That's a good question, but I know Google searches turned up news items regarding the Sept. 11 incidents shortly after they were posted. However GoogleBot indexes sites, it does it well.
All nodes serve to route information and are unable to distinguish whether they are the original recipients of a packet or if they are receiving a forwarded copy, making it anonymous and scalable enough for IRC traffic.
This is something InvisibleNet still has to realize.
IIP2 is in the works which aims to include a completely different architecture. It will most likely be totally peer-to-peer (as in no distinction between clients, proxies, and servers; all nodes will share all roles) and incorporate a lexical routing system (addresses derived from channel or user names and routed accordingly).
Initial data gathered suggests that it could scale well, preserving low latency and reasonably high throughput.
Unfortunately, with this model, there are a few anonymity concerns -- the current issue being pondered is node discovery (how to keep an attacker from learning large numbers of nodes) and how to anonymously route messages back to the user. But don't worry, it's being worked on.
... if an ISP gave out the name of a subscriber just like that
The DMCA (which is law) requires them to release names "just like that". This, of course, assumes "just like that" is by means of a subpoena (you know, court-issued), such as the one they have in this case.
"The subpoena seeks limited information relating to a computer connected to the Verizon network that is a hub for significant music piracy. Verizon is the only entity that can identify the infringer behind this computer."
"Verizon refused to comply with the Subpoena.... Verizon asserted that because '[n]o files of the Customer are hosted, stored or cached by [Verizon],' it need not respond to the Subpoena. RIAA responded by letter, explaining that Verizon's arguments provided no basis for ignoring a subpoena issued under Section 512(h).... Subsequent conversations between officials at RIAA and Verizon have failed to resolve the matter, and RIAA has informed Verizon that it would be filing this motion."
The gist of their arguement goes like this:
Section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to service providers, like Verizon.
The DMCA's procedures for issuing a subpoena to Verizon were met in this case.
The DMCA requires Verizon expeditiously to produce the information in the Subpoena.
None of the arguments raised by Verizon justifies refusing to comply with a subpoena validly issued by this court.
I hate to say it, but this time, the RIAA is right (legally). They got the DMCA passed, and Verizon is pretty much screwed here. Of course, Verizon -- AFAIK -- will not get penalties, except for possibly not providing the required information (name, address, phone) in a timely manner.
or someone knows some of the plaintext, or half a dozen other things, then a one time pad can be broken with a lot of guesswork.
How, pray tell, does knowing some of the plaintext help you? The key is exactly the same length as the data, and if you have a good enough source of entropy, nothing can predict bits before and after the section you know.
You could be given THISISAONETIMEPAD and decrypt it into any string the same length, period. You would have to know the whole plaintext (assuming the OTP is random, which it ought to be), in which case decrpyting it wouldn't be helpful, would it?
The bottom line is that known-plaintext doesn't hurt OTP, because you cannot recover any portion of the pad except for the part that reveals the plaintext.
From a private school perspective, Win2k is great. I don't know how you deployed software, but I don't leave anything to "install on first use" -- it's on the hard drive, on the network, or not available. (Microsoft makes tools that let you customize, say, the Office install; no serial number needed, no I Agree on the license agreement, and no Clippy if you so desire.) As far as configuring Outlook 2000, it can be done as a normal user, with the exception of "mode" (Internet or Corporate) which has to be done as administrator but can be done in the base system image. (You do image your clients, right?)
I don't know what product you're talking about, but Norton AntiVirus Corporate deploys cleanly (via Group Policy) without issues to speak of. The lab printer scenario is a little more complicated, but if you don't want roaming profiles, you can set a mandatory profile and give users a network home. The mandatory profile can include the printer. As far as legacy or proprietary apps go -- open regedt32 or Windows Explorer and change the permissions until it's happy. Then, change your deployment system to do that automatically: problem solved. Don't like Ctrl-Alt-Del? Disable it via Group Policy.
I don't like Microsoft, but things are far more usable under Windows 2000 than most people would think. Get some network imaging software, reasonably standard desktop hardware, and a Windows 2000 domain with appropriate Group Policy entries. It's really not that bad.
Recall: the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not found in the Bill of Rights, but the Declaration of Independence. Nothing legally ensures that "right".
I agree with your point, but it's simply not a right that's protected by US law.
