How quickly the fixes came out, how dangerous they were before the fix, and whether windows deserves an equal amount of fixes, but doesn't have them (the vulnerability is simply not common knowledge or even completely unknown) are things that would worry me. This is more like the methodology behind propaganda, than any kind of serious study.
I had a really nice chart, that shows firefly using not one iota of standard scifi plot material. The junk character filter ate it.
All of the following are optional in scifi, but you generally need at least one or another of them.
Aliens*: Nope. Strange physics** phenomena: Nope. AI and/or robots: Nope. Travel to other star systems: Nope. Scientists: Nope. Exploration of space, and or science: Nope. Novel philosophical concepts: Nope.
*This is but a pale imitation of the chart I wrote up, thanks Taco. ** Note: physics, not psychic. And when scifi does have psychic phenomena, it's more along the lines of telepaths than newage astrologer bullshit.
Firefly isn't scifi, it doesn't belong in this thread. It doesn't count, even compared to the rather lame likes of shows like Enterprise. Seven Days is more scifi-ish than Firefly. Roger Corman's Space Truckers is more scifi than this turd of a TV show.
cfelde writes "Satanism is less evil than a christianity, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers." In addition to the Seattle Times article, there is also coverage on VNUnet. From the article: "The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of philosophers, discussed the findings in an event, 'Religion Showdown: Good vs. Evil.' One of them, a satanist, performs perverse human sacrifice rituals; the other volunteers at the local homeless shelter. They wanted to cut through the near-political arguments about which religion is less evil from a morality standpoint."
Well, gee. I have this great idea for a western tv series, only instead of indians and cowboys, let's have a band of 20 something brats who are into bad jokes and puns. And they're fighting the forces of evil. Yeh.
If it's not scifi, fine, say so. Then do us a favor fanboy, and keep it out of discussions about that genre.
Wait, so Britney Spear's a hack because she creates extremely successful music based upon medicore songs that are the pinnacle of manufactured music industry crap?
Why yes. You see, success isn't a measure of quality. Email me for further insights, such as how water is wet and objects fall when dropped from altitude.
And yet, the one episode that stands out for me, was the one where Voyager discovered the Ferengi who were stranded there years before. It was clever, tied into an episode that had aired years before, and gave you the impression that whoever wrote it was thinking on a more than episode by episode basis.
Except that it was neither. It was kitschy space opera by a hack who was most famous for a series adapation of a movie spit out by a hollywood script machine. I *WILL* get modded both flamebait and troll for this, but it needs to be said.
Whedon doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in an article about JMS. I would compare the two to maybe Andy Warhol and Davinci, except that Warhol was still an artist, and still had talent.
I watched 4 episodes of Firefly, trying to give it a fair chance (TNG sucked longer than that, and Babylon 5, while not sucking, took that long to make sense of even a little of it). Are there even any aliens in the show? I don't want it "chock full of nuts" aliens like Voyager was at its worst, but given 5 years and whatever budget Whedon wants, would there still be any? Would they be like the lounge singer in Angel? Would he explore even one new idea (scientific, social,doesn't matter to me), or would he rely on lameass "let's shoot the episode starting with the end, and our hero being shot and then work our way backwards" directors tricks?
Firefly sucked. That you guys who liked it can be forgiven, in a desert you drink whatever water you can find, even if it's brownish with all sorts of little things swimming in it. Hell, you might even tell yourself it's from a mountain stream, cold, clean, and pure. But that was years ago, both literally and metaphorically, and in any event we are metaphorically sitting at that mountain stream now (it is a story about JMS, after all).
It's literally painful to talk to people like yourself. Once, at work, we got on the subject of actors and actresses, and who we thought were the best. No one under 30 was able to name somone other than the likes of "Jennifer Lopez".
