I'm not even sure its worth reviewing... from the design intro it more or less stated that you give it a 128 bit key and it spits out 128 bits of ciphertext. In my book that is a one time pad and it won't be any more secure then using xor (in fact not using xor could make it significantly less secure).
Not in my book or anyone else's. It is a block cipher with a key size and a block size of 128 bits, but it is designed to be used in chaining mode which a one time pad ain't.
Now I'm assuming this isnt a one time pad so I'm also assuming the same key will be used many times considering it may act as a wireless key similar to WEP keys right now.
The problem with WEP was not the reuse of the key, it was the modification of RC4 so that it did not discard the initial bits from the PRG. These were known to be weak when RC4 was designed.
The secure science people are not well known on slashdot but in the field they are very well known and they have a pretty high reputation for their work on anti-phishing. Now that does not mean that I would put them in the same class as Rivest, Biham and Shamir when it comes to cipher design.
There is an argument to be made that it is better to use a block cipher with a possibly inadequate number of rounds than risk using a stream cipher. Block ciphers are much better understood and their failure modes are much less likely to be catastrophic. A poor 128 bit block cipher is likely to result in an effective cipher strength of maybe 80 bits. A poor stream cipher can collapse to an effective cipher strength of 16 bits or less, particularly if it is not used properly.
So this is a bit like if Schneier or Kocher came up with a cipher, they are not a Rogaway or a Rivest but they are not exactly flakes peddling snake oil. I suspect that their work will receive significant attention.
Though I don't think there are many who would agrue that Real is or has been a maker of spyware, but that was never the argument. The argument is that you don't understand the meaning of "spy" and that your "view" is beyond ignorant into the realm of conscious stupidity.
My view is the one most likely to make it into the 'anti-spyware' bill.
I don't much care about the neogisms. You can spend your time making up crackpot names for every thing you see which you think is new, I will stick to the words understood by the vast majority of people.
Real has in the past reported on what the user has been playing. Read the thread and you will see that folk have been landed with huge ISDN bills as a result. Real has in the past bundled hardcore spyware with its product. I don't care who wrote the code, if Real distribute it they are responsible for everything it does.
They might be malware, but resisting removal definitely does not constitute spyware by itself. If it's not keylogging or sending information from your computer back to anyway (you know, spying) then it's not spyware so you might want to correct that view of yours.
It is a consent issue, I don't give a hang about the definition of the neogism. The defining characteristic of spyware in my view is that the provider does not intend to respect the machine owner's control over their machine.
Real has certainly collected information on users without adequate notice in the past so the narrower spyware definition is also appropriate.
Real criticizing Microsoft on business ethics is like Hedi Fleiss calling Maddona a slut.
From TFA: Microsoft's digital video competitor RealNetworks had been able to demonstrate a Media Player-free version of Windows running "without technical glitches", the Journal notes.
I would trust that sleasy spyware company no further than I could throw their HQ. Companies that make products that deliberately resist removal are spyware in my view.
TFA only says that Real got WINDOWS to work, Word is not windows.
My apologies, but the details of this exploit were linked-to in a previous article as well as this one, and you can't move for explanations of how it works.
If I find both articles confused and confusing then it is a bit much to expect other people to follow them, I am listed as an original contributor to the design of HTTP.
The real problem here is not the 302, its a bug in the googlebot. fortunately a realtively easy one to fix. When googlebot sees a 302 redirect to a page it treats the actual page and the redirect to the page as if they are one and the same. It should not, instead it should give the 302 linking URL a lower score than the URL linked to. I think this is pretty obvious from the specs. It should be a pretty quick fix.
This is one of the problems I have every week when someone comes along with a 'new' attack that is simply a slight twist on something that has been around for years. I recently got called by a journalist researching IM 'viruses', unfortunately it was only afterwards that I realized that all this 'new' attack was telling us is that once a machine is infected by spyware there is very little that can be done to protect the user.
Read the fucking article - you don't have to have any access to the victim site to do this - you only need to have a higher pagerank than them.
The article is confused and baddly written. It does not explain the exploit being used ever. So stop dumping on people. It is not at all surprising that people don't get what is going on when the description is crud.
What is really going on has nothing to do with 302, or at least very little. What these people are doing is to set up fake web sites using content filched from genuine Web sites. This allows (or is beleived to allow) them to climb the google rankings.
