The first thing that occurred to me is "how the
hell does the FBI pressure New Zealand?" Having
read the referenced article, it sure seems to me
like the NZ police, spooks, and politicians are
chomping at the bit to get this done of their
own volition. The FBI can "push" a standardized
intel scheme, but that certainly doesn't pressure
or coerce any sovereign nation that isn't in our
"welfare state grasp" to implement it.
Real pressure can happen only when we export our
"welfare state" to other nations. Case in point:
when the Bahamas wanted to adopt Grand Caymen's
private banking model (which is even more secure
and private than the infamous Swiss banks,) the
U.S. used its foreign aid (direct and indirect,
like the Carribbean Basin Initiative) to coerce
the Bahamas into compromising the privacy of
account holders. Grand Caymen, unlike the
Bahamas, is a very wealthy island nation and can
afford to tell the U.S. to kiss its tanned ass
without hesitation.
Closer to home, how about this one: the federal
government gets the states deeply dependent on
highway dollars, and then tells them that they
either pass a piece of legislation or they'll
lose the federal "aid." Don't think it can
happen? It just did and by 2004 all states will
have a.08 blood alcohol level law. It matters
not whether you think this is a good law, but
the important thing is to study how they can
control the states in a manner the U.S.
Constitution doesn't allow. If the feds want to
control public schools and how your children are
educated, they simply have to give them lots of
"free" money and get them highly dependent on
that money - oops... they've already done that,
too.
But let's not stop there, because the politicos
themselves are debt-ridden to the corporations
and special interests that fund their campaigns.
So you tell me whose running the show - it sure
ain't the FBI.
Don't listen to the baloney that @Home dishes
out about incompatibility with Linux. I use
an old 16-meg RAM 486 box with a floppy booted
copy of EigerStein/Linux router/firewall:
http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/
and it has worked perfectly 24X7 since the day
it went online last June.
As a cross-platform software developer, the
client machines on my LAN include Windows
98, NT, and 2000, and a Red Hat Linux 6.1
system. All work great with the Linux router/
firewall. I usually get around 1100 kilobits
(~130 kilobytes) per second on the receiving
bandwidth and you'd never know the router/
firewall was there.
The EigerStein package can either dynamically
assign IP addresses to the client machines,
or you can hardcode them, depending on your
needs. Additionally, like with any other
linux router package, you can pass through
(or lock out) individual ports if you want
to use something like Napster on the client
machines.
There was very little tweaking of the firewall
configuration files to get it working with @Home
and DHCP - the hardest part was figuring out the
real names of the local mail and news servers -
when installed, the @Home tech will simply use
"mail" and "news" as the server names. The
receipt they give you after the install has all
the info you need to figure them out.
Their watchdog press will raise a big stink and...no wait...their church leaders will rally against such an immoral...no wait...the people will take their firearms and rise up against the tyrants and...no wait...it's an election year in China and the politicians would never risk...no wait...hmmm........offhand, I'd say them Tibetans are screwed.
Let's say someone does the legwork, finds a company that was using one-click shopping before Amazon, and wins the 10,000 clams. Why couldn't that company then rightfully patent it, and we're back where we started? Perhaps that company can then make a kajillion dollars (and their attorneys a nice contingency fee) charging Amazon for back-royalties for infringement, like the guy who invented the delay circuit for windshield wipers.
Can BountyQuest explain why this can't become just another game where the lawyers win? I'm not pointing fingers at the distinguished staff at BountyQuest, but have they unintentionally fallen into a "Break SDMI" sucker job? The real goal should be not to prove that Amazon (or any other particular company, deep pockets or not) doesn't deserve the patent, but that the concept is not patentable. Perhaps BountyQuest should consult their own attorneys about the patentability of a SETI@Home analog for legal research.
...even a Beowulf cluster of these things can't
stop them from being slashdotted.
You know it's a slow news day when...
on
Lego Mindstorms DJ
·
· Score: 1
going to the trouble of posting a story like this
takes priority over masturbating. Well then,
Legos story out of the way for this week, guess
we're all on the edge of our seats for some real
dishes about some wood-popping anime, eh?
