The right to trial by jury "of your peers" is part of British commonlaw, not American law. That phrase is there so that noblepersons can't get tried by peasants, plebians and other proles.
Not anymore it ain't. Lord Jeffrey 'crap author' Archer is currently in the slamer after being found guilty of perjury by a jury of plebs.
The right of peers to be tried by the house of Lords had not in any case been exercised for 80 odd years. The only reason that people remembered to take it off the statute book was after Obe Wan Knobie (Alex Guiness) made Kind Hearts and Coronets whih reminded folk of the anomaly.
Personally I thing Jeffrey the Liar got off lightly. I think they should have stripped him of his knighthood and degraded him in the manner that Cochrane was. In those days they paid a bloke to stand in as a surrogate, he would be taken off to Westminster Abbey at midnight wearing a knights spurs. These were then ceremonially hacked off with a hatchet and thrown down the steps of the Cathederal together with his banner.
If people are going to prance about being knights and such they should be subject to the whole hog. Plus think of the audience ratings you could get for that sort of thing on TV.
Cochrane was eventually exhonorated and pardoned but only after liberating most of south america from the rule of Spain and then helping the Greeks kick the Turks out.
Im not in favor of random lawsuits, but theyve got it coming.
IANAL but... The EULA claim is irrelevant. Even if the EULA were enforceable - which it obviously is not no contract between scumcorp and the user can affect the rights of the afilliate and Amazon.
The EULA is invalid for so many reasons it isn't funny. First no contract can in any case give a license to perform an illegal act. Second no EULA entered into through a clickwrap agreement has ever been enforced for a term remotely close to this.
But the EULA is in any case irrelevant because it is clear that Kazza is no more legit than Naster was.
Of course crooks of this type tend to be litigious and there is every chance they will bring nuisance lawsuits to try to silence their critics. I don't think it will work in this case since even the RIAA can probably see that it is in their interests to make sure that any scum lawsuits are fought.
I have argued on many occasions that the way to kill theftware is to go after their money supply. In particular make any company whose roduct is bundled with theftware liable for damages to the RIAA.
I am not an ogg purist, but realplayer sure as hell is the suckiest piece of ad-ware, perster-ware and general nuisance-ware arround.
All the real streaming server does is to puke out bits on an IP pipe. That is not rocket science, but the cost is utterly ridiculous.
I always said that the biggest mistake we made with the Web (apart from makinf the CERNLib license terms require a credit) was not putting an uncompressed audio format in as a default. The point is that nobody pays for the compression, they pay for the ability to make noise. Make the ability to create noise free and the audio codecs become just an optimization.
We're all really fortunate that we avoided the nightmare of being locked in to a proprietary market controlling API from 3DFX. Luckily, we are in a new enlightened age where most games run on an open, freely shared API fostered by a community of the best minds from every segment of the industry. There's no limit to what can be done with our newfound freedom using APIs like Direct3D...
That is precisely the point. Given a choice between having the software standard set by a hardware company and a software company the market has always chosen the software company. It happened on glide and it happened on Windows.
The reason is very simple, the rival hardware companies are not going to allow their business to be subject to a competitor's control of the interface layer. However 'good' Glide was there was no way that it was in the interests of nVidia et. al. to support an interface controlled by 3Dfx. So it made perfect sense for the rival manufacturers to support DirectX.
OpenGL suffered from the same problem since regardless of the number of times SGI claimed that it was an 'open standard' the field was tilted from the start in favor of a rival hardware manufacturer that had a very different interest.
DirectX won because of elementary market dynamics and also because Microsoft presented DirectX as a gaming platform and not as a 3D platform. This was the critical wedge between the game companies and the OpenGL scene. DirectX has features like audio synchronization built into the core. There is simply no comparable standard for audio interfaces - the last attempt I am aware of was Jim Gettys work following on from the X Consortium.
Three or four years ago The Motley Fool chose 3DFx as a pick for the Fool portfolio. I dropped in on the discussion board and saw all sorts of chatter about how glide was going to rule and so competitors to 3DFx wer dead. I could see then that it was not going to happen and so decided to pass on the investment, just as well I did since it quickly became a dog.
