Re:Digital signatures are not really signatures.
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 2
UHM? By this argument, a paper signature is meaningless because all it proves is that someone ran an ink producing device over a piece of paper in a certain pattern. A pattern which, oddly enough, can easily be represented as A SEQUENCE OF DIGITS and in fact, is FAR EASIER to forge, since this sequence of digits is represented in its ENTIRETY on EVERY SIGNED DOCUMENT! On the other hand, with a cryptographic signature (as opposed to a plaintext sig like a handwritten one) the sequence of digits is NOT expressed in the signature. Please, actually bother to read one of the books that you cited.
The story was changed, but the fact that it was updated was not marked. So this comment isn't really redundant exactly. It is NOW, but wasn't when it was written.
No... Andover was bought by VA Linux some time ago (remember)? So Andover doesn't actually exist as an entity. VA seems to be in the process of renaming Andover "OSDN", but the ownership isn't changing. This info is pretty easily obtained from the "About OSDN" link on OSDN's page.
Actually, the "potential uptime" argument is irrelevant. It's not that Windows crashes after X days, it's that it has an X% chance of crashing in any given minute that's the problem. It crashes often enough ten minutes after it boots. This is less true of NT, but even a professionally-administered NT workstation that's only on during the day will lock up cold once every 3 months or so.
Guess what d00d, you're wrong. In the real world of suits, idiots, and people whose time is valuble, EVERY piece of software needs support. It doesn't matter how good it is. Joe and Jane may not need support for their iMac, but you can bet that if you walked into a Fortune 500 boardroom and said, "I'm going to sell you the best piece of software that could possibly be written", and they believed you, their first question would be "Who's going to support it?"
Actually, Pentium optimization only helps for the specific CPU called an Intel Pentium. P2, P3, AMD anything, or whatnot, you may as well not bother. It even slows things down for some of the more modern chips.
Heh, here the GTE tech showed up, fiddled with the jacks for a couple minutes and was done. He then looked at the CAT5 running along the walls throughout this place, and said "er, well, I guess you know what to do now". We smiled and nodded. He left.
I don't know about you, but all the modern offices I'VE seen basically SHUT DOWN when the net connection goes dead *anyway*. Plus the connect is up almost 100% of the time.
Whell, yeah, you're right of course. My post was mostly in response to "I think somebody found a BSD copyright message", and was sort of "Why rely on hearsay, see for yourself" thing.
He's writing too many emails, and losing his English. First of all he said "we would allow our logos to be used at a porn site" which was an obvious slip. As for his last paragraph, what he MEANT to say was that he expected commercial review sites to have attorneys. He just got his wires crossed. Still, he's talking out of his ass as much as any Slashdotter: "You cannot use trademarks without the owners permission." This is blatantly false. Trademark law forbids certain usages, but gives the owners of the trademarks no power whatsoever to dictate what those forbidden usages are. Other than saying that "this agreement isn't bad because it isn't legally valid anyway" I don't know what validity his position has.
First off, Microsoft is hurting me personally because the Microsoft monopoly software is more expensive than it should be. This makes everything I buy more expensive. Modern economics: everything affects everything else. Secondly, let me point out that the meaning of a corporation is that its stockholders are (up to a point) not legally liable for what the Corporation does. That liability protection is incredibly important; Paul Allen would probably rather we take away his company's copyrights than take away his liability protection. But when you are acting through such a protective entity, you *don't* have human levels of freedom. It's a trade-off; you don't have to take it, but if you want to be absolved of much legal responsibility, you can. The Microsoft founders did, and shouldn't pretend that they're still entitled to do whatever they want. With respect to their company, they have *given up* their natural rights.
I think you're right. I've got a better idea. Instead, let's simply revoke government protection on all their patents and copyrights. Now pay attention: I'm not suggesting that we take them AWAY, only that the government stop using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to _defend_ them. Let's even go further: let's revoke taxpayer-funded protections on their physical property too. Why should *my* tax dollars pay for the security of the campus of a corporation that hurts me? Microsoft is not a natural entity; it therefore has no natural rights. Its only valid existence is as a boon to the people of the country that it's in. If a corporation is harmful, it has no natural right to exist in the first place. On the other hand, the People do have natural rights. So when it comes down to "benefit the People" vs "benefit Microsoft" the People should win. Every time. There's a phrase for the attitude that disagrees. Being wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
UHM?
By this argument, a paper signature is meaningless because all it proves is that someone ran an ink producing device over a piece of paper in a certain pattern.
A pattern which, oddly enough, can easily be represented as A SEQUENCE OF DIGITS and in fact, is FAR EASIER to forge, since this sequence of digits is represented in its ENTIRETY on EVERY SIGNED DOCUMENT!
On the other hand, with a cryptographic signature (as opposed to a plaintext sig like a handwritten one) the sequence of digits is NOT expressed in the signature.
Please, actually bother to read one of the books that you cited.
The story was changed, but the fact that it was updated was not marked. So this comment isn't really redundant exactly. It is NOW, but wasn't when it was written.
