What does that have to do with Longhorn? If a sysadmin is trying to prevent information leakage by preventing USB devices in Windows, but still allows the BIOS to boot from other media (floppy/cdrom/usb), he needs to be fired.
I think you're confusing symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Current browsers use "128-bit SSL", which refers to 128-bit symmetric keys, which are still very secure (as long as the algorithm isn't weak and the implementation isn't flawed). 1024 or 2048-bit keys for asymmetric crypto are considered secure, I believe.
But yes, 40-bit SSL is too weak to use. I don't think 512-bit RSA is considered very secure either.
These hashes ALWAYS have collisions. A checksum could never definitively prove that the data has not been tampered with, as there are far more bits in a harddrive than there are bits in a hash.
The new discovery is that it's not hard to generate two messages with the same hash. The discovery is not "hashes have collisions" - this has always been the case.
I have a VX6000 also, and while the front display is very impressive indoors, it's nearly unreadable on a bright sunny day. I'd be happier with a less impressive, but more functionally useful, reflective LCD - like the large LCD on the inside, which gets even more readable the brighter the day.:)
Hi, Officer! Good to see you. Here's the box. I've downloaded 100 CDs' worth of stuff since your last visit. I'll plead 'no contest' and see you at the impound yard with my check. At $15 per CD, that's $1500 worth of music I'm getting for only $1000
What makes you think the box'll still contain any music?
Then how can they legally perform John Doe lawsuits when they know who's doing it?
They don't know the user's identity. They have to file the lawsuit in order to subpoena the ISP.
Shouldn't the person who's purchased the internet connection have the responsibility to see it's being used for legal purposes?
Didn't the user agree to take responsibility when they signed up for the service? Whoever's name is on the account is the one that's going to end up with the lawsuit, since that's the only name that the ISP has.
The tests are performed blind - you hear two bits of the same song - one's the original, the other the encoded version, but you don't know which is which. You then choose the one you think is the encoded version, and you rate it. If you choose correctly, the encoder's rating goes down. If you can't tell the difference, you'll be choosing randomly, which will give the encoder a high rating. Testing a lossy codec would give a high rating, since people would be choosing randomly (they'd have to be, since they'd be hearing the same thing on each sample).
The fact that encoders were getting low scores in this test shows that they can be differentiated from the original, and that they do sound bad, since people chose correctly.
Looks like an infinite loop to me - don't you have to remove an element of bills before you call yourself again? Your list doesn't get shorter until after the recursive call returns, which... won't happen, since the recursive call won't return.
That was not their conclusion. If you continued the quote, you'd see that they said much the same thing as you.
When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Thirdly, last time I went to the store, I had options as to whether I wanted to buy an GeForce FX 5900 without a processor on the board, or with a processor on the board.
But it's not an image. There has been no processing done on the signals to make it an image.
From http://blanik.colorado.edu/~rtezaur/photo/other/ra w/:
"There is a number of steps involved in converting the RAW data into an image. In no particular order, the data must be color-interpolated since most digital sensors employ color masks thereby measuring at each pixel only some of the color and light intensity information. Based on the characteristics of the color mask and the spectral sensitivity of the sensor, some mapping between the measured numbers and actual colors must be used and results must be converted into one of the commonly used color spaces, with the appropriate gamma."
You're right that you can convert from one lossless file to another, as long as you're not losing precision (GIF uses lossless compression but only handles 8 bit images, for instance) but the RAW data is just not an image yet.
The RAW format is not an image. PNG is an image file format. The RAW file stores more information about the image than just the color of each pixel, it stores the signal level from each element on the CCD.
Saving as a PNG would require processing the data into an image, which is what RAW format avoids.
From what I understand, cameras that use a RAW mode are saving all the output from the CCD, without any processing at all. You can then load it into a program and apply exposure compensation, lighting adjustments and whatnot, rather than having the camera do the image processing.
Saving as a PNG would require turning the raw CCD data into an image, which is defeating the point.
I think that's his point - in Linux you just take the screenshot from a menu, but in Windows you have to go into the settings and reduce hardware acceleration, which doesn't tell you anywhere that it'll help you take screenshots. It's not really intuitive at all.
Slashdot Mirror
What does that have to do with Longhorn? If a sysadmin is trying to prevent information leakage by preventing USB devices in Windows, but still allows the BIOS to boot from other media (floppy/cdrom/usb), he needs to be fired.