Basically the only reason why the market ever opts for hegemony is to save itself from an even less tollerable hegemony with interests directly opposed to the stakeholders. That is why it decided that Microsoft was better than IBM and 3Dfx. Compaq, Gateway and the rest could see that Microsoft was an indirect threat while IBM was a direct one.
It's getting hard to keep track!
The Mini Coopers look pretty cool.:)
And let's see, who owns Volvo now? Is it Ford?
It is certainly a heck of a lot interesting than the question of whether Apple survives with its own independent processor. Yes Ford owns Volvo
Bascially if Apple switch they would be fools to move to the Pentium line since it is already headed for obselecence. Much better to move to Itanium which would finaly give Intel a guaranteed high volume customer. Only big issue then would be the current lack of an Itanium notebook processor but that would certainly get fixed as a part of the deal.
The interesting thing about that combination is that Apple would suddenly become a major competitor to Sun, HP and IBM. OS-X is actually a pretty good UNIX implementation with a very robust kernel and with Apple's controls a pretty well defined hardware base.
Kind of what might well happen to Jordan next year when they get their hands on the Ford/Cosworth engine... Should be an interesting season since Ford will be the only engine manufacturer that is supporting two mid field teams rather than a top team and a no-hoper. Jordan has for a long time been close to being a contender.
If so, I'd _really_ like to see the sources you have used to arrive at this conclusion.
Sorry, I don't know where Vint is at the moment, I spoke with him directly. Also Tom Knight, David Clark, quite a few people.
Try looking on google, cerf myth nuclear internet
Hit #1 http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/
However, you don't need to take my word for it, go look at the RFCs describing the design of the Internet, the first to contain the word 'nuclear' is 2731 and it is in a mention to where Homer Simpson works:
If you want a decentralized secure system you have to create a system that does not need an omnisceint trusted party.
So goes the dogma. The problem is that if you stick to that dogma the systems tend to be full of technology that is there just to get rid of the posibility of a single master party.
A much better approach in practice is to separate out the logical and infrastructure elements of the problem. For example the Internet currently depends on there being only one logical service set associated with a particular IP address (convoluted phraseology due to the existence of anycast). That is you do not want there to be two companies that claim to 'own' the same IP address.
Some folk want it to be possible for two people to share a DNS name. That is not a good idea either.
What is a good idea is for services like Google to be able to return multiple listings for the same query..
In other words, there is a need for unique identifiers which for the sake of convenience we call names and addresses. There is also a need for keyword identifiers that can be shared by many parties.
Neither the DNS system (root servers), or the allocation/control of IP address(ing) is decentralized -- they may be heirarchial, but both still have a root.
Actually the logical registration is co-ordinated in a single logical database. However the implementation is very highly distributed.
There are multiple DNS root servers and there are even multiple A root servers, but only one A root is active at any one time and they all use the same IP address.
You dumb troll, the arpanet was designed exactly to be a self healing system to survive nuclear attack
No, it was not, Vint Cerf has dispelled that myth a number of times.
The Internet does not emply flood fill routing or any of the technologies that one would want to have available if you wanted to survive a nuclear attack.
TCP/IP was actually designed with the idea that networks could be quickly assembled with minimal configuration issues and without the need for every node to have access to a central co-ordination point.
The Internet does actually have one central coordination point, the A root of the DNS service. However that is decoupled from the minute by minute actions of the Internet hosts so that the A root could in theory go down and come back up without a calamity (but nobody wants to try to find out!).
Funny thing is, to get a 12-cylinder Jaguar to run reliably, most owners end up swapping in a Chevy 350 ci V-8.
While some owners have probably done that most owners do not. Nobody buys an E-Type expecting it to be reliable.
And since Ford bought Jaguar and rebuilt the factories and developed the new V8 engine the reliability goes the other way. The xk8 replacement for the E-type is exceptionaly reliable.
Fact is that Proche is the only independent auto maker left (unless you count Morgan). Lamborghini is owned by Audi, Ferrari by Fiat, Aston Martin by Ford, Bently by VW, Rolls-Royce by BMW.
