Yes. Because becoming powerful enough to change something from the inside is always the wrong way to go. Jobs had next to zero leverage when they started the iTunes store, he couldn't get the labels to do spit. Now he's got a bit of flex, and with EMI in his corner he's helped to open up the market to DRM-free major label music downloads. How horrible of him...
Of course, this won't mean anything if the consumers aren't willing to pay extra for their freedom or higher bitrate encodings.
Re:Anybody switching to Textmate from Vim?
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
I did. Right around the time TextMate was released.
Vim used to be my primary text editor, but it had it's issues. It wasn't the greatest OS X citizen, I kept forgetting the nifty tricks that I only needed to pull out of a hat once every couple of months, and it's not as easily customizable as I would like. Bottom line is it's wicked powerful, but a lot of work. TextMate, on the other hand, gives me almost all of the functionality I needed (yes, I have to go back to vim once every month or so for some task that's easier to do there), but it's better looking, fits in better with the OS, fits in better with my work-flow, and is easier to bend to my will.
I'm not saying it's better than Vim, I'm saying it's better than Vim for me. If you don't feel the same way feel free to not switch.
Re:I bought the PDF version yesterday
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
I just wanted to say thanks for the heads-up on the Pragmatic Erlang book. Nifty!
Re:Been demoing it myself. compare to BBEDIT
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Under TextMate Preferences, select the General pane, then check Show Right Margin indicator and possibly Highlight Right Margin if you want even more visual feedback. Then, under the View menu under Wrap Column, select "Other" then use the mouse to set it to column 80 (or, if you're happy with col. 78, you can just select that option) -- if you don't have Soft Wrap selected, then it will not wrap at that marker, just display it like you want.
As for the folding, in this version, all of the automatic folding is indentation based (start/stop regexps are used, but the pairs only match if they are at the same indent level). For languages like Python or Haskell this means autofolding is pretty limited. If you want accurate folding, you'll need to select the text you want folded and hit F1 to toggle between folded and unfolded state.
Re:Been demoing it myself. compare to BBEDIT
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
as textmate grows and add more and more language templates, it's ironically making those hard to access since the menus are getting too long.
If you show the Bundle Editor (Cmd-Opt-Ctrl-B, or just go through the Bundles menu), then You'll see a "Filter List..." button under the list of bundles. Hit that, and you can remove any bundles you don't want to see from the list. I only have a handful active, turning bundles back on for the one or two times I need to use them. It keeps things easy to handle
Jane Street Capital is running a project like this that revolves around OCaml. But if you want to apply, you'd better hurry -- today is the deadline for applications.
It really kills you that somebody who saw his presentation now believes him doesn't it.
Not at all. Though it does bother me that someone is willing to call something truth when there is still no evidence made public to substantiate it.
And regardless of how reputable The Register is, the article provides no information that support the reporter's conclusions. And until Maynor publishes those emails, there won't be any. He's already posted two updates to the blog since his presentation, including one that pertains to why he can't release his old work emails, but he hasn't yet made the personal ones available (nor has he even claimed that his old company won't allow him to release the old emails, just that they aren't his property and that releasing them without permission could be bad -- has he even asked for permission?).
Cases like this call for as much disclosure as is possible, and he hasn't come close to that yet. It's still a bunch of "oh, I plan to do this" and "oh, I could do that" with no backup. Either provide all of the info that you can, or shut up. That's all that's been asked since day one.
No. That is a link to a story with a great lack of details and a number of still unsubstantiated claims. There is still no public supporting evidence for his clams -- he hasn't even posted his personal correspondence with Apple yet, something he'd been free to do since day one.
Maybe he'll get around to it someday... who knows. But for now it's still just a lot of words with no support.
On the other hand if you want the soundtrack from the movie, which took a dozen guys a week to make in a studio, it will cost you $17. Oh, and the artist probably make peanuts. The day the recording industry can explain this, I will start to buy more CD's.
I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that there aren't millions of people paying 7-10 dollars a head to listen to the soundtrack in a theater. Sure, with most artists, you've got tours, but those generally play to a much smaller number of people (limited dates, limited cities), and the record labels don't get their cut off of them either.
Are CDs overpriced? Yeah. But your argument is just silly.
