I distrust the popular notion on Slashdot that exposure of source is somehow equivalent to (or somehow guarantees) peer review in the medical and scientific sense of critical examination by experts in their field.
Good point. I should have said that it makes peer review "more possible/likely." Generally, the only crypto softwares that I personally trust are PGP, (GnuPG) and OpenSSL. True, I haven't pored over their sources myself, but those particular projects appear to get enough attention from "the experts" to qualify as being peer reviewed.
Just my personal opinion, but I think the greatest security shortfalls of widely accepted crypto software (PGP, GnuPG, OpenSSL, etc.) exist in how the user uses them or fails to respect other security concerns.
Open source is critically important with crypto, IMHO. Crypto seems to me to be something that a malicious entity would be more likely to put a backdoor into, instead of, say, an image editing program. Open source, as we all know, means that the code can be audited and compiled by a trusted party (myself), thus guaranteeing the legitimacy of the program. Perhaps more importantly, open source means the software is subject to peer review.
I'm sure it probably meant something to someone at some time. It's probably what it looks like, an anachronistic, custom-made/. acronym. Which would explain why nobody has any clue what the hell it stands for.
the suicide bomber won't win because he'll be dead. in fact, he makes it much more likely that people that support him will lose. because of his actions, a bunch of $10 million missiles will eventually be on their way to roast some "tents." what alternate reality do you live in that you can interpret this as winning?
the suicide bomber will only win if you want him to.
i don't know, the whooshing and other noises my fan makes are more like white noise - it certainly covers a much broader spectrum than a simple hum, and it's loud enough to be more than background noise
of course, i don't know what i'm talking about, so take my comment for whatever you think it's worth
i'm not concerned with maintaining a network, but it's been great for analyzing a protocol or two
i've never even tried anything other than ethereal, it's just been that good. i haven't had any reason to look for anything else.
well, you wouldn't need a super-dehumidifier. if it's insulated/sealed (except for a small hole to release pressure) condensation shouldn't be a problem. the nitrogen itself is dry, and what little moisture remained could be taken care of with some dessicant
even just getting tanks of liquid nitrogen would be cheaper ($0.60 per liter), easier (just insulate the box and set it up to drip over the cpu) and would make your cpu much colder (down to about 77K...as opposed to 163K)
maybe i didn't make myself clear. no, microsoft doesn't want the US to localize its software, but the US wants microsoft to localize its software overseas. and yes, i'm sure microsoft would want lithuania to localize/buy their software
how is what i propose ridiculous? you really think the US has no interest in its companies being successful in foreign markets? the more money US companies bring home, the better
has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code? or rumors? i guess linus wouldn't make a statement about it now, since there's the lawsuit going on
solves all this by never entering any financial data anywhere on the internet. he's not a knowledgeable computer user, and he knows it. in his case, and in the case of many non technically-minded individuals, it seems much easier to simply avoid all online financial transactions.
i think his simple approach to avoiding online financial risks makes a lot of sense. many of my non-tech friends/family members might be taken in by a scam like this, and given how painful it is to explain computer things to them, from now on i'll just tell them never, under any circumstances, to enter financial data on the web.
so maybe that's why google never tells me anything about servicing this teletype machine...
it's amazing to think how much more information we'd have access to if google (or another search engine) could search 90% of what's out there. i mean, just at 1% we already say, "google knows all"
i wish i had mod points to mod the grandparent down and parent up
the grandparent is obviously a partisan troll (modded up by partisan moderators), but the parent actually shows some insight...or at least points out the obvious;o)
i wish i had mod point to mod grandparent down and parent up
the grandparent is obviously a partisan troll (modded up by partisan mods)
the parent is pointing out reality
then the nmap team itself will be in violation of the GPL and will lose the right to use their own code.
IANAL, but i don't think this is possible. an author can release their product under any license they wish. for example, if i wanted to use nmap code in a closed source commercial product, nmap could (if they wanted) license their code out to me under a non-GPL scheme. unless publishing something under GPL means releasing it into the public domain (in the legal sense) or specifically releasing legal rights to their work, the author cannot lose the rights to their own work. someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but i didn't think the GPL prevents the author from giving out alternate licenses.
although, i agree, the author could only revoke someone's rights to use their (GPL'ed) code if that licensee violated the GPL
Slashdot Mirror
I distrust the popular notion on Slashdot that exposure of source is somehow equivalent to (or somehow guarantees) peer review in the medical and scientific sense of critical examination by experts in their field.
Good point. I should have said that it makes peer review "more possible/likely." Generally, the only crypto softwares that I personally trust are PGP, (GnuPG) and OpenSSL. True, I haven't pored over their sources myself, but those particular projects appear to get enough attention from "the experts" to qualify as being peer reviewed.
