I'm not talking about using the computers, but about administering them. Troubleshooting free software isn't easy. It requires searching a bunch of different sources, reading a manuals and a good foundation of knowledge about the OS. The only way Linux in the third world is going to be reasonable is when the average volunteer from the first world knows his way around Unix as well as he knows his way around windows.
I agree completely. Next week I'm traveling to The Gambia where I'll be helping build the IT infastructure. They are in the beginning stages of incorporating technology. For example, my first major project will be initially networking the 20 computers of the nation's second largest institution of higher learning.
As it stands, all the computers run Windows. Because of the age of the boxes, they even use windows 95. My first reaction to this is a free unix could be installed on those machines and they could run modern software at a faster pace. It'd also be easier to administer for a multiuser system. And they could all be kept updated from a central location. Plus the FOSS nature allows them more control and they won't be at the whim of major US corporations. Let's just say I think Linux has lots of practical advantages over Windows 95.
But then I had to return to reality. Nobody there except me is going to have a clue about Linux. There are a few other volunteers but they aren't unix experts. And the locals have been learning only Windows for years now, but still only have few of them have a grasp on it. If I were to setup Linux boxen there, when I left, nobody would be left to administer them. The benifits of Linux would be lost, but so would the benifits of a usable computer.
Now this brings me to my point. Unless linux takes a foot-hold in the first world and as many volunteers to The Gambia are experts in it as experts in Windows, it's a bad idea to try to burdon the locals with being FOSS pioneers.
This review isn't worth your time. It didn't even mention that http://video.google.com/ allows you to download the videos in standard formats and youtude only allows you to play the videos with a flash player.
Basically, if you are using youtube and you come across a video you like, it's not possible to save it. That makes it almost worthless.
This is not like other forms of encyption where the attacker to brute force by going through all the possible keys after the fact. With all the telescopes and camera on earth, we can only monitor about 2% of the visible sky. So a single cracker can't possibly record the data from every quasar all the time, or even a small percentage of them. So even though the keyspace is small, the attacker only gets to make a few gueses.
Let's say the communicators choose the least secure method and publish the exact time they will start recording the one time pad from the quasar. And assume the attacker can only monitor 1e-9 percent of the quasars at once. Then they have a fairly good chance of remaining undetected.
Now if they just keep recording from that quasar for the entire session, the cracker could try lots of different stars over time and see which on matches. But enryption often uses cipher-block chaining, where the unecrypted data from earlier in the session is used to encrypt the next block in addition to the shared secret. If they did this the attacker would have no hope of breaking the encryption unless he gets lucky on the first transmission.
If they submitted multi-layed photoshop files, most of them probably were not concerned with getting caught. So they must not have thought what they were doing was unethical. And having the journal come up with some guidelines and a review process for images is hardly going to make a difference.
The problem is the attitude. If they think that modifying these images isn't unetherical, then how about the data? And how will you ever catch those people? It's just a sad state of affairs in this scientific community.
This would become really useful if it could save people ever having to write anything programmed before. Say I want to factor a number. So I write a couple test cases:
8 -> [2,2,2] 9 -> [3,3] 12 -> [4,3]
and then I can use your database to find all the functions that will succesfully pass my test. If it got good it could even combine functions until it got something working. This would be the holy grail of IDE's - write unit tests, click search, polish up - done. The tricky part here is how to efficently search all those functions.
The first step should be to allow searching by argument types, side effects and global access, and returns values. Then add the test cases.
Actually, any website using cookies has to send stealable authentication information. It isn't in the html, but just as well, being in the HTTP. Cookies are basically shared secret keys. The only way to increase the security is to make them timeout, tie them to the sender's IP address (which is useless against people on their local network), or encypt them. Cookies should never be used for authentication.
But I'm still with you as far as the article. I didn't understand what they were doing at all. So many steps, with such bad english. And then that stupid comment just to confuse things about how hackers can only access the sites of users they have the credentials for. I should hope that's still true. Obviously we need somebody to translate all this crap. Was this actually a hole or not?
I don't think is an abuse of the patent system at all. After reading it I doubt it's validity, but it is hardly rediculous. It assumes the truth of lots of fairly unpopular but nonetheless debated theories.