Yes, I can see how a line containing some of the background of the story would change the fact that yesterday's publication of the draft requirements for the hash candidates actually occurred yesterday and not several months ago.
"find a collision to a known string" is different than the problem here? Aren't we talking about the input strings?
No. There are a number of different properties that a cryptographic hash function should have. The first is what is referred to as collision resistance. That is, given a hash function H, the probability of finding any two strings x and y (x <> y) such that H(x) = H(y) should not be significantly greater than that of an ideal hash function (i.e. 2^-(|H(x)|/2)). The second (what the the GP was referring to) is one-wayness or non-invertability. With that the problem is, given H and input x, find an input y (x <> y) such that H(x) = H(y). The probability of this happening are not to be significantly greater than 2^-|H(x)|.
There are others, of course that have come to light of late, multi-collision resistance (i.e. finding k collisions should take k times as long as finding one collision -- most hash functions today only require log(k) times the amount of work), preservation of random oracle indistinguishability, length extension attack resistance, and so on. But the first two listed have always been of paramount importance.
Again you are wrong (and somewhat right about the incorrect title at the same time, iI suppose). The point of this workshop is to revise and amend FIPS 180-2. Now, while the SHA-2 line of hashes are laid out in FIPS 180-2, it is not the case that SHA-2 and the like will be thrown out. They meet the requirements laid out in the call, and frankly NIST would be insane to not make it one of the workshop's submissions. It may very well fall out that the SHA-2 is just fine and indeed the best candidate submission.
As for the Chinese attacks, they haven't shown any real applicability to SHA-2 as of yet.
No, it's not. The draft requirements and evaluation criteria were announced just yesterday. Unless you live in a place where January 23, 2007 is several months ago....
Yeah. 80% of the crypto world called for one too, they're just not as loud.
The thing is these kinds of contests take money and time to get running and (at least initially) NIST didn't have the resources to get a competition going. So what they did is organize a hash workshop for Halloween 2005, and had a second one last August following the Crypto conference where initial planning for the contest took place (a work shop that Schneier didn't bother to attend -- I guess he had yet another book to sell).
That's great. Except for one thing... Hashes are used all over the place in cryptography. That digital signature you generated? You didn't sign the message, you signed a hash of the message. That key you just exchanged? There was likely a hash involved in that process. Hashes are one of the basic building blocks of cryptographic protocols and systems, and while the recent weaknesses aren't too much to worry about yet as they aren't really practical or directly applicable, their presence is troubling.
And far more interesting (to me at least) are the attacks like Joux's multicollisions and Kelsey and Kohno's Hash Herding/Nostradamus attacks.
Why should I have to properly encode my videos to work as a DVD? Why should I have to convert my PostScript document to PDF before I can read it with my viewer? Why should I have to convert my mp3s to wav/aiff if I want to play them on a standard CD player?
The DRM is essentially another container/codec issue, which digital media is rife with. It doesn't *have* to be the case, Apple could let you "burn" to a virtual CD (which has the net effect of just stripping the DRM and re-encoding), but chances are the labels won't let them (for a while at least). Just like CD player manufacturers have the ability to make their players mp3 compatible, they aren't all doing it, and even fewer are offering ogg or aac compatibility, so you still have container/format issues. Without a universal standard sitting out there, this will always be an issue.
There were rumors that it would be quite audible, which might be true depending on the encoder.
Which is worth about as much as the rumor that the dogs of the world are uniting to overthrow us (as soon as they learn how to work the can opener, it's a go). Well, it's probably worth less, as it's a pretty easy thing to test if you notice any significant difference under your standard listening conditions.
That's why I'd like to see a little support of the notion that this workaround of the Apple DRM is no good because it makes your music unlistenable if people are going to be making that claim. And of course I don't care about your personal anecdote -- I can't tell the difference myself, but that doesn't necessarily make it so for most folk.
I agree with you man... I am so sick of having to hook my turntable up to my computer so I can get the music from my LPs onto my iPod. And I'm still pissed that my CD player won't take my 8-tracks...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Because if your girlfriend likes it better, then clearly everyone will like it better...
Here's the press release from Apple.
Yes. Because becoming powerful enough to change something from the inside is always the wrong way to go.