Re:Start recoding
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SHA1 is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered cryptohash community when IDC confirmed that cryptohash market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all cryptographic algorithms. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SHA1 has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SHA1 is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive cryptography test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SHA1's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SHA1 faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SHA1 because SHA1 is dying. Things are looking very bad for SHA1. As many of us are already aware, SHA1 continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SHA1 is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time SHA1 developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SHA1 is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
MD4 leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of MD4. How many users of MD5 are there? Let's see. The number of MD4 versus MD5 posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 MD5 users. SHA2 posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of MD5 posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SHA2. A recent article put SHA1 at about 80 percent of the cryptohash market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SHA1 users. This is consistent with the number of SHA1 Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, SHA1 went out of business and was taken over by RSA who sell another troubled cryptohash. Now RSA is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SHA1 has steadily declined in market share. SHA1 is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SHA1 is to survive at all it will be among cryptographic dilettante dabblers. SHA1 continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SHA1 is dead.
You fail to see it because you are a cretinous retard with a shit-filled skull and a socsec-funded typist who translates your grunts to the written word on slashdot.
The information/data itself is just that, 1s and 0s. How we choose to treat it is up to us, but we should use good reasoning for whatever regulations or laws we might impose. Keeping sensitive info out of the hands of Osama is good. But it's also dangerous when Dubya uses that as an excuse to hide things that shouldn't be hidden. But no matter how corrupt that might be, with copyright it's 10 times worse. Mostly because of the copyright cartel sycophants always defending even the most outrageous abuses. Eat shit and die.
They are all just pictures. Even kiddy porn was only prosecuted so heavily the last few decades, on the premise that reducing the demand for it would lead to a decrease in child abuse. In that sense, it's not that the pictures are bad, but that people wanting to look at them indirectly leads to crime... a premise that I tend to agree with and support.
In the USA, pornography itself (of the non-child abuse sort) isn't censored. Just regulated (no one under age 18).
Let's complete your metaphor though: If I build my own TV, arranging the atoms in the exact pattern of a Best Buy TV, am I stealing from Best Buy? Otherwise, you're accusing every napster user of walking into the RIAA and pilfering master tapes, dumbass.
But when you think about it (after you grow a neocortex from that stumpy little brainstem of yours) you'll realize that metaphors are being used because you're fallaciously comparing apples to oranges. I spoke literally. A downloaded mp3 is literally an arrangement of 1s and 0s, whether thats in a NTFS filesystem on a hard drive, or you etch pits in granite with a stone chisel.
Depends. I'm sure the chinese government would like to censor music too, ever hear of their cultural revolution?
Or maybe when the news itself is copyrighted, and they start using copyright as a tool of censorship, then you'll reconsider? It's all just bits and bytes. Arbitrarily deciding that some arrangements of 1s and 0s is music that should land you in jail if you copy it, but that another is current news that it's immoral to censor is somewhat dumb.
I don't agree. This is partially an issue with business names themselves. If we were talking proper names, e.g. John Smith (the individual), a man who writes spammy spyware for a living, and the cert say his name is John Smith, then yes, it's authenticating him (and his software) as being the person he says he is.
Unfortunately, a person can game this system by choosing any business name they like. "CLICK HERE TO INSTALL" is not a legitimate name, not even a legitimate business name... I seriously doubt it's a registered or incorporated business name, and even if it is, it's done only so they can get a certificate with the same name. How can you authenticate them with a bullshit name? Authentication means proving who they are, which this isn't doing at all. And I don't mean to be ultra-picky, but if you couldn't get a driver's license with the name, or open a bank account with it, you probably shouldn't be able to get a certificate with that name.
It should also be noted: No sculptors have rolled carts up to the thing, pulled out their measuring tape, and tried to duplicate it... a photo isn't a copy of it. Comparing this to a master tape and mp3s, or to a oil painting and prints of it just isn't intellectually honest.
Um, you can't buy it though. You only get to a really shitty license that doesn't give you even basic, non-objectionable rights.
Not to mention, that it's not the only way you're constitutionally entitled to it. By rights, you should also be allowed to wait out copyright expiration... except that they've sabotaged the works, and have checked out from the LoC all public copies, and destroyed those.
