you can't prove the existence of your own left hand (if you lost your hand in a lawn-mower accident in your youth, replace "hand" with some body part you have). But according to certain assumptions you make about everyday life (i.e., that it's not a figment of your own reality, that things have causes, etc.), your hand does exist.
The fact of the matter is that Creationism explains everything very conveniently: God did it. Where did God come from? He didn't. It gives nice, simple, pat answers to some incredibly disturbing questions. Evolution, on the other hand, when asked where we are and where we're going, mumbles something like "Well, if we had somewhere to go, we'd be lost, but we don't, so we're wandering."
Not comforting at all.
Unless, of course, you consider futility the same as freedom, in which case you're grinning wildly.
So, there will always be unanswerable questions, but those are best left to philosophy classes, not biology. I agree that teachers should note the absence of all the answer, but I don't think they should throw evolution out just because it doesn't explain Pop Tarts.
We rounded up Japanese-American citizens because we thought they were a security threat. We kept African-Americans enslaved because it was economically convenient. We kept women without rights because they were the "weaker sex."
Please... it's really hard to be civil when you're talking about freedom... Americans don't know the meaning of the word. We've accepted SO many intrusions into our lives, and we've done SO many things wrong, and I don't think we should tell Europe where to get off.
Socialism will, in short, deprive you of the "right" to starve, or to wield your weapons of privilege against those less fortunate.
Point to the self-made millionaires all you will, and you're still ignoring the fact that people in poverty are trapped. Not because they're lazy, not because they're stupid, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ECONOMICALLY CONVENIENT.
We have the strongest economy in the world because that's what we do: make money. If you think that money makes the government, perhaps we should get rid of the government completely and sign our souls over to PepsiCo. That would raise stock values. Other countries aren't in such a damn hurry to make money... they're content with providing for their citizens, and raising quality of life, not giving corporations tax breaks...
Jesus Christ...
Hang out in a bust-town sometime. Go talk to the people in a ghetto. Then try and tell me that you still think those people are there because of their work ethic.
Again: drop the jingoism. America is flawed, and in some very significant ways that we're relucant to mention.
Drop the Horatio Alger, too. The best indicator as to a person's class is what their parents were.
But hey, I wish my mommy and daddy had left me a trust fund... then perhaps I could be economically conservative...
>Have you ever been to the US? It's not that easy. Lots of people do it, but this "literally anyone" thing is nonsense.
I live in Southern California. I never said it was easy, I just said anyone who works hard. And it's true.
So, let's say I'm a young, male African-American born to people under the poverty line. How can I succeed? Work hard? The people that work the hardest make the least money. Horatio Alger is dead and gone.
It's easy for people with privilege to assume that everyone has the samle privileges. Because I'm white, male, and middle class I learned how to program, and because of that I now have a future. This isn't because I work hard, it's because I was exposed to programming at age 10.
And for those in love with the illusion of freedom in America, what happens when you smoke weed? Po-po comes to throw down. What happens in Holland? You get high. Burn the jingoism.
"Damnit, man, hand me that crimping tool, the needle-nose pliers, and that Knuth Vol 5! I'll get this bottle open if it's an O(N^10) operation!"
Let's be honest, Real Geeks (tm) crack the Corona mainframe and alter the delivery schedule...
Beer Dude: "Well, this doesn't look like a bar, but it's the address the computer said. Are you positive you have a liquor license?"
Geek: "Positive. Put the beer behind the Beowulf cluster in the back. Watch out for the cat5 cables..."
Nah... Real Geeks (tm) would probably create a time-accelerator, to make slow-brewed beer in 2 minutes. Either that or they'd engineer some nanomites to make beer out of water and concrete...
The RC ciphers, RC2, RC4 and RC5, are copyrighted. The names are trademarked. This means that you can not use RSA's code, or the names RC[245], without RSA's permissions. But, you can use AAILRC5EFTN, An Algorithm Incredibally Like RC5 Except For The Name. Basically, RC5 (or 2 or 4), but named different.
