The Patent was filed August 22, 2000. Read the 'claims' it's important.
Then have a look at This (Posted on Usenet 1994-02-28)
Where is says: If you can access IRC you will be able to get in touch
with other netfolk on the #soccer channel. Even if no-one else is there
you will usually find a bot, called FootInfo, who will give you the
latest results. Type '/msg FootInfo help' for details,
This help system works with the/msg command, i.e. it's one-to-one bot-discussion.
I'm no fan of DRM, but RTFM still applies in a "DRM controlled future". Maybe even more so!
There is a thing we call 'reality', and it includes some strange things. One of those things is that very few people actually RTFM. I know, it can get you into trouble, but it's still 'reality'.
People are used to just clicking through installation processes (who often include 6-8 different steps) thinking that the default options will provide them with the options that gives maximum usability to the standard user (as is most often the case). That's reality.
The definition of "Quality" is "How well the product fullfills the customers expectations". Note that it's the customer, not the producer that defines the quality of a product. If limiting the usability of the customers music, is not something most customers expect, the we can truly say that the quality of the product has been compromised.
And why would Microsoft do that ?
It seems like only yesterday..
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 2
Errata from the desk of Bruce Schneier: Pay no attention to p. 584-587 of Applied Cryptography - 2nd Edition... I didn't know what I was talking about... now I do
Huh ? those pages are part of chapter 24 "Example Implementations" and describe how pgp works and explain key-signing and the trust-model that Philip Zimmermann built into it.
The text is in no way wrong or even outdated. Mr. Schneier writes good text who wouldn't be written much differently today.
The abstract of the paper suggests that the attacks largely fail when the data is compressed before encryption.
True, but it also mentions:
In the case of GnuPG (when compression is used), the attack fails only due to the presence of a message integrity check which is not explicitly required2 as part of the OpenPGP specification.
So, yes the attack doesn't work on GnuPG compressed data, but it looks like the GnuPG developers will have to close some other potential security flaws.
Imagine a user who has configured his software to automatically decrypt any encrypted e-mails he receives.
An adversary intercepts an encrypted message C sent to the user and wants to determine the contents P of this message.
To do so, the adversary creates some new C and sends it to the user; this message is then automatically decrypted by the user s computer and the user is presented with the corresponding message P.
To the user, P appears to be garbled; the user therefore replies to the adversary with, for example, What were you trying to send me? , but also quotes the garbled message P.
Thus, the user himself unwittingly acts as a decryption oracle for the adversary.
PGP and GnuPG use both symmetric and asymetric encryption algorithms to encrypt data. First a random key (S) is generated and the data (C) encrypted with it (giving you C'). The symetric key is then encrypted using the asymetric key (public key) giving you S'. When the sessage is sent the encrypted key S' is sent along with the data.
What appears to be happening is that Mr Schneier and buddies have figured out a way to create a data part C', so that when it is decrypted, the orinal symmetric key (S) can be obtained from it.
This means that :
Even if someone tricks you into decrypting a message for him, then that attack will only reveal the contents of that particilar message. (your private key, and all other encrypted data, is still safe)
PGP has not be 'broken', nobody can read you encrypted emails without your help.
the whole fscking point of this research is
how contrails affect cloud formation which then affects local climate.
Wow, that is quite a lot of research material.
Cloud formation is one thing and it's effects on climate is another. But have a look at the article:
for
Their conclusion: Without jets or contrails, the clear skies boosted the temperature swing between daytime highs and nighttime lows by about 3 degrees nationwide
So the 'swing' rose, indicating less skies ? (more skies would have decreased the swing)..
What is the theory here ? "publish crap and get some money "
You didn't even have to RTFA - the write-up itself says, "but now their work has been published in Nature.
There is a joke non-existing journal eften refered to in the scientific world, it's called "Journal of non-repeatable results", and belive me "Nature" is one such journal..
And if you had RTFA, you might see that what they were looking at was not the average temperature, but the temperature swing between day and night
Read carefully: the difference between day and night is greatly affected by skyes.. Skyes, during night, act as a isolator, and keep the heat from escaping into space.
Many skyes = Colder day & hotter night = less difference between night & day
Few skyes = Hot day & cold night = more difference between day & night
Add the effect from greenhouse gases and your "data" is worthless.
Trust me, 4 days of data is absolutely insignificant and those results will never get published in any scientific journal !!
I am always amazed by the gullibility of the general populice. How can people honestly believe that a modern government could harbour ANY kind of conspiracy given that they can't even keep the affair of a President with an intern secret??
You mean like Iran-Kontra ??? Or Nixon's tapes ??
Yep, the gullibility of the population is amazing..
To suggest that you can't learn anything from these situations reflects a misunderstanding about how science really works.
Absolutely, but where did I suggest that ?
My point was that there was *nothing* done to cancel out other factors or even explain how the numbers could have been affected. A real scientist would also have explained how the average of the same 4 days can change drasticly between years.
