Mono will be finished just after GNU Classpath gets finished. API's grow you know. Saying that it is a.NET portable could better be called a Mono portable for that matter. Also, since there are no open source application servers for Mono (none that I found anyway), its usability can be questioned. Fortunately it seems that Forms are now supported by Mono, making cross platform GUI's at least a possability.
Re:Repeating the number is fine...but not the issu
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it is, but only because you decided to have this look at slashdot. There are many bytes on your computer, but the chances of one being this number is astronomically low. It's like storing each and every possible chess board on your computer. If decrypting was so easy, it would mean that traveling all data on your computer and decrypting with it would break the scheme. In real life though, 128 bit AES keys are unbreakable (if used correctly of course).
I've got this piece of information which I only know that the first digit starts with the number nine (00001001 in binary). I've encoded this information using a special encryption technique and a key. This to keep it from being used by persons that do not have the right to this information. Anyway, noone without should decode the number, or you would breach the DMCA. This obviously goes twice for the RI-AA.
The information is: A3 53 BB A8 37 DE 49 F1 72 EB FC 6F C9 FC 22 6A
Re:The RIAA has lots of work ahead...
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
I don't *want* JavaScript that is written to consume CPU cycles. Its bad enough that it is hard to control as it is. What if you get this same page on a computer without a fast CPU? Flash is anoying enough, let's leave it at that (and even though I am a Java programmer, I don't want Applets either, make it a WebStart application if you need my CPU cycles).
Yeah, well, duh. They don't need to. America has come to them, where they can fight the US on their terms. Much more efficient. And by now most of Iraq will be more hostile against Americans than the insurgents. 70% out of work and living conditions have declined so much that there is even no shortage of suicide bombers. Also, there is more chance of gathering support in the middle east if you fight Americans there. Even though there was such scaremongering about "Terrorist states", most governments would not support direct attacks against America. This includes - as far as I've witnessed - Iraq during Sadams rule. Iraq, well, that's another issue entirely.
Hey, this is research, not an actual implementation or anything. I was just responding to the parent because he thought it was because of electricity savings. I personally would not mind buildings getting smarter, as long as they don't put movement detectors inside of toilets (I don't like to s(h)it in the dark).
I've run straight towards a mayor gas leak in an actual emergency. If I had to do it all over, a smart sign that would get me away from the gas leak would be very welcome. Of course, the gathering point (for counting the employees) was also next to the gas leak, but trust me, I wasn't there for a very long time.
Yes, many parts of Europe separate their waste. In very populated areas (aka large cities) the separation is (much) less. This is also very specific per country. Germany is really strict about seperation, and many parts of the Netherlands are as well. I do not separate bio and plastics because I live in appartments. Also note that in the Netherlands, we basically do not use landfills anymore. The green stuff gets composted (on an industrial scale) and the rest (97% of it, to be precise) gets burned in *very* efficient furnaces, that actually filter out all the bad stuff (the bad stuff except CO2 of course) and generating some electricity as well.
Sometimes I forget that even though I do not dispose bio and plastics separately, we still collect: * chemicals * batteries * paper * clothes * bottles * raw (building) materials * electronics separately.
Sometimes different colors of glass are collected separately as well, and most beer bottles and PET bottles are returned to the store to be reused. Of course metals are not collected separately. There is not that much aluminium used in cans nowadays, and irons can be separated by a special device called a magnet. It might sound strange, but this all takes very little time and you get used to it pretty easily. Not everybody keeps to these rules of course, but on the whole, it seems to work.
Don't know which movie theaters you go to, but the ones I go to are basically big boxes, with a tilted floor for better viewing. One very important feature of these rooms is the lack of corners. Anyway, to get to the point: you will still be looking at the picture from a certain viewpoint, the one of the camera persons to be precise. This is not VR, these are movies, you know? Get yourself a VR helmet to look around corners (and possibly shoot some virtual people).
As long as you keep sending responses like that, I would not bother about encryption either. I'm trying to decode the response for a few minutes now, but I am drawing a blank.
Can somebody *please* mod this down? First of all, a certificate is not a number. You can write your own certificates, but they won't be trusted by any browsers. The end user does indeed not know about trusted third parties (TTP's) as they are called, but as long as the browsers do, they don't need to. "UltraSecure" and "SafeClick" are not part of the browsers trusted certificate store, and the browsers will rase hell if you try and authenticate with root certificates with that name. And, as another user noted, having to pay for a certificate does make a difference. You need to be known by a bank, and you cannot create any number of certificates.
You don't know shit about certificates and you are spreading fud, mister AC.
Actually, I do, and it only takes one person to catch a bad certificate.
"2: Even if they did, they don't really mean anything anyway. How difficult is it to get a real certificate with fake credentials?"
