Hertz is "cycles per second". If I'm making 5 widgets per second (5Hz), and you're making 5 widgets per second, they we're making a combined 10 widgets per second (10Hz).
Two Pentium 500s sitting side-by side, are each doing 500 million cycles a second. Together, they are doing 1000 million cycles per second. (500 each).
The unprincipled will always have the advantage over the principled. If you really believe the unreligious are evil, you'd best prepare your "soul" for "heaven".
Re:PKI and other issues
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't certificates solve this without PKI (or are they simply a form of PKI?). 1 Central signing authority D encrypts the public keys of A and B using its private key 2 A and B exchange signed keys 3 A decrypts b's key 4 B decrypts a's key 5 A and B exchange session keys 6 Communication starts.
So what would stop spammers from sending the same email 5000 times (100 recipients per time)? Or subtly changing it, if identical emails are disallowed?
I agree that categorization isn't something real, but something we impose. I've always felt that categorization was a useful tool when there's too items to handle each individually. The trick is to know when categorization is useful. . .
The idea is to replace it ON THE MACHINES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR THE ATTACK. It would be ironic to have a mockingbird program (traditionally a cracking tool) used against crackers.
1. Any machine that is vulnerable one is vulnerable twice; you CAN change it. 2. Once it's installed, will they really check for changes? 3. Something tells me there's a reason you're still +1.
You're right, of course, that this is a weakness of JavaScript, not SlashDot. And that it's similar to a plain link to a malicious site. But there are a couple of other factors:
1. If a malicious link were posted on your site, I would be able to take some kind of action against you.
2. I may have told my browser to "trust" slashdot, but not your site.
The danger in this kind of attack is that it provides anonymity for the perpetrator. Slashdot readers have seen what sort of stupid things people can do when they're anonymous, and some known exploits are pretty nasty.
No, the tricky thing about streaming audio is you have to link to a small text file, containing the actual URL (.ram,.m3u,.pls). If you just used a link to the server, your browser would attempt to "download the whole file" before launching your player.
The "features" comment could have been phrased better but it means: "If the new version has more features, it's bloatware. If the new version doesn't have any new features, then they're charging for a bugfix"
Slashdot Mirror
He's not arguing that. He's claiming that 500MHz + 500MHz != 1000MHz.
You're right, and you're wrong.
Hertz is "cycles per second".
If I'm making 5 widgets per second (5Hz), and you're making 5 widgets per second, they we're making a combined 10 widgets per second (10Hz).
Two Pentium 500s sitting side-by side, are each doing 500 million cycles a second. Together, they are doing 1000 million cycles per second. (500 each).
So the link to Robust Hyperlinks doesn't work. Sigh.
The episode sucked in far too many ways. Maybe it's all (co-writer) Tom Maddox's fault.
I wasn't expecting perfection, but please! Gibson can do much better than this.
He could do much better than this and still call it crap.
The unprincipled will always have the advantage over the principled. If you really believe the unreligious are evil, you'd best prepare your "soul" for "heaven".
Wouldn't certificates solve this without PKI (or are they simply a form of PKI?).
1 Central signing authority D encrypts the public keys of A and B using its private key
2 A and B exchange signed keys
3 A decrypts b's key
4 B decrypts a's key
5 A and B exchange session keys
6 Communication starts.
Yeah, I know. Single point of failure.
If it was open source, you could make it dump the MPEG2 streams to disk.
But you're right, it's a dumb reason.
It's too bad you're not using Aqua. Or NeXT. THEY'VE got scalable GUIs.
We're talking about DVD here, not DVD-ROM. We're talking about the way movies are sold. If that isn't related to movies, why not?
So what would stop spammers from sending the same email 5000 times (100 recipients per time)? Or subtly changing it, if identical emails are disallowed?
And they could float like a balloon!
I agree that categorization isn't something real, but something we impose. I've always felt that categorization was a useful tool when there's too items to handle each individually. The trick is to know when categorization is useful. . .
Good journalists check their facts.
MTT
It appears he wants the patent to be usable on all open projects:
If you wish to "use the code", you'll have to abide by the GPL (RTLinux is GPLed) and there's no problem.
All modern LCDs are Active Matrix. The original color laptops were Passive Matrix, which was washed-out, and anything that moved was seriously blurry.
The idea is to replace it ON THE MACHINES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR THE ATTACK. It would be ironic to have a mockingbird program (traditionally a cracking tool) used against crackers.
1. Any machine that is vulnerable one is vulnerable twice; you CAN change it.
2. Once it's installed, will they really check for changes?
3. Something tells me there's a reason you're still +1.
Well, if I was evil, I'd have posted as Anonymous Coward.
You're right, of course, that this is a weakness of JavaScript, not SlashDot. And that it's similar to a plain link to a malicious site. But there are a couple of other factors:
1. If a malicious link were posted on your site, I would be able to take some kind of action against you.
2. I may have told my browser to "trust" slashdot, but not your site.
I like it!
Hey, it's the first time ever I've gotten a comment moderated to 5. Let me have my momemt.
The danger in this kind of attack is that it provides anonymity for the perpetrator. Slashdot readers have seen what sort of stupid things people can do when they're anonymous, and some known exploits are pretty nasty.
Sure, you can run arbitrary Javascript if you use links. Here's a (safe) example.
No, the tricky thing about streaming audio is you have to link to a small text file, containing the actual URL (.ram, .m3u, .pls).
If you just used a link to the server, your browser would attempt to "download the whole file" before launching your player.
SSH was designed using the assumption that the network is untrustworthy. It should be fine.
Perhaps a sign of hope?
The "features" comment could have been phrased better but it means:
"If the new version has more features, it's bloatware. If the new version doesn't have any new features, then they're charging for a bugfix"