Not too long, I can touchtype on QWERTY. I couldn't for a while after I switched, but recently I've been using other people's computers a lot and have had to be able to touchtype. This is for minor stuff though, browsing the internet.
If I have to write a paper on someone else's computer, I just switch it. Basically every computer has it, it's been in Mac OS since at least system 7 if not earlier, on all major Unices in the last few years, and in Windows since 3.1. 95 was a bit of a pain, with the whole "insert install CD" thing, but the more recent ones have it in there by default.
... that some of his keystroke series in THE are significantly more awkward on a dvorak keyboard...... which *is* significantly faster, trust me, if you have the time to learn it...... which is about what he claims that THE is...
I think I'll just stick with my odd blend of CLI and GUI (called MacOS X) and my dvorak keyboard. At least I can customize the bindings in emacs.
( \begin{rant}[parenthetical]
Why doesn't everyone use these? At least the dvorak keyboard? If computers came with them instead of QWERTY at least as a standard option, kids would be able to learn to type this way and wouldn't even have to relearn. Seems like it would offer a greater improvement in speed than THE could.
Telomeres. It's been solved. Harder are the genetic imprints, pieces of DNA that have to be methylated just right, and differently from in adults. You can still get a birth if you screw this up, but the kid will have some fucking weird disorders.
About a year ago, I saw some great concept art for the Power Mac G5. It was at www.imotep.be, although that site is something completely different now and I can't find it again. It was laid out exactly the same way as the Apple G4 processor spec pages, and it would have been convincing except for the address.
The art had a white spherical computer propped up on a lucite tripod (it looked sort of like the tripods on monitor stands these days), with CD drives in the top like the "Mac2000" G4 toaster. It had an Apple studio monitor next to it, connected by a wireless link. All I could think was, cool, I want one of those.
It was discovered soon after the press release that the "zero interaction authentication" system was vulnerable to a transmission replay attack. This attack may prove fatal to the design; in any case, it should take a few years to get the kinks worked out, so don't expect it on your desktop any time soon.
While I think your comment should be modded flamebait, I'll take the time to reply. First, note that my email address would imply that I don't work for Bandlink PR, but rather that I'm a Harvard student (and therefore not a lawyer). I'm also not running the software (I have a Mac), and probably never will. I don't listen to music very often, and I find my computer's built-in CD player enough. The only MP3s on my hard disk are Alpha Centauri's sound effects files. Furthermore, I am a privacy zealot (PGP key 0x84B0FDB8), and am running a firewall (just the built-in one, so I'm not blocking outgoing, but I am logging it). Don't flame me for using that term. In any case, since I *don't* work at Bandlink and haven't installed it, I don't know more about their software than their webpage says; caveat lector.
My original post was intended to point out that the slashdot blurb is false. The blurb implies that you'd better be watching for a little "bandlink" logo on CDs, because Bandlink is spyware that does nothing other than upload what songs you listen to and when, without any warning. This is far from the truth, and I tried to point this out by posting some of the stuff that Bandlink does. Right off the site. But it seems from the other posts I read that most people didn't read the site, so don't flame me about it.
Who cares about chatting and synching music? Well, I don't. But I have several friends who try to chat with me about music (unsuccessfully because I usually haven't listened to the music they're talking about), and I bet they would love this feature. If nothing else, it would enable them to chat with people of similar interests.
"above-average media player": I think the visualizations in iTunes (for example) are boring, and art that's actually related to the music would be much more interesting. Kind of like a music video. If the bands actually chose to provide it, this would be really cool. Furthermore, Bandlink seems to have several practical features that iTunes doesn't have, such as giving you tour information. This would be cool if I were actually the type to go to concerts, especially because I (supposedly) could get discounts on the tickets. Just because most Slashdotters don't do this, doesn't mean that nobody does. In fact, it has been claimed on Slashdot that musicians should be making most of their money by going on tour (I would have linked to such a comment, as I've seen several of them, but you can't search for comment contents, only the subkects).
Now for the privacy part. As I said, Bandlink won't give out your personal info, except when it acts as an intermediary for entering your personal info on an author's site, and then only to the author. This is like Mozilla saying that it won't give out your email address except when you type it into a form on some site, and then only to that site. Doesn't concern me.
