The main benefit of organizing by year is that once the year is gone, you know that directory will never be written to again, so backing up becomes so easy, I actually very regularly do it. A little rsync, a few computers, and periodic DVD burning means I haven't lost any data in a long time.
Yes. I am using Gaim in Debian and specifically I get this reponse from talk.google.com:
<error code="405" type="cancel"><not-allowed xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas"/><text xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas">Server does not support PLAIN</text></error>
The strange thing is, Gaim is not sending plain text to the server. It is using digest authentication with all the other jabber servers I talk to.
Finally, I am certainly using TLS, as I have verified by looking in the Gaim debug window as well as using ethereal to look at the stream and see the starttls turn on the encryption.
Can someone comment on how XAML compares to Glade? What would be the barrier to making a system to used Glade files loaded over the web to make GUIs on the fly (which with XML-RPC or SOAP could hook into web based back-end)?
Actually, it can run great on the server. In a mail environment that runs something like Procmail, this algorithm can construct the relationships between *EACH* user and his contacts. As the message arives, the algorithm can update the network. The network only changes after an email is received, so a server based system would be great.
The server could then make a whitelist and a blacklist for each user, without user intervention.
I hope that something like this could help in helping systems like Hotmail, Yahoo or AOL automate whitelist building for their users.
If you read the paper on the archive you will see that there is a method to deal with this problem.
Namely, when someone joins a spam and non-spam component of the network.
PS: This method was tested on email boxes from the "Real World", but of course, we could use more email boxes to test with. Please send me a tarball of all your email and I will tune the algorithm!:)
I have totally solved my spam problem. I get around 600-800 spam messages a week, and maybe one of those will find its way into my inbox. Here is how it is done:
Spamassassin scans all my incoming email. It has pretty good hueristics, which get better if you allow it to use bayesian learning. If Spamassassin thinks its spam, a header is added.
CRM114 uses a much more sophisticated bayesian approach to check to see if the mail is spam. If it is spam, a header is added.
If the sender is on my whitelist (this is a good reference), I put the whitelisted mail in my inbox.
If the message is not on the whitelist and does not have a spam header (from either Spamassasin or CRM114) put the message in my inbox.
Otherwise, the message is spam and put it in my spam folder.
That is basically it. When one gets through, I put it into the false-negative folder, and a cron job has CRM114 learn it. If a good email winds up in the spam folder, I put it in the false-positive folder and CRM114 learns it as non-spam, and I add the sender to my whitelist.
Fortunately, both types of errors are *VERY* rare. The system just works.
A lot of/.ers just dismiss the idea that the problem can be solved. It can be solved. There are even ways my approach can be made more accurate. If I find more than an error or two a month, I may work on it (think: turing test confirmations for spammy email).
I put up a page describing my efforts. This is a problem which can (and has for many) been solved!
I think regulation would be a BAD THING. Especially for Free Software (since almost always there is no warranty). On the other hand, if the government wants to get involved, it should sponser fair software testing and encourage distribution of information related to software reliability.
In many (most?) cases Free Software will be more reliable. Let the market have the facts, and if people want dangerous, flashy software, give them what they want.
In the mean while, I'll stick to Debian.
Doesn't address the threat model
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
There is no way that DRM can work unless the output is controlled as well. In the Linux kernel (or about any OS out there) all one needs to do is write an audio driver which writes the audio to file.
How does thier technology prevent this?
This whole DRM field is fool's gold. The obvious truth is that business models need to change. Get over it.
I don't see why so many people at/. cheer Gov't getting involved in the spam problem. I have been using CRM-114 and SpamAssassin for several months and the result is: it works. I get something like 4-5 times as much spam as non-spam, and *VERY* rarely does a spam message find its way into my inbox now.
Before we cheer legal solutions (which will have their fair share of downsides) maybe more people should take technological measures.
PS: I know people might say, but what about the economic cost of spam, blah blah blah. Read the slides. If no one ever gets spam, people will stop sending it, and the economic cost goes away.
No, you can't break any encryption through brute force. There just isn't enough energy in the universe to do it, even positing thermodynamically-perfect computers operating at 3.2K.
While this is true for irreversible computers, it is not true of reversible computers.
A particular class of reversible computers are quantum computers (to the extent that they are operating error free, errors require some irreversible operations like bit reseting). Particularly, Grover's Algorithm reversibly finds the solution to the NP-complete SAT problem in sqrt(n) steps rather than n steps required by a classical computer.
Putting it all together, an error free (or sufficiently low error) quantum computer could brute force a 256 bit key in 2^128 (sqrt(2^256)) steps and not be bound to the Landauer bound (which you quoted) on thermodynamic cost of erasing bits.