Score 5: Informative's should actually be
competent. There is no "Island of Nassau in
the Bahamas."
Nassau is a city on the island of New Providence.
And it's a whole lot cheaper to create a new
corporation in the U.S. Not to mention that if
you do create a corporation outside of your
state of residence, you probably still have to
pay a hefty fee to register that corporation to
do business in your own state.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574101250/ o/qid=969020624/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/ 104-3506991-0795118
How it was supposed to be...
on
Biotransistors
·
· Score: 1
Old news, d00d. I have Windows 98 running in my septic tank right now.
> Jim Starkey, the "Big Bad Wolf" of Interbase and original author claims to have invented the concept of a BLOB (binary large object) stored in a relational database.
It's quite a story, and you'll find at least 2 errors in the above sentence when you read about it:
Check it out: ftp://ftp2.interbase.com/pub/products/beta6.0/ib_b 60_doc.zip There's also a general clean-up of typos and errors underway as well as a whole book being written by the IBDI: http://www.interbase2000.com/ib_handbook.htm Baudtender
> 2) What do people in the villages need with the > Internet anyway?
I have decided that anyone stupid enough to ask this question doesn't deserve Internet access.
You are hereby sentenced to spend the next year crapping in your hand and sucking water from the atmosphere in order to inconvenience Us Really Important People to the smallest possible degree (and tell your damned kids to stay the hell out of MY BANDWIDTH.)
Come back next year and tell us if you've got it yet.
For those who think no ones cares about this sort of thing, I gotta say that when I found out about this keyboard, I did my "happy dance."
Imagine this - a touchscreen 15" LCD monitor with built-in speakers, one of these keyboards, an Espresso with a USB Ethernet adapter and a Hauppauge USB TV tuner mounted "out of the weather", and what have I got?
Order a beer and surf the net, or frag your neighbor, or watch whatever damned game you want, or request a tune from our MP3 jukebox or MIDI-ized player piano, cause you're sitting at the coolest bar in town.
Good Lord, Man - Quantum Cryptography is the easiest thing in the world to understand (unless you own a cat, and keep it in a box.)
It makes perfect sense, as long as you aren't looking at it. The decryption may or may not be correct, depending on when you are observing it - and if you are observing it, it can't possibly be, so therefore, it has the same potential as when you weren't observing it, meaning, of course, that the encrypted message has an equal potential of being the message and you probably would have been better off masturbating instead of trying to decrypt it in the first place.
In other words, no matter what the encrypted data is, the answer is equally likely to be:
1) Your wife is sleeping with another man. 2) You have 15 minutes until the Doomsday Device goes off. 3) Your body hungers for more refried beans, and this time, it's not a suggestion.
There are a few other possible answers, also. I leave them to your mathemagic talents to postulate.
Buy the book "Iris", read it on the toilet and try to grok their "quantum scanner" device. My prediction is that you'll enjoy the poo's more than the book, but that's O.K.
I'm thinking the whole key-length argument and export laws are a big smoke screen.
Let's say it's legal to export 40-bit crypto, but illegal to export 400-bit crypto algorithms (for sake of easy numbers - although I appreciate that there are endpoints of diminishing returns.)
I encrypt something with a 40-bit key, and then re-encrypt the output with a different 40-bit key, and repeat this until I've done it a total of 10 times.
The person who decrypts it (with no other knowlege) needs the equivalent of a 400-bit unique key, right?
What if I use an unpredictable (not to the receiver, but to the brute forcer) crypto algorithm for each re-encryption step - have I not made the permutations even more enormous?
So when it comes to key lengths, what's all the hubbub, Bub? Algorithmically, we can absolutely prove that the most economical way to gain access to encrypted data is to get it before it is encrypted or just after it is decrypted - chip your keyboard, parasite your file system, intercept radio, EM, or powerline frequency fluctuations, compromise you (or someone close enough to you) on a personal level, look over your shoulder, or pull out your fingernails with needlenose pliers.
