The bounty was by a nameless blogger, so there was no publicity to speak of, and the conditions were quite unreasonable. ie. no dismantling of the drive.
What problem would this solve? You don't gain any additional routable addresses with this method, since the core routers stay the same. Basically, you end up with a half-assed form of NAT.
While it appeals to one's sense of egalitarianism that all people should be treated equally, in reality, some people do need extra care from society during some parts of their life, or during their entire life. Try to imagine the alternative. Do you think that old people should be left to starve to death because they aren't able to work anymore? Do you think we should euthanize the mentally challenged because they will always be more of net drain to society than they contribute?
What I'm trying to say is, as a society, we try to help those who are less fortunate for a reason. Human life has an intrinsic value in and of itself, beyond what one can contribute to society. So, the social mechanisms which encourage one to contribute to the best of one's abilities and the social mechanisms which encourage one to follow the rules need to be tempered by other social mechanisms such as charity and compassion for the less fortunate. Anything less is animal savagery, and I guarantee that none of us would want to live in that kind of world.
I realize I conflated two ideas, but the premise still stands. We are not savages.
Many software packages include the license as a plain text file. Changing the text file changes the license that appears in the installer. What If you were to change the license to your liking, remove sections you disapprove of, or remove it entirely, and then install the package?
My correlation is not causation argument was a direct response to the parent, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=968167&cid=25053519 and I was merely pointing out that the parent missed a possible direction of causation. Look at my whole post, (it's short!), and compare the causative flow of my hypothesis to his hypotheses.
To be frank, your response seems more like a kneejerk response than mine, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were also replying to the tag on the original article, but one can read the tag as a warning to the reader not to make that faulty leap of logic instead of reading it as saying the article did make that leap.
Not that it matters, but DVD was originally Digital Video Disc. As it became apparent that DVDs were going to be used for more than video, they retconned the acronym to Digital Versatile Disc, and later because "Digital Versatile Disc" was so unwieldy, they simply became DVDs.
And some hotels don't have the signs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this doesn't mean they're any different, the sign thing hasn't got there yet. Once all the hotels have the signs, then you're pretty much presented with a Hobson's choice: stay in a hotel that has carcinogens in it, or sleep in your car. Which probably has carcinogens in it.
Yep. I've seen stickers that say "Motor vehicles contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer", and I don't even live in California.
Actually, the security of using two encryption methods is not fully additive as you would assume. (Security refers to the amount of time required to crack the message.)
If you use the same key for both encryption methods, it may actually be less secure. (ie. The old ROT13 twice joke.)
If you use two different keys, the security of the resultant encryption has a minimum security of the stronger of the two algorithm/keys, and in a perfect case, the maximum security is simply the security of the first protocol plus the security of the second protocol. The only way to know what the actual security of 2 cryptosystems used in tandem is, is to actually perform a cryptanalysis. And cryptanalysis is not an exact science. You don't get many positive affirmations of security.
For example, a substitution cypher applied repeatedly with 100 different keys has the same security as a single substitution cypher, or, potentially, no encryption. Let's say your cypher is: a=0, b=1, etc. Your key is a random number between 1 and 25. You take the plaintext, convert to a number, add the key, modulo 26, and convert back to a letter. If you have 100 keys you used to encrypt, you can add all of the keys up, modulo 26, and you have a single key to decrypt.
In short, if you're using two cryptosystems for added security, the attacker may find a shortcut from the way the two systems interact so that he can retrieve the plaintext with less work than actually cracking both cryptosystems completely. I would assume that cryptosystems based on the same mathematical principles have a greater chance to interact in such a way, but I'm no expert.
And while there is no general crypto attack, there is information there, so with enough analysis, (and it may be a lot,) you can discover what cryptosystem was used.
I apologize in advance for any mistakes or oversimplifications I made.
I was never diagnosed with ADD, but I'm discovering as an adult that I do indeed have it. Are there any tips or behaviour changes that help to complete projects without taking medication?
Strictly speaking turing complete refers to the fact that any computer that is turing complete can simulate any other machine that is turing complete.
Turing completeness makes no claims to represent "every possible computing device". I think some analog computers aren't, but I don't remember the details.
Well, this was an outside case. And something like 1 refund per 10 full fee registrations would kill domain tasting without affecting any legitimate refunds I can think of. IMO, the refund process has good intentions, but was badly implemented and there's a strange, seemingly malicious, reluctance to fix it.
He was unable to "perform essential functions of the job." We tried quite hard to make it work out, and the business would have gone under if he stayed employed there. But yeah, if the 30 day refund was around back then, the mistakes would have been annoying, but not hideously expensive.
But, (for other reasons), there's no chance of an ADA lawsuit.
Stolen credit cards, spelling mistakes, simple "changing your mind."
Back in the day when a domain registration was $100 for two years, we had the misfortune to hire a dyslexic person to type in orders. We ended up losing several thousand dollars, (quite a lot for a small business,) and even having him double and triple check the spelling didn't work. In short, he was let go after a few months.
You gave up certain rights in exchange for living there. It was part of the exchange. If you didn't want to give up those rights, you could always live off campus.