Not too difficult. There is some checking if you are a real person, so they may be able to track you down, and you need to pay some money. I won't get one for "betalen.rabobank.nl" though, which is my banking site. They probably would check if the domain has already been taken, or check against each other databases.
"3: Moreover, if the URL is similar enough to the target of your phish then your SSL certifcate may well be legitmate in every sense of the word but you trick people because the URL is close enough to a big brand's main domain."
I doubt I would get a certificate for betalen.rab0bank.nl. But if I could, and nobody would spot it and I used fake credentials, I might be able to do some phishing. I don't think it would take too much time for the scam to be found, and I do think that there would be a *lot* of attention given to this attack.
Of course, if you would take over the computer of some poor sod, you don't need all this certificate stuff anyway, just insert your own root certificate and create your own trust.
In the Netherlands, it's a joke for children to write: "Als je dit leest ben je dom." Or "You're stupid if you read this." But this is taking that same joke a bit too far. New title: "Slashdot leading cause of cancer?"
If you've got a small rocket (6 meters), that has already failed once, it's better to put part of the remains of a person in it than trying to fit a live person into it. So from that point of view I can understand this experiment.
But to shoot ashes into space, while knowing they will return anyway, and first viewing an unsucccessful launch (ugh), what's the point? Glad it worked this time, having to return a third time, only to do it all over again... that might have been hard for the relatives.
"For this to work the project must follow the 'unix way' and have many more-or-less self contained modules that work together, rather than building monolithic do-everthing apps. Not everyone seems to grok that yet, but give it time."
You are completely right on that. Just have a look at the Eclipse framework (yes, I'm a Java user), and you'll see this executed in a very clear way. It's a complete set of modules. Even the base install contains many tens of modules. The number of plugins available for Eclipse is simply astounding. What's more, you can install quite a few of them and still leave a working system, even though the whole thing runs in a single process. The reason why this works is that it's pretty clear how to use and extend the module system (it's using the OSGi framework). If you don't know: Eclipse is both a Java Development platform, but the same components are used to create Azureus, the BitTorrent file sharing application.
You will see that many great open source systems will use these kind of frameworks. Of course many already do. The firefox/thunderbird extension framework is a great example of it, but also the apache module system, the openssl crypto engines. What I do think is needed are frameworks with good documentation (including overview pictures, pretty please) and protection from malfunctioning modules. Of course, the extention points must be well documented as well. Also, the modules should have a very clear versioning system so that people don't need to install all the components of the framework again and again.
The next step will be that applications will be running in parallel with each other, leaving the idea of a single process running everything an old fashioned concept. But - as the parent states for modules - this will definitely take even more time. The current idea that this has to be done using XML and HTTP is just - well - STUPID. On a single system you get problems like configuring sockets, authentication, doing complete validation on each packet send and - yes - a huge overhead. All this just to overcome the (important) principle of compatability. But look at concepts of ESB's (enterprise service bus) to see other ways of handling this problem.
We must have run out of "haha" tags, 'cause I don't see one (yet). Can someone have a look and see if we got an old rusty one somewhere in the basement? Otherwise, we could borrow a tag from previous SCO or MS related articles.
"so what makes this guy think this particular "cloud" has agreater probability of being the source of the "cosmic rays" that "permeate" our universe?"
They don't:
"he new finding could also help explain the unwanted and confusing "noise" scientists observe in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), Kronberg said. The CMB is a ubiquitous radiation in the universe that is said to be a remnant of the Big Bang."
Now, if you read that carefully, it is said that this could explain the *noise* in the CMB, not the CMB itself. Half a point for reading through the article though.
Ugh, stupid copy/paste, that's 10 to the power of -28 watts. Not that much. Not enough to power a postcard with one of these irritating battery/chip/speaker combinations in it. Allthough these things may also be powered directly the dark forces that surround them.
Yesss, but I've just read some books on that, and I wonder if there would be enough Hawking Radiation to create an enormous superheated gas cloud. I mean, from wikipedia on Hawking radiation:
"The power in the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be a minuscule 1028 watts. It is indeed an extremely good approximation to call such an object 'black'."
I mean, how heavy do you want those things to be? Its more likely that the radiation comes from the enormous forces excerted on matter around these black holes, not from the black holes themselves.
"It IS 1984 in all respects of the book and film."
So you are saying that there is a constant war between three "continents", where two are always fighting against the one that is currently winning? I must pay more attention to those news broadcasts; I've completely missed global war.
Maybe he did. Maybe the psychiatrist said something like: "You'd better find another outlet for that anger. Otherwise you will be beat up by someone in no-time." Well, here we are.
As another reader noticed, this is not security through obscurity. As long as there are Slashdot readers out there that can correct one or two mistakes, and add some interesting/informative stories, then the system still works. Anyway, if you are that disapointed, then why the heck do you keep coming back?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, 364 out of 365.