This isn't correct. RC5 and RC6 are patented. RC2 and RC4 are the only RsC without patents. RC2 is still a trade secret, but you can use RC4 as long as you don't call it "RC4".
I wouldn't suggest using RC4, regardless of its IP status: its avalanche properties scare me a bit. It takes ~1000 bytes to get the state really mixed up, which means the key setup isn't adequate. I would *much* prefer to have something like Blowfish as the standard.
If Hallmark is behind it, they're *really* stupid. Think about it: how would you say thank-you to a techie? Mail them a *card* via USPS? Yeah right! People who really want to say thank-you will email their favorite techie with a plain-text message, headers that conform to RFC 822, a three-line-or-less signature, and a heartfelt message: "Thanks for fixing the broken stuff. We'd be lost without you."
That said, I have to agree with the other posters: this is a pretty silly holiday.
It's a little-known fact, but ZDNet recently held a car security test. They left two cars equipped with different security systems on the streets of LA, to see which ones real-life crooks could steal. The first car, equipped with MS MySafeCar, was locked, secured, and parked next to the second car, which was a convertible with the top down, keys in, and Linux Carsec turned off. The second car was stolen, prompting ZDNet employees to rejoice and marvel at the advertising budget for, er, security miracle that is MS MySafeCar.
When Carsec proponents noted the discrepancy between the two cars, ZDNet replied that "the average car user would not want to lock 2 to 4 individual doors."
ZDNet, in response to the information that Carsec comes with power locks, stuck their fingers in their ears and starting humming "Ol' MacDonald."
As a software developer (and the only guy in charge of a 200kline application), I can't agree with this more. The market shouldn't dictate the release date - the programmers should. Any programmer worth his salt will know when a program is ready: the testers like it, the code is clean, and he can't find anything wrong with it.
Software, like anything else, should be taken out of the oven when it's done.
I just wonder how the industry got this way. Why can't other industries squirt out crappy products at everyone else?
Or is it just that most industries do, and that's not OK for an industry that makes products people rely on?
Perhaps it has something to do with the userbase: instead of making products for geeks, we're making products for non-computer people these days.
This article should be mandatory reading for all programmers *AND* managers.
... to this. Instead of speculating, let's look at the primary source:
"After an Israeli research institute said it could break Europe's banking codes in less than a second, a initiative has been launched that could result in unbreakable codes."
Notice the would "could." Not "did," not "has," but "could." This means it hasn't happened yet.
"[Weizmann Institute] claims it has developed a hand-held device that can break the code in 12 microseconds."
Again: claims to have developed a device. Not "cracked a huge RSA key in a completely scientific test."
This offers no proof whatsoever, nor does it go into detail about what the "device" is, except to say that it uses a "mixture of quantum computing and special optical technology." Is this Twinkle? It being a full-fledged quantum computer would be *shocking*, since the most I've heard a quantum computer be able to handle is 5 qbits. Twinkle seems much more likely, and has less repercussions: the attack can't be extended to larger primes in the same amount of time.
What about the RSA implementation? It would be fairly easy to crack an insecure implementation of RSA.
Instead of rasing our blood pressue with speculation and conspiracy theories, let's wait until some facts come through. If this was really that important, it would be making waves in the crypto community instead of impressing/.ers.
If we start bringing back extinct species, what will happen to our outlook on extinction. We're pretty damn conscienceless when it comes to wiping species off the face of the earth. If we can bring them back at will, will we kill off even more species?
"Oh, go ahead and chop down the forest. We've got DNA samples of just about everything here..."
And then of course, who's going to bring back the ugly stuff? It's find and dandy to bring back the dodo, the spotted-buffeted snow pika, etc. Are we going to bring back the blunt-nosed, slime-covered ass worm once we kill it off? Or are we going to stick solely with creatures that look cute?
While this is an interesting science experiment, I think the resources could be better applied: Oct. 12th is Six Billion People Day. In 1960 we had 3 billion. We've doubled in 40 years. Better, cheaper, safer contraceptives would make the world a better place. Wooly mammoths would make one zoo a lot of money.