He assumes String theory is valid and that the cosmological constant changes in the locale of a superconductor, citing sources. Then he pulls that and a few other ideas together to make his device. It's all though there and the conclusions are not obviously wrong, and for a patent office worker, even with a bachelors in physics, it would be tough to outright deny.
None-the-less, it makes good Science-Fi. He ties in all kind of popular scientific wonders together, and even has a good explanation of basics, like how time is the fourth dimension. If he did work for the Star Trek franchise I would be glad - this is a really great, well thought idea of a faster then light machine. So much so that I want to recommend you read the patent yourself. Don't think of it as anything except a good explanation of warp drive or the like. The holes aren't immediately obvious, unlike most other Sci-Fi you'll ever read.
Apple also sees no need for action - to load a kernel extension it is necessary to enter the administrator's password, the company noted. We have come to an agreement with Apple to the effect that we will program a demonstration of the damaging action and make it available to Apple. Perhaps someone in the United States will change his or her mind once he or she can only access their hard disk after entering correctly "c't Magazin für Computertechnik" (including the umlaut!).
Wow, that really makes you think. How come not all windows software is made as easy to install? By legitimite venders I mean. That would make linux and mac look user-unfriendly in comparision.
I really doubt this has much potential for misuse. Whatever misuse I can think of there is an easier method already invented. I mean if you let somebody stick an electronic gismo into your body you probably are desperate or out of your mind enough to submit to most anything.
That comment by the poster really needs to be backed up. Until this it's just typical slashdot ramblings.
> If you're truly paranoid, do it 50 times. > That'll bring the error rate of the algorithm > magnitudes below the error rate of your hardware.
This doesn't make any sense. If, for any given time you run the algorithim, the hardware has a one in a million chance of messing up, then after running it 50 times the chance of it giving the wrong answer all the time is closer to zlich then the algorithim giving the wrong answer the majority of the time.
I believe the problem is that the unstable packages recieve too little testing before being thrown into woody. Since debian stable is very outdated typical desktop users probably all want to run at list testing. So packages with bugs that make them worse then their predecessors or have a simple problem like you pointed out should stay in unstable.
Only when the project is considered fairly-stable should it go into testing. That's what unstable is for.
You can use this to get more sleep. After waking up from 8 hours of a good nights rest take the pill and then be more productive during the day. Then you can go to sleep earlier at night.
He only made money because ebooks are undesired.
on
Sharing Doesn't Hurt
·
· Score: 1
Think about it. If his books were availible for free and people still bought the physical thing, then it must be because the physical thing is their preferred medium. I don't think that this will continue to be the case in the future, once ebook readers get more like print.
If his readers had just wanted to give him money then they probably would have bypassed the publisher and sent in the money.
Repost of mine from earlier:
Instead of making slashdot less attractive by putting tons of bandwidth hogging, annoying, internet congesting, unwitty, untargeted, etc banner ads, use text ads. Google serves many more people a day then/., and I'm sure that they have more costs, but they don't need banner ads. In fact I have seen reports that Google is the most succesful search engine in terms of money making.
I love text ads. I click on ads on Google more than any other website because they are targeted and easy on my eyes. Banners with cycling images make you wait to see what the ad is for.
I'm not sure what the costs of slashdot are that are increasing, but I'm sure that there are effective ways to reduce them. Is it the server load? If you use technologies that are more efficent or pass the processing onto the client ( like XML, XSLT, and CSS ) then it would be less cost to you. Also using text ads would decrease load.
On another note: I think that a better, more streamlined, ad free slashdot would be worth a few cents a day. I suggest if you move to a pay system (which I would love) then use a micropay system. Something like $0.03 per page load. It is the fairest way to go, and would encourage people to start reading slashdot because there wouldn't be a commitment.
Person B then resells each copy of the software, without source code. He is not complying with the GPL, but that's okay, because he didn't agree to it. He is just exercising first sale rights that copyright law gives him.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but that isn't correct. If person B doesn't abide by the GPL, then they can't redistribute the software.
there is another way: Get GPLed software. Do whatever to it. Use the GPL to make many copies and sell them to yourself, with source, on your computer. Then redistribute each of those under the first sale law, without source.
maybe that's what you were saying, I realize now. But you wern't clear about person A makeing copies.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about using the computers, but about administering them. Troubleshooting free software isn't easy. It requires searching a bunch of different sources, reading a manuals and a good foundation of knowledge about the OS. The only way Linux in the third world is going to be reasonable is when the average volunteer from the first world knows his way around Unix as well as he knows his way around windows.
