I believe they've always stated somewhere in their documentation (FAQ, I think) that they were planning to add POP access, for which they may charge at some point in the future. I haven't seen any promises of POP being always free.
2 billion * 1/4 (one quarter) * 5% (much more than you can get through safe investments) = $25 million. And how much did Google's revenues increase by? $400 million?
You generally reverse engineer it because there is fundamental information loss in the hashing process. However, there are caveats.
For example, lets consider a really primitive hashing function: we add up the ascii values of all the letters in the the email address and that is the hash value. However, foo@bar.com and bar@foo.com obviously have the same hash in this case, so knowing that the sum is 1234, you can't determine which the address is.
Now if the hash is long and very good at avoiding collisions, you may actually be in more trouble than when using a weak hash, because the very rarity of hash collisions reduces the information loss (maybe there's only one string that includes an @ sign and is shorter than 40 characters that hashes to that value!) So, if we have some way of generating a string, fitting a specific template, that evaluates to a particular hash (and so far, the found SHA-0 collision is nothing of this sort), we can just generate all short strings that match that hash and look for one that could be an email address. However, a weaker hash would result in many plausible email addersses hashing to the value, which would increase false positives, but reduce the risk of finding the original addresses.
DVD encryption was reverse engineered because all the information was preserved. As long as the hashing function looses enough information, there is no way to recover the original email.
I believe the option that solves this problem is a company-wide directive stating that programmers must avoid dangerous operations such as casting char pointers to int pointers. Your code demonstrates why this is dangerous -- its result is implementation specific.
Why does something have to be wrong to be news? Some people may like this law, others may not, but it's certainly newsworthy as it's one of the first state laws of its kind, and the relative laxness of its penalties are also notable.
Carmack is an engine guy, not a game play mechanics one. And as far as engines, iD games have been rather excelent. The screenshots for Doom 3 look great and I expect it to be a fun game to play, but I don't think it will revolutionize gaming by introducing a new genre. Hopefully, there will be some new innovative games made on the Doom 3 engine though.
Well, you'd think that what you're suggesting is a novel idea, but consider this A guy already did that. Apparently, the song was removed from mp3.com though, as they wanted to avoid any legal issues.
Having read the reasons that the author provides for starting this fork of the project, it seems to me that this is just a result of personal disagreement. There is much bitterness involved in the arguments; indeed, the end(where he discusses the changes occuring in Gentoo) sounds like overconfidence in his importance. The author is convinced of his importance - everything that happens either happens because of him or to spite him. While I hope that the fork will allow him to focus on contributing to his project without constant worries about politics, I don't think highly of his reasons. There is far too many gaps in his story(why would he loose his developer status for a few suggestions? I'm sure there was major flaming involved) . . .
These 'inalianable rights'are not granted -- the government is just not permitted to take them away. It is this inability of the government to take those rights away that the Bill of Rights (and most of the rest of the Constitution) deal with. The difference may be philosophical, but it remains significant as these inalianable rights are central to the ideology of the Framers (and were to the rest of the country for about 5 years until petty squabling started. Then, we quickly got the Sedition Act . . . )
Ah, and we'll make it better
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 5, Funny
So we'll/. NPR and thus demonstrate to them that linking really *is* harmless, right?
One of the major problems with laptops today is that they are very difficult to actually keep on your lap. Most have either air intakes or exhausts on the bottom, so keeping them on your lap can plug the intake and make the machine overheat. The situation is even worse when sitting the machine on something soft like a blanket -- it completely plugs the air holes. I like using my vaio to watch movies while lying on my bed, but I have to put a book under one edge of it to keep the bottom from being in direct contact with the blanket; if I don't, I can certainly feel it heat up very quickly.
You know, I'm sure there must be a better way to eliminate frogs than to overdose them on caffeine. The fact that they are amphibians means that they absorb a lot of things through their skin; I'm sure it would be possible to find something that these frogs can not stand but is rather innocuous to other species and just spread that around the perimeter of the hotel, or whatever else wants to be frog free. As for the caffeine . . . I'll take it. Mmmm, 3 tons of caffeine . . . I can stay up for weeks!
