Actually the idea makes a fair amount of sense. We can't get rid of the pattent system. Fighting it costs valuable time and money. So we're left with yield and over come. The rest is just implimentation details.
If the patent were handed over to say the OSDN or EFF, they could then handle the details for everyones benefit. Open Source developers could use it for free. And for profit enties would be required to pay X percent of the revenue for use. That X percent could then be fed back into the community.
You complaints seem to be about the implimentation. That's fixable. I think if the implimentation were well thought out it could be quite benficial.
The Angel of the Lord(tm) did NOT appear to me with RedHat install CDs one evening. I got a small email from my roommate saying, "Hey, you ever heard of this Linux thing?"
I like that. If you don't object I'm gonna make like a thief and use that.
I don't care about the retooling. The core problem with this idea is the concept of handing out codes. Retraining users will be a pain in the ass. Not to mention just tracking the codes would suck. Say I meet someone in real life. How do I have a code to give them? Do I have to have a buisness card with codes on it? Do I need a computer just to exchange an email address.
If you want to use codes or signatures, It has to be server side. That way a server could sign an email as valid. Then my email client could take that signature under advisement when the email actually arrives. The difference in action is an excercise left to the reader. However its alot nicer in the ease of use hurdles and doesn't screw old setups.
How is the encryption system destroyed? The system may be weak or easily compromised but it hasn't changed any. It's still the same system it was when Apple released it. A weakness doesn't suddenly come into existance because some one exploits it. It was always there to begin with.
I may be in the stone ages but I've been playing with Perl's Tk library a bit lately. Every thing goes together like a dream. And at least for Linux to Windows, portability is trivial. My current project works on bith with no changes. I'll probably make an appearence change. But thats trivial.
I'd say it's a semi worth while set of requirements. It serves it's purpose as a cover your ass by making the proper motions to proctect our military secrets. That means there are a bunch of paperwork requirements in addition to the actual requirements. Since it's easier for Microsoft to generate the needed paperwork, they have an EAL 4 while SuSE has an EAL3.
In a way comparing military security requirements to corprate security requirements is like comparing Apples to Oranges. They have much more control over how the computer interacts with the world than we do. They also consider having it guarded 27/7 feasible.
While I generally agree that reinventing the wheel is bad. Most of these seem to be unexamples.
IPv4 vs IPv6 - This is one of those things that has to change sometime. The sooner something like this gets fixed the easier it is for everyone.
Perl 5 vs 6. - As I understand it Parrot will run Perl5 code so who cares and there is enough developer mass behind Perl that the transition should be smooth.
Netscape 4 vs Mozilla - I'm runnig Firebird on a 400 Mhz Celeron with only 96Mb of memory and the thought of going back to Netscape 4 is horrible. Apart from speed I can't think of a sinlge thing that isn't better. And speed is relative since, browser crashes mean I have to refind the page I was looking at or giveup and use somehting else to view that page. In fact I'd say this is a strong arguement in favor of rewrites.
HTML vs a plethora of better standards - Why would you use netscape 4? It's broken. The problem with HTML is people and programs actually destroy information with it. We loose track of what belongs to what section of a document. Whats a title or heading and whats just bold.
Windows 2k vs 2003 server - From what I've gather they actually are improving. Though in a confused Microsoft manor. I doubt most people want to return to DOS of even Windows 98.
huh? As a software "comsumer" I just install and run what I want to use. If there's a fork I just run the one I want or the predicted winner. If they remerge then I have some work but it's no more or less than say upgrading windows. As a developer though forks are a pain in the ass. Because then bugs can be fixed in one fork but not another.
Since I have a similar setup. I have something to say to the rest of the world. "Where have you guys been?"
Direct keyboard access to the applications you need is a huge productivity boost. I'm constantly suprised it's not as prevalant as the little "X" to close windows.
Because, it's drags who I am and what I stand for through the mud. My father was a programmer and referred to as a hacker (in the good sense). I'm a programmer and would like similar references to be applied to me. However I'd be much happier if it wouldn't cause people to think I break into computers.
As far as it being an elitist term, I say "so what?" I spend alot of time working on my skills and trying to improve how I do things. I have a right to consider myself above someone who just considers it a 9 to 5 job.
I've seen something like this elsewhere but it's still neat. For all the work I've done in C++, I still find I lack a huge chunk of knowledge of the language itself. I think part of it is my lack of excitement over most "learning foo" language books. I'm alot happier when things start out with code and then follow with a quick explanation and perhaps a few links to more info. The book "The Little Lisper" seemed to follow this format. It was fairly nice.
Are there any good source for C++ in this kind of format? I really like the "here's the magic" "here's why the magic works" format.
Actually it could be much harder than it seems. They could sign the key and exchange signatures.
The problem with the man in the middle attack is you have to do it quickly and at the right time. Otherwise you screw up a key exchange while you're connecting. And if they use say a digital signature on the keys then all your keys end up invalid. Then your only window of attack is before the inital key exchange. Even that could be foild by Alice and Bob checking thing over an out of band channel.
The big limit here is the physical connection. That really limits what can be done with it. On the other hand some companies may not mind that. If it's physically possible to set up the link then someone will probably find it worth paying for.
Server side filtering helps alot. Our mail filter removes anything that smells executable and does a virus scan. They can't run it if it never arrives. Odds are they dont need to run it so it doesn't matter either. It seems to have realy clamped down on things.
Perfect may be an illusion. However perfect enough may not. Much like psuedo random numbers are enough for many purposes.
Another thought goes somehting like this. According to the master (Donald Knuth), we can prove algorithms correct. So it is concievable that that they could be proven secure also. It's at least worth looking into. Even if we can't prove them 100% secure we should be able to prove them secure against a range of attacks.
Since blogs accept data from people rather than automated progams they should have alot more freedom to filter spam. Due to old as dirt servers and email's fire and forget nature spam it alot harder to stop in email.
Perhaps spam blocking the blog world will become more advanced than in the email world.
Mirrors would require that your laser to do more work to achieve the same result. Whether that requires more power or more time is another matter. But it doess affect what you can do. You only have so much time to actaully destroy a round before it arrives. If the mirror buys that time, it's good enough.
The whole fair weather thing is another huge detractor. Since the enemy won't always attack during fair weather, you have to carry other stuff to make up for it. Which means it has to be smaller/lighter to allow for the other stuff.
I'd say this technology has an uphill battle before it becomes really useful.
Actually he claims Microsoft invented personal computing. Which has slightly more truth to it than inventing the personal computer. Micrsoft's big addition was Microsoft basic. I'd say it's impact on the current outcome of personal computing though is minor. I may be crazy but I'd say the GUI had more impact than yet another version of Basic. Strangly enough Microsoft invented neither.
I wonder if Microsoft has actually invented anything.
I don't really care but this benchmark is wack. Some of the PC's have RAID some dont. Some have twice the memory others dont. One of the G5's id dual processor. The MACs are of course running at a different clock speed. Once you throw out the disimilar tests, they dont really look all that different.
I will say that it looks like AMD did a decent job of overcoming the crudy Intel architecture,
Yes and No. Buffer overflows are a symptom of the ANSI C library. Which I wouldn't consider part of the language but others may debate that point. In my experience, strcpy is much easier to use than many of the safer approaches. This means that many programmers will use strcpy and there will be a fair amount of insecure code.
My approach has been to write my own string class thats does what I want easily. It takes a little investment but it seems to recoup the lost time overall. Yeah I know it's non standard but the results are more appealling to me than the ugly STL string class.
Yeah. Most people will pass it by. On the other hand, college and highs school students tend to be broke. When I was in college $250 would have been very tempting.
A friend of mine told me about using "dd" and "strings" to recovers students' papers from dead floppies. It means all the formatting data is lost but it beats nothing. Makes cute girls really happy when you save their paper. I used the same approach to recover a web page my fiance was working on.
Since filesystems like storing data in continuos blocks and a large portion of peoples' valuable data is text, you recover a fair amount this way regardless of file system type.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the idea makes a fair amount of sense. We can't get rid of the pattent system. Fighting it costs valuable time and money. So we're left with yield and over come. The rest is just implimentation details.
If the patent were handed over to say the OSDN or EFF, they could then handle the details for everyones benefit. Open Source developers could use it for free. And for profit enties would be required to pay X percent of the revenue for use. That X percent could then be fed back into the community.
You complaints seem to be about the implimentation. That's fixable. I think if the implimentation were well thought out it could be quite benficial.
