If you're looking for hash collisions, you're not going to target a particular hash; you're going to leverage the magic of the birthday paradox and hash your way through a dictionary with passwords listed in order of decreasing probability (with "password" and "12345" listed first, then "p@ssw0rd" and "OU812", etc.) and match the resulting hash with entries in the password file.
And you're going to do this once, building one rainbow table, and try it on every unsalted, SHA1 hashed password list you can get your grubby hands on, until you have a nice little dictionary of username / password pairs - and try it on whatever services you're targeting, because most people tend to reuse the same password over and over again (usually Joshua97 or MaryJune05 or some other combination of their kids' names and birthdates).
I have been posting anonymously for years; I also have another account that I usually use when I want to post something and get some feedback. But I wanted to log in to my original account, with my real name, to post just this short comment:
You, my friend, are a sensible human being. That's all I have to say.
I used to work for an academic journal (my usual writing style is a lot cleaner, when I'm not typing with my thumbs on a cell phone). Part of my job was to check references; another part was to read and sanity check the reader reviews. Just because your employer is incompetent, that doesn't mean every publisher is.
Used an iPhone; paragraphing is difficult on a tiny chunk of landscape screen (which you'll see immediately if you try posting something from an iPhone at an AT&T store). Proper editing on one of these things is also a pain, which is why the posting is one long unclosed parenthetical). Sorry.
Sure someone came up with something better: his name was Aldus Manutius, and his invention is nowadays called a "publisher" - one guy whose reputation depends upon his ability to pick good editors who can themselves vet books for quality. (Technically, a lot of people contributed to the invention of the publisher, but Aldus is a good stand in for the group.) A publisher's reputation for quality directly affects the prices he's able to charge for his works, and thus his livelihood. The problem with Wikipedia and projects of its ilk is that, unlike open source software, there's no boundary of usability that instantly tells you whether or not it's crap (bad code doesn't work, and that's obvious to users, not just experts). You can't apply a "survival of the fittest" model to written works that are intended to represent reality accurately, because the only check on their growth is the reading and use of such works by often inexpert readers who judge the works on criteria other than accuracy (because most of them don't have the requisite knowledge to judge their accuracy). One possible check is reputation - nobody wants to have their name attached to a gross error, so folks are more likely to take care with their research and arguments if they are forced to take responsibility for what they write (see Areopagitica), lest someone who is an expert demonstrate their error for all to see. The problem with wikipedia isn't the fact that it's open to any contributor; it's the fact that there's no assignment of responsibility for entries to authors who have to maintain a consistent identity (if someone demonstrates your failure to check your facts, you can just switch to another sock puppet and nobody's the wiser) and the failure to vet editors (if say Alex Ross were to write an article on John Adams the composer, I could go in there and change it to say that he was an early Baroque composer for the harpsichord, and there'd be nothing to prevent me from camping on the entry to revert any corrections, because in the eyes of Wikipedia what I have to say about John Adams, as a musical novice, is as valid as what was written about him by a professional music critic. But if I say that John Adams died three hundred years ago and wrote harpsichord music, people who come across it will shrug; if Alex Ross does so, he'll lose his audience and Adams will call him and say "are you on crack?" The editors need to be people who have something at stake; and the authors need to be held responsible for their work...and ultimately, the publisher needs to be held accountable for the quality of the whole, or else you end with good articles only in the hard sciences where inaccuracies are obvious to all relevant readers and in narrow specialties where no one would bother writing entries except for those who are already heavily invested in them, and worthless articles on any subject in which a measurable fraction of the general public has an emotional investment, but no particular expertise.
No, IANAL. That's why I put it the way I did. Nor are you (as one can easily see from your "What's legal and what isn't has nothing to do with common sense" comment; a lawyer would put that quite differently). But since there's no law about linking (that I know of), probably the closest pre-internet technology would be used to determine the issues. And as far as I can see, that's the footnote.
Is there anyone here who IS a lawyer who'd be willing to provide an amicus curiae explaining to the court why this is a load of garbage? Pointing out three things: 1. that since there is already a technical solution (referrers), the plaintiff likely isn't entitled to damages because they have made no attempt to resolve the problem on their own and limit their damages (I don't remember the legal term for this, but a lawyer should know what I mean); 2. that since the linked-to page contains their advertising content and their masthead, there are no damages anyway; 3. that the definition of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and Hypertext Markup Language implies deep-linking!
And isn't there some kind of resource center for sane Internet IP law advice/legal representation? Sort of an ACLU for Web issues?
A hyperlink is merely a reference, like a footnote, no more. There's no way hyperlinking could be illegal.
And deep linking is in their best interest. All of their imprint information (their masthead, their ads, etc.) appears on the deep links anyway.
If the content were being displayed on the independant site without any of the paper's identifiying or profit making information, that would be one thing; but it's all there. Unless, of course, they only get ad revenue from impressions on their home page, in which case they're idiots.
What are they going to do next, sue Google for indexing their site (or are they dumb enough to have a norobots tag preventing google from seeing their content)?