In fact were comparisons to the motor industry apposite, they would indicate that Apple is headed to become road-kill.
The comment below explains RC4-HMACs role in the kerberos authentication process
What comment? Ah lets try google - from the internet draft:
The Microsoft Windows 2000 implementation of Kerberos contains new
encryption and checksum types for two reasons: for export reasons
early in the development process, 56 bit DES encryption could not be
exported, and because upon upgrade from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows
2000, accounts will not have the appropriate DES keying material to
do the standard DES encryption. Furthermore, 3DES is not available
for export, and there was a desire to use a single flavor of
encryption in the product for both US and international products.
As a result, there are two new encryption types and one new checksum
type introduced in Microsoft Windows 2000.
In other words they were proposing to use RC4 for crypto export reasons.
Given the time the decision must have been made RC4 was not subject at that time to a known weakness and certainly looked better than the DES based password encryption used in UNIX.
In fact given that most UNIX systems ship today with applications that send passwords in the clear I don't think that the comparison is in favor of UNIX.
As for your other comments on ACLS, the problem was not the number of references you gave it was the fact that the reference you gave did not support your case. Even if it did one paper does not constitute 'proof' on an issue of that sort, particularly when it is not backed by any empirical studies.
The one contribution made by Ann Coulter to the world is that she has demonstrated the importance of following up references to see if they actually support the case put forward. Yours do not support your case either.
It sounds to me as if this is not your argument but an argument made by someone else that you are repeating and misconstruing.
ACLs have been proven to be considerably less secure and harder to audit than UNIX permissions.
You cite one paper, hardly convincing. You also quote it out of context. What the paper actually says is:
Within computer systems, the two fundamental means of enforcing privilege separation are access control lists (ACLs) and capabilities?. The semantics of ACLs have been proven to be insecure in many situations (e.g., Confused Deputy Problem?). It has also been shown that ACL's promise of giving access to an object to only one person can never be guaranteed in practice. Both of these problems are resolved by capabilities.
Rather different eh? For the record UNIX does not support capabilities. Nor does NT, in fact capabilities are not supported for some very good reasons, in particular the difficulty of managing them.
BTW Windows actually supports the UNIX permisions model in addition to ACLs.
Your comments on Kerberos are completely off base. In the first place Kerberos does not use RC4, parts of Windows use RC4 but not the Kerberos system. What you appear to be describing is the scheme that allows a legacy Windows box that does not support the domain login to access files. This is well known to be a bad idea.
Finaly, although RC4 has been 'broken' by Adi and co nobody has broken the cipher in the specific modes of use recommended by RSA labs. Burt et al knew that the principal weaknesses in a stream cipher were inducing the initial state of the stream generator from the initial portion of the cipher stream and related key attacks. That is why they recommended steps like throwing away the first 256 bytes of the stream and processing the key values through a one way function to minimize the probability of a related key attack.
If they decide to open Door Number 3 and nothing's there, do they have to forfeit all of their winnings?
Actually lots of doors indicates that there is very likely something of importance there. The Tutankhamen coffin was surrounded by a set of 4 gilt doors. So door number 4 might lead to something interesting.
Quite what that would be is anyone's guess. Anything that was put there would have been added during construction. Of course it could be that they thought that his soul could pass through a narrow gap but not robbers...
I'm in this community and I share my code with others (in newsgroups and published articles) all the time. No one is anti open source, not even Microsoft. Ballmer is just an idiot who doesn't always properly define open source.
Actually if you read the article you will see that Balmer talked about Linux. The journalist mentioned the 'Open Source Movement" and the title will have been written by a copy editor.
So your whole argument that Ballmer is an idiot turns out to be based on your failure to read the damn article.
Microsoft show every sign of knowing the difference between GPL and Open Source. I don't think the same can be said for Slashdotters in general.
As a rough guide GPL = OSS + RMSIdeology
If you know RMS or take intellecual property seriously then you are going to have a very different take on the GPL than if you just say 'I don't care so long as I don't have to pay'.