It's more concerning that they can send you email advertising "services that you have expressed interest in." Having not run the software, I don't know exactly what this means. Since Hotmail's policy is worded similarly, I would assume it has a similar meaning. I unchecked all the "please spam me with this" boxes when I signed up for Hotmail, and what do you know, they don't spam me. It's not my main account, but rather the one I give out across the internet and whenever I need to enter an address (the account is mike_hamburg@hotmail.com), and I still have only gotten 3 spams in the past 2 weeks. I'm not recommending Hotmail here, it's just an example. If Bandlink has a checkfield like Hotmail does, it likely won't spam you if you uncheck all the boxes. Otherwise, maybe. If you're concerned (I would be), you can test it by installing on a virtual machine or with an alternate address if you want, logging its outgoing to make sure it doesn't give away info you don't give it. If you run such a test, please email me the results.
Most spyware makes it clear in the EULA or privacy policy that it's spyware, relying on you not to read it, so that the writers can win in court if you sue. I have read Bandlink's privacy policy and EULA and it doesn't say or even imply that it's spyware, but rather has what might be a loophole depending on circumstances (remember that I'm not a lawyer). This makes me think that it's probably not spyware.
Finally, putting Bandlink on CDs is infinitely preferable (especially to a Mac user like me) to putting copy protection on them (such as the type that breaks Mac CD drives). They say on the website that it ISN'T copy protection software, and I believe them.
I won't install this software and you don't have to either, but it's still not anything like what the slashblurb makes it out to be.
Mike PS. As for your comment about PR people, you're almost certainly right that there are lots of them on Slashdot. But I'm not one of them. I hate ads as much as you do, or at least almost as much -- I did risk putting my address, spam-armored, on Slashdot. I'm filtering my accounts and I'm wary about giving out my addresses. I'm running Chimera with popups blocked. I don't think you're *too* paranoid -- maybe just a bit for that whole PR conspiracy thing -- so don't bitch at me. \end{rant}
This software, if it is decently written, looks like it isn't nearly as bad as the article says it is. First, as many have pointed out, you don't have to install it. But notice what it does in addition to sending out your personal information: it lets artists give you access to bonus tracks, artwork related to the music, tour info (and discounts), contests etc etc. It lets you chat (and synch music) with people listening to the same thing, which, although I wouldn't do it, would be considered a perk by a lot of listeners out there.
Furthermore, their privacy policy says they will not hand out required personal info, but only aggregate info. They do say that they will use your personal info to "contact you about services in which you have expressed interest," which may or may not mean spam. Really, "expressed" should mean a check box, but you never know. It looks like a loophole though. And of course, the artists can require your personal info to log in to their sites, but you can just refuse to give it and not log in if you think that's a problem.
All in all, I the article is bullshit. If this system is what it says it is, it's just an above-average media player that comes with the CD (although possibly at the cost of, say, a quarter to the buyer). Nothing to bitch about, invoking "privacy" and all that. If you're a privacy zealot, firewall it. If not, there are still a zillion other programs that are more likely to spy on you.
MAC == Message Authentication Code. It's basically a hash with a secret key. Some good ones (in addition to algorithms written as MACs) are Encryption_Key(Hash(File)) and Hash(Key1,File,Key2)
A MAC is probably a better idea. It's basically a hash that requires a secret key to compute. You could keep a database of known-good MACs on your hard disk, and if you suspect a crack, boot from a CD and verify them. This way you just need a special password to update or verify the database (although if you suspect the database checker has been trojaned, you'd want to boot from a read-only medium to check it). I don't see the point of a centralized database here, especially with so many people rebuilding from source. Oh yeah, and a MAC works on Windows (or, hey, MacOS) too.
A MAC is like a hash with a secret key; the hash depends on both the file and the key. That way you can keep a copy of the database locally and an attacker can't change it to cover his tracks like he could an MD5 database if you kept it locally (of course he could change the verify program if that were local...but probably not without changing the file size).
This would allow for protection of files not in an online database (compiled from source, for example) using only local files.
