then the remaining 1.5 million or so primes up to 24,036,583 correspond to exponents of, you guessed it, Mersenne composites.
What the hell are you talking about? Prime numbers can not be composite. A prime number is by definition a number which is not composite.
What the guy that you're arguing with is saying is that the 1.5 million or so primes are not mersenne numbers, not that they are mersenne composites.
Don't make fun of the people that you're arguing with unless you're pretty sure you know what you are talking about -- It's alot funnier when you get owned if you talk alot of shit first.
I was fumbling around with a mac mouse in a lab the other day and found some cool stuff about google.
Basically with my ineptitude to use the one button mouse I accidently clicked on some whitespace in gmail or something and got to a login screen. I took a note of the URL so that I could post it on slashdot, but didn't keep up with my notes after my story got rejected.
I logged in with my gmail info and was given access to the google store (really cool) and google answers (google answers is already known about). Also "Google in your language" where native speakers of $language can earn brownie points or something for translating google into their native tongue. Google's SOAP API documentation was also stored here, as well as user management for AdWords and Google Groups.
You can access it now from www.google.com/accounts, but the link that I got from clicking around randomly in gmail was way different, and my gmail account worked without registering a google account, and then 10 minutes later it stopped working completely.
Much to microsoft's dismay, a work around has been found allowing non-premium customers to get an earlier warning than Microsoft gives to its premium customers, and often an earlier warning than even Microsoft themself has.
The problem is that of the complexity which information systems require to be of use to the general populus.
There is a direct relationship between the complexity of software, and bugs in said software.
It is not possible to make something totally secure and complex.
If I were to write a server who's whole purpose would be to, upon a TCP connection, print the date to the client, there wouldn't be much chance for a bug, and much less chance for an exploitable bug.
Now if I were to expand features on to my little daytime server above, each added feature is added complexity, is added potential bugs and vulnerabilities.
NTP servers have had a few vulnerabilities in them, daytime has had none (I am not 100% sure on this, but it's less than NTP).
We need complex systems for IT to do any good for us. The key to security is making those systems as modular, as separated, and as little kludgy and crufty as possible.
Sorry, I meant [b]known[/b] collisions. Tampering the data and "getting lucky" and having the hashes match, is much much less probably than "reasonable doubt." Tampering the data and having the hashes match when you know how to cause an algorithm collision is much more probable.
"Wouldn't just turning on the computer affect the checksum of the entire disc if just a single file was accessed, thereby changing its last accessed date, or if a single temp file was modified?"
Correct, usually what happens when a computer is confiscated is this:
1.) Power is removed. IE, plug pulled on desktop or battery removed on laptop. If you turn the power off, APM or ACPI will kick in and write to the disk.
2.) Disk is removed and a chain of custody form is written.
3.) Disk is checksummed and imaged, either using a standard computer or a forensics machine that is designed to image disks. The disk does not have to be mounted to do this, you can get a raw dd without mounting a disk and without accessing any files.
4.) Forensic analysis is performed on images, usually on copies of the images. When evidence is found, the checksum is checked again to make sure that this image is the same as what was on the disk.
Yes, if you mount a disk, it is completely useless as evidence. Any forensics practitioner who has been on the job for more than a day would never mount a disk. Thats why an image is made.
In many situations any data inconsistancy can cause catastrophe. When distributing binaries it isn't that big of a deal, however there are other applications of hashing algorithms.
Think about forensics: Someone gets arrested, computer confiscated. The first thing that happens is a hash checksum is ran of the disk, then a disk image is made, then the image checksum is verified to make sure that it is the same as the original disk. If the checksum of the original disk ever changes, the evidence is useless. When there are collisions in the algorithm, the checksum cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the data has not been tampered with. Especially when the hashing algorithm is ran on 20 or more gigabytes of data, which is the typical case in forensics.
Shrug, I need three computers for what I do (Security stuff, alot of testing). OP may or may not. I didn't want to insult him by telling him that he had no use for more than one computer.
As for gear I haven't had any problems and I dont employ any uber security methods, other than data security which really doesn't help for gear getting stolen, so I'll answer the sanity part since few people have.
Pretty much every one of these I violated my first semester, and have since changed and had a significant improvement in my college experience.