The whole point of GPL was to make it impossible to charge for software by flooding the market with free software constrained only by not being allowed to be mixed with paid software. The fact that RedHat and co have found loopholes that allow them to make a buck does not alter that fact. Technically they may be right, but I don't think RMS would agree (no I am not about to find out, conversations with RMS have serious overheap).
I think that a lot of the 'open source' software movement is in pretty much the same state as 'amateur athletics' used to be where everyone knew that athletes were being paid but everything was surrounded by masses of humbug. We know that there are many 'open source' companies who are cheating on the GPL terms, but everyone carries on prating the 'free is good' mantra.
That may be what you want, but you have no moral or legal claim to make it so. Once someone buys a copy of your movie, they can use it however they want as long as they don't violate copyright law,
Mutilating a film and then selling or renting it is an infringemnt of copyright.
As for 'moral rights' Europe does recognise the moral rights of the author of a work.
Someone can fast forward through the pieces they don't like if they choose, but they cannot pretend that they never existed.
XP has been reporting that the WLAN is down even if it is working just fine. It won't let me use third-party software to control the WLAN. It forces me to have a network key (it would be different if the range on these cards was over the 25' from the host machine to the furthest reach of the signal).
I connected to my home network with WEP disabled last night. Had to since I was setting up a new Access point.
Sounds to me like you are asking why you have to have a name for your network, that is because the spec says you have to.
The big advantage of having XP take over the 802 management is that it makes it much easier to swap card on the laptop. For example I can pull out one of my Wavelan cards and plug in a Cisco card and everything will work without having to reconfigure.
The other big advantage is that if you have the right access point XP has a bunch of fixes embedded in the O/S that allow the brokeness of 802.11 WEP to be avoided.
To do that you have to take the bother to actually read what was written.
I stated that I did not like mysogenistic, patriarchal attitudes in Utah [comparative clause following].
Note the lack of the definite article. That there are some people with mysogenistic patriarchal attitudes in Utah is beyond dispute.
Cleanflicks are based in Utah.
I did not prove that cleanflicks was an example of patriarchal mysogenistic attitudes, however I did implicitly assert this to be the case.
Let me be clear, the 'family values' that the likes of clean flicks represent tend to be the values of the woman chained to the sink.
If you want to watch a film that I have funded a part of the price I want you to pay is to be exposed to the ideas and values I seek to promote. Although these values are held by 95% of americans and probably 95% of Utah residents I will bet you that the 5% that reject them are disproportionately represented amongst the customers of Cleanflicks.
As to your counter argument, it is made ad nauseam on slashdot by conservatives against liberals.
The issue that the thread misses is that for the directors film making is a means to ends that include more than just profit. Kubrick, Stone & co also want to make statements. And the law gives them that right.
As a film financer I have a right to have the speech I fund protected. I don't like mysogenistic patriarchal attitudes in Utah any more then in Afghanistan.
Stopping a woman from showing her naked body is only one step from putting her on a pedestal and taking away her right to be a doctor or a lawyer or any other 'unsitable' profession for those who are placed on pedestals. And it is only two steps from covering them with a Burqua.
But, what home affairs are so terrible right now that the administration would need to start a war to cover them up? Corporate accounting failures? That could have happened under any administration - the Dems are just as much into big business as the reps
The leading Dems are not under SEC investigation like Cheney or cleared under dubious circumstances like Bush.
The republicans have every reason to want to change the topic from domestic issues before the mid-terms. The economy is in the can, the markets are down and the budget is massively in deficit despite the repeated public campaign pledges to the contrary.
Oh yeah - the US is the bastion of freedom and democracy, so it has the duty to take out regimes that are undemocratic and repressive
Tell that to the folk in Florida whose votes Bush and Cheney went to court to stop being counted.
Finally, what does this have to do with HTDV and its own problems?
Television was the new opiate of the masses, until the Web.
Quick, I think I hear the black helicopters in your backyard!
After 'president' Harken and 'vice-president' Haliburton are through you might well prefer the UN ran a few things.
