Once we figure out what scheme they're actually using, it will be pretty easy to check for it. The problem is that there are an absurdly large number of systems they could be using, and I highly doubt we're going to be able to download the specs from FBI.gov
If they were actually using MD5 hashes, then a single byte changed in a virus would prevent it from being recognised. That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
It's actually pretty easy to sign the executable as part of the executable itself. Grab one of the windows resource property fields that you see when you do "properties" on an.exe file (like "Description"), and put the signature there. The signature is for the entire file, except the signature itself.
I don't see how you can dismiss ``children's "literature"'' so quickly. I can't think of any books that you can have on your reading list that are actually more important to have read than some of the best ``children's "literature"''.
When an author wants to influence the mindset of their audience, they write a children's book. Do you really want to miss out on what authors want the world around them thinking? What fiction targeted at adults actually promotes a mindset in the way that say "The Chronicles of Narnia" does?
There are no significant differences that would prevent a realistic sh script from being forwards compatible with bash as long as when the script was written everyone remembered that it might have to run under bash, so use "|" for your pipes instead of "^".
Some judge, some time in the early 1900's, did something amazingly stupid: he ruled that corporations were effectively people for the purpoise of legal rights.
Or a Windows PC and Visual Basic. Works just as well.
Actually, it doesn't. Applescript is designed from the perspective of *automating an existing GUI*. VB doesn't provide that type of functionality at all. VB does something else.
As the consitution says, "[Congress is granted the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
This section of the constituion is the entire basis of our current patent and copyright laws. You will note that it explicitly states a purpoise (to promote the progress of science and the useful arts), and that that any any such laws should only applie "for limited times". Further, at the time of writing this, there was no way for a company to be recognised as an "author" or "inventor", because the court cases that gave companies the legal status of people had not yet happened.
So basically, the current laws have *nothing* to do with the intent of the founders of the United States.
In this case, the ease of use argument is based on someone trying to help the user.
On Windows, you have to explain to the user, perhaps over the phone, how to navigate though the complex GUI to get to the setting that you want to change.
On Linux/Unix, all you have to say is 1.) Get a terminal window, 2.) Type in "su -" followed by your root password, 3.) type in "vi/etc/resolv.conf", 4.) type in "shift-G shift-A enter nameserver 209.142.244.1 enter ESC shift-ZZ"
The Windows method seems somewhat easier when a user is trying to figure out the solution by themself, but the Linux way is easier to explain over the phone. That's why when you buy Windows software, the easy installation instructions on the CD say "Go to start -> run, and type in D:\install.exe where D is the letter of your CDROM drive".
For extra ease of adminstration, the admin can not give the user the root password, and then when they need to make a change like this, ssh into the user's machine and make it themself.
As far as public Web Servers go, the usage of Linux and FreeBSD (Which can run Linux binaries) probably exceeds the usage of Windows NT.
Beyond that, Apache on Unix exceeds IIS on NT by a significant margin (60% to 30% or so).
If there were an "execute arbitrary shell code" hole in Apache, it would be really easy to make a shell or perl worm that was compatible with 95% of the UNIXes out there.
If someone invented a safe that was totally impossible to open without knowing the combination, I wouldn't want to see a law that said that a master combination must be built into all such safes so that the police could break in if they got a search warrant.
All a search warrant or a phone tapping order let the police do is *try* to find evidence. If they can't find it, tough luck.
Farmers could argue that it's easier to grow one crop because then they don't have to deal with the disparate growing enviornments that different crops require. Growing different crops is a little more work in the short term...
The Tenth Amendment says nothing about privacy. This Amendment covers States rights.
The 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Many claim that this means "Any rights not explicitly specified are protected."
Remember that if you intend to have an innocent message, you must have at least 3 sets of packets: chaff, real message, fake message
Realistically, that's pretty obvious, so you want something on the order of 7 sets:
chaff, chaff, chaff, chaff, fake message, fake message, real message
If you're a single guy on a plane with a knife, i can tell you that it is entirely impossible to hijack an airplane.
In this case, they would need guns, a good enough plan to be able to get into the cockpit and get a gun pointed at the pilot before he can radio out "We are being hijacked", and a skilled enough airplane pilot to take over the plane and fly it into the side of a building.
Slashdot Mirror
Once we figure out what scheme they're actually using, it will be pretty easy to check for it. The problem is that there are an absurdly large number of systems they could be using, and I highly doubt we're going to be able to download the specs from FBI.gov
If they were actually using MD5 hashes, then a single byte changed in a virus would prevent it from being recognised. That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
It's actually pretty easy to sign the executable as part of the executable itself. Grab one of the windows resource property fields that you see when you do "properties" on an .exe file (like "Description"), and put the signature there. The signature is for the entire file, except the signature itself.