PS: here is a nice link for those who don't know anything about thermodynamics of computation.
Couldn't you have some code to simply search all the stories for the same, or highly similar, links as the story you are about to publish? Then before the finally publishing is done you will see a list of stories (most recent to least recent) which have high link similarity?
CmdrTaco, I know you can code something like this up in 20 minutes!
If they regulate net telephony, why not regulate tins cans and string.
The reason why industrial regulation is acceptable is because it is not a severe limitation on individual liberty. With net telephony, anyone who knows how to use the sockets library, and send UDP packets can write their own net telephony code.
Why would we want to regulate that? Classifying *ANY* software that can do net telephony is obviously overly broad.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, should remember how most protocols on the net got started: individual freedom to tinker.
Why not choose a license that people understand? Why not offer the code *ALSO* under the GPL license.
This what Mozilla, Sun (OpenOffice), Trolltech (QT) and no doubt others, realized was the best course (often IN ADDITION to other licenses).
Any non-free competitor (like MS) is not going to be able to use the GPL code, so I don't see how it will hurt.
I guess they don't want you to have the freedom to distribute commercially, so they would object to Redhat etc.. charging for a CD with their code on it.
They may need to make an exception to the GPL, to allow for their binary only modules to be linked in, but that is not unheard of.
I have a G4 cube that runs Linux. I have played around with OSX, but I keep reminding myself of all the great benefits I have had from using free software. Why would I give that up just because OSX is prettier than KDE or Gnome (I actually use fluxbox).
Witness the amazing gains in free software, at this point, why switch? The party is really cranking (OpenOffice, Mozilla, Vorbis, KDE, Evolution, Theora, etc...)
With linux, you are supporting platform independence. MacOS is just another proprietary system (Don't tell me that their kernel is "open source", who cares? You can't run OSX software with only the kernel, you can't run OSX on Alpha, x86, sparc, etc...)
See Douglas Stinson's Book "Cryptography: Theory and Practice" Chapter 12. Look for the Goldwasser-Micali public key cryptosystem and the Blum-Goldwasser pubic key cryptosystem.
Both of them generate a psuedo random string (based on the difficulty of factoring) and then encrypt the plaintext one bit at the time. (Stream Cipher).
No one uses this for two reasons: the Goldwasser-Micali encrypts one bit by sending log(n) bits (where n=pq, and it is the modular base of all the operations) so that means 1 bit -> 512 or more bits if you want security. Additionally both of these schemes are MUCH slower (as noted by previous posters) than symmetric key ciphers (DES, blowfish, serpent. ..).
The usual trick is the trick mentioned by everyone here: use public key to share a secret key, then use secret key. This is used by all software that I am aware of.
I have used speakfreely (some times very successfully, sometimes less so) but what would really interest me is seeing Speakfreely talk to PGPfone.
I don't see why you would really bother porting PGPfone (especially with the license in limbo) but if you could learn the protocol it uses it would be good to make speakfreely talk to Macs and other users of PGPfone.
Wait a second, what is immoral? Of course what these guys did is NOT immoral. Immoral would have been breaking the weak crypto, then copying all the top movies and selling them on the black market. The real bad guys were going to break this one day, these guys did the movie industry a favor by alerting everyone.
That having been said, I don't think that everyone has the right to copy DVD's and I don't think it will happen very often. However, when one day 4.7 Gigs is nothing, then maybe movies will be copied a great deal, and what then? The truth is copy protection (as noted by so many./ers) does not work. So, we may just have to adjust to live in a world where a certain amount of piracy is expected.
I think it should still be illegal. If they catch people or rings selling pirated material they should be punished, but the movie industry needs to stop being so afraid of digital distribution.
PS: if they stop making DVD's over this I am going to be rather upset.
The point is there is already an algorithm for a quantum computer that can factor numbers in O(n^3). The problem is it requires 3n quantum bits to use. So, to factor a 512 bit key you would need ~1500 quantum bits. This is a long ways off (largest computation has been done with 5 bits I believe), but there is no way to tell how far off it is. Most researchers in the field believe it is possible.
On the other hand, quantum key distribution, is provably information secure. No amount of computation renders it insecure.
By the way, this is mostly pure research, but there is a group at los alamos that have done quantum key distribution through 50 km of fiber, and 1/2 km of air, both with very small error rates (important for the security proof).
