Wouldn't it be possible to make rainbow tables for other hashes also? I see the problem, but I don't see how it matters whether it's a weak or strong hash.
Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me when Congress or a state Legislature passes something unconstitutional. Also unfortunately, there appears to be no penalty for doing so, even in the most egregious manner.
Artists are motivated by their art, and by money, and likely by other things (impressing members of the appropriate sex?). Don't pay for art and we'll still have art.
However, for some fields of art, it's possible to improve them by doing additional work, such as tweaking the sound for music or editing for fiction. That stuff isn't nearly as much fun as creating, and people who do it tend to want money. Remove payment for art, and we get worse art than we might have.
No, they don't. How could they make such a system?
There's nothing in the law against distributing stuff copyrighted by someone else. There are provisions in the law against distributing stuff copyrighted by someone else without their permission, Any system to detect infringement would need to have some method of telling whether the material was licensed or not. Bear in mind that pretty much everything on YouTube is going to be copyrighted (the exception would be uploads of sufficiently old movies)
It is possible to detect probable infringement by working with the copyright holder, who can presumably tell YouTube that any of their copyrighted material posted under certain conditions is infringing. I don't know whether ContactID works that way or not. If it does, Ms. Schneider has to deal with YouTube directly to get ContactID protection.
If I'm running a server, I don't need anyone's permission to delete anything, provided I have no agreement that says I must host what someone uploaded. However, if someone has uploaded a cracked copy of Word, I'm not liable. Microsoft (or someone acting on their behalf) can send a takedown notice, and if I comply with that I'm not liable. If the uploaded files a counterclaim, and I do the legally required things with it (including passing it on to Microsoft), I can put that copy up again after a certain period of time, and I'm not liable.
You are completely overlooking the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, which seems odd because they're constantly argued over here.
Ah, yes, the geek who thinks he or she can outwit the legal system. Deny employment often enough to someone because they use drugs legally and you're going to wind up losing a lawsuit. If you refuse to work in any job where the employer and cow-orkers don't live up to your standards you may wind up long-term unemployed, and unemployment insurance people don't take "I didn't want to work next to a pothead" as a valid reason for turning down a job.
Judging people on their performance is fine. Insisting that they abide by your standards in other ways can lead to unpleasant consequences.
I think you need to be more specific about what a "drug" is here. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are legal drugs. There are mind-altering drugs that are used for psychiatric purposes, and if you arbitrarily ban people on those you're in violation of the ADA. (There are people out there who have a thing against antidepressants, for example, but depressed people need to live also.)
It sounds like you're against certain classes of drugs used illegally.
We're talking about international law here, which doesn't really care about internal legal status. If we're conducting combat operations against a halfway organized foe, the laws of war apply, regardless of whether the US military could sentence a soldier to death for desertion.
Lots of US right-wingers appear to want to restrict or ban access to contraception. There was the case where Hobby Lobby argued that it should be able to exclude contraception from its medical coverage of employees (another good reason to separate medical insurance from employment).
Non-specific Deism is a religion in the terms of establishment. Even if you don't mind Congress establishing something broad enough to only exclude the non-religious, there are non-monotheistic religions.
Al-Qaida and ISIL are doing a great deal of harm and terrorism (although ISIL is arguably a government), and they do it in the name of Islam. That doesn't show that Islam is inherently violent. Drop back a few centuries and you'll find lots of violence in the name of Christianity. Drop back enough and you'll find the Christians to be bigots and the Muslims relatively enlightened. If Christianity were inherently peaceful, we wouldn't find things like the Crusades and Inquisition and witch-burnings in history.
We're talking "inherently" here. If Christianity were inherently peaceful, we wouldn't find periods in history when it inspired hate and violence. If Islam were inherently violent, we wouldn't find periods in history when it was relatively peaceful. Looking at history, clearly neither is inherently violent or peaceful.
Christians who refuse to bake a cake for a reception following a gay wedding aren't put out of business. Christians who are offensive and vindictive about being asked can be, depending on how vindictive they are and how much grief they give innocent people wanting a wedding cake.
I'm not calling them stupid. I'm calling them human, and saying that the classification of people in general as stupid is stupid. Software people are about as bad as libertarians or communists, in that they propose things that just won't work with Homo Sapiens as it exists, and blame people for screwing it up.