Don't bring 6 computers, two monitors/keyboards/mice, two PDAs, a PS2 + dreamcast + gba, a stereo, two TVs, a dvd player, a few old hardware for "conversation pieces" and your laptop. I did this my first semester, and while I won the "most geeky person in hightower hall" contest (not a real contest), I had no need for all that stuff. Bring a laptop, one desktop, one test machine, a TV, one or two game consoles which at least one should double as a dvd player, and some speakers. Maybe a PDA if thats your thing.
Cancel your Everquest (or whatever) accounts. I was a 4-year Everquest player and got to college and found out that Everquest didn't work on the university network. I was pretty pissed off about it for two weeks, but after a month or so I realized that I was much better off than had I been playing Everquest. I didn't even care about losing my multiple level 65's with 200+ AA after six weeks.
Get involved. We have a linux users group here at my university which is really active and very awesome. Met a lot of my now college friends this way. I'm sure your university will have an ACM chapter, an IEEE chapter, and a bunch of other geeky stuff. Join all of them. You also have a good side effect here of resume-whoring.
Don't be afraid to have fun. If you get arrested a few times, its no big deal. Do stupid stuff often and without premeditation. You'll have alot more fun this way.
Funny how I was notified of your post by reading my gmail account, huh.
If Yahoo! wants to give people an incentive to stick with an inferior product, that's fine, but what I was saying is that throwing a few megabytes around isn't going to make them comparable to gmail.
What makes Gmail incredible and revolutionary is the search features, the amazing interface, the threading, the labeling, and the tried and true "google minimalism."
Getting 1000mB's of space is just a side effect, that's there because gmail makes it desirable to archive multiple entire mailing lists.
My Rio Karma is full of 20 GBs of ogg vorbis encoded lovin'.
It has about 13 hours of battery life, and can talk by USB 2.0, USB 1.1, or even 100mbit ethernet. When I plug it into the ethernet, it runs a webserver with a java applet that allows you to send and receive software.
It works on any operating system with a VM/java plugin without a hitch. I use it in Linux and didn't have to set up anythign when I got it.
On one hand, widespread proliferation of broadband without having to hang out near a hotspot will change everything, but on the other hand....
I really hope they dont do something like WEP again.
Too bad quantum crypto and quantum computing have absolutely nothing in common.
Quantum crypto is a misnomer, it isnt even crypto at all. It's an intrusion detection system. Quantum crypto works by sending sensitive photons through a tight channel as bits which will get disturbed by an eavesdropper. Where as electrical signal on a wire expects static, and a wiretap isnt noticed.
Quantum computing however, works on electron entanglement, and is pretty far off.
First off, I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over.
Now on to the meat of my issue, we who are in the know, not just Linux Users, alot of people that I know who cant stand anything but MS: we are fairly informed about the SCO case. I used to assume that the public felt that way as well, but I don't anymore.
We had a guest speaker in my infosec class last week, a professor from the University of Hawaii who wrote the textbook that we use.
Dr. Panko's speech at some point turned to OSS vs proprietary software in terms of security. Panko claimed that the argument that OSS code is more secure was bunk, because all OSS code he has seen is crappy code (I doubt this is an informed opinion), and that most of it is just stolen from proprietary software anyway.
Later in the speech someone asked a question regarding the subject of whether the security community will have to deal with MS's security methods forever. Panko quickly proclaimed that Linux is dying due to insurmountable legal trouble, and that they will likely never get out if it.
I think that we do not have a good view of what the uninformed think about the SCO case. And while the case is substanceless, the PR is not. We need to take every opportunity to inform non-geeks, with the ample factual evidence that is out there, that this is an example of a pump and jump stock scam based on frivilous litigation, and that our chosen innovation paradigm (Open Source) is legit.
Slashdot Mirror
Only old koreans use cold fusion. Everyone else has moved to J2EE and then LAMP
then the remaining 1.5 million or so primes up to 24,036,583 correspond to exponents of, you guessed it, Mersenne composites.
What the hell are you talking about? Prime numbers can not be composite. A prime number is by definition a number which is not composite.
What the guy that you're arguing with is saying is that the 1.5 million or so primes are not mersenne numbers, not that they are mersenne composites.