Of course the desktop is a different issue. It is very interesting that Dreamworks turned down OS X and Win2K and went with GNU/Linux instead. Especially given that they new they would have to do some work to get their GNU/Linux desktops working properly.
Probably good marketing by RedHat - convince Dreamworks that their lives would be simplified by having support licenses only for one OS, not two.
If English were a computer language, then perhaps it would be possible to represent it by means of a regular expression; however, English is a natural language, with all the ambiguity and complexity which natural languages entail, and so cannot be properly represented by means of any logical construct.
Troll he may be, but since it's modded up "informative", it seemed necessary to make the point lest others fall into the same trap.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU
General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library
General Public License, and any license that
requires in any instance that other software
distributed with software subject to such license
(a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
So why doesn't GNU sue MS for anti-competitive practices?
Someday, perhaps soon, AOL will be a Gecko based browser. And who can afford to cut off AOL?
So Mozilla users can just hack the UA string to announce itself as AOL.
If they can combine the story of the books with the depth of their Dune series . ..
You must mean the shallowness of their Dune series, which was the only film version of a book that could possibly make me appreciate David Lynch's Dune. Sci Fi's take on Dune was a disaster; after 40 minutes I was hoping someone at the network would regain his sanity and interrupt it with a Farscape rerun. Better to spend the 4 hours rereading (as much as you could in 4 hours) the book.
The Soviets had the home-grown Korolev, who was probably as good as von Braun. Remember that the Soviets beat us to orbit both with sats and people.
Korolev, unfortunately, was badly mistreated by the Soviet government, and worked under horrendous conditions. It's sad, really: imagine what he could have done working for a sane Russian government.
Of course, that would mean that all of those controls on the lunar lander would be labelled in Russian . ..
Yeah, it's cool, but Windows XP does that with IE as well (well, in a sense: it groups all IE windows together.)
I used to say the same thing, but after a few weeks of use, I found that I like the tabbed browsing more, and miss it when I use IE (right now I'm fighting the urge to open a tab in IE to read another story). Perhaps it's the fact that the page titles and icons are all shown on the tabs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're looking for hash collisions, you're not going to target a particular hash; you're going to leverage the magic of the birthday paradox and hash your way through a dictionary with passwords listed in order of decreasing probability (with "password" and "12345" listed first, then "p@ssw0rd" and "OU812", etc.) and match the resulting hash with entries in the password file. And you're going to do this once, building one rainbow table, and try it on every unsalted, SHA1 hashed password list you can get your grubby hands on, until you have a nice little dictionary of username / password pairs - and try it on whatever services you're targeting, because most people tend to reuse the same password over and over again (usually Joshua97 or MaryJune05 or some other combination of their kids' names and birthdates).
What's your syllabus look like? I just finished up my MSCS ...
Ever get the feeling that nobody else got the joke? I'm here to spare you from that feeling.
I have been posting anonymously for years; I also have another account that I usually use when I want to post something and get some feedback. But I wanted to log in to my original account, with my real name, to post just this short comment:
You, my friend, are a sensible human being. That's all I have to say.
I used to work for an academic journal (my usual writing style is a lot cleaner, when I'm not typing with my thumbs on a cell phone). Part of my job was to check references; another part was to read and sanity check the reader reviews. Just because your employer is incompetent, that doesn't mean every publisher is.
Used an iPhone; paragraphing is difficult on a tiny chunk of landscape screen (which you'll see immediately if you try posting something from an iPhone at an AT&T store). Proper editing on one of these things is also a pain, which is why the posting is one long unclosed parenthetical). Sorry.
Sure someone came up with something better: his name was Aldus Manutius, and his invention is nowadays called a "publisher" - one guy whose reputation depends upon his ability to pick good editors who can themselves vet books for quality. (Technically, a lot of people contributed to the invention of the publisher, but Aldus is a good stand in for the group.) A publisher's reputation for quality directly affects the prices he's able to charge for his works, and thus his livelihood. The problem with Wikipedia and projects of its ilk is that, unlike open source software, there's no boundary of usability that instantly tells you whether or not it's crap (bad code doesn't work, and that's obvious to users, not just experts). You can't apply a "survival of the fittest" model to written works that are intended to represent reality accurately, because the only check on their growth is the reading and use of such works by often inexpert readers who judge the works on criteria other than accuracy (because most of them don't have the requisite knowledge to judge their accuracy). One possible check is reputation - nobody wants to have their name attached to a gross error, so folks are more likely to take care with their research and arguments if they are forced to take responsibility for what they write (see Areopagitica), lest someone who is an expert demonstrate their error for all to see. The problem with wikipedia isn't the fact that it's open to any contributor; it's the fact that there's no assignment of responsibility for entries to authors who have to maintain a consistent identity (if someone demonstrates your failure to check your facts, you can just switch to another sock puppet and nobody's the wiser) and the failure to vet editors (if say Alex Ross were to write an article on John Adams the composer, I could go in there and change it to say that he was an early Baroque composer for the harpsichord, and there'd be nothing to prevent me from camping on the entry to revert any corrections, because in the eyes of Wikipedia what I have to say about John Adams, as a musical novice, is as valid as what was written about him by a professional music critic. But if I say that John Adams died three hundred years ago and wrote harpsichord music, people who come across it will shrug; if Alex Ross does so, he'll lose his audience and Adams will call him and say "are you on crack?" The editors need to be people who have something at stake; and the authors need to be held responsible for their work...and ultimately, the publisher needs to be held accountable for the quality of the whole, or else you end with good articles only in the hard sciences where inaccuracies are obvious to all relevant readers and in narrow specialties where no one would bother writing entries except for those who are already heavily invested in them, and worthless articles on any subject in which a measurable fraction of the general public has an emotional investment, but no particular expertise.
