If you encrypt a file, then scramble the bytes, then encrypt that result with another encryption method, there is no way to crack the result. "Cracking" depends on playing by the rules and using only a known encryption method. Cryptographers use mathematical methods to try to break encryption; these methods are not available when chaining is used.
To use the chain encryption method, you must secretly communicate the scramble-descramble method and encryption process to anyone who is allowed to decrypt the file, and the method and process must be kept secret. That's a big drawback in some cases, and not in others.
It seems to me that, if you are using Windows XP and a hardware firewall, it
is better to use the ZoneAlarm software firewall. Then you can run VisualZone, and quickly see
whether anything has gotten through your hardware firewall. Don't worry about
ZoneAlarm's RAM use. RAM is cheap.
ZoneAlarm works well with Windows XP. It is necessary to disable Microsoft's
firewall, of course; you don't want the wolf to guard the henhouse. (See the
section Windows XP connects to Microsoft's computers in at least 17
ways. in the article,
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going..)
A lot of us need to run programs that don't have Linux or BSD versions. For
us, Microsoft has an absolute monopoly. It's hopeless being involved in
adversarial behavior with Microsoft. The company has $40 billion cash in the
bank. I have... (Looks in billfold... Moth flies out.)
One way to cope with the situation is to use two computers connected to one
keyboard, mouse and monitor. Run Mozilla on Linux on a computer that is
connected to the Internet. Disable internet access on the other computer
running Windows XP by removing the TCP/IP protocol. Use another protocol, such as NETBEUI, for file sharing. (IOGear
seems to make the best KVM switch. My experience has been that there is no
video degradation with IOGear KVMs.)
My experience, and the experience of others, is that Windows XP doesn't crash,
it just becomes less usable. Windows XP becomes shaky when enough programs are
loaded that all of the installed memory is in use. There are other
situations where Windows XP begins malfunctioning, but these are not well
characterized. (Can anyone help me here?) The symptoms of the malfunction are
slowness to respond to the keyboard, and disk thrashing caused by virtual
memory use that sometimes takes 45 seconds or more.
The consensus seems to be, however, that Windows XP is Microsoft's best OS.
The only other candidate is Windows 2000. Any comments?
The single biggest cause of instability in a system that was once stable is
bad connections. Just open up the case, pull out all connectors and adapter
cards a few millimeters, and push them back. That cleans the contacts.
Ad-Aware is
excellent for use with Windows XP. It gives a list of all running processes,
who made the software, and where it is located on the hard drive. It's main
purpose is to check for spyware. (Virus program software does not check for
spyware, so you need a separate program.)
In Portland, Oregon, USA, the best Internet connection is Hevanet DSL with a Cisco 675 router from the
phone company, Qwest. The Cisco 675 can be put into mode in which it is a true
hardware firewall, not just a NAT device. (My only connection with Hevanet is as a satisfied customer.)
You didn't read the article. Yes, what I said was badly expressed. However, I think most people will think that Microsoft's aggressiveness is continuing, so the other possibility need not be considered.
Did Microsoft give up its aggressive practices? This article gives an overview of the present state of things; judge for yourself: Windows XP
Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. If Microsoft ended its aggressive practices, why continue legal action? If Microsoft continues being aggressive, why shouldn't legal action continue?
I've been hearing about bad ATI drivers since the days of the 80386. I've had some severe problems with ATI drivers myself, and needed to call ATI tech support. My impression is that the company should not allow receptionists to write drivers when they are not answering phones.
I use Moz's HTML editor because sometimes I need to send HTML formatted email to business customers who need the quick orientation that comes from having bold headings and sub-headings.
If something bad is happening, why is Electronic News publishing great articles, like this one about the conversion of cars from 12 volt systems to 42 volt systems: Gearing Up to 42V?
In the past, whenever Electronic News wanted to publish, we first engaged in a violent attack on trees that resulted in their deaths. Now we are publishing with re-cycled electrons that have been re-used continuously for 14 billion years.
My question: Isn't this a happy story? Why does the Slashdot story read like a funeral?