Albeit, I do agree that those rules seem aimed more at kids than adults. "Kids" have been getting older for a while now. There was a time when 13 made you an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The biggest flaw I see with the system is that spammers will try to figure out "good" addresses and send more spam to those particular addresses compared to others. ie. include a web bug in the email, if the email gets through, that address is then mailbombed into oblivion increasing the rating for any of the participants of that mailbombing.
Also, eventually, the known good address may get so much spam that it becomes a "bad" address, invalidating future good emails.
Many systems to stop spam work on small and medium scale but once spammers discover the system is in use on a large scale, they start to develop active countermeasures and the system breaks.
IMO, the only way to permanently stop spam is to skip several generations ahead in terms of filtering it out, so that spam gets blocked completely for an extended period of time, and spammer R&D is halted due to lack of financial motivation. Then you have to keep ahead of future spammers, but that's a much easier task. But really, I don't see that happening.
The "keys" would be kept as secure as email addresses are today. You'd solve the problem until a spammer got your key, then they'd be able to spam you, and we'd be stuck with the system.
Also, I receive emails from people I've never heard of regarding obscure things I worked on aeons ago. Your system doesn't account for that.
The fact that the crypto was broken was leaked by the process of the intelligence being used. Efforts were made to hide the true source of the intelligence, but the Germans had too much faith in Enigma being "unbreakable".
The ambush of three German U-boats off Cape Verde in September, however, coupled with a dramatic fall in the number of Allied ships sunk in the North Atlantic, led the German Admiral Karl Dönitz to question if the navy's cipher had been compromised. [...] he was dissuaded by his experts,[...]
Bush Jr. is smart, damn smart. You have to be smart to become President. But he lets his morality get in the way of his intelligence. He makes stupid morality based decisions, such as "let's finish that Iraq thing" because it feels good, never thinking that Iraq didn't do anything just yet, and by attacking Iraq now, we lose our moral high ground. His actions all make sense in a way, if you think along the lines of "we can do nothing wrong, our actions are justified." In short, he's smart, very smart, just simple-minded and morally stupid. He has a very clear vision of what is wrong, and anything done to combat that wrong is right. He truly believes he is doing the right thing. And, of course, his morality can easily be swayed by lobbyists' arguments pointing out one side to an issue.
Cancel messages generally aren't honored, due to HipCrime and company. And DMCA takedowns must be sent to a specific person (or corp.) NoCeMs were the new cancel messages used for retro-moderation last time I looked, which was quite a while ago.
Slashdot Mirror
The bounty was by a nameless blogger, so there was no publicity to speak of, and the conditions were quite unreasonable. ie. no dismantling of the drive.
What problem would this solve? You don't gain any additional routable addresses with this method, since the core routers stay the same. Basically, you end up with a half-assed form of NAT.
While it appeals to one's sense of egalitarianism that all people should be treated equally, in reality, some people do need extra care from society during some parts of their life, or during their entire life. Try to imagine the alternative. Do you think that old people should be left to starve to death because they aren't able to work anymore? Do you think we should euthanize the mentally challenged because they will always be more of net drain to society than they contribute?
What I'm trying to say is, as a society, we try to help those who are less fortunate for a reason. Human life has an intrinsic value in and of itself, beyond what one can contribute to society. So, the social mechanisms which encourage one to contribute to the best of one's abilities and the social mechanisms which encourage one to follow the rules need to be tempered by other social mechanisms such as charity and compassion for the less fortunate. Anything less is animal savagery, and I guarantee that none of us would want to live in that kind of world.
I realize I conflated two ideas, but the premise still stands. We are not savages.
One thing I've been wondering about, is:
Many software packages include the license as a plain text file. Changing the text file changes the license that appears in the installer. What If you were to change the license to your liking, remove sections you disapprove of, or remove it entirely, and then install the package?
My correlation is not causation argument was a direct response to the parent, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=968167&cid=25053519 and I was merely pointing out that the parent missed a possible direction of causation. Look at my whole post, (it's short!), and compare the causative flow of my hypothesis to his hypotheses.
To be frank, your response seems more like a kneejerk response than mine, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were also replying to the tag on the original article, but one can read the tag as a warning to the reader not to make that faulty leap of logic instead of reading it as saying the article did make that leap.
or "Depressed people more likely to self medicate with drugs and computer games!"
Correlation is not causation.
Not that it matters, but DVD was originally Digital Video Disc. As it became apparent that DVDs were going to be used for more than video, they retconned the acronym to Digital Versatile Disc, and later because "Digital Versatile Disc" was so unwieldy, they simply became DVDs.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1 is one possible reference.
Security cameras transmitting over the air is a bad idea. Jamming radio is old news and quite easy to do.
And some hotels don't have the signs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this doesn't mean they're any different, the sign thing hasn't got there yet. Once all the hotels have the signs, then you're pretty much presented with a Hobson's choice: stay in a hotel that has carcinogens in it, or sleep in your car. Which probably has carcinogens in it.
Yep. I've seen stickers that say "Motor vehicles contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer", and I don't even live in California.
Actually, the security of using two encryption methods is not fully additive as you would assume. (Security refers to the amount of time required to crack the message.)
