Yes, email can be forged, ISP logs are a bit harder.
Just because an email has "joe@blow.com" in the "From" field doesn't mean blow.com will have the email [or at least the transaction] in the log.
And no, contracts do not require lawyers. When you buy something with a credit card you sign the slip agreeing to the debit from your credit account. Without the signed slip the transaction is technically void even though its removed from your account automatically. Trust me, I worked for a pharmacy [as a cashier no less...:-)]...
Using e-mail, Shattuck and Klotzback had settled on the price; the e-mail referred to the purchase and sale agreement that would be prepared.
Um, agreeing to prepare a contract is not the same as agreeing on a contract.
According to the article the only thing they accomplished via email is what the initial contract arrangements would be, he never agreed to sell his house.
Either I read that wrong, the article is wrong or there isn't a case.
See the problem is everyone wants a big piece of the pie.
MSFT has not killed niche OS'es [e.g. palmtops and other embedded devices].
Why keep bashing your head into the wall with x86 desktops? Face it, Windows works, it works well and everyone is familiar with it.
Killing off MSFT just so you can feel vindicated for being a linux cult member doesn't help matters. Virtually every computer user could care less for the OS war, they just want a computer that is easy to use.
I mean for all its worth we might as well say keyboards have a monopoly on input devices, thus I should invent a new method just for the sake of inventing a new method and get all keyboards banned.
In the end, if you are going to use a x86 box why not just use Windows and OSS tools for that such as
www.cygwin.com www.delorie.com/djgpp/ [gimp for win32] www.mozilla.org ...etc...
Actually the correct answer should stand out like a beacon.
In early Adleman experiments the correct solution is one where the opposing strands completely bind together. Then they use a comb+gel+electrode+glow_in_dark_radioactive_die. The shorter strands will make it further through the gel towards the electrodes. the longer [complete answer] strand will not move far.
Obviously new DNA computers use different filtering techniques...
Another thing you should read up on is PCR or Polymeraese Chain Reaction [and I know I can't spell]. Its a technique that won a Nobel prize. I don't recall the technique but it involves making each strand duplicate themselves. So to get the 2^64 strands you alluded to you apply the PCR technique 64 times.
This isn't new research. In fact Adleman has published materials on his results before.
The big setbacks of DNA computing are
1. Slow to setup 2. Takes a while to get results 3. Has a high rate of error [compared to a typical computer]
What people mistake is that while a DNA computer could test 2^n cases simultaneously it still takes a while to get the results back. During that time errors can creep in (this is real life...)
I'm glad I live in Canada where my biggest problems are
a) Passing School b) Getting a job c) Putting up with the bloody cold.
See I have what could be construed as a relative interest in reality. What do you think will come of the "anti-trust" suit anyways? Suppose you guys break up Microsoft, then you will have to tackle IBM, Cisco, Intel, etc... [e.g. all other big mostly monopolies].
What you will end up with is hurting yourselves. What you guys fail to realize is that real United States citizens actually work at these "evil" companies.
While companies should be kept in check w.r.t their EULA's [e.g. fair use] arbitrarly breaking up companies only hurts yourselves.
A properly designed system will have the following two features.
a) Leaking the card owners details does not compromise the system for other users.
b) Plugging the card into a reader does not immediately compromise the owners security. e.g. authentication is used with the remote client [and the reader acts as a relay or proxy].
Trying to prevent people from tearing it apart and looking at the guts is just stupid and counter-productive. The more important side channels are timing and power, not preventing people with electron microscopes...
For example, with a bogus reader even if a) and b) hold true, it could be that a timing attack reveal clues about the secret keys used.
What if a fix is not immediately obvious and takes a week or two to fix?
I think its good coding practice
1. Be open to accept [and further publish] all reported bugs for others to see.
2. Don't claim things you can't prove.
3. Take appropriate actions when a bug is found [e.g. send an advisory, workaround, etc...]
Forcing people to write perfect code their first try is a pain. Half the fun/experience is getting feedback from other users.
Also realize alot of stuff out there is from teenagers or young-20's people. I can't afford [or even manage] to be sued for a project I write that goes south. Bringing a 17yr old into court because their web daemon [etc] has a potentially fatal flaw in it is just stupid and unproductive.
Anything that pisses off smokers in my books is a good idea.
My main beef is the 2nd hand smoke. I don't care if you kill yourself, but why should you force others to be victims.
Technically had 2nd hand smoke been declared an asault I could go about kick the crap out of all the shithead smokers in front of my school.
You want a dirty habit try drinking coke/pepsi/cola instead. That shit is nasty enough.
BTW if you have kids and smoke you are a dirty whore and deserve to die. Kids subjected to that shit are normally more apt to get bronchitis as well as pneumonia [I got it 4 years in a row when I was a kid].
