Yep, also from Ontario and I'm shocked that it's not this way in some places. I posted as an anon earlier in this thread in case I was somehow wrong for my entire driving career.;^)
The goal is to control disease outbreaks, but theoretically this technology could allow a grocer to put a picture on the store package of the pig you are eating.
As if a grocer would actually do this (unless forced by a pack of wild PETA activists).
I am also not a cryptography expert but in my slightly less than expert opinion I would say that hashing single characters would eliminate the point of hashing. It would make reversing the hash (which is supposed to be very difficult / impossible by design so that a malicious party couldn't get passwords even if they got a copy of the database) much easier.
Let's say you're hashing the value of a seven character password. If you hash then entire password, than there are (num_chars_in_alphabet ^ 7) possible passwords that could fit a given hash, and to reverse a hash (assuming a well-designed hashing mechanism) you'd have to examine all of them. (Yes, there are optimizations that one can do like only looking at lower-case alpha characters first, but it would still take some time.)
If instead you hashed single characters, it would mean that for each character you would have to examine (num_chars_in_alphabet) possible hashes to see which one matched, which could be done in less than a nanosecond usually (there are, what, maybe 200 possible inputs from a standard PC keyboard?). Repeat for each character, and it's still very easy to do by brute force.
Nonetheless that means that the bank is storing your password in either plaintext or some form of reversible encryption. Were it hashed on their end they'd only be able to validate the entire password or nothing at all.
Well sure. It's just one of those things I assume that if a website is doing something for me for free, they have the right to stop doing that thing whenever they want. Are there really people who don't think that?
My wife is the same way and I'm so thankful for it. Not only is makeup completely unnecessary, from my perspective it, well, gets in the way. Good on you for not buying in to the idea that it's necessary; if it was, men would be wearing it too.
No. The Terms of Service that apply to you are entirely public. There is a separate, private, secret agreement they have with UMG that basically allows them carte blanche to delete your video, though (or at least, that's what's alleged and supported by their filing).
But more importantly, Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions.
It's a misrepresentation of credentials if you specifically mention the credentials or claim to be licensed in a way in which you're not. I am a software engineer. That doesn't mean I'm a civil engineer or licensed in any way. Enjoy being butthurt.
Sounds like someone doesn't know how to do "gracefully degrade".
No, I assure you I do. The problem is that we're doing a lot of stuff that requires Javascript from the get-go, and it's there that one finds the most incompatibilities between IE and everything else. (And no, we don't do stupid stuff like make our links require Javascript, except that we hardly have any external links in our flagship applications at all.)
I'm sure you think requiring Javascript makes us Satan incarnate, but that's just the way some apps work. If you can find a way to efficiently show a radio station's currently playing song that keeps itself up to date within seconds at all times without Javascript, be my guest. (If you answer Flash... well, that's just dumb.)
THANK YOU! The number of people using IE 6 and 7 is about to dramatically decline, which is roughly proportional to the number of headaches I will be getting on a daily basis.
Google doesn't want to be sued so they basically just gave them free reign. They have no interest in revisiting it because revoking their rights to the media will only make Google a target again.
If they're from the studios, they own the copyright to the properties so they have the legal right to download them. Sure, people make the argument that if they're on a BT tracker they're "distributing" the file so they're giving everyone else the legal right to download it, but that's not how IP law works. Besides, they'll say they were only downloading them to support their enforcement actions against other downloaders.
The only reason it's remembered is because it fell into the public domain.
Which is an interesting point (whether fully correct or not): TV stations all around the country and the world have something to show on Christmas, for free, that gets them possible ad income, all due to the expiration of the copyright on that movie. Something they might want to consider the next time a copyright extension act is brought up.
Slashdot Mirror
Biologists: Have computer simulations and models advanced to a point where they can replace physical cadavers for studies and training?
Yep, also from Ontario and I'm shocked that it's not this way in some places. I posted as an anon earlier in this thread in case I was somehow wrong for my entire driving career. ;^)
Conveniently aimed at technologies in which I'm sure IBM is investing.
I predict that in five years, it'll look at lot like it does now, with perhaps different providers.
The goal is to control disease outbreaks, but theoretically this technology could allow a grocer to put a picture on the store package of the pig you are eating.
