Dvorak has expended all his credibility a long time ago. The guy just trolls, and gets away with it because he writes for a "respected" (yeah right) source.
Stop bothering with him. Just moderate him down and go elsewhere.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Personally I have always been rather surprised that the field of crypography is so littered with patents everywhere. You would think that near genius crypographers like R and S would be the first to realize that the flows and uses of information can only truly to controlled by mathematics - and that attempts to do so by law, straight in the face of the very nature of information, are not only futile but ultimetly very harmful.
It is thankful that there are also people like Schneier in the field.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Drives with this sort of capacities, coupled with our new lovely broadband connections, could truely mean the start for piracy of movies. Even with the crappy quality VCDs, 1 gigabyte a piece is to much to keep any collection worth noting, even on modern pcs with 24-36 gigs of space.
When I bought my Celeron based PC last year, my old pentium got to move to the bookcase where it became my resident mp3 player (gotta love using crontab as an alarmclock). I know I'm not the only one who has done this.
The logical extension is that when my current computer gets tossed out for a Merce.. I mean Itanium, Opteon, K8 or whatever, my current PC will move into the TV room to feed movies and generally do everything that those TV-cache machines do (only a whole lot better).
With these sort of drives, that would seem very likely.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Corporations see the green before anything else. It makes me sick, but that's the way it is.
There is a quote I remember the QT movie Jackie Brown, where Samuel L says something like "I know I can't trust her, but I can always trust her to be herself."
This goes with corporations. Companies do not have morals, ethics, consience or anything else beyond what is good PR. Companies have profits and losses. That is the way they work. This is the only way they can work.
Trying to put a moral standard on companies is as stupid as trying to apply it to an animal - as entities, they just don't operate that way.
We can never rely on companies to ensure our human rights, we need individuals (hopefully ourselves) for that. The really awful things that corporations do (pollution, suing 3 year olds who posts Teletubby pictures) cannot be blaimed on the companies, but on the inadequasy of the legislation we have set up to rule them. Corporations are like script kiddies constantly attacking your security: if there is a hole, they will find it, but so bluntly that any reasonably attentive sysadmin can patch it before any real damage is done.
The problem is not in the companies, but rather in our governments who have let us down completly. They are awful, awful sysadmins. Countries like the USA and the EU are more or less ruled by corporate lobbyists today - giving the companies power over us through an institution established to achieve the exact opposite.
That, if anything, makes me sick...
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Here's a hint that might help the American government a little in its fight against terrorists:
If there are any cyberterrorists out there, they already have cryptography!
On a more serious note, the article is definetly making a mistake in bunching together Cyber threats and CBRN. They are different (as rde wrote above) in all possible ways except in that they are a relatively new threat. IMHO cyber terrorism is mostly an excuse to harrass punks who deface webpages, while CBRN really worries me.
Also, the article looses a lot of credibility when it starts listing Bin Ladens use of email as examples of cyber-terrorism. My grandmother uses email for gods sake, it happens to be a good way to communicate.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Actually, the solution was the "best" in the fact that it fullfilled all the requirements given. The computer has no way of putting further requirements on its construction, so anything that solved the problem would be equally "best" for it.
Had they mandated that the bridge should be able to hold a weight of so many grams at any point once finished, the simulation probably would have ran longer - and resulted in a "better" bridge.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
The actions that the American DOJ wants to stop may be cracking (there are those of us who believe this is an engineering, not a justice question, but forget that for the moment), but in effect campaigns like this are very much attacking the entire hacker mentality.
If we start pushing into our kids minds from the very beginning that playing with computers, security, networking etc is something bad and tabu, then that is what we will get. If parents start being concerned, not encouraging, when their kids are interested in communication, it will hurt the future Linus's much more than the future Mitnick's.
The people that are making these desitions, designing these campaigns, and even the target audiences are not informed enough on the topic to be able to draw the very thin line between experimenting and cracking. It should not be happening this way.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Who is going to come out and say that the current war on freedom of information and intellect on the Internet is not another war on drugs now?
