I had similar experience. I plugged in something that turned out to be miswired, which blew out my power supply (antec, it was a decent power supply). I had a 6-drive raid5 on it, and it destroyed the controller boards on every drive but one. I advance RMA'd replacement drives (was happy that WD did advance RMA), then spent several days trying controller boards on each drive to get them copied onto new drives. Four drives I copied onto blank ones without too much problem, the fifth would die partway through the copy, but not at a consistent point, so I figured if I tried enough times I would eventually get a run where it stayed alive long enough to copy everything. and after a couple dozen tries, some getting up to 80% or so, average around 30%, I got the whole thing copied, and having 5/6 drives recovered, lost no data. No money, either, except shipping drives back to WD.
I called a couple data recovery places to see how much recovering that might cost - mostly out of curiosity, me being a broke college student. $18,000 - $38,000.
Then you have to explain why you're abbreviating Zinc as Z, not Zn. ZnFS doesn't have quite the same appeal, and even if you did that you'd have to explain why it's called Zinc Flouride Sulfide.
ZFS doesn't stand for zettabyte anything. "The name originally stood for "Zettabyte File System", but is now an orphan acronym." from wikipedia, sourced from http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/you_say_zeta_i_say .
and of course "RAID Array" is lovelily redundant phrasing.
I spent a minute try'n to figure out what meter this; if rhyming was your scheme perhaps a parody you'd done a song or some much-reforwarded meme.
but, alas, at last occurred to me despite the sim'lar lengths of every line the layout had no deep and thoughtful cause; you randomly hit 'return' from time to time.
How do you propose to ensure they don't have a weapon? Not with current technology. Glass or ceramic knives go straight through a metal detector. I understand you can even come by ceramic guns - no metal at all, so not a blip going through security.
I'm not in favor of the act, but there does need to exist some way to ensure that dangerous items don't go on a plane. Attempting to keep dangerous people off is one way. Better security of everything physically going on the plane may be preferable, but just how much can you screen before it becomes an invasion of privacy? Some say what's currently in place already does that.
Not an easy problem, and I don't think there exists a solution everyone will be satisfied with.
Of course suicide is a selfish act. It is putting your own feelings of frustration, helplessness, or general lack of other options ahead of those who love you, care about you, want to help you, and generally want you to stay alive.
And of course telling someone that they should not commit suicide is selfish. It puts your own desire that a person stay alive ahead of that person's feelings of frustration and unhappiness with life.
I don't see either side as right or wrong, but both should consider the other side. The feelings of those who care about a person considering suicide should be a factor in their decision (but not the blanket "feelings" of an organization). Those feelings may be small in comparison to the prospect of carrying out the rest of a life that one considers to no longer have value. But a person making that decision has to understand that it does not just affect themself.
Yes, but the point (well, one of the points) of SHA1 is that it's really fucking hard to find a combination of characters that produces the same hash as known hash. This is not what the process described in the article affects; this is just as hard as it has always been. What the process in the article affects is calculating colliding hashes from known pieces of data. It takes a very long time, given the hash of pants, to find something with the same hash - it now takes less time than it was originally thought to calculate, given "pants", a piece of data that gives an identical hash.
It doesn't have to be random garbage at the end. For example, say you have an image in the document without any sort of compression. Changing a bit here or there will affect, perhaps, the shade of a few colors, but it's possible to have a large amount of modifiable data using that, while the content remains the same. And all the data is used (in displaying the image).
Re:Break only affects carefully constructed messag
on
More on Newly Broken SHA-1
·
· Score: 2, Informative
as soon as you try to place specific content in the message, it becomes *much* harder to find a collision
It's pretty easy to put a whole lot of garbage data in a document. Changing this data wouldn't affect how the document looks, but would of course affect the hash. With this to modify, you could create a collision with the ease mentioned in the article.
If you store passwords as SHA hashes, and if someone can get a list of hashes, then they can find colliding passwords.
No, they can't. You can create a hash collision with a known piece of data, not with a known hash. You would have to know the original password (from which of course the hash is easily computable) to create a password with a colliding hash.
Re:Break only affects carefully constructed messag
on
More on Newly Broken SHA-1
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For your 38 million you could construct an machine that would create two random messages that hash to the same value. Totally useless.
Not true. The use of that is creating one legitimate document and apply a certification to it, with the authority of a trusted certifier (who would have verified it, because it is legitimate). At the same time your $38M machine would create a second document, with whatever information you care to put in, which that certifier would never touch. They have the same hash, so you could substitute in the bad document for the real one, and the certification would be entirely indistinguishable from authentic.