As it stands, all the computers run Windows. Because of the age of the boxes, they even use windows 95. My first reaction to this is a free unix could be installed on those machines and they could run modern software at a faster pace. It'd also be easier to administer for a multiuser system. And they could all be kept updated from a central location. Plus the FOSS nature allows them more control and they won't be at the whim of major US corporations. Let's just say I think Linux has lots of practical advantages over Windows 95.
But then I had to return to reality. Nobody there except me is going to have a clue about Linux. There are a few other volunteers but they aren't unix experts. And the locals have been learning only Windows for years now, but still only have few of them have a grasp on it. If I were to setup Linux boxen there, when I left, nobody would be left to administer them. The benifits of Linux would be lost, but so would the benifits of a usable computer.
Now this brings me to my point. Unless linux takes a foot-hold in the first world and as many volunteers to The Gambia are experts in it as experts in Windows, it's a bad idea to try to burdon the locals with being FOSS pioneers.
This review isn't worth your time. It didn't even mention that http://video.google.com/ allows you to download the videos in standard formats and youtude only allows you to play the videos with a flash player.
Basically, if you are using youtube and you come across a video you like, it's not possible to save it. That makes it almost worthless.
This is not like other forms of encyption where the attacker to brute force by going through all the possible keys after the fact. With all the telescopes and camera on earth, we can only monitor about 2% of the visible sky. So a single cracker can't possibly record the data from every quasar all the time, or even a small percentage of them. So even though the keyspace is small, the attacker only gets to make a few gueses.
Let's say the communicators choose the least secure method and publish the exact time they will start recording the one time pad from the quasar. And assume the attacker can only monitor 1e-9 percent of the quasars at once. Then they have a fairly good chance of remaining undetected.
Now if they just keep recording from that quasar for the entire session, the cracker could try lots of different stars over time and see which on matches. But enryption often uses cipher-block chaining, where the unecrypted data from earlier in the session is used to encrypt the next block in addition to the shared secret. If they did this the attacker would have no hope of breaking the encryption unless he gets lucky on the first transmission.
What is there available for this kind of analysis that doesn't cost money to use?
If they submitted multi-layed photoshop files, most of them probably were not concerned with getting caught. So they must not have thought what they were doing was unethical. And having the journal come up with some guidelines and a review process for images is hardly going to make a difference.
The problem is the attitude. If they think that modifying these images isn't unetherical, then how about the data? And how will you ever catch those people? It's just a sad state of affairs in this scientific community.
This would become really useful if it could save people ever having to write anything programmed before. Say I want to factor a number. So I write a couple test cases:
8 -> [2,2,2]
9 -> [3,3]
12 -> [4,3]
and then I can use your database to find all the functions that will succesfully pass my test. If it got good it could even combine functions until it got something working. This would be the holy grail of IDE's - write unit tests, click search, polish up - done. The tricky part here is how to efficently search all those functions.
The first step should be to allow searching by argument types, side effects and global access, and returns values. Then add the test cases.
Hopefully someday.
-- Devin Bayer
Actually, any website using cookies has to send stealable authentication information. It isn't in the html, but just as well, being in the HTTP. Cookies are basically shared secret keys. The only way to increase the security is to make them timeout, tie them to the sender's IP address (which is useless against people on their local network), or encypt them. Cookies should never be used for authentication. But I'm still with you as far as the article. I didn't understand what they were doing at all. So many steps, with such bad english. And then that stupid comment just to confuse things about how hackers can only access the sites of users they have the credentials for. I should hope that's still true. Obviously we need somebody to translate all this crap. Was this actually a hole or not?
I don't think is an abuse of the patent system at all. After reading it I doubt it's validity, but it is hardly rediculous. It assumes the truth of lots of fairly unpopular but nonetheless debated theories. He assumes String theory is valid and that the cosmological constant changes in the locale of a superconductor, citing sources. Then he pulls that and a few other ideas together to make his device. It's all though there and the conclusions are not obviously wrong, and for a patent office worker, even with a bachelors in physics, it would be tough to outright deny. None-the-less, it makes good Science-Fi. He ties in all kind of popular scientific wonders together, and even has a good explanation of basics, like how time is the fourth dimension. If he did work for the Star Trek franchise I would be glad - this is a really great, well thought idea of a faster then light machine. So much so that I want to recommend you read the patent yourself. Don't think of it as anything except a good explanation of warp drive or the like. The holes aren't immediately obvious, unlike most other Sci-Fi you'll ever read.