It is one thing to invade Iraq, quite another to occupy. A US occupation of Iraq is most likely to be like the Israeli occupation of Leabanon and the West Bank.
Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits. Ratified 2/27/1951.
Yes, an ammendment, so in theory if you did want the fornicator-in-chief back all you need to do is to pass another ammendment to cancel out the first - just like was done for prohibition. Or if you want another term of his fraudulency an ammendment could be passed.
Nixon actually went as far as to start an astroturf campaign to repeal the 22nd ammendment before watergate intervened.
His fraudulency will probably get his pet supreme court to decide that he wasn't elected the first time round so this term won't count. Or they will find some other way arround it like they have for every other check on their power. Secret tribunals anyone? After all it has already been annonced that to oppose or even offend king george is to support Al Qaeda so the rest follows.
Slashdot Mirror
Not anymore it ain't. Lord Jeffrey 'crap author' Archer is currently in the slamer after being found guilty of perjury by a jury of plebs.
The right of peers to be tried by the house of Lords had not in any case been exercised for 80 odd years. The only reason that people remembered to take it off the statute book was after Obe Wan Knobie (Alex Guiness) made Kind Hearts and Coronets whih reminded folk of the anomaly.
Personally I thing Jeffrey the Liar got off lightly. I think they should have stripped him of his knighthood and degraded him in the manner that Cochrane was. In those days they paid a bloke to stand in as a surrogate, he would be taken off to Westminster Abbey at midnight wearing a knights spurs. These were then ceremonially hacked off with a hatchet and thrown down the steps of the Cathederal together with his banner.
If people are going to prance about being knights and such they should be subject to the whole hog. Plus think of the audience ratings you could get for that sort of thing on TV.
Cochrane was eventually exhonorated and pardoned but only after liberating most of south america from the rule of Spain and then helping the Greeks kick the Turks out.
IANAL but... The EULA claim is irrelevant. Even if the EULA were enforceable - which it obviously is not no contract between scumcorp and the user can affect the rights of the afilliate and Amazon.
The EULA is invalid for so many reasons it isn't funny. First no contract can in any case give a license to perform an illegal act. Second no EULA entered into through a clickwrap agreement has ever been enforced for a term remotely close to this.
But the EULA is in any case irrelevant because it is clear that Kazza is no more legit than Naster was.
Of course crooks of this type tend to be litigious and there is every chance they will bring nuisance lawsuits to try to silence their critics. I don't think it will work in this case since even the RIAA can probably see that it is in their interests to make sure that any scum lawsuits are fought.
I have argued on many occasions that the way to kill theftware is to go after their money supply. In particular make any company whose roduct is bundled with theftware liable for damages to the RIAA.
All the real streaming server does is to puke out bits on an IP pipe. That is not rocket science, but the cost is utterly ridiculous.
I always said that the biggest mistake we made with the Web (apart from makinf the CERNLib license terms require a credit) was not putting an uncompressed audio format in as a default. The point is that nobody pays for the compression, they pay for the ability to make noise. Make the ability to create noise free and the audio codecs become just an optimization.
That is precisely the point. Given a choice between having the software standard set by a hardware company and a software company the market has always chosen the software company. It happened on glide and it happened on Windows.
The reason is very simple, the rival hardware companies are not going to allow their business to be subject to a competitor's control of the interface layer. However 'good' Glide was there was no way that it was in the interests of nVidia et. al. to support an interface controlled by 3Dfx. So it made perfect sense for the rival manufacturers to support DirectX.
OpenGL suffered from the same problem since regardless of the number of times SGI claimed that it was an 'open standard' the field was tilted from the start in favor of a rival hardware manufacturer that had a very different interest.
DirectX won because of elementary market dynamics and also because Microsoft presented DirectX as a gaming platform and not as a 3D platform. This was the critical wedge between the game companies and the OpenGL scene. DirectX has features like audio synchronization built into the core. There is simply no comparable standard for audio interfaces - the last attempt I am aware of was Jim Gettys work following on from the X Consortium.