Well, how should I say this, RedHat's standard user distribution would not make the best server in the world. It's true that RedHat has enterprise-level solutions, but I would say that there are other OSes(*BSD, Debian come to mind) that offer superior serving.
As to your argument about the CLI, I am quite sure that a good CLI interface is more important than a pretty GUI for a server. It's much easier to handle things on a lower level if you know what you're doing. MaxOS X . . . I never tried using it as a server, but I can't imagine how it gets good performance -- it seems so slugish for workstation use. Remember -- in any case, GUI takes up resources. . .
I am a little interested as to who everyone is so concerned about companies adopting linux? I think I've heard all the arguments: it's good for the Linux community, it's good for the companies(and the economy), it whacks Bill in the balls . . . whatever. But in my opinion, the beauty of Linux lies in the fact that it is used largely by users who want to use it, not those who have to. And it makes no sense to me why you or I should care whether corp X uses Linux, BSD, Windows, or an old Lisp machine unless it personally affects us(through our jobs or investments).
I am not trying to sound elitist -- I am not saying that "those not enlightened enough to use Linux should not." What I am saying, is that mindshare, both in the terms of users and corporations is rather irrelevant. Besides, if you believe that Linux is perfect for everything(and I don't -- my Windows machine is a great equivalent of my Dreamcast), then those corporations who use Linux will have lower costs and a competitive edge, resulting in economic success and in the displacement of Windows using companies. If this is what's happening now with the adoption of Linux, it makes no sense for us to care about it as anything more than a vindication of the OS, and I think there are very few people at Slashdot who need convincing.
What saddens me is the decline of the hacker ethic and the change of emphasis from "Lets make it better so people use it" to "lets yell louder about how good it is so people use it." And what saddens me even more is that I am wasting time writing this and not coding . . . I guess I am being a little hypocritical. But still, I am convinced there is no reason cheer after a company's adoption of Linux and boo after hearing "Windows." The reason people cheer at football games is that they can't come down to the field and help out. Well, in the case of linux, we can.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they've always stated somewhere in their documentation (FAQ, I think) that they were planning to add POP access, for which they may charge at some point in the future. I haven't seen any promises of POP being always free.
Ok, lets crunch some numbers:
2 billion * 1/4 (one quarter) * 5% (much more than you can get through safe investments) = $25 million. And how much did Google's revenues increase by? $400 million?
You generally reverse engineer it because there is fundamental information loss in the hashing process. However, there are caveats.
For example, lets consider a really primitive hashing function: we add up the ascii values of all the letters in the the email address and that is the hash value. However, foo@bar.com and bar@foo.com obviously have the same hash in this case, so knowing that the sum is 1234, you can't determine which the address is.
Now if the hash is long and very good at avoiding collisions, you may actually be in more trouble than when using a weak hash, because the very rarity of hash collisions reduces the information loss (maybe there's only one string that includes an @ sign and is shorter than 40 characters that hashes to that value!) So, if we have some way of generating a string, fitting a specific template, that evaluates to a particular hash (and so far, the found SHA-0 collision is nothing of this sort), we can just generate all short strings that match that hash and look for one that could be an email address. However, a weaker hash would result in many plausible email addersses hashing to the value, which would increase false positives, but reduce the risk of finding the original addresses.
DVD encryption was reverse engineered because all the information was preserved. As long as the hashing function looses enough information, there is no way to recover the original email.
I believe the option that solves this problem is a company-wide directive stating that programmers must avoid dangerous operations such as casting char pointers to int pointers. Your code demonstrates why this is dangerous -- its result is implementation specific.
Why does something have to be wrong to be news? Some people may like this law, others may not, but it's certainly newsworthy as it's one of the first state laws of its kind, and the relative laxness of its penalties are also notable.
Carmack is an engine guy, not a game play mechanics one. And as far as engines, iD games have been rather excelent. The screenshots for Doom 3 look great and I expect it to be a fun game to play, but I don't think it will revolutionize gaming by introducing a new genre. Hopefully, there will be some new innovative games made on the Doom 3 engine though.
