Then just make a distinction between the meanings:
1) What the author meant when they wrote it
2) What the work meant to the culture of the time
3) What the work means to us now
What's hard about that? Why should someone else be able to say what the author meant? On the other hand the author shouldn't be able to tell others that they can't take a different meaning out of it, they can just be told that's not what the author said they meant.
It depends on the class whether that is considered cheating though. I had some classes where the prof encouraged us to get to together to work on homework assignments, but we weren't allowed to just copy each other's work. However, they usually also singled out a few assignments that were to be done completely solo.
If it's removable, you can take it with you, I've no idea why you would leave it in the car.
Yeah, but then you have to lug an iPad around everywhere you go. It's not like it will fit in your pocket.
Conversely, regular car stereos, not designed to be taken with you when you get out of the car are (or were) notoriously easy to steal. I imagine the same would be true of an aftermarket car computer or DIY car computer.
I think this is still true of aftermarket car stereos though they usually have removable faceplates that you can store in the glovebox (or take with you, but then you have the same problem as the iPad of lugging it around everywhere). If the car computer is integrated in the dash, then you would have to take the dash apart or really slash it up to get at the computer (not that this is hard, but I don't think it's a simple smash and grab). If it's just a laptop sitting under a seat with an LCD in the dash, then yeah you're right.
He wasn't complaining about paying extra for the satnav, he was complaining about being asked to pay an absurd amount for satnav. When you can get a good standalone unit for ~$200, ~$4000 sounds ridiculous especially considering the screen already exists so the only things you are paying for are the receiver and the software. Sure you're going to pay more to have it done by the dealer and have it integrated with the rest of the car information system, but about 20 times the cost of a standalone unit sounds like a rip-off to me.
In a system that correctly applies the salt, your new input will not generate the same hash.
i.e.,
User sets Password, Password is hashed with the salt (e.g., passwordHash = hash(salt+password) )
You discover the resultant hash,
You find a collision that produces the same hash ( hash(collisionValue) == passwordHash )
You then try to use this collisionValue to gain access to the system, but because of the use of a salt the system will take your collisionValue and add the salt, this will produce a completely different resultant hash and will not match the stored password hash.
hash(salt+collisionValue) != passwordHash.
Unless you know of a side-channel attack, or have access to enough hashes where you already know the password in order to determine the salt (or format of the salt for a roaming salt) then your collision is not effective.
Okay, so salt is more useful than I thought. For some reason I was thinking collision == access, but you're right that no one allows you to provide just the hash as that would be stupid (and pretty much defeat the purpose of hashing the password) and, as you state, if the stored hash is generated (and therefore authenticated) with salt, then your collision value won't give you access.
I think you misunderstand what AndrewNeo was saying. When you have the hash itself, you can then try to find some input that also produces that hash (a collision). You don't have to know anything about the original password or the salt.
As far as I can tell, salting only helps against rainbow table attacks. OP wasn't using those, he was computing the hashes (and thus finding collisions) using only the EC2 GPU instance. He was generating the tables themselves. Salt won't help you in that case. It just requires more compute power which has now become available thanks to the EC2 GPU instances that Amazon is offering.
This guide is not by a lawyer, but it seems to have a good general overview of the law regarding photography (warning: pdf link). Basically there are four aspects to photography as far as the law is concerned. This is US law.
1) Whether you have a right to take a photograph (e.g. there are laws that restrict you from taking pictures of some military bases whether you can see them from a public place or not)
2) Whether you have a right to be in the place where you're taking the photograph (e.g. with Stonehenge I presume it's private property so you if you run on without paying their admission fee you'd be trespassing)
3) Whether you have a right to publish the photograph (e.g. you can't legally publish an image of a copyrighted work as your MoMA visit indicates though surely fair use would apply to parody or the like)
4) Whether you have a right to make money off the publication of a photograph (e.g. you can't sell a photo you took of Brett Farve without his permission, but there has to be more to it than that because the paparazzi are always selling celebrity photos)
In general, those four rights are unrelated. That is, you can be trespassing, but still be able to take a photograph and publish it, you just might be arrested for trespassing. As for British law, I have no idea what your rights would be. The government has video cameras watching you on the streets in London, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I learned it was illegal for a the general public to take pictures of those same cameras.
