... despite concerted efforts by the games, music and movie industries to convince them otherwise...
Here (germany) these TV-commercials are as bad as the mainstream (streamlined) popmusic. They are without heart. In cinemas they often get booed at. They are even less convincing than the products these guys want to sell.
but why did IBM choose Linux over its own AIX? ... because Linux runs on much more architectures and scales down to desktops, esp. cheap stuff like x86 - this makes communication with clients and frontends easier.
Just a guess.
The Cell also is simple, but in a way that that inflates the gflop rating at the cost of programmer time.
Well, not the average application coder, but the compiler guys. And thats the right thing to do. x86 is a hardware VM with a hardware JIT-compiler right now. This is a job that is better done in software at compile time and not realtime in execution. (An exception would be bandwidth limitations as they were reported for the Transmeta-CPU (IIRC) running native VLIW code.)
Abstraction is nice. But it doesnt belong in hardware - it belongs in the language and the compiler.
If you don't think this, then count how much it cost you to read this message, and then count how much your computer, which you are reading this message on, cost.
Computer: 500 EUR since 1/2004 = ca. 4 cents per hour and falling + 3 cents per hour electricity
Me: 10 EUR per hour (Im just jobbing as a student.)
[some mumbling about missing the joke] Whereas on the other end of the process, their military includes the french.
Which again includes the legion etrangere which has the best of both worlds: no french soldiers and a french command that has to take care of french lives only for the most part...
Microsoft ruft alle britischen Kinder im Alter von 14 bis 17 Jahren auf, an dem Wettbewerb "Gedankendiebe" teilzunehmen. Und vergesst nicht, Kinder: Die Finalisten müssen sich einverstanden erklären, alle Rechte am geistigen Eigentum des Films zu lizenzieren - zu von Microsoft akzeptierten Bedingungen. Und vergesst nicht, Euch euer kostenloses Gedankendiebe-Poster runterzuladen!
Stupid modern marketing and going for shock value instead of features.
This ad is not made for you. Oh ya, some rediculously stupid ad for it is going to intrigue me into downloading something.
This ad is not made for you. Feel/Taste/See the difference? TASTE? These are some of the worst "ads" I have ever seen.
This ad is not made for you.
The people that choose a browser by its features/security already use Firefox or Opera. These ads are for the mindless AOLers that buy into stuff because its "cool". You dont get the guys careing for facts with ads anyway - they do thier own research.
If they have already licensed it under the GPL, is it actually legal to "close" the source.[?]
Sure, if they are the copyright owners. But of cause, they cant "take back" the stuff that was already released under the GPL.
While I'm a pretty staunch Linux advocate, this seems a little extreme.
Make it a little creepy for them:
Tell them: "If you got banned three times because of virus/worm spreading, you will only be allowed to use net access with a secured linux machine."
They will take care then I guess...
</BofH>
Make public who got banned and how often. These guys will start to take care of their security if they get questions like "Surfing porn again, Dude?" and "Why did you get banned _again_ this month? Didnt you just requested access again?"
Others will get aware of the issue too and might be more careful.
3rd: If temperature aproximates zero, the entropy approximates a constant value.
And the last missing one:
0th: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
In case you are wondering: Yeah, Im kinda bored....
gentoo can't figure a good way to determine the dependancies
Thats wrong, it can and does. It also does parallel startup.... which has many binaries statically linked to it
You mean dynamic linking, not static. the "solution" that keeps getting thrown around is to run some revdep-rebuild (which never seems to work for me).
The "problem" only exists if you do things that have a "DO NOT DO THIS IF YOU DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES" written all over them (like emerge -C dependencies). revdep-rebuild is suppose to find and rebuild the apps that portage broke.
And it does - by analysing the packages with ldd. If that doesnt solve you problem, you fucked up your system pretty bad (unmerging stuff from 'system', compiling 'system' packages with ggc4 or the like). Just because you can do it, it doesnt mean its a good idea.
If public channels are so guaranteed as you seem to think, then there is a way around MitM even without any quantum stuff.
QC lets you safely generate a shared secret. This is the hard part with conventional cryptography. It rather impracticable to always sent a trusted guy with a hard disk from location to location.
It's illegal to knowingly download classified docs, I trust you will do the right thing.
I, for one, will do my duty as a citizen and read the document. Living in a state in europe, I will look if there is any information in it that might be vital to my countries existance and then do the right thing - which might even include distributing the document to others.
I'm not talking about a statistical attack. I'm talking about something very basic and fundamental. What happens if you turn A=====B into A=====C-C=====B?