Besides, did you realize that you used the term "reimbursed" ? Since the MPAA likely wasn't paying for your internet service, how can they be reimbursed? Assuming that's all they want, will they give up and go away once they have been reimbursed, or do they also want perverse profits?
Isn't this a bit like claiming you are more healthy than someone else, because you've been to the hospital 40 days this year for your last-ditch chemotherapy? "Look at linux, it hasn't seen a doctor in over 10 years!".
I find it difficult to believe anything is better or more accurate. It has my grandfather's indiana driveway in it... I about sprayed mtndew all over my new laptop when I saw that.
IPs identify hosts, not interfaces. I have a linux machine with 40+ interfaces all with a single IP address (acting as a router). It doesn't violate routing protocols (of which you might not be using any, if you were doing simple static routes) or IPv4 itself, which uses IPs to identify hosts, not interfaces.
In any event, if some mystery adapter has the IP address, say for instance, the Microsoft TV Video adapter, and a real interface has the same, the mystery interface can't possibly recieved any packets anyway... there's no reason to bitch about it being used by another device. Windows has a broken IP stack.
Reflect them up on the windshield, is how I'd do the display. Would be cool to see arrows on the windshield pointing which direction to go according to the electronic map, etc...
That's the thing though, the laws were rather "backward-compatible". For the primitive robots that could only understand basic things, that law meant a simple scale of physical harm, ranging up to death at the extreme. Supposing the robot can judge how much harm "grabbing" would cause, and that falls from any significant height meant death, it would choose to catch them.
Assuming you have AI, these laws are very valid, and even a "soft" AI would do best to follow them (even if it made mistakes from time to time).
The tobacco industry allegedly sent goons to threaten the lives of certain employees. If those cops are gone, so they can't bust you for distributing DeCSS, they won't be there to protect you from goons either.
Slashdot Mirror
How quickly the fixes came out, how dangerous they were before the fix, and whether windows deserves an equal amount of fixes, but doesn't have them (the vulnerability is simply not common knowledge or even completely unknown) are things that would worry me. This is more like the methodology behind propaganda, than any kind of serious study.
I had a really nice chart, that shows firefly using not one iota of standard scifi plot material. The junk character filter ate it.
All of the following are optional in scifi, but you generally need at least one or another of them.
Aliens*: Nope.
Strange physics** phenomena: Nope.
AI and/or robots: Nope.
Travel to other star systems: Nope.
Scientists: Nope.
Exploration of space, and or science: Nope.
Novel philosophical concepts: Nope.
*This is but a pale imitation of the chart I wrote up, thanks Taco.
** Note: physics, not psychic. And when scifi does have psychic phenomena, it's more along the lines of telepaths than newage astrologer bullshit.
Firefly isn't scifi, it doesn't belong in this thread. It doesn't count, even compared to the rather lame likes of shows like Enterprise. Seven Days is more scifi-ish than Firefly. Roger Corman's Space Truckers is more scifi than this turd of a TV show.
cfelde writes "Satanism is less evil than a christianity, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers." In addition to the Seattle Times article, there is also coverage on VNUnet. From the article: "The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of philosophers, discussed the findings in an event, 'Religion Showdown: Good vs. Evil.' One of them, a satanist, performs perverse human sacrifice rituals; the other volunteers at the local homeless shelter. They wanted to cut through the near-political arguments about which religion is less evil from a morality standpoint."
Well, gee. I have this great idea for a western tv series, only instead of indians and cowboys, let's have a band of 20 something brats who are into bad jokes and puns. And they're fighting the forces of evil. Yeh.
If it's not scifi, fine, say so. Then do us a favor fanboy, and keep it out of discussions about that genre.
Wait, so Britney Spear's a hack because she creates extremely successful music based upon medicore songs that are the pinnacle of manufactured music industry crap?
Why yes. You see, success isn't a measure of quality. Email me for further insights, such as how water is wet and objects fall when dropped from altitude.
And yet, the one episode that stands out for me, was the one where Voyager discovered the Ferengi who were stranded there years before. It was clever, tied into an episode that had aired years before, and gave you the impression that whoever wrote it was thinking on a more than episode by episode basis.