Just my personal opinion, but I think the greatest security shortfalls of widely accepted crypto software (PGP, GnuPG, OpenSSL, etc.) exist in how the user uses them or fails to respect other security concerns.Open source is critically important with crypto, IMHO. Crypto seems to me to be something that a malicious entity would be more likely to put a backdoor into, instead of, say, an image editing program. Open source, as we all know, means that the code can be audited and compiled by a trusted party (myself), thus guaranteeing the legitimacy of the program. Perhaps more importantly, open source means the software is subject to peer review.
I'm sure it probably meant something to someone at some time. It's probably what it looks like, an anachronistic, custom-made /. acronym. Which would explain why nobody has any clue what the hell it stands for.
the suicide bomber won't win because he'll be dead. in fact, he makes it much more likely that people that support him will lose. because of his actions, a bunch of $10 million missiles will eventually be on their way to roast some "tents." what alternate reality do you live in that you can interpret this as winning?
the suicide bomber will only win if you want him to.though imperfect, for years we've had a version that destroys small arms fire...it's called "return fire" ;o)
i don't know, the whooshing and other noises my fan makes are more like white noise - it certainly covers a much broader spectrum than a simple hum, and it's loud enough to be more than background noise
of course, i don't know what i'm talking about, so take my comment for whatever you think it's worthIANAL, but...i don't think you can sue someone for patent infringement if they were doing it first. anyone know how prior art plays into this?
i'm not concerned with maintaining a network, but it's been great for analyzing a protocol or two i've never even tried anything other than ethereal, it's just been that good. i haven't had any reason to look for anything else.
page loads automated audio file
browser: "close all other tabs"
user: "what the hell!"well, you wouldn't need a super-dehumidifier. if it's insulated/sealed (except for a small hole to release pressure) condensation shouldn't be a problem. the nitrogen itself is dry, and what little moisture remained could be taken care of with some dessicant
even just getting tanks of liquid nitrogen would be cheaper ($0.60 per liter), easier (just insulate the box and set it up to drip over the cpu) and would make your cpu much colder (down to about 77K...as opposed to 163K)
The problem is, naturally, that you're probably doing this after the detonation.
it lets us know who we'll have to vaporize in retaliationmaybe i didn't make myself clear. no, microsoft doesn't want the US to localize its software, but the US wants microsoft to localize its software overseas. and yes, i'm sure microsoft would want lithuania to localize/buy their software
how is what i propose ridiculous? you really think the US has no interest in its companies being successful in foreign markets? the more money US companies bring home, the bettergoon: what is your greatest fear?
me: rats! i mean...rats, i hate these questions...row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream...otoh, it is very much in the United States' interest to promote US businesses overseas
it increases our market share in the global economy, and that is a good thing for us as a Nation, which is why the government is getting involvedanyhow, i would like to see another serious option besides xfree86
xfree86 crashes quite frequently for mehas there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code? or rumors? i guess linus wouldn't make a statement about it now, since there's the lawsuit going on
but the problem here is when he (or other computer illiterates) personally enter the data and have to deal with deceptive spam, popups, etc.
solves all this by never entering any financial data anywhere on the internet. he's not a knowledgeable computer user, and he knows it. in his case, and in the case of many non technically-minded individuals, it seems much easier to simply avoid all online financial transactions.
i think his simple approach to avoiding online financial risks makes a lot of sense. many of my non-tech friends/family members might be taken in by a scam like this, and given how painful it is to explain computer things to them, from now on i'll just tell them never, under any circumstances, to enter financial data on the web.so maybe that's why google never tells me anything about servicing this teletype machine...
it's amazing to think how much more information we'd have access to if google (or another search engine) could search 90% of what's out there. i mean, just at 1% we already say, "google knows all"i wish i had mod points to mod the grandparent down and parent up
...or at least points out the obvious ;o)
the grandparent is obviously a partisan troll (modded up by partisan moderators), but the parent actually shows some insight
i wish i had mod point to mod grandparent down and parent up the grandparent is obviously a partisan troll (modded up by partisan mods) the parent is pointing out reality
seriously, just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually bought something because of a spam ad or know somebody that did?
but here's the real question: why??
in link form
IANAL, but i don't think this is possible. an author can release their product under any license they wish. for example, if i wanted to use nmap code in a closed source commercial product, nmap could (if they wanted) license their code out to me under a non-GPL scheme. unless publishing something under GPL means releasing it into the public domain (in the legal sense) or specifically releasing legal rights to their work, the author cannot lose the rights to their own work. someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but i didn't think the GPL prevents the author from giving out alternate licenses.
although, i agree, the author could only revoke someone's rights to use their (GPL'ed) code if that licensee violated the GPL