I think the solution will involve a conceptual shift whereby odd, angular bulges are re-imagined as sleek, chic and exciting, and are designed into garments with the intent of being seen rather than overlooked.
Imagine a skin-tight bodysuit festooned with festive aerodynamic lumps in contrasting colors... a sleek, marine-life look, rather than the (competing interpretations) camel look or strange tumour look.
Imagine clothes with a series of gently domed globs attached down the sides, instead of the adidas-stripe gym suit look. For that matter, remember the eighties, when any number of PDAs could have taken up residence in the typical high-fashion shoulder pad.
It could happen, and bell-bottoms are conclusive proof.
Notice that the vest site already contains
threatening wording, to the effect that if
you create a similar garment they will come
after you for patent infringement...
as they have applied for (not received)
a slew of related patents.
Among the things that they are preposterously
trying to patent is the concept of "pocket within a pocket". Hello?
I seem to remember a PBS special (Nova?) that had a segment on experiments done with image recognition in pigeons. These pigeons were placed in a large, darkened box that displayed a projected image on one wall. They were then prompted to respond to the image in different ways and were given food feedback if they were "correct" (pecked when the right image was displayed). The pigeons were first introduced to one image and then shown related images as well as unrelated images to see if they could generalize... it emerged that pigeons can distinguish Monet paintings from Cezanne, though they have some trouble telling Cezanne from Picasso. --
Ever see "the Sentinel"... Computer nerd, my ass. What about the ubermensch whose senses were sharpened in the Brazilian rainforest to the point where he can clearly see the limited edition Willie Mays watch visible for a split second on the two-pixel wrist of a bank robber caught on grainy security camera? --
Funny, I thought the show peaked with the first episode.
After you realize that the deus ex machina of "Ms Lee Harvey Oswald" is inevitable in every show, it really starts to grind. Did the show need such a painful, annoying and repetitive plot device?
And why play down the main (title!) characters as jackasses? As seen on the X-Files, they may have been fringe but were not completely useless. Why place them in a show which should have been titled Doofus and the Annoying Superbitch? (a very competent and self-assured, to say nothing of contemptuous person who somehow has nothing better to do than the exact same whatever the lone gunmen happen to be doing.)
On a related note, why hasn't Eve already made herself ruler of the world?
A lot of potential wasted with this programme. Oh, and too much "flying finger single keystroke breaks into DOD" stuff. --
There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have.
...And I would emphasize, applications in general, rather than just the kernel. As Miller points out, one of the advantages from the user's perspective of Linux is that it comes with a number of free apps...
From my perspective, the biggest advantage of most apps on Linux is the availability of source code. Free or not free, if there is source code I am able to investigate and attempt to fix problems, bugs and any blatant oversights which crop up during daily use. I would have less of a reaction to the Windows paradigm as "obnoxious" if the same could be said for a reasonable number of apps for that platform... Unfortunately it can't. I suppose it's a cultural thing.
I'd even be more than willing to pay for something if I was allowed (able!) to modify it after purchase. My site uses a proprietary database app built on UniData and it's a weekly occurrence for me to find a serious and mind-numbingly stupid bug in the product, which the company has been aware of in some cases for 5 years or more (several upgrade cycles) and hasn't gotten off its sad ass to fix. We are bound in to this product, essentially tied to a piece of crap which is functional most of the time but all indications are that it is held together behind the scenes by the coding equivalent of tacky decades-old chewing gum and guano. (BTW, it's not UniData's fault. UniData itself is quite fun.)
Once you have gotten used to the ability to make trivial repairs as needed to products which are broken, it makes you apoplectic when you aren't able, and a vendor does not appear to be interested (or perhaps mentally capable). In contrast, the people who accept broken apps on whatever proprietary platform, Windows, Solaris, MacOS*, etc etc, are the same people who will accept broken apps on Linux. Meaning that for anyone who isn't going to try to "fix it" themselves, the most that's involved is "make" and then "make install". --
For that matter, if you want someone to dig you, why not try for someone who digs you, for instance who responds in a POSITIVE way to the things which the majority of posters here think you should be trying to suppress?