Essentially he is saying any scientist can be considered guilty of fraud if anything in their published papers turns out to be incorrect even if they believed it to be accurate at the time.
It depends on the timeline. Did Cuccinelli apply for the grant before or after the hockey stick debacle? Keep in mind Cuccinelli is not an author of the MBH papers, but the premise stands. You'd be guilty of fraud if one of the papers on which you based your proposal was found to be wrong. Though as far as I can tell, the hockey stick-like shape hasn't been invalidated. Some people just have a problem with the way the conclusions of the paper were stated. Plus, I don't see why investigating a claim, even if you think it's wrong, is bad science. You would then have evidence to support your idea that the original claim was wrong, or you get evidence to the contrary, or you just get more evidence that doesn't lead conclusively to either conclusion. Either way it seems like a win to me. Gathering more information and figuring out exactly what's going on with various phyiscal processes is what science is all about.
They started migrating everyone to whole disk encryption after this incident. My web-connected work computer was switched over about a year ago maybe more.
The manufacturer put abbreviated Scripture references on its parts. So what? If you didn't know anything about the Bible, it could easily be seen as just another part number. They're not forcing anyone to read the Bible or look up the Scripture reference. If a manufacturer wanted to put HHGTTG42 or THX1138 on parts or some other geeky reference, people would think it's cool. It's just as cryptic to anyone without "inside knowledge", but since it's a Bible reference, everyone gets their undergarments in a twist. It's not an endorsement of Christianity as an official religion by any government.
Actually, Microsoft has said it's only for application compatibility. Apparently a bunch of applications broke when going from 5.1, 5.2 (XP) to 6.0 (Vista). Why should Microsoft "lie to applications" and complicate things when they can just do what they did when going from 2000 to XP and change the minor number, as 91degrees said, version numbers are arbitrary. For what it's worth, I'm running the Release Candidate and it is a major improvement over the pre-SP2 Vista I ran for several weeks before reverting to XP.
I remember that interview as well. The simplicity of "making your own story", i.e. them not developing one for you made me think of TF2. Look at what they've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D. Now they're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2. The problem here is expectations. If I wasn't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle, I wouldn't be disappointed. Of course, I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99, not 49.99.
I don't know whether the story is true or not, but it says that the timeout was set to 0 (zero) and it just so happened that with the load on their mail machine, it would actually abort in about 3ms.
So you want to give government more money and more chances (in the form of more services) to do something wrong? Wouldn't that just increase the frequency and/or severity of the wrongdoing?
As an aside, governments are like guns, they can't do wrong by themselves, but they can be used by the corrupt and evil to do wrong. The nice thing about representative government is that you can kick the corrupt and evil out. At least that's how it's supposed to work...
You're spot on. The author shoehorns some sharing concepts such as CC and Wikipedia into his definition of "New Socialism" presumably to fit with his fancy opening graphic morphing everyone into neat puzzle pieces that all fit together.
Yeah, I was disappointed to learn the module wasn't named Serenity. That was one of NASA's own poll options. It was the clear winner (of the non-write ins), and it still wasn't picked. What's the point of asking if you're going to pick what you want anyways? Maybe it was all a PR stunt.
This is a discussion about an operating system, not a gaming platform. You don't use Vista as a computer
You seem to be confusing your definition of a computer with the actual definition. Computers do lots of things, in general, they run programs. Some programs happen to be games.
Your posting in the wrong story. Look for the Mario Brothers logo, or whatever it is on Slashdot these days that indicates games, and your posts might matter.
Your apparent hatred of Windows is what's irrelevant to the discussion. Game support is a feature of an OS. It is not an essential feature in that it is required to have a computer you can interact with and run programs on, but some people still base their OS choice on it.
you don't know the difference between "then" and "than"
AND
Your posting in the wrong story.
As long as we're being pricks about grammar, it's "you're" not "your".
A quick search gave this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm wherein the UN Security Council admitted fault for the genocide. Kofi Annan is specifically criticized for not passing on just how imminent genocide was. How were the security council members to prevent genocide they apparently did not know was imminent?
As for WWII, pretty much all of Europe ignored Hitler until he came to their backyards. Right or wrong (I say wrong), the US did no differently than the rest of the big world powers at the time.
