That's how it works, but not the key. The important thing is that the SK can't be understood by a computer program because it's a CAPTCHA, and therefore can't be brute forced.
...is that the whole password cannot be decrypted in an automated way, because even though a computer program would quickly guess the short password (SP), the fact that the strong key (SK) is stored as a CAPTCHA prevents the computer program from obtaining it, even with the correct SP.
The point is not (as some seem to believe) to help the user memorize a longer password by storing part of it for him. This approach actually wouldn't introduce any added security, as you still have a single point of failure (the memorized short password).
I dual boot Windows 7 HP and Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx) on an Asus Eee PC T101MT. It's got a resistive touch screen that is not well supported by vendors, nor by Microsoft. While Windows7 does respect the 1024 pressure levels the screen can read, inking is extremely slow as compared to that in Ubuntu, and the pressure levels don't translate to Photoshop or the GIMP. The only programs that seem to recognize the pressure levels are Windows Journal and OneNote, neither of which is intended as an artist's tool. By contrast, Ubuntu has very fast smooth inking, and a wonderful paint program with full support for the pressure levels (MyPaint). Considering that I purchased this netbook for the explicit purpose of being able to paint as well as take notes and read books, etc., Ubuntu saved the day for me.
At this point in time I've got everything working spectacularly on this thing- from painting with pressure levels to reading Kindle books, multitouch to two-finger scrolling, media keys to Wiimote as gamepad, handwritten notes to DropBox, Skype to Arduino development, even handwriting recognition and an OSK. You name it, I've got it going on this thing, all thanks to Ubuntu. I am quite willing to say that, although almost every other computer I've ever had has in some way (usually proprietary hardware-related) ran better with Windows and in some way better on Linux, Ubuntu far outshines Windows on my T101MT in every way.
Funny you mention that, since "ax" has been used to mean "ask" since at least the 1300s. I know that because Chaucer uses it that way in Canterbury Tales. Further, it is reasonable to assume the two words "ask" and "ax" actually developed at the same time, from their respective root words "askian" and "aksian," the latter of which was metathesised from the former. So, "ax" is just as antiquated as "ask."
Your first paragraph manages to completely fail to touch on the topic of hand, so I'll skip it, except to say that no one, and I mean _no one_ gives a crap that you used a TRS-80. As for the second, the argument _you_ were making (which you seem to have conveniently forgotten) is that VB.NET (your term, not mine) is just as good as C#/Java blah blah. My counter point (which you seem to have completely missed) is that the original question did not ask about VB.NET, but VB, and VB is a demonstrably shitty language. If you would like to debate the merits of VB (not VB.NET- you still with me?) then feel free to do so. However, I should tell you ahead of time that you will lose such a debate.
First, get your story straight. The submitter didn't ask about VB.NET, he asked about VB. These are two vastly different things. In fact, it is still highly controversial as to whether Microsoft should have used the "VB" label for the new language at all. Your argument is like saying that if anyone says he has a problem with BASIC, he's clearly unfamiliar with Visual Basic (the latter evolved from the former, in case you didn't know).
Second, the problems with the original VB are numerous. Uncountable, even. It is a horrible and unwieldy language, it runs slower than similar applications written in C, the executable sizes are enormous, it has no support for threading, inheritance, exception handling, bit shifting, and so on.
Anybody out there proclaiming that almost any language is _not_ better than VB is simply demonstrating their own ignorance.
The source was able to compile because a function name without the parentheses is a pointer. So the compare was between a pointer address and zero, which is perfectly valid syntactically.
it only takes David Lightman about a minute to guess it
Wrong. He spends days researching the system's creator to discover the password.
Hackers:
depict the Internet controlling everything, including high-school sprinkler systems
Hackers was not meant to be an accurate portrayal of reality. It was a possible dystopian future. Yes, there were some very cheesy characters in the movie, not to mention some questionable use of the term RISC, but the three dimensional interfaces and such were perfectly reasonable extrapolations of current technology at the time. I suppose next you're going to start complaining that Blade Runner was unrealistic? Give me a break.
Independence Day:
Luckily, even murderous aliens use Macs
This one really pisses me off. If you had watched the director's cut (or paid very close attention in the theatrical release), you would have realized that David figured out how the aliens were communicating with each other via radio waves, and that the laptop was rigged with a transmitter. The aliens weren't "using Macs," and he didn't just upload a Mac virus. He wrote a virus specifically for the alien computer system, which the Area 51 had access to for some time. The entire situation was perfectly plausible, as has been pointed out by others here.
Matrix Reloaded:
shuts down a citywide power grid using Nmap
Uh, no. She determines the SSH port using nmap. She turns off the grid with the command "disable." The fact that she was typing into a real *nix command line does not make it particularly more believable.