I don't see why someone would use a 302 response when they can just copy the entire content unless there is some sort of bug in Google's pagerank that is not being explained. Copying the entire content is much simpler.
So what the attacker does is to set up their site so that when the googlebot comes round it publishes some legitimate content, then when other folk follow the site from a google search they get pages infested with spyware or the like.
This would certainly explain the number of times I have done a Google search and ended up at an idiotic 'search site' that does nothing for me.
How's that priciple working out with respect to the ongoing case between Apple and the websites that bust Apple's marketing trade secrets?
Apple got an injunction to force the site to reveal the source of the trade secrets. They were not prevented from publishing the aleged trade secrets, although they could be prevented from doing so if they had induced a breach of contract by the person who revealled them to them.
If I read Apple's trade secrets on a Web site I am not under any obligation to keep them secret. If on the other hand I pay someone to tell me them then I am liable just as if I was the person who broke their contract by revealling them.
I don't think that the Apple site has got much of an argument because journalists greatly overstate the extent to which they are entitled to give confidentiality to their sources. Doctors, lawyers and priests have a legally recognized duty to protect confidentiality in pretty much every state but not journalists.
The new Top Gear has Jeremy Clarkson and does cars. That's all the similarity there is to the old show.
Jeremy Clarkson was the only thing that made the original Top Gear worth watching. Top Gear without Clarkson was simply a worn out 20 year old format. It would be like trying to do the daily show without Jon Stewart.
US TV does not really have characters like Clarkson. If they find someone close they stick them on the tube every night and pretend that they are an expert on every topic imaginable. Dennis Miller was funny once a week on SNL and his HBO show and totally boring every night.
Thanks to the Tories there is not a single NHS dentist in Massachusetts. Bastards!
I have mod points but they won't let me mark the original story 'bogus propaganda' like it deserves. The TV company 'gets it' plenty, they are offering content that is likely to be very popular in the UK market in download format at a reasonably cheap price point.
Or is a company considered to 'not get it' because they don't bother to support linux, a platform which has something less than a 3% penetration in the desktop market and even less in the home market. Apple on the other hand is considered to 'get it' despite the fact that the DRM format of their rabidly proprietary iTunes store only supports a single hardware vendor.
For profit corporation refuses to provide material in format friendly to freeloaders shock horror! Death of the net, news at 9 o'clock.
Actually, that's not quite right. If Coca Cola revealed its formula, you would be free to make your own drink and sell it, but just because a trade secret is leaked out doesn't mean that it is fair game. For example, if a disgruntled employee of Coca Cola decided to publish the formula, it could still be protected under trade secret law. A corporation only has to make reasonable efforts to protect the secrecy of their product.
No, a court would stop the employee from profiting from the theft because they are covered by an NDA. But anyone else who gets hold of the information in good faith is free to do what they want with it.
The example is in any case moot since the recipie has been known for years. It is pretty much an iced tea made with the leaves of a number of plants with a huge quantity of sugar added. The Kott company has a pretty good facsimile which is why the own label colas taste much better than they once did.
I am surprised nobody seems to have had the idea of designer cola to sell in espresso bars.
Now look back at what you wrote, and tell me how much does a CD with 14 or 15 tracks costs?
Depends which band we are talking about. The Beatles produced quite a few albums with ten or more hit tracks. Most don't have more than five tracks worth listening to in their careers let alone on the same album.
So $5 for the good tracks is much less than $15 for a CD with three good tracks and 12 fillers.
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.
I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.
For a site I run Firefox is nearing 30% usage for Feb-Mar 2005 (some 20 million hits) Internet Explorer 59.3 % Firefox 28.5 % Opera 6.9 % Mozilla 3% Netscape 1 % Safari 0.5 %
Well maybee you don't get as many Windows users to a blog titled '666 reasons why Bill Gates is the anti-christ'.
And the splash screen that comes up when you use IE might discourage some users 'Why are you using IE you stupid doofus?'
If someone on broadband is worried about security the first thing to do is to put in a cheap $50 NAT/cable router box and lock down any ports that do not need external access.
The plaintiff in this suit is suing because the defendant reported the plaintiff's violation of the law.
They have no case.