You can use a block cipher chaining mode (don't remember which one) as a MAC, or use say AES_k(MD5(file)), or, IIRC you can use MD5(k_1 file k_2) where k_1 and k_2 are different secret keys (check this out before using, lots of constructions like this are totally insecure), or you can use something designed as a MAC (eg RIPEMD). Any of these could be run from a shell script to quickly verify all binaries (or whatever you were protecting).
You do that math, that's some senstive equipment they have in the White House.
It can't be that sensitive. Suppose they put about 20 millimoles in him (that's a lot, especially just for imaging). About 10^22 atoms (Avogadro, remember him?). After 3*7*3=63 halflives there about 2^63/=/ 10^19 times fewer, about say a thousand (this is rounded to the nearest power of 10). If he's near the detector for about say 1 minute, that's about a 500th of a halflife so we can expect, what, one of the atoms to decay? Even if the gamma hits the detector (probably another 10,000 to 1 against), it's below the noise threshold, and they certainly can't pick him out of the crowd. Maybe if it were two weeks, or there were a less common isotope with a longer half-life mixed in, I could believe it.
The best I've read they can do is just make a "dirty" bomb...
And if they did make a "dirty" bomb, why the fuck would they set it off in the subway? It seems that if you're going to wreak havoc in a subway, you want to take advantage of the fact that it is a closed space, which would imply a biological attack (consider how many people touch the poles in the car, or at least brush them as they walk in) or a gas attack (ala Aum cult in Tokyo). Setting off a dirty bomb in a subway would just be stupid, the tunnel collapses and then where is your radiation? Underground.
Slashdot Mirror
Not too long, I can touchtype on QWERTY. I couldn't for a while after I switched, but recently I've been using other people's computers a lot and have had to be able to touchtype. This is for minor stuff though, browsing the internet.
If I have to write a paper on someone else's computer, I just switch it. Basically every computer has it, it's been in Mac OS since at least system 7 if not earlier, on all major Unices in the last few years, and in Windows since 3.1. 95 was a bit of a pain, with the whole "insert install CD" thing, but the more recent ones have it in there by default.
... that some of his keystroke series in THE are significantly more awkward on a dvorak keyboard... ... which *is* significantly faster, trust me, if you have the time to learn it... ... which is about what he claims that THE is...
I think I'll just stick with my odd blend of CLI and GUI (called MacOS X) and my dvorak keyboard. At least I can customize the bindings in emacs.
( \begin{rant}[parenthetical]
Why doesn't everyone use these? At least the dvorak keyboard? If computers came with them instead of QWERTY at least as a standard option, kids would be able to learn to type this way and wouldn't even have to relearn. Seems like it would offer a greater improvement in speed than THE could.
\end{rant} )
Are you sure he shouldn't be moderated "redundant" ?
I thought the main advantage of diamond over Si is a better heat conductance
What are you talking about? Diamonds resist all at +19%!
Telomeres. It's been solved. Harder are the genetic imprints, pieces of DNA that have to be methylated just right, and differently from in adults. You can still get a birth if you screw this up, but the kid will have some fucking weird disorders.
There are more then enough DVD-xxx technologies already...
... and from some of the above posts, it's precisely XXX that people will be putting on these DVDs...
... they'll be running BeeOS.
*ducks*
About a year ago, I saw some great concept art for the Power Mac G5. It was at www.imotep.be, although that site is something completely different now and I can't find it again. It was laid out exactly the same way as the Apple G4 processor spec pages, and it would have been convincing except for the address.
The art had a white spherical computer propped up on a lucite tripod (it looked sort of like the tripods on monitor stands these days), with CD drives in the top like the "Mac2000" G4 toaster. It had an Apple studio monitor next to it, connected by a wireless link. All I could think was, cool, I want one of those.
It was discovered soon after the press release that the "zero interaction authentication" system was vulnerable to a transmission replay attack. This attack may prove fatal to the design; in any case, it should take a few years to get the kinks worked out, so don't expect it on your desktop any time soon.
Conclusion: Yahoo goes WAY out of their way to avoid dealing with human "customers".
Are you paying them? If not, you're not a customer.
From the last page:
"There are far more than 10 holy grails out there..."
Arthur and his knights went to all that trouble and they never even found one of them???
