So what we usually do in these situations is store the main key in the device itself, encrypted with a smaller key which can be generated from a user-selected password. Why not just use the password-generated key as your main key? Because easily-remembered passwords don't have enough entropy to generate a key strong enough to protect megabytes of data, but they are good enough to protect something small like an encryption key. passwords are not really better to encrypt something small than something long, bruteforcing time is still the same (as long as you can verify the output of course). It's just that this way you need 3 separate pieces of information instead of 2.
It is indeed possible to prove some programs correct (cf the famous Knuth quote, Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.). However it is usually difficult, requiring annotations or other manual intervention to specify invariants. Other, more automatic kinds of checking are possible, but they're always incomplete; first of all, because it's impossible to check any kind of program property in general, and second, to achieve any kind of reasonable performance. I actually work for a company that sells such a checker (sorry, not FOSS, got to eat). Found hundreds of bugs in the linux kernel alone. As for proof-carrying code, it's code that carries around a proof of what it computes; the proof can be checked at the end of the program. Problem is that there is no guarantee that the proof will actually be correct, nor that the program will terminate. I almost published a paper on some sort of language where you could only carry around correct proof, so if you could get to the end of your program, you did the right thing (partial correctness). However the type of proofs you could have was very limited.
Sure it is. Real computers have finite memory and operate deterministically. You "merely" have to evaluate all possible transitions and check if they're all allowed. Right. But just for the memory, if you have say 512MiB (2^29B), that's 2^(2^37) possibilities (not counting processor state). For all practical purposes, it can be considered impossible to analyze all possibilities.
Why not just switch to a different network that isn't so hostile towards their customers. A wireless network that's not hostile to its customers? Good luck finding that!
What the fuck are you talking about? The only time there is mass loss/gain is when the nucleus of the atom itself is affected, i.e. a different number of protons and/or neutrons in the nucleus. If the nucleus is unaffected then it is a CHEMICAL reaction! Go take a physics class.
Because it's a purely chemical reaction, the mass of oxygen+fuel is equal to the mass of the exhaust. With the cold fusion cell, for every calorie you put in you get 2.5 calories out, and because it is a nuclear interaction the system system *should* lose a corresponding amount of mass according to Einstein's famous e=mc^2. FYI, E=mc^2 doesn't have anything to do with nuclear or not. Even for a chemical reaction you have a mass loss. It's just very small w.r. to the mass of the reactants. I think in the case of fission mass loss is ~ 1/1000, "regular" fusion 1/250
Because on these *** logitech keyboards (and I think MS, too), F-keys are disabled by default (you have to press an "F-lock" key, other wise you have their never-working, useless special functions). Why they don't make the lock key a deep switch is beyond me. I'm never going to get tricked again.
with something having a continuous risk, no matter how small, the chance of it exploding approaches one over time... Nope. If you know it hasn't blown up yet, then the probability of it happening now (or in the next T time) hasn't increased. However the probability of it happening in the next T time tends to 1 when T grows.
Actually there are several definition of "broken" (or of "cryptographically secure"). In this case the hash is not cryptographically secure against chosen plaintext attack; if you can find a collision, you can e.g. get a document signed and claim another, different document was signed instead.
one thing I like better about urpmi is that if the package has a config file that differs from what's currently install it offers to show you the diffs and gives the option of using the new one and keeping the old as foo.rpmold, using the old and keeping the new as foo.rpmnew, or just discarding the new Apt offers to:
The use of the weapon was the knockout blow that ended the first World War/I Ermm... The SECOND World War. And by that time it was mostly finished (Germany at least had surrendered), though of course who knows how long the Japanese might have fought on.
There will still be a market for customising this software. It is likely to be smaller though. Or as RMS put it in the GNU manifesto:
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
Reverse engineering codecs/encryption methods without paying royalties is just as bad as software piracy Note that in this case there are no patents involved (the CSS is so lousy it certainly doesn't deserve a patent). There is no "innovation" "stolen" when reverse-engineering the encryption. There is no reason to pay anyone to decrypt a DVD, which is easy to do. It's just illegal under the DMCA.
The protocol is, the caller identifies itself, then asks for the person it wants to speak with. (The callee just has to say "hullo"). In a business (or military) setting, the callee may identify itself at first.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, let's go back to making furniture...
So what we usually do in these situations is store the main key in the device itself, encrypted with a smaller key which can be generated from a user-selected password. Why not just use the password-generated key as your main key? Because easily-remembered passwords don't have enough entropy to generate a key strong enough to protect megabytes of data, but they are good enough to protect something small like an encryption key.
passwords are not really better to encrypt something small than something long, bruteforcing time is still the same (as long as you can verify the output of course). It's just that this way you need 3 separate pieces of information instead of 2.