Except that it was neither. It was kitschy space opera by a hack who was most famous for a series adapation of a movie spit out by a hollywood script machine. I *WILL* get modded both flamebait and troll for this, but it needs to be said.
Whedon doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in an article about JMS. I would compare the two to maybe Andy Warhol and Davinci, except that Warhol was still an artist, and still had talent.
I watched 4 episodes of Firefly, trying to give it a fair chance (TNG sucked longer than that, and Babylon 5, while not sucking, took that long to make sense of even a little of it). Are there even any aliens in the show? I don't want it "chock full of nuts" aliens like Voyager was at its worst, but given 5 years and whatever budget Whedon wants, would there still be any? Would they be like the lounge singer in Angel? Would he explore even one new idea (scientific, social,doesn't matter to me), or would he rely on lameass "let's shoot the episode starting with the end, and our hero being shot and then work our way backwards" directors tricks?
Firefly sucked. That you guys who liked it can be forgiven, in a desert you drink whatever water you can find, even if it's brownish with all sorts of little things swimming in it. Hell, you might even tell yourself it's from a mountain stream, cold, clean, and pure. But that was years ago, both literally and metaphorically, and in any event we are metaphorically sitting at that mountain stream now (it is a story about JMS, after all).
It's literally painful to talk to people like yourself. Once, at work, we got on the subject of actors and actresses, and who we thought were the best. No one under 30 was able to name somone other than the likes of "Jennifer Lopez".
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SHA1 is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered cryptohash community when IDC confirmed that cryptohash market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all cryptographic algorithms. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SHA1 has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SHA1 is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive cryptography test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SHA1's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SHA1 faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SHA1 because SHA1 is dying. Things are looking very bad for SHA1. As many of us are already aware, SHA1 continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SHA1 is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time SHA1 developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SHA1 is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
MD4 leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of MD4. How many users of MD5 are there? Let's see. The number of MD4 versus MD5 posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 MD5 users. SHA2 posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of MD5 posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SHA2. A recent article put SHA1 at about 80 percent of the cryptohash market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SHA1 users. This is consistent with the number of SHA1 Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, SHA1 went out of business and was taken over by RSA who sell another troubled cryptohash. Now RSA is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SHA1 has steadily declined in market share. SHA1 is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SHA1 is to survive at all it will be among cryptographic dilettante dabblers. SHA1 continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SHA1 is dead.
Fact: SHA1 is dying
You fail to see it because you are a cretinous retard with a shit-filled skull and a socsec-funded typist who translates your grunts to the written word on slashdot.
The information/data itself is just that, 1s and 0s. How we choose to treat it is up to us, but we should use good reasoning for whatever regulations or laws we might impose. Keeping sensitive info out of the hands of Osama is good. But it's also dangerous when Dubya uses that as an excuse to hide things that shouldn't be hidden. But no matter how corrupt that might be, with copyright it's 10 times worse. Mostly because of the copyright cartel sycophants always defending even the most outrageous abuses. Eat shit and die.
They are all just pictures. Even kiddy porn was only prosecuted so heavily the last few decades, on the premise that reducing the demand for it would lead to a decrease in child abuse. In that sense, it's not that the pictures are bad, but that people wanting to look at them indirectly leads to crime... a premise that I tend to agree with and support.
In the USA, pornography itself (of the non-child abuse sort) isn't censored. Just regulated (no one under age 18).
Let's complete your metaphor though: If I build my own TV, arranging the atoms in the exact pattern of a Best Buy TV, am I stealing from Best Buy? Otherwise, you're accusing every napster user of walking into the RIAA and pilfering master tapes, dumbass.
But when you think about it (after you grow a neocortex from that stumpy little brainstem of yours) you'll realize that metaphors are being used because you're fallaciously comparing apples to oranges. I spoke literally. A downloaded mp3 is literally an arrangement of 1s and 0s, whether thats in a NTFS filesystem on a hard drive, or you etch pits in granite with a stone chisel.
