GDI32.DLL handles mid-level graphics output. USER32.DLL contains most of the window-handling functions, as well as the basic control implementations (like EDIT and BUTTON). COMCTL32.DLL contains more widgets, like Explorer's Tree and List controls. SHELL32.DLL has shell-helper functions, and between it and Explorer (or LiteStep or whatever) make up something close to what you'd call the window manager in X.
I think a more interesting comparison would be Super Mario World and Donkey Kong Country and Killer Instinct for the SNES. THAT was a big change...
But didn't many of the more impressive SNES games have an additional co-processor inside the cart? Not only can you not do that with a PSX CD-ROM, it hasn't been necessary to see the same increase in apparent power.
That said, the improvement on the PSX is mostly not from tighter game code itself (not saying this hasn't happened at all though), but from ditching the Sony C libraries and coding directly to the PlayStation hardware. You almost certainly don't wan't to be doing that in a general-purpose OS.
Oh yeah guys, that 7 Years of archives was a request made to the UK government. It's not even at the bill draughting stage yet, and it certainly isn't current law.
Sadly, it may be one day, but hopefully STAND et al will be more successful than they were against RIP.
Ok, I've visited on their site and this is my take. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - if it makes RIPA look silly then it may serve some purpose, but not as a viable secure platform. Their entire approach is flawed in any case, good security should be built into all platforms, you shouldn't have to consider changing for what ought to be such a basic facility.
m-o-o-t is an open-design, open-source cryptography project begun to defeat RIPAPart3
This is very naive. You do not 'defeat' laws in code any more than you make crypto impossible by legislation. The two systems are completely orthogonal.
As we consider all present protocols insecure against the new attacks brought about by legislation
The law is not an attack on any protocols, it is a response to using those protocols if anything. You should also see the Snake Oil Warning Signs FAQ where it warns specifically against mud-slinging against existing or competing techniques.
hidden stenographically
I rather suspect that had this site had anything to do with established cryptographers whose opinions I trust (well, I can't find the m-o-o-t team members' names anywhere on the site ("We aren't exactly secret but some of us don't want to be identified") so I'll keep a very reserved judgement on their credentials), it would be spelled slightly better. I've no idea what methods of shorthand typewriting have to do with secure computing platforms... (They get it right on a different page, to be fair.)
There will only be one choice for each type of algorithm... We think that most programs offer too much choice in this and thus lose security as people don't know what is happening or how secure the algorithms being used are, often they don't know what they are and they may be using eg export grade cyphers
This will potentially sabotage security, not improve it. Assuming they use strong, time-tested, public algorithms, it is still possible one could suffer a fundamental break tomorrow. Unlikely, but possible. Or next week, or next year. If back-up algorithms are used and implemented well, users should not even be aware of the back-up algorithms. One would also hope that no serious security implementer would suggest using 'export grade' ciphers, the fact that they believe this is possible is worrying.
Plod - a cryptographer's term for the Police
The usual Dramatis Personae are Alice, Bob, Mallory etc. I've not seen any serious paper referring to 'Plod' and suspect it's just randomly offensive on their part. Their appeal to authority ("cryptographer's term") is bogus.
we will use the CD as a large look-up table to ensure authenticity of the CD and prevent fake CD's with backdoors etc.,
Don't believe this - it won't work.
we will not do updates due do the insecurity of distribution methods and to avoid incompatibilities
*choke*. So they're going to get it right first time, with absolutely no implementation errors possibly leading to security compromises. I wish they'd publish a paper on that alone, because it beats anything anyone has come up with in 50 years of software engineering research. (Hmm. If you can't trust the update how can you possibly trust the original?)
The system also relies on you trusting your PC, and also possibly the data havens to some extent. We've already seen a story this week about the FBI installing bugs within the keyboard itself - other parts of the system can be similarly sabotaged with almost no chance of detection by the user - this is probably what any clued up LEA would want to do if they knew strong encryption was being used. Remember, if the end-point hardware has been tampered with all bets are off, for any security system.
There is so much more, I could go on all day. The possibility that they might want to make money from this (but are considering using a Free OS, which they might not want you to make copies of - no wonder they don't want to be identified) is mildly interesting. Frankly they could as well be part of a multinational government conspiracy, but rather than get excessively paranoid I think I'll just assume they're seriously misguided.
I don't think anyone should be posting pictures they don't want anyone else to see or monetize - Phil Spencer, MSN
Quite! "I don't think anyone should be distributing software they don't want anyone else to copy or monetize." Or does copyright protection only apply when your company reaches the $1 million mark?
Speakers are magnetic, so at first we thought, gee... cool fridge magnet, but then we had a better idea... we stuck the speaker to the inside of the fridge. So now whenever anyone in the lab opens the fridge... "You've got mail!".
Magnetic? I'd expect them to use piezo... but anyway, a better use would be to hook this up to your PC's parallel port, then hack biff to trigger it when you really do got mail.