The Forbes article is nonsense. AMD is not leaving the PC processor market, and is a strong contender. Forbes is one of those magazines for the rich and rich wannabes that tell the rich what they want to hear.
"AMD, which has fought a losing battle in recent quarters against Intel Corp.,..." This line was written by one of those "stock performance is everything" people who work at magazines and newspapers like Fortune, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal. The author of the article has no technical knowledge whatsoever. What happened "in recent quarters" is everything.
Be VERY careful about this article, and ones like it. The stock market is close to 100% corrupt, as recent TV programs like 60 Minutes have shown. The purpose of the article could be to get lots of people to sell AMD stock because someone realizes that the new processors from AMD will be very successful, and wants to buy the stock.
See the comments to this story beginning at (#4742661).
I don't doubt that AMD, and Intel, will pursue other markets. For most people who have bought a computer with a speed of 800 MHz or more, there is no need to purchase another computer. But the day will come when video is much more important than it is today. (Remember when GUIs were new? Remember when color printers were new?) When video becomes important, everyone participating will need much faster processors than are made today.
Good advice. Run heavy ground wires between the points. Then use shielded Cat-5 with the shield grounded at one end. You don't want the shield to carry current; it is only to prevent common mode pickup.
"Common mode" is capacitive or inductive coupling to both wires of a pair at the same time. Common mode voltages can overload the Ethernet common mode voltage range. The common mode range is a few volts, so you also need the ground wires to insure that the range is not exceeded.
While researching the article linked below, I developed the impression that Microsoft has for years allowed its programmers to submit sloppy code. Now bugs are not easily found or fixed because everything is a mess.
Fundamentalist "Christians" are not a tiny minority in the United States. If you put them together with people who work in the HUGE U.S. weapons industry and the people who work in the huge oil industry, that's a lot of people. The first two groups think that violence is "justified" as long as they themselves are not at risk.
Bush is the president solely because Al Gore is so clueless when it comes to what he should say and he should not say. Al Gore said that he supported "a woman's right to choose". That killed his chances with a lot of Christians and a lot of "Christians".
Someone with some understanding of the issues, for example Bill Clinton, would not make such strong statements about something over which he has no control. (Abortion rights in the U.S. are determined by the Supreme Court. A president has little immediate influence.)
The "silly minority" did elect Bush. He was elected by only a very small percentage of the votes. Without support from "Christian" fundamentalists, he could not have been elected.
You are right, the amount of money donated by the U.S. government to Israel to support buying from U.S. weapons manufacturers has been quite stable.
On the 60 Minutes show, there were several prominent fundamentalist "Christians" who said that was right, their goal was that Jews must convert or die.
"Does anyone know why we continue to support Israel?"
Should be: "Does anyone know why the U.S. government continues to support
Israel?" When speaking of killers, don't say "we".
The U.S. government donates over $900 per Israeli per year of taxpayer
money to Israel to buy weapons from U.S. weapons manufacturers.
George Bush could not have been elected without the support of poorly educated
religious fundamentalists. These people have a goal. (I'm not kidding about
this. Consider, for example, the recent 60 Minutes show on CBS TV in the U.S.,
in which this was discussed.) The goal is that all Jews either convert to
"Christianity" or be killed. Since no well-educated Jews will convert to
become ignorant Christian fundamentalists, that means that the true goal is to
kill all the Jews. What better way is there to kill the 14 million Jews (total
world-wide population) than to encourage them to get into a bloody battle with
1.1 billion Muslims?
The religious extremists in the U.S. don't fight the religious extremists in
other countries directly. The U.S. religious extremists encourage the
religious extremists in Israel and Muslim countries to fight each other. In
this they are supported by the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world, for
whom killing is profitable. The are also supported by those who want to
accomplish hidden goals to increase their oil profits.
President Bush is not mentally capable of being a leader of a country. He only
participates in selling parts of the government to the highest bidder. As
Senator John McCain says, the U.S.
government has been corrupted by money disguised as campaign contributions.
