That's exactly what the unwashed masses should do. That's why we have elections.
In your particular situation, they'll run into problems with the Establishment Clause. They will not be able to filter religious sites based soley on religion. But if people don't like this law, they should go to the poll, and vote for people who will vote against this law.
In your particular situation, the Constitution would prevent the government from blocking just Christian sites because of the Establishment Clause of the Frist Amendment. However, if you diskliked sometihng else, you just need to get enough people to agree with you that the government shouldn't provide it. You can persuade the legislature to pass a law to filter it.
Your final claim is that we can't logically censor anything. Which is a true statement. But the law in question does not censor anything. It does not ban anything.
It's not banning pornography. Pornography is still readily available. The requires the state of Texas to take steps to prevent the state government from distributing pornography.
There is a huge different between censoring something and refusing to distribute it.
When in comes to filtering at rest stops, it has little to do with whether people like porn or not. It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.
Anyone is free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Another group is trying to pass a law that says the state of Texas won't pay for it. If you think the state of Texas should pay for it, and you live in Texas, then I suggest you lobby your legislators.
For you, I'm guessing that you will be disappointed. You sound like you are expecting the movie to be a live action re-enactment of what happened in your imagination when you read the book.
If you are expecting the book, you will be disappointed. (For this movie and for every other movie based on a book you like.)
I don't really think that 'leeticizing' a dictionary word is a very good scheme. Most of the good password cracking tools check for that. Most of them will check for common things like changing 's' to '$' or changing 'a' to '@'. It's really just another substitution (like going through the various capitalization schemes). It may slow down the programs, but not in a significant way.
I agree that it is better to do this than to not do it, but using dictionary words (or simple substitutions based on dictionary words) is just a bad idea.
I think if you want to make a comparison between walls and SHA you need a better starting place.
I would look at breaking a SHA-1 as building a wall. The brute-force method (acting as if it's unbroken) is like building a wall as high as the moon (about 382,000 km). Using the attack that reduces SHA-1 to 2^69, is like building a wall 186 km high.
Building a 186 km wall is a lot easier than building a 382,000 km wall. However, neither of them are really feasable. Someone with the right abilities and finances might be able to do the easier tasks, but not for anything practical.
While SHA-1 has been technically broken in that it doesn't provide strong collision resistance, strong resistance is not really necessary for most applications.
The attack on it finds two messages that hash to the same value. (Strong collision resistance) The attack does not work when trying to find a message the matches a specified hash value. (Weak collision resistance).
I don't think the attack on SHA-1 gives anyone a warm fuzzy feeling. But the current attack isn't a huge attack and it still is largely impractical. Additionally there are three other algorithms defined in FIPS PUB 180, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512. (-512 and -384 are the same algorithm, except 384 just truncates the answer from the -512 algorithm.)
I'm not aware of any attacks on the DSA algorithm. I believe there were some attacks particular implementations of the pseudo-random number generator. In addition FIPS 186 defines two other algorithms for digital signatures, RSA and ECDSA. I don't believe there are any known practical attacks on either RSA or the Elliptic Curve DSA.
But to many in the environmental movement it is a religion. Orthodox Environmentalism is just as strict as any other orthodox religion, and just as faith-based and close to new ideas.
Note: If you believe that you are a "Citizen of the United States" you are probably misinformed. "The United States" refers only to DC and territories held by the federal government. If you live in one of the 50 States, you are a "Citizen of The State of ___________" and since your State has agreements with the other 49 you are, by extention a "Citizen of the united States of America" (note the lowercase u).
I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work.
I think you need to do some research. Let's start with Article 1, Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
How about Article 1, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Or maybe Article 2, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I don't know about you, but it almost seems to me like the founding father thought that we would be citizens of the United States.
I would absolutely agree with the need for balance. However, I think finding someone with acceptable coding skills is an easier task than finding someone with acceptable communication skills.
You can generally teach people to become acceptable coders. You generally can't teach people communication skills.
A project team with a dozen acceptable coders who can communicate well will outperform a project with a dozen brilliant coders who can't communicate and can't work in teams.
Being that the bathroom isn't flight critical that code was probably only done to DO-178B Level E or maybe D. The software for flight critical components like displays and flight controls is scrutinized much more heavily.
What I don't understand is what the graphics card manufacturers think they have to gain by keeping their drivers closed source.
I think the gain is probably realized in not being sued for breach of contract. Sure, open drivers could be improved, but the value of that is probably significantly overcome by the massive lawsuits they would be open to for violating the terms of non-disclosure agreements or other information sharing contracts.
If there was money to be made by opening up the drivers, the companies would do so.
Funny, the only people I see talking about creationism in this thread are the folks who are looking for an excuse to belittle creationists. But at the time I loaded the comments there were zero creationist post and 3 posts making fun of creationists.
Tell me again, who was taking the discussion off topic?
Re:Seriously... Why would you use this?
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
While I don't really care about poor grammar or spelling, I'm pretty sure that having a Dvorak keyboard does not prevent you from proofreading. It moves the keys; it doesn't hide the screen.
It usually quite easy to see when people reach a true understanding of power factor. That moment comes when they start making plans on how to run their air conditionary completely on imaginary power.
Air conditioner modification plans and a funny professor were what made those classes bearable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what the unwashed masses should do. That's why we have elections.
In your particular situation, they'll run into problems with the Establishment Clause. They will not be able to filter religious sites based soley on religion. But if people don't like this law, they should go to the poll, and vote for people who will vote against this law.