One reason Steve Jobs was so successful is that he knew what people would actually find useful. The walled garden is an excellent way to keep people in general out of botnets and the like.
If MS really wanted to clean up the Internet, they'd do their best to brick everyone's computer in a way that only decent system administration would avoid. Would you still defend them in that case, because they had a good goal?
Oracle is arguing that there's enough difference between current Java programming and Android programming that the functionality argument fails. They claim that Google could have used different APIs without losing significant functionality, since programs for the Android use sufficiently different facilities.
Supporting friends and relatives directly is socially tricky, as we've found out. There's also some close relatives who have had some serious medical problems, and we could not have effectively supported them ourselves.
We're not forcing anyone to pay. If you don't like paying taxes, GTFO. Taxes are what we pay for civilization, and you don't get to enjoy the benefits without contributing if you can.
I didn't grow up in the late 19th or early 20th century, but that was a period when the laws and mores were fairly strict on gender roles. Women didn't vote or run for office. The man was the head of the family, and women did not typically have responsible roles off the farm or whatever (the upper midwest was heavily agricultural in that period).
Muslims tend to be religious conservatives, which would be a good fit for the Republicans except that the Republicans reject them. The Democrats pick up some minority groups that typically don't have Democrat values because the Democrats are more accepting of those minorities, and they vote for their own good rather than their ideology..
As a progressive, I like Islam less than the other major religions, and I dislike the culture of most Muslim countries. I enjoy pissing off the right-wing Christians, but it's much more fun to do it with references to the Bible and what Jesus was reported as saying and doing. I generally like left-wing Christians, and often only differ with them theologically. I don't know which progressives you hang around with, but the ones I hang around with generally dislike Islam and the cultures associated with it.
Sure. My wife and I put a lot more into the system than we take out.
You know what? We can afford it. We also see our tax money benefiting our less financially successful and less medically fortunate friends and relatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be possible to make rainbow tables for other hashes also? I see the problem, but I don't see how it matters whether it's a weak or strong hash.
Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me when Congress or a state Legislature passes something unconstitutional. Also unfortunately, there appears to be no penalty for doing so, even in the most egregious manner.
Artists are motivated by their art, and by money, and likely by other things (impressing members of the appropriate sex?). Don't pay for art and we'll still have art.
However, for some fields of art, it's possible to improve them by doing additional work, such as tweaking the sound for music or editing for fiction. That stuff isn't nearly as much fun as creating, and people who do it tend to want money. Remove payment for art, and we get worse art than we might have.
No, they don't. How could they make such a system?
There's nothing in the law against distributing stuff copyrighted by someone else. There are provisions in the law against distributing stuff copyrighted by someone else without their permission, Any system to detect infringement would need to have some method of telling whether the material was licensed or not. Bear in mind that pretty much everything on YouTube is going to be copyrighted (the exception would be uploads of sufficiently old movies)
It is possible to detect probable infringement by working with the copyright holder, who can presumably tell YouTube that any of their copyrighted material posted under certain conditions is infringing. I don't know whether ContactID works that way or not. If it does, Ms. Schneider has to deal with YouTube directly to get ContactID protection.
If I'm running a server, I don't need anyone's permission to delete anything, provided I have no agreement that says I must host what someone uploaded. However, if someone has uploaded a cracked copy of Word, I'm not liable. Microsoft (or someone acting on their behalf) can send a takedown notice, and if I comply with that I'm not liable. If the uploaded files a counterclaim, and I do the legally required things with it (including passing it on to Microsoft), I can put that copy up again after a certain period of time, and I'm not liable.
You are completely overlooking the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, which seems odd because they're constantly argued over here.
Ah, yes, the geek who thinks he or she can outwit the legal system. Deny employment often enough to someone because they use drugs legally and you're going to wind up losing a lawsuit. If you refuse to work in any job where the employer and cow-orkers don't live up to your standards you may wind up long-term unemployed, and unemployment insurance people don't take "I didn't want to work next to a pothead" as a valid reason for turning down a job.
Judging people on their performance is fine. Insisting that they abide by your standards in other ways can lead to unpleasant consequences.
I think you need to be more specific about what a "drug" is here. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are legal drugs. There are mind-altering drugs that are used for psychiatric purposes, and if you arbitrarily ban people on those you're in violation of the ADA. (There are people out there who have a thing against antidepressants, for example, but depressed people need to live also.)
