Possession of L0phtcrack along with *.lc files from companies that you don't have authorization from is a "bad thing" ie crime.
How so? If I run L0phtcrack from my home machine on the cable modem and happen to intercept some login packets, and then decrypt them, what Bad Thing have I done?
Using that information to break into the network - yeah, that's bad, that's illegal. But listening for login packets and decrypting/storing the info seems to me to be just as "bad" as using a scanner to listen to cell calls. If the data is sensitive, don't blast it through my airspace/network.
Would someone like to fill us in on when and where just the possesion of a specific tool became illegal.
When you use them to break into something. These people weren't busted because they had a copy of L0phtcrack (although the Slashdot synopsis sure leads one to believe that), they were busted because they broke into systems. Having "break-in tools" is a bonus add-on charge in order to put them away longer.
Essentially there is nothing to this story. The LE people Did Good.
(If I were a cynical bastard I might think the/. writeup was done that way for the sole intent of getting traffic. Naw.)
What sort of person would design a system and think that although it wouldn't be used in 2000, it would be used in 1900? The sort of person that posts to Slashdot. We've already had two posters on this subject muff the 400 year rule.
In some circumstances it could be a well-thought out design trade-off. In the case of a watch you've got two scenarios:
1) You implement additional memory and code to take care of the year (four digits, of course), and every time the user sets the date/time they have to set the year as well - but you'll always get Feb28/29 right.
2) You save the time and effort, don't ask the user the year, and the user has to make a minor correction once every four years (roughly).
A whole bunch of Caller ID systems are going to be thinking it's Mar 01 as well. A good number of them (mine included) set their clocks with the datastream from the phone co. - and that data doesn't include the year. So they'll be right roughly 3 of four times in rolling from Feb 28 to Mar 01, but they'll be wrong today. Until they get a call, that is.
How kind of you to decide for me what my 'legitimate' reasons for a possessing a particular piece of computer code might be.
Did you even read the post, Sparky, or did you just toggle the knee into autojerk mode?
I never suggested people shouldn't have access to tools like these - have all the DDOS software, scripts, disassemblers, lockpicks and handguns you want, I don't care. I was simply pointing out that some tools have few legitimate (ie, legal) uses. DDOS software is one of them.
The big difference between net tools and guns, as far as "tools to commit crimes with"? The gun manufacturers have a powerfuly lobby (NRA) and boatloads of cash. Folks like Mixter are much easier prey.
There's a much bigger difference - there are very legitimate reasons for the average person to have a gun - namely, defense of self, family and property. Whereas the only legitimate use for these net tools is akin to having a set of lock picks to determine how vulnerable your own locks are against being picked.
In any event, aside from Apple, there were a number of companies working on bringing GUIs to personal computers, including GEM, TopView, and the Microsoft/IBM collaboration that was to become OS/2 and Windows after they parted company.
TopView was a GUI? I thought it was just a task-switcher...?
(My experience was with DESQview, which allegedly picked up where TopView left off. I loved DESQview. Quarterdeck could hack.)
To drive a car you have to get a licence, but to be resposible for someones life in a trial you only need to be selected........ I'm amazed human rights organisations have not stood up for the right of the defendant to be tried by proper licensed professionals.
So why not do away with juries altogether? The lawyers and judges are all certified, surely that makes them elite enough to decide the fate of the accused.
A 24-bit-per-pixel display card has a much wider color gamut than you're going to cram into an NTSC signal.
I guess I'm missing something here. A 24-bit graphics card can produce 2^24 different colors. An analog signal can express an infinite number of colors. What particular number can you represent in 24 bits that I can't represent in analog? IE, given the same tube, what color is your graphics card going to produce that my analog signal can't?
Perhaps the writer wasn't talking about static images, but moving video. IE, play that pirated Phantom Menace CD on your computer and it looks like crap compared to an infomercial on a cheap TV.
Of course we know this isn't a matter of the screen hardware - but I'll bet the writer doesn't.
Even the cheapest TV gets 30 frames per second, 1025x512 (is that right?) all the time. Your computer gets whatever the hardware / bandwidth / codec can supply at the moment.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that the vast majority of people have experience with only Intel machines. Of that population, the majority fall into one of two camps:
1) Used to use DOS, now uses Windows. Next to DOS, Windows is an improvement, at least for your average wordprocessing / spreadsheet cranking / internet surfing user.
2) Has only used Windows. Since they have no experience with other operating systems, they just sorta figure computers are expected to crash on a regular basis. In this case the user is sorta like a baby duck - the first thing they see imprints on them. And Bill Gates spent a lot of time and effort insuring those baby ducks saw Windows (very shrewd of him).
In light of this, I'm surprised the number is so low. I guess I overestimated the average user's tolerance for crap.
The VideoGuide even offered some functions that worked without the subscription, such as the universal remote. When they shut it down, they started sending "poison packets" to the receivers that rendered them completely non-functional.