"Slot A" was never used by Intel. Intel's slots were numbered.
Everything else is completely factual. And indeed, Slot 1/2/etc were CRAP.
No...
Andover was bought by VA Linux some time ago (remember)? So Andover doesn't actually exist as an entity. VA seems to be in the process of renaming Andover "OSDN", but the ownership isn't changing. This info is pretty easily obtained from the "About OSDN" link on OSDN's page.
Anyone else notice ./ lost a few hours? The newer stories disappeared and I'm once again eligible to M2...
Careful with that time machine there, Rob!
It's not in the manual that comes with the OS, therefore it's "undocumented"
I know, I know, IHBT. YHAND too.
Undocumented feature in DOS: "fdisk /mbr"
Rebuilds the DOS/Win9x boot sector.
Hope this helps next time.
Well that's obvious. He's going to do like Hammer in Xenogears. Duh!
"cpu speed and memory are about 10 times what they are today"
"by then I'll be dead"
What, you can't stay alive for 6 years?
Actually, the "potential uptime" argument is irrelevant. It's not that Windows crashes after X days, it's that it has an X% chance of crashing in any given minute that's the problem. It crashes often enough ten minutes after it boots.
This is less true of NT, but even a professionally-administered NT workstation that's only on during the day will lock up cold once every 3 months or so.
Guess what d00d, you're wrong.
In the real world of suits, idiots, and people whose time is valuble, EVERY piece of software needs support. It doesn't matter how good it is.
Joe and Jane may not need support for their iMac, but you can bet that if you walked into a Fortune 500 boardroom and said, "I'm going to sell you the best piece of software that could possibly be written", and they believed you, their first question would be "Who's going to support it?"
Actually, Pentium optimization only helps for the specific CPU called an Intel Pentium. P2, P3, AMD anything, or whatnot, you may as well not bother. It even slows things down for some of the more modern chips.
Heh, here the GTE tech showed up, fiddled with the jacks for a couple minutes and was done. He then looked at the CAT5 running along the walls throughout this place, and said "er, well, I guess you know what to do now". We smiled and nodded. He left.
I don't know about you, but all the modern offices I'VE seen basically SHUT DOWN when the net connection goes dead *anyway*. Plus the connect is up almost 100% of the time.
Yes, of course; they shouldn't be punished because they're good at what they do. They should be punished because they've broken the law.
Duh.
*shrug* it's in win95. I don't have 98SE lying around. Too expensive.
Whell, yeah, you're right of course. My post was mostly in response to "I think somebody found a BSD copyright message", and was sort of "Why rely on hearsay, see for yourself" thing.
FYI they're not "hidden" really, and trivial to find. Just take a peek at TELNET.EXE or the command-line FTP.EXE in win95/98 sometime.
No, it's not the people downloading, it's the people posting who are breaking current US laws.
He's writing too many emails, and losing his English. First of all he said "we would allow our logos to be used at a porn site" which was an obvious slip. As for his last paragraph, what he MEANT to say was that he expected commercial review sites to have attorneys. He just got his wires crossed.
Still, he's talking out of his ass as much as any Slashdotter: "You cannot use trademarks without the owners permission." This is blatantly false. Trademark law forbids certain usages, but gives the owners of the trademarks no power whatsoever to dictate what those forbidden usages are. Other than saying that "this agreement isn't bad because it isn't legally valid anyway" I don't know what validity his position has.
Wow! This guy sounds exactly like that Steve Woston troll! That's amazing!
Hats off to you, Mr. J-J-J-Julius!
First off, Microsoft is hurting me personally because the Microsoft monopoly software is more expensive than it should be. This makes everything I buy more expensive. Modern economics: everything affects everything else.
Secondly, let me point out that the meaning of a corporation is that its stockholders are (up to a point) not legally liable for what the Corporation does. That liability protection is incredibly important; Paul Allen would probably rather we take away his company's copyrights than take away his liability protection. But when you are acting through such a protective entity, you *don't* have human levels of freedom. It's a trade-off; you don't have to take it, but if you want to be absolved of much legal responsibility, you can. The Microsoft founders did, and shouldn't pretend that they're still entitled to do whatever they want. With respect to their company, they have *given up* their natural rights.
Here's a clue: Read my post, particularly the part about, oh, I dunno, differences between natural and artificial entities?
I think you're right. I've got a better idea.
Instead, let's simply revoke government protection on all their patents and copyrights. Now pay attention: I'm not suggesting that we take them AWAY, only that the government stop using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to _defend_ them.
Let's even go further: let's revoke taxpayer-funded protections on their physical property too. Why should *my* tax dollars pay for the security of the campus of a corporation that hurts me?
Microsoft is not a natural entity; it therefore has no natural rights. Its only valid existence is as a boon to the people of the country that it's in. If a corporation is harmful, it has no natural right to exist in the first place. On the other hand, the People do have natural rights. So when it comes down to "benefit the People" vs "benefit Microsoft" the People should win. Every time.
There's a phrase for the attitude that disagrees.
Being wrong.
People are stupid?