It is indeed possible to prove some programs correct (cf the famous Knuth quote, Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.). However it is usually difficult, requiring annotations or other manual intervention to specify invariants. Other, more automatic kinds of checking are possible, but they're always incomplete; first of all, because it's impossible to check any kind of program property in general, and second, to achieve any kind of reasonable performance.
I actually work for a company that sells such a checker (sorry, not FOSS, got to eat). Found hundreds of bugs in the linux kernel alone.
As for proof-carrying code, it's code that carries around a proof of what it computes; the proof can be checked at the end of the program. Problem is that there is no guarantee that the proof will actually be correct, nor that the program will terminate. I almost published a paper on some sort of language where you could only carry around correct proof, so if you could get to the end of your program, you did the right thing (partial correctness). However the type of proofs you could have was very limited.
Sure it is. Real computers have finite memory and operate deterministically. You "merely" have to evaluate all possible transitions and check if they're all allowed.
Right. But just for the memory, if you have say 512MiB (2^29B), that's 2^(2^37) possibilities (not counting processor state). For all practical purposes, it can be considered impossible to analyze all possibilities.
Why not just switch to a different network that isn't so hostile towards their customers.
A wireless network that's not hostile to its customers? Good luck finding that!
What the fuck are you talking about? The only time there is mass loss/gain is when the nucleus of the atom itself is affected, i.e. a different number of protons and/or neutrons in the nucleus. If the nucleus is unaffected then it is a CHEMICAL reaction!
Go take a physics class.
Because it's a purely chemical reaction, the mass of oxygen+fuel is equal to the mass of the exhaust. With the cold fusion cell, for every calorie you put in you get 2.5 calories out, and because it is a nuclear interaction the system system *should* lose a corresponding amount of mass according to Einstein's famous e=mc^2.
FYI, E=mc^2 doesn't have anything to do with nuclear or not. Even for a chemical reaction you have a mass loss. It's just very small w.r. to the mass of the reactants. I think in the case of fission mass loss is ~ 1/1000, "regular" fusion 1/250
I won't buy one unless I can, well, use it.
Because on these *** logitech keyboards (and I think MS, too), F-keys are disabled by default (you have to press an "F-lock" key, other wise you have their never-working, useless special functions). Why they don't make the lock key a deep switch is beyond me. I'm never going to get tricked again.
with something having a continuous risk, no matter how small, the chance of it exploding approaches one over time...
Nope. If you know it hasn't blown up yet, then the probability of it happening now (or in the next T time) hasn't increased. However the probability of it happening in the next T time tends to 1 when T grows.
Actually there are several definition of "broken" (or of "cryptographically secure").
In this case the hash is not cryptographically secure against chosen plaintext attack; if you can find a collision, you can e.g. get a document signed and claim another, different document was signed instead.
500 cps ? That's about 3000 wpm (counting a generous 10c per w)
I think the record is ~20 cps, which is pretty damn fast!
Where do you think the carbon in biodiesel comes from?
I don't see any threat for jail in here...
It's le nouveau overlord. Lord is masculine.
Acutally, it's le nouvel overlord, since overlord starts with a vowel.
Apt offers to:
The use of the weapon was the knockout blow that ended the first World War/I
Ermm... The SECOND World War. And by that time it was mostly finished (Germany at least had surrendered), though of course who knows how long the Japanese might have fought on.
see microsoft passport
Do you mean it's not possible for a single person to have several passport accounts? I don't think so.
There will still be a market for customising this software. It is likely to be smaller though.
Or as RMS put it in the GNU manifesto:
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
June 28-30 and July 7-9
That's what I would have highlighted!
Bookmark search should actually search on bookmarked pages themselves. Nothing less will do.
wget + grep ?
Reverse engineering codecs/encryption methods without paying royalties is just as bad as software piracy
Note that in this case there are no patents involved (the CSS is so lousy it certainly doesn't deserve a patent). There is no "innovation" "stolen" when reverse-engineering the encryption. There is no reason to pay anyone to decrypt a DVD, which is easy to do. It's just illegal under the DMCA.
The protocol is, the caller identifies itself, then asks for the person it wants to speak with. (The callee just has to say "hullo"). In a business (or military) setting, the callee may identify itself at first.
You can get VXA (now Exabyte) tape drives that store 80GB
Exabyte? Then they're selling tapes over 10000000 times smaller than advertised!
Jose Bove ? Tu postes sur /. ?