Depends. I'm sure the chinese government would like to censor music too, ever hear of their cultural revolution?
Or maybe when the news itself is copyrighted, and they start using copyright as a tool of censorship, then you'll reconsider? It's all just bits and bytes. Arbitrarily deciding that some arrangements of 1s and 0s is music that should land you in jail if you copy it, but that another is current news that it's immoral to censor is somewhat dumb.
I don't agree. This is partially an issue with business names themselves. If we were talking proper names, e.g. John Smith (the individual), a man who writes spammy spyware for a living, and the cert say his name is John Smith, then yes, it's authenticating him (and his software) as being the person he says he is.
Unfortunately, a person can game this system by choosing any business name they like. "CLICK HERE TO INSTALL" is not a legitimate name, not even a legitimate business name... I seriously doubt it's a registered or incorporated business name, and even if it is, it's done only so they can get a certificate with the same name. How can you authenticate them with a bullshit name? Authentication means proving who they are, which this isn't doing at all. And I don't mean to be ultra-picky, but if you couldn't get a driver's license with the name, or open a bank account with it, you probably shouldn't be able to get a certificate with that name.
It should also be noted: No sculptors have rolled carts up to the thing, pulled out their measuring tape, and tried to duplicate it... a photo isn't a copy of it. Comparing this to a master tape and mp3s, or to a oil painting and prints of it just isn't intellectually honest.
What about licensing per ALU/FPU/SIMD unit? Hmm... ?
Oracle Human Resources, my resume is available upon request, and I have more than a few other revenue-increasing ideas up my sleeve, email me.
Well, maybe someday fools will wise up, and realize that they can do alot more to fight the man than paypal donating $30 to some asshat warez site.
Um, you can't buy it though. You only get to a really shitty license that doesn't give you even basic, non-objectionable rights.
Not to mention, that it's not the only way you're constitutionally entitled to it. By rights, you should also be allowed to wait out copyright expiration... except that they've sabotaged the works, and have checked out from the LoC all public copies, and destroyed those.
Besides, did you realize that you used the term "reimbursed" ? Since the MPAA likely wasn't paying for your internet service, how can they be reimbursed? Assuming that's all they want, will they give up and go away once they have been reimbursed, or do they also want perverse profits?
Isn't this a bit like claiming you are more healthy than someone else, because you've been to the hospital 40 days this year for your last-ditch chemotherapy? "Look at linux, it hasn't seen a doctor in over 10 years!".
A hud is a little glass monocle thingy, you asshat.
I find it difficult to believe anything is better or more accurate. It has my grandfather's indiana driveway in it... I about sprayed mtndew all over my new laptop when I saw that.
IPs identify hosts, not interfaces. I have a linux machine with 40+ interfaces all with a single IP address (acting as a router). It doesn't violate routing protocols (of which you might not be using any, if you were doing simple static routes) or IPv4 itself, which uses IPs to identify hosts, not interfaces.
In any event, if some mystery adapter has the IP address, say for instance, the Microsoft TV Video adapter, and a real interface has the same, the mystery interface can't possibly recieved any packets anyway... there's no reason to bitch about it being used by another device. Windows has a broken IP stack.
Yeh. Try to use the same one on both. See if that works.
Reflect them up on the windshield, is how I'd do the display. Would be cool to see arrows on the windshield pointing which direction to go according to the electronic map, etc...
That's the thing though, the laws were rather "backward-compatible". For the primitive robots that could only understand basic things, that law meant a simple scale of physical harm, ranging up to death at the extreme. Supposing the robot can judge how much harm "grabbing" would cause, and that falls from any significant height meant death, it would choose to catch them.
Assuming you have AI, these laws are very valid, and even a "soft" AI would do best to follow them (even if it made mistakes from time to time).
The tobacco industry allegedly sent goons to threaten the lives of certain employees. If those cops are gone, so they can't bust you for distributing DeCSS, they won't be there to protect you from goons either.