(I.e. your collection of vintage 80s microcomputers, collection of operating systems, overclocking hobby, your pet programming project, your interesting! sysadmin/ software/ engineering job or graduate degree program, your alluringly delicate and lanky bod, fluffy stomach hair, etc etc).
Fact: there are humans of both sexes who shrink in revulsion from those people I will only characterize as "scary conformist athlete fucks"....I could go on in this vein. And from people who believe the quickest way to get a filly into bed is to talk to it (her?) like she is a horse (don't believe me? Read ESR- and remember! no sudden movements).
Get someone compatible, and you don't have to run away or block your ears when they start talking. Case in point: during a brief visit with my 2 60-something scientist parents this winter, I "introduced" them both to the early-PM SciFi channel lineup and inadvertently produced - simultaneously - 2 drooling, aged Babylon 5 rerun addicts. Imagine being able to watch meaningful TV with your hon. Not that my parents should be the ideal you strive for.
PS: Hell... Anyone who can answer "yes" to the last 2 in my list of attributes, plus at least 2 of the others... should post a reply.
Subtle, piquant body odour is optional and to your taste; however, if present, said odour must not be "poopy". Bhangra or really vile electropop music a plus.
PPS: (Re. the horse approach: Isn't she going to notice? Nah... try this test case: pick any friend, and talk to him as if he is a horse for a few hours. Then ask if he noticed anything. He will probably say, "Noticed what? No, though come to think of it I have begun to feel an upwelling and inexplicable desire to let you... um... Hey! That Pamela Anderson is really hot!".) --
Someone designing a clinical information system from the ground up might like to take a look at
http://members.aol.com/medinformaticsmd/
Maybe the clinic already has an informatician on board, or has a grasp of best practices. Or at least, someone involved who has heard of informatics:-)
But no matter how jaded you are, I think you can be inspired by these accounts of spectacular failure:
http://members.aol.com/medinformaticsmd/failure.ht m
...Organizations which involved or approached computing in exactly the *wrong* way. --
But what if libraries cancelled subscriptions to magazines like Time, National Geographic, Popular Electronics, Consumer Reports, etc, as a side effect of not providing porn?
What if this side effect was completely at random?
What if they threw out occasional issues of magazines, again completely at random? What if they threw out books? And not just the gray-area "erotic" books- Lady Chatterley's Lover, The Story of O, anything by Danielle Steele- but opuses like Moby Dick? Oops, bad example. Let's try for opuses-without-Dick-in-the-title. The Tale of Peter Rabbit? The Catholic Catechism (a book by John A. Hardon)?
What if they threw out books for non-funny reasons, say because the book contained the sentence, "This chemical has been shown to decrease the sex drive in rats". Or, "The church members were hard pressed as it was; how could they possibly fund the erection of a new chapel?" Or "Mount Everest is the highest of the Himalayas". Or "The hot, steamy weather of Atlanta hung over that year's olympic games like a curse".
If you're going to mandate an "improvement" in a public service, for god's sake, don't shoot yourself in the foot. --
Both of my biochemist parents have very strong misgivings about GMO. You're not going to tell me that they don't know what a gene is.
A specific example, my father (plant biochemist and physiologist) is disturbed by the effects, in practice, of genetic modification in corn to include genes from Bacillus Thuringiensis to produce thuringicides for purposes of supressing the growth of caterpillars in the plant stem. Instead of attaching the gene in such a way that it is expressed only in vegetative growth, or whatever
(ask him-), the gene is expressed throughout the corn including in the harvested kernels themselves. More or less approximating his opinion, this is reckless overkill, indicative of an overall "just insert the genetic material somewhere and let what happens happen" mindset among the scientists employed by Monsanto et al... who are taking something of a half-assed approach in their cutting and pasting of genetic fragments with only partial control over the process. --
Like fips? No. You *do* need a separate partition for your linux installation.
But the good news is, you're not screwed, if you have a bit of resourcefulness and anwhere to store big chunks of data outside your computer.
If your HD is already partitioned into more than one virtual "drive", you're home free. Same if you have several hard drives- just dedicate one of them to LinuxPPC. Otherwise, see below...