It might seem hard to imagine, since drugs and "computer crime" are in essense so different, but crackdown after crackdown after increased punishment after useless law out of touch with reality is taking us right down the same road we have walked with drugs - a road that has done more damage to our society then anything else since the last great war.
I think that as computer networks and the flow of information becomes more and more important to our lives, the danger in the criminalisation of our best and brightest will truly start being dangerous. We risk to do to our networks what the war on drugs has done to our city streets...
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
What exactly qualifies as a good reason to be extinct? Climate change? Having your food and or area taken over by another animal?
What is the difference in whether that animal is man or some shitty rodant that started eating your eggs or another predator that was simply better than you?
The whole guilt issue over extinction caused by man is really just another ego trip trying to justify us feeling special and different in some way. Well we are not: we are just another element of nature, playing its game like a million species before us.
Its a shame when an animal goes extinct because there is much we can learn from, and of, that animal. This goes for any extinction - naked monkeys involved or not.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
So, fellow/.-ers, do we hear any takers for the position of computer nerd who builds system only he can manage and then sells everyone out only to be killed by a rather small acid spitting woolly mamoth?
On the bright side you get to work in a cool 3D GUI and you can write code so sloppy that an eight year old kid can crack it!
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
I don't believe in God. Nor do I believe in Human Rights. Nor do I believe in Violence.
If you think that violence could be used, in any form, to upset the current order you are insane. Our current regimes are based on violence, we can overthrow them left and right and keep replacing them with ones resting on the same pillars of authority, abuse, and violence and it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
Our governments are, however, digging their own graves in soliciting the coming of the informed society (to the extent that they are). Not because of revolution, but because it makes them redundant. There are people who realize this, and know that cryptology is the very backbone of the world that will supercede them. And cryptology has proved a gratefully simple target of attack.
Hitting someone with a club might be a good idea if they are trying to take your lunch: but we are, hopefully, past that. The solution that transcends conventional law to which I reffered is not violence, today's law IS violence, but the very information society which they fear.
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
I wouldn't put my hopes about a solution for to the crypto issue from this process: it just won't happen. The american regime has decided to show its true face in this issue, and will continue to fight this freedom no matter what the court decides.
Victory in the crypto battle can not, and will not, come through traditional law.
However, the more frightening issue here is what this court is actually supposed to decide, namely, what is speech? Current human rights of free speech come from an age when speech WAS information, and information WAS speech. But, because technology has evolved to the point where most communication is machine to machine, we have (thanks to our unenlightened leadership) gotten a double standard where some information produced by humans is speech, and some is not.
So now They are trying to decide whether the form of information we call source code should be protected as speech. To those of us whose thoughts are often recorded as source code rather than speech or text, the fact that this should ever be in doubt about this seems horribly prejudice. I wonder if a single of the judges in that court has ever written a line of code or has ANY insight on the amount of creativity inherant to programming.
Actually I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
And of course it goes further. If source code is speech, tell me why machine code is not? Is it because its doubtful that I be able to find any meaning in machine code myself? Then exactly what are the standards by which information attains "meaning" enough to be speech? Could I have them on paper so I know for the future?
- /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak has expended all his credibility a long time ago. The guy just trolls, and gets away with it because he writes for a "respected" (yeah right) source.
Stop bothering with him. Just moderate him down and go elsewhere.
-
Personally I have always been rather surprised that the field of crypography is so littered with patents everywhere. You would think that near genius crypographers like R and S would be the first to realize that the flows and uses of information can only truly to controlled by mathematics - and that attempts to do so by law, straight in the face of the very nature of information, are not only futile but ultimetly very harmful.
It is thankful that there are also people like Schneier in the field.
-
For $999, I could build a celeron based system that doubles that Quake3 benchmark.
-
How about anyone who has ever heard a geek recite the "We are the knights who say Ni - Ni, Ni, Ni" speech?
-
I can't help but think that if Intel and AMD are going to battle it out with different 64 bit standards, the real winner is going to be PowerPC.
