he said some of his co-workers try to take these power naps with only their foot on the pedal brake to keep the buzzer from going off. obviously this isn't safe, especially when you consider that these trucks could easily be hauling over 10 tons of garbage.
How could they not think that using this inhumane technology to make sure their employers are working would make sleeping at work so dangerously inconvenient!
Your signature: All posts are valid XHTML to the point that I can control...
The first line of every Slashdot page, in which said posts are included: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
Conclusion:
Making the abovementioned posts valid XHTML (or valid anything-not-HTML-3.2 for that matter)
inevitably makes the whole page invalid, however valid it might be otherwise (it is not, but that is another problem).
Aha! So God invented OOP, not Stroustrop as we previously thought.
"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind."
-- Alan Kay,
author of
Smalltalk
(Why Smalltalk?),
Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, 1997.
I've already paid $699 to SCO for my Debian, and now I have to pay $0.25 to Microsoft for/usr/src/linux/fs/fat/*?
This is an outrage! Can I sue SCO for selling me that kernel? Oh please tell me I can!
OK, here goes my precious Karma, but anyway---am
I the only one who
under the impression of this story
has read the headline
as Microsoft Offers A Bounty On
Gnome.org Desktop Integrators?
No, not quite true. The strongest encryptions are not based on no one knowing the algorithims - in fact most cryptographers do not regard an algorithim as secure unless it has been exposed. The strength lies in the keys generated.
Actually, the algorithm might be secret, but in that case it has to be:
kept secret
easy to replace in case it is no longer secret
So in other words, if you have a secret algorithm you have to handle it just like the keys,
i.e. distribution of such an algorithm as part of software package is absolutely unacceptable.
One could argue that a public algorithm plus the key is in fact a secret algorithm. That's true. But keeping the keys secret and easily replaceable is all one needs to do to make this algorithm+key combination secret, if the algorithm itself is designed competently, like AES or Twofish.
Just keep secrets secret---that's a no.1 rule of cryptology.
Sorry, I accidentally hit Submit instead of Preview.
Here's another story on topic. (Please don't troll, it's an unmoderated forum.) The question is, why does Fox consider a return of Family Guy, a show about an average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack family, instead of the best science fiction show ever invented? Don't they want the support of intelligent geek/nerd/Slashdot community anymore?
I don't understand. Could some "insider" comment
on this issue?
If Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates, then what when we add Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, Don Knuth, Damian Conway, Guido van Rossum, Norman Hardy, Bruce Schneier,
Ian Murdock, Martin Michlmayr, Nicholas Weaver, Ken Thompson, Robert Thau, Theo de Raadt, Robert Malda, et cetera?
Amazing. Truly amazing.
Even if there were piles of golden bars on the Moon lying around, it would still cost more to get them to Earth than to buy them on Earth in the first place. In other words---"This Moon isn't worth the gold it's made of!"---as one could paraphrase.
Putte, it can't be un-stolen, and nobody will be able to give you a "replacement" fingerprint.
Actually, this is not the case. I bought mine from my good friend, Tsutomu Matsumoto. But seriously, biometrics with no doubt is one of the most stupid and most hyped ideas related to electronic security I've ever heard of. I couldn't disagree with anything you pointed out. Unfortunately the average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack doesn't read Crypto-Gram like we do (or doesn't even try to autonomously think for that matter).
A Ponzi scam is where you take money from new "investors" and use some of it to pay an apparently high return to your existing investors, grabbing the rest for yourself. Everybody's happy until (inevitably) you run out of new investors and the whole thing falls apart.
When someone sent out spams attempting to scam people with accounts with Sony Financial Services, I contacted them about it and they promised they'd have someone call me first thing next day. They never did.
Sadly, the only thing that corporations care about today is bottom line. (This is the reason Microsoft antitrust was such a farce, by the way.)
This story reminds me
the story about Kevin Mitnick testifying against Sprint in Vice Hack Case:
[...] "to my knowledge there's no way that a computer hacker could get into our systems."
[...] to the company's knowledge Sprint's network had "never been penetrated or compromised by so-called computer hackers."
[...]
Two hours later, Mitnick returned to the hearing room clutching a crumpled, dog-eared and torn sheet of paper, and a small stack of copies for the commissioner, lawyers, and staff.
At the top of the paper was printed "3703-03 Remote Access Password List." A column listed 100 "seeds", numbered "00" through "99," corresponding to a column of four digit hexadecimal "passwords," like "d4d5" and "1554."
I will not tell you what was the worst, most shameful, humiliating and slavishly exploiting job posting I have ever seen, since posting it I was young and naive and I don't really want to talk about it.
