"You'll know they're talking, but you won't know what they're saying. It's quite impossible to crack the algorithms," said Lowrey, whose company, Endeavors Technology, is designing a file-sharing system for corporate clients.
Actually, you don't even know they're talking. A program can send small encrypted blocks regardless of whether the user actually sent a message. If nothing is to be exchanged some no-op message can be transferred which is as large as a normal encrypted message block. Don't let the attacker know more than necessary.
As for the elitist country-club type of sharing cliques - those always existed. Whether they are using private IRC channels, FTP or some newer p2p system like DC, that's not much of a difference. Of course release groups don't let anybody join, to name one example.
The problem with private circles - they can always be infiltrated by 'traitors'. It's not a technical problem anymore once a person feels threatened enough to cooperate with the police.
As a native speaker of German, I can only support this. While some of the French efforts are exaggerated, at least there is a general understanding that certain trends should be prevented or at least steered in the right direction. Certain words are hard (or impossible) to translate in a way that doesn't take a complete sentence. But in other cases people are just lazy or stupid. It's perfectly convenient to say "runterladen", but for some it must be "downloaden". Some people actually prefer to say "Files" instead of "Dateien". I don't quite get it. Purists may be furious about "new German" like the now ubiquitous "Sinn machen" for "Sinn ergeben" (which I think is impossible to reverse now that it has caught on), they should better come up with good expressions for words that are hard to translate in a concise manner.
No, I think that's a very bad analogy. Germany was an aggressor that forced Russia to defend itself. Germany made severe errors in its strategy. Russia got significant help from other non-axis nations. The US has means at its disposal that were unthinkable back in the 40s. The US today are not acting out of some superiority feeling / need to expand its territories but have mostly rational reasons when intervening. The US have significant non-violent means to influence world politics.
China is big, bad, evil, and will fight the USA @ some point, I say nuke the fuckers now and then save the tech industry by accidently nuking the shit out of India.
They're a brutal communist dictatorship bent on our destruction.
Hardly. They recently discovered that capitalism is a great thing, and while they are a brutal dictatorship, they really like doing business with the world. Plus, USS Reagan or not, they're no match for the US military. By far.
Interesting that there is an extension to DNS as described in RFC 1876 that allows an owner to identify the location of their host.
If you give or take a couple of miles when defining your host's location, it'll still be enough to get everyone a nice visual traceroute, but it wouldn't hurt security. I guess.
I see this as part of an effort for the US to shuck off the need for military bases on foreign soil and "bring the boys back home", thus decreasing their need to give a flying &#^%* what the rest of the world thinks of their foreign policy.
However, as long as the US continues its interventions abroad, there will always be a need to put US soldiers in foreign countries. You can invade a country like Iraq relatively easily, but making sure that things change requires people on the ground, on location, for a prolonged period of time. I hear that there are still 150K US soldiers in Iraq. The new fancy fighter technology just helps with step #1, the invasion. So I don't think that the boys will be home any earlier.
In some not too recent discussion here on/. somebody posted a link to how a guy got pissed off and cracked a spammer's computer, collecting all sorts of data (including not-so-good nude pictures) and writing a highly amusing report on it. Does anyone know that link?
I still don't get why the fact that many people are infringing on copyright makes it better. There is a lot to loathe about the RIAA/MPAA, but basically it's their good right to go after people who share stuff that doesn't belong to them. I don't think charging ridiculously high amounts of money for that delict is right, and I don't think it's okay to go after people who provide a mere file search engine. But if they download a Britney Spears song from user X, that's proof that X did something wrong, and if they decide to sue him, that's OK. They don't have to use a new approach as the ad demands. Their business model is charging extremely high prices for music of mostly dubious quality. But that doesn't mean that basic law doesn't apply anymore.
It's usually a good idea to pick the right tool for the job. If photos fit better into their website design, so be it. Besides, I hardly think they have to convince anyone to use GIF. Those with a pragmatic view will use GIF instead of PNG for better browser compatibility (see Slashdot). I guess they make most money from licensing LZW to large enterprises like Adobe. Those will not make their decisions based on what Unisys uses on their website but strictly on commercial aspects (can I get away with not supporting TIFF/LZW, will people get angry [=> will that damage our image] when Acrobat Reader does not load all PDFs properly anymore, etc.).
Then Unisys Corp purchased the rights And changed the terms on LZW overnight
Actually Unisys got the patent in 1985. Welch (the W in LZW) developed it working for Unisys (more accurately, Sperry, which later became Unisys). See LZW's Wikipedia entry.
2) From the interview: For instance, if you've got a static method that takes an object as a parameter, and it modifies that object, then somebody probably just slapped that method in there because it was easy.
I don't think that's really true. Classes with static methods seem to be very convenient to me. Much like the decorator pattern, where code (here in the static method) only deals with modifying data objects given to it. That code doesn't need any kind of memory to store some kind of state, so it can be (should be) static.
Obviously, it can happen that a developer puts a method to some particular place where it doesn't fit because he's lazy.