Overall, I'd say this article makes the huge, yet common, mistake of looking back on movies which were supposed to represent some dystopian future and judging them by current reality. These movies often contain some specific warning to us, usually something along the lines of "don't become too dependent on machines, or this will happen to you." This is a perfectly valid literary device, and the movies do not suddenly become invalid because some aspect of the technology represented therein is bypassed, or shown to be impossible, by reality.
To clarify, (for both you and the other person who mentioned my RMS comment):
The problem I have with RMS (and his apparent clone, Branden Robinson) is not his ideology, although I disagree with him on a number of points there, too. The problem I have with him is that he is an arrogant windbag, who says things like "we don't exist merely at the sufferance of a corporate entity."
This is among the worst interviews I've ever read. First, the interviewer apparently used to work for slashdot (I know he's Italian, but he spelled Debian "Debain" more than once...give me a break). Second, this guy Branden Robinson, while obviously a great maintainer, is not a great interviewee. When he isn't sounding stiff and boring, he's busy sounding like an RMS clone ("we don't exist merely at the sufferance of a corporate entity" *puke*). My advice: don't waste your time with this article. If you manage to actually read the thing, you'll be disappointed (unless you actually give a crap how many hours Branden Robinson codes each day, and how many years it's been since he last played D&D).
the hype may be underselling the prospects for this new buzzword
I'm pretty sure the way hype works is someone says that the current level of excitement about a product is underselling it- this is no different. Particularly, saying that something isn't hype and exaggerating it even further are not good ways to stop hype. It is by definition overselling something. If it isn't hype, just say it isn't hype.
And this is before I even add in my opinion that AJAX is indeed hyped way beyond its usefulness already.
Nope, he was talking about Xen. The context of that comment was that Linux doesn't need to be rebooted after a patch (which is something you can do with Xen).
Well, except that the OP failed to make his point. For if he had made his point properly, there would have been no reason for you to have to tell me what his point was, now would there?
That is some seriously fallacious reasoning. You're implying that if you fail to understand something, it was not communicated properly. No offense to you, but I do not judge quality of communication by whether or not you have understood it. I thought his point was quite clearly made, even though I didn't agree with it. Anyway, my post wasn't to clarify his meaning, it was to demonstrate the lines along which the irony lay.
If we accept as true that OP's unsupported suggestion that Cuba is adopting Linux for the "free beer", then this still isn't ironic. It is merely a bunch of fools accepting an unsupported assertion as being fact.
In my somewhat limited experience I have found that irony is a really heavy thing-- it can't exist unless supported by a solid factual base. That base can't be fabricated from myths or fantasies or other assumptions. The facts have to be established, then you can look them over and see if they are ironic.
I begin to wonder if you are aware of the definition of irony. Rather than post it, I'll let you break out a dictionary and look it up. In the mean time, let me very clearly say that I agree with you that the original poster's assertion about "free beer" was unfounded and probably false, but that he was correct in saying that if it were true, it would be ironic.
There is nothing wrong with the use of the word "ironic" in the grandparent post. His point is that one might expect Cuba to use Linux for idealogical reasons, but instead, they choose to use it for financial reasons. Thus, if we accept that their reasoning is based on money, that reasoning is ironic.
Each application has issues with high heat flux densities and high power dissipation, but each also has their own unique issues that need to be addressed.
We're talking about computer security. My god, let's try to keep it in context, ok?
*snip*
Um...are you arguing against my point or yours? You said that passwords were security through obscurity, and my point was that if that is security through obscurity, than every security measure out there is STO. This is obviously nonsense, which was my point...but you seem to be agreeing.
I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear, you are making the same point I was. The post I was replying to was trying to make the case that you are arguing against, and I was arguing against him. (He specifically said that passwords were security through obscurity!) My point was that if you were going to use the term so freely as to include passwords, you were including pretty much every security measure out there, and that that's simply not what the term "security through obscurity" means.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean they are trolling.
How right you are. They were trolling because their comment had nothing to do with the content of the post they replied to.
It isn't obvious, and the 2 phrases don't even come close to meaning the same thing.
It's quite obvious to me, and I assume, to other rational human beings. The two phrases actually mean the exact same thing. FYI: a wikipedia article on the topic.
*snip*doesn't mean they have optimised it.
20% fraudulent clicks sounds pretty damned optimized to me.