It is possible to skip the control group, sure. But in that case you have to repeat the experiment again and again, with and without the factor you are trying to measure (and you also have to include numbers from other factors), and then you calculate convergence for what you are trying to measure.
One measurement like this isn't worth piss, and yet it is presented as science.
The "researchers" compared the weather of the 4 days following september 11th when most (non millitary) air traffic was suspended to the 'average' temperature, for those 4 days, of the past 30 years.
Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of statistics can tell you that this 'experiment' is absolutely non-scientific and the researchers admit it that global warming is likely responsible for most of the increase.
And anyone with even the smallest knowledge of scientific research can tell you that those results will never get published in any acientific journal since the basic requirement of all research today was not met. The "control group". There was no control group. No, the days before and after don't count as control group.
Apart from that, air traffic might have effect on weather. But my point is that we can't conclude from this "experiment" what that effect is. More (real) research is required.
Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!
Didn't Disney executives have an US aircraft carrier sent to Pearl Harbour just before the opening of the film ??
... the United
States, like every other state past and present, pursues policies that reflect the interests of those who control the state by virtue of their
domestic power,... Noam Chomsky -- Necessary Illusions (c) 1989
Reread his post. Bruce ADMITS that maybe his emotions may be influencing his view of the sentence. He simply states that if it were him he would have worded it a little differently.
No, that's not all he does, indeed he states more than that, this is the post I was replying to, in full :
I read "full disclosure unless bound by contract" as "full disclosure unless you pay us to hide what we found". If I had written that page, I would have spun that line differently. I don't yet know if my (admittedly paranoid) interpretation represents the way they operate, or not.
He states how he interprets the text, by putting words in their mouths.
A more professional approach would have been to describe his interpretation from his own standpoint, and the reasons for *why* he interprets their words in such a way. That way, his sneaky suggestions of faule play could be reasoned.
And here is my reply to his comment:
Don't let your personal emotions of the moment blind your professionalism..
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's what was *said* ..
And yet, all the goldies (1980's films and older) are region coded
I seriously doubt that there were ever any noble plans for the region coding.
This is the second story recently that gives me second thoughts about flying Northwest.
Exactly !
Someone ought to investigate how the new, post-911, dragonian security measures are affecting the number of people that won't fly.
If they are reading brain-waves and penalising people based on those readings, shouldn't it be called thought-crime ?
If your 'prisoner'
a) Does not have a criminal-suspect status, and legal protection as such.
OR:
b) Does not have a POW (Prisoner of war) status, and legal protection as such.
Then: Your prisoner is a 'hostage'.
It's as simple as that.
Then have a look at This (Posted on Usenet 1994-02-28)
Where is says:
If you can access IRC you will be able to get in touch with other netfolk on the #soccer channel. Even if no-one else is there you will usually find a bot, called FootInfo, who will give you the latest results. Type '/msg FootInfo help' for details,
This help system works with the /msg command, i.e. it's one-to-one bot-discussion.
No, but I remember that when the original Doom came out, the internet link between Europe and the USA went down twice during the night that followed.
The effect on us, the CS students, was turning us into zombies during the day, and pizza and cola gulping freaks during the night..
There is a thing we call 'reality', and it includes some strange things. One of those things is that very few people actually RTFM. I know, it can get you into trouble, but it's still 'reality'.
People are used to just clicking through installation processes (who often include 6-8 different steps) thinking that the default options will provide them with the options that gives maximum usability to the standard user (as is most often the case). That's reality.
The definition of "Quality" is "How well the product fullfills the customers expectations". Note that it's the customer, not the producer that defines the quality of a product. If limiting the usability of the customers music, is not something most customers expect, the we can truly say that the quality of the product has been compromised.
And why would Microsoft do that ?
Don't people still remember This ?
It is a common practice to mark text that should not be taken to seriously with at least one smiley.
Huh ? those pages are part of chapter 24 "Example Implementations" and describe how pgp works and explain key-signing and the trust-model that Philip Zimmermann built into it.
The text is in no way wrong or even outdated. Mr. Schneier writes good text who wouldn't be written much differently today.
True, but it also mentions:
In the case of GnuPG (when compression is used), the attack fails only due to the presence of a message integrity check which is not explicitly required2 as part of the OpenPGP specification.
So, yes the attack doesn't work on GnuPG compressed data, but it looks like the GnuPG developers will have to close some other potential security flaws.
Imagine a user who has configured his software to automatically decrypt any encrypted e-mails he receives.
An adversary intercepts an encrypted message C sent to the user and wants to determine the contents P of this message.
To do so, the adversary creates some new C and sends it to the user; this message is then automatically decrypted by the user s computer and the user is presented with the corresponding message P
To the user, P appears to be garbled; the user therefore replies to the adversary with, for example, What were you trying to send me? , but also quotes the garbled message P
Thus, the user himself unwittingly acts as a decryption oracle for the adversary.
