bugzilla.mozilla.org has been blocking slashdot referers for ages, so that they don't get slashdotted, so that people (other than Slashdotters going "Ook! A Link! I must click it!") can carry on using bugzilla to fix stuff in mozilla (or not, as the case may be [see bug 95849]).
RedHat's aim is to make money, IBM's aim is to make money, VA software's (owners of OSDN, i.e. slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat,...) aim is to make money, and so on. They are all for-profit companies, and it is in the essence of a for-profit company that it is trying to, well, make a profit. Your criticism that MS are only realeasing this because they think it will make them money could equally be leveled at any other company that releases open-source software.
That wooshing sound you just heard? It was you missing the joke.
And now, have some Lorem Ipsum to keep the lameness filter happy (it might be junk text, but it's not junk characters): Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Maecenas blandit lectus a ligula. Proin dapibus. Suspendisse ornare lorem in lorem. Suspendisse pretium purus non pede. Phasellus at orci. Mauris vitae sapien in velit malesuada aliquet. Donec id odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam tempor. Curabitur velit. Praesent porttitor diam in felis. Mauris orci sapien, hendrerit ut, vehicula ac, malesuada sit amet, neque. Phasellus varius libero nec enim. Vivamus sit amet sem at nunc auctor scelerisque. Quisque et nibh. Proin aliquam orci sed magna. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Mauris egestas nibh. Nulla aliquam faucibus orci. Fusce quis velit vel erat nonummy eleifend. Etiam nonummy bibendum mi. Curabitur id ante. Ut lectus mauris, nonummy non, vulputate non, facilisis aliquet, ligula. Duis ultricies. Fusce tempus luctus libero. Nulla vel erat a diam cursus dignissim. Ut elementum, mi ut suscipit iaculis, odio quam varius elit, a commodo quam augue a dui. Integer lectus. Curabitur dui ipsum, eleifend a, suscipit eu, ultricies in, massa. Nullam pulvinar nibh vel ipsum. Praesent tellus purus, feugiat ut, convallis sed, condimentum id, ipsum. Donec elit turpis, ullamcorper malesuada, eleifend ac, consequat pellentesque, diam. Quisque lorem elit, aliquet id, feugiat ac, facilisis at, eros. Donec sit amet sapien. Aenean commodo libero in leo.
And, in addition to what my sibling posts have already pointed out, you can make bread without yeast. You can use another raising agent, as in soda bread (which uses baking soda), or consider the many unleavened breads, which (by definition) don't have anything in them to make them rise.
And as for beer... well, some things that are sold a beer bear a remarkable similarity to a liquid that we all produce without using any yeast;-)
I think what Zaiff is suggesting is to take the MD5 hash of the plaintext, and the SHA-0 hash of the plaintext, so an attack would then have to find a collision in both hashes at once.
So, for example, consider verifying a copy of your post. The MD5 hash of the message is fc378543397e79179240f317a6c99076, and the SHA-1 of the message is 47a032769e6d6b5f9ac1efedb81911727303ba5c. If we just use one hash function, an attacker only has to find a collision in that function. If we use both, then an attacker has to find another plaintext that has the same MD5 as your message, and the same SHA-1 as your message, which is going to be harder than matching just one.
You can't find out anything from the nothing that I know.
But there is something that you do know - who or where you got the message from. So when they've got that out of you, they can go after that person, or investigate the dead letter box you used, or whatever.
No, it's the OTP key that needs to be random. The main problems with OTP are that the key needs to be as long as the message, can only be used once, and a secure channel is needed to distribute the key.
If you do OTP right, it is unbreakable* because the only possible attack is to brute force it by trying every possible key, and trying every possible key on an n character cyphertext gives you every possible n character plaintext, with no way of telling which one is right. (That is, if you had the 16 character cyphertext "bhgisngukfgxd gyt" you would get all possible 16 character strings as possible plaintexts, including "attack US friday", "shoot Osama soon" and "I like chocolate", and you would have no way to tell which was the actual plaintext.)
*except for rubber-hosing, but that affects all crypto systems, and is a weakness of the people involved, not the crypto.