Apple also sees no need for action - to load a kernel extension it is necessary to enter the administrator's password, the company noted. We have come to an agreement with Apple to the effect that we will program a demonstration of the damaging action and make it available to Apple. Perhaps someone in the United States will change his or her mind once he or she can only access their hard disk after entering correctly "c't Magazin für Computertechnik" (including the umlaut!).
Oddly, the register article reads like an opinion piece, focusing on how AMD should care more about battery life.
kind of like the way the GPL is copyrighted and has "all rights reserved", but we still distribute it with our programs
Wow, that really makes you think. How come not all windows software is made as easy to install? By legitimite venders I mean. That would make linux and mac look user-unfriendly in comparision.
I really doubt this has much potential for misuse. Whatever misuse I can think of there is an easier method already invented. I mean if you let somebody stick an electronic gismo into your body you probably are desperate or out of your mind enough to submit to most anything. That comment by the poster really needs to be backed up. Until this it's just typical slashdot ramblings.
> If you're truly paranoid, do it 50 times.
> That'll bring the error rate of the algorithm
> magnitudes below the error rate of your hardware.
This doesn't make any sense. If, for any given time you run the algorithim, the hardware has a one in a million chance of messing up, then after running it 50 times the chance of it giving the wrong answer all the time is closer to zlich then the algorithim giving the wrong answer the majority of the time.
...then I expect that alot of people are going to start using rackmounts. I know I would, as long as it was afforable.
I don't know. I mean it doesn't even work in Lynx. Go Here
I don't know. It is an old article. And I just want my damn website to get listed on google. But whatever.
I believe the problem is that the unstable packages recieve too little testing before being thrown into woody. Since debian stable is very outdated typical desktop users probably all want to run at list testing. So packages with bugs that make them worse then their predecessors or have a simple problem like you pointed out should stay in unstable.
Only when the project is considered fairly-stable should it go into testing. That's what unstable is for.
You can use this to get more sleep. After waking up from 8 hours of a good nights rest take the pill and then be more productive during the day. Then you can go to sleep earlier at night.
Think about it. If his books were availible for free and people still bought the physical thing, then it must be because the physical thing is their preferred medium. I don't think that this will continue to be the case in the future, once ebook readers get more like print. If his readers had just wanted to give him money then they probably would have bypassed the publisher and sent in the money.
Repost of mine from earlier: Instead of making slashdot less attractive by putting tons of bandwidth hogging, annoying, internet congesting, unwitty, untargeted, etc banner ads, use text ads. Google serves many more people a day then /., and I'm sure that they have more costs, but they don't need banner ads. In fact I have seen reports that Google is the most succesful search engine in terms of money making.
I love text ads. I click on ads on Google more than any other website because they are targeted and easy on my eyes. Banners with cycling images make you wait to see what the ad is for.
I'm not sure what the costs of slashdot are that are increasing, but I'm sure that there are effective ways to reduce them. Is it the server load? If you use technologies that are more efficent or pass the processing onto the client ( like XML, XSLT, and CSS ) then it would be less cost to you. Also using text ads would decrease load.
On another note: I think that a better, more streamlined, ad free slashdot would be worth a few cents a day. I suggest if you move to a pay system (which I would love) then use a micropay system. Something like $0.03 per page load. It is the fairest way to go, and would encourage people to start reading slashdot because there wouldn't be a commitment.
I have the best dial-up isp availible and they don't block port 25. They are also dirt cheap. Talent Group
-- Devin
I have to disagree with you on the expandibility part. Consoles aren't supposed to have expandibility. That makes it harder to develop for.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but that isn't correct. If person B doesn't abide by the GPL, then they can't redistribute the software.
there is another way: Get GPLed software. Do whatever to it. Use the GPL to make many copies and sell them to yourself, with source, on your computer. Then redistribute each of those under the first sale law, without source.
maybe that's what you were saying, I realize now. But you wern't clear about person A makeing copies.