Three or four years ago The Motley Fool chose 3DFx as a pick for the Fool portfolio. I dropped in on the discussion board and saw all sorts of chatter about how glide was going to rule and so competitors to 3DFx wer dead. I could see then that it was not going to happen and so decided to pass on the investment, just as well I did since it quickly became a dog.
Basically the only reason why the market ever opts for hegemony is to save itself from an even less tollerable hegemony with interests directly opposed to the stakeholders. That is why it decided that Microsoft was better than IBM and 3Dfx. Compaq, Gateway and the rest could see that Microsoft was an indirect threat while IBM was a direct one.
As far as performance goes Apple simply is not in that game. They do not have a machine that competes in the front ranks of the data center game.
OK some Macs get sold for data center use but to date Apple does not even figure in the typical market share pie chart for that market sector.
Adopting Intel's fastest processor and bringing a ready-made constituency of users would change this significantly.
It is certainly a heck of a lot interesting than the question of whether Apple survives with its own independent processor. Yes Ford owns Volvo
Bascially if Apple switch they would be fools to move to the Pentium line since it is already headed for obselecence. Much better to move to Itanium which would finaly give Intel a guaranteed high volume customer. Only big issue then would be the current lack of an Itanium notebook processor but that would certainly get fixed as a part of the deal.
The interesting thing about that combination is that Apple would suddenly become a major competitor to Sun, HP and IBM. OS-X is actually a pretty good UNIX implementation with a very robust kernel and with Apple's controls a pretty well defined hardware base.
Kind of what might well happen to Jordan next year when they get their hands on the Ford/Cosworth engine... Should be an interesting season since Ford will be the only engine manufacturer that is supporting two mid field teams rather than a top team and a no-hoper. Jordan has for a long time been close to being a contender.
Yes and then spun it off again. Ford bough the Land Rover arm and BMW kept the Mini division.
Not true, Audi are owned by VW and both VW and Porche were started by Porche. However Porche is still independent.
That is probably why Porche is not able to compete at the top levels in motor sport while Jaguar, Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW do.
Sorry, I don't know where Vint is at the moment, I spoke with him directly. Also Tom Knight, David Clark, quite a few people.
Try looking on google, cerf myth nuclear internet
Hit #1 http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/
However, you don't need to take my word for it, go look at the RFCs describing the design of the Internet, the first to contain the word 'nuclear' is 2731 and it is in a mention to where Homer Simpson works:
Google- nuclear site:ietf.org
So goes the dogma. The problem is that if you stick to that dogma the systems tend to be full of technology that is there just to get rid of the posibility of a single master party.
A much better approach in practice is to separate out the logical and infrastructure elements of the problem. For example the Internet currently depends on there being only one logical service set associated with a particular IP address (convoluted phraseology due to the existence of anycast). That is you do not want there to be two companies that claim to 'own' the same IP address.
Some folk want it to be possible for two people to share a DNS name. That is not a good idea either.
What is a good idea is for services like Google to be able to return multiple listings for the same query..
In other words, there is a need for unique identifiers which for the sake of convenience we call names and addresses. There is also a need for keyword identifiers that can be shared by many parties.
Actually the logical registration is co-ordinated in a single logical database. However the implementation is very highly distributed.
There are multiple DNS root servers and there are even multiple A root servers, but only one A root is active at any one time and they all use the same IP address.
No, it was not, Vint Cerf has dispelled that myth a number of times.
The Internet does not emply flood fill routing or any of the technologies that one would want to have available if you wanted to survive a nuclear attack.
TCP/IP was actually designed with the idea that networks could be quickly assembled with minimal configuration issues and without the need for every node to have access to a central co-ordination point.
The Internet does actually have one central coordination point, the A root of the DNS service. However that is decoupled from the minute by minute actions of the Internet hosts so that the A root could in theory go down and come back up without a calamity (but nobody wants to try to find out!).
While some owners have probably done that most owners do not. Nobody buys an E-Type expecting it to be reliable.
And since Ford bought Jaguar and rebuilt the factories and developed the new V8 engine the reliability goes the other way. The xk8 replacement for the E-type is exceptionaly reliable.