Blunkett was apparently nominated repeatedly, but hthey decided he'd won too many times already, and renamed the lifetime menace award the "David Blunkett Lifetime Menace Award" in his hounour. And last year:
Each year the judges consider a nomination that is so odious and contemptible that they are reluctant to agree to spending scarce money on an expensive gold award for the villain. These occasions deserve an appropriate award, and so this year we give the first "Dog Poo On A Stick" prize. It goes to David Blunkett.
The real test for me is, "Is the link back to the official site? Or does it look like a link and take you to some mysterious 3rd party server?"
There's an even simpler test than that, one which even the most tech-illiterate user should be able to master: "Do I have an account with this company?" Applying that test instantly identifies most of the phishing attempts I get (and obviously can't be used with this test.)
If that one passes, then look at where the links go to, but be aware of how cunning some of them are: one trick they use is to have an image map to the fake page inside a link to the bank's real page - the real page's URL is shown in the status bar but clicking it goes to the fake page. And the fake pages often just redirect to the real page, and open a pop-up window with a fake page asking for details. So looking at the address in the status bar shows the URL of the real page and the real page is opened in the main browser window, with the phisher's page in a pop-up which doesn't have an address bar (so it's not obvious that it's not a real page.) See this thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email for a disection of a phish using this trick.
The only thing you can't do is redistribute WineX code for any commercial purpose.
While the license says that, consider what happened when Debian wanted to package it and include it in non-free. Transgaming asked Debian not to, with a threat to change the license to stop Debian distributing any future versions. Quoteth Gavriel State, Transgaming's CEO:
If Debian goes ahead and packages WineX despite our request, we will have to evaluate how
that is affecting our financial situation, and determine whether we should change our
license to restrict any future binary-packaged redistribution, regardless of commercial or
non-commercial intent. It would certainly be our preference not to have to do so.
VAT (i.e. sales tax) is 17.5%, so the tax man gets 17.5p of the 99p. So, the site actually gets 81.5p of each 99p sale. Which is $1.46, so we're still paying 46% more.
Yes, the dictionary definition of merkin is a pubic wig. The word "merkin" is sometimes used as a shortened form of "american". As for whether the later usage is meant to imply some form of link to the former usage, I couldn't possibly speculate on the matter.
1p is one new pence (aka a penny) and is GBP0.01 (gah! Why does/. eat pound signs?) And in case you were wondering what that is in merkin money, the current exchange rate (according to xe.com) is 1.787 US dollars to the pound.
From looking at the site, it's impossible (as yet) to tell, since they're not actually launching until the 26th (this Wednesday) and it doesn't have much detail available yet.
However, from other sites using the same back-end system (OD2), it doesn't look too promising - when I try any of them, I get a message saying "The site you have tried to enter requires Internet Explorer 5 (or better) with Windows Media Player 7 (or better) on Windows XP, 2000, Me or 98."
We won't know for sure for a few days, but it doesn't look promising.
"What if I want my email to be kept private, but through ignorance or lack of options, I email several people with Gmail accounts? My messages to these individuals are being scaned and archived without my consent."
That is, the grandparent was talking about mail that they might send to Gmail users, not them being a Gmail user.
Who needs to unify them?
Emacs can pretend to be vi (M-x viper-mode) and vi can pretend to be emacs (vimacs.)
(And anyway, why would anyone use anything other than emacs - yeah, trying to remember all the keystrokes will drive you insane, but M-x doctor is there to help;-) )
When 999 was introduced, there were good reasons for the choice. Another reason I've heard (that isn't mentioned on that page) is that, on a rotary phone, 0 and 9 are the two easiest digits to find quickly/in the dark, and since 0 was the number for the operator when they came up with 999, they chose 9.
I think you may have missed the point being made, which is that a written document saying you have certain rights is not what is important, it is that you do (or do not) actually have those rights which is important. If the printed words are ignored, they may as well not exist, and you can have the freedoms without haveing the printed words saying you have them.
For example, a law saying "An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) [for police to use special ant-terrorism powers] may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." (Section 44(3) of the UK's Terrorism Act) is irrelevent if it is ignored, and police are allowed to use those powers to harrass peaceful protestors (see the link in my sig, or this page.)
Surely they must have used at least some paste between the surfaces, since the whole point of using it is to create a good thermal contact between the two (not toally smooth) surafces. Are you sure the block of silver wasn't just to look fancy? ("You've got silver paste? Hah! I've got *silver*!")