Well, you'd think that what you're suggesting is a novel idea, but consider this A guy already did that. Apparently, the song was removed from mp3.com though, as they wanted to avoid any legal issues.
Having read the reasons that the author provides for starting this fork of the project, it seems to me that this is just a result of personal disagreement. There is much bitterness involved in the arguments; indeed, the end(where he discusses the changes occuring in Gentoo) sounds like overconfidence in his importance. The author is convinced of his importance - everything that happens either happens because of him or to spite him. While I hope that the fork will allow him to focus on contributing to his project without constant worries about politics, I don't think highly of his reasons. There is far too many gaps in his story(why would he loose his developer status for a few suggestions? I'm sure there was major flaming involved) . . .
These 'inalianable rights'are not granted -- the government is just not permitted to take them away. It is this inability of the government to take those rights away that the Bill of Rights (and most of the rest of the Constitution) deal with. The difference may be philosophical, but it remains significant as these inalianable rights are central to the ideology of the Framers (and were to the rest of the country for about 5 years until petty squabling started. Then, we quickly got the Sedition Act . . . )
So we'll /. NPR and thus demonstrate to them that linking really *is* harmless, right?
One of the major problems with laptops today is that they are very difficult to actually keep on your lap. Most have either air intakes or exhausts on the bottom, so keeping them on your lap can plug the intake and make the machine overheat. The situation is even worse when sitting the machine on something soft like a blanket -- it completely plugs the air holes. I like using my vaio to watch movies while lying on my bed, but I have to put a book under one edge of it to keep the bottom from being in direct contact with the blanket; if I don't, I can certainly feel it heat up very quickly.
You know, I'm sure there must be a better way to eliminate frogs than to overdose them on caffeine. The fact that they are amphibians means that they absorb a lot of things through their skin; I'm sure it would be possible to find something that these frogs can not stand but is rather innocuous to other species and just spread that around the perimeter of the hotel, or whatever else wants to be frog free. As for the caffeine . . . I'll take it. Mmmm, 3 tons of caffeine . . . I can stay up for weeks!
Well, how should I say this, RedHat's standard user distribution would not make the best server in the world. It's true that RedHat has enterprise-level solutions, but I would say that there are other OSes(*BSD, Debian come to mind) that offer superior serving.
As to your argument about the CLI, I am quite sure that a good CLI interface is more important than a pretty GUI for a server. It's much easier to handle things on a lower level if you know what you're doing. MaxOS X . . . I never tried using it as a server, but I can't imagine how it gets good performance -- it seems so slugish for workstation use. Remember -- in any case, GUI takes up resources. . .
I am a little interested as to who everyone is so concerned about companies adopting linux? I think I've heard all the arguments: it's good for the Linux community, it's good for the companies(and the economy), it whacks Bill in the balls . . . whatever. But in my opinion, the beauty of Linux lies in the fact that it is used largely by users who want to use it, not those who have to. And it makes no sense to me why you or I should care whether corp X uses Linux, BSD, Windows, or an old Lisp machine unless it personally affects us(through our jobs or investments).
I am not trying to sound elitist -- I am not saying that "those not enlightened enough to use Linux should not." What I am saying, is that mindshare, both in the terms of users and corporations is rather irrelevant. Besides, if you believe that Linux is perfect for everything(and I don't -- my Windows machine is a great equivalent of my Dreamcast), then those corporations who use Linux will have lower costs and a competitive edge, resulting in economic success and in the displacement of Windows using companies. If this is what's happening now with the adoption of Linux, it makes no sense for us to care about it as anything more than a vindication of the OS, and I think there are very few people at Slashdot who need convincing.
What saddens me is the decline of the hacker ethic and the change of emphasis from "Lets make it better so people use it" to "lets yell louder about how good it is so people use it." And what saddens me even more is that I am wasting time writing this and not coding . . . I guess I am being a little hypocritical. But still, I am convinced there is no reason cheer after a company's adoption of Linux and boo after hearing "Windows." The reason people cheer at football games is that they can't come down to the field and help out. Well, in the case of linux, we can.