[...] failing to understand how the other party can be so stupid as to not see the points that appear so obvious and right [...]
Dumb n00b. My points do not "appear" obvious and right, they are.
As to "failing" to understand why the other party is so stupid, speak for yourself, wimp.
I fully understand why they are so stupid - they are stupid, because they disagree with me!
You don't need to throw in the threat of prison rape or violence; the thought of being locked up for a few decades is enough to deter any rational person, and an irrational one won't be deterred by anything.
I think that prison rape doesn't even stand as deterrent. For big, tough and homosexual folks and for masochistic and homosexual folks it might even be the opposite.
But that plausibility won't hold up long, because the courts will soon say "If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits."
"No person shall at any time posess any computer system file or any other information stored in an information storage or retrieval system unless he is able to explain in detail a lawful purpose of every single bit of that file."
#define SWAP(x,y) do { x^=y; y^=x; x^=y; } while (0)
My guess: it is used for x and y of different sizes (say 8 bit and 32 bit).
Maybe it's time to dump X
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here[pdf warning] is an interesting article from James Gosling and it pretty much explains why making the GUI system a server was necessary in the past but is not such a good idea anymore.
That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory?
No. As in "neither side of the alternative is true". Copyrights and patents are valid constructs, but are not and should not be equivalent to physical property. I find them tolerable as long as it's a temporary monopoly designed as an incentive to contribute to the public knowledge space . That is why I object to calling it property.
I think this is meant to address "real" piracy, and not some guy in his basement downloading torrents.
As is every single law giving more power to the authorities.
"It's only for going after terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers. Common people have nothing to fear. Trust us." Seriously people, why do you keep gobbling on this bullshit?
I see a problem with the experiment. The hard part of the questions involves scanning down a column , where horizontal striping obviously does not help.
You mean to say that a sales and marketing website is manipulating the facts in order to show their product in a better light than competing products?
There is a difference between waving something off as "marketing bullshit" and documenting particular manipulations. The former might give you +5 on Slashdot, the latter is more effective in real world.
No, this is the level of Slashdot discourse. The expected level of public discourse will involve pitchforks, torches and public executions of freenet users, pediatricians and pedicurists.
If nobody is doing that already, color me surprised....
Paint yourself half-unsurprised then. MUTE filesharing does something similar. A client communicates directly with a small number of peers and nobody can tell whether a request (or response) comes directly from their neighbor or is merely relayed, so you get plausible deniability. Uh, and it uses an interesting algorithm for routing, similar to one used by ants in real life.
AFAIK, There is no such thing as true randomization in computing. Anyone care to chime in on this?
For the purpose of being unpredictable to the opponent a deterministic pseudorandom generator is sufficient, provided that its internal state is kept secret and that it is cryptographically safe (so that its internal state cannot be deduced from its output).
Of course it is better to mix in some true (hardware) enthropy into that scheme.
But it does tell you that your most optimal move is to expect them to hit it to your backhand. It'll tell the terrorists that Lane 1 is the best one to attempt to get through, statistically.
The 'best choice' paradox is the exact reason for intruduction of randomization. It goes like this: suppose that lanes have different payoffs for the successful smuggler - maybe because they go to (or from) countries that have different street prices of 'goods'.
The smuggler knows that Lane 1 gives the best payoff, so he will try that one, but the customs people also know that, so they will check that one. Hm... but the smuggler knows that they know, so he'll try Lane 2 (the second best), but the customs people also know that, and the smuggler knows that too, so he will try the 1st one... Well, to make long story short, the best strategy for both sides is to use randomization, with probabilities calculated so that the expected payoff for the opponent is minimized.
The analogy of the brain surgery is pretty light-weight, inappropriate, and jejune for a professor. The professor's position is a bit arrogant, suggesting I don't know enough to use the right tool for a given job. Also, no sensible person expects Wikipedia to be The One Tool, nor does anyone with experience and judgment rely upon one source, especially on the Internet. Sounds like the professor could learn a thing or two.
Would you prefer reading a jejune analogy or be killed by Hitler instead?
You can add "random noise" to an.exe file - most processors have at least some opcodes with "don't care" bits. You can alter those bits without affecting the semantics of the code.
"And I don't understand how the Amiga could be easier to get into than the 8-bit Ataris; being a 16/32-bit machine, it was far more complex and had fewer obvious routes to get "into" it."
The complexity has little to do with the number of bits, and the Motorola 68xxx with its flat memory model and universal registers was really easy to get into. Switching from that to 8086 with its segments and offsets made me want to slit my wrists.
Block it at the border, keep our law in our country and lat you have your law in your country.
Not going to happen as long as private cryptography is legal. Even in the unlikely case it becomes illegal, there is still steganography. Heck, they would have to make transmitting any "unexplainable" string of bits illegal.
Hey, you - the least significant transparency bits in the image you just downloaded look suspiciously random!
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't it be "a large number, but not five or six" speakers?
Dumb n00b. My points do not "appear" obvious and right, they are.
As to "failing" to understand why the other party is so stupid, speak for yourself, wimp. I fully understand why they are so stupid - they are stupid, because they disagree with me!
Morans and poopheads.
I think that prison rape doesn't even stand as deterrent. For big, tough and homosexual folks and for masochistic and homosexual folks it might even be the opposite.
"No person shall at any time posess any computer system file or any other information stored in an information storage or retrieval system unless he is able to explain in detail a lawful purpose of every single bit of that file."
Perhaps X should be replaced, not improved.
And the joy of making him 5$ richer? Umm, wait. Gotta think about it a bit more. Brb, torrenting.
Bruce Schneier here. Disregard what I said about faxed signatures. They are perfectly OK.
Here's my OCR-ed signature: Bruce Schneier
Two buildings and a few thousand people? More of each perish everyday for natural reasons. And yet it made headlines.
"GNP damage due to internet attacks estimated at 2 bajillion dollars" won't make it to page 1.
"It's only for going after terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers. Common people have nothing to fear. Trust us." Seriously people, why do you keep gobbling on this bullshit?
I see a problem with the experiment. The hard part of the questions involves scanning down a column , where horizontal striping obviously does not help.
Of course it is better to mix in some true (hardware) enthropy into that scheme.
The smuggler knows that Lane 1 gives the best payoff, so he will try that one, but the customs people also know that, so they will check that one. Hm... but the smuggler knows that they know, so he'll try Lane 2 (the second best), but the customs people also know that, and the smuggler knows that too, so he will try the 1st one... Well, to make long story short, the best strategy for both sides is to use randomization, with probabilities calculated so that the expected payoff for the opponent is minimized.
You can add "random noise" to an .exe file - most processors have at least some opcodes with "don't care" bits. You can alter those bits without affecting the semantics of the code.
Good question.
There, you have answered it yourself.
"And I don't understand how the Amiga could be easier to get into than the 8-bit Ataris; being a 16/32-bit machine, it was far more complex and had fewer obvious routes to get "into" it." The complexity has little to do with the number of bits, and the Motorola 68xxx with its flat memory model and universal registers was really easy to get into. Switching from that to 8086 with its segments and offsets made me want to slit my wrists.
Hey, you - the least significant transparency bits in the image you just downloaded look suspiciously random!
"Working on countermeasures" - Hmm.... can't they just tell the users to use Tor?