Maybe because the answer to your question was in the Slashdot story. You didn't even need to RTFA to discover that "The announcement notes that the current logo is "too complicated... hard to reproduce... [and] has negative cultural, and religious ramifications.""
Slashdot Mirror
Typing :(){ :|:&};: in bash is quite effective
(NB: It's a fork-bomb, you really don't want to try it out, as this proves.)
bugzilla.mozilla.org has been blocking slashdot referers for ages, so that they don't get slashdotted, so that people (other than Slashdotters going "Ook! A Link! I must click it!") can carry on using bugzilla to fix stuff in mozilla (or not, as the case may be [see bug 95849]).
And your point is?
...) aim is to make money, and so on. They are all for-profit companies, and it is in the essence of a for-profit company that it is trying to, well, make a profit. Your criticism that MS are only realeasing this because they think it will make them money could equally be leveled at any other company that releases open-source software.
RedHat's aim is to make money, IBM's aim is to make money, VA software's (owners of OSDN, i.e. slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat,
Doh!
Must remeber that post in plain text doesn't do ascii art right.
*slaps self with a wet haddock*
-----------------the joke--------------->
/|\
O
you ---->
|
/ \
That wooshing sound you just heard? It was you missing the joke.
And now, have some Lorem Ipsum to keep the lameness filter happy (it might be junk text, but it's not junk characters): Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Maecenas blandit lectus a ligula. Proin dapibus. Suspendisse ornare lorem in lorem. Suspendisse pretium purus non pede. Phasellus at orci. Mauris vitae sapien in velit malesuada aliquet. Donec id odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam tempor. Curabitur velit.
Praesent porttitor diam in felis. Mauris orci sapien, hendrerit ut, vehicula ac, malesuada sit amet, neque. Phasellus varius libero nec enim. Vivamus sit amet sem at nunc auctor scelerisque. Quisque et nibh. Proin aliquam orci sed magna. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Mauris egestas nibh. Nulla aliquam faucibus orci. Fusce quis velit vel erat nonummy eleifend. Etiam nonummy bibendum mi. Curabitur id ante. Ut lectus mauris, nonummy non, vulputate non, facilisis aliquet, ligula.
Duis ultricies. Fusce tempus luctus libero. Nulla vel erat a diam cursus dignissim. Ut elementum, mi ut suscipit iaculis, odio quam varius elit, a commodo quam augue a dui. Integer lectus. Curabitur dui ipsum, eleifend a, suscipit eu, ultricies in, massa. Nullam pulvinar nibh vel ipsum. Praesent tellus purus, feugiat ut, convallis sed, condimentum id, ipsum. Donec elit turpis, ullamcorper malesuada, eleifend ac, consequat pellentesque, diam. Quisque lorem elit, aliquet id, feugiat ac, facilisis at, eros. Donec sit amet sapien. Aenean commodo libero in leo.
And, in addition to what my sibling posts have already pointed out, you can make bread without yeast. You can use another raising agent, as in soda bread (which uses baking soda), or consider the many unleavened breads, which (by definition) don't have anything in them to make them rise.
;-)
And as for beer... well, some things that are sold a beer bear a remarkable similarity to a liquid that we all produce without using any yeast
I think what Zaiff is suggesting is to take the MD5 hash of the plaintext, and the SHA-0 hash of the plaintext, so an attack would then have to find a collision in both hashes at once.
So, for example, consider verifying a copy of your post. The MD5 hash of the message is fc378543397e79179240f317a6c99076, and the SHA-1 of the message is 47a032769e6d6b5f9ac1efedb81911727303ba5c. If we just use one hash function, an attacker only has to find a collision in that function. If we use both, then an attacker has to find another plaintext that has the same MD5 as your message, and the same SHA-1 as your message, which is going to be harder than matching just one.
No, it's the OTP key that needs to be random. The main problems with OTP are that the key needs to be as long as the message, can only be used once, and a secure channel is needed to distribute the key.
If you do OTP right, it is unbreakable* because the only possible attack is to brute force it by trying every possible key, and trying every possible key on an n character cyphertext gives you every possible n character plaintext, with no way of telling which one is right. (That is, if you had the 16 character cyphertext "bhgisngukfgxd gyt" you would get all possible 16 character strings as possible plaintexts, including "attack US friday", "shoot Osama soon" and "I like chocolate", and you would have no way to tell which was the actual plaintext.)
