This is true, but only if you assume that the egg refers to any egg - if it's a chicken egg, then the chicken must have come first as only chickens can lay chicken eggs.
"Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it."
Actually it's easy to tell the difference - good guys would stop your car or search it without probable cause or a warrent.
I guess is why the law says it's illegal to facilitate sending anonymous emails - the site, anonymousemail.com, can be prosecuted for allowing someone to send an email from thier server, the Feds go in a say, "Tell us who sent it or we'll see you in court." And hence, why they are challenging the law.
A section of the The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 that Bush signed into law 5 Jan, makes it illegal to send an anonymous email, as well as to facilitate in sending one. The combination of this ruling and the new law makes it impossible to send untraceable emails.
Actually, copyright means it's up to the owner how it's viewed, or even how it's linked to - this ruling basically says that you have to get permission from the copyright holder to link to the content. Just because a site contains illegal content shouldn't make linking to it illegal as well.
There is a difference between being able to see a site and being able to link to it. In this case, the defendent was just linking to the site. It begs the question of how many degrees of separation is required before a link isn't infringing. And what if it isn't a link, but just the text (so you would have to cut and paste to get to the site), or a link to a google query that brings up the site in question.
Getting back to the point, there has definitely been instances where cease and desist letters have been sent because of deep links to content, and I have seen sites that have very specific rules about how links to content should appear.
Finally, I never said that viewing copyright material is illegal, just linking to it.
I guess what I was saying was in effect to increase the size of the hash by taking the two hashes and concatenating them - you might as well take a single algorithm that generates a longer hash.
Thinking about it - hashes, by their every nature will always have collisions. The only safe way is to use encryption instead, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
Actually, it's more like saying, "The holes in my screen door are too big, so I'll get a second screen door with equally big whole, just offset by half a hole." You end up with a better screen door.
Good point. But what I'm saying is that the intesection of two hash collisions is smaller than either set of collisions of the two hashes.
The worst case scenario is that the intersection is equal to the smaller of the two collision sets. But I would find is unbelievable that two different alogrithms generate collisions so that one is a subset of the other.
Is the answer then to create a hash that is in fact the sum of two distinct hashing alogrithms? For example, use MD5 and SHA1. Since the alogrithms use different methods, the set of collisions from one would not overlap the set from the second (or rather the overlap would be vanishingly small). And if the overlap was larger than you wanted - just keep adding different hash alogrithms until you are satisfied.
I realise that the computations involved aren't cheap, but it becomes a trade-off between security and speed - the more sure, the more time it will take.
Gee. Thanks. I didn't know that, with me being an astro-physicist and all.
The point is that while searching for little green men is all very well, I imagine that the FCC probably doesn't give a s**t about the project. What some may consider to be more serious science is more likely to have an affect on the any rules about cell phone use on planes.
You are right, there may be circumstances where cell-phone use on a plane might be a good thing - the sept. 11 hi-jackings spring to mind - using a cell phone in an emergency is completely different from a normal flight.
Actually, while this interference may affect SETI - the article (as well as the slashdot blurb, so you have no excuse) states that the second harmonic is in the range used by radio astronomers to search for stellar ignition and supernovii.
Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.
If I'm renting, then DRM is fine as it ensures that I hold to the rental agreement - however, the price for renting must be significantly lower than that of buying.
If I'm buying, then no DRM (some record companies do this, for example Warp Records). Since I purchased the music, I should be able to do what I want with it under fair use rights.
You are welcome to use whatever browser you want. Hell, if you are worried about bloat, use lynx. You are missing the point entirely. I'm simply suggesting that the code be designed to be reusable. People slam M$ all the time, myself included, but one thing they did right with IE was to make the browser a control, allowing the IE (the app) to be a simple container. I'm suggesting that something similar happens to Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird. At that point, the difference between each product is simply what plugins are bundled with the container.
Why not make Mozilla a container app for firefox and thunderbird? FF and TB would basically be plugins for Mozilla. That way you have a single code base for the browser and mail app. Adding the calendar to Mozilla would then be easy, you just load the plugin.
Imagine being able to open your email on new tab in the mozilla window?
The answer is a little bit of javascript that converts the password entered to an SHA1 hash (or some other encoding scheme) before submitting the form. That way, you don't have to worry about funny characters in the password, and you ensure that the password isn't sent or stored as clear-text.
And yes, I know that an attacker could replay the url to gain access, but that requires physical access to the client machine, at which point they could install a key-logger.
What I would like to see is a browser that doesn't store history or cache https pages
Warp records already embraces no DRM. Their online store www.bleep.com provides MP3s at 192kps with (admittedly small) cover art. A full CD is $10.
Warp is not a huge label, nor is their music to everyones tastes, but it is a good start.
Personally I would like to see the cost be a little lower, considering that there is no physical distribution costs, but it is low enough that I would pay for a CD's worth of music, rather than get it from other sources.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, but only if you assume that the egg refers to any egg - if it's a chicken egg, then the chicken must have come first as only chickens can lay chicken eggs.
sorry - Actually it's easy to tell the difference - good guys wouldn't stop your car or search it without probable cause or a warrent.
Actually it's easy to tell the difference - good guys would stop your car or search it without probable cause or a warrent.