I disagree - this is very much like the Betamax case. You say that the central issue was use of a VCR for timeshifting - this is not true. Timeshifting was just an example of a legitimate fair use of the technology. VCRs and P2P both have thir illegal uses and their legitimate uses. The decision by the supreme court was that "copying equipment . . . does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes."
So, basically you have a technology that is a means of creating copies of material that may be copyrighted (VCR: movies and TV; P2P: anything that can be digitized). This technology does have fair use in addition to potential illegal use (VCR: timeshifting; VCR and P2P: copying and sharing non-copyright material). There is a company creating the means for copying (Sony/Grokster/Streamcast) whom the plaintiff (Universal/**AA) thinks should be held responsible for illegal use of the technology.
No, but you can do exactly what the MPAA does: get on a file-sharing service, put in search results for certain movies, and get the IP addresses of those sharing those movies. You can also look up what ISPs those IPs belong to, and start sending out lawsuits (though I would hope you're less likely to than the MPAA).
Another way I'm aware of is webcrawling bots that match filenames, and send out lawsuits to whoever owns the domains they reside on.
I would imagine the methods on Internet2 would be similar.
Slashdot Mirror
good question. as far as I can tell:
- story about tor on android goes up at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0130200/Anonymous-Browsing-On-Android-Phones-Using-Tor
- story about tor disappears - that url gives "The item you're trying to view either does not exist, or is not viewable to you."
- story about at&t congestion shows up at http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/10/25/1316233/A-Possible-Cause-of-ATampTs-Wireless-Clog-mdash-Configuration-Errors
- comments from tor story are on at&t story
- a few minutes later, the tor story reappears at the url of the at&t story, but now in the mobile section instead of yro. at&t content disappears from that url.
- at&t story appears as a new story at http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0152214/A-Possible-Cause-of-ATampTs-Wireless-Clog-mdash-Configuration-Errors
weird.
may I recommend reading the very first sentence of the summary?
wait, sorry, forgot what site I was on for a moment.
I had similar experience. I plugged in something that turned out to be miswired, which blew out my power supply (antec, it was a decent power supply). I had a 6-drive raid5 on it, and it destroyed the controller boards on every drive but one. I advance RMA'd replacement drives (was happy that WD did advance RMA), then spent several days trying controller boards on each drive to get them copied onto new drives. Four drives I copied onto blank ones without too much problem, the fifth would die partway through the copy, but not at a consistent point, so I figured if I tried enough times I would eventually get a run where it stayed alive long enough to copy everything. and after a couple dozen tries, some getting up to 80% or so, average around 30%, I got the whole thing copied, and having 5/6 drives recovered, lost no data. No money, either, except shipping drives back to WD.
I called a couple data recovery places to see how much recovering that might cost - mostly out of curiosity, me being a broke college student. $18,000 - $38,000.
I couldn't even finish the headline before I was laughing out loud, I only got as far as TSA Asked to Ensure Safety and I was gone.
MS CEO Steve Ballmer lied about a false programmer shortage for decades.
I don't know, I don't think there have been very many FALSE programmers. Not sure whether it's considered a shortage though.
just about everyone could get hit by a bus and within 2 months their names will be forgotten
well, yes, if everybody got hit by a bus, then who would be around to remember anybody?
also that would be quite an impressive bus.
Then you have to explain why you're abbreviating Zinc as Z, not Zn. ZnFS doesn't have quite the same appeal, and even if you did that you'd have to explain why it's called Zinc Flouride Sulfide.
ZFS doesn't stand for zettabyte anything. "The name originally stood for "Zettabyte File System", but is now an orphan acronym." from wikipedia, sourced from http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/you_say_zeta_i_say .
and of course "RAID Array" is lovelily redundant phrasing.
I'm pretty sure I saw a better video.
http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951
whoops, mismoderated, undoing.
I spent a minute try'n to figure out
what meter this; if rhyming was your scheme
perhaps a parody you'd done a song
or some much-reforwarded meme.
but, alas, at last occurred to me
despite the sim'lar lengths of every line
the layout had no deep and thoughtful cause;
you randomly hit 'return' from time to time.
That was remarkably well-written for somebody who can't be bothered to type 'you'. It would be a lot more readable if you would use English.
a vinyl record of every song that charted between 1950 and 1990.
Wow. That certainly is an impressive record.
