I don't think it was meant to be a history lesson. If you're looking at the fact linux is 17 today, then you know what linux is. I kinda think, and this isn't one of Doc's better articles, it's saying where Linux is now at the moment and where it may go?
If it's something interesting to me, I actually search for things in his interview and see if it's quoted elsewhere. I've been doing that a lot actually w/ the Raiders coach mess because quotes are being misquoted over and over, and I want to try to get the context as much as I can. I don't ever read slashdot interviews. If I must read a blog, I'll follow a link or 2 to make sure it's reputable, and if there are no links, I close the tab.
No. I expect the articles linked are verified. If it's a blog, I don't even bother reading usually. Yay! The disclaimer is on the about page. It should be on the MAIN page. I feel Cnet or Associated Press or other mainstream news outlets do some research. If you look @ some of the stories I've posted and got accepted, I link to actual news sites. Sometimes, I even double check other articles from other people before I read the summary and comment, just to make sure it's not something someone saw somewhere off the beaten path.
But, I guess that's just me. Call it naive if you want. But if I'm gonna discuss something, I like to have as many facts as I can and know that it's at least been researched at least a little bit or reported in more than once place.
Well, if Jobs moved on, then there would be a management shake up at Apple, which could mean things would be different, either good or bad. Change doesn't go well with people, so I can see them selling out of uncertainty. Slashdot links to articles that have at least been somewhat researched, of you'll see interviews with people which means questions were asked.
The problem isn't that's unedited unfiltered, that just means there may be naughty words and curses in it.
It should be "unfiltered and unverified" news. A quick look @ the website, even scrolling down, shows no disclaimer that this unverified. Breaking news is fine, so I understand not wanting to take the time to verify, but there should be a disclaimer that it's unverified. And until this story on here, I never heard of it. So I may have taken something on there for fact had I stumbled on it by accident or via google search.
In fact I had to read the fine article (I know, unheard of) to figure it out. Maybe that's the new thing to get us to RTFA. Use even more confusing summaries?
So..I stated I read the article...what's your point?
this attack only works on volumes containing bitmap files.
From the article:
The problem is that bitmaps often display low levels of entropy, such as would be the case in pictures taken at night with large areas of high contrast. Roellgen's attack is based on comparing two volumes encrypted into scrambled ciphertext using the same symmetric or 'static' key, where the original subsequently has new files added. This yields a pattern of structured similarities and differences that can be used to reveal some of the original information in plaintext form.
The attack doesn't work for other types of data, for instance text files, because the entropy levels are too high. But it is believed to effect almost any encryption program currently on sale as long as the two volumes being compared use the same encryption key whilst being slightly different from one another.
The summary title and summary write up are a little ambiguous.
In fact I had to read the fine article (I know, unheard of) to figure it out. Maybe that's the new thing to get us to RTFA. Use even more confusing summaries?
think the managers of the estate and his family would want his name to be remembered for something like this and release the vehicle, after all what will they do with it? And if Hawkes Ocean Technologies owns the design, can't they build a new one?
I subscribe to the Creation theory. However, I don't think either theory should be taught in science classes. Science should be taught not unprovable theories. No one can prove Evolution nor can anyone prove Creation. If they're to be taught in school, put it under Literature like where I learned the Mayan's version of the creation of life.
Actually, asshole, I have a job, pays decent. I just don't think at $1 per song is a deal. Even if it is DRM free. 89 cents is reasonable. And buying the DRM free CD from $5-9 is reasonable. BUT if I want a mixed album of certain songs, well that leads to $15-20.
$15 puts gas in my car to get my job you elude I don't have. Make it bulk price or something like that, great. If you buy 10 songs, then 10 cents off each track. Or if you buy 15 songs, then $13 or something like that.
at Napster a while back and a few other digital stores and I just can't justify paying a $1.00 for a song that, at most stores, I don't really own any way.
does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported"
There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.
I can see your point, however, if the police or mayor or local government hire someone, it would be more biased than if the judge gets a 3rd person consultant, that doesn't know about the case to audit the code. Maybe a chance of being bias, but not as much.
However, unlike the Intoxilyzer 5000, it isn't patented, so defense experts can't obtain the diagrams and source codes needed to figure out exactly how it works, Nesci said.