Judging from many of the comments, I think the software people have come out in force. It seems they think hardware is validated with the same rigor as their own software projects.
To the software nuts I say stay away if you want, then demand will be lower and I won't have to pay higher prices to get a new, faster computer when Core i7 hits the online retailers.
For what it's worth, I design hardware and write software and firmware.
Wouldn't your replica have to have the same CG and CP as the real plane? I would think you'd also have to throw the plane at the same relative speed and in a way that mimics the real engines. I call BS. I'm not an aero engineer, but I (think I) know enough to know that simply making a scale model that *looks* like a plane doesn't mean it's a good approximation of the real thing.
It's the difference between a border search and a search elsewhere. SCOTUS has historically distinguished between regular searches and border searches finding that the government has an overriding interest in controlling its border vice personal rights.
Actually both cases were decided long before the GWOT. The government in those cases was conducting the searches for drug and illegal immigrant enforcement. Not everything relevant is the fault of the Bush Administration as much as you might wish it to be. You keep on "fighting the man" though, but realize that these types of searches have been upheld multiple times by the SCOTUS and, from my reading of the decisions, are supported by the Constitution. That doesn't mean abuse does not occur, but not everything is a nefarious plan by Bush to trample your rights.
One thing that immediately comes to mind is that, to store any large amount of data using this method, you would have to have a very large base layer. This is based on my admittedly limited knowledge of stenography. I don't know the exact proportions, but from what I've read about stenography using images, you only have the last few bits of each color for each pixel in which to store data. That's, what, about 3-6 bits out of every 24 for a photo. Not too, bad, but, with a ratio of 4:1 to 8:1 dummy data to sensitive data, it's probably not something you would want to use to hide a whole other OS installation. As HDD prices fall and capacities grow though...and, right now, it seems very plausible to use this method to hide a fair number of sensitive documents or images, financial data, etc.
I don't know anything about Fuse or how much I could help in such an effort, but I do hope you provide links on your website to such work should you decide to pursue this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Then just make a distinction between the meanings:
1) What the author meant when they wrote it
2) What the work meant to the culture of the time
3) What the work means to us now
What's hard about that? Why should someone else be able to say what the author meant? On the other hand the author shouldn't be able to tell others that they can't take a different meaning out of it, they can just be told that's not what the author said they meant.
It depends on the class whether that is considered cheating though. I had some classes where the prof encouraged us to get to together to work on homework assignments, but we weren't allowed to just copy each other's work. However, they usually also singled out a few assignments that were to be done completely solo.
If it's removable, you can take it with you, I've no idea why you would leave it in the car.
Yeah, but then you have to lug an iPad around everywhere you go. It's not like it will fit in your pocket.
Conversely, regular car stereos, not designed to be taken with you when you get out of the car are (or were) notoriously easy to steal. I imagine the same would be true of an aftermarket car computer or DIY car computer.
I think this is still true of aftermarket car stereos though they usually have removable faceplates that you can store in the glovebox (or take with you, but then you have the same problem as the iPad of lugging it around everywhere). If the car computer is integrated in the dash, then you would have to take the dash apart or really slash it up to get at the computer (not that this is hard, but I don't think it's a simple smash and grab). If it's just a laptop sitting under a seat with an LCD in the dash, then yeah you're right.
He wasn't complaining about paying extra for the satnav, he was complaining about being asked to pay an absurd amount for satnav. When you can get a good standalone unit for ~$200, ~$4000 sounds ridiculous especially considering the screen already exists so the only things you are paying for are the receiver and the software. Sure you're going to pay more to have it done by the dealer and have it integrated with the rest of the car information system, but about 20 times the cost of a standalone unit sounds like a rip-off to me.
In a system that correctly applies the salt, your new input will not generate the same hash. i.e., User sets Password, Password is hashed with the salt (e.g., passwordHash = hash(salt+password) ) You discover the resultant hash, You find a collision that produces the same hash ( hash(collisionValue) == passwordHash ) You then try to use this collisionValue to gain access to the system, but because of the use of a salt the system will take your collisionValue and add the salt, this will produce a completely different resultant hash and will not match the stored password hash.
hash(salt+collisionValue) != passwordHash.