I was able to install LinuxPPC on my Macintosh at work, without disrupting my existing MacOS setup and, actually, using only fairly primitive tools. That was in 1997.
Step 1: repartition disk.
Step 2: restore MacOS, install linux on the various partitions.
In a nutshell, the procedure was
Back up your Mac system throughly, and save the contents on some other media or on another computer (for instance, via file sharing). You can save disk images; or even a bunch of Stuffit archives will work, if you lack space. *NOTE* - do NOT attempt any of this if you haven't more than enough free disk space on your Mac for a linux install in the first place. A warning for the impetuous. Check LinuxPPC's website for space recommendations.
Make sure you have a bootable MacOS CD or other media on hand. Make sure the CD contains disk utilities, notably "Drive Setup", your partitioning tool in this case. Make sure you know network settings and other details you will need to return your Macintosh to itself once this is over.
Boot the CD! Erase your hard disk, and use Drive Setup to repartition it, adding a partition for LinuxPPC. Make sure each partition is large enough for its intended use- one should hold your MacOS installation with room to spare, and the other LinuxPPC. Don't worry about special settings for the LinuxPPC partition: for now, it is enough to create the partition, and the filesystem type is irrelevant. For your MacOS partition, set the same filesystem type as was used previously; either HFS or HFS+, depending on the version of MacOS. Note that if you want to read/ examine your MacOS volume when in Linux, you may want to use HFS if possible, or to create an extra MacOS partition which is HFS; this is for data exchange, as (check me on this!) last I was aware, there were no reliable Linux drivers available for the HFS+ filesystem.
Copy everything you backed up, to the new partition which you want to use for MacOS. Depending on your resources, ie, where the backups are saved and whether or not you can access them while booted off the CD, you may need to perform other tricks... For instance, you can install a minimal MacOS on your soon-to-be-LinuxPPC partition, boot that, and use it to access your backups / copy them to your "permanent" MacOS partition. Then select the "permanent" partition as your bootable drive, and reboot to test that it works.
Restore any network settings, etc which got mangled... or at least check them. Test things to make sure they are stable. Of course, at this point it's too late to do anything about major foul-ups (like incomplete or corrupted backups), but you can always try again until you get it somewhat right.
Now you're ready to install LinuxPPC on "drive" 2 (or 3)! But you'll need special tools: "pdisk" or the equivalent to actually create a unix filesystem on the partition, and other bits and pieces to actually perform the install. Unless someone has thoughtfully written a program to roll all this into one, which in the intervening years I wouldn't rule out. Check linuxppc.com and linuxppc.org for details: you're out of my hands now.
As far as tinkering, and hidden workings, I can testify to this effect. I had been "interested" in computers in the mid-eighties, the aftermath of exposure to a TRS-80 in my form 1 classroom (imagine ardent 11-year-olds: "TRS-80 is the best computer!!") and a smattering of BASIC programming later on in the USA, in 7th grade science class.
When my family finally got a computer, I believe in 1988, it was a Macintosh SE. There appeared to be no place to actually "type commands" or write real computer programs... the closest thing to a cli or compiler was Hypercard. As I was about as interested in designing custom address books (or even slideshows with little buttons) as I was in chewing off my own legs, this threw me into a deep funk... (bear in mind this was a tiny all-in-one machine with a tiny memory, tiny screen, and pixellated black-and-white graphics. None of the perks that would have made it possible to do anything remotely awe-inspiring in Hypercard. A case in point was a child-prodigy-written Hypercard "game" which we acquired somehow, of whose contents I only remember a giant, badly drawn, barking rabbit. I wonder where the prodigy is now).
I wound up using the computer solely for MacDraw, word processing and the text adventure "Leather Godesses of Phobos".
It was unix in college that convinced me computers were worth my time after all.
Granted, the situation on a modern Windows PC or Mac is nowhere near as grim as the one in which I - adolescent - was trapped in the late eighties, in terms of available software, tools, resources, avenues of attack; but it's all no less a layer of abstraction which prevents the user from noticing how wonderful it is that it all works. I prefer to take my wonder head-on.