It sounds like you're against certain classes of drugs used illegally.
We're talking about international law here, which doesn't really care about internal legal status. If we're conducting combat operations against a halfway organized foe, the laws of war apply, regardless of whether the US military could sentence a soldier to death for desertion.
Lots of US right-wingers appear to want to restrict or ban access to contraception. There was the case where Hobby Lobby argued that it should be able to exclude contraception from its medical coverage of employees (another good reason to separate medical insurance from employment).
Non-specific Deism is a religion in the terms of establishment. Even if you don't mind Congress establishing something broad enough to only exclude the non-religious, there are non-monotheistic religions.
Laws against the Communist Party are illegal here in the US.
Nope. The sack by the Crusaders may have contributed to its later fall to a Muslim power. I'm not sure Constantinople ever really recovered.
Al-Qaida and ISIL are doing a great deal of harm and terrorism (although ISIL is arguably a government), and they do it in the name of Islam. That doesn't show that Islam is inherently violent. Drop back a few centuries and you'll find lots of violence in the name of Christianity. Drop back enough and you'll find the Christians to be bigots and the Muslims relatively enlightened. If Christianity were inherently peaceful, we wouldn't find things like the Crusades and Inquisition and witch-burnings in history.
We're talking "inherently" here. If Christianity were inherently peaceful, we wouldn't find periods in history when it inspired hate and violence. If Islam were inherently violent, we wouldn't find periods in history when it was relatively peaceful. Looking at history, clearly neither is inherently violent or peaceful.
Christians who refuse to bake a cake for a reception following a gay wedding aren't put out of business. Christians who are offensive and vindictive about being asked can be, depending on how vindictive they are and how much grief they give innocent people wanting a wedding cake.
While there have certainly been horrible atheists, nobody commits atrocities in the name of atheism.
Lots of people who want to establish connections with me on LinkedIn aren't IT people.
AIUI, SHA1 is weak in that it's possible to find collisions, not in that it's easy to find the original password.
I'm not calling them stupid. I'm calling them human, and saying that the classification of people in general as stupid is stupid. Software people are about as bad as libertarians or communists, in that they propose things that just won't work with Homo Sapiens as it exists, and blame people for screwing it up.
One reason Steve Jobs was so successful is that he knew what people would actually find useful. The walled garden is an excellent way to keep people in general out of botnets and the like.
If MS really wanted to clean up the Internet, they'd do their best to brick everyone's computer in a way that only decent system administration would avoid. Would you still defend them in that case, because they had a good goal?
Precisely.
Oracle is arguing that there's enough difference between current Java programming and Android programming that the functionality argument fails. They claim that Google could have used different APIs without losing significant functionality, since programs for the Android use sufficiently different facilities.
If you really think it's their choice and not your problem, why are you being so vocal about it?
Supporting friends and relatives directly is socially tricky, as we've found out. There's also some close relatives who have had some serious medical problems, and we could not have effectively supported them ourselves.
We're not forcing anyone to pay. If you don't like paying taxes, GTFO. Taxes are what we pay for civilization, and you don't get to enjoy the benefits without contributing if you can.
I didn't grow up in the late 19th or early 20th century, but that was a period when the laws and mores were fairly strict on gender roles. Women didn't vote or run for office. The man was the head of the family, and women did not typically have responsible roles off the farm or whatever (the upper midwest was heavily agricultural in that period).
Muslims tend to be religious conservatives, which would be a good fit for the Republicans except that the Republicans reject them. The Democrats pick up some minority groups that typically don't have Democrat values because the Democrats are more accepting of those minorities, and they vote for their own good rather than their ideology..
As a progressive, I like Islam less than the other major religions, and I dislike the culture of most Muslim countries. I enjoy pissing off the right-wing Christians, but it's much more fun to do it with references to the Bible and what Jesus was reported as saying and doing. I generally like left-wing Christians, and often only differ with them theologically. I don't know which progressives you hang around with, but the ones I hang around with generally dislike Islam and the cultures associated with it.
Sure. My wife and I put a lot more into the system than we take out.
You know what? We can afford it. We also see our tax money benefiting our less financially successful and less medically fortunate friends and relatives.