If you click stop, it stops, but when you click next, it starts again. However, if you click slow down, it keeps the same speed when you click next. So, solution is to set a very very long interval. This link does this:r warscienceslide_2.html?thisSpeed=4294967295
http://forbes.com/technology/2005/05/10/cx_mh_sta
as long as they don't have a weapon
How do you propose to ensure they don't have a weapon? Not with current technology. Glass or ceramic knives go straight through a metal detector. I understand you can even come by ceramic guns - no metal at all, so not a blip going through security.
I'm not in favor of the act, but there does need to exist some way to ensure that dangerous items don't go on a plane. Attempting to keep dangerous people off is one way. Better security of everything physically going on the plane may be preferable, but just how much can you screen before it becomes an invasion of privacy? Some say what's currently in place already does that.
Not an easy problem, and I don't think there exists a solution everyone will be satisfied with.
It is complicated, but it is VERY easy
Make up your mind.
Of course suicide is a selfish act. It is putting your own feelings of frustration, helplessness, or general lack of other options ahead of those who love you, care about you, want to help you, and generally want you to stay alive.
And of course telling someone that they should not commit suicide is selfish. It puts your own desire that a person stay alive ahead of that person's feelings of frustration and unhappiness with life.
I don't see either side as right or wrong, but both should consider the other side. The feelings of those who care about a person considering suicide should be a factor in their decision (but not the blanket "feelings" of an organization). Those feelings may be small in comparison to the prospect of carrying out the rest of a life that one considers to no longer have value. But a person making that decision has to understand that it does not just affect themself.
Yes, but the point (well, one of the points) of SHA1 is that it's really fucking hard to find a combination of characters that produces the same hash as known hash. This is not what the process described in the article affects; this is just as hard as it has always been. What the process in the article affects is calculating colliding hashes from known pieces of data. It takes a very long time, given the hash of pants, to find something with the same hash - it now takes less time than it was originally thought to calculate, given "pants", a piece of data that gives an identical hash.
It doesn't have to be random garbage at the end. For example, say you have an image in the document without any sort of compression. Changing a bit here or there will affect, perhaps, the shade of a few colors, but it's possible to have a large amount of modifiable data using that, while the content remains the same. And all the data is used (in displaying the image).
as soon as you try to place specific content in the message, it becomes *much* harder to find a collision
It's pretty easy to put a whole lot of garbage data in a document. Changing this data wouldn't affect how the document looks, but would of course affect the hash. With this to modify, you could create a collision with the ease mentioned in the article.
If you store passwords as SHA hashes, and if someone can get a list of hashes, then they can find colliding passwords.
No, they can't. You can create a hash collision with a known piece of data, not with a known hash. You would have to know the original password (from which of course the hash is easily computable) to create a password with a colliding hash.
For your 38 million you could construct an machine that would create two random messages that hash to the same value. Totally useless.
Not true. The use of that is creating one legitimate document and apply a certification to it, with the authority of a trusted certifier (who would have verified it, because it is legitimate).
At the same time your $38M machine would create a second document, with whatever information you care to put in, which that certifier would never touch. They have the same hash, so you could substitute in the bad document for the real one, and the certification would be entirely indistinguishable from authentic.
It is widely recognized that intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
I disagree - this is very much like the Betamax case. You say that the central issue was use of a VCR for timeshifting - this is not true. Timeshifting was just an example of a legitimate fair use of the technology. VCRs and P2P both have thir illegal uses and their legitimate uses. The decision by the supreme court was that "copying equipment . . . does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes."
So, basically you have a technology that is a means of creating copies of material that may be copyrighted (VCR: movies and TV; P2P: anything that can be digitized). This technology does have fair use in addition to potential illegal use (VCR: timeshifting; VCR and P2P: copying and sharing non-copyright material). There is a company creating the means for copying (Sony/Grokster/Streamcast) whom the plaintiff (Universal/**AA) thinks should be held responsible for illegal use of the technology.
It looks pretty similar to me.
both unpopular and almost certainly breaking the law . . . I don't have much respect for people who are either of those things.
You don't have respect for people who are unpopular? Get off this site right now.
No, but you can do exactly what the MPAA does: get on a file-sharing service, put in search results for certain movies, and get the IP addresses of those sharing those movies. You can also look up what ISPs those IPs belong to, and start sending out lawsuits (though I would hope you're less likely to than the MPAA).
Another way I'm aware of is webcrawling bots that match filenames, and send out lawsuits to whoever owns the domains they reside on.
I would imagine the methods on Internet2 would be similar.