This is not meant to be excessively negative about George W. Bush. There are
many people who are not mentally capable of being a leader of a country.
George Bush's performance is typical for someone who has been an alcoholic: 1)
Many alcoholics are extemely likeable. 2) Alcoholics don't like conflict; they
resolve conflict in crude ways. 3) Alcoholics don't like to be expected to
think.
President Bush delivers the statements that are written for him. Have you
noticed that the coherence of his statements has improved now that he has a
staff of more than 5,000 in the White House? He didn't suddenly develop ways of thinking more clearly.
The U.S. is experiencing a social breakdown. Few good leaders are available.
For example, President Clinton was the child of two alcoholics. His crude
adjustment to sexuality is typical for a child of alcoholics. It must be said,
however, that President Clinton was mentally capable of understanding the
issues of running a government, and he also had spent many years teaching
himself government policy.
Other aspects of the social breakdown in the United States are: 1) The U.S.
has the highest percentage of obese people in the world. People in the U.S.
eat when they are not hungry, a sign of unhappiness and social
disfunctionality. 2) The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in
prison of any country in the history of the world. European countries have
one-sixth the percentage of their citizens in prison. 3) The U.S. government
lacks social skills. The government's answer to conflict is often violence. The U.S.
government has bombed 14 countries in 33 years, killing more than 3,000,000 people
directly. The number killed indirectly is credibly estimated to be
more than 3,000,000 additional people. 4) The U.S. government has at least two
world-wide police forces that are authorized to kill anyone anywhere -- the
FBI and the CIA. This also shows poor social skills. 5) The U.S. government is
the biggest manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government
is also the government that talks most about using its weapons.
Exactly!!! And, before the C5 was introduced, there were lots of photos like that! What could they have been thinking? My pick for the world's worst marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you encrypt a file, then scramble the bytes, then encrypt that result with another encryption method, there is no way to crack the result. "Cracking" depends on playing by the rules and using only a known encryption method. Cryptographers use mathematical methods to try to break encryption; these methods are not available when chaining is used.
To use the chain encryption method, you must secretly communicate the scramble-descramble method and encryption process to anyone who is allowed to decrypt the file, and the method and process must be kept secret. That's a big drawback in some cases, and not in others.
George W. Bush can't even say "functionally illiterate".
I very much need more information like this. Thanks.
It seems to me that, if you are using Windows XP and a hardware firewall, it is better to use the ZoneAlarm software firewall. Then you can run VisualZone, and quickly see whether anything has gotten through your hardware firewall. Don't worry about ZoneAlarm's RAM use. RAM is cheap.
ZoneAlarm works well with Windows XP. It is necessary to disable Microsoft's firewall, of course; you don't want the wolf to guard the henhouse. (See the section Windows XP connects to Microsoft's computers in at least 17 ways. in the article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going..)
A lot of us need to run programs that don't have Linux or BSD versions. For us, Microsoft has an absolute monopoly. It's hopeless being involved in adversarial behavior with Microsoft. The company has $40 billion cash in the bank. I have
One way to cope with the situation is to use two computers connected to one keyboard, mouse and monitor. Run Mozilla on Linux on a computer that is connected to the Internet. Disable internet access on the other computer running Windows XP by removing the TCP/IP protocol. Use another protocol, such as NETBEUI, for file sharing. (IOGear seems to make the best KVM switch. My experience has been that there is no video degradation with IOGear KVMs.)
My experience, and the experience of others, is that Windows XP doesn't crash, it just becomes less usable. Windows XP becomes shaky when enough programs are loaded that all of the installed memory is in use. There are other situations where Windows XP begins malfunctioning, but these are not well characterized. (Can anyone help me here?) The symptoms of the malfunction are slowness to respond to the keyboard, and disk thrashing caused by virtual memory use that sometimes takes 45 seconds or more.
The consensus seems to be, however, that Windows XP is Microsoft's best OS. The only other candidate is Windows 2000. Any comments?