Possibly, possibly not. Wouldn't it be interesting to get the cruise.com side of the story? It would also be interesting to read the complaint, the links do not work for me.
Omega is a very large travel agency. There are two possible explanations for what is going on. Either the guy is a jerk or the Omega legal department are jerks, (or possibly both)
It certainly seems to be an unusual tactic for a large company to do this sort of thing.
The context that appears to be missed here is that Mummers makes money by bringing lawsuits against spammers. He had threatened a lawsuit himself.
It is not strange or unusual for a company that is threatened with a lawsuit to do some investigation of the person threatening the suit and then bring a pre-emptive suit against them.
Not all the people who bring anti-spam cases are whiter than white. some of the stuff that went on in Utah after their anti-spam law was passed was borderline criminal.
How many Alan Kays or Tim Berners-Lees could be hired with the immense pile of wealth they've reaped off the Windows/Office juggernaut? A lot. Lots of money means the potential to be hella innovative by hiring the right people.
They just hired Ray Ozzie, you know Notes, Groove etc.
Microsoft has far more Turing award winners than anyone else, Hoare, Lampson, etc.
Back in the 1990s when UNIX was first making it beyond academia in a major way the most frequent complaint was the lack of reliability and security. Standard UNIX did not support ACLs in those days, shaddow passwords were not widely supported and you were lucky to keep a UNIX box running for more than a week. There was a reason that the Sun SparkStations had to be sold at a discount to slower machines from DEC.
Firefox is now a big enough target that the spyware gangs have begun to target it. Linux botnets have been around as long as the Windows variety, longer in fact because Linux machines were more likely to have a high speed broadband connection. The main reason that Macs don't seem to be targetted as much is that there is a disproportionate number of laptops and the gangs only want machines that are always on.
It only takes one unpatched vulnerability for a hacker to win. Microsoft have been doing a lot to improve their security and all I hear from the FOSS-fan community is complacency as if there was some immutable law that said that when you make the source code available all the security bugs fall out. As someone said at the RSA conference it is close to impossible to get programmers to review their own code, let alone someone else's. The number of people who do that for fun is much less than the number you need to check three million (and growing) lines of code.
Besides which I don't rate someone as a FOSS supporter unless they actually write code, documentation do design, or something else useful. The FOSS movement has the same problem that the little red hen had, there is no shortage of people wanting the finished product but almost nobody helping to make it.
I am really struggling to work out what the fuss is about, the original article is incoherent.
The alleged attack appears to rely on certain search engines assigning a page rank to the content as opposed to the URL used to reach the content. This would mean that if I look at the top page in a google search, and publish an exact copy then when the search engine indexes my page google will point to my link 50% of the time. This allows me to hijack a page rank and then point to a page of my choice. Bait and switch...
If this bug exists then it is a serious one and could require major effort on the part of Google to repair. On the other hand I am far from convinced that it does. The description is so confused that it is difficult to tell.
Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie. He could make a whole group of short films out of those stories, and then film the Hobbit as takes place after the Silmirilion. So if it is in chronological order, then I don't see his reasoning. The Hobbit may be more popular, but if he is going for quality of the films, the Silmirilion would beat it easily.
First the Hobbit is a much better commercial prospect, it is a known quantity with broad appeal. The Silmirilion is not, it would require a heck of a lot of scriptwriting to get it in a viable format.
But the bigger reason is that Jackson knows that there is no way he can get the rights to any Tolkein material apart from the material already sold until his son Chistopher Tolkein is not controlling the rights.
It appears that Christopher is now denying having said he would refuse to talk to his son for watching the LOTR movie but he does not appear to be any happier about dramatizations. It may be that the issue could be settled with a matter of money but I doubt it.
It all depends on how quick the developer was and how dirty the code was. Oracle is expensive, and MySQL and Postgres were not nearly as advanced as they are now in 1995-8 when this custom DB was written.
Oracle licenses for a large system can easily run to seven figures and you have to put up with the Oracle DBAs whose agenda usually consists of buying more Oracle and hiring more DBAs.
If you can fit the database into RAM you can use completely different data management techniques. RAM ande brute CPU is much cheaper than Oracle licenses.
The thing I found bizare about infospace was they just appeared out of nowhere selling product into a market which did not exist yet. Like how could people be buying all that information through their WAP phones before they were shipping?