Except Hamibi doesn't have a case. He was clearly abusing a PRIVATELY owned server.
Just because a system is publicly accessible doesn't mean its "public domain property".
What about stores in a Mall? I can just walk in off the street, does that I mean I can do what I want in the store?
I think "Hamibi" is a good example of people trying to make causes [like Kevin Mitnick another criminal]. I mean how can you do something that at the least is clearly bad faith [if not illegal] then sit back and cry your rights are violated when they stop you from abusing other peoples equipment?
Their point is that the average consumer will not look at a warez site for a copy of a text. They will just buy a copy from a legit source. Actually that depends on what the text is. If its one of chapters.ca favourite "Chicken soup for the Jewish soul" I really can't see hordes of eleet hackerz distributing a copy illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what expert witnesses are for.
I could bring a piece of paper in with your "signature" on it. A hand writing expert would examine it.
Similarly a computer scientist of some sort would examine the logs of the various networks involved and see if the email could be real.
Tom
Yes, email can be forged, ISP logs are a bit harder.
:-)]...
Just because an email has "joe@blow.com" in the "From" field doesn't mean blow.com will have the email [or at least the transaction] in the log.
And no, contracts do not require lawyers. When you buy something with a credit card you sign the slip agreeing to the debit from your credit account. Without the signed slip the transaction is technically void even though its removed from your account automatically. Trust me, I worked for a pharmacy [as a cashier no less...
Tom
From the article...
Using e-mail, Shattuck and Klotzback had settled on the price; the e-mail referred to the purchase and sale agreement that would be prepared.
Um, agreeing to prepare a contract is not the same as agreeing on a contract.
According to the article the only thing they accomplished via email is what the initial contract arrangements would be, he never agreed to sell his house.
Either I read that wrong, the article is wrong or there isn't a case.
Tom
For the emails to be binding they have to examine the ISP logs really. That is assuming the ISP keeps accurate logs of traffic.
I doubt the judge assumes that nobody could impostor others in the "from" field of an email.
Tom
See the problem is everyone wants a big piece of the pie.
MSFT has not killed niche OS'es [e.g. palmtops and other embedded devices].
Why keep bashing your head into the wall with x86 desktops? Face it, Windows works, it works well and everyone is familiar with it.
Killing off MSFT just so you can feel vindicated for being a linux cult member doesn't help matters. Virtually every computer user could care less for the OS war, they just want a computer that is easy to use.
I mean for all its worth we might as well say keyboards have a monopoly on input devices, thus I should invent a new method just for the sake of inventing a new method and get all keyboards banned.
In the end, if you are going to use a x86 box why not just use Windows and OSS tools for that such as
www.cygwin.com
www.delorie.com/djgpp/
[gimp for win32]
www.mozilla.org
...etc...
Tom
Actually the correct answer should stand out like a beacon.
In early Adleman experiments the correct solution is one where the opposing strands completely bind together. Then they use a comb+gel+electrode+glow_in_dark_radioactive_die. The shorter strands will make it further through the gel towards the electrodes. the longer [complete answer] strand will not move far.
Obviously new DNA computers use different filtering techniques...
Another thing you should read up on is PCR or Polymeraese Chain Reaction [and I know I can't spell]. Its a technique that won a Nobel prize. I don't recall the technique but it involves making each strand duplicate themselves. So to get the 2^64 strands you alluded to you apply the PCR technique 64 times.
[no mention of errors...]
Tom
This isn't new research. In fact Adleman has published materials on his results before.
The big setbacks of DNA computing are
1. Slow to setup
2. Takes a while to get results
3. Has a high rate of error [compared to a typical computer]
What people mistake is that while a DNA computer could test 2^n cases simultaneously it still takes a while to get the results back. During that time errors can creep in (this is real life...)
Tom
Two years ago I bought
ISBN 3-540-64196-3
which discussed Adlemans experiements.
How could this article describe it as the "first" dna computer used to solve a problem?
I'm glad I live in Canada where my biggest problems are
a) Passing School
b) Getting a job
c) Putting up with the bloody cold.
See I have what could be construed as a relative interest in reality. What do you think will come of the "anti-trust" suit anyways? Suppose you guys break up Microsoft, then you will have to tackle IBM, Cisco, Intel, etc... [e.g. all other big mostly monopolies].
What you will end up with is hurting yourselves. What you guys fail to realize is that real United States citizens actually work at these "evil" companies.
While companies should be kept in check w.r.t their EULA's [e.g. fair use] arbitrarly breaking up companies only hurts yourselves.