Unless you know of a side-channel attack, or have access to enough hashes where you already know the password in order to determine the salt (or format of the salt for a roaming salt) then your collision is not effective.
Okay, so salt is more useful than I thought. For some reason I was thinking collision == access, but you're right that no one allows you to provide just the hash as that would be stupid (and pretty much defeat the purpose of hashing the password) and, as you state, if the stored hash is generated (and therefore authenticated) with salt, then your collision value won't give you access.
A well written explanation, thank you.
I think you misunderstand what AndrewNeo was saying. When you have the hash itself, you can then try to find some input that also produces that hash (a collision). You don't have to know anything about the original password or the salt.
As far as I can tell, salting only helps against rainbow table attacks. OP wasn't using those, he was computing the hashes (and thus finding collisions) using only the EC2 GPU instance. He was generating the tables themselves. Salt won't help you in that case. It just requires more compute power which has now become available thanks to the EC2 GPU instances that Amazon is offering.
the technology for a communication device would be vastly different
So why's she talking on a fairly large, conspicuous headset and not a small hidden device?
This guide is not by a lawyer, but it seems to have a good general overview of the law regarding photography (warning: pdf link). Basically there are four aspects to photography as far as the law is concerned. This is US law.
1) Whether you have a right to take a photograph (e.g. there are laws that restrict you from taking pictures of some military bases whether you can see them from a public place or not)
2) Whether you have a right to be in the place where you're taking the photograph (e.g. with Stonehenge I presume it's private property so you if you run on without paying their admission fee you'd be trespassing)
3) Whether you have a right to publish the photograph (e.g. you can't legally publish an image of a copyrighted work as your MoMA visit indicates though surely fair use would apply to parody or the like)
4) Whether you have a right to make money off the publication of a photograph (e.g. you can't sell a photo you took of Brett Farve without his permission, but there has to be more to it than that because the paparazzi are always selling celebrity photos)
In general, those four rights are unrelated. That is, you can be trespassing, but still be able to take a photograph and publish it, you just might be arrested for trespassing. As for British law, I have no idea what your rights would be. The government has video cameras watching you on the streets in London, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I learned it was illegal for a the general public to take pictures of those same cameras.
Essentially he is saying any scientist can be considered guilty of fraud if anything in their published papers turns out to be incorrect even if they believed it to be accurate at the time.
It depends on the timeline. Did Cuccinelli apply for the grant before or after the hockey stick debacle? Keep in mind Cuccinelli is not an author of the MBH papers, but the premise stands. You'd be guilty of fraud if one of the papers on which you based your proposal was found to be wrong. Though as far as I can tell, the hockey stick-like shape hasn't been invalidated. Some people just have a problem with the way the conclusions of the paper were stated. Plus, I don't see why investigating a claim, even if you think it's wrong, is bad science. You would then have evidence to support your idea that the original claim was wrong, or you get evidence to the contrary, or you just get more evidence that doesn't lead conclusively to either conclusion. Either way it seems like a win to me. Gathering more information and figuring out exactly what's going on with various phyiscal processes is what science is all about.
They started migrating everyone to whole disk encryption after this incident. My web-connected work computer was switched over about a year ago maybe more.
The manufacturer put abbreviated Scripture references on its parts. So what? If you didn't know anything about the Bible, it could easily be seen as just another part number. They're not forcing anyone to read the Bible or look up the Scripture reference. If a manufacturer wanted to put HHGTTG42 or THX1138 on parts or some other geeky reference, people would think it's cool. It's just as cryptic to anyone without "inside knowledge", but since it's a Bible reference, everyone gets their undergarments in a twist. It's not an endorsement of Christianity as an official religion by any government.
Actually, Microsoft has said it's only for application compatibility. Apparently a bunch of applications broke when going from 5.1, 5.2 (XP) to 6.0 (Vista). Why should Microsoft "lie to applications" and complicate things when they can just do what they did when going from 2000 to XP and change the minor number, as 91degrees said, version numbers are arbitrary. For what it's worth, I'm running the Release Candidate and it is a major improvement over the pre-SP2 Vista I ran for several weeks before reverting to XP.