Jobs had next to zero leverage when they started the iTunes store, he couldn't get the labels to do spit. Now he's got a bit of flex, and with EMI in his corner he's helped to open up the market to DRM-free major label music downloads. How horrible of him...
Of course, this won't mean anything if the consumers aren't willing to pay extra for their freedom or higher bitrate encodings.
I did. Right around the time TextMate was released.
Vim used to be my primary text editor, but it had it's issues. It wasn't the greatest OS X citizen, I kept forgetting the nifty tricks that I only needed to pull out of a hat once every couple of months, and it's not as easily customizable as I would like. Bottom line is it's wicked powerful, but a lot of work.
TextMate, on the other hand, gives me almost all of the functionality I needed (yes, I have to go back to vim once every month or so for some task that's easier to do there), but it's better looking, fits in better with the OS, fits in better with my work-flow, and is easier to bend to my will.
I'm not saying it's better than Vim, I'm saying it's better than Vim for me. If you don't feel the same way feel free to not switch.
I just wanted to say thanks for the heads-up on the Pragmatic Erlang book. Nifty!
Under TextMate Preferences, select the General pane, then check Show Right Margin indicator and possibly Highlight Right Margin if you want even more visual feedback.
Then, under the View menu under Wrap Column, select "Other" then use the mouse to set it to column 80 (or, if you're happy with col. 78, you can just select that option) -- if you don't have Soft Wrap selected, then it will not wrap at that marker, just display it like you want.
As for the folding, in this version, all of the automatic folding is indentation based (start/stop regexps are used, but the pairs only match if they are at the same indent level). For languages like Python or Haskell this means autofolding is pretty limited. If you want accurate folding, you'll need to select the text you want folded and hit F1 to toggle between folded and unfolded state.
as textmate grows and add more and more language templates, it's ironically making those hard to access since the menus are getting too long.
If you show the Bundle Editor (Cmd-Opt-Ctrl-B, or just go through the Bundles menu), then You'll see a "Filter List..." button under the list of bundles. Hit that, and you can remove any bundles you don't want to see from the list. I only have a handful active, turning bundles back on for the one or two times I need to use them. It keeps things easy to handle
Jane Street Capital is running a project like this that revolves around OCaml.
But if you want to apply, you'd better hurry -- today is the deadline for applications.
It really kills you that somebody who saw his presentation now believes him doesn't it.
Not at all. Though it does bother me that someone is willing to call something truth when there is still no evidence made public to substantiate it.
And regardless of how reputable The Register is, the article provides no information that support the reporter's conclusions. And until Maynor publishes those emails, there won't be any. He's already posted two updates to the blog since his presentation, including one that pertains to why he can't release his old work emails, but he hasn't yet made the personal ones available (nor has he even claimed that his old company won't allow him to release the old emails, just that they aren't his property and that releasing them without permission could be bad -- has he even asked for permission?).
Cases like this call for as much disclosure as is possible, and he hasn't come close to that yet. It's still a bunch of "oh, I plan to do this" and "oh, I could do that" with no backup. Either provide all of the info that you can, or shut up. That's all that's been asked since day one.
No. That is a link to a story with a great lack of details and a number of still unsubstantiated claims.
There is still no public supporting evidence for his clams -- he hasn't even posted his personal correspondence with Apple yet, something he'd been free to do since day one.
Maybe he'll get around to it someday... who knows. But for now it's still just a lot of words with no support.
I'd guess that it is one of the greatest languages in the same sense that McDonald's is one of the greatest restaurants.
Install Quicksilver. It' makes a world of difference -- soon you'll have a "Window Key + R"-esque experience for all of the apps on your machine.
On the other hand if you want the soundtrack from the movie, which took a dozen guys a week to make in a studio, it will cost you $17. Oh, and the artist probably make peanuts. The day the recording industry can explain this, I will start to buy more CD's.
I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that there aren't millions of people paying 7-10 dollars a head to listen to the soundtrack in a theater.
Sure, with most artists, you've got tours, but those generally play to a much smaller number of people (limited dates, limited cities), and the record labels don't get their cut off of them either.
Are CDs overpriced? Yeah.
But your argument is just silly.
Anyone have a daylight saving fix for OS 9? 10.0? 10.1? 10.2? How about OS 8?
I'd guess that this procedure should work for any version of OS X.