(Ironic postscript: and a decade late, in an unrelated vein of exploration, I bought my first commodore and discovered the intoxicating effects of poking machine instructions in a machine with no hard drive. No or minimal tools - and minimal separation from the OS - can be richly rewarding). --
Re:A useful token: regardless of book contents
on
Death March
·
· Score: 1
Of course, you must remember to tie the book to the brick.
A useful token: regardless of book contents
on
Death March
·
· Score: 1
If nothing else, this book could be used as a subtle means of communicating your dissatisfaction with a crazed environment... say, by purchasing a copy and leaving it conspicuously on your desk.
Or of course, as an anonymous gift to your favorite manager-
Potentially, the source code could be used to produce bootleg copies of Microsoft software, perhaps boasting "improvements", or modifications to make it work with hitherto incompatible systems.
it's nice to see yet *another* recklessly-psyched-about-genetic-engineering story heading
And in case I glossed over the first point, CAFFEINE IS NOT A NUTRIENT: It's not particularly good for you... it can cause considerable discomfort... can be dangerous when combined with other things and activities which are also reputed to "provide energy"... does odd things to blood vessels... can cause ulcers and irritation of the stomach walls... etc etc.
I'll stick with adrenaline, thanks (not all that healthy either, but at least it's evolved in tandem with humanity,)
I would expect that, since your original, private key contains no references to the additional recipient, the signature created by it would be verifiable only by the corresponding public key.
In this case, the corresponding public key is the original "key material", or payload, in a public key of yours whether or not that key has been tampered with.
Let's say the recipient of the message tries to verify it using a copy of your public key, which has had an ADK inserted by J. R. Hacker.
The message should verify OK as being "from you".
However, if the recipient (aware of the identity of JRH) tries to verify it using a copy of JRH's public key, it will not verify. JRH's public key and your private key have no relationship whatever.
...Now, if JRH adds a reference to your public key, as an ADK, to JRH's public key, I would be unsurprised if the signature "verified" when tested against the altered JRH public key.
However, were JRH to do this to his own key, it would have the interesting side effect of allowing you to read any of the messages encrypted to JRH using this altered key... not something your savvy hacker should do;)
All of the above is speculation only, I haven't tested it against a working PGP, or checked source code... not that an experiment would be hard to devise. Like Ralf, you would need a text editor...
Meaning, the user's default (and personalized) view into the system, as modified by any changes the user has made to their view within the current window of the windowing system.
The effect is as if the entire filesystem, composition of compound directories, etc could be changed with the ease, transparency and *local scope* of environment variables set within an xterm in Unix...
Of course, I am nitpicking.
"Window" in this case is probably closer in equivalence to "login/run environment", than to "gui (as opposed to non-gui) interface", since there is no tty interface. What this gives you is the ability to construct restricted views, and run processes in them... a' la the webserver in the above post.
Permissions, etc remain unchanged as elements are bound and recombined into new views.
Also a note: the overview doc refers to Plan 9 as it existed in the mid-90s... the window manager, for instance, has changed since then.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a skin-tight bodysuit festooned with festive aerodynamic lumps in contrasting colors... a sleek, marine-life look, rather than the (competing interpretations) camel look or strange tumour look.
Imagine clothes with a series of gently domed globs attached down the sides, instead of the adidas-stripe gym suit look. For that matter, remember the eighties, when any number of PDAs could have taken up residence in the typical high-fashion shoulder pad.
It could happen, and bell-bottoms are conclusive proof.
Among the things that they are preposterously trying to patent is the concept of "pocket within a pocket". Hello?
and how much better would it be if that was "Davos" island...
--
I seem to remember a PBS special (Nova?) that had a segment on experiments done with image recognition in pigeons. These pigeons were placed in a large, darkened box that displayed a projected image on one wall. They were then prompted to respond to the image in different ways and were given food feedback if they were "correct" (pecked when the right image was displayed). The pigeons were first introduced to one image and then shown related images as well as unrelated images to see if they could generalize... it emerged that pigeons can distinguish Monet paintings from Cezanne, though they have some trouble telling Cezanne from Picasso.
--
Ever see "the Sentinel"...
Computer nerd, my ass. What about the ubermensch whose senses were sharpened in the Brazilian rainforest to the point where he can clearly see the limited edition Willie Mays watch visible for a split second on the two-pixel wrist of a bank robber caught on grainy security camera?