As if a grocer would actually do this (unless forced by a pack of wild PETA activists).
I am also not a cryptography expert but in my slightly less than expert opinion I would say that hashing single characters would eliminate the point of hashing. It would make reversing the hash (which is supposed to be very difficult / impossible by design so that a malicious party couldn't get passwords even if they got a copy of the database) much easier.
Let's say you're hashing the value of a seven character password. If you hash then entire password, than there are (num_chars_in_alphabet ^ 7) possible passwords that could fit a given hash, and to reverse a hash (assuming a well-designed hashing mechanism) you'd have to examine all of them. (Yes, there are optimizations that one can do like only looking at lower-case alpha characters first, but it would still take some time.)
If instead you hashed single characters, it would mean that for each character you would have to examine (num_chars_in_alphabet) possible hashes to see which one matched, which could be done in less than a nanosecond usually (there are, what, maybe 200 possible inputs from a standard PC keyboard?). Repeat for each character, and it's still very easy to do by brute force.
Nonetheless that means that the bank is storing your password in either plaintext or some form of reversible encryption. Were it hashed on their end they'd only be able to validate the entire password or nothing at all.
Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?
YouTube is under no obligation to host your video. Their separate agreement with UMC theoretically forces them to delete it at UMC's discretion.
Well sure. It's just one of those things I assume that if a website is doing something for me for free, they have the right to stop doing that thing whenever they want. Are there really people who don't think that?
You should do that anyway. I'm on Weight Watchers and that sounds pretty good.
My wife is the same way and I'm so thankful for it. Not only is makeup completely unnecessary, from my perspective it, well, gets in the way. Good on you for not buying in to the idea that it's necessary; if it was, men would be wearing it too.
No. The Terms of Service that apply to you are entirely public. There is a separate, private, secret agreement they have with UMG that basically allows them carte blanche to delete your video, though (or at least, that's what's alleged and supported by their filing).
But more importantly, Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions.
That is the best name for a CIO ever.
I did the same thing yesterday. I think it might have been the first time I read a Slashdot story or comment to my wife.
It's a misrepresentation of credentials if you specifically mention the credentials or claim to be licensed in a way in which you're not. I am a software engineer. That doesn't mean I'm a civil engineer or licensed in any way. Enjoy being butthurt.
Is the answer that we're not streaming audio? I hope so.
Sounds like someone doesn't know how to do "gracefully degrade".
No, I assure you I do. The problem is that we're doing a lot of stuff that requires Javascript from the get-go, and it's there that one finds the most incompatibilities between IE and everything else. (And no, we don't do stupid stuff like make our links require Javascript, except that we hardly have any external links in our flagship applications at all.)
I'm sure you think requiring Javascript makes us Satan incarnate, but that's just the way some apps work. If you can find a way to efficiently show a radio station's currently playing song that keeps itself up to date within seconds at all times without Javascript, be my guest. (If you answer Flash... well, that's just dumb.)
THANK YOU! The number of people using IE 6 and 7 is about to dramatically decline, which is roughly proportional to the number of headaches I will be getting on a daily basis.
Or the major labels go out of business since they have to hire people to police youtube and demand even more per song.
Can I choose this one? I like it.
Google doesn't want to be sued so they basically just gave them free reign. They have no interest in revisiting it because revoking their rights to the media will only make Google a target again.
their = third person possessive (as should have been used above)
there = place
they're = "they are"
I = grammar nazi
Fuck em. Free speech.
If they're from the studios, they own the copyright to the properties so they have the legal right to download them. Sure, people make the argument that if they're on a BT tracker they're "distributing" the file so they're giving everyone else the legal right to download it, but that's not how IP law works. Besides, they'll say they were only downloading them to support their enforcement actions against other downloaders.
The current Harper government is a Conservative government; they'd use whatever reasoning they could to get out of something like this.
C'mon, dude. There's naive and there's this. You really don't think the FBI has a backdoor into Carrier IQ?
The only reason it's remembered is because it fell into the public domain.
Which is an interesting point (whether fully correct or not): TV stations all around the country and the world have something to show on Christmas, for free, that gets them possible ad income, all due to the expiration of the copyright on that movie. Something they might want to consider the next time a copyright extension act is brought up.