Maybe it's just me, but I really am wondering why they're doing this. Mozilla is *full* of bugs already, many of them significant (albeit not security-related), that aren't fixed; and users that encounter security issues are likely to report them anyway, I think, no matter whether they get paid for it or not.
You may want to fix your webserver to return a proper mimetype for the torrent file, though (currently, it sends video/x-msvideo, which certainly is not appropriate - change it to something like application/x-bittorrent or so).
I know how cryptographic (and hashing) algorithms work.
As for "almost unbreakable" - well, that simply means that it *is* breakable after all; brute force does work, even though it's usually inefficient (which is why I added that an attacker would need a sufficient amount of time, energy and/or computing power).
Furthermore, from what I know, it is neither proven that your average hash functions (MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD-160 etc.) are collision-free nor that the underlying mathematical problems of your average asymmetric ciphers (RSA, DS, El Gamal etc.) indeed cannot be solved with less effort than brute force. (I may be wrong here, so feel free to correct me)
And lastly... you missed my point completely.:) What I really was saying was that the fact that there will be ways to defeat this system does not mean it is completely useless or obsolete. Without looking at the algorithm in detail, it's not even possible to say that there likely will be easy ways around it (common sense might dictate there are, but common sense also dictates that RSA is easily breakable - mine does, anyway). Ultimately, only time will tell just how feasible it is to defeat this system, and only that will determine just how useful it will prove to be on a given level. (As an example, I could very well imagine that an intelligence agency or a similar organization will be able to produce images that pass the test when necessary, for example, while your average Paintshop Pro user won't).
True. And for the same reason, encryption is useless - a determined enough attacker could still break it (assuming he invests enough time / energy / computing power), right? ^_~
You are wrong - in fact, your idea of how digital image processing works seems to be entirely warped.
(This is not meant as an offense in any way, BTW.)
More than a third, actually - the nazi party got 43,9 percent (!) of all votes on the March 5 1933 elections, about 17,277,200 votes (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany; the number of votes is from a book on german history).
If they fail to make money with this, they should still be able to sell the domain name "xtremeads.com" for a sizeable amount. Xupiter, Gator and so on should love it. ^_~
This release concentrates on stability and providing a framework for future re-implementations.
So... does this mean there's hope for a GPL-ed POV-Ray? IIRC, the main reason why it's distributed under those restrictive terms was that the developers have no means anymore to get in contact with some authors who still have a significant amount of code in there, so they cannot get their OK for a licensing change.
Are they going to redo those parts now and adopt a more open development model? I'd love that.
You've hit the nail right on the head there, I think. O'er here in ol' europe (or at least in my parts), there is no electronic voting at all, and I frankly don't think it's needed, either. Sure, you don't get the final, official results until the next morning (voting closes at 6pm), but that's a small price to pay for being able to verify votes, and the extrapolations you get are usually really accurate even at 5 minutes after voting closes.
For what it's worth, it's also possible for anyone to attend the vote counting; you can't help with counting if you're not one of the volunteers that help out with running the elections, but you can watch and be sure nothing fishy is going on all you want - and a surprisingly large number people actually do that, too. I've volunteered to help out with elections a couple of times, and most of the time, there was at least one or two interested citizens watching the counting process.
So, when someone's pushing for computerised voting, it's probably best to ask yourself "why are they really doing this?" instead of just accepting their arguments that it's faster, easier or anything similar.
Yeah, those distro's memory / CPU /... requirements are going up. So? They're not the only ones you can choose from; lwn.net's distribution list lists more than 300, from specialized to general, from small to big, and from "for pros" to "for my grandma".
The same holds true for GUIs, too - there's more desktop environments than just KDE and Gnome, and there's more GUIs than desktop environments, too. fvwm2 may not be everyone's favourite, but there are *many* different window managers to choose from, and with a bit of time invested, you'll find the one that is just right for you (and your computer).
The real problem, I think is that users (even those posting on slashdot) have inconsistent requirements: they do want all the eye candy, nifty features and slick-ness of a modern distro, but at the same time, they also want to be able to run it on older hardware without a slowdown. Think about it - it's not gonna happen, and that's not the fault of those creating the distributions. It's just a fact of life. Get over it and accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's dutch, not german.
In other news, Ken is now planning to start a new business that sends emails to people, telling them how to MAKE MONEY FAST!!!111 :)
Check and checkmate. :) If they relied on security through obscurity, they got what they asked for.
Is there a Google cache of Google's Zeitgeist?
Think again (and read it all). It is a bug.
You may have to copy and paste it in that case - or manually search for bug #18574.
Maybe it's just me, but I really am wondering why they're doing this. Mozilla is *full* of bugs already, many of them significant (albeit not security-related), that aren't fixed; and users that encounter security issues are likely to report them anyway, I think, no matter whether they get paid for it or not.