Yes, I can see how a line containing some of the background of the story would change the fact that yesterday's publication of the draft requirements for the hash candidates actually occurred yesterday and not several months ago.
"find a collision to a known string" is different than the problem here? Aren't we talking about the input strings?
No. There are a number of different properties that a cryptographic hash function should have. The first is what is referred to as collision resistance. That is, given a hash function H, the probability of finding any two strings x and y (x <> y) such that H(x) = H(y) should not be significantly greater than that of an ideal hash function (i.e. 2^-(|H(x)|/2)). The second (what the the GP was referring to) is one-wayness or non-invertability. With that the problem is, given H and input x, find an input y (x <> y) such that H(x) = H(y). The probability of this happening are not to be significantly greater than 2^-|H(x)|.
There are others, of course that have come to light of late, multi-collision resistance (i.e. finding k collisions should take k times as long as finding one collision -- most hash functions today only require log(k) times the amount of work), preservation of random oracle indistinguishability, length extension attack resistance, and so on. But the first two listed have always been of paramount importance.
Of course it's also slower than SHA-256 and SHA-512 which have no reported weaknesses, so ... not no meaningless.
Again you are wrong (and somewhat right about the incorrect title at the same time, iI suppose). The point of this workshop is to revise and amend FIPS 180-2. Now, while the SHA-2 line of hashes are laid out in FIPS 180-2, it is not the case that SHA-2 and the like will be thrown out. They meet the requirements laid out in the call, and frankly NIST would be insane to not make it one of the workshop's submissions. It may very well fall out that the SHA-2 is just fine and indeed the best candidate submission.
As for the Chinese attacks, they haven't shown any real applicability to SHA-2 as of yet.
No, it's not. The draft requirements and evaluation criteria were announced just yesterday.
Unless you live in a place where January 23, 2007 is several months ago....
Yeah. 80% of the crypto world called for one too, they're just not as loud.
The thing is these kinds of contests take money and time to get running and (at least initially) NIST didn't have the resources to get a competition going. So what they did is organize a hash workshop for Halloween 2005, and had a second one last August following the Crypto conference where initial planning for the contest took place (a work shop that Schneier didn't bother to attend -- I guess he had yet another book to sell).
That's great. Except for one thing...
Hashes are used all over the place in cryptography. That digital signature you generated? You didn't sign the message, you signed a hash of the message. That key you just exchanged? There was likely a hash involved in that process. Hashes are one of the basic building blocks of cryptographic protocols and systems, and while the recent weaknesses aren't too much to worry about yet as they aren't really practical or directly applicable, their presence is troubling.
And far more interesting (to me at least) are the attacks like Joux's multicollisions and Kelsey and Kohno's Hash Herding/Nostradamus attacks.
With Mac, I guess you'd have to hunt around google for that list, and then hunt around for the websites.
Nah. You'd just go to Version Tracker.
Why should I have to properly encode my videos to work as a DVD?
Why should I have to convert my PostScript document to PDF before I can read it with my viewer?
Why should I have to convert my mp3s to wav/aiff if I want to play them on a standard CD player?
The DRM is essentially another container/codec issue, which digital media is rife with. It doesn't *have* to be the case, Apple could let you "burn" to a virtual CD (which has the net effect of just stripping the DRM and re-encoding), but chances are the labels won't let them (for a while at least). Just like CD player manufacturers have the ability to make their players mp3 compatible, they aren't all doing it, and even fewer are offering ogg or aac compatibility, so you still have container/format issues. Without a universal standard sitting out there, this will always be an issue.
There were rumors that it would be quite audible, which might be true depending on the encoder.
Which is worth about as much as the rumor that the dogs of the world are uniting to overthrow us (as soon as they learn how to work the can opener, it's a go). Well, it's probably worth less, as it's a pretty easy thing to test if you notice any significant difference under your standard listening conditions.
That's why I'd like to see a little support of the notion that this workaround of the Apple DRM is no good because it makes your music unlistenable if people are going to be making that claim. And of course I don't care about your personal anecdote -- I can't tell the difference myself, but that doesn't necessarily make it so for most folk.
I agree with you man... I am so sick of having to hook my turntable up to my computer so I can get the music from my LPs onto my iPod.
And I'm still pissed that my CD player won't take my 8-tracks...