Use the env hack:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
I don't see how you can dismiss ``children's "literature"'' so quickly. I can't think of any books that you can have on your reading list that are actually more important to have read than some of the best ``children's "literature"''.
When an author wants to influence the mindset of their audience, they write a children's book. Do you really want to miss out on what authors want the world around them thinking? What fiction targeted at adults actually promotes a mindset in the way that say "The Chronicles of Narnia" does?
There are no significant differences that would prevent a realistic sh script from being forwards compatible with bash as long as when the script was written everyone remembered that it might have to run under bash, so use "|" for your pipes instead of "^".
Some judge, some time in the early 1900's, did something amazingly stupid: he ruled that corporations were effectively people for the purpoise of legal rights.
Actually, it doesn't. Applescript is designed from the perspective of *automating an existing GUI*. VB doesn't provide that type of functionality at all. VB does something else.
There are hacks to get 32 bit machines to support more than 2 gig of ram. Linux 2.4 seems to support up to 4gb.
I'm afraid it can't compete with the ease of use of a banana.
You're absolutely right, you can't get much better than needing three clicks to get to an iconized window...
This section of the constituion is the entire basis of our current patent and copyright laws. You will note that it explicitly states a purpoise (to promote the progress of science and the useful arts), and that that any any such laws should only applie "for limited times". Further, at the time of writing this, there was no way for a company to be recognised as an "author" or "inventor", because the court cases that gave companies the legal status of people had not yet happened.
So basically, the current laws have *nothing* to do with the intent of the founders of the United States.
In this case, the ease of use argument is based on someone trying to help the user.
On Windows, you have to explain to the user, perhaps over the phone, how to navigate though the complex GUI to get to the setting that you want to change.
On Linux/Unix, all you have to say is 1.) Get a terminal window, 2.) Type in "su -" followed by your root password, 3.) type in "vi /etc/resolv.conf", 4.) type in "shift-G shift-A enter nameserver 209.142.244.1 enter ESC shift-ZZ"
The Windows method seems somewhat easier when a user is trying to figure out the solution by themself, but the Linux way is easier to explain over the phone. That's why when you buy Windows software, the easy installation instructions on the CD say "Go to start -> run, and type in D:\install.exe where D is the letter of your CDROM drive".
For extra ease of adminstration, the admin can not give the user the root password, and then when they need to make a change like this, ssh into the user's machine and make it themself.
As far as public Web Servers go, the usage of Linux and FreeBSD (Which can run Linux binaries) probably exceeds the usage of Windows NT.
Beyond that, Apache on Unix exceeds IIS on NT by a significant margin (60% to 30% or so).
If there were an "execute arbitrary shell code" hole in Apache, it would be really easy to make a shell or perl worm that was compatible with 95% of the UNIXes out there.
Reverse engineering for compatiblility is explicitly protected anywhere there are reasonable laws about that sort of thing.
It will also make every version of Microsoft Windows after version 95B or NT4SP2 equally illegal.
Internet Explorer includes strong crypto for SSL.
If someone invented a safe that was totally impossible to open without knowing the combination, I wouldn't want to see a law that said that a master combination must be built into all such safes so that the police could break in if they got a search warrant.
All a search warrant or a phone tapping order let the police do is *try* to find evidence. If they can't find it, tough luck.
Farmers could argue that it's easier to grow one crop because then they don't have to deal with the disparate growing enviornments that different crops require. Growing different crops is a little more work in the short term...
It seems to me that this pretty clearly states that any state privacy law will *supercede* any fedral law.
The 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Many claim that this means "Any rights not explicitly specified are protected."
No, because although you could spot your chosen plaintext, that wouldn't help you determine what any of the other packets were.
Remember that if you intend to have an innocent message, you must have at least 3 sets of packets: chaff, real message, fake message
Realistically, that's pretty obvious, so you want something on the order of 7 sets:
chaff, chaff, chaff, chaff, fake message, fake message, real message
If you're a single guy on a plane with a knife, i can tell you that it is entirely impossible to hijack an airplane.
In this case, they would need guns, a good enough plan to be able to get into the cockpit and get a gun pointed at the pilot before he can radio out "We are being hijacked", and a skilled enough airplane pilot to take over the plane and fly it into the side of a building.
We have the cryptographic techniques to make a wireless protocal unsnoopable. It's just a quesiton of someone actually implementing it.
Have you actually bought any of Loki's Games?
Do you actually have a computer system with supported hardware?
With Loki games on supported hardware, installing and running games on Linux is amazingly simple and fun.