You may want to fix your webserver to return a proper mimetype for the torrent file, though (currently, it sends video/x-msvideo, which certainly is not appropriate - change it to something like application/x-bittorrent or so).
I know how cryptographic (and hashing) algorithms work.
:) What I really was saying was that the fact that there will be ways to defeat this system does not mean it is completely useless or obsolete. Without looking at the algorithm in detail, it's not even possible to say that there likely will be easy ways around it (common sense might dictate there are, but common sense also dictates that RSA is easily breakable - mine does, anyway). Ultimately, only time will tell just how feasible it is to defeat this system, and only that will determine just how useful it will prove to be on a given level. (As an example, I could very well imagine that an intelligence agency or a similar organization will be able to produce images that pass the test when necessary, for example, while your average Paintshop Pro user won't).
As for "almost unbreakable" - well, that simply means that it *is* breakable after all; brute force does work, even though it's usually inefficient (which is why I added that an attacker would need a sufficient amount of time, energy and/or computing power).
Furthermore, from what I know, it is neither proven that your average hash functions (MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD-160 etc.) are collision-free nor that the underlying mathematical problems of your average asymmetric ciphers (RSA, DS, El Gamal etc.) indeed cannot be solved with less effort than brute force. (I may be wrong here, so feel free to correct me)
And lastly... you missed my point completely.
True. And for the same reason, encryption is useless - a determined enough attacker could still break it (assuming he invests enough time / energy / computing power), right? ^_~
You are wrong - in fact, your idea of how digital image processing works seems to be entirely warped. (This is not meant as an offense in any way, BTW.)
I wish there was a more detailed description of the algorithm used and/or an online demo available...
120 years of electronic music, and no mention of Karl-Heinz Stockhausen? How could they leave him out?
Shouldn't this be in "Your rights online"?
More than a third, actually - the nazi party got 43,9 percent (!) of all votes on the March 5 1933 elections, about 17,277,200 votes (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany; the number of votes is from a book on german history).
If they fail to make money with this, they should still be able to sell the domain name "xtremeads.com" for a sizeable amount. Xupiter, Gator and so on should love it. ^_~
So... does this mean there's hope for a GPL-ed POV-Ray? IIRC, the main reason why it's distributed under those restrictive terms was that the developers have no means anymore to get in contact with some authors who still have a significant amount of code in there, so they cannot get their OK for a licensing change.
Are they going to redo those parts now and adopt a more open development model? I'd love that.
Does the law give any definition of "unworthy"? It seems like a rather hazy term to me.
You've hit the nail right on the head there, I think. O'er here in ol' europe (or at least in my parts), there is no electronic voting at all, and I frankly don't think it's needed, either. Sure, you don't get the final, official results until the next morning (voting closes at 6pm), but that's a small price to pay for being able to verify votes, and the extrapolations you get are usually really accurate even at 5 minutes after voting closes.
For what it's worth, it's also possible for anyone to attend the vote counting; you can't help with counting if you're not one of the volunteers that help out with running the elections, but you can watch and be sure nothing fishy is going on all you want - and a surprisingly large number people actually do that, too. I've volunteered to help out with elections a couple of times, and most of the time, there was at least one or two interested citizens watching the counting process.
So, when someone's pushing for computerised voting, it's probably best to ask yourself "why are they really doing this?" instead of just accepting their arguments that it's faster, easier or anything similar.
Cool - where can I get one? My own mass should be big enough for the necessary microgravity environment... ;)
Yeah, those distro's memory / CPU / ... requirements are going up. So? They're not the only ones you can choose from; lwn.net's distribution list lists more than 300, from specialized to general, from small to big, and from "for pros" to "for my grandma".
The same holds true for GUIs, too - there's more desktop environments than just KDE and Gnome, and there's more GUIs than desktop environments, too. fvwm2 may not be everyone's favourite, but there are *many* different window managers to choose from, and with a bit of time invested, you'll find the one that is just right for you (and your computer).
The real problem, I think is that users (even those posting on slashdot) have inconsistent requirements: they do want all the eye candy, nifty features and slick-ness of a modern distro, but at the same time, they also want to be able to run it on older hardware without a slowdown. Think about it - it's not gonna happen, and that's not the fault of those creating the distributions. It's just a fact of life. Get over it and accept it.
"Unlike Linksys's, where turning the firewall on, the NetGear hole cannot be disabled." That no english sentence, guys! :)
You don't have to consume any calories at all to get an album's worth of music. You just need to buy the meal - nobody says you have to eat it, too.
Just teach her APL, and she'll have learned a lesson for life. :)
What! You mean more realistic than this?