If you use the same key for both encryption methods, it may actually be less secure. (ie. The old ROT13 twice joke.)
If you use two different keys, the security of the resultant encryption has a minimum security of the stronger of the two algorithm/keys, and in a perfect case, the maximum security is simply the security of the first protocol plus the security of the second protocol. The only way to know what the actual security of 2 cryptosystems used in tandem is, is to actually perform a cryptanalysis. And cryptanalysis is not an exact science. You don't get many positive affirmations of security.
For example, a substitution cypher applied repeatedly with 100 different keys has the same security as a single substitution cypher, or, potentially, no encryption. Let's say your cypher is: a=0, b=1, etc. Your key is a random number between 1 and 25. You take the plaintext, convert to a number, add the key, modulo 26, and convert back to a letter. If you have 100 keys you used to encrypt, you can add all of the keys up, modulo 26, and you have a single key to decrypt.
In short, if you're using two cryptosystems for added security, the attacker may find a shortcut from the way the two systems interact so that he can retrieve the plaintext with less work than actually cracking both cryptosystems completely. I would assume that cryptosystems based on the same mathematical principles have a greater chance to interact in such a way, but I'm no expert.
And while there is no general crypto attack, there is information there, so with enough analysis, (and it may be a lot,) you can discover what cryptosystem was used.
I apologize in advance for any mistakes or oversimplifications I made.
That assumes that the machines are networked. All I've seen so far is sneakernet of flash cards.
I was never diagnosed with ADD, but I'm discovering as an adult that I do indeed have it. Are there any tips or behaviour changes that help to complete projects without taking medication?
Strictly speaking turing complete refers to the fact that any computer that is turing complete can simulate any other machine that is turing complete.
Turing completeness makes no claims to represent "every possible computing device". I think some analog computers aren't, but I don't remember the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
That problem seems pretty easy to solve. Travel inside a spacecraft.
Well, this was an outside case. And something like 1 refund per 10 full fee registrations would kill domain tasting without affecting any legitimate refunds I can think of. IMO, the refund process has good intentions, but was badly implemented and there's a strange, seemingly malicious, reluctance to fix it.
He was unable to "perform essential functions of the job." We tried quite hard to make it work out, and the business would have gone under if he stayed employed there. But yeah, if the 30 day refund was around back then, the mistakes would have been annoying, but not hideously expensive.
But, (for other reasons), there's no chance of an ADA lawsuit.
Stolen credit cards, spelling mistakes, simple "changing your mind."
Back in the day when a domain registration was $100 for two years, we had the misfortune to hire a dyslexic person to type in orders. We ended up losing several thousand dollars, (quite a lot for a small business,) and even having him double and triple check the spelling didn't work. In short, he was let go after a few months.
You gave up certain rights in exchange for living there. It was part of the exchange. If you didn't want to give up those rights, you could always live off campus.
Albeit, I do agree that those rules seem aimed more at kids than adults. "Kids" have been getting older for a while now. There was a time when 13 made you an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
Well, I laughed at the bottom of the post where it said
(tagging beta)
The biggest flaw I see with the system is that spammers will try to figure out "good" addresses and send more spam to those particular addresses compared to others. ie. include a web bug in the email, if the email gets through, that address is then mailbombed into oblivion increasing the rating for any of the participants of that mailbombing.
Also, eventually, the known good address may get so much spam that it becomes a "bad" address, invalidating future good emails.
Many systems to stop spam work on small and medium scale but once spammers discover the system is in use on a large scale, they start to develop active countermeasures and the system breaks.
IMO, the only way to permanently stop spam is to skip several generations ahead in terms of filtering it out, so that spam gets blocked completely for an extended period of time, and spammer R&D is halted due to lack of financial motivation. Then you have to keep ahead of future spammers, but that's a much easier task. But really, I don't see that happening.
I could post the form thing, but in short:
The "keys" would be kept as secure as email addresses are today. You'd solve the problem until a spammer got your key, then they'd be able to spam you, and we'd be stuck with the system.
Also, I receive emails from people I've never heard of regarding obscure things I worked on aeons ago. Your system doesn't account for that.
for example, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/enigma_04.shtml
Bush Jr. is smart, damn smart. You have to be smart to become President. But he lets his morality get in the way of his intelligence. He makes stupid morality based decisions, such as "let's finish that Iraq thing" because it feels good, never thinking that Iraq didn't do anything just yet, and by attacking Iraq now, we lose our moral high ground. His actions all make sense in a way, if you think along the lines of "we can do nothing wrong, our actions are justified." In short, he's smart, very smart, just simple-minded and morally stupid. He has a very clear vision of what is wrong, and anything done to combat that wrong is right. He truly believes he is doing the right thing. And, of course, his morality can easily be swayed by lobbyists' arguments pointing out one side to an issue.
That's how I see it anyway.
Cancel messages generally aren't honored, due to HipCrime and company. And DMCA takedowns must be sent to a specific person (or corp.) NoCeMs were the new cancel messages used for retro-moderation last time I looked, which was quite a while ago.
Not as mean as the denizens of news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or alt.config.