That's a nice sounding comparison. But it is entirely false. There's no evidence that: a. the proposed actions will have much effect b. the supposed effects will be beneficial
In the above example it is clear that bailing is the solution. In real life, the proposed solution may as well be equivalent to chopping a hole in the hull.
Not reacting now is just as rash as hitting any emergency break to bring temperatures down.
That way either 1. Google, MS, Yahoo etc can use the open source implementation (which is a licence to use the code including the patented stuff), possibly requiring opening their own codebase or 2. they licence the patents from IBM
Remember IBM still has the largest patent portfolio.
In short: upon installation, a keypair is generated. The public key is distributed with the votes, the private key is used to vote.
Good idea. One downside: when there's a reinstall, the keypair is regenerated. But as this system is dependent on lot's of users, this will be negligble.
It's the same with bioengineered food, nuclear energy and a lot of other things. People don't understand it, the press exploits that and professional protesters use it to justify their beliefs.
Needless weight.. If it turns out to be neccessary, it's no longer needless weight.
But painting (or coating) wouldn't be a bad idea for the heat tiles either. It would toughen them enough to withstand impact with some foam. Heck, a layer of Elmers glue would be enough. It would just burn off on reentry.
It's an often heard argument, but it's an empty one, at least in the Windows vs OSS context.
Microsoft explicitly excludes any damages, IN ALL CAPS. See paragraph 13 of the winxp pro eula for an example: EULA. They are even more explicit than most OS licenses.
As MS isn't accountable, then who is? The software supplier? If so, the situation isn't any different than using OSS.
Considering the (lack of) speed with which MS reacts to critical bugs and flaws in their products, the only conclusion is that MS is actually LESS accountable than most large open source developers.
Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?) Yet another use for the tinfoil aht [g]
On topic. What I dislike about this it that they start using this in Iraq. If they don't dare to use it against US citizens, then why use it against Iraqis? That's asking for trouble.
Is there a way to implement one time passwords with ssh?
I wouldn't mind carrying around a slip of paper with 50 or so generated passwords, to login to my server. I'd cross off one at a time, each time only allowing the next one to be able to login some maintenance account.
In the editor's defense: they also see the submissions, so they really read lots more slashdot than the readers do.
So when they post something they may just have missed it the first time: after 250 potential articles, you may skip over some posted during your holiday.
That said, procedures should include a quick check on the keywords. It would improve quality.
To any trained scientist, that's exactly what an explantion is. A theory with it's arguments. Or a number of theories with their arguments and counter arguments.
It's not about the hosters or hosting providers, it's for the access providers. They are to log and retain everything that's passed to the clients, at least for a couple of months.
It's under debate, but there's already european legislation about. ISPs have already been forced to make huge investments on this account. Nuts.
Or, au contraire, the judge no longer sees a weaker party and a big industry, but instead sees two big industries facing each other.
Before now, the industries were rather limited in picking their fights. They had to go to individuals or small companies. Now they can choose, based on the merits of a case, if they take on a large company, or the small one, or a bunch of individuals.
I think p2p is here to stay, and copyrights will suffer. But to think that giving the copyright holders more options will render them ineffective is just not logical.
Eh, no. Assuming a perfect distribution, for colisions to happen you need at least one bit more than the size of your hash.
In case of the 128bit MD5, again assuming that the distribution is perfect, you need at least 128+1 bits for 1 collision. With 128 bits there are no collisions.
The one that makes the claim. In the above example you go to work for another employer. The malicous employer slaps you with the fraudulent contract _claiming_ you cannot do that.
Then you whip out the original document. Presto: both documents have the same signature. Now it's up to the party making the claim to prove which contract was signed. Impossible.
The reverse is also true: the programmer works on a super secret project. He signs a secrecy declaration. If he can apply the exact same signature to his lunch agreement, and walks out with the sourcecode, his employer is screwed, as per the example above.
Etc. An agreement is legally binding in any form. The only reason to have a signed copy of any agreement (digitally or paper) is to have proof of the agreement. If the signature is no longer proof, no agreement rises above verbal agreements, evidence wise.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI
snooker has 17 balls:
10 red
1 green
1 brown
1 yellow
1 blue
1 pink
1 black
1 white
pool has 16 (8 full (including the black), 7 halves and 1 white)
That, and will 50000 years be long enough to invalidate the copyright? Pluto is Disney after all...
That depends on the relative velocity between the colliding objects.
That's a nice sounding comparison. But it is entirely false. There's no evidence that:
a. the proposed actions will have much effect
b. the supposed effects will be beneficial
In the above example it is clear that bailing is the solution. In real life, the proposed solution may as well be equivalent to chopping a hole in the hull.