--
After you realize that the deus ex machina of "Ms Lee Harvey Oswald" is inevitable in every show, it really starts to grind. Did the show need such a painful, annoying and repetitive plot device?
And why play down the main (title!) characters as jackasses? As seen on the X-Files, they may have been fringe but were not completely useless. Why place them in a show which should have been titled Doofus and the Annoying Superbitch? (a very competent and self-assured, to say nothing of contemptuous person who somehow has nothing better to do than the exact same whatever the lone gunmen happen to be doing.)
On a related note, why hasn't Eve already made herself ruler of the world?
A lot of potential wasted with this programme. Oh, and too much "flying finger single keystroke breaks into DOD" stuff.
--
From my perspective, the biggest advantage of most apps on Linux is the availability of source code. Free or not free, if there is source code I am able to investigate and attempt to fix problems, bugs and any blatant oversights which crop up during daily use. I would have less of a reaction to the Windows paradigm as "obnoxious" if the same could be said for a reasonable number of apps for that platform... Unfortunately it can't. I suppose it's a cultural thing.
I'd even be more than willing to pay for something if I was allowed (able!) to modify it after purchase. My site uses a proprietary database app built on UniData and it's a weekly occurrence for me to find a serious and mind-numbingly stupid bug in the product, which the company has been aware of in some cases for 5 years or more (several upgrade cycles) and hasn't gotten off its sad ass to fix. We are bound in to this product, essentially tied to a piece of crap which is functional most of the time but all indications are that it is held together behind the scenes by the coding equivalent of tacky decades-old chewing gum and guano. (BTW, it's not UniData's fault. UniData itself is quite fun.)
Once you have gotten used to the ability to make trivial repairs as needed to products which are broken, it makes you apoplectic when you aren't able, and a vendor does not appear to be interested (or perhaps mentally capable). In contrast, the people who accept broken apps on whatever proprietary platform, Windows, Solaris, MacOS*, etc etc, are the same people who will accept broken apps on Linux. Meaning that for anyone who isn't going to try to "fix it" themselves, the most that's involved is "make" and then "make install".
--
(I.e. your collection of vintage 80s microcomputers, collection of operating systems, overclocking hobby, your pet programming project, your interesting! sysadmin/ software/ engineering job or graduate degree program, your alluringly delicate and lanky bod, fluffy stomach hair, etc etc).
Fact: there are humans of both sexes who shrink in revulsion from those people I will only characterize as "scary conformist athlete fucks". ...I could go on in this vein. And from people who believe the quickest way to get a filly into bed is to talk to it (her?) like she is a horse (don't believe me? Read ESR- and remember! no sudden movements).
Get someone compatible, and you don't have to run away or block your ears when they start talking. Case in point: during a brief visit with my 2 60-something scientist parents this winter, I "introduced" them both to the early-PM SciFi channel lineup and inadvertently produced - simultaneously - 2 drooling, aged Babylon 5 rerun addicts. Imagine being able to watch meaningful TV with your hon.
Not that my parents should be the ideal you strive for.
PS: Hell... Anyone who can answer "yes" to the last 2 in my list of attributes, plus at least 2 of the others... should post a reply.
Subtle, piquant body odour is optional and to your taste; however, if present, said odour must not be "poopy". Bhangra or really vile electropop music a plus.
PPS: (Re. the horse approach: Isn't she going to notice? Nah... try this test case: pick any friend, and talk to him as if he is a horse for a few hours. Then ask if he noticed anything. He will probably say, "Noticed what? No, though come to think of it I have begun to feel an upwelling and inexplicable desire to let you... um... Hey! That Pamela Anderson is really hot!".)
--
Unfortunately, you can't simply "digest" radioactivity.
--
I guess that's pretty clean. Yeah.
If I had a couple barrels of radioactive sludge, heck, I could spread it on my vegetable garden.
--
Funny- when I read the original posting I assumed the "notable exception" referred to was Emacs, OF COURSE.
