Now, I have no degree in English, but it certinally is possible to change punctuation without changing meaning. I didn't say "change any punctuation because it will not change the meaning". I said "...change something in the document that doesn't change the meaning..." (you even quoted this!) I can think of an example of a case where a change in punctuation will not change the meaning. For example I could write:
"The cryptographic hashes are broken. The world is going to fall apart."
or
"The cryptographic hashes are broken; the world is going to fall apart."
or even (adding a word)
"The cryptographic hashes are broken, and the world is going to fall apart."
All three of these are legal English and have the exact same meaning. Granted the second one may not be the most common way to write the sentences, but all are changes that nobody would argue with (unless they had ulterior motives).
Maybe you should try thinking of more examples where punctuation doesn't change the meaning before calling someone illiterate.
Yes, but remember that this is a collision attack, not a preimage attack. You can find two pieces of plaintext that have the same hash, but you don't get to choose what the hash is. Thus it is still computationally difficult to find a document (even garbage) that has the same hash as some preexisting document.
I didn't read the attack too well, but from the Q&A, it appears that the attacks are collision attacks (like the Birthday attack, but, I imagine, more efficient). The Q&A states "In contrast [to a preimage attack], a collision attack finds two messages with the same hash, but the attacker can't pick what the hash will be."
So, shouldn't it be possible to edit something in the document that doesn't change the meaning (such as a misspelling, or punctuation) before you sign it, thereby changing the hash to something completely different? It would seem that now the attacker is forced to find a document that has a given hash, which is essentially a preimage attack, or is there something I am missing?
(Frankly, the physics of using rockets in space has never made sense to me - how do they go anywhere? - but it seems to work, so that's fine.)
Rockets use the same priciple that ion propulsion uses, the law of action and reaction (one of Newton's Laws, can't remember which one off the top of my head). Basically matter is accellerated out the back of the engine (by chemical means in the chemical rocket engine, and by using electro-magnetic forces in the ion propulsion engine). This accelleration causes causes a force to be placed on the engine that is equal to, but oppisite in direction, to the force accellerating the matter.
To answer your first question, Deep Space 1 used ion propulsion.
Most likely the program would be put on an EPROM (Eraseable Programmable Read Only Memory) or better yet an EEPROM (Electrical EPROM), and not just a regular ROM. Remember ROM doesn't mean you can't write to it, it is used to differentiate from RAM (Random Access Memory) where you can randomly read and write to any location in memory. EPROMs and EEPROMs require all of the memory to be erased at once, and all of the memory to be written at once, wich would be ideal for an OS, IMHO.
I guess I don't really expect the switch to Firebird to happen as soon as was planned before AOL dropped Netscape/Mozilla. I'm just glad I get to use Firebird now, tho' I am looking forward to the integration of Firebird into the main browser.
ChaosDiscord makes a good point. Not many things are totally black and white (even though many people would have you believe otherwise). People need to really think about these things.
Maybe your processor isn't getting hot enough. If your processor isn't getting hot enough then the kernels won't pop into popcorn. Try buying an Athalon or Pentium 4 processor. They get quite hot.
You don't "burn" the hydrogen in a hydrogen powered car, and you don't "burn" the natural gas to produce hydrogen. Natural gas is composed of hydrocarbons (natural gas consists of only hydrogen and carbon atoms; granted it is probably not pure, so there might be trace elements in there). The natural gas is put through a chemical process to extract the hydrogen. This chemical process need not produce CO. (In fact burning hydrocarbons only produces CO when incomplete combustion takes place--the chemical reaction doesn't complete properly in an internal combustion engine. Any factory that produces hydrogen doesn't need to produce CO, if it does, it can capture that CO and combine it with O to produce CO2 which is much safer on the enviroment)
I guess it just depends upon how you parse the sentance "Windows is insecure by design." It never occured to me to read the sentance as saying Windows was designed to be insecure. I don't know if it was the intent of the writer of the headline to have the headline read that way. I believe that making such an accusation is a far step, however, because the headline could be read that way, perhaps the writer should have taken more care to use better wording.