Tom
A properly designed system will have the following two features.
a) Leaking the card owners details does not compromise the system for other users.
b) Plugging the card into a reader does not immediately compromise the owners security. e.g. authentication is used with the remote client [and the reader acts as a relay or proxy].
Trying to prevent people from tearing it apart and looking at the guts is just stupid and counter-productive. The more important side channels are timing and power, not preventing people with electron microscopes...
For example, with a bogus reader even if a) and b) hold true, it could be that a timing attack reveal clues about the secret keys used.
Tom
What sort of delay is acceptable?
What if a fix is not immediately obvious and takes a week or two to fix?
I think its good coding practice
1. Be open to accept [and further publish] all reported bugs for others to see.
2. Don't claim things you can't prove.
3. Take appropriate actions when a bug is found [e.g. send an advisory, workaround, etc...]
Forcing people to write perfect code their first try is a pain. Half the fun/experience is getting feedback from other users.
Also realize alot of stuff out there is from teenagers or young-20's people. I can't afford [or even manage] to be sued for a project I write that goes south. Bringing a 17yr old into court because their web daemon [etc] has a potentially fatal flaw in it is just stupid and unproductive.
There I said my 2 cents.
Tom
Tom
That is like so totally funny. I wish I had thought of that.
Seriously people.... move along nothing to see here.
Smoking is desirable.
Only for stupid people. Recall when you were young, "... in a fire stay below the smoke...".
Are you saying a 6yr old is smarter then you?
Tom
See the problem is this
1. Smoking is not requisit nor desirable.
2. People doing it have low willpower and obviously no concern for others.
Dying from cancer from an unknown agent is a tradegy, but dying from lung cancer from a known cancer causing agent is just stupid.
I mean why not go sun tan!!!
At least people who tan or eat bad foods etc, don't subject others to the same pains.
Tom
What if we put a levy on knifes so that the police can receive some money back for all the related crimes they have to investigate?
...
While were at it though lets put levies on
1. Cars
2. Spoons
3. Bats
4. Hammers
5. Pillows
6. Books [sharp edges afterall]
7. Breadboxes
8.
Tom
Anything that pisses off smokers in my books is a good idea.
My main beef is the 2nd hand smoke. I don't care if you kill yourself, but why should you force others to be victims.
Technically had 2nd hand smoke been declared an asault I could go about kick the crap out of all the shithead smokers in front of my school.
You want a dirty habit try drinking coke/pepsi/cola instead. That shit is nasty enough.
BTW if you have kids and smoke you are a dirty whore and deserve to die. Kids subjected to that shit are normally more apt to get bronchitis as well as pneumonia [I got it 4 years in a row when I was a kid].
Tom
yeah but at least it means she might retire sooner which would be a good thing.
Amen to that. I wouldn't mind seeing Bryan Adams wacked as well though...
Tom
Yeah thats because VoIP networks are accessible to the common internet right?
Just because something has an IP doesn't mean its on what most people know as the www.
I mean common, anyone with a LAN knows this. My IP is 192.168.0.2 but you cannot see that from where you sit.
Anyways, I'd like to think there is more than one transatlantic carrier.
Tom
Well since when did the definition of "nerd" mean someone who uses a computer?
Tom
Not all nerds use computers, let alone Linux.
The "linux" cult culture is just so very lame....
Yeah and I meant in every article posted someone posts a comment about Linux.
Tom
Yeah, yeah, linux cool. Uh, beavis what are we doing on /.?
/. sucks!
he, heheh, heheheh, hehehehe, yeah
Anyways, is it a general rule that Linux must be mentioned in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE?
Tom
Except Hamibi doesn't have a case. He was clearly abusing a PRIVATELY owned server.
Just because a system is publicly accessible doesn't mean its "public domain property".
What about stores in a Mall? I can just walk in off the street, does that I mean I can do what I want in the store?
I think "Hamibi" is a good example of people trying to make causes [like Kevin Mitnick another criminal]. I mean how can you do something that at the least is clearly bad faith [if not illegal] then sit back and cry your rights are violated when they stop you from abusing other peoples equipment?
Tom
Their point is that the average consumer will not look at a warez site for a copy of a text. They will just buy a copy from a legit source. Actually that depends on what the text is. If its one of chapters.ca favourite "Chicken soup for the Jewish soul" I really can't see hordes of eleet hackerz distributing a copy illegally.
Tom
Sorry. Well naturally I am not a lawyer [or a citizen of the US].
So I suppose this new law is designed to make copying a bit easier then? Or to prevent people from making copying harder?
So you could say this new law is designed to uphold the spirit of "free use" provided "free use" is not a right nor a law.
Anyways, the solution is to move to Canada. Its too cold up here to give a damn about stupid money grubbers like the RIAA or MPAA.
Peace love and espresso,
Tom