The "intellectual property" term is confusing enough, since it confuses petents, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets.
Using the acronym "IP" only makes things worse.
First time I read the headline I skipped the article thinking that it is about the IP addresses of some game users being stored. I am serious. I thought the article was about privacy issues, not the copyright issues which I am always trying to be up to date with.
So I ask you,
if you absolutely have to use the "intellectual property" oxymoron (just remember it is not a legal term and shows that you don't understand the law, which casts a serious doubt on Slashdot journalistic integrity) please at least don't use the even more confusing "IP" acronym for that.
A somehow similar, i.e. a semi-private Internet Auditing Project by Liraz Siri (for which BASS was written) five years ago (only 36,431,374 hosts, mind you) took
twenty days with five scanning nodes. I highly doubt today Internet could be scanned in one day with a single host. Remember that this single host will be attacked, like the Liraz Siri's hosts was:
"Wednesday, our Russian scanner runs into trouble. A denial of
service attack, 512kbps stream of packets amplified 120 times strong
over an unsuspecting Canadian broadcast amplifier. Half a world a
way, the packet storm brings a large Russian ISP to it's knees,
overwhelming it's available bandwidth. Ouch.
Apparently, we stepped on someone's toes. At first, we assumed this was
somehow connected to yesterday's *.mil scan, but no, it was just
some ill-tempered English fellow who didn't appreciate getting probed last
Monday. [...]
The attack lasted 16 hours straight [...] Anyway, one of our backups (also in Russia) quickly substituted for the lost
computer as soon as we noticed the attack 6 hours later at 255 JPM, with
no other significant setbacks to our week's schedule." [emphasis added]
The keyword here is "backups."
Remember that scanning the entire Internet
you will step on someone's toes.
(By the way, it's good that this story was posted on Slashdot, since I could be the one counterattacking them and making idiot out of myself --- not that it has ever happened before...)
Solution 4 - Send a (short) clip as an email atachment to each senator and congressman, with a note saying that they are now, without having done anything except check their mail, violated the proposed legislation and are liable to 3 yers in jail.
I was seriously thinking about it.
These new laws are violated by almost everyone up from the start.
What would happen if some people devoted to changing the law (like, say, Slashdotters) would constantly keep looking for movie clips or songs on computers of kids from politicians' families and then immediately contacted law enforcement? What if few senator's and congressman's grandnephews were called thieves and sentenced to jail? Simple: Those stupid laws would be backed up in no time. That's certainly something to think about.
The best explaination of this whole naming farce I've read so far is Chapter 10 of
Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams.
It's available online.
Instead of pretending to be unbiased, it actually shows every biased point of view, from different angles, showing that basically all of the people involved have their own agendas and egos.
Linux vs. GNU/Linux OS naming schism is not a simple issue and should not be treated as such.
It represents the Open Source fork of the Free Software movement and is equally complicated as the infamous Lucid Emacs vs. GNU Emacs schism.
Your Score:5, Insightful comment (yes, I am jealous) is an extreme oversimplification of a very complicated and interesting issue.
Slashdot Mirror
How could they not think that using this inhumane technology to make sure their employers are working would make sleeping at work so dangerously inconvenient!
Your signature:
All posts are valid XHTML to the point that I can control...
The first line of every Slashdot page, in which said posts are included:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
Conclusion:
Making the abovementioned posts valid XHTML (or valid anything-not-HTML-3.2 for that matter) inevitably makes the whole page invalid, however valid it might be otherwise (it is not, but that is another problem).
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby moderate this truly brilliant open letter as Score:5, Troll. Bravo, Mr. McBride. You won. We all HBT. HAND.
"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." -- Alan Kay, author of Smalltalk (Why Smalltalk?), Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, 1997.
I've already paid $699 to SCO for my Debian, and now I have to pay $0.25 to Microsoft for /usr/src/linux/fs/fat/*?
This is an outrage! Can I sue SCO for selling me that kernel? Oh please tell me I can!
OK, here goes my precious Karma, but anyway---am I the only one who under the impression of this story has read the headline as Microsoft Offers A Bounty On Gnome.org Desktop Integrators?
This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?
Actually, the algorithm might be secret, but in that case it has to be:
So in other words, if you have a secret algorithm you have to handle it just like the keys, i.e. distribution of such an algorithm as part of software package is absolutely unacceptable.
One could argue that a public algorithm plus the key is in fact a secret algorithm. That's true. But keeping the keys secret and easily replaceable is all one needs to do to make this algorithm+key combination secret, if the algorithm itself is designed competently, like AES or Twofish.