Interesting. I never sent mine back (I thought it was too cool to part with, even if I couldn't use it) - I bet if I unscrewed the antenna it would immune to the poison packets. I'll have to fire it up and see what happens.
So we all get to have our computers running for months on end, our calculators running for years on end, and LEDs running infinately. Just think. We would make some super bright LEDs, use them for lights all over, and just hook up one of these power cells. Think of the power it would save!
Keep in mind that these fuel cells inhale (they need oxygen) and exhale (they give off steam). So putting your fuel-cell powered cell phone in your airtight breifcase may kill it.
I love these new cells, but we're going to have to change a few habits when using them.
Quick (serious) question: If you believe that all the life in the universe is on this rock, how can you go on living?
Quick, serious answer: Because what we've got going on this rock is plenty enough interesting to stick around for.
Works for me, at any rate.
Re:User preferences? How about Slant?
on
Virtual Newscaster
·
· Score: 1
You're on to something here - but why limit our options to just the look/feel/sound? Why limit our filters to just the kind of news we want to hear about?
I want my personal digital newscaster to slant the news according to my desires. Example: Engage Rush Limbaugh slant and instead of "A new tax is proposed..." you get "The evil godless commie bastards are planning once again to take more of your hard earned work to spend on their pointless and useless social programs...".
All kinds of slants could be possible. I'd like a Conspiracy slant - some algorthym that links seemingly disparate stories by way of some sinister "them" connection.
Of course "random" slant should be available, just to (1) make things more interesting and (2) broaden the mind. Perhaps it would be a bad idea to change slants too often, a different slant on every story would give me a headache fast.
Slashdot Mirror
in this case they did do a bad thing... because the method by which they obtained their *.lc files was clearly unauthorized.
True - but I wasn't talking about what's "unauthorized", I was talking about what's illegal.
Possession of L0phtcrack along with *.lc files from companies that you don't have authorization from is a "bad thing" ie crime.
How so? If I run L0phtcrack from my home machine on the cable modem and happen to intercept some login packets, and then decrypt them, what Bad Thing have I done?
Using that information to break into the network - yeah, that's bad, that's illegal. But listening for login packets and decrypting/storing the info seems to me to be just as "bad" as using a scanner to listen to cell calls. If the data is sensitive, don't blast it through my airspace/network.
Would someone like to fill us in on when and where just the possesion of a specific tool became illegal.
/. writeup was done that way for the sole intent of getting traffic. Naw.)
When you use them to break into something. These people weren't busted because they had a copy of L0phtcrack (although the Slashdot synopsis sure leads one to believe that), they were busted because they broke into systems. Having "break-in tools" is a bonus add-on charge in order to put them away longer.
Essentially there is nothing to this story. The LE people Did Good.
(If I were a cynical bastard I might think the
What sort of person would design a system and think that although it wouldn't be used in 2000, it would be used in 1900?
The sort of person that posts to Slashdot. We've already had two posters on this subject muff the 400 year rule.
In some circumstances it could be a well-thought out design trade-off. In the case of a watch you've got two scenarios:
1) You implement additional memory and code to take care of the year (four digits, of course), and every time the user sets the date/time they have to set the year as well - but you'll always get Feb28/29 right.
2) You save the time and effort, don't ask the user the year, and the user has to make a minor correction once every four years (roughly).
Is choice #2 really that ugly?
year%1000 == 0 ? isleap=true;
I'm curious - did you actually implement this anywhere?
If so, today may be a busy day for you.
Being that this is leapday, all salaried employees are working for free today.
But I'm getting a "free" day on all my bills that have a set monthly charge! Insurance, phone, ISP, etc...
A whole bunch of Caller ID systems are going to be thinking it's Mar 01 as well. A good number of them (mine included) set their clocks with the datastream from the phone co. - and that data doesn't include the year. So they'll be right roughly 3 of four times in rolling from Feb 28 to Mar 01, but they'll be wrong today. Until they get a call, that is.
I looked at the IBM WorkPad page, but it seems to be for an IBM-branded Palm Pilot. I don't see any reference to a WinCE or 640x480 color system.
Right make, wrong model. Take a look here for a ZDNet review.
A proper robot cat will learn its name, but will not respond.
Indeed. It should be programmed to come running at the sound of a can opener.
So if you drop it will it land on it's feet.
Only if you strap toast to it's feet, butter-side-down.
How kind of you to decide for me what my 'legitimate' reasons for a possessing a particular piece of computer code might be.
Did you even read the post, Sparky, or did you just toggle the knee into autojerk mode?
I never suggested people shouldn't have access to tools like these - have all the DDOS software, scripts, disassemblers, lockpicks and handguns you want, I don't care. I was simply pointing out that some tools have few legitimate (ie, legal) uses. DDOS software is one of them.