Fact is that Proche is the only independent auto maker left (unless you count Morgan). Lamborghini is owned by Audi, Ferrari by Fiat, Aston Martin by Ford, Bently by VW, Rolls-Royce by BMW.
In fact were comparisons to the motor industry apposite, they would indicate that Apple is headed to become road-kill.
What comment? Ah lets try google - from the internet draft:
The Microsoft Windows 2000 implementation of Kerberos contains new encryption and checksum types for two reasons: for export reasons early in the development process, 56 bit DES encryption could not be exported, and because upon upgrade from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, accounts will not have the appropriate DES keying material to do the standard DES encryption. Furthermore, 3DES is not available for export, and there was a desire to use a single flavor of encryption in the product for both US and international products. As a result, there are two new encryption types and one new checksum type introduced in Microsoft Windows 2000.
In other words they were proposing to use RC4 for crypto export reasons.
Given the time the decision must have been made RC4 was not subject at that time to a known weakness and certainly looked better than the DES based password encryption used in UNIX.
In fact given that most UNIX systems ship today with applications that send passwords in the clear I don't think that the comparison is in favor of UNIX.
As for your other comments on ACLS, the problem was not the number of references you gave it was the fact that the reference you gave did not support your case. Even if it did one paper does not constitute 'proof' on an issue of that sort, particularly when it is not backed by any empirical studies.
The one contribution made by Ann Coulter to the world is that she has demonstrated the importance of following up references to see if they actually support the case put forward. Yours do not support your case either.
It sounds to me as if this is not your argument but an argument made by someone else that you are repeating and misconstruing.
You cite one paper, hardly convincing. You also quote it out of context. What the paper actually says is:
Within computer systems, the two fundamental means of enforcing privilege separation are access control lists (ACLs) and capabilities?. The semantics of ACLs have been proven to be insecure in many situations (e.g., Confused Deputy Problem?). It has also been shown that ACL's promise of giving access to an object to only one person can never be guaranteed in practice. Both of these problems are resolved by capabilities.
Rather different eh? For the record UNIX does not support capabilities. Nor does NT, in fact capabilities are not supported for some very good reasons, in particular the difficulty of managing them. BTW Windows actually supports the UNIX permisions model in addition to ACLs.
Your comments on Kerberos are completely off base. In the first place Kerberos does not use RC4, parts of Windows use RC4 but not the Kerberos system. What you appear to be describing is the scheme that allows a legacy Windows box that does not support the domain login to access files. This is well known to be a bad idea.
Finaly, although RC4 has been 'broken' by Adi and co nobody has broken the cipher in the specific modes of use recommended by RSA labs. Burt et al knew that the principal weaknesses in a stream cipher were inducing the initial state of the stream generator from the initial portion of the cipher stream and related key attacks. That is why they recommended steps like throwing away the first 256 bytes of the stream and processing the key values through a one way function to minimize the probability of a related key attack.
Actually lots of doors indicates that there is very likely something of importance there. The Tutankhamen coffin was surrounded by a set of 4 gilt doors. So door number 4 might lead to something interesting.
Quite what that would be is anyone's guess. Anything that was put there would have been added during construction. Of course it could be that they thought that his soul could pass through a narrow gap but not robbers...
Actually if you read the article you will see that Balmer talked about Linux. The journalist mentioned the 'Open Source Movement" and the title will have been written by a copy editor.
So your whole argument that Ballmer is an idiot turns out to be based on your failure to read the damn article.
Microsoft show every sign of knowing the difference between GPL and Open Source. I don't think the same can be said for Slashdotters in general.
As a rough guide GPL = OSS + RMSIdeology
If you know RMS or take intellecual property seriously then you are going to have a very different take on the GPL than if you just say 'I don't care so long as I don't have to pay'.
The whole point of GPL was to make it impossible to charge for software by flooding the market with free software constrained only by not being allowed to be mixed with paid software. The fact that RedHat and co have found loopholes that allow them to make a buck does not alter that fact. Technically they may be right, but I don't think RMS would agree (no I am not about to find out, conversations with RMS have serious overheap).