Not reacting now is just as rash as hitting any emergency break to bring temperatures down.
Not if IBM patents it.
That way either
1. Google, MS, Yahoo etc can use the open source implementation (which is a licence to use the code including the patented stuff), possibly requiring opening their own codebase or
2. they licence the patents from IBM
Remember IBM still has the largest patent portfolio.
In short: upon installation, a keypair is generated. The public key is distributed with the votes, the private key is used to vote.
Good idea. One downside: when there's a reinstall, the keypair is regenerated. But as this system is dependent on lot's of users, this will be negligble.
Not irrelevant. Incomprehensible.
It's the same with bioengineered food, nuclear energy and a lot of other things. People don't understand it, the press exploits that and professional protesters use it to justify their beliefs.
Needless weight.. If it turns out to be neccessary, it's no longer needless weight.
But painting (or coating) wouldn't be a bad idea for the heat tiles either. It would toughen them enough to withstand impact with some foam. Heck, a layer of Elmers glue would be enough. It would just burn off on reentry.
the led wouldn't be in the sound circuitry, but in a completely seperate circuit.
They need the extra number for the integrated PCI Express controller, integrated on the chip. Chips without that controller will have less pins.
I think they will try to keep the number of pins down: more pins is more expensive to manufacture and transport.
What is this accountability you speak of?
It's an often heard argument, but it's an empty one, at least in the Windows vs OSS context.
Microsoft explicitly excludes any damages, IN ALL CAPS. See paragraph 13 of the winxp pro eula for an example: EULA. They are even more explicit than most OS licenses.
As MS isn't accountable, then who is? The software supplier? If so, the situation isn't any different than using OSS.
Considering the (lack of) speed with which MS reacts to critical bugs and flaws in their products, the only conclusion is that MS is actually LESS accountable than most large open source developers.
Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?)
Yet another use for the tinfoil aht [g]
On topic. What I dislike about this it that they start using this in Iraq. If they don't dare to use it against US citizens, then why use it against Iraqis? That's asking for trouble.
Is there a way to implement one time passwords with ssh?
I wouldn't mind carrying around a slip of paper with 50 or so generated passwords, to login to my server. I'd cross off one at a time, each time only allowing the next one to be able to login some maintenance account.
In the editor's defense: they also see the submissions, so they really read lots more slashdot than the readers do.
So when they post something they may just have missed it the first time: after 250 potential articles, you may skip over some posted during your holiday.
That said, procedures should include a quick check on the keywords. It would improve quality.
Is this the minidistro of OrcLinux? Does it turn your desktop green?
He didn't mention MS Windows. You did.
It's the same here in the Netherlands. There should be European directives against this
To any trained scientist, that's exactly what an explantion is. A theory with it's arguments. Or a number of theories with their arguments and counter arguments.
Go see Popper, Kuhn.
To make this work you need to have a majority of readers that are sympathetic to your site and a certain critical mass of readers.
Needless to say, a politician has neither.
It's not about the hosters or hosting providers, it's for the access providers. They are to log and retain everything that's passed to the clients, at least for a couple of months.
It's under debate, but there's already european legislation about. ISPs have already been forced to make huge investments on this account. Nuts.
FWIW, this is standard issue in Europe already
Or, au contraire, the judge no longer sees a weaker party and a big industry, but instead sees two big industries facing each other.
Before now, the industries were rather limited in picking their fights. They had to go to individuals or small companies. Now they can choose, based on the merits of a case, if they take on a large company, or the small one, or a bunch of individuals.
I think p2p is here to stay, and copyrights will suffer. But to think that giving the copyright holders more options will render them ineffective is just not logical.
Eh, no. Assuming a perfect distribution, for colisions to happen you need at least one bit more than the size of your hash.
In case of the 128bit MD5, again assuming that the distribution is perfect, you need at least 128+1 bits for 1 collision. With 128 bits there are no collisions.
The one that makes the claim. In the above example you go to work for another employer. The malicous employer slaps you with the fraudulent contract _claiming_ you cannot do that.
Then you whip out the original document. Presto: both documents have the same signature. Now it's up to the party making the claim to prove which contract was signed. Impossible.
The reverse is also true: the programmer works on a super secret project. He signs a secrecy declaration. If he can apply the exact same signature to his lunch agreement, and walks out with the sourcecode, his employer is screwed, as per the example above.
Etc. An agreement is legally binding in any form. The only reason to have a signed copy of any agreement (digitally or paper) is to have proof of the agreement. If the signature is no longer proof, no agreement rises above verbal agreements, evidence wise.
because ...IT's... something completely different of course...