Not true. I play the rebate game constantly. I do on average 20 to 30 computer equipment rebates a year.
Well maybe if your day job is flipping burgers it makes sense to spend your time dealing with them.
Costco print off the rebate coupons on the receipt and make it easy to claim them, they also make sure you get paid. I also got the rebate for the Dell I just bought. I expect that Sony will pay for the rebate on the Vaio.
But expecting rebates on floppy disks, cables or those 'its FREE with rebate' schemes, its a bit like expecting a politician to give you a tax cut without finding some other way to raise your taxes.
but I guess the non-brutal, loving members of Hezbollah probably roll play all the time. "ok ali - roll this 20 sided dice to see how many children you killed on the bus you just suicide bombed"
I have heard the same type of language from both the IRA and the UVF in Northern Ireland. Remember that Dire Straights line 'two men think their Jesus, one of 'em must be wrong'. When you have two groups of people who think that there is no alternative but to anahilate the other the answer is not to decide which side to join.
An occupying force that confiscates land to build settlements is intending to annex the occupied territory, building settlements is an act of aggression, not self defense. The one constant in the middle east is that you can rely on both sides in any conflict to act idiotically.
That is why it is such a bad idea for the US to have built permanent military bases in Iraq, no good is going to come of that. The idea seems to be to try to force the interim government to sign a permanent lease as was done in Cuba and the Philipeans.
Bullshit. US military doctrine is built on soldiers who are flexible, able, and motivated. They don't want to see it in bootcamp, or expressed in ways deemed harmful to the unit. But they count on the fact they'll see it expressed in ways harmful to the enemy.
They want very particular types of initiative, in particular the initiative to take command of a situation when necessary. What they do not want is people who question authority.
If the US army was such a terrifically well run organization they would not have ended up turning the Iraqi prison camps into torture chambers. Either there is a serious discipline problem or the senior officers gave illegal orders that the soldiers had a duty to refuse. That little fiasco is one of the reasons why there are car bombs going off every day and the insurgency is increasing. It is also on of the reasons why recruitment is 25% under target.
D&D probably does make someone unsuited to military service, but so what? It probably means that they are better adjusted as a person. The Israeli army has been performing a brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for over thirty years. Refusing to serve in such an army is a moral duty.
So... imagine a rectangular piece of glass 2m in one dimension spinning at 3000 revolutions
Actually probably not, the article said that they make two screens at a time. So we can assume that what they would do is to get a sheet of glass that is roughly square, 2m on each side. The large sheet does not need to be spun as fast as a small one, its the linear velocity, not the angular that matters.
What makes larger screens hard is getting the scalled up equipment. And getting the necessary throughput. Larger screens means each step of the process takes longer.
From a yield point of view the transistors are going to be so large that crystal defects are not relevant so you win on that one. On the other hand you have a really big problem getting the mask in registration over such a large area.
As for use, the first ones will be used for computer monitors at trade shows. There is no other use that is going to justify a $30K monitor which is what the first ones off the line are likely to cost. For that use the resolution is perfectly adequate.
The key breakthrough here though is that 82" is large enough for a meetingroom/classroom monitor. Projection displays are very unsatisfactory, the room has to be so dark that people go to sleep. Once the price is $5K or less this becomes an interesting choice.
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 1
SCOX is the normal four-letter NASDAQ symbol for The SCO Group (SCO is the NYSE symbol for Scor SA). The E added on the end indicates that the stock issuer is delinquent in their SEC filings.
And GOATSE consists of the five letter SLASHDAQ symbol GOATS, the letter E is added to indicate that the holder is delinquent.
A sign perhaps that Daryl is making himself ready for the time that is rapidly approach when the IBM lawyers demonstrate the meaning of the term 'rebuttal'.
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 2, Funny
To track the short ratio, follow this page: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SCOXE
Slashdot Mirror
Not in my book or anyone else's. It is a block cipher with a key size and a block size of 128 bits, but it is designed to be used in chaining mode which a one time pad ain't.
Now I'm assuming this isnt a one time pad so I'm also assuming the same key will be used many times considering it may act as a wireless key similar to WEP keys right now.
The problem with WEP was not the reuse of the key, it was the modification of RC4 so that it did not discard the initial bits from the PRG. These were known to be weak when RC4 was designed.