Anyway, it'd be great to have something like Jackpot as a basis to write your own analysis tools.
Schindler's List was banned in Saudia Arabia because it was too pro-Jewish, Babe was banned in Malaysia because a pig was the main character. All very sad.
I, being born in 1975, was a kid when this came out. I have found that lots of things that came out when I was a kid were actually really bad.
I know what you mean. I recently saw The Fall Guy again. It's, ehm, not as great as I remembered it. You better be eight years old. Knight Rider, Airwolf, same there.
Books such as these are different from the usual sort of SF which postulates a scenario and the rules in which that scenario works, because they start with known history or events, and extrapolate, either by asking "What would have happened if X happened (instead)?" or "What would have happened if X had not happened (instead)?" It's also fun to do your own thought-experiments along these lines, once you get the knack.:)
To recommend another book from that sub-genre: I liked Fatherland by Robert Harris. It's situated in 1964 (!) Nazi Germany, with Hitler celebrating his 75th birthday.
Froogle detects a certain camera as USD 499, although it really costs 30 USD less, which you can only see if you put that camera in the shopping cart. Here's the explanation - what's wrong with the price being an advertisement? Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me.
See article (unfortunately only its beginning, and without illustrations) if you understand German. Reading the full thing (very thorough) in the print version, you'll learn that WM9 'wins', closely followed by Real's latest codec.
There are a couple of specialized technical groups that are not interesting for most trolls. That's why the knowledgeable people there have not been driven away yet. These groups are quite good. You typically recognize them like this: people use real names, know how to quote, have correctly separated signatures, use correct spelling and grammar most of the time, almost no meta discussion of the type 'please change your X', almost no flaming. Not that it's all about those technicalities, but they're a good sign that discussion will be at a high level.
My roommate (with a slower PC than me) had Quicktime 5 installed. He had smooth playback of the 1000px version, while I have that sort of playback only with the 640px version.
However, he had only Quicktime 5 installed, so he was missing the sound - obviously, the audio codec wasn't delivered with QT5, and the automatic upgrade didn't work. He upgraded to Quicktime 6. Now he has sound, but the 1000px is no longer smooth for him. Is the audio codec maybe extremely CPU-intensive?
Slashdot Mirror
"You'll know they're talking, but you won't know what they're saying. It's quite impossible to crack the algorithms," said Lowrey, whose company, Endeavors Technology, is designing a file-sharing system for corporate clients.
Actually, you don't even know they're talking. A program can send small encrypted blocks regardless of whether the user actually sent a message. If nothing is to be exchanged some no-op message can be transferred which is as large as a normal encrypted message block. Don't let the attacker know more than necessary.
As for the elitist country-club type of sharing cliques - those always existed. Whether they are using private IRC channels, FTP or some newer p2p system like DC, that's not much of a difference. Of course release groups don't let anybody join, to name one example.
The problem with private circles - they can always be infiltrated by 'traitors'. It's not a technical problem anymore once a person feels threatened enough to cooperate with the police.
As a native speaker of German, I can only support this. While some of the French efforts are exaggerated, at least there is a general understanding that certain trends should be prevented or at least steered in the right direction. Certain words are hard (or impossible) to translate in a way that doesn't take a complete sentence. But in other cases people are just lazy or stupid. It's perfectly convenient to say "runterladen", but for some it must be "downloaden". Some people actually prefer to say "Files" instead of "Dateien". I don't quite get it. Purists may be furious about "new German" like the now ubiquitous "Sinn machen" for "Sinn ergeben" (which I think is impossible to reverse now that it has caught on), they should better come up with good expressions for words that are hard to translate in a concise manner.
Yahoo is the name of some tribe / country / race in Jonathan Swift's novel "Gulliver's travels".
A good analogy is Germany VS Russia in WW2
No, I think that's a very bad analogy. Germany was an aggressor that forced Russia to defend itself. Germany made severe errors in its strategy. Russia got significant help from other non-axis nations. The US has means at its disposal that were unthinkable back in the 40s. The US today are not acting out of some superiority feeling / need to expand its territories but have mostly rational reasons when intervening. The US have significant non-violent means to influence world politics.
China is big, bad, evil, and will fight the USA @ some point, I say nuke the fuckers now and then save the tech industry by accidently nuking the shit out of India.
Just nuke everyone else while you're at it...
They're a brutal communist dictatorship bent on our destruction.
Hardly. They recently discovered that capitalism is a great thing, and while they are a brutal dictatorship, they really like doing business with the world. Plus, USS Reagan or not, they're no match for the US military. By far.
Interesting that there is an extension to DNS as described in RFC 1876 that allows an owner to identify the location of their host.
If you give or take a couple of miles when defining your host's location, it'll still be enough to get everyone a nice visual traceroute, but it wouldn't hurt security. I guess.
Thanks, also to the AC who answered.
I see this as part of an effort for the US to shuck off the need for military bases on foreign soil and "bring the boys back home", thus decreasing their need to give a flying &#^%* what the rest of the world thinks of their foreign policy.