The single biggest cause of instability in a system that was once stable is bad connections. Just open up the case, pull out all connectors and adapter cards a few millimeters, and push them back. That cleans the contacts.
(Download ZoneAlarm FREE for personal use.)
Ad-Aware is excellent for use with Windows XP. It gives a list of all running processes, who made the software, and where it is located on the hard drive. It's main purpose is to check for spyware. (Virus program software does not check for spyware, so you need a separate program.)
In Portland, Oregon, USA, the best Internet connection is Hevanet DSL with a Cisco 675 router from the phone company, Qwest. The Cisco 675 can be put into mode in which it is a true hardware firewall, not just a NAT device. (My only connection with Hevanet is as a satisfied customer.)
"São jogos de aventura, ação, esportes, raciocínio e muito mais para você não querer largar mais o Master System."
should be translated as:
"There are games of adventure, action, sports, reasoning and much more so that you won't want to relinquish [stop playing] the Master System."
The machine translation is excellent, I think. It's amazing. In a time when companies often are doing self-destructive things, Google gets it right.
You didn't read the article. Yes, what I said was badly expressed. However, I think most people will think that Microsoft's aggressiveness is continuing, so the other possibility need not be considered.
Did Microsoft give up its aggressive practices? This article gives an overview of the present state of things; judge for yourself: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. If Microsoft ended its aggressive practices, why continue legal action? If Microsoft continues being aggressive, why shouldn't legal action continue?
The support for a second monitor seems to be a sales gimmick more than a serious initiative. It is certainly poorly supported by Matrox.
I've been hearing about bad ATI drivers since the days of the 80386. I've had some severe problems with ATI drivers myself, and needed to call ATI tech support. My impression is that the company should not allow receptionists to write drivers when they are not answering phones.
My answer: For business use, buy Matrox.
I use Moz's HTML editor because sometimes I need to send HTML formatted email to business customers who need the quick orientation that comes from having bold headings and sub-headings.
If something bad is happening, why is Electronic News publishing great articles, like this one about the conversion of cars from 12 volt systems to 42 volt systems: Gearing Up to 42V?
Slashdot story re-written:
In the past, whenever Electronic News wanted to publish, we first engaged in a violent attack on trees that resulted in their deaths. Now we are publishing with re-cycled electrons that have been re-used continuously for 14 billion years.
My question: Isn't this a happy story? Why does the Slashdot story read like a funeral?
VERY good idea.
The Forbes article is nonsense. AMD is not leaving the PC processor market, and is a strong contender. Forbes is one of those magazines for the rich and rich wannabes that tell the rich what they want to hear.
"AMD, which has fought a losing battle in recent quarters against Intel Corp.,
Be VERY careful about this article, and ones like it. The stock market is close to 100% corrupt, as recent TV programs like 60 Minutes have shown. The purpose of the article could be to get lots of people to sell AMD stock because someone realizes that the new processors from AMD will be very successful, and wants to buy the stock.
See the comments to this story beginning at (#4742661).
I don't doubt that AMD, and Intel, will pursue other markets. For most people who have bought a computer with a speed of 800 MHz or more, there is no need to purchase another computer. But the day will come when video is much more important than it is today. (Remember when GUIs were new? Remember when color printers were new?) When video becomes important, everyone participating will need much faster processors than are made today.
Good advice. Run heavy ground wires between the points. Then use shielded Cat-5 with the shield grounded at one end. You don't want the shield to carry current; it is only to prevent common mode pickup.
"Common mode" is capacitive or inductive coupling to both wires of a pair at the same time. Common mode voltages can overload the Ethernet common mode voltage range. The common mode range is a few volts, so you also need the ground wires to insure that the range is not exceeded.
While researching the article linked below, I developed the impression that Microsoft has for years allowed its programmers to submit sloppy code. Now bugs are not easily found or fixed because everything is a mess.
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
See my comment above:
(#4718671)
I agree, he should never have been elected.