You miss the point. Would you say that a car that has no seatbelts or airbags is unsafe by design? Yes, you would (or at least I would). That doesn't mean that you or I think that the designers of such a car designed it to be unsafe (think back about 50 years when cars were designed without seatbelts or airbags).
Yep, you should go RTFA. PDE is very explosive. The idea was first thought of in the 1930's. The article says that the Germans tried it on the V-1 rocket, but didn't succede. The article states that detonation is different from deflagration. I don't know what the internal combustion engine uses, but PDE is very complicated and has only recently been showing signs of success.
No, he said he made it through college without a thorough understanding of mathematics. Anybody who hasn't taken an abstract algebra course (most college students) probably doesn't have a thorough understanding of algebra.
My suggestion? If you want a good understanding of algebra then read an introductory abstract algebra texbook. Lots of proofs and helps you understand algebra and number theory much more. (Besides it's a load of fun! Ok well maybe its only a load of fun if your into that sort of thing.)
Not all dictionary searchs are O(n) worst case! A binary search is a dictionary search (the list is in order) and a binary search is O(nlgn)* worst case.
Yep. Testing a beta filesystem is something you do on a spare machine that you are not using at the moment. It would be really cool to help test ReiserFS out, but I only have one machine and can't risk losing all of my work!
Your XML is not well formed, it should look like this:
<tongue location="in_cheek">
It's good to see Aladdin Systems are demonstrating their lossy text compression technology by saying that the ZIP format is "getting broke" rather than "getting broken"
Yes he does need a lawer. However, I don't think there is any harm in asking Slashdot. There might be people on Slashdot who have expierence in this sort of issue, and his lawer might not. He can take their suggestions to his lawer, and discuss the posibilities with him.
Saying "you can do some really horrible stuff" in Perl in fact tells me that you probably don't know much about programming, at all. You can "do horrible stuff" in *any* programming language. Over the years I've seen more than my fair share of horrible C, C++, Java, Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, PHP, and yes, even Perl.
Absolutely true. People are always complaining that Perl alows a person to write obfucated code. What about C? The C programming language allows a person to write obfucated code as well. In fact it is so easy to write obfucated code in C that there is even a contest. But very few programmers would conclude that this makes C a bad language (although programmers might point to other aspects of C that might make it a bad language in their opinion). The C language is very powerfull, and part of this power is what allows a programmer to write obfucated code.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I have no degree in English, but it certinally is possible to change punctuation without changing meaning. I didn't say "change any punctuation because it will not change the meaning". I said "...change something in the document that doesn't change the meaning..." (you even quoted this!) I can think of an example of a case where a change in punctuation will not change the meaning. For example I could write:
All three of these are legal English and have the exact same meaning. Granted the second one may not be the most common way to write the sentences, but all are changes that nobody would argue with (unless they had ulterior motives).
Maybe you should try thinking of more examples where punctuation doesn't change the meaning before calling someone illiterate.
Yes, but remember that this is a collision attack, not a preimage attack. You can find two pieces of plaintext that have the same hash, but you don't get to choose what the hash is. Thus it is still computationally difficult to find a document (even garbage) that has the same hash as some preexisting document.
I didn't read the attack too well, but from the Q&A, it appears that the attacks are collision attacks (like the Birthday attack, but, I imagine, more efficient). The Q&A states "In contrast [to a preimage attack], a collision attack finds two messages with the same hash, but the attacker can't pick what the hash will be."
So, shouldn't it be possible to edit something in the document that doesn't change the meaning (such as a misspelling, or punctuation) before you sign it, thereby changing the hash to something completely different? It would seem that now the attacker is forced to find a document that has a given hash, which is essentially a preimage attack, or is there something I am missing?
I coulda swore that they used the Mach kernel.
Rockets use the same priciple that ion propulsion uses, the law of action and reaction (one of Newton's Laws, can't remember which one off the top of my head). Basically matter is accellerated out the back of the engine (by chemical means in the chemical rocket engine, and by using electro-magnetic forces in the ion propulsion engine). This accelleration causes causes a force to be placed on the engine that is equal to, but oppisite in direction, to the force accellerating the matter.
To answer your first question, Deep Space 1 used ion propulsion.