I wonder what the reaction would be if they had stuck with original plan of drawing their logo on the moon, using lasers? (Of course this is pretty damn impossible, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of discussion.)
Would crowds of irrate people, sick of seeing Pizza Hut imposed in red letters on the moon, storm the Pizza Hut headquarters?
What else could you put on the face of the moon? A clock for GMT. "I wonder what time it is... hmmm... 5 AM, minus 8... damn! I'd better get home!"
Perhaps a stock ticker. You'd have crowds of Wall Street geeks out in the streets with telescopes shouting instructions to their lackeys.
And what would happen if hackers got into the works? "34rtH |z 0wN3d!"
As the reach of humanity increases, we're going to have to put some limits on who can put what where, or else we'll be creating supernovas in distant galaxies that spell out "BUY COKE".
How horrible would it be to have the first people on Mars be advertisers?
In the United States, at least, patents can be snatched up by the military and made Top Secret.
This allows the military to wait until some bright young entrepreneur to come up with a great solution, then they swoop down and tell the poor sap he can't talk about his patent for 10-15 years, and next thing you know the military comes out with some really cool speech recognition device.
So while there are brilliant people outside of The Man's Territory, their ideas can be and are stolen, and no one can talk about it.
I can think of better ways for the world to work...
IIRC, it wouldn't make it a linear problem, it would make it a cubic problem. Much less than exponential, however.
I think this is an interesting article, but as other posters have noticed, it doesn't provide an unconditionally secure authentication process to go along with the unconditionally secure key generation.
Without authentication, the point is moot, because while you can be sure what you're saying is secure, you can't be sure that you're saying it to the right person.
Also, given the rampant speculation on factoring methods in this discussion, I might as well point out the fact that elliptic curves are much harder to crack, for the main reason that they're not smooth. Therefore, TWINKLE wouldn't work on them. A lot of research needs to be done on EC crypto before they can be trusted to the extent that RSA is today.
And all in all, RSA isn't the worst choice out there, as long as certain precautions (enumerated in Applied Cryptography, among other places) are taken. The RSA patent expires Sept. 20, 2000, which will be a Very Good Thing(tm). I'm keeping some chapagne on ice... well, not really, but I'll probably be pretty stoked.
You know, all this time I've been waiting for a clear, level-headed article on AntiOnline. The "media" has relied on him far too long, and it doesn't take a genius to see that he's full of shit.
I *hope* this is the first step of the downfall of AntiOnline. It probably won't be, since evil organizations tend to bounce back like herpes, but you gotta hope...
It will be interesting to see JP's reaction to this article. Does he sue? Does he cry? Does he pack his bags? Does he ignore it?
As other people have said, for a biased but informative account of JP's hijinks, go to attrition.org.
Let's assume that we want Linux to achieve World Domination(tm). In effect, we want to displace Microsoft.
How do we do this? By making the best software? Hah. Pull the other one. The best does not always win, especially when the mediocre has a stranglehold on the market.
There are at least two ways Linux can inflitrate the desktop market: (1) display Microsoft as the OEM OS, and (2) get people to defect over once they get sick of Windows, or see The Light(tm).
Now, (1) doesn't look very possible. MS will shoot on sight anything that looks like a competitor.
(2) is much more possible, however, and the key to it is simple: **MAKE LINUX EASIER TO INSTALL THAN WINDOWS**. They pop in the $5 CD, Tux waves at them and looks for their hardware, and poof, X is up and running with replacements for all of their Win9x apps.
This is not the current state of events. I'm not a Linux guy, for various reasons. I tried to help a friend install RedHat 6.$latest. He has some duct-taped suped-up video card. X ran at 150x150. I could see the GNOME toolbar and part of a menu. Not fun.
Now, for a couple of computer geeks hanging out after-hours in the local computer store, this wasn't a big deal. Now imagine your mother faced with this problem.
So, in order to make inroads into the desktop market, Linux needs to be the drool-proof choice. It needs to be as easy to install as a small application.
Now, why do we want Linux to take over the desktop market? Because power users should not have to suffer idiots. Hardcore computer people shouldn't have to put up with the closed-source/closed-mind/shortsighted mindset common to most computer companies. If the users change, the companies have to, or they go out of business.
How do you kill bloatware? How do you stop insecure server software? You get people used to fast, lean applications, and robust server apps. Then the crap will stand out like crap in a rose garden, not crap in a shit exhibit.
This doesn't mean dumbing Linux down. This means making the amount of rope variable, from "Enough To Power A Yo-Yo" to "Enough To Hang Yourself From The Empire State Building". Start new users off with Tux The Magical Penguin's Guide To Linux, and they can work their way out of the GUI if needed. Most people won't. Power users could always click on the "skip the bullshit" button and get dropped into the real thing.
But *please* don't keep that elitest "make the users learn" attitude. If you really want people to learn, make it easy for them to learn. If you just want a clubhouse, keep at it.
I'm running NT4/SP5, 96mb of RAM, dual PPro 200 (yes, old school, I know). No problems. It starts up quickly, it runs well, it's kind of a dog when it comes to rendering pages.
I installed IE4 a while back to test it, and when it took a full 30 seconds to open, I uninstalled it. I think the main thing would be to only download what you need. If you don't need it for mail/news, DON'T DOWNLOAD COMMUNICATOR. Just download the browser.
I've visited all the URLs that people are saying hang their Netscapes, and it seems to be working just dandy for me. I have Javascript on, Java off.
I'm seeing a lot of "Netscape's crap" posts... does it work for anyone else, or am I alone on this one?
That wouldn't work. It would be basically the same thing as having a key ring full of keys, and you don't know which key goes to which body-stuffed shed. The police would just demand the key ring and do the search themselves.
This wouldn't provide any security if you made the key ring larger (ie, a portion of the keyspace), either. If you can access your data without knowing the key, you can bet the police can.
I think this is a really good hack on the part of STAND. In fact, I think that if the law is enacted people all across the UK should commit their favorite crime, encrypt a confession, and send it to their MP.
Getting around laws like these with technological hacks (ie, chaff-n-winnow) is the wrong attitude to adapt. We should be fighting these laws instead of finding ways around them.
If you had, you wouldn't be gibbering about Free Software, you would be cheering. Borland makes the best Rapid Application Development tools around, hands down. Hacking in vi with gcc pales in comparison to being able to design good GUIs in no time flat.
I've been using Delphi since v1.0, and it's incredible. You get to see what your UIs look like at design time, it's totally object-oriented and event-driven.
I think this is an incredible step, and that instead of whining about Free Software, all the FS advocates out there should be saving up to buy a copy, so they can write their own RAD compiler using Linux-Delphi.
While the licensing may not strike you as good, the technology is nothing *but* good. I suggest you co-opt it instead of fighting it.
I don't trust the Church of Scientology. You can look at their actions. To be honest, I don't know why they would want to mislead people about the educational system.
I do know that CoS doesn't have a real good history of educating people with non-misleading information.
I think that questioning the motives of a large business (which is what they are, really) is a good thing, especially when they're "educating" people.
If you want to take their word for their honesty, go for it. It's still propaganda.
I know that whenever I want an independent evaluation of a subject, I can always turn to the Church Of $cientology for a level-headed examination of the facts.
Now, how about reading the fine print of the next pamphlet you post?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... quick RL test here.. the light switch I'm sitting next to is up, and the light is on.
The ones in the bathroom are down, and the lights are off.
Is my house not intuitive? Oh well.
I would say, however, that most people push *in* to turn things on: monitor, speakers, phones, etc.
you can't prove the existence of your own left hand (if you lost your hand in a lawn-mower accident in your youth, replace "hand" with some body part you have). But according to certain assumptions you make about everyday life (i.e., that it's not a figment of your own reality, that things have causes, etc.), your hand does exist.
The fact of the matter is that Creationism explains everything very conveniently: God did it. Where did God come from? He didn't. It gives nice, simple, pat answers to some incredibly disturbing questions. Evolution, on the other hand, when asked where we are and where we're going, mumbles something like "Well, if we had somewhere to go, we'd be lost, but we don't, so we're wandering."
Not comforting at all.
Unless, of course, you consider futility the same as freedom, in which case you're grinning wildly.
So, there will always be unanswerable questions, but those are best left to philosophy classes, not biology. I agree that teachers should note the absence of all the answer, but I don't think they should throw evolution out just because it doesn't explain Pop Tarts.
Freedom? Is the US the land of freedom now?
We rounded up Japanese-American citizens because we thought they were a security threat. We kept African-Americans enslaved because it was economically convenient. We kept women without rights because they were the "weaker sex."
Please... it's really hard to be civil when you're talking about freedom... Americans don't know the meaning of the word. We've accepted SO many intrusions into our lives, and we've done SO many things wrong, and I don't think we should tell Europe where to get off.
Socialism will, in short, deprive you of the "right" to starve, or to wield your weapons of privilege against those less fortunate.
Point to the self-made millionaires all you will, and you're still ignoring the fact that people in poverty are trapped. Not because they're lazy, not because they're stupid, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ECONOMICALLY CONVENIENT.
We have the strongest economy in the world because that's what we do: make money. If you think that money makes the government, perhaps we should get rid of the government completely and sign our souls over to PepsiCo. That would raise stock values. Other countries aren't in such a damn hurry to make money... they're content with providing for their citizens, and raising quality of life, not giving corporations tax breaks...
Jesus Christ...
Hang out in a bust-town sometime. Go talk to the people in a ghetto. Then try and tell me that you still think those people are there because of their work ethic.
Again: drop the jingoism. America is flawed, and in some very significant ways that we're relucant to mention.
Drop the Horatio Alger, too. The best indicator as to a person's class is what their parents were.
But hey, I wish my mommy and daddy had left me a trust fund... then perhaps I could be economically conservative...
>Have you ever been to the US? It's not that easy. Lots of people do it, but this "literally anyone" thing is nonsense.
I live in Southern California. I never said it was easy, I just said anyone who works hard. And it's true.
So, let's say I'm a young, male African-American born to people under the poverty line. How can I succeed? Work hard? The people that work the hardest make the least money. Horatio Alger is dead and gone.
It's easy for people with privilege to assume that everyone has the samle privileges. Because I'm white, male, and middle class I learned how to program, and because of that I now have a future. This isn't because I work hard, it's because I was exposed to programming at age 10.
And for those in love with the illusion of freedom in America, what happens when you smoke weed? Po-po comes to throw down. What happens in Holland? You get high. Burn the jingoism.
"Damnit, man, hand me that crimping tool, the needle-nose pliers, and that Knuth Vol 5! I'll get this bottle open if it's an O(N^10) operation!"
Let's be honest, Real Geeks (tm) crack the Corona mainframe and alter the delivery schedule...
Beer Dude: "Well, this doesn't look like a bar, but it's the address the computer said. Are you positive you have a liquor license?"
Geek: "Positive. Put the beer behind the Beowulf cluster in the back. Watch out for the cat5 cables..."
Nah... Real Geeks (tm) would probably create a time-accelerator, to make slow-brewed beer in 2 minutes. Either that or they'd engineer some nanomites to make beer out of water and concrete...
The RC ciphers, RC2, RC4 and RC5, are copyrighted. The names are trademarked. This means that you can not use RSA's code, or the names RC[245], without RSA's permissions. But, you can use AAILRC5EFTN, An Algorithm Incredibally Like RC5 Except For The Name. Basically, RC5 (or 2 or 4), but named different.
This isn't correct. RC5 and RC6 are patented.
RC2 and RC4 are the only RsC without patents. RC2 is still a trade secret, but you can use RC4 as long as you don't call it "RC4".
I wouldn't suggest using RC4, regardless of its IP status: its avalanche properties scare me a bit. It takes ~1000 bytes to get the state really mixed up, which means the key setup isn't adequate. I would *much* prefer to have something like Blowfish as the standard.
If Hallmark is behind it, they're *really* stupid. Think about it: how would you say thank-you to a techie? Mail them a *card* via USPS? Yeah right! People who really want to say thank-you will email their favorite techie with a plain-text message, headers that conform to RFC 822, a three-line-or-less signature, and a heartfelt message: "Thanks for fixing the broken stuff. We'd be lost without you."
That said, I have to agree with the other posters: this is a pretty silly holiday.
It's a little-known fact, but ZDNet recently held a car security test. They left two cars equipped with different security systems on the streets of LA, to see which ones real-life crooks could steal. The first car, equipped with MS MySafeCar, was locked, secured, and parked next to the second car, which was a convertible with the top down, keys in, and Linux Carsec turned off. The second car was stolen, prompting ZDNet employees to rejoice and marvel at the advertising budget for, er, security miracle that is MS MySafeCar.
When Carsec proponents noted the discrepancy between the two cars, ZDNet replied that "the average car user would not want to lock 2 to 4 individual doors."
ZDNet, in response to the information that Carsec comes with power locks, stuck their fingers in their ears and starting humming "Ol' MacDonald."
Do they have a point? Yes, atop their heads.
As a software developer (and the only guy in charge of a 200kline application), I can't agree with this more. The market shouldn't dictate the release date - the programmers should. Any programmer worth his salt will know when a program is ready: the testers like it, the code is clean, and he can't find anything wrong with it.
Software, like anything else, should be taken out of the oven when it's done.
I just wonder how the industry got this way. Why can't other industries squirt out crappy products at everyone else?
Or is it just that most industries do, and that's not OK for an industry that makes products people rely on?
Perhaps it has something to do with the userbase: instead of making products for geeks, we're making products for non-computer people these days.
This article should be mandatory reading for all programmers *AND* managers.
... to this. Instead of speculating, let's look at the primary source:
/.ers.
"After an Israeli research institute said it could break Europe's banking codes in less than a second, a initiative has been launched that could result in unbreakable codes."
Notice the would "could." Not "did," not "has," but "could." This means it hasn't happened yet.
"[Weizmann Institute] claims it has developed a hand-held device that can break the code in 12 microseconds."
Again: claims to have developed a device. Not "cracked a huge RSA key in a completely scientific test."
This offers no proof whatsoever, nor does it go into detail about what the "device" is, except to say that it uses a "mixture of quantum computing and special optical technology." Is this Twinkle? It being a full-fledged quantum computer would be *shocking*, since the most I've heard a quantum computer be able to handle is 5 qbits. Twinkle seems much more likely, and has less repercussions: the attack can't be extended to larger primes in the same amount of time.
What about the RSA implementation? It would be fairly easy to crack an insecure implementation of RSA.
Instead of rasing our blood pressue with speculation and conspiracy theories, let's wait until some facts come through. If this was really that important, it would be making waves in the crypto community instead of impressing
If we start bringing back extinct species, what will happen to our outlook on extinction. We're pretty damn conscienceless when it comes to wiping species off the face of the earth. If we can bring them back at will, will we kill off even more species?
"Oh, go ahead and chop down the forest. We've got DNA samples of just about everything here..."
And then of course, who's going to bring back the ugly stuff? It's find and dandy to bring back the dodo, the spotted-buffeted snow pika, etc. Are we going to bring back the blunt-nosed, slime-covered ass worm once we kill it off? Or are we going to stick solely with creatures that look cute?
While this is an interesting science experiment, I think the resources could be better applied: Oct. 12th is Six Billion People Day. In 1960 we had 3 billion. We've doubled in 40 years. Better, cheaper, safer contraceptives would make the world a better place. Wooly mammoths would make one zoo a lot of money.
Let's try to keep things in perspective here.
I wonder what the reaction would be if they had stuck with original plan of drawing their logo on the moon, using lasers? (Of course this is pretty damn impossible, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of discussion.)
Would crowds of irrate people, sick of seeing Pizza Hut imposed in red letters on the moon, storm the Pizza Hut headquarters?
What else could you put on the face of the moon? A clock for GMT. "I wonder what time it is... hmmm... 5 AM, minus 8... damn! I'd better get home!"
Perhaps a stock ticker. You'd have crowds of Wall Street geeks out in the streets with telescopes shouting instructions to their lackeys.
And what would happen if hackers got into the works? "34rtH |z 0wN3d!"
As the reach of humanity increases, we're going to have to put some limits on who can put what where, or else we'll be creating supernovas in distant galaxies that spell out "BUY COKE".
How horrible would it be to have the first people on Mars be advertisers?
In the United States, at least, patents can be snatched up by the military and made Top Secret.
This allows the military to wait until some bright young entrepreneur to come up with a great solution, then they swoop down and tell the poor sap he can't talk about his patent for 10-15 years, and next thing you know the military comes out with some really cool speech recognition device.
So while there are brilliant people outside of The Man's Territory, their ideas can be and are stolen, and no one can talk about it.
I can think of better ways for the world to work...
IIRC, it wouldn't make it a linear problem, it would make it a cubic problem. Much less than exponential, however.
I think this is an interesting article, but as other posters have noticed, it doesn't provide an unconditionally secure authentication process to go along with the unconditionally secure key generation.
Without authentication, the point is moot, because while you can be sure what you're saying is secure, you can't be sure that you're saying it to the right person.
Also, given the rampant speculation on factoring methods in this discussion, I might as well point out the fact that elliptic curves are much harder to crack, for the main reason that they're not smooth. Therefore, TWINKLE wouldn't work on them. A lot of research needs to be done on EC crypto before they can be trusted to the extent that RSA is today.
And all in all, RSA isn't the worst choice out there, as long as certain precautions (enumerated in Applied Cryptography, among other places) are taken. The RSA patent expires Sept. 20, 2000, which will be a Very Good Thing(tm). I'm keeping some chapagne on ice... well, not really, but I'll probably be pretty stoked.
Here you are:
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
This should be required reading for all software developers.
The sections devoted to Win95 are:
Common File Dialogs
Explorer
Find Applet
I think that would be the net equivalent to "Hey four-eyes, think fast!"
/.ers mob a page. Democracy in action.
Most people don't run their own servers, and a nice note from the Slashdot krew would just make it that much harder to go to sleep.
I agree with you on principle, but I don't think that would be very useful.
You know...
Slashdot: Hey, we're gonna link to ya! Get ready!
Webmaster: What?
Slashdot: Get set!
Webmaster: How?
Slashdot: Go!
*crunching sounds*
That and it's kind of fun watching
Here's some rather bad photos I found of CM getting 86'd at DefCon 7.
Enjoy.
pic1
pic2
pic3
pic4
pic5
There are from http://berk.dhs.org/dc7/
You know, all this time I've been waiting for a clear, level-headed article on AntiOnline. The "media" has relied on him far too long, and it doesn't take a genius to see that he's full of shit.
I *hope* this is the first step of the downfall of AntiOnline. It probably won't be, since evil organizations tend to bounce back like herpes, but you gotta hope...
It will be interesting to see JP's reaction to this article. Does he sue? Does he cry? Does he pack his bags? Does he ignore it?
As other people have said, for a biased but informative account of JP's hijinks, go to attrition.org.
Let's assume that we want Linux to achieve World Domination(tm). In effect, we want to displace Microsoft.
How do we do this? By making the best software? Hah. Pull the other one. The best does not always win, especially when the mediocre has a stranglehold on the market.
There are at least two ways Linux can inflitrate the desktop market: (1) display Microsoft as the OEM OS, and (2) get people to defect over once they get sick of Windows, or see The Light(tm).
Now, (1) doesn't look very possible. MS will shoot on sight anything that looks like a competitor.
(2) is much more possible, however, and the key to it is simple: **MAKE LINUX EASIER TO INSTALL THAN WINDOWS**. They pop in the $5 CD, Tux waves at them and looks for their hardware, and poof, X is up and running with replacements for all of their Win9x apps.