Keep in mind that xxx.lanl.gov (where the paper is posted) is not a refereed journal. This paper may not have been subjected to any peer review, so it's contents should be taken accordingly. Many times serious corrections or withdrawals are made to this pre-print archive. It would probably be better to not publicize something like this until it has been read be many specialists.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been working well for me for approximately 8 years or so:
http://boykin.acis.ufl.edu/~boykin/2005/projects/directory_policy/policy.html
The main benefit of organizing by year is that once the year is gone, you know that directory will never be written to again, so backing up becomes so easy, I actually very regularly do it. A little rsync, a few computers, and periodic DVD burning means I haven't lost any data in a long time.
Yes. I am using Gaim in Debian and specifically I get this reponse from talk.google.com:
t xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas">Server does not support PLAIN</text></error>
<error code="405" type="cancel"><not-allowed xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas"/><tex
The strange thing is, Gaim is not sending plain text to the server. It is using digest authentication with all the other jabber servers I talk to.
Finally, I am certainly using TLS, as I have verified by looking in the Gaim debug window as well as using ethereal to look at the stream and see the starttls turn on the encryption.
http://tor.eff.org/
It is free software from the EFF. It is an anonymous socks proxy.
Can someone comment on how XAML compares to Glade? What would be the barrier to making a system to used Glade files loaded over the web to make GUIs on the fly (which with XML-RPC or SOAP could hook into web based back-end)?
Actually, it can run great on the server. In a mail environment that runs something like Procmail, this algorithm can construct the relationships between *EACH* user and his contacts. As the message arives, the algorithm can update the network. The network only changes after an email is received, so a server based system would be great.
The server could then make a whitelist and a blacklist for each user, without user intervention.
I hope that something like this could help in helping systems like Hotmail, Yahoo or AOL automate whitelist building for their users.
It is also really good at looking for false-positives or false-negatives of existing solutions (like spamassassin or crm114).
Namely, when someone joins a spam and non-spam component of the network.
PS: This method was tested on email boxes from the "Real World", but of course, we could use more email boxes to test with. Please send me a tarball of all your email and I will tune the algorithm! :)
That is basically it. When one gets through, I put it into the false-negative folder, and a cron job has CRM114 learn it. If a good email winds up in the spam folder, I put it in the false-positive folder and CRM114 learns it as non-spam, and I add the sender to my whitelist.
Fortunately, both types of errors are *VERY* rare. The system just works.
A lot of /.ers just dismiss the idea that the problem can be solved. It can be solved. There are even ways my approach can be made more accurate. If I find more than an error or two a month, I may work on it (think: turing test confirmations for spammy email).
I put up a page describing my efforts. This is a problem which can (and has for many) been solved!
Is there some page which compares all the licenses in some table, or in english language terms?
Something like: the Creative Commons explains for their licenses would be very helpful for comparing: MIT X11, BSD, GPL, LGPL, BSD, OSL, Mozilla PL, Apple PL, etc...
If this does not exist, the community would benefit from it!
I think regulation would be a BAD THING. Especially for Free Software (since almost always there is no warranty). On the other hand, if the government wants to get involved, it should sponser fair software testing and encourage distribution of information related to software reliability.
In many (most?) cases Free Software will be more reliable. Let the market have the facts, and if people want dangerous, flashy software, give them what they want.
In the mean while, I'll stick to Debian.
How does thier technology prevent this?
This whole DRM field is fool's gold. The obvious truth is that business models need to change. Get over it.
See Felton's discussion of threat models
Before we cheer legal solutions (which will have their fair share of downsides) maybe more people should take technological measures.
Also have a look here: Annoying spammers with OpenBSD's pf
Slides explaining how Bayesian email filtering is successful
PS: I know people might say, but what about the economic cost of spam, blah blah blah. Read the slides. If no one ever gets spam, people will stop sending it, and the economic cost goes away.
Good luck!
No, you can't break any encryption through brute force. There just isn't enough energy in the universe to do it, even positing thermodynamically-perfect computers operating at 3.2K.
While this is true for irreversible computers, it is not true of reversible computers.
A particular class of reversible computers are quantum computers (to the extent that they are operating error free, errors require some irreversible operations like bit reseting). Particularly, Grover's Algorithm reversibly finds the solution to the NP-complete SAT problem in sqrt(n) steps rather than n steps required by a classical computer.
Putting it all together, an error free (or sufficiently low error) quantum computer could brute force a 256 bit key in 2^128 (sqrt(2^256)) steps and not be bound to the Landauer bound (which you quoted) on thermodynamic cost of erasing bits.
PS: here is a nice link for those who don't know anything about thermodynamics of computation.Couldn't you have some code to simply search all the stories for the same, or highly similar, links as the story you are about to publish? Then before the finally publishing is done you will see a list of stories (most recent to least recent) which have high link similarity?
CmdrTaco, I know you can code something like this up in 20 minutes!
If they regulate net telephony, why not regulate tins cans and string.