Professor O'Neill's point was that ozone levels are being "reduced by concerted action,"
I noticed a similar slip in The Times' article (it says "The United States has cut its annual ozone output from...". Can people be a bit clearer about whether they're talking about emissions of ozone or emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals such as CFCs?
Furthermore, as time passes and technoloigy advances, our ability to adapt to change grows exponentially.
Yes, but whereas a few tens of millennia ago half of the population dying was just life, and at least the species as a whole survived, we could never tolerate this now. Sure our ability to adapt has grown substantially, but our standards for 'survival' have also risen exponentially.
Slashdot Mirror
GDI32.DLL handles mid-level graphics output. USER32.DLL contains most of the window-handling functions, as well as the basic control implementations (like EDIT and BUTTON). COMCTL32.DLL contains more widgets, like Explorer's Tree and List controls. SHELL32.DLL has shell-helper functions, and between it and Explorer (or LiteStep or whatever) make up something close to what you'd call the window manager in X.
But didn't many of the more impressive SNES games have an additional co-processor inside the cart? Not only can you not do that with a PSX CD-ROM, it hasn't been necessary to see the same increase in apparent power.
That said, the improvement on the PSX is mostly not from tighter game code itself (not saying this hasn't happened at all though), but from ditching the Sony C libraries and coding directly to the PlayStation hardware. You almost certainly don't wan't to be doing that in a general-purpose OS.
Oh yeah guys, that 7 Years of archives was a request made to the UK government. It's not even at the bill draughting stage yet, and it certainly isn't current law.
Sadly, it may be one day, but hopefully STAND et al will be more successful than they were against RIP.
Ok, I've visited on their site and this is my take. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - if it makes RIPA look silly then it may serve some purpose, but not as a viable secure platform. Their entire approach is flawed in any case, good security should be built into all platforms, you shouldn't have to consider changing for what ought to be such a basic facility.
This is very naive. You do not 'defeat' laws in code any more than you make crypto impossible by legislation. The two systems are completely orthogonal.
The law is not an attack on any protocols, it is a response to using those protocols if anything. You should also see the Snake Oil Warning Signs FAQ where it warns specifically against mud-slinging against existing or competing techniques.
I rather suspect that had this site had anything to do with established cryptographers whose opinions I trust (well, I can't find the m-o-o-t team members' names anywhere on the site ("We aren't exactly secret but some of us don't want to be identified") so I'll keep a very reserved judgement on their credentials), it would be spelled slightly better. I've no idea what methods of shorthand typewriting have to do with secure computing platforms... (They get it right on a different page, to be fair.)
This will potentially sabotage security, not improve it. Assuming they use strong, time-tested, public algorithms, it is still possible one could suffer a fundamental break tomorrow. Unlikely, but possible. Or next week, or next year. If back-up algorithms are used and implemented well, users should not even be aware of the back-up algorithms. One would also hope that no serious security implementer would suggest using 'export grade' ciphers, the fact that they believe this is possible is worrying.
The usual Dramatis Personae are Alice, Bob, Mallory etc. I've not seen any serious paper referring to 'Plod' and suspect it's just randomly offensive on their part. Their appeal to authority ("cryptographer's term") is bogus.
Don't believe this - it won't work.
*choke*. So they're going to get it right first time, with absolutely no implementation errors possibly leading to security compromises. I wish they'd publish a paper on that alone, because it beats anything anyone has come up with in 50 years of software engineering research. (Hmm. If you can't trust the update how can you possibly trust the original?)
The system also relies on you trusting your PC, and also possibly the data havens to some extent. We've already seen a story this week about the FBI installing bugs within the keyboard itself - other parts of the system can be similarly sabotaged with almost no chance of detection by the user - this is probably what any clued up LEA would want to do if they knew strong encryption was being used. Remember, if the end-point hardware has been tampered with all bets are off, for any security system.
There is so much more, I could go on all day. The possibility that they might want to make money from this (but are considering using a Free OS, which they might not want you to make copies of - no wonder they don't want to be identified) is mildly interesting. Frankly they could as well be part of a multinational government conspiracy, but rather than get excessively paranoid I think I'll just assume they're seriously misguided.
Quite! "I don't think anyone should be distributing software they don't want anyone else to copy or monetize." Or does copyright protection only apply when your company reaches the $1 million mark?
Magnetic? I'd expect them to use piezo... but anyway, a better use would be to hook this up to your PC's parallel port, then hack biff to trigger it when you really do got mail.
I noticed a similar slip in The Times' article (it says "The United States has cut its annual ozone output from...". Can people be a bit clearer about whether they're talking about emissions of ozone or emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals such as CFCs?
Yes, but whereas a few tens of millennia ago half of the population dying was just life, and at least the species as a whole survived, we could never tolerate this now. Sure our ability to adapt has grown substantially, but our standards for 'survival' have also risen exponentially.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
"UNIX" is never being *able* to say you're sorry because 'wall' went with the rest of the root filesystem you just blew away.