Sure, it's a common mistake, but on Slashdot you sign up for your own account. (Do you spell your own name wrong?) It's obvious from the Google results that "Theo de Raadt" is the preferred spelling (31,000 vs 1,800) and there is nothing related to his account that would validate his identity.
His "e-mail" is just a mailto link in his.sig, not one on his username -- if it was linked from his username, I would believe you. You can't fake that, you have to have that e-mail address to get the account. Anyone can put a link in their.sig
His "journal" is one entry. 'Nuff said.
His point may stand, but everything seems to point that he is not who he says he is. (Besides which, why would he post at zero if he's such an insightful guy?)
Yes, but he was arguing for interoperability, not consistency. I'm all for consistency, whether it be M$ or *nix. Of course there are advantages to a homogenous environment, but if you go homogenous Microsoft, you're tied to Microsoft, period.
If you run *nix, you can use NFS or a variety of new network filesystems. If you run Windows, you get SMB. But wait -- there's Samba for *nix that lets Windows speak its own little proprietary protocol and interoperate with *nix servers. *nix can speak Windows, but not vice versa.
If you run everything on Apache, you can host your sites on Linux, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, what-have-you on a variety of different architectures. If you host on IIS, you're stuck with Windows and the very limited number of platforms it supports. Apache runs on Windows, IIS does not run on *nix.
If you write your website in PHP, you can use it on a variety of Unicies on a variety of different platforms. If you write for ASP dot NET, you're stuck to Windows 2000+ on x86 (and whatever else Redmond feels like supporting). You can run PHP on Windows, but not vice versa.
So... tell me, which is the more flexible solution? Which delivers more interoperability? The open, freely extendable system or the closed and proprietary one? That's why I pointed this out as a no-brainer; it is.
(And yes, I know about Microsoft's UNIX tools, but it's a moot point.)
Q: Is Futurama really cancelled?! A: While FOX never said it cancelled the show, they did stop ordering new episodes. The production crew thus broke up. There is a slight chance that FOX might ask David X. Cohen to build up a new team for another season. The episodes shown this fall all were meant to be aired last year but never did due to various pre-emptions. So they aren't really new.
A lot of subselects can be done using views, but those aren't supported either. This is my main complaint with MySQL -- though, it's still a very capable database, is plenty fast, and the price is right.
Yes, MySQL still has work to do, but it's adequate for most purposes. Though, missing subselects and views (and triggers... sigh) can make a lot of more complex queries less than optimal.
"They are designed for police use in hostage situations," says Precipart consultant Sanpetch Putarak, a retired wing commander
How many police officers would normally be walking around with pink umbrellas? [snip] Is the umbrella used to surprise the one or people who don't know that police are armed?
What if you don't know that middle-aged woman walking down the street is a police officer?
you should also be orriginal in your criticism... get a life and qit being an english nazi on slashdot... you should have figured out this is not the place to be anal about spelling...
Wait, you mean:
You should also be original in your criticism. Get a life and quit being an English Nazi! (Yes, it's a proper noun.)You should have figured out that(?) this is not the place to be anal about spelling...
Seriously, though, if you send something like the above to a politician I can virtually guarantee you won't get more than a passing glance at best.
And remember, your letter won't affect change if it isn't read. Period. Run it through a spell checker (and actually correct things) first.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good question, but I know Google searches turned up news items regarding the Sept. 11 incidents shortly after they were posted. However GoogleBot indexes sites, it does it well.
All nodes serve to route information and are unable to distinguish whether they are the original recipients of a packet or if they are receiving a forwarded copy, making it anonymous and scalable enough for IRC traffic.
Initial data gathered suggests that it could scale well, preserving low latency and reasonably high throughput.
Unfortunately, with this model, there are a few anonymity concerns -- the current issue being pondered is node discovery (how to keep an attacker from learning large numbers of nodes) and how to anonymously route messages back to the user. But don't worry, it's being worked on.
It's on the books. Whine at your congressmen.
Read the article next time.
The gist of their arguement goes like this:
I hate to say it, but this time, the RIAA is right (legally). They got the DMCA passed, and Verizon is pretty much screwed here. Of course, Verizon -- AFAIK -- will not get penalties, except for possibly not providing the required information (name, address, phone) in a timely manner.
Stupid DMCA.