*except for rubber-hosing, but that affects all crypto systems, and is a weakness of the people involved, not the crypto.
If that one passes, then look at where the links go to, but be aware of how cunning some of them are: one trick they use is to have an image map to the fake page inside a link to the bank's real page - the real page's URL is shown in the status bar but clicking it goes to the fake page. And the fake pages often just redirect to the real page, and open a pop-up window with a fake page asking for details. So looking at the address in the status bar shows the URL of the real page and the real page is opened in the main browser window, with the phisher's page in a pop-up which doesn't have an address bar (so it's not obvious that it's not a real page.) See this thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email for a disection of a phish using this trick.
If you know they don't like it, why do you use it? Why not use one which the owners are happy for people to use, like me@privacy.net?
While the license says that, consider what happened when Debian wanted to package it and include it in non-free. Transgaming asked Debian not to, with a threat to change the license to stop Debian distributing any future versions. Quoteth Gavriel State, Transgaming's CEO: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/05/msg0
Gentoo removed WineX for similar reasons.
VAT (i.e. sales tax) is 17.5%, so the tax man gets 17.5p of the 99p. So, the site actually gets 81.5p of each 99p sale. Which is $1.46, so we're still paying 46% more.
Yes, the dictionary definition of merkin is a pubic wig.
The word "merkin" is sometimes used as a shortened form of "american".
As for whether the later usage is meant to imply some form of link to the former usage, I couldn't possibly speculate on the matter.
1p is one new pence (aka a penny) and is GBP0.01 (gah! Why does /. eat pound signs?) And in case you were wondering what that is in merkin money, the current exchange rate (according to xe.com) is 1.787 US dollars to the pound.
From looking at the site, it's impossible (as yet) to tell, since they're not actually launching until the 26th (this Wednesday) and it doesn't have much detail available yet.
However, from other sites using the same back-end system (OD2), it doesn't look too promising - when I try any of them, I get a message saying "The site you have tried to enter requires Internet Explorer 5 (or better) with Windows Media Player 7 (or better) on Windows XP, 2000, Me or 98."
We won't know for sure for a few days, but it doesn't look promising.
Did you not read the sentences just before that?
"What if I want my email to be kept private, but through ignorance or lack of options, I email several people with Gmail accounts? My messages to these individuals are being scaned and archived without my consent."
That is, the grandparent was talking about mail that they might send to Gmail users, not them being a Gmail user.
Who needs to unify them?
;-) )
Emacs can pretend to be vi (M-x viper-mode) and vi can pretend to be emacs (vimacs.)
(And anyway, why would anyone use anything other than emacs - yeah, trying to remember all the keystrokes will drive you insane, but M-x doctor is there to help
Wrong, dB is a logarithmic scale, a doubling in power is equivalent to an increase of 3dB (*10 = +10dB) so two speakers at 90dB would make 93dB.
When 999 was introduced, there were good reasons for the choice. Another reason I've heard (that isn't mentioned on that page) is that, on a rotary phone, 0 and 9 are the two easiest digits to find quickly/in the dark, and since 0 was the number for the operator when they came up with 999, they chose 9.
Well of course that won't work, you're not saying whether you mean an African Swallow or a European one.
I think you may have missed the point being made, which is that a written document saying you have certain rights is not what is important, it is that you do (or do not) actually have those rights which is important. If the printed words are ignored, they may as well not exist, and you can have the freedoms without haveing the printed words saying you have them.
For example, a law saying "An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) [for police to use special ant-terrorism powers] may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." (Section 44(3) of the UK's Terrorism Act) is irrelevent if it is ignored, and police are allowed to use those powers to harrass peaceful protestors (see the link in my sig, or this page.)
Surely they must have used at least some paste between the surfaces, since the whole point of using it is to create a good thermal contact between the two (not toally smooth) surafces. Are you sure the block of silver wasn't just to look fancy? ("You've got silver paste? Hah! I've got *silver*!")
Maybe because the answer to your question was in the Slashdot story. You didn't even need to RTFA to discover that "The announcement notes that the current logo is "too complicated... hard to reproduce... [and] has negative cultural, and religious ramifications.""