Fundamentalist "Christians" are not a tiny minority in the United States. If you put them together with people who work in the HUGE U.S. weapons industry and the people who work in the huge oil industry, that's a lot of people. The first two groups think that violence is "justified" as long as they themselves are not at risk.
Bush is the president solely because Al Gore is so clueless when it comes to what he should say and he should not say. Al Gore said that he supported "a woman's right to choose". That killed his chances with a lot of Christians and a lot of "Christians".
Someone with some understanding of the issues, for example Bill Clinton, would not make such strong statements about something over which he has no control. (Abortion rights in the U.S. are determined by the Supreme Court. A president has little immediate influence.)
The "silly minority" did elect Bush. He was elected by only a very small percentage of the votes. Without support from "Christian" fundamentalists, he could not have been elected.
You are right, the amount of money donated by the U.S. government to Israel to support buying from U.S. weapons manufacturers has been quite stable.
On the 60 Minutes show, there were several prominent fundamentalist "Christians" who said that was right, their goal was that Jews must convert or die.
"Does anyone know why we continue to support Israel?"
Should be: "Does anyone know why the U.S. government continues to support Israel?" When speaking of killers, don't say "we".
The U.S. government donates over $900 per Israeli per year of taxpayer money to Israel to buy weapons from U.S. weapons manufacturers.
George Bush could not have been elected without the support of poorly educated religious fundamentalists. These people have a goal. (I'm not kidding about this. Consider, for example, the recent 60 Minutes show on CBS TV in the U.S., in which this was discussed.) The goal is that all Jews either convert to "Christianity" or be killed. Since no well-educated Jews will convert to become ignorant Christian fundamentalists, that means that the true goal is to kill all the Jews. What better way is there to kill the 14 million Jews (total world-wide population) than to encourage them to get into a bloody battle with 1.1 billion Muslims?
The religious extremists in the U.S. don't fight the religious extremists in other countries directly. The U.S. religious extremists encourage the religious extremists in Israel and Muslim countries to fight each other. In this they are supported by the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world, for whom killing is profitable. The are also supported by those who want to accomplish hidden goals to increase their oil profits.
See this article for more about the violence of the U.S. government: What should be the Response to Violence?
President Bush is not mentally capable of being a leader of a country. He only participates in selling parts of the government to the highest bidder. As Senator John McCain says, the U.S. government has been corrupted by money disguised as campaign contributions.
This is not meant to be excessively negative about George W. Bush. There are many people who are not mentally capable of being a leader of a country.
George Bush's performance is typical for someone who has been an alcoholic: 1) Many alcoholics are extemely likeable. 2) Alcoholics don't like conflict; they resolve conflict in crude ways. 3) Alcoholics don't like to be expected to think.
President Bush delivers the statements that are written for him. Have you noticed that the coherence of his statements has improved now that he has a staff of more than 5,000 in the White House? He didn't suddenly develop ways of thinking more clearly.
The U.S. is experiencing a social breakdown. Few good leaders are available. For example, President Clinton was the child of two alcoholics. His crude adjustment to sexuality is typical for a child of alcoholics. It must be said, however, that President Clinton was mentally capable of understanding the issues of running a government, and he also had spent many years teaching himself government policy.
Other aspects of the social breakdown in the United States are: 1) The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people in the world. People in the U.S. eat when they are not hungry, a sign of unhappiness and social disfunctionality. 2) The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country in the history of the world. European countries have one-sixth the percentage of their citizens in prison. 3) The U.S. government lacks social skills. The government's answer to conflict is often violence. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 33 years, killing more than 3,000,000 people directly. The number killed indirectly is credibly estimated to be more than 3,000,000 additional people. 4) The U.S. government has at least two world-wide police forces that are authorized to kill anyone anywhere -- the FBI and the CIA. This also shows poor social skills. 5) The U.S. government is the biggest manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government is also the government that talks most about using its weapons.
Good trademark. "Because death is a part of travel."
Exactly!!! And, before the C5 was introduced, there were lots of photos like that! What could they have been thinking? My pick for the world's worst marketing.
Wow! Modded down and heavily criticized for saying something is funny!