You could be given THISISAONETIMEPAD and decrypt it into any string the same length, period. You would have to know the whole plaintext (assuming the OTP is random, which it ought to be), in which case decrpyting it wouldn't be helpful, would it?
The bottom line is that known-plaintext doesn't hurt OTP, because you cannot recover any portion of the pad except for the part that reveals the plaintext.
From a private school perspective, Win2k is great. I don't know how you deployed software, but I don't leave anything to "install on first use" -- it's on the hard drive, on the network, or not available. (Microsoft makes tools that let you customize, say, the Office install; no serial number needed, no I Agree on the license agreement, and no Clippy if you so desire.) As far as configuring Outlook 2000, it can be done as a normal user, with the exception of "mode" (Internet or Corporate) which has to be done as administrator but can be done in the base system image. (You do image your clients, right?)
I don't know what product you're talking about, but Norton AntiVirus Corporate deploys cleanly (via Group Policy) without issues to speak of. The lab printer scenario is a little more complicated, but if you don't want roaming profiles, you can set a mandatory profile and give users a network home. The mandatory profile can include the printer. As far as legacy or proprietary apps go -- open regedt32 or Windows Explorer and change the permissions until it's happy. Then, change your deployment system to do that automatically: problem solved. Don't like Ctrl-Alt-Del? Disable it via Group Policy.
I don't like Microsoft, but things are far more usable under Windows 2000 than most people would think. Get some network imaging software, reasonably standard desktop hardware, and a Windows 2000 domain with appropriate Group Policy entries. It's really not that bad.
Recall: the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not found in the Bill of Rights, but the Declaration of Independence. Nothing legally ensures that "right".
I agree with your point, but it's simply not a right that's protected by US law.
Funny, I bet lots of Slashdotters know what bullet could solve this problem.
Sure, it's a common mistake, but on Slashdot you sign up for your own account. (Do you spell your own name wrong?) It's obvious from the Google results that "Theo de Raadt" is the preferred spelling (31,000 vs 1,800) and there is nothing related to his account that would validate his identity.
I stand by my conclusion.
Yes, but he was arguing for interoperability, not consistency. I'm all for consistency, whether it be M$ or *nix. Of course there are advantages to a homogenous environment, but if you go homogenous Microsoft, you're tied to Microsoft, period.
If you run *nix, you can use NFS or a variety of new network filesystems. If you run Windows, you get SMB. But wait -- there's Samba for *nix that lets Windows speak its own little proprietary protocol and interoperate with *nix servers. *nix can speak Windows, but not vice versa.
If you run everything on Apache, you can host your sites on Linux, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, what-have-you on a variety of different architectures. If you host on IIS, you're stuck with Windows and the very limited number of platforms it supports. Apache runs on Windows, IIS does not run on *nix.
If you write your website in PHP, you can use it on a variety of Unicies on a variety of different platforms. If you write for ASP dot NET, you're stuck to Windows 2000+ on x86 (and whatever else Redmond feels like supporting). You can run PHP on Windows, but not vice versa.
So... tell me, which is the more flexible solution? Which delivers more interoperability? The open, freely extendable system or the closed and proprietary one? That's why I pointed this out as a no-brainer; it is.
(And yes, I know about Microsoft's UNIX tools, but it's a moot point.)
FYI, according to the OpenBSD site it's "Theo de Raadt", not "Theo DeRaadt".
Don't believe me? Check this user's posting history, Theo's personal homepage, interviews, or mailing list posts.
They may have had the rights, but the announcement on the website didn't happen until sometime between February 4th and June 1st, 2001.
Frankly, I'd rather have the TV show.
I think I speak for all of us here:
MORE!
What's funny is that my current video card has more RAM than a nicely-equipped PC four years ago.
A lot of subselects can be done using views, but those aren't supported either. This is my main complaint with MySQL -- though, it's still a very capable database, is plenty fast, and the price is right.
Yes, MySQL still has work to do, but it's adequate for most purposes. Though, missing subselects and views (and triggers... sigh) can make a lot of more complex queries less than optimal.
Oh well. The roadmap exists, at least.
Seriously, though, if you send something like the above to a politician I can virtually guarantee you won't get more than a passing glance at best.
And remember, your letter won't affect change if it isn't read. Period. Run it through a spell checker (and actually correct things) first.
Nothing can defend against admins who won't patch their software. They dig their own grave and sign the epitath of all the systems they run.