--
http://members.aol.com/medinformaticsmd/
Maybe the clinic already has an informatician on board, or has a grasp of best practices. Or at least, someone involved who has heard of informatics :-)
But no matter how jaded you are, I think you can be inspired by these accounts of spectacular failure:t m
http://members.aol.com/medinformaticsmd/failure.h
...Organizations which involved or approached computing in exactly the *wrong* way.
--
What if this side effect was completely at random?
What if they threw out occasional issues of magazines, again completely at random? What if they threw out books? And not just the gray-area "erotic" books- Lady Chatterley's Lover, The Story of O, anything by Danielle Steele- but opuses like Moby Dick? Oops, bad example. Let's try for opuses-without-Dick-in-the-title. The Tale of Peter Rabbit? The Catholic Catechism (a book by John A. Hardon)?
What if they threw out books for non-funny reasons, say because the book contained the sentence, "This chemical has been shown to decrease the sex drive in rats". Or, "The church members were hard pressed as it was; how could they possibly fund the erection of a new chapel?" Or "Mount Everest is the highest of the Himalayas". Or "The hot, steamy weather of Atlanta hung over that year's olympic games like a curse".
If you're going to mandate an "improvement" in a public service, for god's sake, don't shoot yourself in the foot.
--
What more can I say?
--
Both of my biochemist parents have very strong misgivings about GMO. You're not going to tell me that they don't know what a gene is.
A specific example, my father (plant biochemist and physiologist) is disturbed by the effects, in practice, of genetic modification in corn to include genes from Bacillus Thuringiensis to produce thuringicides for purposes of supressing the growth of caterpillars in the plant stem. Instead of attaching the gene in such a way that it is expressed only in vegetative growth, or whatever (ask him-), the gene is expressed throughout the corn including in the harvested kernels themselves. More or less approximating his opinion, this is reckless overkill, indicative of an overall "just insert the genetic material somewhere and let what happens happen" mindset among the scientists employed by Monsanto et al... who are taking something of a half-assed approach in their cutting and pasting of genetic fragments with only partial control over the process.
--
You *do* need a separate partition for your linux installation.
But the good news is, you're not screwed, if you have a bit of resourcefulness and anwhere to store big chunks of data outside your computer.
If your HD is already partitioned into more than one virtual "drive", you're home free. Same if you have several hard drives- just dedicate one of them to LinuxPPC. Otherwise, see below...
I was able to install LinuxPPC on my Macintosh at work, without disrupting my existing MacOS setup and, actually, using only fairly primitive tools. That was in 1997.
Step 1: repartition disk.
Step 2: restore MacOS, install linux on the various partitions. In a nutshell, the procedure was
You can save disk images; or even a bunch of Stuffit archives will work, if you lack space.
*NOTE* - do NOT attempt any of this if you haven't more than enough free disk space on your Mac for a linux install in the first place. A warning for the impetuous. Check LinuxPPC's website for space recommendations.
Note that if you want to read/ examine your MacOS volume when in Linux, you may want to use HFS if possible, or to create an extra MacOS partition which is HFS; this is for data exchange, as (check me on this!) last I was aware, there were no reliable Linux drivers available for the HFS+ filesystem.
For instance, you can install a minimal MacOS on your soon-to-be-LinuxPPC partition, boot that, and use it to access your backups / copy them to your "permanent" MacOS partition. Then select the "permanent" partition as your bootable drive, and reboot to test that it works.
--
unfortunately, the SSL add-on is not available for mozilla on Macintosh,
at least not yet.
--
As far as tinkering, and hidden workings, I can testify to this effect. I had been "interested" in computers in the mid-eighties, the aftermath of exposure to a TRS-80 in my form 1 classroom (imagine ardent 11-year-olds: "TRS-80 is the best computer!!") and a smattering of BASIC programming later on in the USA, in 7th grade science class.
When my family finally got a computer, I believe in 1988, it was a Macintosh SE. There appeared to be no place to actually "type commands" or write real computer programs... the closest thing to a cli or compiler was Hypercard. As I was about as interested in designing custom address books (or even slideshows with little buttons) as I was in chewing off my own legs, this threw me into a deep funk... (bear in mind this was a tiny all-in-one machine with a tiny memory, tiny screen, and pixellated black-and-white graphics. None of the perks that would have made it possible to do anything remotely awe-inspiring in Hypercard. A case in point was a child-prodigy-written Hypercard "game" which we acquired somehow, of whose contents I only remember a giant, badly drawn, barking rabbit. I wonder where the prodigy is now).