The big difference between net tools and guns, as far as "tools to commit crimes with"? The gun manufacturers have a powerfuly lobby (NRA) and boatloads of cash. Folks like Mixter are much easier prey.
There's a much bigger difference - there are very legitimate reasons for the average person to have a gun - namely, defense of self, family and property. Whereas the only legitimate use for these net tools is akin to having a set of lock picks to determine how vulnerable your own locks are against being picked.
Of course, the beauty of the Lisa was that Apple was actually trying to give this power to the average user.
Well, the "average user" that had ten grand to blow on a new system.
In any event, aside from Apple, there were a number of companies working on bringing GUIs to personal computers, including GEM, TopView, and the Microsoft/IBM collaboration that was to become OS/2 and Windows after they parted company.
TopView was a GUI? I thought it was just a task-switcher...?
(My experience was with DESQview, which allegedly picked up where TopView left off. I loved DESQview. Quarterdeck could hack.)
To drive a car you have to get a licence, but to be resposible for someones life in a trial you only need to be selected........
I'm amazed human rights organisations have not stood up for the right of the defendant to be tried by proper licensed professionals.
So why not do away with juries altogether? The lawyers and judges are all certified, surely that makes them elite enough to decide the fate of the accused.
Thank you, the clues are appreciated.
A 24-bit-per-pixel display card has a much wider color gamut than you're going to cram into an NTSC signal.
I guess I'm missing something here. A 24-bit graphics card can produce 2^24 different colors. An analog signal can express an infinite number of colors. What particular number can you represent in 24 bits that I can't represent in analog? IE, given the same tube, what color is your graphics card going to produce that my analog signal can't?
Perhaps the writer wasn't talking about static images, but moving video. IE, play that pirated Phantom Menace CD on your computer and it looks like crap compared to an infomercial on a cheap TV.
Of course we know this isn't a matter of the screen hardware - but I'll bet the writer doesn't.
Even the cheapest TV gets 30 frames per second, 1025x512 (is that right?) all the time. Your computer gets whatever the hardware / bandwidth / codec can supply at the moment.
Is this guy crazy? Sure, my cheapie monitor can do 1024x768, that's obviously "put to shame" by some TV that can only do 400 lines, NTSC...
TV has the advantage (!) of being analog - which gives you an infinite number of colors. Digital has a finite number of colors.
When it comes to the senses, analog rules!
The thing you have to keep in mind is that the vast majority of people have experience with only Intel machines. Of that population, the majority fall into one of two camps:
1) Used to use DOS, now uses Windows. Next to DOS, Windows is an improvement, at least for your average wordprocessing / spreadsheet cranking / internet surfing user.
2) Has only used Windows. Since they have no experience with other operating systems, they just sorta figure computers are expected to crash on a regular basis. In this case the user is sorta like a baby duck - the first thing they see imprints on them. And Bill Gates spent a lot of time and effort insuring those baby ducks saw Windows (very shrewd of him).
In light of this, I'm surprised the number is so low. I guess I overestimated the average user's tolerance for crap.
They did not die so that a bunch of punk kids could have the freedom to go aroud screwing up their country, their society [yatta yatta yatta]
Ed! Ed Anger! I was wondering where you'd gone! Good to hear from you again. Yeah, this Linux stuff just makes me pig-biting mad!
The VideoGuide even offered some functions that worked without the subscription, such as the universal remote. When they shut it down, they started sending "poison packets" to the receivers that rendered them completely non-functional.
Interesting. I never sent mine back (I thought it was too cool to part with, even if I couldn't use it) - I bet if I unscrewed the antenna it would immune to the poison packets. I'll have to fire it up and see what happens.
So we all get to have our computers running for months on end, our calculators running for years on end, and LEDs running infinately. Just think. We would make some super bright LEDs, use them for lights all over, and just hook up one of these power cells. Think of the power it would save!
Keep in mind that these fuel cells inhale (they need oxygen) and exhale (they give off steam). So putting your fuel-cell powered cell phone in your airtight breifcase may kill it.
I love these new cells, but we're going to have to change a few habits when using them.
Quick (serious) question: If you believe that all the life in the universe is on this rock, how can you go on living?
Quick, serious answer: Because what we've got going on this rock is plenty enough interesting to stick around for.
Works for me, at any rate.
You're on to something here - but why limit our options to just the look/feel/sound? Why limit our filters to just the kind of news we want to hear about?
I want my personal digital newscaster to slant the news according to my desires. Example: Engage Rush Limbaugh slant and instead of "A new tax is proposed..." you get "The evil godless commie bastards are planning once again to take more of your hard earned work to spend on their pointless and useless social programs...".
All kinds of slants could be possible. I'd like a Conspiracy slant - some algorthym that links seemingly disparate stories by way of some sinister "them" connection.
Of course "random" slant should be available, just to (1) make things more interesting and (2) broaden the mind. Perhaps it would be a bad idea to change slants too often, a different slant on every story would give me a headache fast.