However, as long as the US continues its interventions abroad, there will always be a need to put US soldiers in foreign countries. You can invade a country like Iraq relatively easily, but making sure that things change requires people on the ground, on location, for a prolonged period of time. I hear that there are still 150K US soldiers in Iraq. The new fancy fighter technology just helps with step #1, the invasion. So I don't think that the boys will be home any earlier.
In some not too recent discussion here on /. somebody posted a link to how a guy got pissed off and cracked a spammer's computer, collecting all sorts of data (including not-so-good nude pictures) and writing a highly amusing report on it. Does anyone know that link?
It's simple, and to the point.
I still don't get why the fact that many people are infringing on copyright makes it better. There is a lot to loathe about the RIAA/MPAA, but basically it's their good right to go after people who share stuff that doesn't belong to them. I don't think charging ridiculously high amounts of money for that delict is right, and I don't think it's okay to go after people who provide a mere file search engine. But if they download a Britney Spears song from user X, that's proof that X did something wrong, and if they decide to sue him, that's OK. They don't have to use a new approach as the ad demands. Their business model is charging extremely high prices for music of mostly dubious quality. But that doesn't mean that basic law doesn't apply anymore.
Isn't that already a trademark of NeoModus?
Or are file-sharing and telecommunication different enough to justify the same name?
It's usually a good idea to pick the right tool for the job. If photos fit better into their website design, so be it. Besides, I hardly think they have to convince anyone to use GIF. Those with a pragmatic view will use GIF instead of PNG for better browser compatibility (see Slashdot). I guess they make most money from licensing LZW to large enterprises like Adobe. Those will not make their decisions based on what Unisys uses on their website but strictly on commercial aspects (can I get away with not supporting TIFF/LZW, will people get angry [=> will that damage our image] when Acrobat Reader does not load all PDFs properly anymore, etc.).
Then Unisys Corp purchased the rights
And changed the terms on LZW overnight
Actually Unisys got the patent in 1985. Welch (the W in LZW) developed it working for Unisys (more accurately, Sperry, which later became Unisys). See LZW's Wikipedia entry.
GIF and JPEG are for different types of images.
Oops, wrong story!
Very interesting read. Two comments:
1) SCID seems to be a similar thing.
2) From the interview: For instance, if you've got a static method that takes an object as a parameter, and it modifies that object, then somebody probably just slapped that method in there because it was easy.
I don't think that's really true. Classes with static methods seem to be very convenient to me. Much like the decorator pattern, where code (here in the static method) only deals with modifying data objects given to it. That code doesn't need any kind of memory to store some kind of state, so it can be (should be) static.
Obviously, it can happen that a developer puts a method to some particular place where it doesn't fit because he's lazy.
Anyway, it'd be great to have something like Jackpot as a basis to write your own analysis tools.
Well, it's good to know they have some standards.
Schindler's List was banned in Saudia Arabia because it was too pro-Jewish, Babe was banned in Malaysia because a pig was the main character. All very sad.
I, being born in 1975, was a kid when this came out. I have found that lots of things that came out when I was a kid were actually really bad.
I know what you mean. I recently saw The Fall Guy again. It's, ehm, not as great as I remembered it. You better be eight years old. Knight Rider, Airwolf, same there.
Books such as these are different from the usual sort of SF which postulates a scenario and the rules in which that scenario works, because they start with known history or events, and extrapolate, either by asking "What would have happened if X happened (instead)?" or "What would have happened if X had not happened (instead)?" It's also fun to do your own thought-experiments along these lines, once you get the knack. :)
To recommend another book from that sub-genre: I liked Fatherland by Robert Harris. It's situated in 1964 (!) Nazi Germany, with Hitler celebrating his 75th birthday.
40 - 60% of the Chinese population own a computer? Do you have anything to back that up?
Froogle detects a certain camera as USD 499, although it really costs 30 USD less, which you can only see if you put that camera in the shopping cart. Here's the explanation - what's wrong with the price being an advertisement? Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me.
See article (unfortunately only its beginning, and without illustrations) if you understand German. Reading the full thing (very thorough) in the print version, you'll learn that WM9 'wins', closely followed by Real's latest codec.
There are a couple of specialized technical groups that are not interesting for most trolls. That's why the knowledgeable people there have not been driven away yet. These groups are quite good. You typically recognize them like this: people use real names, know how to quote, have correctly separated signatures, use correct spelling and grammar most of the time, almost no meta discussion of the type 'please change your X', almost no flaming. Not that it's all about those technicalities, but they're a good sign that discussion will be at a high level.
CGI = computer-generated imagery
My roommate (with a slower PC than me) had Quicktime 5 installed. He had smooth playback of the 1000px version, while I have that sort of playback only with the 640px version.
However, he had only Quicktime 5 installed, so he was missing the sound - obviously, the audio codec wasn't delivered with QT5, and the automatic upgrade didn't work. He upgraded to Quicktime 6. Now he has sound, but the 1000px is no longer smooth for him. Is the audio codec maybe extremely CPU-intensive?