The secure science people are not well known on slashdot but in the field they are very well known and they have a pretty high reputation for their work on anti-phishing. Now that does not mean that I would put them in the same class as Rivest, Biham and Shamir when it comes to cipher design.
There is an argument to be made that it is better to use a block cipher with a possibly inadequate number of rounds than risk using a stream cipher. Block ciphers are much better understood and their failure modes are much less likely to be catastrophic. A poor 128 bit block cipher is likely to result in an effective cipher strength of maybe 80 bits. A poor stream cipher can collapse to an effective cipher strength of 16 bits or less, particularly if it is not used properly.
So this is a bit like if Schneier or Kocher came up with a cipher, they are not a Rogaway or a Rivest but they are not exactly flakes peddling snake oil. I suspect that their work will receive significant attention.
My view is the one most likely to make it into the 'anti-spyware' bill.
I don't much care about the neogisms. You can spend your time making up crackpot names for every thing you see which you think is new, I will stick to the words understood by the vast majority of people.
Real has in the past reported on what the user has been playing. Read the thread and you will see that folk have been landed with huge ISDN bills as a result. Real has in the past bundled hardcore spyware with its product. I don't care who wrote the code, if Real distribute it they are responsible for everything it does.
It is a consent issue, I don't give a hang about the definition of the neogism. The defining characteristic of spyware in my view is that the provider does not intend to respect the machine owner's control over their machine.
Real has certainly collected information on users without adequate notice in the past so the narrower spyware definition is also appropriate.
Real criticizing Microsoft on business ethics is like Hedi Fleiss calling Maddona a slut.
I would trust that sleasy spyware company no further than I could throw their HQ. Companies that make products that deliberately resist removal are spyware in my view.
TFA only says that Real got WINDOWS to work, Word is not windows.
If I find both articles confused and confusing then it is a bit much to expect other people to follow them, I am listed as an original contributor to the design of HTTP.
The real problem here is not the 302, its a bug in the googlebot. fortunately a realtively easy one to fix. When googlebot sees a 302 redirect to a page it treats the actual page and the redirect to the page as if they are one and the same. It should not, instead it should give the 302 linking URL a lower score than the URL linked to. I think this is pretty obvious from the specs. It should be a pretty quick fix.
This is one of the problems I have every week when someone comes along with a 'new' attack that is simply a slight twist on something that has been around for years. I recently got called by a journalist researching IM 'viruses', unfortunately it was only afterwards that I realized that all this 'new' attack was telling us is that once a machine is infected by spyware there is very little that can be done to protect the user.
The article is confused and baddly written. It does not explain the exploit being used ever. So stop dumping on people. It is not at all surprising that people don't get what is going on when the description is crud.
What is really going on has nothing to do with 302, or at least very little. What these people are doing is to set up fake web sites using content filched from genuine Web sites. This allows (or is beleived to allow) them to climb the google rankings.
I don't see why someone would use a 302 response when they can just copy the entire content unless there is some sort of bug in Google's pagerank that is not being explained. Copying the entire content is much simpler.
So what the attacker does is to set up their site so that when the googlebot comes round it publishes some legitimate content, then when other folk follow the site from a google search they get pages infested with spyware or the like.
This would certainly explain the number of times I have done a Google search and ended up at an idiotic 'search site' that does nothing for me.
Apple got an injunction to force the site to reveal the source of the trade secrets. They were not prevented from publishing the aleged trade secrets, although they could be prevented from doing so if they had induced a breach of contract by the person who revealled them to them.
If I read Apple's trade secrets on a Web site I am not under any obligation to keep them secret. If on the other hand I pay someone to tell me them then I am liable just as if I was the person who broke their contract by revealling them.
I don't think that the Apple site has got much of an argument because journalists greatly overstate the extent to which they are entitled to give confidentiality to their sources. Doctors, lawyers and priests have a legally recognized duty to protect confidentiality in pretty much every state but not journalists.
Jeremy Clarkson was the only thing that made the original Top Gear worth watching. Top Gear without Clarkson was simply a worn out 20 year old format. It would be like trying to do the daily show without Jon Stewart.
US TV does not really have characters like Clarkson. If they find someone close they stick them on the tube every night and pretend that they are an expert on every topic imaginable. Dennis Miller was funny once a week on SNL and his HBO show and totally boring every night.
