Shred works by taking checksums of groups of three lines. Adding a line at the end won't keep it from matching every other group of three lines.
Furthermore, the linux code in question is a matter of historical record. The only code which could be usefully changed would be the code which is being released only via shred-indexes. In that case, though, the person trying to modify the code would only decrease the match-likelyhood rating by adding random crap.
Dan Bernstein's stuff is most definately not public domain. He exercises control over derivative works.
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
"If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute. "
Public domain software means nobody has a right to control derivative works.
Obscinity, dangerous speach, treason, government secrets, contractual gag orders, judicial proceedings, lies, slander, and libel are all non-protected speach. Baning them will not impugn the first amendment.
That's a tautology. Of course banning non-protected speech doesn't "impugn the first ammendment"; "protected" refers to first ammendment protection. It's still legitimate to question WHY so-called "obscene" material isn't deserving of protection when its production doesn't require that a crime have been comitted.
Publication is protected even if it's unpopular unless it might give someone a woody?
The bigger problem is jitter induced by insufficient bandwidth in the cable. The bits may all get there, but the clock is sent along with them, and the contents of the data can affect the timing.
You can "guess" a one-time pad, but the whole point is that you can never know you guessed correctly. There is no way to determine whether the "correct" decryption is
"The secret formula is milk. Just milk." or "ethereal is wrong about one-time pads." or "8fj3*&(A*&#fjhdsdf*&!!@$8F(D&*Fjlkdsj#"
because all decryptions are equally likely. This property is why one-time pads are described as unbreakable. For a traditional keyed cipher, it's unlikely that more than one key would lead to an intelligible decryption, so you know when you got it right.
Why not leave that decision to the parents, who will be morally and legally obligated to provide for that person for the first 18 or so years of their life?
Most of the time a single web browser pulling pages with pauses in between to read them doesn't get anywhere close to the bandwidth cap on cable. The page is done loading before there's time for the TCP connection to ramp up to the maximum speed. Then, the connection sits idle while you read the page. As I mentioned, I'm explicitly not considering the case of someone who's leaching from usenet or morpheus 24/7. They're the reason there are byte-per-second caps. Most people won't hit those with casual browsing.
Say you manage to download 5 megs worth of web pages in a one-hour browsing session, then somebody else in your house does the same using the same computer. This is 10 megs over two hours. Say you neighbors do the same, but using two NATted computers. That's 10 megs over one hour. The total number of bytes used in a day is the same for the two households, but the short-term bandwidth requirement is higher, and if lots of people are doing it, then the cable company has to start buying fatter pipes to the outside world to keep all the connections from slowing down due to increased peak load.
Your "more computers != more bandwidth" argument assumes that the majority of cable households are pulling down everything they can up to the bandwidth cap all the time.
There are two kinds of cable customers, the kind who's looking to download as much as humanly possible, and the kind who don't pass more traffic than they would with dialup, they just get what they do get more quickly.
Two computers sharing a connection in a household of the latter kind of user means twice the bandwidth, and the cable company doesn't really WANT the first kind of customer.
Two leaches sharing a connection won't pull more data than a single leach, but two casual web browsers sharing a connection will use twice as much as a single casual web browser.
MPEG is heavily patented too, they just don't seem to care about free software implementations much. In ISO-land, "open" means "publicly documented", not "everybody can use it for no fee".
Slashdot Mirror
Codec also means a combined A/D & D/A pair, not just a software codec.
Are you sure you don't want that?
Shred works by taking checksums of groups of three lines. Adding a line at the end won't keep it from matching every other group of three lines.
Furthermore, the linux code in question is a matter of historical record. The only code which could be usefully changed would be the code which is being released only via shred-indexes. In that case, though, the person trying to modify the code would only decrease the match-likelyhood rating by adding random crap.
Dan Bernstein's stuff is most definately not public domain. He exercises control over derivative works.
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
"If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute. "
Public domain software means nobody has a right to control derivative works.