No, IANAL. That's why I put it the way I did. Nor are you (as one can easily see from your "What's legal and what isn't has nothing to do with common sense" comment; a lawyer would put that quite differently). But since there's no law about linking (that I know of), probably the closest pre-internet technology would be used to determine the issues. And as far as I can see, that's the footnote.
I A N A L
Is there anyone here who IS a lawyer who'd be willing to provide an amicus curiae explaining to the court why this is a load of garbage? Pointing out three things: 1. that since there is already a technical solution (referrers), the plaintiff likely isn't entitled to damages because they have made no attempt to resolve the problem on their own and limit their damages (I don't remember the legal term for this, but a lawyer should know what I mean); 2. that since the linked-to page contains their advertising content and their masthead, there are no damages anyway; 3. that the definition of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and Hypertext Markup Language implies deep-linking!
And isn't there some kind of resource center for sane Internet IP law advice/legal representation? Sort of an ACLU for Web issues?
A hyperlink is merely a reference, like a footnote, no more. There's no way hyperlinking could be illegal.
And deep linking is in their best interest. All of their imprint information (their masthead, their ads, etc.) appears on the deep links anyway.
If the content were being displayed on the independant site without any of the paper's identifiying or profit making information, that would be one thing; but it's all there. Unless, of course, they only get ad revenue from impressions on their home page, in which case they're idiots.
What are they going to do next, sue Google for indexing their site (or are they dumb enough to have a norobots tag preventing google from seeing their content)?
Of course the desktop is a different issue. It is very interesting that Dreamworks turned down OS X and Win2K and went with GNU/Linux instead. Especially given that they new they would have to do some work to get their GNU/Linux desktops working properly.
Probably good marketing by RedHat - convince Dreamworks that their lives would be simplified by having support licenses only for one OS, not two.
Works for me, Windows XP Mozilla RC1, Classic skin.
Too bad someone can't also mark this insightful; it isn't just funny. If you care THAT much about browsing performance, use Lynx.
HP-UX, SCO-Unixware, AIX...and these are just the ones in use at my office...there are others
Probably counting BSD and its derivatives (including OS X) in there as well. A more meaningful number would be FreeNIX vs. Non-FreeNIX vs. Windows.
Express the following as a regexp:
If English were a computer language, then perhaps it would be possible to represent it by means of a regular expression; however, English is a natural language, with all the ambiguity and complexity which natural languages entail, and so cannot be properly represented by means of any logical construct.
Troll he may be, but since it's modded up "informative", it seemed necessary to make the point lest others fall into the same trap.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
So why doesn't GNU sue MS for anti-competitive practices?
Someday, perhaps soon, AOL will be a Gecko based browser. And who can afford to cut off AOL? So Mozilla users can just hack the UA string to announce itself as AOL.
If they can combine the story of the books with the depth of their Dune series . . .
You must mean the shallowness of their Dune series, which was the only film version of a book that could possibly make me appreciate David Lynch's Dune. Sci Fi's take on Dune was a disaster; after 40 minutes I was hoping someone at the network would regain his sanity and interrupt it with a Farscape rerun. Better to spend the 4 hours rereading (as much as you could in 4 hours) the book.
Then you have my pity, having to live with April Fool's Day for an extra 12 hours.
Good luck.
IIRC, the before-noon thing is a British spin on April 1. In the US it's usually an all-day affair.
Basically, don't trust postings with an April 1 date.
The Soviets had the home-grown Korolev, who was probably as good as von Braun. Remember that the Soviets beat us to orbit both with sats and people.
Korolev, unfortunately, was badly mistreated by the Soviet government, and worked under horrendous conditions. It's sad, really: imagine what he could have done working for a sane Russian government. Of course, that would mean that all of those controls on the lunar lander would be labelled in Russian . . .
Imagine a film version of Liar? Of course, you'd have to make Calvin's issue more than just a crush on a colleague.
Plus, you can tell he is a UNIX geek, since he seems to think the indictment is case sensitive.
HIHLUC: Head-in-hands, laughing-uncontrollably.
Anyway, you know what they say, that anyone who appears pro se has an idiot for a client.
I'm guess that Jupiter Media Metrix analyst David Card has never heard of Darwin.
Yeah, it's cool, but Windows XP does that with IE as well (well, in a sense: it groups all IE windows together.)
I used to say the same thing, but after a few weeks of use, I found that I like the tabbed browsing more, and miss it when I use IE (right now I'm fighting the urge to open a tab in IE to read another story). Perhaps it's the fact that the page titles and icons are all shown on the tabs.