Thanks to the Tories there is not a single NHS dentist in Massachusetts. Bastards!
I have mod points but they won't let me mark the original story 'bogus propaganda' like it deserves. The TV company 'gets it' plenty, they are offering content that is likely to be very popular in the UK market in download format at a reasonably cheap price point.
Or is a company considered to 'not get it' because they don't bother to support linux, a platform which has something less than a 3% penetration in the desktop market and even less in the home market. Apple on the other hand is considered to 'get it' despite the fact that the DRM format of their rabidly proprietary iTunes store only supports a single hardware vendor.
For profit corporation refuses to provide material in format friendly to freeloaders shock horror! Death of the net, news at 9 o'clock.
No, a court would stop the employee from profiting from the theft because they are covered by an NDA. But anyone else who gets hold of the information in good faith is free to do what they want with it.
The example is in any case moot since the recipie has been known for years. It is pretty much an iced tea made with the leaves of a number of plants with a huge quantity of sugar added. The Kott company has a pretty good facsimile which is why the own label colas taste much better than they once did.
I am surprised nobody seems to have had the idea of designer cola to sell in espresso bars.
Depends which band we are talking about. The Beatles produced quite a few albums with ten or more hit tracks. Most don't have more than five tracks worth listening to in their careers let alone on the same album.
So $5 for the good tracks is much less than $15 for a CD with three good tracks and 12 fillers.
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.
I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.
Well maybee you don't get as many Windows users to a blog titled '666 reasons why Bill Gates is the anti-christ'.
And the splash screen that comes up when you use IE might discourage some users 'Why are you using IE you stupid doofus?'
If someone on broadband is worried about security the first thing to do is to put in a cheap $50 NAT/cable router box and lock down any ports that do not need external access.
Possibly, possibly not. Wouldn't it be interesting to get the cruise.com side of the story? It would also be interesting to read the complaint, the links do not work for me.
Omega is a very large travel agency. There are two possible explanations for what is going on. Either the guy is a jerk or the Omega legal department are jerks, (or possibly both)
It certainly seems to be an unusual tactic for a large company to do this sort of thing.
The context that appears to be missed here is that Mummers makes money by bringing lawsuits against spammers. He had threatened a lawsuit himself.
It is not strange or unusual for a company that is threatened with a lawsuit to do some investigation of the person threatening the suit and then bring a pre-emptive suit against them.
Not all the people who bring anti-spam cases are whiter than white. some of the stuff that went on in Utah after their anti-spam law was passed was borderline criminal.
They just hired Ray Ozzie, you know Notes, Groove etc.
Microsoft has far more Turing award winners than anyone else, Hoare, Lampson, etc.
Back in the 1990s when UNIX was first making it beyond academia in a major way the most frequent complaint was the lack of reliability and security. Standard UNIX did not support ACLs in those days, shaddow passwords were not widely supported and you were lucky to keep a UNIX box running for more than a week. There was a reason that the Sun SparkStations had to be sold at a discount to slower machines from DEC.
Firefox is now a big enough target that the spyware gangs have begun to target it. Linux botnets have been around as long as the Windows variety, longer in fact because Linux machines were more likely to have a high speed broadband connection. The main reason that Macs don't seem to be targetted as much is that there is a disproportionate number of laptops and the gangs only want machines that are always on.
It only takes one unpatched vulnerability for a hacker to win. Microsoft have been doing a lot to improve their security and all I hear from the FOSS-fan community is complacency as if there was some immutable law that said that when you make the source code available all the security bugs fall out. As someone said at the RSA conference it is close to impossible to get programmers to review their own code, let alone someone else's. The number of people who do that for fun is much less than the number you need to check three million (and growing) lines of code.
Besides which I don't rate someone as a FOSS supporter unless they actually write code, documentation do design, or something else useful. The FOSS movement has the same problem that the little red hen had, there is no shortage of people wanting the finished product but almost nobody helping to make it.
I am really struggling to work out what the fuss is about, the original article is incoherent.
The alleged attack appears to rely on certain search engines assigning a page rank to the content as opposed to the URL used to reach the content. This would mean that if I look at the top page in a google search, and publish an exact copy then when the search engine indexes my page google will point to my link 50% of the time. This allows me to hijack a page rank and then point to a page of my choice. Bait and switch...