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257929&cid=28220765
I remember that interview as well. The simplicity of "making your own story", i.e. them not developing one for you made me think of TF2. Look at what they've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D. Now they're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2. The problem here is expectations. If I wasn't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle, I wouldn't be disappointed. Of course, I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99, not 49.99.
I don't know whether the story is true or not, but it says that the timeout was set to 0 (zero) and it just so happened that with the load on their mail machine, it would actually abort in about 3ms.
So you want to give government more money and more chances (in the form of more services) to do something wrong? Wouldn't that just increase the frequency and/or severity of the wrongdoing?
As an aside, governments are like guns, they can't do wrong by themselves, but they can be used by the corrupt and evil to do wrong. The nice thing about representative government is that you can kick the corrupt and evil out. At least that's how it's supposed to work...
You're spot on. The author shoehorns some sharing concepts such as CC and Wikipedia into his definition of "New Socialism" presumably to fit with his fancy opening graphic morphing everyone into neat puzzle pieces that all fit together.
Yeah, I was disappointed to learn the module wasn't named Serenity. That was one of NASA's own poll options. It was the clear winner (of the non-write ins), and it still wasn't picked. What's the point of asking if you're going to pick what you want anyways? Maybe it was all a PR stunt.
You missed the point
Hello pot.
This is a discussion about an operating system, not a gaming platform. You don't use Vista as a computer
You seem to be confusing your definition of a computer with the actual definition. Computers do lots of things, in general, they run programs. Some programs happen to be games.
Your posting in the wrong story. Look for the Mario Brothers logo, or whatever it is on Slashdot these days that indicates games, and your posts might matter.
Your apparent hatred of Windows is what's irrelevant to the discussion. Game support is a feature of an OS. It is not an essential feature in that it is required to have a computer you can interact with and run programs on, but some people still base their OS choice on it.
you don't know the difference between "then" and "than"
AND
Your posting in the wrong story.
As long as we're being pricks about grammar, it's "you're" not "your".
A quick search gave this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm wherein the UN Security Council admitted fault for the genocide. Kofi Annan is specifically criticized for not passing on just how imminent genocide was. How were the security council members to prevent genocide they apparently did not know was imminent?
As for WWII, pretty much all of Europe ignored Hitler until he came to their backyards. Right or wrong (I say wrong), the US did no differently than the rest of the big world powers at the time.
Judging from many of the comments, I think the software people have come out in force. It seems they think hardware is validated with the same rigor as their own software projects.
To the software nuts I say stay away if you want, then demand will be lower and I won't have to pay higher prices to get a new, faster computer when Core i7 hits the online retailers.
For what it's worth, I design hardware and write software and firmware.
Wouldn't your replica have to have the same CG and CP as the real plane? I would think you'd also have to throw the plane at the same relative speed and in a way that mimics the real engines. I call BS. I'm not an aero engineer, but I (think I) know enough to know that simply making a scale model that *looks* like a plane doesn't mean it's a good approximation of the real thing.
You misspelled "BOFH".
It's the difference between a border search and a search elsewhere. SCOTUS has historically distinguished between regular searches and border searches finding that the government has an overriding interest in controlling its border vice personal rights.
Actually both cases were decided long before the GWOT. The government in those cases was conducting the searches for drug and illegal immigrant enforcement. Not everything relevant is the fault of the Bush Administration as much as you might wish it to be. You keep on "fighting the man" though, but realize that these types of searches have been upheld multiple times by the SCOTUS and, from my reading of the decisions, are supported by the Constitution. That doesn't mean abuse does not occur, but not everything is a nefarious plan by Bush to trample your rights.
One thing that immediately comes to mind is that, to store any large amount of data using this method, you would have to have a very large base layer. This is based on my admittedly limited knowledge of stenography. I don't know the exact proportions, but from what I've read about stenography using images, you only have the last few bits of each color for each pixel in which to store data. That's, what, about 3-6 bits out of every 24 for a photo. Not too, bad, but, with a ratio of 4:1 to 8:1 dummy data to sensitive data, it's probably not something you would want to use to hide a whole other OS installation. As HDD prices fall and capacities grow though...and, right now, it seems very plausible to use this method to hide a fair number of sensitive documents or images, financial data, etc.
I don't know anything about Fuse or how much I could help in such an effort, but I do hope you provide links on your website to such work should you decide to pursue this idea.