Don't make fun of the people that you're arguing with unless you're pretty sure you know what you are talking about -- It's alot funnier when you get owned if you talk alot of shit first.
I was fumbling around with a mac mouse in a lab the other day and found some cool stuff about google.
Basically with my ineptitude to use the one button mouse I accidently clicked on some whitespace in gmail or something and got to a login screen. I took a note of the URL so that I could post it on slashdot, but didn't keep up with my notes after my story got rejected.
I logged in with my gmail info and was given access to the google store (really cool) and google answers (google answers is already known about). Also "Google in your language" where native speakers of $language can earn brownie points or something for translating google into their native tongue. Google's SOAP API documentation was also stored here, as well as user management for AdWords and Google Groups.
You can access it now from www.google.com/accounts, but the link that I got from clicking around randomly in gmail was way different, and my gmail account worked without registering a google account, and then 10 minutes later it stopped working completely.
Much to microsoft's dismay, a work around has been found allowing non-premium customers to get an earlier warning than Microsoft gives to its premium customers, and often an earlier warning than even Microsoft themself has.
c losure
Information on this work around is here: http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-dis
The problem is that of the complexity which information systems require to be of use to the general populus.
There is a direct relationship between the complexity of software, and bugs in said software.
It is not possible to make something totally secure and complex.
If I were to write a server who's whole purpose would be to, upon a TCP connection, print the date to the client, there wouldn't be much chance for a bug, and much less chance for an exploitable bug.
Now if I were to expand features on to my little daytime server above, each added feature is added complexity, is added potential bugs and vulnerabilities.
NTP servers have had a few vulnerabilities in them, daytime has had none (I am not 100% sure on this, but it's less than NTP).
We need complex systems for IT to do any good for us. The key to security is making those systems as modular, as separated, and as little kludgy and crufty as possible.
This is irrelevant, because no one will use MD5 for forensics anymore.
Sorry, I meant [b]known[/b] collisions. Tampering the data and "getting lucky" and having the hashes match, is much much less probably than "reasonable doubt." Tampering the data and having the hashes match when you know how to cause an algorithm collision is much more probable.
"Wouldn't just turning on the computer affect the checksum of the entire disc if just a single file was accessed, thereby changing its last accessed date, or if a single temp file was modified?"
Correct, usually what happens when a computer is confiscated is this:
1.) Power is removed. IE, plug pulled on desktop or battery removed on laptop. If you turn the power off, APM or ACPI will kick in and write to the disk.
2.) Disk is removed and a chain of custody form is written.
3.) Disk is checksummed and imaged, either using a standard computer or a forensics machine that is designed to image disks. The disk does not have to be mounted to do this, you can get a raw dd without mounting a disk and without accessing any files.
4.) Forensic analysis is performed on images, usually on copies of the images. When evidence is found, the checksum is checked again to make sure that this image is the same as what was on the disk.
Yes, if you mount a disk, it is completely useless as evidence. Any forensics practitioner who has been on the job for more than a day would never mount a disk. Thats why an image is made.
In many situations any data inconsistancy can cause catastrophe. When distributing binaries it isn't that big of a deal, however there are other applications of hashing algorithms.
Think about forensics: Someone gets arrested, computer confiscated. The first thing that happens is a hash checksum is ran of the disk, then a disk image is made, then the image checksum is verified to make sure that it is the same as the original disk. If the checksum of the original disk ever changes, the evidence is useless. When there are collisions in the algorithm, the checksum cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the data has not been tampered with. Especially when the hashing algorithm is ran on 20 or more gigabytes of data, which is the typical case in forensics.
Yes, too bad ECC is not a hashing algorithm and has absolutely nothing to do with this, or else we'd be set.
Shrug, I need three computers for what I do (Security stuff, alot of testing). OP may or may not. I didn't want to insult him by telling him that he had no use for more than one computer.
As for gear I haven't had any problems and I dont employ any uber security methods, other than data security which really doesn't help for gear getting stolen, so I'll answer the sanity part since few people have.
Pretty much every one of these I violated my first semester, and have since changed and had a significant improvement in my college experience.
