You can't very well hide the problems from them. I have found the best method is saying how what we have works, but this is how it could be much better for a small cost. Emphasize how what you are doing is best with what you have, and be sure to explain the cons of the other options. As long as the think you know what your talking about, I think you should be fine.
But then again, don't scream at me when there is someone from India doing your job from SSH.:)
Well, the science revolution and with it, Linux, are a type of reform. They could very well not agree with the policy, remember, not too long ago women here didn't have equal rights. I just think that this whole line of thought is irrelevant to the point of the article. No offense to you.
And I am sure you can find someone in any group that has some hatred for Jews, Blacks and so forth. The point was despite all of the "crazy" things they do, they still are classical geeks.
Also, most steg-ed messages are encrypted, and appear as random anyway. And since the government doesn't have a quick way to decrypt encryption, it would still just have go use statistics.
But with images, you steg by slighty tinting colors, so this is much harder to find. Also, two things we should consider:
-The second this is finished, programs will be made against their algorithm. This means that people will find a weakness (since these algorithms mostly are built around certain strengths) and exploit them.
-Secondly, do you really want people to have this program? I guess it would make programs better though.
Privacy is for all, not just Americans, unless you are for the shooting of Chinese if they voice democratic beliefs. Besides privacy, the system won't work since it is easy enough to travel through Canada or an "allowed" country, especially if you aren't Arab, sadly.
I don't agree with you there, you can see Microsoft is making better products because of Linux and other factors. I think it is better if Linux ran the world than Microsoft, but it is best if they play off of one another and both create great products that offer different options to different people.
You have an agreement between major ISPs in which ISPs have some cryptographic method of making sure that the person (most likely) isn't a spammer. This can be done through hash puzzles or signatures. Then, the person's emails automatically get a low spam score (as in SpamAssassin) if it verifies that they are a real person. The ISPs would have certificates or some key system. This hybrid network would last for a while, and as more and more people learn that they get blacklisted if they don't use this system, more and more people will join in. Eventually, you could make an easy transition and just have people denying service to older users.
Forget trackable, what do foreigners care about U.S. lawyers?
It is called hash puzzles. You could probably look it up online to find a better explaination, but I will explain it here since I research in it.
Basically, you send whoever you want to do work a puzzle, which is only part of the data you are trying to send. You can also send a hash of the original data, since hashs aren't reverseable, you don't reveal data this way. Then, the person wanting the data brute forces the "could be data" until the hashes match.
This is just a simplification, obviously, you probably want the data to be a cryptographic key so that the data is random and the best way to brute force is through random guessing.
Re:SCO only getting 1 paragraph understandable...
on
The Year In Tech Law
·
· Score: 0
CNET has money, read up on who the author is. Gigalaw is a pretty well know, prestigous, site.
I saw this ages ago, and this whole generator is just something to support his book, in which he talks about robo-poets. All the poetry has less meaning than anything a fourth-grader could make, and isn't that what poetry is about? Just because someone reads Eliot or Pinsky and sees fancy words and meaningless allutions, doesn't mean it is true.
Don't you guys realize that MAC addresses can be changed? It is fairly easy to do with software, but extremely hard to do directly to the hardware.
If you guys really want to know how the government does the forensics, read "Computer Forensics: Incident Response Essentials" by Kruse and Heiser. Well written book that is easy to read and teaches you a lot about this type of stuff and also analyzing machines.
It is easier to read the book than prove that Big Brother is out to get you.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't a blue screen make it harder for the actors to show any emotion beyond sheer anger?
They are Windows users, aren't they?
Who wants to host a server?
Actually Beatrice Hall said that in a book about Voltaire. That quote was her paraphrasing him. The book came out in the early 1900s.
No,
The first rule of bugs is, you do not talk about bugs. The second rule of bugs is, YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT BUGS!