I wound up using the computer solely for MacDraw, word processing and the text adventure "Leather Godesses of Phobos".
It was unix in college that convinced me computers were worth my time after all.
Granted, the situation on a modern Windows PC or Mac is nowhere near as grim as the one in which I - adolescent - was trapped in the late eighties, in terms of available software, tools, resources, avenues of attack; but it's all no less a layer of abstraction which prevents the user from noticing how wonderful it is that it all works. I prefer to take my wonder head-on.
(Ironic postscript: and a decade late, in an unrelated vein of exploration, I bought my first commodore and discovered the intoxicating effects of poking machine instructions in a machine with no hard drive. No or minimal tools - and minimal separation from the OS - can be richly rewarding).
--
Of course, you must remember to tie the book to the brick.
--
Linux & Intel-Linux != Intel-Linux
You mean,
Linux | Intel-Linux != Intel-Linux
or preferably,
Linux | Intel_Linux != Intel_Linux
--
If nothing else, this book could be used as a subtle means of communicating your dissatisfaction with a crazed environment... say, by purchasing a copy and leaving it conspicuously on your desk.
Or of course, as an anonymous gift to your favorite manager-
--
From the analysis accompanying the BBC article:
:)
snip..
How can the code be misused?
Potentially, the source code could be used to produce bootleg copies of Microsoft software, perhaps boasting "improvements", or modifications to make it work with hitherto incompatible systems.
..snip
...sounds like misuse to me.
--
caffeine isn't a nutrient
long-term ill effects
topic alert? what's next, "exciting ginseng news"?
it's nice to see yet *another* recklessly-psyched-about-genetic-engineering story heading
And in case I glossed over the first point, CAFFEINE IS NOT A NUTRIENT:
It's not particularly good for you... it can cause considerable discomfort... can be dangerous when combined with other things and activities which are also reputed to "provide energy"... does odd things to blood vessels... can cause ulcers and irritation of the stomach walls... etc etc.
I'll stick with adrenaline, thanks
(not all that healthy either, but at least it's evolved in tandem with humanity,)
keete
-
I would expect that, since your original, private key contains no references to the additional recipient, the signature created by it would be verifiable only by the corresponding public key.
;)
In this case, the corresponding public key is the original "key material", or payload, in a public key of yours whether or not that key has been tampered with.
Let's say the recipient of the message tries to verify it using a copy of your public key, which has had an ADK inserted by J. R. Hacker.
The message should verify OK as being "from you".
However, if the recipient (aware of the identity of JRH) tries to verify it using a copy of JRH's public key, it will not verify. JRH's public key and your private key have no relationship whatever.
...Now, if JRH adds a reference to your public key, as an ADK, to JRH's public key, I would be unsurprised if the signature "verified" when tested against the altered JRH public key.
However, were JRH to do this to his own key, it would have the interesting side effect of allowing you to read any of the messages encrypted to JRH using this altered key... not something your savvy hacker should do
All of the above is speculation only, I haven't tested it against a working PGP, or checked source code... not that an experiment would be hard to devise. Like Ralf, you would need a text editor...
keete
-
No, they really mean "window"...
Meaning, the user's default (and personalized) view into the system, as modified by any changes the user has made to their view within the current window of the windowing system.
The effect is as if the entire filesystem, composition of compound directories, etc could be changed with the ease, transparency and *local scope* of environment variables set within an xterm in Unix...
Of course, I am nitpicking.
"Window" in this case is probably closer in equivalence to "login/run environment", than to "gui (as opposed to non-gui) interface", since there is no tty interface. What this gives you is the ability to construct restricted views, and run processes in them... a' la the webserver in the above post.
Permissions, etc remain unchanged as elements are bound and recombined into new views.
Also a note: the overview doc refers to Plan 9 as it existed in the mid-90s... the window manager, for instance, has changed since then.
keete
-