I think they're using this as the reason to keep the code secret.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you not read my reply? Even from the article it says the 0.02 version. Look at this. The 0.02 version.
How about a mention on the October 5 page?
Except how Android is linux based? And Google sponsored Wine improvements. And open sourced Gadgets to Linux. And of course gOS.
I don't think it was meant to be a history lesson. If you're looking at the fact linux is 17 today, then you know what linux is. I kinda think, and this isn't one of Doc's better articles, it's saying where Linux is now at the moment and where it may go?
No google logo for this?! I expected a penguin or something like that.
If it's something interesting to me, I actually search for things in his interview and see if it's quoted elsewhere. I've been doing that a lot actually w/ the Raiders coach mess because quotes are being misquoted over and over, and I want to try to get the context as much as I can. I don't ever read slashdot interviews. If I must read a blog, I'll follow a link or 2 to make sure it's reputable, and if there are no links, I close the tab.
No. I expect the articles linked are verified. If it's a blog, I don't even bother reading usually. Yay! The disclaimer is on the about page. It should be on the MAIN page. I feel Cnet or Associated Press or other mainstream news outlets do some research. If you look @ some of the stories I've posted and got accepted, I link to actual news sites. Sometimes, I even double check other articles from other people before I read the summary and comment, just to make sure it's not something someone saw somewhere off the beaten path.
But, I guess that's just me. Call it naive if you want. But if I'm gonna discuss something, I like to have as many facts as I can and know that it's at least been researched at least a little bit or reported in more than once place.
Well, if Jobs moved on, then there would be a management shake up at Apple, which could mean things would be different, either good or bad. Change doesn't go well with people, so I can see them selling out of uncertainty. Slashdot links to articles that have at least been somewhat researched, of you'll see interviews with people which means questions were asked.
The problem isn't that's unedited unfiltered, that just means there may be naughty words and curses in it. It should be "unfiltered and unverified" news. A quick look @ the website, even scrolling down, shows no disclaimer that this unverified. Breaking news is fine, so I understand not wanting to take the time to verify, but there should be a disclaimer that it's unverified. And until this story on here, I never heard of it. So I may have taken something on there for fact had I stumbled on it by accident or via google search.
So..I stated I read the article...what's your point?
Eh. Wrong quote, right article.
See this quote with this article.
The summary title and summary write up are a little ambiguous.
In fact I had to read the fine article (I know, unheard of) to figure it out. Maybe that's the new thing to get us to RTFA. Use even more confusing summaries?
think the managers of the estate and his family would want his name to be remembered for something like this and release the vehicle, after all what will they do with it? And if Hawkes Ocean Technologies owns the design, can't they build a new one?
I subscribe to the Creation theory. However, I don't think either theory should be taught in science classes. Science should be taught not unprovable theories. No one can prove Evolution nor can anyone prove Creation. If they're to be taught in school, put it under Literature like where I learned the Mayan's version of the creation of life.
been decided the article will remain.
Actually, asshole, I have a job, pays decent. I just don't think at $1 per song is a deal. Even if it is DRM free. 89 cents is reasonable. And buying the DRM free CD from $5-9 is reasonable. BUT if I want a mixed album of certain songs, well that leads to $15-20. $15 puts gas in my car to get my job you elude I don't have. Make it bulk price or something like that, great. If you buy 10 songs, then 10 cents off each track. Or if you buy 15 songs, then $13 or something like that.
99 cents doesn't count. Majority of the mp3s are $0.99.
at Napster a while back and a few other digital stores and I just can't justify paying a $1.00 for a song that, at most stores, I don't really own any way.
does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.
Wow. I don't know how I didn't think of that. It would probably be considered discovery and both sides would get it.
I can see your point, however, if the police or mayor or local government hire someone, it would be more biased than if the judge gets a 3rd person consultant, that doesn't know about the case to audit the code. Maybe a chance of being bias, but not as much.
However, unlike the Intoxilyzer 5000, it isn't patented, so defense experts can't obtain the diagrams and source codes needed to figure out exactly how it works, Nesci said.
I think they're using this as the reason to keep the code secret.