Most likely the program would be put on an EPROM (Eraseable Programmable Read Only Memory) or better yet an EEPROM (Electrical EPROM), and not just a regular ROM. Remember ROM doesn't mean you can't write to it, it is used to differentiate from RAM (Random Access Memory) where you can randomly read and write to any location in memory. EPROMs and EEPROMs require all of the memory to be erased at once, and all of the memory to be written at once, wich would be ideal for an OS, IMHO.
I guess I don't really expect the switch to Firebird to happen as soon as was planned before AOL dropped Netscape/Mozilla. I'm just glad I get to use Firebird now, tho' I am looking forward to the integration of Firebird into the main browser.
ChaosDiscord makes a good point. Not many things are totally black and white (even though many people would have you believe otherwise). People need to really think about these things.
Unfortunatly this isn't funny, it is true.
Maybe your processor isn't getting hot enough. If your processor isn't getting hot enough then the kernels won't pop into popcorn. Try buying an Athalon or Pentium 4 processor. They get quite hot.
You don't "burn" the hydrogen in a hydrogen powered car, and you don't "burn" the natural gas to produce hydrogen. Natural gas is composed of hydrocarbons (natural gas consists of only hydrogen and carbon atoms; granted it is probably not pure, so there might be trace elements in there). The natural gas is put through a chemical process to extract the hydrogen. This chemical process need not produce CO. (In fact burning hydrocarbons only produces CO when incomplete combustion takes place--the chemical reaction doesn't complete properly in an internal combustion engine. Any factory that produces hydrogen doesn't need to produce CO, if it does, it can capture that CO and combine it with O to produce CO2 which is much safer on the enviroment)
...I like my Earl Grey with milk and a little bit of sugar. (You British are right, tea is good with a little milk.)
I guess it just depends upon how you parse the sentance "Windows is insecure by design." It never occured to me to read the sentance as saying Windows was designed to be insecure. I don't know if it was the intent of the writer of the headline to have the headline read that way. I believe that making such an accusation is a far step, however, because the headline could be read that way, perhaps the writer should have taken more care to use better wording.
You miss the point. Would you say that a car that has no seatbelts or airbags is unsafe by design? Yes, you would (or at least I would). That doesn't mean that you or I think that the designers of such a car designed it to be unsafe (think back about 50 years when cars were designed without seatbelts or airbags).
Ah, the memories! I guess you have to go back to playing ET for awhile before you are thankfull at how far games have come.
Except GNU is pronounced "ganew"! I have always pronounced AIX as "ayix". I have always spelled out IBM, SCO and BSD.
Exceptions:
- NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
- NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
- FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslator)
- COBOL (COmmon Business Oriented Language)
I'm sure that there are many (many) others that I fail to remember at the moment.Yep, you should go RTFA. PDE is very explosive. The idea was first thought of in the 1930's. The article says that the Germans tried it on the V-1 rocket, but didn't succede. The article states that detonation is different from deflagration. I don't know what the internal combustion engine uses, but PDE is very complicated and has only recently been showing signs of success.
No, he said he made it through college without a thorough understanding of mathematics. Anybody who hasn't taken an abstract algebra course (most college students) probably doesn't have a thorough understanding of algebra.
My suggestion? If you want a good understanding of algebra then read an introductory abstract algebra texbook. Lots of proofs and helps you understand algebra and number theory much more. (Besides it's a load of fun! Ok well maybe its only a load of fun if your into that sort of thing.)
Hate to reply to my own comment, but I said that wrong. A binary search is O(lgn) not O(nlgn).
Not all dictionary searchs are O(n) worst case! A binary search is a dictionary search (the list is in order) and a binary search is O(nlgn)* worst case.
* lg--log base 2
Isn't Debian working on a BSD based distro?
Yep. Testing a beta filesystem is something you do on a spare machine that you are not using at the moment. It would be really cool to help test ReiserFS out, but I only have one machine and can't risk losing all of my work!
Your XML is not well formed, it should look like this:
You need to quote all attribute values!Yes he does need a lawer. However, I don't think there is any harm in asking Slashdot. There might be people on Slashdot who have expierence in this sort of issue, and his lawer might not. He can take their suggestions to his lawer, and discuss the posibilities with him.