PGP and GnuPG use both symmetric and asymetric encryption algorithms to encrypt data. First a random key (S) is generated and the data (C) encrypted with it (giving you C'). The symetric key is then encrypted using the asymetric key (public key) giving you S'. When the sessage is sent the encrypted key S' is sent along with the data.
What appears to be happening is that Mr Schneier and buddies have figured out a way to create a data part C', so that when it is decrypted, the orinal symmetric key (S) can be obtained from it.
This means that :
Even if someone tricks you into decrypting a message for him, then that attack will only reveal the contents of that particilar message. (your private key, and all other encrypted data, is still safe)
PGP has not be 'broken', nobody can read you encrypted emails without your help.
This is not the end of PGP/GnuPG.
Wow, that is quite a lot of research material.
Cloud formation is one thing and it's effects on climate is another. But have a look at the article:
for Their conclusion: Without jets or contrails, the clear skies boosted the temperature swing between daytime highs and nighttime lows by about 3 degrees nationwide
So the 'swing' rose, indicating less skies ? (more skies would have decreased the swing)..
What is the theory here ? "publish crap and get some money "
??? Pardon me, but last tie I knew they had thousands.
Neither do meterologists have a "control" Earth to check against.
And that, my dear watson, is why the earth is not studied as one big rock, but as many small, where you have 'control groups'
There is a joke non-existing journal eften refered to in the scientific world, it's called "Journal of non-repeatable results", and belive me "Nature" is one such journal..
And if you had RTFA, you might see that what they were looking at was not the average temperature, but the temperature swing between day and night
Read carefully: the difference between day and night is greatly affected by skyes.. Skyes, during night, act as a isolator, and keep the heat from escaping into space.
Many skyes = Colder day & hotter night = less difference between night & day
Few skyes = Hot day & cold night = more difference between day & night
Add the effect from greenhouse gases and your "data" is worthless.
Trust me, 4 days of data is absolutely insignificant and those results will never get published in any scientific journal !!
I am always amazed by the gullibility of the general populice. How can people honestly believe that a modern government could harbour ANY kind of conspiracy given that they can't even keep the affair of a President with an intern secret??
You mean like Iran-Kontra ??? Or Nixon's tapes ??
Yep, the gullibility of the population is amazing ..
To suggest that you can't learn anything from these situations reflects a misunderstanding about how science really works.
Absolutely, but where did I suggest that ?
My point was that there was *nothing* done to cancel out other factors or even explain how the numbers could have been affected. A real scientist would also have explained how the average of the same 4 days can change drasticly between years.
It is possible to skip the control group, sure. But in that case you have to repeat the experiment again and again, with and without the factor you are trying to measure (and you also have to include numbers from other factors), and then you calculate convergence for what you are trying to measure.
One measurement like this isn't worth piss, and yet it is presented as science.
The "researchers" compared the weather of the 4 days following september 11th when most (non millitary) air traffic was suspended to the 'average' temperature, for those 4 days, of the past 30 years.
Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of statistics can tell you that this 'experiment' is absolutely non-scientific and the researchers admit it that global warming is likely responsible for most of the increase.
And anyone with even the smallest knowledge of scientific research can tell you that those results will never get published in any acientific journal since the basic requirement of all research today was not met. The "control group". There was no control group. No, the days before and after don't count as control group.
Apart from that, air traffic might have effect on weather. But my point is that we can't conclude from this "experiment" what that effect is. More (real) research is required.
Those who actually read the linux kernel source codem probably already knew Dijkstra and his god-like powers in the computer-sciences.
But for those who put their nose in there and juts read the comments, there are some references
Fr example: drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
That's exactly what 1% stands for.
Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!
Didn't Disney executives have an US aircraft carrier sent to Pearl Harbour just before the opening of the film ??
Noam Chomsky -- Necessary Illusions (c) 1989
It was an segmentation fault. and in 99% of those cases it's caused by bad input-checking.
No, that's not all he does, indeed he states more than that, this is the post I was replying to, in full :
I read "full disclosure unless bound by contract" as "full disclosure unless you pay us to hide what we found". If I had written that page, I would have spun that line differently. I don't yet know if my (admittedly paranoid) interpretation represents the way they operate, or not.
He states how he interprets the text, by putting words in their mouths.
A more professional approach would have been to describe his interpretation from his own standpoint, and the reasons for *why* he interprets their words in such a way.
That way, his sneaky suggestions of faule play could be reasoned.
And here is my reply to his comment:
Don't let your personal emotions of the moment blind your professionalism..
With regard of Yesterday's news a better title might have been:
Talibans: AT-ATs are Coming to a cave Near *!You!*
He was assuming (without any reference) a underlying purpose so he could suggest a underlying purpose..
That's not very professional.
Don't let your personal emotions of the moment blind your professionalism..