I know what a MitM attack is. Still this wont work under the conditions given (the hardest to accomplish is probably that a MitM cant suppress all data from the reciever to the sender - but with radio and p2p networks you can make that pretty save - if there is anything sent by B that A learns of, C has lost). I am saying - If the intended receiver can get any useful data EVER, then why can't an interceptor do exactly the same thing? If the sender can EVER get any data across the line, then why can't an interceptor do exactly the same?
Because he cant get all the data. Just like everybody else. (Im pretty sure you should read the wikipedia QC thingy once again...) Are you implying that the receiver has some unique ability that nobody else in the world can have?
No. Well, actually yes. He is the only guy who is expected to reply, From the sender side one answer is expected behavior. Is only this one specific receiver out of all the people in the world able to make an photon measuring apparatus? That is absurd.
True. He cannot build such a photon measuring apparatus *but the MitM cannot either.* As for shared secrets, MitM can intercept so that the sender and receiver each share a different secret with the MitM, and the MitM works to translate from one secret to the other. The sender and receiver may *think* they share a secret with each other, but they don't.
As the shared secret is checked via the public channel (where no transmission can be suppressed) the sender would notice *two* people trying to validate back keys and thus wont send the data - this is a DoS but no information has been revealed. (Or with radio he would notice a jammed channel). As for using radio for the conventional channel, it still requires some sort of shared agreement - Which frequency do you operate on?
This informtion does not have to be secret, where is the problem? And this is just an example of something that tries to make the MitM difficult.
Actually, it is not. If you want to make it really hard for a MitM, use fiber optics for the public channel too. Let one laser illuminate the fiber with specific wavelength all the time from the sender side, another with a another wavelength from the recievers side and use a third wavelength to transmit the data - on the same wire. Now, how does the man get in the middle without both guys noticing? He might still read the raw data on this channel using scattered light, but it wont help him because it is encrypted with the shared secret submitted as a key via the QC channel. A very determined attacker can rig up something to get past this - for example, just put an interceptor into one party's radio.
But that wouldnt be a man in the middle. So thats not important for QC. Of cause sender and reciever installation have to be secured (physical security, personal that can be trusted etc.). So thats not a problem of QC, because it has nothing to do with the encrypted transmission.
As for "the" public channel. It could be anything. The sender could allow the answer back via *any* radio channel, via email, via mail, via telephone, via fiber optics or direct laser communications link. There is no extra work in this. And you tell me a MitM can intercept and destroy all those and cut a fiber wire and insert his relay without anybody noticing? Yeah, right....
Listen, if the intended receiver is able to pick up the signal, then a man in the middle can, too!
No. Because there is no "the signal". With QC you have two signals on the fiber and you can pick up only one, thereby destoying the other. I'm not talking about observing the bits that go down the line. I'm talking about impersonating both sides to each other. That is a man in the middle.
Yes. And that wont work. The other way to make MitM harder is to have a big enough shared secret. You could have secret passwords, or even a secret protocol would work too. If the MitM can't guess the shared secret, then impersonation will fail.
Thats what QC is for. You can generate shared secrets of any size by QC. And the MitM wont be able to guess them, if they are large enough. Some people have proposed a way of quantum key generation via entangled particles. But remember that getting this shared secret to each other is also subject to MitM attacks.
No! Thats exactly the point! You cant MitM a big QC transmission without notifing the sender/reciever. All the MitM can do is a DoS. Someone can yoink those entangled particles, and throw in new ones.
Ehem - no. There are *two* things the MitM has to measure because he doesnt know which of those the sender knows about the particle. Though luck for him - his first measurement destroys the particle.
The person you're talking to can always be an impersonator. It can be really improbable, but there is always some possibility. I'm not saying you should be paranoid, but just that every communication involves a degree of trust. Quantum magic won't make that required trust go away.
This is wrong. QC is save from MitM when used with two channels - one QC channel and a public one where transmissions cant be blocked unnoticed (for example radio).
The wikipedia isnt too bad at all about this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography
Slashdot Mirror
... despite concerted efforts by the games, music and movie industries to convince them otherwise ...
Here (germany) these TV-commercials are as bad as the mainstream (streamlined) popmusic. They are without heart. In cinemas they often get booed at. They are even less convincing than the products these guys want to sell.
You can use init.d in a non-braindead way.
but why did IBM choose Linux over its own AIX?
... because Linux runs on much more architectures and scales down to desktops, esp. cheap stuff like x86 - this makes communication with clients and frontends easier.