In your particular situation, the Constitution would prevent the government from blocking just Christian sites because of the Establishment Clause of the Frist Amendment. However, if you diskliked sometihng else, you just need to get enough people to agree with you that the government shouldn't provide it. You can persuade the legislature to pass a law to filter it.
Your final claim is that we can't logically censor anything. Which is a true statement. But the law in question does not censor anything. It does not ban anything.
It's not banning pornography. Pornography is still readily available. The requires the state of Texas to take steps to prevent the state government from distributing pornography.
There is a huge different between censoring something and refusing to distribute it.
When in comes to filtering at rest stops, it has little to do with whether people like porn or not. It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.
Anyone is free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Another group is trying to pass a law that says the state of Texas won't pay for it. If you think the state of Texas should pay for it, and you live in Texas, then I suggest you lobby your legislators.
While making the movie, did you ever start to panic and then see copy of the guide and realize, "Oh yeah DON'T PANIC"?
For you, I'm guessing that you will be disappointed. You sound like you are expecting the movie to be a live action re-enactment of what happened in your imagination when you read the book.
If you are expecting the book, you will be disappointed. (For this movie and for every other movie based on a book you like.)
Hey you sass that hoopy JensR? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is.
To all of us waiting for the film, I think there are really only two words that need to go with a bad review:
DON'T PANIC
It's just one review. You know you'll spend your 8 bucks anyway.
Sweet. I was always hoping for a law. I gratiously accept the honor and thank all the trolls who made it possible.
I think slashdot's quality has declined as the number of hot grits posts have decreased.
I don't really think that 'leeticizing' a dictionary word is a very good scheme. Most of the good password cracking tools check for that. Most of them will check for common things like changing 's' to '$' or changing 'a' to '@'. It's really just another substitution (like going through the various capitalization schemes). It may slow down the programs, but not in a significant way.
I agree that it is better to do this than to not do it, but using dictionary words (or simple substitutions based on dictionary words) is just a bad idea.
I think if you want to make a comparison between walls and SHA you need a better starting place.
I would look at breaking a SHA-1 as building a wall. The brute-force method (acting as if it's unbroken) is like building a wall as high as the moon (about 382,000 km). Using the attack that reduces SHA-1 to 2^69, is like building a wall 186 km high.
Building a 186 km wall is a lot easier than building a 382,000 km wall. However, neither of them are really feasable. Someone with the right abilities and finances might be able to do the easier tasks, but not for anything practical.
While SHA-1 has been technically broken in that it doesn't provide strong collision resistance, strong resistance is not really necessary for most applications.
The attack on it finds two messages that hash to the same value. (Strong collision resistance) The attack does not work when trying to find a message the matches a specified hash value. (Weak collision resistance).
I don't think the attack on SHA-1 gives anyone a warm fuzzy feeling. But the current attack isn't a huge attack and it still is largely impractical. Additionally there are three other algorithms defined in FIPS PUB 180, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512. (-512 and -384 are the same algorithm, except 384 just truncates the answer from the -512 algorithm.)
I'm not aware of any attacks on the DSA algorithm. I believe there were some attacks particular implementations of the pseudo-random number generator. In addition FIPS 186 defines two other algorithms for digital signatures, RSA and ECDSA. I don't believe there are any known practical attacks on either RSA or the Elliptic Curve DSA.
But to many in the environmental movement it is a religion. Orthodox Environmentalism is just as strict as any other orthodox religion, and just as faith-based and close to new ideas.
But Mr. Gallileo, the theory that the sun revolves around the earth is accepted by 99.9% of all scientistis in the fields involved.
I think you need to do some research. Let's start with Article 1, Section 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
How about Article 1, Section 3:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Or maybe Article 2, Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I don't know about you, but it almost seems to me like the founding father thought that we would be citizens of the United States.
I would absolutely agree with the need for balance. However, I think finding someone with acceptable coding skills is an easier task than finding someone with acceptable communication skills.
You can generally teach people to become acceptable coders. You generally can't teach people communication skills.
A project team with a dozen acceptable coders who can communicate well will outperform a project with a dozen brilliant coders who can't communicate and can't work in teams.
Being that the bathroom isn't flight critical that code was probably only done to DO-178B Level E or maybe D. The software for flight critical components like displays and flight controls is scrutinized much more heavily.
I think the gain is probably realized in not being sued for breach of contract. Sure, open drivers could be improved, but the value of that is probably significantly overcome by the massive lawsuits they would be open to for violating the terms of non-disclosure agreements or other information sharing contracts.
If there was money to be made by opening up the drivers, the companies would do so.
Funny, the only people I see talking about creationism in this thread are the folks who are looking for an excuse to belittle creationists. But at the time I loaded the comments there were zero creationist post and 3 posts making fun of creationists.
Tell me again, who was taking the discussion off topic?
(-1, Doesn't get the joke)
While I don't really care about poor grammar or spelling, I'm pretty sure that having a Dvorak keyboard does not prevent you from proofreading. It moves the keys; it doesn't hide the screen.
Generally, the penalty for Conspiracy to Commit $CRIME is the same as $CRIME itself.
It usually quite easy to see when people reach a true understanding of power factor. That moment comes when they start making plans on how to run their air conditionary completely on imaginary power.
Air conditioner modification plans and a funny professor were what made those classes bearable.
What are your skills? I know of quite a few companies in the midwest looking for people with the right skills.