If this bug exists then it is a serious one and could require major effort on the part of Google to repair. On the other hand I am far from convinced that it does. The description is so confused that it is difficult to tell.
Wow! time to change my slashdot sig!
I know, I'll buy Goat.cx and redirect it to a poker site.
First the Hobbit is a much better commercial prospect, it is a known quantity with broad appeal. The Silmirilion is not, it would require a heck of a lot of scriptwriting to get it in a viable format.
But the bigger reason is that Jackson knows that there is no way he can get the rights to any Tolkein material apart from the material already sold until his son Chistopher Tolkein is not controlling the rights.
It appears that Christopher is now denying having said he would refuse to talk to his son for watching the LOTR movie but he does not appear to be any happier about dramatizations. It may be that the issue could be settled with a matter of money but I doubt it.
Oracle licenses for a large system can easily run to seven figures and you have to put up with the Oracle DBAs whose agenda usually consists of buying more Oracle and hiring more DBAs.
If you can fit the database into RAM you can use completely different data management techniques. RAM ande brute CPU is much cheaper than Oracle licenses.
The thing I found bizare about infospace was they just appeared out of nowhere selling product into a market which did not exist yet. Like how could people be buying all that information through their WAP phones before they were shipping?
Well maybe if your day job is flipping burgers it makes sense to spend your time dealing with them.
Costco print off the rebate coupons on the receipt and make it easy to claim them, they also make sure you get paid. I also got the rebate for the Dell I just bought. I expect that Sony will pay for the rebate on the Vaio.
But expecting rebates on floppy disks, cables or those 'its FREE with rebate' schemes, its a bit like expecting a politician to give you a tax cut without finding some other way to raise your taxes.
I have heard the same type of language from both the IRA and the UVF in Northern Ireland. Remember that Dire Straights line 'two men think their Jesus, one of 'em must be wrong'. When you have two groups of people who think that there is no alternative but to anahilate the other the answer is not to decide which side to join.
An occupying force that confiscates land to build settlements is intending to annex the occupied territory, building settlements is an act of aggression, not self defense. The one constant in the middle east is that you can rely on both sides in any conflict to act idiotically.
That is why it is such a bad idea for the US to have built permanent military bases in Iraq, no good is going to come of that. The idea seems to be to try to force the interim government to sign a permanent lease as was done in Cuba and the Philipeans.
They want very particular types of initiative, in particular the initiative to take command of a situation when necessary. What they do not want is people who question authority.
If the US army was such a terrifically well run organization they would not have ended up turning the Iraqi prison camps into torture chambers. Either there is a serious discipline problem or the senior officers gave illegal orders that the soldiers had a duty to refuse. That little fiasco is one of the reasons why there are car bombs going off every day and the insurgency is increasing. It is also on of the reasons why recruitment is 25% under target.
D&D probably does make someone unsuited to military service, but so what? It probably means that they are better adjusted as a person. The Israeli army has been performing a brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for over thirty years. Refusing to serve in such an army is a moral duty.
Actually probably not, the article said that they make two screens at a time. So we can assume that what they would do is to get a sheet of glass that is roughly square, 2m on each side. The large sheet does not need to be spun as fast as a small one, its the linear velocity, not the angular that matters.
What makes larger screens hard is getting the scalled up equipment. And getting the necessary throughput. Larger screens means each step of the process takes longer.
From a yield point of view the transistors are going to be so large that crystal defects are not relevant so you win on that one. On the other hand you have a really big problem getting the mask in registration over such a large area.
As for use, the first ones will be used for computer monitors at trade shows. There is no other use that is going to justify a $30K monitor which is what the first ones off the line are likely to cost. For that use the resolution is perfectly adequate.
The key breakthrough here though is that 82" is large enough for a meetingroom/classroom monitor. Projection displays are very unsatisfactory, the room has to be so dark that people go to sleep. Once the price is $5K or less this becomes an interesting choice.
And GOATSE consists of the five letter SLASHDAQ symbol GOATS, the letter E is added to indicate that the holder is delinquent.
A sign perhaps that Daryl is making himself ready for the time that is rapidly approach when the IBM lawyers demonstrate the meaning of the term 'rebuttal'.
SCOXE? Is that a link to scoatsex?