Just a guess.
Personally, I run a dual-boot system: Linux and emacs.
Finally I understand what this Chainloader thingie in grub.conf is for!
The Cell also is simple, but in a way that that inflates the gflop rating at the cost of programmer time.
Well, not the average application coder, but the compiler guys. And thats the right thing to do. x86 is a hardware VM with a hardware JIT-compiler right now. This is a job that is better done in software at compile time and not realtime in execution. (An exception would be bandwidth limitations as they were reported for the Transmeta-CPU (IIRC) running native VLIW code.) Abstraction is nice. But it doesnt belong in hardware - it belongs in the language and the compiler.
If you don't think this, then count how much it cost you to read this message, and then count how much your computer, which you are reading this message on, cost.
Computer: 500 EUR since 1/2004 = ca. 4 cents per hour and falling + 3 cents per hour electricity
Me: 10 EUR per hour (Im just jobbing as a student.)
OSS means Hardware Rules. No. Hardware is cheap. Service, administration and knowledge is not.
control-[ with Caps lock remapped
[some mumbling about missing the joke] Whereas on the other end of the process, their military includes the french. ...
Which again includes the legion etrangere which has the best of both worlds: no french soldiers and a french command that has to take care of french lives only for the most part
Microsoft ruft alle britischen Kinder im Alter von 14 bis 17 Jahren auf, an dem Wettbewerb "Gedankendiebe" teilzunehmen. Und vergesst nicht, Kinder: Die Finalisten müssen sich einverstanden erklären, alle Rechte am geistigen Eigentum des Films zu lizenzieren - zu von Microsoft akzeptierten Bedingungen. Und vergesst nicht, Euch euer kostenloses Gedankendiebe-Poster runterzuladen!
Stupid modern marketing and going for shock value instead of features. This ad is not made for you.
Oh ya, some rediculously stupid ad for it is going to intrigue me into downloading something.
This ad is not made for you.
Feel/Taste/See the difference? TASTE? These are some of the worst "ads" I have ever seen.
This ad is not made for you.
The people that choose a browser by its features/security already use Firefox or Opera. These ads are for the mindless AOLers that buy into stuff because its "cool". You dont get the guys careing for facts with ads anyway - they do thier own research.
Using OSS in vegetable oil will not only save money, but also dramatically reduce cooling costs...
http://www.markusleonhardt.de/en/oelrechner.html
If they have already licensed it under the GPL, is it actually legal to "close" the source.[?]
Sure, if they are the copyright owners. But of cause, they cant "take back" the stuff that was already released under the GPL.
You are save (for now) from GNAA last measure with this: http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
XUL isnt as bug infested as ActiveX, but it is conceptionally almost as dangerous. Be prepared to see more fun stuff with XUL.
I don't think its coincidence that Hitler was German. Now mod me up insightful damn it!
Nice try. But Hitler was not german.
Well, the ham op did send: ....
YL, QSP to best OMs ur QTH es rig.
And people wonder why he is faster
While I'm a pretty staunch Linux advocate, this seems a little extreme. ...
Make it a little creepy for them:
Tell them: "If you got banned three times because of virus/worm spreading, you will only be allowed to use net access with a secured linux machine."
They will take care then I guess
</BofH>
Make public who got banned and how often. These guys will start to take care of their security if they get questions like "Surfing porn again, Dude?" and "Why did you get banned _again_ this month? Didnt you just requested access again?"
Others will get aware of the issue too and might be more careful.
3rd: If temperature aproximates zero, the entropy approximates a constant value.
....
And the last missing one:
0th: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
In case you are wondering: Yeah, Im kinda bored
gentoo can't figure a good way to determine the dependancies
Thats wrong, it can and does. It also does parallel startup....
which has many binaries statically linked to it
You mean dynamic linking, not static.
the "solution" that keeps getting thrown around is to run some revdep-rebuild (which never seems to work for me).
The "problem" only exists if you do things that have a "DO NOT DO THIS IF YOU DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES" written all over them (like emerge -C dependencies).
revdep-rebuild is suppose to find and rebuild the apps that portage broke.
And it does - by analysing the packages with ldd. If that doesnt solve you problem, you fucked up your system pretty bad (unmerging stuff from 'system', compiling 'system' packages with ggc4 or the like). Just because you can do it, it doesnt mean its a good idea.
If public channels are so guaranteed as you seem to think, then there is a way around MitM even without any quantum stuff.