-From a memo to Microsoft's new employees
You can't very well hide the problems from them. I have found the best method is saying how what we have works, but this is how it could be much better for a small cost. Emphasize how what you are doing is best with what you have, and be sure to explain the cons of the other options. As long as the think you know what your talking about, I think you should be fine.
:)
But then again, don't scream at me when there is someone from India doing your job from SSH.
Uh, hosting? Bandwidth? The actual servers? IT personel? The building? And so on and so forth.
Why not start saying that harddrives cost the maker much less per GB?
Well, the science revolution and with it, Linux, are a type of reform. They could very well not agree with the policy, remember, not too long ago women here didn't have equal rights. I just think that this whole line of thought is irrelevant to the point of the article. No offense to you.
And I am sure you can find someone in any group that has some hatred for Jews, Blacks and so forth. The point was despite all of the "crazy" things they do, they still are classical geeks.
I will wear it on my flight to Cuba.
Also, most steg-ed messages are encrypted, and appear as random anyway. And since the government doesn't have a quick way to decrypt encryption, it would still just have go use statistics.
But with images, you steg by slighty tinting colors, so this is much harder to find. Also, two things we should consider:
-The second this is finished, programs will be made against their algorithm. This means that people will find a weakness (since these algorithms mostly are built around certain strengths) and exploit them.
-Secondly, do you really want people to have this program? I guess it would make programs better though.
"CD audio is not a lossy compression scheme"
You loose quality when you put it on CD, "but you knew that."
Privacy is for all, not just Americans, unless you are for the shooting of Chinese if they voice democratic beliefs. Besides privacy, the system won't work since it is easy enough to travel through Canada or an "allowed" country, especially if you aren't Arab, sadly.
Besides misspelling, I didn't think my joke was funny enough for a 5. Oh well.
I don't agree with you there, you can see Microsoft is making better products because of Linux and other factors. I think it is better if Linux ran the world than Microsoft, but it is best if they play off of one another and both create great products that offer different options to different people.
You can download the service pack here
This is how it would work:
You have an agreement between major ISPs in which ISPs have some cryptographic method of making sure that the person (most likely) isn't a spammer. This can be done through hash puzzles or signatures. Then, the person's emails automatically get a low spam score (as in SpamAssassin) if it verifies that they are a real person. The ISPs would have certificates or some key system. This hybrid network would last for a while, and as more and more people learn that they get blacklisted if they don't use this system, more and more people will join in. Eventually, you could make an easy transition and just have people denying service to older users.
Forget trackable, what do foreigners care about U.S. lawyers?
It is called hash puzzles. You could probably look it up online to find a better explaination, but I will explain it here since I research in it.
Basically, you send whoever you want to do work a puzzle, which is only part of the data you are trying to send. You can also send a hash of the original data, since hashs aren't reverseable, you don't reveal data this way. Then, the person wanting the data brute forces the "could be data" until the hashes match.
This is just a simplification, obviously, you probably want the data to be a cryptographic key so that the data is random and the best way to brute force is through random guessing.
CNET has money, read up on who the author is. Gigalaw is a pretty well know, prestigous, site.
Does the story of how the divide between windows and Unix came about start with fallen angels?
No, public domain.
I think I misspoke.
I agree with you though. I was referring to the generated poetry being filth, real poetry is a reason to wake up.
I saw this ages ago, and this whole generator is just something to support his book, in which he talks about robo-poets. All the poetry has less meaning than anything a fourth-grader could make, and isn't that what poetry is about? Just because someone reads Eliot or Pinsky and sees fancy words and meaningless allutions, doesn't mean it is true.
Don't you guys realize that MAC addresses can be changed? It is fairly easy to do with software, but extremely hard to do directly to the hardware.
If you guys really want to know how the government does the forensics, read "Computer Forensics: Incident Response Essentials" by Kruse and Heiser. Well written book that is easy to read and teaches you a lot about this type of stuff and also analyzing machines.
It is easier to read the book than prove that Big Brother is out to get you.
Money is a motivator just like fame.