sec on my machine, which is an Athlon 1500 or thereabouts.
I'm not really disputing their theories, since I don't really know enough to rebut them properly, but my rubber-hits-the-road experience shows that something is wrong with their logic. I find it hard to believe that the authors of John wouldn't have taken advantage of something that would make their cracker 1000 times faster.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but my shadow file has 256 bit long hashes in it.
Why does John the Ripper only get 3800/sec on my Athlon 1500?
They've got a long road ahead of them if they want to earn respect from many in the industry.
Patents aren't the kind of thing you can really determine ahead of time. Even if it looks like you might infringe, if the owner doesn't care about enforcing it, then it won't matter. Most are so vague you'd never be able to build anything anyway if you really tried to be conservative about it.
Basically you just have to put your stuff out there and hope you aren't sued. If they sue you later and can prove you knew about their patent and willfully infringed, they can still screw it to you anyway. It's a fucked up situation.
An 8 character password has a huge brute force space.
Considering that MD5's can only be cracked at a much lower rate (maybe a few hundred a sec? It's been a while since I tried last) than the old crypt hashes, it would still take years to break an 8 character random password
Assuming 26+26+10 for upper/lower/numeric, that's conservative since a strong password has symbols too.
62^8 possible passwords = 2.18e14
Assuming you can do 2000 cracks a second, it would take 3400 years to go through the whole space.
But I thought that case was a pure Due Process challenge? Is that a different case I am thinking of?
weapons characterized by high calibre and high rates of fire ... Uzi
.308 or .223 caliber (all small calibers, but high power).
You know the Uzi is a submachinegun, not a rifle. It fires a 9mm pistol round (as do all guns classified as a submachinegun), hardly high caliber, or high power. It's a short range weapon. It also is a very ineffective weapon, it empties its magazine in about 2 seconds when fired fully automatic.
The M16 fires the Nato 5.56mm round, again, a small caliber. It is a high power round though. The M16 fires in semiautomatic (single shot) and burst mode.
The AK47 russian/chinese versions shoot a 7.62x39mm round, but it can be chambered for
You need a special license in the US to own any fully automatic firearm. It's not something you can go buy easily legally. Besides, an AK47 or an M16 is hardly a weapon you'd want to carry as a criminal. They are heavy, and largely useless for any sort of criminal activity. If you just want to scare people, a pistol does that just as well, I'd think.
I've never actually played "Redneck Rampage", whatever that is (the title gives me a mental image of a game similar to Duke Nukem but with Moonshine instead of shrink guns).
Pretty much. You drink moonshine and eat moon pies to get health. You'd often come upon a guy with a shotgun yelling "Git offa my land".
I do, however, watch the news and pay attention to what's going on. I was aluding to a case, in 1992, which occured in Texas where an unemployed truck driver shot two Japanese tourists who had just walked up to his porch to ask directions as they were lost
Sounds like a real whacko. Glad he got convicted. Do you really think that he represents anyone who advocates the right to own weapons? He's more like SCO, trying to twist the law to his own ends.
It is not unknown (infact it's bloody common) for second ammendment advocates to attempt to argue that you have carte blanche to use lethal force on anyone on your land uninvited.
Did the NRA defend this guy? I'd be a little surprised if they did.
What you are referring to is in home safety/women's defense courses, the students are taught: If you are in a situation where someone has broken into your house, and you are sure it really is a hostile person, then don't hesitate to shoot. Don't brandish the firearm and try to scare them off, just identify them, and shoot, if you feel your life is in danger.
That's not the same as shooting someone walking up your path, assumedly during day time. This guy would have a hard time arguing he felt his life was in danger.
I'm having a hard time finding any sort of authoritative information about this case, the only thing I see is an offhand mention on some web board with a peace sign in its logo. I'd think it would have at least been appealed, so it should be online, most precedent setting cases are.
How exactly do you command a GUI application with python and perl? The way I understand it, Applescript is the only way to automate many things in an OS that so desperately tries to candy coat everything.
What exactly is an "assualt rifle" and how is it different from a rifle?
I think you have been playing too much Redneck Rampage. Where I live, most people have guns, and most people will help you out the best they can if you ask them. I've had strangers pull my car out of a ditch, even after I walked up to their house at 11 pm and knocked on their door, getting mud all over thier floor. They could have told me to call a tow truck, but they didn't.
I'm sure the though never crossed their mind to get their gun and point it at me, at least not before making sure I was a threat.