QC lets you safely generate a shared secret. This is the hard part with conventional cryptography. It rather impracticable to always sent a trusted guy with a hard disk from location to location.
It's illegal to knowingly download classified docs, I trust you will do the right thing.
I, for one, will do my duty as a citizen and read the document. Living in a state in europe, I will look if there is any information in it that might be vital to my countries existance and then do the right thing - which might even include distributing the document to others.
I'm not talking about a statistical attack. I'm talking about something very basic and fundamental. What happens if you turn A=====B into A=====C-C=====B? ...) ....
I know what a MitM attack is. Still this wont work under the conditions given (the hardest to accomplish is probably that a MitM cant suppress all data from the reciever to the sender - but with radio and p2p networks you can make that pretty save - if there is anything sent by B that A learns of, C has lost).
I am saying - If the intended receiver can get any useful data EVER, then why can't an interceptor do exactly the same thing? If the sender can EVER get any data across the line, then why can't an interceptor do exactly the same?
Because he cant get all the data. Just like everybody else. (Im pretty sure you should read the wikipedia QC thingy once again
Are you implying that the receiver has some unique ability that nobody else in the world can have?
No. Well, actually yes. He is the only guy who is expected to reply, From the sender side one answer is expected behavior.
Is only this one specific receiver out of all the people in the world able to make an photon measuring apparatus? That is absurd.
True. He cannot build such a photon measuring apparatus *but the MitM cannot either.*
As for shared secrets, MitM can intercept so that the sender and receiver each share a different secret with the MitM, and the MitM works to translate from one secret to the other. The sender and receiver may *think* they share a secret with each other, but they don't.
As the shared secret is checked via the public channel (where no transmission can be suppressed) the sender would notice *two* people trying to validate back keys and thus wont send the data - this is a DoS but no information has been revealed. (Or with radio he would notice a jammed channel).
As for using radio for the conventional channel, it still requires some sort of shared agreement - Which frequency do you operate on?
This informtion does not have to be secret, where is the problem?
And this is just an example of something that tries to make the MitM difficult.
Actually, it is not. If you want to make it really hard for a MitM, use fiber optics for the public channel too. Let one laser illuminate the fiber with specific wavelength all the time from the sender side, another with a another wavelength from the recievers side and use a third wavelength to transmit the data - on the same wire. Now, how does the man get in the middle without both guys noticing? He might still read the raw data on this channel using scattered light, but it wont help him because it is encrypted with the shared secret submitted as a key via the QC channel.
A very determined attacker can rig up something to get past this - for example, just put an interceptor into one party's radio.
But that wouldnt be a man in the middle. So thats not important for QC. Of cause sender and reciever installation have to be secured (physical security, personal that can be trusted etc.). So thats not a problem of QC, because it has nothing to do with the encrypted transmission.
As for "the" public channel. It could be anything. The sender could allow the answer back via *any* radio channel, via email, via mail, via telephone, via fiber optics or direct laser communications link. There is no extra work in this. And you tell me a MitM can intercept and destroy all those and cut a fiber wire and insert his relay without anybody noticing? Yeah, right
Listen, if the intended receiver is able to pick up the signal, then a man in the middle can, too!
No. Because there is no "the signal". With QC you have two signals on the fiber and you can pick up only one, thereby destoying the other.
I'm not talking about observing the bits that go down the line. I'm talking about impersonating both sides to each other. That is a man in the middle.
Yes. And that wont work.
The other way to make MitM harder is to have a big enough shared secret. You could have secret passwords, or even a secret protocol would work too. If the MitM can't guess the shared secret, then impersonation will fail.
Thats what QC is for. You can generate shared secrets of any size by QC. And the MitM wont be able to guess them, if they are large enough.
Some people have proposed a way of quantum key generation via entangled particles. But remember that getting this shared secret to each other is also subject to MitM attacks.
No! Thats exactly the point! You cant MitM a big QC transmission without notifing the sender/reciever. All the MitM can do is a DoS.
Someone can yoink those entangled particles, and throw in new ones.
Ehem - no. There are *two* things the MitM has to measure because he doesnt know which of those the sender knows about the particle. Though luck for him - his first measurement destroys the particle.
The person you're talking to can always be an impersonator. It can be really improbable, but there is always some possibility. I'm not saying you should be paranoid, but just that every communication involves a degree of trust. Quantum magic won't make that required trust go away.
This is wrong. QC is save from MitM when used with two channels - one QC channel and a public one where transmissions cant be blocked unnoticed (for example radio).
The wikipedia isnt too bad at all about this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography