Stopping spam is never the point of any prudent anti-spam action. Instead, anti-spam actions work by reducing the value of spam to spammers. This can be done by reducing click-through, reducing traffic and filtering that traffic which is out there. Always, spam will get through. The only way to combat spam is to reduce the profit margin and increase the time expense so much that it is worthless, and simply bad business to spam.
It should go up exponentially, so that 1024 is much more than twice as hard. However, with Beowulf clusters and the new primability test, this is being offset quickly.
Re:I think my form of encryption is better
on
RSA-576 Factored
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't know... maybe... u sib;r jbiq (shifted all the keys to the left.)
Seriously, though, all of these ciphers can be broken. It's just a task of minimizing the value to the cracker by making it take as long as possible to get the data, under the thought that it just won't be worth the time.
While this may be, the justifications of unease and cost are nothing to sneeze at. Especially in the presense of the poor performance that you noted, we need to look carefully at the cost-benefit analysis. As another post indicated, such a system provides little benefit to security, as "terrorists" often have valid visas, and perform acts under their own identities, especially if the "terrorist" in question is planning a suicide attack. Thus, the system would only verify what we already know- data that wouldn't help in acertainting the level of the threat posed by the potential attacker.
In light of this, we see that the cost-benefit analysis for the cirumstance of 9-11 is a theoretical zero. In the case of ATM access, what does it do if there are fake ATMs that can just record fake data and resend it at a later time? That doesn't help at all there, either. Therefore, I am drawn to that in the case of these two examples, we get no benefit from the cost. Furthermore, I see no compelling reason to assume that the circumstances would be different in any other case.
Hmm... I would wonder about the man's sense of priority. Though they are cool, 500 pieces for each floor of each building? Plus, how much money would it cost? Don't mean to knock his achievement, but I don't think it yells of employability, either.
Because we hate MS, and we hate Apple. Seriously, though, the point I've seen over and over again is that adding features to 2.4 comprimises its stability, and defeats the purpose of a "stable" branch. Furthermore, since 2.6 is in the "frozen" state, we need to move features into the 2.7 "unstable" branch.
Because someone new to the controversy, like some small-time CEO that thinks Linux is a character in Peanuts, might read it and wet his pants over it, so we have to respond to it, and make ourselves aware so that if our companies get cold feet about Linux adoption, we can rebut each SCO argument, and reassure our CEOs.
To be sure this is a great candidate for a -1, Flamebait, but I just have to respond.
Wonderful. Choose one choice quote and use it to bash an entire spectrum of political activists. I mean, who died and made this commisioner mouthpiece for all environmentalists? Plus, he has a point, even if it is worded horribly. By that I mean that there is, above and beyond the scientific concern a base fear of the potential for this shit to hit the fan. Just like Einstein's opposition to the A-Bomb wasn't purely for scientific reasons.
And apparently, you see no sense of responsibility, either. Nor do you seem to care about pissing people off. Violence won't solve spam- it's a problem that is rooted deeper in the culture than "there are evil people: kill them." For instance, the problem could have been kicked a decade ago if more people took the problem seriously and didn't say that it was only an annoyance. Furthermore, if mega-ISPs like AOL and MSN actually tried to block spam, or if gov't-owned ISPs such as KoreaNet were less sesceptible to hacking, then we wouldn't be getting near the same level of spam today. But, alas, we have the problem and killing the spammers won't help. Why? Because there is a system now in which there is money to be made from spamming, so more spammers will rise to take their place.
I wonder if AOL would pay more attention to this if they had to record someone saying "you've got spam!" to be played six times for everytime the "you've got mail!" sound plays. Perhaps then they'd actually try to do something about it.
What better title can you have than that? I mean, it speaks soo deeply of SCO's stratgies. Without Fear seems to stand for SCO's complete lack of healthy fear that keeps one from doing something fscking stupid, and I think that Without Research speaks for itself. It takes talent to come up with a title that grabs one like that. I know it seems silly to put so much focus on a title- I know "you can't judge a book by its cover," but people do it, and it's good to be able to take advantage of that. Kudos to the authors.
Actually, not like that. If you don't like the laws you're born into, and you are born into some form of a democracy, in theory you can vote out those who made the laws you hate, and vote in ppl to replace those laws with ones more ameniable to your taste. In a university, what? Go to another university? They'd have the same rules. The survival of a university (at least for now) does not depend on their IT having fair rules.
To me the most disturbing thing is that "violators" (note the quotes, folks!) are forced to watch **AA FUD/disinfo/propoganda. Since when is it acceptable for a publically owned university to spew off corporate propoganda? And yet, few ppl even blink at it. Sad, folks. Just fucking sad.
Forgetting something important: what's the sun? What is that which melts the wings of Icarus? What pervasive, omnipresent force that can both kill and bring life caused the death of Icarus? I think that it is a worldview brought about by the internet: the world itself as information. The reprecussions of this can bring about the apogee of humanity, and its end, albeit indirectly.
But can they opt out of purchasing access altogether? No... they are a captive audience. They must accept the rules in order to be successful at that or any other college. Since the acceptance of rules is not based in choice, it is a weak acceptance at best. Thus, many people have little qualms in breaking rules that they saw very little chance to complain about.
This isn't about tech. It's about the need for human creativity and artistry being diminished. I, as a geek, like tech to the extent that it reduces the tedium and frees us to be creative. This is realizing that the very thing we love can be used to work against us. And that is the realization that is truly and deeply scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Stopping spam is never the point of any prudent anti-spam action. Instead, anti-spam actions work by reducing the value of spam to spammers. This can be done by reducing click-through, reducing traffic and filtering that traffic which is out there. Always, spam will get through. The only way to combat spam is to reduce the profit margin and increase the time expense so much that it is worthless, and simply bad business to spam.
And undergrads are cheaper still.
Troll. He also works middle-management for Honda and as systems manager at Apple.
It should go up exponentially, so that 1024 is much more than twice as hard. However, with Beowulf clusters and the new primability test, this is being offset quickly.
I don't know... maybe...
u sib;r jbiq (shifted all the keys to the left.)
Seriously, though, all of these ciphers can be broken. It's just a task of minimizing the value to the cracker by making it take as long as possible to get the data, under the thought that it just won't be worth the time.
Linux: the OS that moves at the speed of light. Pardon me if that was a bit cutting, but I can't resist the burn...
While this may be, the justifications of unease and cost are nothing to sneeze at. Especially in the presense of the poor performance that you noted, we need to look carefully at the cost-benefit analysis. As another post indicated, such a system provides little benefit to security, as "terrorists" often have valid visas, and perform acts under their own identities, especially if the "terrorist" in question is planning a suicide attack. Thus, the system would only verify what we already know- data that wouldn't help in acertainting the level of the threat posed by the potential attacker.
In light of this, we see that the cost-benefit analysis for the cirumstance of 9-11 is a theoretical zero. In the case of ATM access, what does it do if there are fake ATMs that can just record fake data and resend it at a later time? That doesn't help at all there, either. Therefore, I am drawn to that in the case of these two examples, we get no benefit from the cost. Furthermore, I see no compelling reason to assume that the circumstances would be different in any other case.
Hmm... I would wonder about the man's sense of priority. Though they are cool, 500 pieces for each floor of each building? Plus, how much money would it cost? Don't mean to knock his achievement, but I don't think it yells of employability, either.
My first thought: now there's someone who needs to get laid.
Why Pokemon, indeed.
Because we hate MS, and we hate Apple. Seriously, though, the point I've seen over and over again is that adding features to 2.4 comprimises its stability, and defeats the purpose of a "stable" branch. Furthermore, since 2.6 is in the "frozen" state, we need to move features into the 2.7 "unstable" branch.
Because someone new to the controversy, like some small-time CEO that thinks Linux is a character in Peanuts, might read it and wet his pants over it, so we have to respond to it, and make ourselves aware so that if our companies get cold feet about Linux adoption, we can rebut each SCO argument, and reassure our CEOs.
Hm... Darl McBride writes an open letter. I thought that openness was against the US Constitution, ad nauseum.
To be sure this is a great candidate for a -1, Flamebait, but I just have to respond.
Wonderful. Choose one choice quote and use it to bash an entire spectrum of political activists. I mean, who died and made this commisioner mouthpiece for all environmentalists? Plus, he has a point, even if it is worded horribly. By that I mean that there is, above and beyond the scientific concern a base fear of the potential for this shit to hit the fan. Just like Einstein's opposition to the A-Bomb wasn't purely for scientific reasons.
I'd love to see you make a glowing dog with selective breeding alone.
That means that Natelie Portman won't just glow, she'll glow, right? I'm all for it...
And apparently, you see no sense of responsibility, either. Nor do you seem to care about pissing people off. Violence won't solve spam- it's a problem that is rooted deeper in the culture than "there are evil people: kill them." For instance, the problem could have been kicked a decade ago if more people took the problem seriously and didn't say that it was only an annoyance. Furthermore, if mega-ISPs like AOL and MSN actually tried to block spam, or if gov't-owned ISPs such as KoreaNet were less sesceptible to hacking, then we wouldn't be getting near the same level of spam today. But, alas, we have the problem and killing the spammers won't help. Why? Because there is a system now in which there is money to be made from spamming, so more spammers will rise to take their place.
I wonder if AOL would pay more attention to this if they had to record someone saying "you've got spam!" to be played six times for everytime the "you've got mail!" sound plays. Perhaps then they'd actually try to do something about it.
I think that you forgot double-ungood...
What better title can you have than that? I mean, it speaks soo deeply of SCO's stratgies. Without Fear seems to stand for SCO's complete lack of healthy fear that keeps one from doing something fscking stupid, and I think that Without Research speaks for itself. It takes talent to come up with a title that grabs one like that. I know it seems silly to put so much focus on a title- I know "you can't judge a book by its cover," but people do it, and it's good to be able to take advantage of that. Kudos to the authors.
Actually, not like that. If you don't like the laws you're born into, and you are born into some form of a democracy, in theory you can vote out those who made the laws you hate, and vote in ppl to replace those laws with ones more ameniable to your taste. In a university, what? Go to another university? They'd have the same rules. The survival of a university (at least for now) does not depend on their IT having fair rules.
To me the most disturbing thing is that "violators" (note the quotes, folks!) are forced to watch **AA FUD/disinfo/propoganda. Since when is it acceptable for a publically owned university to spew off corporate propoganda? And yet, few ppl even blink at it. Sad, folks. Just fucking sad.
Forgetting something important: what's the sun? What is that which melts the wings of Icarus? What pervasive, omnipresent force that can both kill and bring life caused the death of Icarus? I think that it is a worldview brought about by the internet: the world itself as information. The reprecussions of this can bring about the apogee of humanity, and its end, albeit indirectly.
But can they opt out of purchasing access altogether? No... they are a captive audience. They must accept the rules in order to be successful at that or any other college. Since the acceptance of rules is not based in choice, it is a weak acceptance at best. Thus, many people have little qualms in breaking rules that they saw very little chance to complain about.
This isn't about tech. It's about the need for human creativity and artistry being diminished. I, as a geek, like tech to the extent that it reduces the tedium and frees us to be creative. This is realizing that the very thing we love can be used to work against us. And that is the realization that is truly and deeply scary.