Mono will be finished just after GNU Classpath gets finished. API's grow you know. Saying that it is a .NET portable could better be called a Mono portable for that matter. Also, since there are no open source application servers for Mono (none that I found anyway), its usability can be questioned. Fortunately it seems that Forms are now supported by Mono, making cross platform GUI's at least a possability.
Yes, it is, but only because you decided to have this look at slashdot. There are many bytes on your computer, but the chances of one being this number is astronomically low. It's like storing each and every possible chess board on your computer. If decrypting was so easy, it would mean that traveling all data on your computer and decrypting with it would break the scheme. In real life though, 128 bit AES keys are unbreakable (if used correctly of course).
I've got this piece of information which I only know that the first digit starts with the number nine (00001001 in binary). I've encoded this information using a special encryption technique and a key. This to keep it from being used by persons that do not have the right to this information. Anyway, noone without should decode the number, or you would breach the DMCA. This obviously goes twice for the RI-AA.
The information is: A3 53 BB A8 37 DE 49 F1 72 EB FC 6F C9 FC 22 6A
280.000 and going! LOL.
I don't *want* JavaScript that is written to consume CPU cycles. Its bad enough that it is hard to control as it is. What if you get this same page on a computer without a fast CPU? Flash is anoying enough, let's leave it at that (and even though I am a Java programmer, I don't want Applets either, make it a WebStart application if you need my CPU cycles).
FYI: The reason is called compassion.
Yeah, well, duh. They don't need to. America has come to them, where they can fight the US on their terms. Much more efficient. And by now most of Iraq will be more hostile against Americans than the insurgents. 70% out of work and living conditions have declined so much that there is even no shortage of suicide bombers. Also, there is more chance of gathering support in the middle east if you fight Americans there. Even though there was such scaremongering about "Terrorist states", most governments would not support direct attacks against America. This includes - as far as I've witnessed - Iraq during Sadams rule. Iraq, well, that's another issue entirely.
Hey, this is research, not an actual implementation or anything. I was just responding to the parent because he thought it was because of electricity savings. I personally would not mind buildings getting smarter, as long as they don't put movement detectors inside of toilets (I don't like to s(h)it in the dark).
I've run straight towards a mayor gas leak in an actual emergency. If I had to do it all over, a smart sign that would get me away from the gas leak would be very welcome. Of course, the gathering point (for counting the employees) was also next to the gas leak, but trust me, I wasn't there for a very long time.
Yes, many parts of Europe separate their waste. In very populated areas (aka large cities) the separation is (much) less. This is also very specific per country. Germany is really strict about seperation, and many parts of the Netherlands are as well. I do not separate bio and plastics because I live in appartments. Also note that in the Netherlands, we basically do not use landfills anymore. The green stuff gets composted (on an industrial scale) and the rest (97% of it, to be precise) gets burned in *very* efficient furnaces, that actually filter out all the bad stuff (the bad stuff except CO2 of course) and generating some electricity as well.
Sometimes I forget that even though I do not dispose bio and plastics separately, we still collect:
* chemicals
* batteries
* paper
* clothes
* bottles
* raw (building) materials
* electronics
separately.
Sometimes different colors of glass are collected separately as well, and most beer bottles and PET bottles are returned to the store to be reused. Of course metals are not collected separately. There is not that much aluminium used in cans nowadays, and irons can be separated by a special device called a magnet. It might sound strange, but this all takes very little time and you get used to it pretty easily. Not everybody keeps to these rules of course, but on the whole, it seems to work.
Don't know which movie theaters you go to, but the ones I go to are basically big boxes, with a tilted floor for better viewing. One very important feature of these rooms is the lack of corners. Anyway, to get to the point: you will still be looking at the picture from a certain viewpoint, the one of the camera persons to be precise. This is not VR, these are movies, you know? Get yourself a VR helmet to look around corners (and possibly shoot some virtual people).
As long as you keep sending responses like that, I would not bother about encryption either. I'm trying to decode the response for a few minutes now, but I am drawing a blank.
Can somebody *please* mod this down? First of all, a certificate is not a number. You can write your own certificates, but they won't be trusted by any browsers. The end user does indeed not know about trusted third parties (TTP's) as they are called, but as long as the browsers do, they don't need to. "UltraSecure" and "SafeClick" are not part of the browsers trusted certificate store, and the browsers will rase hell if you try and authenticate with root certificates with that name. And, as another user noted, having to pay for a certificate does make a difference. You need to be known by a bank, and you cannot create any number of certificates.
You don't know shit about certificates and you are spreading fud, mister AC.
"1: # Nobody actually reads the certificates."
Actually, I do, and it only takes one person to catch a bad certificate.
"2: Even if they did, they don't really mean anything anyway. How difficult is it to get a real certificate with fake credentials?"
Not too difficult. There is some checking if you are a real person, so they may be able to track you down, and you need to pay some money. I won't get one for "betalen.rabobank.nl" though, which is my banking site. They probably would check if the domain has already been taken, or check against each other databases.
"3: Moreover, if the URL is similar enough to the target of your phish then your SSL certifcate may well be legitmate in every sense of the word but you trick people because the URL is close enough to a big brand's main domain."
I doubt I would get a certificate for betalen.rab0bank.nl. But if I could, and nobody would spot it and I used fake credentials, I might be able to do some phishing. I don't think it would take too much time for the scam to be found, and I do think that there would be a *lot* of attention given to this attack.
Of course, if you would take over the computer of some poor sod, you don't need all this certificate stuff anyway, just insert your own root certificate and create your own trust.
In the Netherlands, it's a joke for children to write: "Als je dit leest ben je dom." Or "You're stupid if you read this." But this is taking that same joke a bit too far. New title: "Slashdot leading cause of cancer?"
If you've got a small rocket (6 meters), that has already failed once, it's better to put part of the remains of a person in it than trying to fit a live person into it. So from that point of view I can understand this experiment.
But to shoot ashes into space, while knowing they will return anyway, and first viewing an unsucccessful launch (ugh), what's the point? Glad it worked this time, having to return a third time, only to do it all over again... that might have been hard for the relatives.
"For this to work the project must follow the 'unix way' and have many more-or-less self contained modules that work together, rather than building monolithic do-everthing apps. Not everyone seems to grok that yet, but give it time."
You are completely right on that. Just have a look at the Eclipse framework (yes, I'm a Java user), and you'll see this executed in a very clear way. It's a complete set of modules. Even the base install contains many tens of modules. The number of plugins available for Eclipse is simply astounding. What's more, you can install quite a few of them and still leave a working system, even though the whole thing runs in a single process. The reason why this works is that it's pretty clear how to use and extend the module system (it's using the OSGi framework). If you don't know: Eclipse is both a Java Development platform, but the same components are used to create Azureus, the BitTorrent file sharing application.
You will see that many great open source systems will use these kind of frameworks. Of course many already do. The firefox/thunderbird extension framework is a great example of it, but also the apache module system, the openssl crypto engines. What I do think is needed are frameworks with good documentation (including overview pictures, pretty please) and protection from malfunctioning modules. Of course, the extention points must be well documented as well. Also, the modules should have a very clear versioning system so that people don't need to install all the components of the framework again and again.
The next step will be that applications will be running in parallel with each other, leaving the idea of a single process running everything an old fashioned concept. But - as the parent states for modules - this will definitely take even more time. The current idea that this has to be done using XML and HTTP is just - well - STUPID. On a single system you get problems like configuring sockets, authentication, doing complete validation on each packet send and - yes - a huge overhead. All this just to overcome the (important) principle of compatability. But look at concepts of ESB's (enterprise service bus) to see other ways of handling this problem.
Just my point of view.
We must have run out of "haha" tags, 'cause I don't see one (yet). Can someone have a look and see if we got an old rusty one somewhere in the basement? Otherwise, we could borrow a tag from previous SCO or MS related articles.
"so what makes this guy think this particular "cloud" has agreater probability of being the source of the "cosmic rays" that "permeate" our universe?"
They don't:
"he new finding could also help explain the unwanted and confusing "noise" scientists observe in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), Kronberg said. The CMB is a ubiquitous radiation in the universe that is said to be a remnant of the Big Bang."
Now, if you read that carefully, it is said that this could explain the *noise* in the CMB, not the CMB itself. Half a point for reading through the article though.
Ugh, stupid copy/paste, that's 10 to the power of -28 watts. Not that much. Not enough to power a postcard with one of these irritating battery/chip/speaker combinations in it. Allthough these things may also be powered directly the dark forces that surround them.
Yesss, but I've just read some books on that, and I wonder if there would be enough Hawking Radiation to create an enormous superheated gas cloud. I mean, from wikipedia on Hawking radiation:
"The power in the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be a minuscule 1028 watts. It is indeed an extremely good approximation to call such an object 'black'."
I mean, how heavy do you want those things to be? Its more likely that the radiation comes from the enormous forces excerted on matter around these black holes, not from the black holes themselves.
"It IS 1984 in all respects of the book and film."
So you are saying that there is a constant war between three "continents", where two are always fighting against the one that is currently winning? I must pay more attention to those news broadcasts; I've completely missed global war.
"Dude, go to anger management counselling."
Maybe he did. Maybe the psychiatrist said something like: "You'd better find another outlet for that anger. Otherwise you will be beat up by someone in no-time." Well, here we are.
As another reader noticed, this is not security through obscurity. As long as there are Slashdot readers out there that can correct one or two mistakes, and add some interesting/informative stories, then the system still works. Anyway, if you are that disapointed, then why the heck do you keep coming back?