While I think your comment should be modded flamebait, I'll take the time to reply. First, note that my email address would imply that I don't work for Bandlink PR, but rather that I'm a Harvard student (and therefore not a lawyer). I'm also not running the software (I have a Mac), and probably never will. I don't listen to music very often, and I find my computer's built-in CD player enough. The only MP3s on my hard disk are Alpha Centauri's sound effects files. Furthermore, I am a privacy zealot (PGP key 0x84B0FDB8), and am running a firewall (just the built-in one, so I'm not blocking outgoing, but I am logging it). Don't flame me for using that term. In any case, since I *don't* work at Bandlink and haven't installed it, I don't know more about their software than their webpage says; caveat lector.
My original post was intended to point out that the slashdot blurb is false. The blurb implies that you'd better be watching for a little "bandlink" logo on CDs, because Bandlink is spyware that does nothing other than upload what songs you listen to and when, without any warning. This is far from the truth, and I tried to point this out by posting some of the stuff that Bandlink does. Right off the site. But it seems from the other posts I read that most people didn't read the site, so don't flame me about it.
Who cares about chatting and synching music? Well, I don't. But I have several friends who try to chat with me about music (unsuccessfully because I usually haven't listened to the music they're talking about), and I bet they would love this feature. If nothing else, it would enable them to chat with people of similar interests.
"above-average media player": I think the visualizations in iTunes (for example) are boring, and art that's actually related to the music would be much more interesting. Kind of like a music video. If the bands actually chose to provide it, this would be really cool. Furthermore, Bandlink seems to have several practical features that iTunes doesn't have, such as giving you tour information. This would be cool if I were actually the type to go to concerts, especially because I (supposedly) could get discounts on the tickets. Just because most Slashdotters don't do this, doesn't mean that nobody does. In fact, it has been claimed on Slashdot that musicians should be making most of their money by going on tour (I would have linked to such a comment, as I've seen several of them, but you can't search for comment contents, only the subkects).
Now for the privacy part. As I said, Bandlink won't give out your personal info, except when it acts as an intermediary for entering your personal info on an author's site, and then only to the author. This is like Mozilla saying that it won't give out your email address except when you type it into a form on some site, and then only to that site. Doesn't concern me.
It's more concerning that they can send you email advertising "services that you have expressed interest in." Having not run the software, I don't know exactly what this means. Since Hotmail's policy is worded similarly, I would assume it has a similar meaning. I unchecked all the "please spam me with this" boxes when I signed up for Hotmail, and what do you know, they don't spam me. It's not my main account, but rather the one I give out across the internet and whenever I need to enter an address (the account is mike_hamburg@hotmail.com), and I still have only gotten 3 spams in the past 2 weeks. I'm not recommending Hotmail here, it's just an example. If Bandlink has a checkfield like Hotmail does, it likely won't spam you if you uncheck all the boxes. Otherwise, maybe. If you're concerned (I would be), you can test it by installing on a virtual machine or with an alternate address if you want, logging its outgoing to make sure it doesn't give away info you don't give it. If you run such a test, please email me the results.
Most spyware makes it clear in the EULA or privacy policy that it's spyware, relying on you not to read it, so that the writers can win in court if you sue. I have read Bandlink's privacy policy and EULA and it doesn't say or even imply that it's spyware, but rather has what might be a loophole depending on circumstances (remember that I'm not a lawyer). This makes me think that it's probably not spyware.
Finally, putting Bandlink on CDs is infinitely preferable (especially to a Mac user like me) to putting copy protection on them (such as the type that breaks Mac CD drives). They say on the website that it ISN'T copy protection software, and I believe them.
I won't install this software and you don't have to either, but it's still not anything like what the slashblurb makes it out to be.
Mike
PS. As for your comment about PR people, you're almost certainly right that there are lots of them on Slashdot. But I'm not one of them. I hate ads as much as you do, or at least almost as much -- I did risk putting my address, spam-armored, on Slashdot. I'm filtering my accounts and I'm wary about giving out my addresses. I'm running Chimera with popups blocked. I don't think you're *too* paranoid -- maybe just a bit for that whole PR conspiracy thing -- so don't bitch at me.