I think that a lot of the 'open source' software movement is in pretty much the same state as 'amateur athletics' used to be where everyone knew that athletes were being paid but everything was surrounded by masses of humbug. We know that there are many 'open source' companies who are cheating on the GPL terms, but everyone carries on prating the 'free is good' mantra.
Mutilating a film and then selling or renting it is an infringemnt of copyright.
As for 'moral rights' Europe does recognise the moral rights of the author of a work.
Someone can fast forward through the pieces they don't like if they choose, but they cannot pretend that they never existed.
I connected to my home network with WEP disabled last night. Had to since I was setting up a new Access point.
Sounds to me like you are asking why you have to have a name for your network, that is because the spec says you have to.
The big advantage of having XP take over the 802 management is that it makes it much easier to swap card on the laptop. For example I can pull out one of my Wavelan cards and plug in a Cisco card and everything will work without having to reconfigure.
The other big advantage is that if you have the right access point XP has a bunch of fixes embedded in the O/S that allow the brokeness of 802.11 WEP to be avoided.
To do that you have to take the bother to actually read what was written.
I stated that I did not like mysogenistic, patriarchal attitudes in Utah [comparative clause following].
Note the lack of the definite article. That there are some people with mysogenistic patriarchal attitudes in Utah is beyond dispute.
Cleanflicks are based in Utah.
I did not prove that cleanflicks was an example of patriarchal mysogenistic attitudes, however I did implicitly assert this to be the case.
Let me be clear, the 'family values' that the likes of clean flicks represent tend to be the values of the woman chained to the sink.
If you want to watch a film that I have funded a part of the price I want you to pay is to be exposed to the ideas and values I seek to promote. Although these values are held by 95% of americans and probably 95% of Utah residents I will bet you that the 5% that reject them are disproportionately represented amongst the customers of Cleanflicks.
As to your counter argument, it is made ad nauseam on slashdot by conservatives against liberals.
As a matter of fact, yes I did.
Are you one of those pathetic individuals who thinks there has to have a smiley after every joke?
Damn right there is
The issue that the thread misses is that for the directors film making is a means to ends that include more than just profit. Kubrick, Stone & co also want to make statements. And the law gives them that right.
As a film financer I have a right to have the speech I fund protected. I don't like mysogenistic patriarchal attitudes in Utah any more then in Afghanistan.
Stopping a woman from showing her naked body is only one step from putting her on a pedestal and taking away her right to be a doctor or a lawyer or any other 'unsitable' profession for those who are placed on pedestals. And it is only two steps from covering them with a Burqua.
The leading Dems are not under SEC investigation like Cheney or cleared under dubious circumstances like Bush.
The republicans have every reason to want to change the topic from domestic issues before the mid-terms. The economy is in the can, the markets are down and the budget is massively in deficit despite the repeated public campaign pledges to the contrary.
Oh yeah - the US is the bastion of freedom and democracy, so it has the duty to take out regimes that are undemocratic and repressive
Tell that to the folk in Florida whose votes Bush and Cheney went to court to stop being counted.
Finally, what does this have to do with HTDV and its own problems?
Television was the new opiate of the masses, until the Web.
After 'president' Harken and 'vice-president' Haliburton are through you might well prefer the UN ran a few things.
It is one thing to invade Iraq, quite another to occupy. A US occupation of Iraq is most likely to be like the Israeli occupation of Leabanon and the West Bank.
Yes, an ammendment, so in theory if you did want the fornicator-in-chief back all you need to do is to pass another ammendment to cancel out the first - just like was done for prohibition. Or if you want another term of his fraudulency an ammendment could be passed.
Nixon actually went as far as to start an astroturf campaign to repeal the 22nd ammendment before watergate intervened.
His fraudulency will probably get his pet supreme court to decide that he wasn't elected the first time round so this term won't count. Or they will find some other way arround it like they have for every other check on their power. Secret tribunals anyone? After all it has already been annonced that to oppose or even offend king george is to support Al Qaeda so the rest follows.