I guess is why the law says it's illegal to facilitate sending anonymous emails - the site, anonymousemail.com, can be prosecuted for allowing someone to send an email from thier server, the Feds go in a say, "Tell us who sent it or we'll see you in court." And hence, why they are challenging the law.
The website anonymousemail.com is currently suing the government saying that the law is unconstitutional as it violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
The laywer involved in this case is Charles Mudd, and the press release is on his site (sorry Charles if you get slashdotted!)
Holy effin shite!
27% of 18-29 yr olds would cheat at exams - so just how many Canadians take exams AFTER they are 29?
6% of 18-29 yr olds would shoplift - and how many shoplifted before downloading became prevalent?
The survey also says that 100% of 18-29 yr olds where between the ages of 18 and 29.
I think it's more news-worthy that a newpaper would print this trite than the survey itself.
There is a difference between being able to see a site and being able to link to it. In this case, the defendent was just linking to the site. It begs the question of how many degrees of separation is required before a link isn't infringing. And what if it isn't a link, but just the text (so you would have to cut and paste to get to the site), or a link to a google query that brings up the site in question.
Getting back to the point, there has definitely been instances where cease and desist letters have been sent because of deep links to content, and I have seen sites that have very specific rules about how links to content should appear.
Finally, I never said that viewing copyright material is illegal, just linking to it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe worse than you think...
Since most websites are copyrighted, then linking to a website would in itself be infringing.
I was wondering if there was any software out there that could watch the network of zombied machines?
*DING*
The light-bulb has just gone on!
Thanks
I guess what I was saying was in effect to increase the size of the hash by taking the two hashes and concatenating them - you might as well take a single algorithm that generates a longer hash.
Thinking about it - hashes, by their every nature will always have collisions. The only safe way is to use encryption instead, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
You are assuming that I read hashing alogrithm threads, which I don't. If there is a reason why this wouldn't work, then please enlighten me.
OK, maybe using MD5 and SHA1 was a bad example.
Actually, it's more like saying, "The holes in my screen door are too big, so I'll get a second screen door with equally big whole, just offset by half a hole." You end up with a better screen door.
Good point. But what I'm saying is that the intesection of two hash collisions is smaller than either set of collisions of the two hashes.
The worst case scenario is that the intersection is equal to the smaller of the two collision sets. But I would find is unbelievable that two different alogrithms generate collisions so that one is a subset of the other.
Is the answer then to create a hash that is in fact the sum of two distinct hashing alogrithms? For example, use MD5 and SHA1. Since the alogrithms use different methods, the set of collisions from one would not overlap the set from the second (or rather the overlap would be vanishingly small). And if the overlap was larger than you wanted - just keep adding different hash alogrithms until you are satisfied.
I realise that the computations involved aren't cheap, but it becomes a trade-off between security and speed - the more sure, the more time it will take.
Gee. Thanks. I didn't know that, with me being an astro-physicist and all.
The point is that while searching for little green men is all very well, I imagine that the FCC probably doesn't give a s**t about the project. What some may consider to be more serious science is more likely to have an affect on the any rules about cell phone use on planes.
You are right, there may be circumstances where cell-phone use on a plane might be a good thing - the sept. 11 hi-jackings spring to mind - using a cell phone in an emergency is completely different from a normal flight.
Actually, while this interference may affect SETI - the article (as well as the slashdot blurb, so you have no excuse) states that the second harmonic is in the range used by radio astronomers to search for stellar ignition and supernovii.
Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.
Mmmm...
PORNBOT!
Slashdot readership at an all time low after people realized that the only stories posted today are april fool jokes!
If I'm renting, then DRM is fine as it ensures that I hold to the rental agreement - however, the price for renting must be significantly lower than that of buying.
If I'm buying, then no DRM (some record companies do this, for example Warp Records). Since I purchased the music, I should be able to do what I want with it under fair use rights.
You are welcome to use whatever browser you want. Hell, if you are worried about bloat, use lynx. You are missing the point entirely. I'm simply suggesting that the code be designed to be reusable. People slam M$ all the time, myself included, but one thing they did right with IE was to make the browser a control, allowing the IE (the app) to be a simple container. I'm suggesting that something similar happens to Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird. At that point, the difference between each product is simply what plugins are bundled with the container.
Why not make Mozilla a container app for firefox and thunderbird? FF and TB would basically be plugins for Mozilla. That way you have a single code base for the browser and mail app. Adding the calendar to Mozilla would then be easy, you just load the plugin.
Imagine being able to open your email on new tab in the mozilla window?
The answer is a little bit of javascript that converts the password entered to an SHA1 hash (or some other encoding scheme) before submitting the form. That way, you don't have to worry about funny characters in the password, and you ensure that the password isn't sent or stored as clear-text.
And yes, I know that an attacker could replay the url to gain access, but that requires physical access to the client machine, at which point they could install a key-logger.
What I would like to see is a browser that doesn't store history or cache https pages
Warp records already embraces no DRM. Their online store www.bleep.com provides MP3s at 192kps with (admittedly small) cover art. A full CD is $10.
Warp is not a huge label, nor is their music to everyones tastes, but it is a good start.
Personally I would like to see the cost be a little lower, considering that there is no physical distribution costs, but it is low enough that I would pay for a CD's worth of music, rather than get it from other sources.
I can see it now - speed signs that get telemetry directly from the car and issues a ticket when you are going over the limit.