Don't bring 6 computers, two monitors/keyboards/mice, two PDAs, a PS2 + dreamcast + gba, a stereo, two TVs, a dvd player, a few old hardware for "conversation pieces" and your laptop. I did this my first semester, and while I won the "most geeky person in hightower hall" contest (not a real contest), I had no need for all that stuff. Bring a laptop, one desktop, one test machine, a TV, one or two game consoles which at least one should double as a dvd player, and some speakers. Maybe a PDA if thats your thing.
Cancel your Everquest (or whatever) accounts. I was a 4-year Everquest player and got to college and found out that Everquest didn't work on the university network. I was pretty pissed off about it for two weeks, but after a month or so I realized that I was much better off than had I been playing Everquest. I didn't even care about losing my multiple level 65's with 200+ AA after six weeks.
Get involved. We have a linux users group here at my university which is really active and very awesome. Met a lot of my now college friends this way. I'm sure your university will have an ACM chapter, an IEEE chapter, and a bunch of other geeky stuff. Join all of them. You also have a good side effect here of resume-whoring.
Don't be afraid to have fun. If you get arrested a few times, its no big deal. Do stupid stuff often and without premeditation. You'll have alot more fun this way.
Go to class at least half the time.
I can't figure out how to turn on this pro
Gmail is vaporware
Funny how I was notified of your post by reading my gmail account, huh.
If Yahoo! wants to give people an incentive to stick with an inferior product, that's fine, but what I was saying is that throwing a few megabytes around isn't going to make them comparable to gmail.
Yes but how do you think it compares to googles search? Seriously?
What makes Gmail incredible and revolutionary is the search features, the amazing interface, the threading, the labeling, and the tried and true "google minimalism."
Getting 1000mB's of space is just a side effect, that's there because gmail makes it desirable to archive multiple entire mailing lists.
Yahoo! is missing the point.
Correcting your post:
For some reason you bolded random words, they shouldn't be bolded. Please go back to school and learn acceptable use of bold.
more like a misquoted franklin
Ogg is an open format, MP3 is not.
My Rio Karma is full of 20 GBs of ogg vorbis encoded lovin' .
It has about 13 hours of battery life, and can talk by USB 2.0, USB 1.1, or even 100mbit ethernet. When I plug it into the ethernet, it runs a webserver with a java applet that allows you to send and receive software.
It works on any operating system with a VM/java plugin without a hitch. I use it in Linux and didn't have to set up anythign when I got it.
Don't know why they didnt review it...
On one hand, widespread proliferation of broadband without having to hang out near a hotspot will change everything, but on the other hand.... I really hope they dont do something like WEP again.
With Mandrake and Lindow's recent troubles, you'd think they would check that the name isn't already taken.
I just hope the distro ends up changing its name and not My favorite Window Manager
Too bad quantum crypto and quantum computing have absolutely nothing in common.
Quantum crypto is a misnomer, it isnt even crypto at all. It's an intrusion detection system. Quantum crypto works by sending sensitive photons through a tight channel as bits which will get disturbed by an eavesdropper. Where as electrical signal on a wire expects static, and a wiretap isnt noticed.
Quantum computing however, works on electron entanglement, and is pretty far off.
First off, I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over. Now on to the meat of my issue, we who are in the know, not just Linux Users, alot of people that I know who cant stand anything but MS: we are fairly informed about the SCO case. I used to assume that the public felt that way as well, but I don't anymore. We had a guest speaker in my infosec class last week, a professor from the University of Hawaii who wrote the textbook that we use. Dr. Panko's speech at some point turned to OSS vs proprietary software in terms of security. Panko claimed that the argument that OSS code is more secure was bunk, because all OSS code he has seen is crappy code (I doubt this is an informed opinion), and that most of it is just stolen from proprietary software anyway. Later in the speech someone asked a question regarding the subject of whether the security community will have to deal with MS's security methods forever. Panko quickly proclaimed that Linux is dying due to insurmountable legal trouble, and that they will likely never get out if it. I think that we do not have a good view of what the uninformed think about the SCO case. And while the case is substanceless, the PR is not. We need to take every opportunity to inform non-geeks, with the ample factual evidence that is out there, that this is an example of a pump and jump stock scam based on frivilous litigation, and that our chosen innovation paradigm (Open Source) is legit.