Diablo II on battle.net over IPMASQ works great. If you check the website, they say that the battle.net code for their older games has been updated in the patches to work properly over battle.net too. When was the last time you tried it?
But I would not appreciate neighbors breaking into my house by picking the locks to demonstrate to me that it could be done.
This isn't like that. Nobody broke into your QNX system and decrypted your passwords to demonstrate the insecurity to you. This is more like a staged demonstration at a home security conference where they show how easy it is to pick a lock.
I don't think you could GPL an API (although you could GPL your reference implementation). I also think you would not want this to be possible. If people or companies could restrict implementations of APIs it would not be possible in many cases to make open implementations of proprietary APIs. This would throw a serious monkey wrench in many of the efforts of the open source community.
Not everybody follows every latest release of the kernel, but some people like to follow the general progress. When Slashdot posts a story about a new kernel version once in a while it helps people (like me!) keep up with the general progress of the project without being obsessed by it.
As to complaints of "Go To Freshmeat!" my point is that some people don't want to rabidly follow every release of software, they just want a general feeling for the situation.
After all, does your life end when Slashdot posts a story about something you already know or is not relvent to you personally?
Maybe Slashdot needs a filter for kernel release posts, similar to the ones for filtering various authors.
MAC addresses are hard coded into the hardware. The software simply has the option of ignoring them. Likewise, any software that reads the PIII serial number could be modified to send out a number of your own choosing. There is really no difference here.
$215 sure seems like a lot of money! Here in Alberta, Canada ADSL is $50/month ($40 if you get your long distance from the local telco too). This is for speeds of up to 1.5Mbps download and 512kbps upload. And all this is in Canadian dollars too. Is all high speed access expensive in California?
A lot of commenters have stated a need for a common xml configuration dtd, to prevent the proliferation of dtds. I don't necessarily agree with this need.
A common dtd is good if you want to exchange the xml data that it describes among different applications. In the case of a document or spreadsheet, this is clearly a good thing. However, I don't see people developing a pressing need to exchange their configuration files between different applications. What other application could possibly have a use for a sendmail configuration other than sendmail?
If each application has its own configuration dtd, then editors can use that dtd to help the user write a valid config file. It can specify required tags, optional tags, and describe the structure of the file. Rather than using generic tags like <item id="username">Ethan</item> you can have <username>Ethan</username>, and this way the dtd can require the username tag, so you don't forget it. A common configuration dtd would be far too generic to be of much use in this.
This post is in direct reply to a post with a score of 3. It contains factual information directly relevent to the post with a score of three, and at least in my opinion is more well thought out and interesting. It certainly did not deserve to be moderated down. Could it be that someone is letting their own prejudices cloud their judgement?
Well, since the most likely proof of P=NP would be done by providing a polynomial time algorithm for an NP-complete problem, it would provide a poly time crack for most encryption.
All problems in NP can be converted to any NP-complete problem with at most a poly time increase in time (by the definition of NP-complete)
Now take the problem of cracking the encryption. If it is in NP, then it can be converted to an instance of our NP-complete problem, and the poly time algorithm from our proof can break it in poly time.
This assumes, of course, that the proof of P=NP is not done it some other highly wierd way, and that the encryption strength is based on an NP problem (rather than something even harder).
Crackers don't make money, Hackers need new name
on
"Hackers" are Dumb
·
· Score: 1
It's also inaccurate in some cases. I don't know about elsewhere, but here (Alberta, Canada) you cannot claim the title Engineer without a degree from a certified educational institute.
So, while we can study software engineering, calling myself a Software Engineer would be misleading and possibly illegal.
(Please note that I AGREE with this setup. Being an Engineer also makes you responsible for your work in a legal sense. Controls on the title make it more meaningful and valuable.)
Slashdot Mirror
Diablo II on battle.net over IPMASQ works great. If you check the website, they say that the battle.net code for their older games has been updated in the patches to work properly over battle.net too. When was the last time you tried it?
This isn't like that. Nobody broke into your QNX system and decrypted your passwords to demonstrate the insecurity to you. This is more like a staged demonstration at a home security conference where they show how easy it is to pick a lock.
I don't think you could GPL an API (although you could GPL your reference implementation). I also think you would not want this to be possible. If people or companies could restrict implementations of APIs it would not be possible in many cases to make open implementations of proprietary APIs. This would throw a serious monkey wrench in many of the efforts of the open source community.
Not everybody follows every latest release of the kernel, but some people like to follow the general progress. When Slashdot posts a story about a new kernel version once in a while it helps people (like me!) keep up with the general progress of the project without being obsessed by it.
As to complaints of "Go To Freshmeat!" my point is that some people don't want to rabidly follow every release of software, they just want a general feeling for the situation.
After all, does your life end when Slashdot posts a story about something you already know or is not relvent to you personally?
Maybe Slashdot needs a filter for kernel release posts, similar to the ones for filtering various authors.
MAC addresses are hard coded into the hardware. The software simply has the option of ignoring them. Likewise, any software that reads the PIII serial number could be modified to send out a number of your own choosing. There is really no difference here.
Disclaimer: I work for said telco.
XML is not inherently easier or harder to read than any other configuration file format.
BTW, you can get a line break by adding a <p>
A common dtd is good if you want to exchange the xml data that it describes among different applications. In the case of a document or spreadsheet, this is clearly a good thing. However, I don't see people developing a pressing need to exchange their configuration files between different applications. What other application could possibly have a use for a sendmail configuration other than sendmail?
If each application has its own configuration dtd, then editors can use that dtd to help the user write a valid config file. It can specify required tags, optional tags, and describe the structure of the file. Rather than using generic tags like <item id="username">Ethan</item> you can have <username>Ethan</username>, and this way the dtd can require the username tag, so you don't forget it. A common configuration dtd would be far too generic to be of much use in this.
This post is in direct reply to a post with a score of 3. It contains factual information directly relevent to the post with a score of three, and at least in my opinion is more well thought out and interesting. It certainly did not deserve to be moderated down. Could it be that someone is letting their own prejudices cloud their judgement?
or maybe
perl -e 'print scalar reverse qw(\)-: hacker Perl another Just)'
Well, since the most likely proof of P=NP would be done by providing a polynomial time algorithm for an NP-complete problem, it would provide a poly time crack for most encryption.
All problems in NP can be converted to any NP-complete problem with at most a poly time increase in time (by the definition of NP-complete)
Now take the problem of cracking the encryption. If it is in NP, then it can be converted to an instance of our NP-complete problem, and the poly time algorithm from our proof can break it in poly time.
This assumes, of course, that the proof of P=NP is not done it some other highly wierd way, and that the encryption strength is based on an NP problem (rather than something even harder).
So, while we can study software engineering, calling myself a Software Engineer would be misleading and possibly illegal.
(Please note that I AGREE with this setup. Being an Engineer also makes you responsible for your work in a legal sense. Controls on the title make it more meaningful and valuable.)