Just keep secrets secret---that's a no.1 rule of cryptology.
No, IT Doesn't.
Cryptanalysis of the Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm by David Wagner, Bruce Schneier, and John Kelsey is worth reading, if one don't know the status quo of cellular encryption.
Sorry, I accidentally hit Submit instead of Preview. Here's another story on topic. (Please don't troll, it's an unmoderated forum.) The question is, why does Fox consider a return of Family Guy, a show about an average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack family, instead of the best science fiction show ever invented? Don't they want the support of intelligent geek/nerd/Slashdot community anymore? I don't understand. Could some "insider" comment on this issue?
But what about Futurama?
If Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates, then what when we add Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, Don Knuth, Damian Conway, Guido van Rossum, Norman Hardy, Bruce Schneier, Ian Murdock, Martin Michlmayr, Nicholas Weaver, Ken Thompson, Robert Thau, Theo de Raadt, Robert Malda, et cetera? Amazing. Truly amazing.
Even if there were piles of golden bars on the Moon lying around, it would still cost more to get them to Earth than to buy them on Earth in the first place. In other words---"This Moon isn't worth the gold it's made of!"---as one could paraphrase.
Actually, this is not the case. I bought mine from my good friend, Tsutomu Matsumoto. But seriously, biometrics with no doubt is one of the most stupid and most hyped ideas related to electronic security I've ever heard of. I couldn't disagree with anything you pointed out. Unfortunately the average drunk Joe "General Public" Sixpack doesn't read Crypto-Gram like we do (or doesn't even try to autonomously think for that matter).
They're gonna keep get'in paid and we're gonna keep not get'in laid --- that's Slashdot, alright. What's your point?
Without Nigerian scam artists The Spam Letters would just not be the same. Keeping the above in mind, please reconsider your revenge. Thank you.
It seems to look disturbingly familiar.
Sadly, the only thing that corporations care about today is bottom line. (This is the reason Microsoft antitrust was such a farce, by the way.) This story reminds me the story about Kevin Mitnick testifying against Sprint in Vice Hack Case:
Truely scary. Scary and sad.
I will not tell you what was the worst, most shameful, humiliating and slavishly exploiting job posting I have ever seen, since posting it I was young and naive and I don't really want to talk about it.
The "intellectual property" term is confusing enough, since it confuses petents, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets. Using the acronym "IP" only makes things worse. First time I read the headline I skipped the article thinking that it is about the IP addresses of some game users being stored. I am serious. I thought the article was about privacy issues, not the copyright issues which I am always trying to be up to date with. So I ask you, if you absolutely have to use the "intellectual property" oxymoron (just remember it is not a legal term and shows that you don't understand the law, which casts a serious doubt on Slashdot journalistic integrity) please at least don't use the even more confusing "IP" acronym for that.
A somehow similar, i.e. a semi-private Internet Auditing Project by Liraz Siri (for which BASS was written) five years ago (only 36,431,374 hosts, mind you) took twenty days with five scanning nodes. I highly doubt today Internet could be scanned in one day with a single host. Remember that this single host will be attacked, like the Liraz Siri's hosts was:
The keyword here is "backups." Remember that scanning the entire Internet you will step on someone's toes.
(By the way, it's good that this story was posted on Slashdot, since I could be the one counterattacking them and making idiot out of myself --- not that it has ever happened before...)
There can only be one true Y2K Bug (even with many incarnations).
I was seriously thinking about it. These new laws are violated by almost everyone up from the start. What would happen if some people devoted to changing the law (like, say, Slashdotters) would constantly keep looking for movie clips or songs on computers of kids from politicians' families and then immediately contacted law enforcement? What if few senator's and congressman's grandnephews were called thieves and sentenced to jail? Simple: Those stupid laws would be backed up in no time. That's certainly something to think about.
You mean like those non-Linux versions of Debian, like Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/FreeBSD, Debian GNU/Win32 and the upcoming Debian GNU/ELKS (based on the ELKS kernel for 8086 and 80286 et al), right? What is your point again?
The best explaination of this whole naming farce I've read so far is Chapter 10 of Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams. It's available online. Instead of pretending to be unbiased, it actually shows every biased point of view, from different angles, showing that basically all of the people involved have their own agendas and egos.
Linux vs. GNU/Linux OS naming schism is not a simple issue and should not be treated as such. It represents the Open Source fork of the Free Software movement and is equally complicated as the infamous Lucid Emacs vs. GNU Emacs schism. Your Score:5, Insightful comment (yes, I am jealous) is an extreme oversimplification of a very complicated and interesting issue.