I think you're confusing symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Current browsers use "128-bit SSL", which refers to 128-bit symmetric keys, which are still very secure (as long as the algorithm isn't weak and the implementation isn't flawed). 1024 or 2048-bit keys for asymmetric crypto are considered secure, I believe.
But yes, 40-bit SSL is too weak to use. I don't think 512-bit RSA is considered very secure either.
These hashes ALWAYS have collisions. A checksum could never definitively prove that the data has not been tampered with, as there are far more bits in a harddrive than there are bits in a hash.
The new discovery is that it's not hard to generate two messages with the same hash. The discovery is not "hashes have collisions" - this has always been the case.
ROT-13 is not a hashing algorithm.
Reference for this, please?
How? There are no ads shown on the gmail inbox screen, and there are no ads shown by gmail's own notifier.
IM services have tried repeatedly to block third-party apps. Both AIM and Yahoo have tried to block third-party clients.
Yahoo blocking
AIM blocking
"AOL made changes to their proprietary protocol (called OSCAR) that would ferret out anyone who wasn't using the official client."
Um, every hashing algorithm has collisions. There are more things to hash than there are resulting hashes.
I have a VX6000 also, and while the front display is very impressive indoors, it's nearly unreadable on a bright sunny day. I'd be happier with a less impressive, but more functionally useful, reflective LCD - like the large LCD on the inside, which gets even more readable the brighter the day. :)
Please show how google can convert currency. I've used it to convert units, but I was not aware of currency conversion.
They've fiddled with HTTP also. ISTR some tricks IE did with IIS to keep persistent connections so that page loads would be quicker.
Didn't the user agree to take responsibility when they signed up for the service? Whoever's name is on the account is the one that's going to end up with the lawsuit, since that's the only name that the ISP has.
The tests are performed blind - you hear two bits of the same song - one's the original, the other the encoded version, but you don't know which is which. You then choose the one you think is the encoded version, and you rate it. If you choose correctly, the encoder's rating goes down. If you can't tell the difference, you'll be choosing randomly, which will give the encoder a high rating. Testing a lossy codec would give a high rating, since people would be choosing randomly (they'd have to be, since they'd be hearing the same thing on each sample).
The fact that encoders were getting low scores in this test shows that they can be differentiated from the original, and that they do sound bad, since people chose correctly.
Looks like an infinite loop to me - don't you have to remove an element of bills before you call yourself again? Your list doesn't get shorter until after the recursive call returns, which... won't happen, since the recursive call won't return.
If a microwave uses MORE energy to do the same thing, it can hardly be called efficient.
That was not their conclusion. If you continued the quote, you'd see that they said much the same thing as you.
When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Thirdly, last time I went to the store, I had options as to whether I wanted to buy an GeForce FX 5900 without a processor on the board, or with a processor on the board.
I think the salespeople were messing with you.
But it's not an image. There has been no processing done on the signals to make it an image.
a w/:
From http://blanik.colorado.edu/~rtezaur/photo/other/r
"There is a number of steps involved in converting the RAW data into an image. In no particular order, the data must be color-interpolated since most digital sensors employ color masks thereby measuring at each pixel only some of the color and light intensity information. Based on the characteristics of the color mask and the spectral sensitivity of the sensor, some mapping between the measured numbers and actual colors must be used and results must be converted into one of the commonly used color spaces, with the appropriate gamma."
You're right that you can convert from one lossless file to another, as long as you're not losing precision (GIF uses lossless compression but only handles 8 bit images, for instance) but the RAW data is just not an image yet.
The RAW format is not an image. PNG is an image file format. The RAW file stores more information about the image than just the color of each pixel, it stores the signal level from each element on the CCD.
Saving as a PNG would require processing the data into an image, which is what RAW format avoids.
From what I understand, cameras that use a RAW mode are saving all the output from the CCD, without any processing at all. You can then load it into a program and apply exposure compensation, lighting adjustments and whatnot, rather than having the camera do the image processing.
Saving as a PNG would require turning the raw CCD data into an image, which is defeating the point.
Google doesn't keep an up-to-the-second db of the 'net, it takes time to crawl.
I think that's his point - in Linux you just take the screenshot from a menu, but in Windows you have to go into the settings and reduce hardware acceleration, which doesn't tell you anywhere that it'll help you take screenshots. It's not really intuitive at all.