The Angel of the Lord(tm) did NOT appear to me with RedHat install CDs one evening. I got a small email from my roommate saying, "Hey, you ever heard of this Linux thing?"
I like that. If you don't object I'm gonna make like a thief and use that.
I don't care about the retooling. The core problem with this idea is the concept of handing out codes. Retraining users will be a pain in the ass. Not to mention just tracking the codes would suck. Say I meet someone in real life. How do I have a code to give them? Do I have to have a buisness card with codes on it? Do I need a computer just to exchange an email address.
If you want to use codes or signatures, It has to be server side. That way a server could sign an email as valid. Then my email client could take that signature under advisement when the email actually arrives. The difference in action is an excercise left to the reader. However its alot nicer in the ease of use hurdles and doesn't screw old setups.
How is the encryption system destroyed? The system may be weak or easily compromised but it hasn't changed any. It's still the same system it was when Apple released it. A weakness doesn't suddenly come into existance because some one exploits it. It was always there to begin with.
I may be in the stone ages but I've been playing with Perl's Tk library a bit lately. Every thing goes together like a dream. And at least for Linux to Windows, portability is trivial. My current project works on bith with no changes. I'll probably make an appearence change. But thats trivial.
No. It's "Heroin the cure for coughs". Do a google search for it. It was originally a cough supressant produced by Bayer.
hmmmm... Makes me glad almost all off this is automated for us
Signatures: autmomatically updated,
Emails: automatically scanned,
Warning emails: automatically goto the right folder.
Automation, how I love thee let me count the ways.
I'd say it's a semi worth while set of requirements. It serves it's purpose as a cover your ass by making the proper motions to proctect our military secrets. That means there are a bunch of paperwork requirements in addition to the actual requirements. Since it's easier for Microsoft to generate the needed paperwork, they have an EAL 4 while SuSE has an EAL3.
In a way comparing military security requirements to corprate security requirements is like comparing Apples to Oranges. They have much more control over how the computer interacts with the world than we do. They also consider having it guarded 27/7 feasible.
While I generally agree that reinventing the wheel is bad. Most of these seem to be unexamples.
IPv4 vs IPv6 - This is one of those things that has to change sometime. The sooner something like this gets fixed the easier it is for everyone.
Perl 5 vs 6. - As I understand it Parrot will run Perl5 code so who cares and there is enough developer mass behind Perl that the transition should be smooth.
Netscape 4 vs Mozilla - I'm runnig Firebird on a 400 Mhz Celeron with only 96Mb of memory and the thought of going back to Netscape 4 is horrible. Apart from speed I can't think of a sinlge thing that isn't better. And speed is relative since, browser crashes mean I have to refind the page I was looking at or giveup and use somehting else to view that page. In fact I'd say this is a strong arguement in favor of rewrites.
HTML vs a plethora of better standards - Why would you use netscape 4? It's broken. The problem with HTML is people and programs actually destroy information with it. We loose track of what belongs to what section of a document. Whats a title or heading and whats just bold.
Windows 2k vs 2003 server - From what I've gather they actually are improving. Though in a confused Microsoft manor. I doubt most people want to return to DOS of even Windows 98.
jadams@fuzball:~$ apt-cache search kde | wc -l
580
jadams@fuzball:~$
Hmmm.... looks like it's there to me. I don't really use it but it's there.
jadams@fuzball:~$ apt-cache policy kde
kde:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 4:2.2.25
Version Table:
4:3.1.2 0
500 http://http.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
4:2.2.25 0
500 http://http.us.debian.org woody/main Packages
990 http://http.us.debian.org sarge/main Packages
jadams@fuzball:~$
Yeah even looks supported.
huh? As a software "comsumer" I just install and run what I want to use. If there's a fork I just run the one I want or the predicted winner. If they remerge then I have some work but it's no more or less than say upgrading windows. As a developer though forks are a pain in the ass. Because then bugs can be fixed in one fork but not another.
Since I have a similar setup. I have something to say to the rest of the world. "Where have you guys been?"
Direct keyboard access to the applications you need is a huge productivity boost. I'm constantly suprised it's not as prevalant as the little "X" to close windows.
Because, it's drags who I am and what I stand for through the mud. My father was a programmer and referred to as a hacker (in the good sense). I'm a programmer and would like similar references to be applied to me. However I'd be much happier if it wouldn't cause people to think I break into computers.