That's a tautology. Of course banning non-protected speech doesn't "impugn the first ammendment"; "protected" refers to first ammendment protection. It's still legitimate to question WHY so-called "obscene" material isn't deserving of protection when its production doesn't require that a crime have been comitted.
Publication is protected even if it's unpopular unless it might give someone a woody?
1.2 Email spam quite simply put is;
1.2.1. sending email unsolicited to individuals you have no personal relationship with.
(...)
If by one meter you mean 100 meters, then you have a point. Even the lower power radios have a 10 meter range.
Do they do this simultaneously? Do they produce formatted output indicating whether any of the possibilities exist?
The answer to both of those questions is, of course, a resounding "No", thus the patent doesn't apply.
The bigger problem is jitter induced by insufficient bandwidth in the cable. The bits may all get there, but the clock is sent along with them, and the contents of the data can affect the timing.
See Is The AESEBU/SPDIF Digital Audio Interface Flawed?"
What, you didn't know that "strict constructionist" was just a pretty way of saying "right-wing"?
Either Western society has survived, as it's still around, or no society has ever survived: either they've collapsed, or it's too soon to tell.
I have a copy of "Applied Cryptography" somewhere, which is enough to spout off on slashdot as if I were an expert.
You can "guess" a one-time pad, but the whole point is that you can never know you guessed correctly. There is no way to determine whether the "correct" decryption is
"The secret formula is milk. Just milk."
or
"ethereal is wrong about one-time pads."
or
"8fj3*&(A*&#fjhdsdf*&!!@$8F(D&*Fjlkdsj#"
because all decryptions are equally likely. This property is why one-time pads are described as unbreakable. For a traditional keyed cipher, it's unlikely that more than one key would lead to an intelligible decryption, so you know when you got it right.
What company are you referring to? Certainly not Microsoft, who is one of the biggest publishers of software for the Mac OS.
Why not leave that decision to the parents, who will be morally and legally obligated to provide for that person for the first 18 or so years of their life?
Why not screen against those things? Is it somehow morally necessary for a certain fraction of the population to have severe dandruff?
Most of the time a single web browser pulling pages with pauses in between to read them doesn't get anywhere close to the bandwidth cap on cable. The page is done loading before there's time for the TCP connection to ramp up to the maximum speed. Then, the connection sits idle while you read the page. As I mentioned, I'm explicitly not considering the case of someone who's leaching from usenet or morpheus 24/7. They're the reason there are byte-per-second caps. Most people won't hit those with casual browsing.
Say you manage to download 5 megs worth of web pages in a one-hour browsing session, then somebody else in your house does the same using the same computer. This is 10 megs over two hours. Say you neighbors do the same, but using two NATted computers. That's 10 megs over one hour. The total number of bytes used in a day is the same for the two households, but the short-term bandwidth requirement is higher, and if lots of people are doing it, then the cable company has to start buying fatter pipes to the outside world to keep all the connections from slowing down due to increased peak load.
Your "more computers != more bandwidth" argument assumes that the majority of cable households are pulling down everything they can up to the bandwidth cap all the time.
There are two kinds of cable customers, the kind who's looking to download as much as humanly possible, and the kind who don't pass more traffic than they would with dialup, they just get what they do get more quickly.
Two computers sharing a connection in a household of the latter kind of user means twice the bandwidth, and the cable company doesn't really WANT the first kind of customer.
Two leaches sharing a connection won't pull more data than a single leach, but two casual web browsers sharing a connection will use twice as much as a single casual web browser.
Yeah, and they should just give you money and stuff too. And hookers.
Who put the gun to his head and made him buy that make of car?
I hear Microsoft was runner-up to provide the school district with iBooks.
MPEG is heavily patented too, they just don't seem to care about free software implementations much. In ISO-land, "open" means "publicly documented", not "everybody can use it for no fee".
I wonder what the penalty would be for shutting down a censorware site?
Only if you fart methanol, in which case you really should see a doctor.
Nipples are for breasts.