I think you have totally misunderstood the concept of security through obscurity. It's a matter of degree. If you were being very literal, *all* security is security through obscurity. After all, encryption only works because the encryption key is obscure (in that case, only two people should know it). However, that term applies not to security in general, but security that is had by simply failing to disclose vulnerabilities that are easily discoverable anyway. Generally what is known as security through obscurity is only effective in keeping out very casual users of the system in question, and is not a valid reason for failing to disclose something relevant such as (in this case) type and extent of click fraud to paying advertisers.
Slashdot Mirror
I wondered when debtors prisons would be updated to the 21st century.
That's how it works, but not the key. The important thing is that the SK can't be understood by a computer program because it's a CAPTCHA, and therefore can't be brute forced.
...is that the whole password cannot be decrypted in an automated way, because even though a computer program would quickly guess the short password (SP), the fact that the strong key (SK) is stored as a CAPTCHA prevents the computer program from obtaining it, even with the correct SP.
The point is not (as some seem to believe) to help the user memorize a longer password by storing part of it for him. This approach actually wouldn't introduce any added security, as you still have a single point of failure (the memorized short password).
More like international legal hegemony.
I dual boot Windows 7 HP and Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx) on an Asus Eee PC T101MT. It's got a resistive touch screen that is not well supported by vendors, nor by Microsoft. While Windows7 does respect the 1024 pressure levels the screen can read, inking is extremely slow as compared to that in Ubuntu, and the pressure levels don't translate to Photoshop or the GIMP. The only programs that seem to recognize the pressure levels are Windows Journal and OneNote, neither of which is intended as an artist's tool. By contrast, Ubuntu has very fast smooth inking, and a wonderful paint program with full support for the pressure levels (MyPaint). Considering that I purchased this netbook for the explicit purpose of being able to paint as well as take notes and read books, etc., Ubuntu saved the day for me.
At this point in time I've got everything working spectacularly on this thing- from painting with pressure levels to reading Kindle books, multitouch to two-finger scrolling, media keys to Wiimote as gamepad, handwritten notes to DropBox, Skype to Arduino development, even handwriting recognition and an OSK. You name it, I've got it going on this thing, all thanks to Ubuntu. I am quite willing to say that, although almost every other computer I've ever had has in some way (usually proprietary hardware-related) ran better with Windows and in some way better on Linux, Ubuntu far outshines Windows on my T101MT in every way.
Even if NetCaptor was the first tabbed browser, it wasn't written by Microsoft. It was just written to use the IE core.
So the IE team was still incorporating features they didn't innovate, and they clearly did it in response to Firefox...
I for one am rooting for the little guy.
Oh, wait...
Funny you mention that, since "ax" has been used to mean "ask" since at least the 1300s. I know that because Chaucer uses it that way in Canterbury Tales. Further, it is reasonable to assume the two words "ask" and "ax" actually developed at the same time, from their respective root words "askian" and "aksian," the latter of which was metathesised from the former. So, "ax" is just as antiquated as "ask."
-Michael
Your first paragraph manages to completely fail to touch on the topic of hand, so I'll skip it, except to say that no one, and I mean _no one_ gives a crap that you used a TRS-80. As for the second, the argument _you_ were making (which you seem to have conveniently forgotten) is that VB.NET (your term, not mine) is just as good as C#/Java blah blah. My counter point (which you seem to have completely missed) is that the original question did not ask about VB.NET, but VB, and VB is a demonstrably shitty language. If you would like to debate the merits of VB (not VB.NET- you still with me?) then feel free to do so. However, I should tell you ahead of time that you will lose such a debate.
First, get your story straight. The submitter didn't ask about VB.NET, he asked about VB. These are two vastly different things. In fact, it is still highly controversial as to whether Microsoft should have used the "VB" label for the new language at all. Your argument is like saying that if anyone says he has a problem with BASIC, he's clearly unfamiliar with Visual Basic (the latter evolved from the former, in case you didn't know).
Second, the problems with the original VB are numerous. Uncountable, even. It is a horrible and unwieldy language, it runs slower than similar applications written in C, the executable sizes are enormous, it has no support for threading, inheritance, exception handling, bit shifting, and so on.
Anybody out there proclaiming that almost any language is _not_ better than VB is simply demonstrating their own ignorance.
The source was able to compile because a function name without the parentheses is a pointer. So the compare was between a pointer address and zero, which is perfectly valid syntactically.
-Michael
Hackers:
Independence Day:
Matrix Reloaded:
Overall, I'd say this article makes the huge, yet common, mistake of looking back on movies which were supposed to represent some dystopian future and judging them by current reality. These movies often contain some specific warning to us, usually something along the lines of "don't become too dependent on machines, or this will happen to you." This is a perfectly valid literary device, and the movies do not suddenly become invalid because some aspect of the technology represented therein is bypassed, or shown to be impossible, by reality.
was apparently hosted on the XT as well.
To clarify, (for both you and the other person who mentioned my RMS comment):
The problem I have with RMS (and his apparent clone, Branden Robinson) is not his ideology, although I disagree with him on a number of points there, too. The problem I have with him is that he is an arrogant windbag, who says things like "we don't exist merely at the sufferance of a corporate entity."
-Michael
This is among the worst interviews I've ever read. First, the interviewer apparently used to work for slashdot (I know he's Italian, but he spelled Debian "Debain" more than once...give me a break). Second, this guy Branden Robinson, while obviously a great maintainer, is not a great interviewee. When he isn't sounding stiff and boring, he's busy sounding like an RMS clone ("we don't exist merely at the sufferance of a corporate entity" *puke*). My advice: don't waste your time with this article. If you manage to actually read the thing, you'll be disappointed (unless you actually give a crap how many hours Branden Robinson codes each day, and how many years it's been since he last played D&D).
-Michael
the hype may be underselling the prospects for this new buzzword
I'm pretty sure the way hype works is someone says that the current level of excitement about a product is underselling it- this is no different. Particularly, saying that something isn't hype and exaggerating it even further are not good ways to stop hype. It is by definition overselling something. If it isn't hype, just say it isn't hype.
And this is before I even add in my opinion that AJAX is indeed hyped way beyond its usefulness already.
It's wunderkind, you moron.
Nope, he was talking about Xen. The context of that comment was that Linux doesn't need to be rebooted after a patch (which is something you can do with Xen).
Well, except that the OP failed to make his point. For if he had made his point properly, there would have been no reason for you to have to tell me what his point was, now would there?
That is some seriously fallacious reasoning. You're implying that if you fail to understand something, it was not communicated properly. No offense to you, but I do not judge quality of communication by whether or not you have understood it. I thought his point was quite clearly made, even though I didn't agree with it. Anyway, my post wasn't to clarify his meaning, it was to demonstrate the lines along which the irony lay.
If we accept as true that OP's unsupported suggestion that Cuba is adopting Linux for the "free beer", then this still isn't ironic. It is merely a bunch of fools accepting an unsupported assertion as being fact.
In my somewhat limited experience I have found that irony is a really heavy thing-- it can't exist unless supported by a solid factual base. That base can't be fabricated from myths or fantasies or other assumptions. The facts have to be established, then you can look them over and see if they are ironic.
I begin to wonder if you are aware of the definition of irony. Rather than post it, I'll let you break out a dictionary and look it up. In the mean time, let me very clearly say that I agree with you that the original poster's assertion about "free beer" was unfounded and probably false, but that he was correct in saying that if it were true, it would be ironic.
There is nothing wrong with the use of the word "ironic" in the grandparent post. His point is that one might expect Cuba to use Linux for idealogical reasons, but instead, they choose to use it for financial reasons. Thus, if we accept that their reasoning is based on money, that reasoning is ironic.
Each application has issues with high heat flux densities and high power dissipation, but each also has their own unique issues that need to be addressed.
/. should be ashamed of itself.
This is one of those generated articles, right?
If not,
An armed guard is not STO
We're talking about computer security. My god, let's try to keep it in context, ok?
*snip*
Um...are you arguing against my point or yours? You said that passwords were security through obscurity, and my point was that if that is security through obscurity, than every security measure out there is STO. This is obviously nonsense, which was my point...but you seem to be agreeing.
I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear, you are making the same point I was. The post I was replying to was trying to make the case that you are arguing against, and I was arguing against him. (He specifically said that passwords were security through obscurity!) My point was that if you were going to use the term so freely as to include passwords, you were including pretty much every security measure out there, and that that's simply not what the term "security through obscurity" means.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean they are trolling.
How right you are. They were trolling because their comment had nothing to do with the content of the post they replied to.
It isn't obvious, and the 2 phrases don't even come close to meaning the same thing.
It's quite obvious to me, and I assume, to other rational human beings. The two phrases actually mean the exact same thing. FYI: a wikipedia article on the topic.
*snip*doesn't mean they have optimised it.
20% fraudulent clicks sounds pretty damned optimized to me.
I think you have totally misunderstood the concept of security through obscurity. It's a matter of degree. If you were being very literal, *all* security is security through obscurity. After all, encryption only works because the encryption key is obscure (in that case, only two people should know it). However, that term applies not to security in general, but security that is had by simply failing to disclose vulnerabilities that are easily discoverable anyway. Generally what is known as security through obscurity is only effective in keeping out very casual users of the system in question, and is not a valid reason for failing to disclose something relevant such as (in this case) type and extent of click fraud to paying advertisers.