\end{rant}
The person who submitted the story has a rotten attitude and is lucky to have kept his job this long.
That's why it was written by "a wisely anonymous reader".
This software, if it is decently written, looks like it isn't nearly as bad as the article says it is. First, as many have pointed out, you don't have to install it. But notice what it does in addition to sending out your personal information: it lets artists give you access to bonus tracks, artwork related to the music, tour info (and discounts), contests etc etc. It lets you chat (and synch music) with people listening to the same thing, which, although I wouldn't do it, would be considered a perk by a lot of listeners out there.
Furthermore, their privacy policy says they will not hand out required personal info, but only aggregate info. They do say that they will use your personal info to "contact you about services in which you have expressed interest," which may or may not mean spam. Really, "expressed" should mean a check box, but you never know. It looks like a loophole though. And of course, the artists can require your personal info to log in to their sites, but you can just refuse to give it and not log in if you think that's a problem.
All in all, I the article is bullshit. If this system is what it says it is, it's just an above-average media player that comes with the CD (although possibly at the cost of, say, a quarter to the buyer). Nothing to bitch about, invoking "privacy" and all that. If you're a privacy zealot, firewall it. If not, there are still a zillion other programs that are more likely to spy on you.
Are you sure it's not just a strange misspelling of Kazaa?
It's not like they're going to give a flying fuck about the quality of their product.
A flying fuck? Is that like having sex while skydiving? Now that would be exciting!
At least they patched it...
MAC == Message Authentication Code. It's basically a hash with a secret key. Some good ones (in addition to algorithms written as MACs) are Encryption_Key(Hash(File)) and Hash(Key1,File,Key2)
A MAC is probably a better idea. It's basically a hash that requires a secret key to compute. You could keep a database of known-good MACs on your hard disk, and if you suspect a crack, boot from a CD and verify them. This way you just need a special password to update or verify the database (although if you suspect the database checker has been trojaned, you'd want to boot from a read-only medium to check it). I don't see the point of a centralized database here, especially with so many people rebuilding from source. Oh yeah, and a MAC works on Windows (or, hey, MacOS) too.
A MAC is like a hash with a secret key; the hash depends on both the file and the key. That way you can keep a copy of the database locally and an attacker can't change it to cover his tracks like he could an MD5 database if you kept it locally (of course he could change the verify program if that were local...but probably not without changing the file size).
This would allow for protection of files not in an online database (compiled from source, for example) using only local files.
You can use a block cipher chaining mode (don't remember which one) as a MAC, or use say AES_k(MD5(file)), or, IIRC you can use MD5(k_1 file k_2) where k_1 and k_2 are different secret keys (check this out before using, lots of constructions like this are totally insecure), or you can use something designed as a MAC (eg RIPEMD). Any of these could be run from a shell script to quickly verify all binaries (or whatever you were protecting).
... to the American Association Against Acronym Abuse (AAAAA)
You do that math, that's some senstive equipment they have in the White House.
/=/ 10^19 times fewer, about say a thousand (this is rounded to the nearest power of 10). If he's near the detector for about say 1 minute, that's about a 500th of a halflife so we can expect, what, one of the atoms to decay? Even if the gamma hits the detector (probably another 10,000 to 1 against), it's below the noise threshold, and they certainly can't pick him out of the crowd. Maybe if it were two weeks, or there were a less common isotope with a longer half-life mixed in, I could believe it.
It can't be that sensitive. Suppose they put about 20 millimoles in him (that's a lot, especially just for imaging). About 10^22 atoms (Avogadro, remember him?). After 3*7*3=63 halflives there about 2^63
The best I've read they can do is just make a "dirty" bomb...
And if they did make a "dirty" bomb, why the fuck would they set it off in the subway? It seems that if you're going to wreak havoc in a subway, you want to take advantage of the fact that it is a closed space, which would imply a biological attack (consider how many people touch the poles in the car, or at least brush them as they walk in) or a gas attack (ala Aum cult in Tokyo). Setting off a dirty bomb in a subway would just be stupid, the tunnel collapses and then where is your radiation? Underground.
Yep. Just like it wasn't harassment when Clinton informed a certain intern of all the cock-sucking opportunities out there...
It means to multiply like shrimp.