The reason why industrial regulation is acceptable is because it is not a severe limitation on individual liberty. With net telephony, anyone who knows how to use the sockets library, and send UDP packets can write their own net telephony code.
Why would we want to regulate that? Classifying *ANY* software that can do net telephony is obviously overly broad.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, should remember how most protocols on the net got started: individual freedom to tinker.
That's /. for you. You guys have modded up to 5 a post that is wrong in both of the equations it posts.
It should be:
Pr(h|D) = Pr(D|h) * Pr(h) / Pr(D)
and:
Pr("SPAM"|Email) = Pr(Email|"SPAM") * (proportion of spam) / (probability of getting this paticular Email)
Why not choose a license that people understand? Why not offer the code *ALSO* under the GPL license.
This what Mozilla, Sun (OpenOffice), Trolltech (QT) and no doubt others, realized was the best course (often IN ADDITION to other licenses).
Any non-free competitor (like MS) is not going to be able to use the GPL code, so I don't see how it will hurt.
I guess they don't want you to have the freedom to distribute commercially, so they would object to Redhat etc.. charging for a CD with their code on it.
They may need to make an exception to the GPL, to allow for their binary only modules to be linked in, but that is not unheard of.
I have a G4 cube that runs Linux. I have played around with OSX, but I keep reminding myself of all the great benefits I have had from using free software. Why would I give that up just because OSX is prettier than KDE or Gnome (I actually use fluxbox).
Witness the amazing gains in free software, at this point, why switch? The party is really cranking (OpenOffice, Mozilla, Vorbis, KDE, Evolution, Theora, etc...)
With linux, you are supporting platform independence. MacOS is just another proprietary system (Don't tell me that their kernel is "open source", who cares? You can't run OSX software with only the kernel, you can't run OSX on Alpha, x86, sparc, etc...)
I have a Mac, and I am choosing Freedom.
See Douglas Stinson's Book "Cryptography: Theory and Practice" Chapter 12. Look for the Goldwasser-Micali public key cryptosystem and the Blum-Goldwasser pubic key cryptosystem.
.).
Both of them generate a psuedo random string (based on the difficulty of factoring) and then encrypt the plaintext one bit at the time. (Stream Cipher).
No one uses this for two reasons: the Goldwasser-Micali encrypts one bit by sending log(n) bits (where n=pq, and it is the modular base of all the operations) so that means 1 bit -> 512 or more bits if you want security. Additionally both of these schemes are MUCH slower (as noted by previous posters) than symmetric key ciphers (DES, blowfish, serpent. .
The usual trick is the trick mentioned by everyone here: use public key to share a secret key, then use secret key. This is used by all software that I am aware of.
Hope this helps!
I have used speakfreely (some times very successfully, sometimes less so) but what would really interest me is seeing Speakfreely talk to PGPfone.
I don't see why you would really bother porting PGPfone (especially with the license in limbo) but if you could learn the protocol it uses it would be good to make speakfreely talk to Macs and other users of PGPfone.
Just an idea.
Wait a second, what is immoral? Of course what these guys did is NOT immoral. Immoral would have been breaking the weak crypto, then copying all the top movies and selling them on the black market. The real bad guys were going to break this one day, these guys did the movie industry a favor by alerting everyone.
./ers) does not work. So, we may just have to adjust to live in a world where a certain amount of piracy is expected.
That having been said, I don't think that everyone has the right to copy DVD's and I don't think it will happen very often. However, when one day 4.7 Gigs is nothing, then maybe movies will be copied a great deal, and what then? The truth is copy protection (as noted by so many
I think it should still be illegal. If they catch people or rings selling pirated material they should be punished, but the movie industry needs to stop being so afraid of digital distribution.
PS: if they stop making DVD's over this I am going to be rather upset.
The point is there is already an algorithm for a quantum computer that can factor numbers in O(n^3). The problem is it requires 3n quantum bits to use. So, to factor a 512 bit key you would need ~1500 quantum bits. This is a long ways off (largest computation has been done with 5 bits I believe), but there is no way to tell how far off it is. Most researchers in the field believe it is possible.
On the other hand, quantum key distribution, is provably information secure. No amount of computation renders it insecure.
By the way, this is mostly pure research, but there is a group at los alamos that have done quantum key distribution through 50 km of fiber, and 1/2 km of air, both with very small error rates (important for the security proof).
Keep in mind that xxx.lanl.gov (where the paper is posted) is not a refereed journal. This paper
may not have been subjected to any peer review, so it's contents should be taken accordingly. Many times serious corrections or withdrawals are made to this pre-print archive. It would probably be better to not publicize something like this until it has been read be many specialists.