This is not the current state of events. I'm not a Linux guy, for various reasons. I tried to help a friend install RedHat 6.$latest. He has some duct-taped suped-up video card. X ran at 150x150. I could see the GNOME toolbar and part of a menu. Not fun.
Now, for a couple of computer geeks hanging out after-hours in the local computer store, this wasn't a big deal. Now imagine your mother faced with this problem.
So, in order to make inroads into the desktop market, Linux needs to be the drool-proof choice. It needs to be as easy to install as a small application.
Now, why do we want Linux to take over the desktop market? Because power users should not have to suffer idiots. Hardcore computer people shouldn't have to put up with the closed-source/closed-mind/shortsighted mindset common to most computer companies. If the users change, the companies have to, or they go out of business.
How do you kill bloatware? How do you stop insecure server software? You get people used to fast, lean applications, and robust server apps. Then the crap will stand out like crap in a rose garden, not crap in a shit exhibit.
This doesn't mean dumbing Linux down. This means making the amount of rope variable, from "Enough To Power A Yo-Yo" to "Enough To Hang Yourself From The Empire State Building". Start new users off with Tux The Magical Penguin's Guide To Linux, and they can work their way out of the GUI if needed. Most people won't. Power users could always click on the "skip the bullshit" button and get dropped into the real thing.
But *please* don't keep that elitest "make the users learn" attitude. If you really want people to learn, make it easy for them to learn. If you just want a clubhouse, keep at it.
... that doesn't have any problems with Netscape?
I'm running NT4/SP5, 96mb of RAM, dual PPro 200 (yes, old school, I know). No problems. It starts up quickly, it runs well, it's kind of a dog when it comes to rendering pages.
I installed IE4 a while back to test it, and when it took a full 30 seconds to open, I uninstalled it. I think the main thing would be to only download what you need. If you don't need it for mail/news, DON'T DOWNLOAD COMMUNICATOR. Just download the browser.
I've visited all the URLs that people are saying hang their Netscapes, and it seems to be working just dandy for me. I have Javascript on, Java off.
I'm seeing a lot of "Netscape's crap" posts... does it work for anyone else, or am I alone on this one?
That wouldn't work. It would be basically the same thing as having a key ring full of keys, and you don't know which key goes to which body-stuffed shed. The police would just demand the key ring and do the search themselves.
This wouldn't provide any security if you made the key ring larger (ie, a portion of the keyspace), either. If you can access your data without knowing the key, you can bet the police can.
I think this is a really good hack on the part of STAND. In fact, I think that if the law is enacted people all across the UK should commit their favorite crime, encrypt a confession, and send it to their MP.
Getting around laws like these with technological hacks (ie, chaff-n-winnow) is the wrong attitude to adapt. We should be fighting these laws instead of finding ways around them.
I don't think you've ever used Delphi, have you?
If you had, you wouldn't be gibbering about Free Software, you would be cheering. Borland makes the best Rapid Application Development tools around, hands down. Hacking in vi with gcc pales in comparison to being able to design good GUIs in no time flat.
I've been using Delphi since v1.0, and it's incredible. You get to see what your UIs look like at design time, it's totally object-oriented and event-driven.
I think this is an incredible step, and that instead of whining about Free Software, all the FS advocates out there should be saving up to buy a copy, so they can write their own RAD compiler using Linux-Delphi.
While the licensing may not strike you as good, the technology is nothing *but* good. I suggest you co-opt it instead of fighting it.
I don't trust the Church of Scientology. You can look at their actions. To be honest, I don't know why they would want to mislead people about the educational system.
I do know that CoS doesn't have a real good history of educating people with non-misleading information.
I think that questioning the motives of a large business (which is what they are, really) is a good thing, especially when they're "educating" people.
If you want to take their word for their honesty, go for it. It's still propaganda.
Leave the Swiss out of this.
Ah yes...
I know that whenever I want an independent evaluation of a subject, I can always turn to the Church Of $cientology for a level-headed examination of the facts.
Now, how about reading the fine print of the next pamphlet you post?