Oh, and that little OS that has proved so portability friendly (and that distributes most of its apps as source code).
-
Drives with this sort of capacities, coupled with our new lovely broadband connections, could truely mean the start for piracy of movies. Even with the crappy quality VCDs, 1 gigabyte a piece is to much to keep any collection worth noting, even on modern pcs with 24-36 gigs of space.
When I bought my Celeron based PC last year, my old pentium got to move to the bookcase where it became my resident mp3 player (gotta love using crontab as an alarmclock). I know I'm not the only one who has done this.
The logical extension is that when my current computer gets tossed out for a Merce.. I mean Itanium, Opteon, K8 or whatever, my current PC will move into the TV room to feed movies and generally do everything that those TV-cache machines do (only a whole lot better).
With these sort of drives, that would seem very likely.
-
According the the PR these drives could hold 50 gigabytes per platter, not total.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
-
I would like to claim that
-
Corporations see the green before anything else. It makes me sick, but that's the way it is.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
There is a quote I remember the QT movie Jackie Brown, where Samuel L says something like "I know I can't trust her, but I can always trust her to be herself."
This goes with corporations. Companies do not have morals, ethics, consience or anything else beyond what is good PR. Companies have profits and losses. That is the way they work. This is the only way they can work.
Trying to put a moral standard on companies is as stupid as trying to apply it to an animal - as entities, they just don't operate that way.
We can never rely on companies to ensure our human rights, we need individuals (hopefully ourselves) for that. The really awful things that corporations do (pollution, suing 3 year olds who posts Teletubby pictures) cannot be blaimed on the companies, but on the inadequasy of the legislation we have set up to rule them. Corporations are like script kiddies constantly attacking your security: if there is a hole, they will find it, but so bluntly that any reasonably attentive sysadmin can patch it before any real damage is done.
The problem is not in the companies, but rather in our governments who have let us down completly. They are awful, awful sysadmins. Countries like the USA and the EU are more or less ruled by corporate lobbyists today - giving the companies power over us through an institution established to achieve the exact opposite.
That, if anything, makes me sick...
-
iNymf seems a little weird to. I wasn't expecting to see Intel pioneer teledildonics, but hey, you live, you learn.
-
Here's a hint that might help the American government a little in its fight against terrorists:
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
If there are any cyberterrorists out there, they already have cryptography!
On a more serious note, the article is definetly making a mistake in bunching together Cyber threats and CBRN. They are different (as rde wrote above) in all possible ways except in that they are a relatively new threat. IMHO cyber terrorism is mostly an excuse to harrass punks who deface webpages, while CBRN really worries me.
Also, the article looses a lot of credibility when it starts listing Bin Ladens use of email as examples of cyber-terrorism. My grandmother uses email for gods sake, it happens to be a good way to communicate.
-
not to be picky, but micro-second would be a millionth of a second, ie
-
Ren't you confusing RSA-40 with the 40-bit symmetrical (RC2 or RC5) crypto used? A 40 bit number should be trivial to factor.
-
Noop, Carmack started Quake from a clean sheet when he was tired of all the corners he had coded himself into with the Doom code.
AFAIK he has not done this since however, so Quake3 is a derivative work of the original Quake source.
Though of course, what the other reply says (about holding the copyright) still holds.
-
We know the theory. But today? In a handheld device? right...
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
-
Actually, the solution was the "best" in the fact that it fullfilled all the requirements given. The computer has no way of putting further requirements on its construction, so anything that solved the problem would be equally "best" for it.
Had they mandated that the bridge should be able to hold a weight of so many grams at any point once finished, the simulation probably would have ran longer - and resulted in a "better" bridge.
-
No, you are very wrong here.
The actions that the American DOJ wants to stop may be cracking (there are those of us who believe this is an engineering, not a justice question, but forget that for the moment), but in effect campaigns like this are very much attacking the entire hacker mentality.
If we start pushing into our kids minds from the very beginning that playing with computers, security, networking etc is something bad and tabu, then that is what we will get. If parents start being concerned, not encouraging, when their kids are interested in communication, it will hurt the future Linus's much more than the future Mitnick's.
The people that are making these desitions, designing these campaigns, and even the target audiences are not informed enough on the topic to be able to draw the very thin line between experimenting and cracking. It should not be happening this way.
-
Who is going to come out and say that the current war on freedom of information and intellect on the Internet is not another war on drugs now?
It might seem hard to imagine, since drugs and "computer crime" are in essense so different, but crackdown after crackdown after increased punishment after useless law out of touch with reality is taking us right down the same road we have walked with drugs - a road that has done more damage to our society then anything else since the last great war.
I think that as computer networks and the flow of information becomes more and more important to our lives, the danger in the criminalisation of our best and brightest will truly start being dangerous. We risk to do to our networks what the war on drugs has done to our city streets...
-
Both come with Cyberpatrol software installed, to keep your poor child safe from all the horrible terrophiles on the net.
I wonder if they want to make a freethinkerpc.com for those of us who wish to teach the next generations the true values of freedom.
And to think: they probably only need one version of such a computer...
-
What exactly qualifies as a good reason to be extinct? Climate change? Having your food and or area taken over by another animal?
What is the difference in whether that animal is man or some shitty rodant that started eating your eggs or another predator that was simply better than you?
The whole guilt issue over extinction caused by man is really just another ego trip trying to justify us feeling special and different in some way. Well we are not: we are just another element of nature, playing its game like a million species before us.
Its a shame when an animal goes extinct because there is much we can learn from, and of, that animal. This goes for any extinction - naked monkeys involved or not.
-
So, fellow
On the bright side you get to work in a cool 3D GUI and you can write code so sloppy that an eight year old kid can crack it!
-
I don't believe in God. Nor do I believe in Human Rights. Nor do I believe in Violence.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
If you think that violence could be used, in any form, to upset the current order you are insane. Our current regimes are based on violence, we can overthrow them left and right and keep replacing them with ones resting on the same pillars of authority, abuse, and violence and it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
Our governments are, however, digging their own graves in soliciting the coming of the informed society (to the extent that they are). Not because of revolution, but because it makes them redundant. There are people who realize this, and know that cryptology is the very backbone of the world that will supercede them. And cryptology has proved a gratefully simple target of attack.
Hitting someone with a club might be a good idea if they are trying to take your lunch: but we are, hopefully, past that. The solution that transcends conventional law to which I reffered is not violence, today's law IS violence, but the very information society which they fear.
-
I wouldn't put my hopes about a solution for to the crypto issue from this process: it just won't happen. The american regime has decided to show its true face in this issue, and will continue to fight this freedom no matter what the court decides.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Victory in the crypto battle can not, and will not, come through traditional law.
However, the more frightening issue here is what this court is actually supposed to decide, namely, what is speech? Current human rights of free speech come from an age when speech WAS information, and information WAS speech. But, because technology has evolved to the point where most communication is machine to machine, we have (thanks to our unenlightened leadership) gotten a double standard where some information produced by humans is speech, and some is not.
So now They are trying to decide whether the form of information we call source code should be protected as speech. To those of us whose thoughts are often recorded as source code rather than speech or text, the fact that this should ever be in doubt about this seems horribly prejudice. I wonder if a single of the judges in that court has ever written a line of code or has ANY insight on the amount of creativity inherant to programming.
Actually I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
And of course it goes further. If source code is speech, tell me why machine code is not? Is it because its doubtful that I be able to find any meaning in machine code myself? Then exactly what are the standards by which information attains "meaning" enough to be speech? Could I have them on paper so I know for the future?
-
In the '50s, cars were very large, clunky, relatively expensive, and unreliable
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Actually, the analogy holds a lot better for operating systems than PCs (esp from you know who). And the competition for them is here...
Even the most bland and grey PCs are built for functionality (I can't see any fins on my Celeron).
-
And how many still believe that Echelon is not capable of recognizing words in conversations automatically?
-