As far as it being an elitist term, I say "so what?" I spend alot of time working on my skills and trying to improve how I do things. I have a right to consider myself above someone who just considers it a 9 to 5 job.
Last I knew apt was able to verify the packages via gpg signatures. So though it's still a concern it should be much less of one.
Though I would like to know how the machines were compromised? If those machines were running Woody then it could affect a number of other people.
I've seen something like this elsewhere but it's still neat. For all the work I've done in C++, I still find I lack a huge chunk of knowledge of the language itself. I think part of it is my lack of excitement over most "learning foo" language books. I'm alot happier when things start out with code and then follow with a quick explanation and perhaps a few links to more info. The book "The Little Lisper" seemed to follow this format. It was fairly nice.
Are there any good source for C++ in this kind of format? I really like the "here's the magic" "here's why the magic works" format.
Actually it could be much harder than it seems. They could sign the key and exchange signatures.
The problem with the man in the middle attack is you have to do it quickly and at the right time. Otherwise you screw up a key exchange while you're connecting. And if they use say a digital signature on the keys then all your keys end up invalid. Then your only window of attack is before the inital key exchange. Even that could be foild by Alice and Bob checking thing over an out of band channel.
The big limit here is the physical connection. That really limits what can be done with it. On the other hand some companies may not mind that. If it's physically possible to set up the link then someone will probably find it worth paying for.
Server side filtering helps alot. Our mail filter removes anything that smells executable and does a virus scan. They can't run it if it never arrives. Odds are they dont need to run it so it doesn't matter either. It seems to have realy clamped down on things.
Perfect may be an illusion. However perfect enough may not. Much like psuedo random numbers are enough for many purposes.
Another thought goes somehting like this. According to the master (Donald Knuth), we can prove algorithms correct. So it is concievable that that they could be proven secure also. It's at least worth looking into. Even if we can't prove them 100% secure we should be able to prove them secure against a range of attacks.
Since blogs accept data from people rather than automated progams they should have alot more freedom to filter spam. Due to old as dirt servers and email's fire and forget nature spam it alot harder to stop in email.
Perhaps spam blocking the blog world will become more advanced than in the email world.
Mirrors would require that your laser to do more work to achieve the same result. Whether that requires more power or more time is another matter. But it doess affect what you can do. You only have so much time to actaully destroy a round before it arrives. If the mirror buys that time, it's good enough.
The whole fair weather thing is another huge detractor. Since the enemy won't always attack during fair weather, you have to carry other stuff to make up for it. Which means it has to be smaller/lighter to allow for the other stuff.
I'd say this technology has an uphill battle before it becomes really useful.
Actually he claims Microsoft invented personal computing. Which has slightly more truth to it than inventing the personal computer. Micrsoft's big addition was Microsoft basic. I'd say it's impact on the current outcome of personal computing though is minor. I may be crazy but I'd say the GUI had more impact than yet another version of Basic. Strangly enough Microsoft invented neither.
I wonder if Microsoft has actually invented anything.
I don't really care but this benchmark is wack. Some of the PC's have RAID some dont. Some have twice the memory others dont. One of the G5's id dual processor. The MACs are of course running at a different clock speed. Once you throw out the disimilar tests, they dont really look all that different.
I will say that it looks like AMD did a decent job of overcoming the crudy Intel architecture,
Anyway not much really interesting here.
Yes and No. Buffer overflows are a symptom of the ANSI C library. Which I wouldn't consider part of the language but others may debate that point. In my experience, strcpy is much easier to use than many of the safer approaches. This means that many programmers will use strcpy and there will be a fair amount of insecure code.
My approach has been to write my own string class thats does what I want easily. It takes a little investment but it seems to recoup the lost time overall. Yeah I know it's non standard but the results are more appealling to me than the ugly STL string class.
Yeah. Most people will pass it by. On the other hand, college and highs school students tend to be broke. When I was in college $250 would have been very tempting.
A friend of mine told me about using "dd" and "strings" to recovers students' papers from dead floppies. It means all the formatting data is lost but it beats nothing. Makes cute girls really happy when you save their paper. I used the same approach to recover a web page my fiance was working on.
Since filesystems like storing data in continuos blocks and a large portion of peoples' valuable data is text, you recover a fair amount this way regardless of file system type.