I may be Just Another Paranoid - but I think that the mass of public "crypto gurus" are either blissfully ignorant, seduced by the lure of superfluous academic gunk, or are part of The Game. If you deny any of the above, it's true. If you admit to any of the above, it's true. If you make jokes about any of the above, it's true. Did I leave anything out - if I did, and it sounds bad, it's probably true. Stop denying it, and don't you dare admit it.
What _really_ makes me angry is that I can't think of anything that I need to encrypt (as far as you know.)
Dancing Demon was one of those wonderful Leo Christopherson hacks using packed strings in BASIC. If you're feeling really nostalgic, you can download a TRS-80 emulator and the Dancing Demon program (among others) here: http://www.trs-80.com/ Baudtender
Slashdot Mirror
The first thing that occurred to me is "how the
.08 blood alcohol level law. It matters
hell does the FBI pressure New Zealand?" Having
read the referenced article, it sure seems to me
like the NZ police, spooks, and politicians are
chomping at the bit to get this done of their
own volition. The FBI can "push" a standardized
intel scheme, but that certainly doesn't pressure
or coerce any sovereign nation that isn't in our
"welfare state grasp" to implement it.
Real pressure can happen only when we export our
"welfare state" to other nations. Case in point:
when the Bahamas wanted to adopt Grand Caymen's
private banking model (which is even more secure
and private than the infamous Swiss banks,) the
U.S. used its foreign aid (direct and indirect,
like the Carribbean Basin Initiative) to coerce
the Bahamas into compromising the privacy of
account holders. Grand Caymen, unlike the
Bahamas, is a very wealthy island nation and can
afford to tell the U.S. to kiss its tanned ass
without hesitation.
Closer to home, how about this one: the federal
government gets the states deeply dependent on
highway dollars, and then tells them that they
either pass a piece of legislation or they'll
lose the federal "aid." Don't think it can
happen? It just did and by 2004 all states will
have a
not whether you think this is a good law, but
the important thing is to study how they can
control the states in a manner the U.S.
Constitution doesn't allow. If the feds want to
control public schools and how your children are
educated, they simply have to give them lots of
"free" money and get them highly dependent on
that money - oops... they've already done that,
too.
But let's not stop there, because the politicos
themselves are debt-ridden to the corporations
and special interests that fund their campaigns.
So you tell me whose running the show - it sure
ain't the FBI.
> Hey, is there a Linux version of the Color
> Kinetics software out there?
According to their website, their products
support DMX512 protocol, so yes, there is
Linux software (free!) that can support it!
Just do a freshmeat.net search on "DMX"
Don't listen to the baloney that @Home dishes
out about incompatibility with Linux. I use
an old 16-meg RAM 486 box with a floppy booted
copy of EigerStein/Linux router/firewall:
http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/
and it has worked perfectly 24X7 since the day
it went online last June.
As a cross-platform software developer, the
client machines on my LAN include Windows
98, NT, and 2000, and a Red Hat Linux 6.1
system. All work great with the Linux router/
firewall. I usually get around 1100 kilobits
(~130 kilobytes) per second on the receiving
bandwidth and you'd never know the router/
firewall was there.
The EigerStein package can either dynamically
assign IP addresses to the client machines,
or you can hardcode them, depending on your
needs. Additionally, like with any other
linux router package, you can pass through
(or lock out) individual ports if you want
to use something like Napster on the client
machines.
There was very little tweaking of the firewall
configuration files to get it working with @Home
and DHCP - the hardest part was figuring out the
real names of the local mail and news servers -
when installed, the @Home tech will simply use
"mail" and "news" as the server names. The
receipt they give you after the install has all
the info you need to figure them out.
Their watchdog press will raise a big stink and...no wait...their church leaders will rally against such an immoral...no wait...the people will take their firearms and rise up against the tyrants and...no wait...it's an election year in China and the politicians would never risk...no wait...hmmm........offhand, I'd say them Tibetans are screwed.
Let's say someone does the legwork, finds a company that was using one-click shopping before Amazon, and wins the 10,000 clams. Why couldn't that company then rightfully patent it, and we're back where we started? Perhaps that company can then make a kajillion dollars (and their attorneys a nice contingency fee) charging Amazon for back-royalties for infringement, like the guy who invented the delay circuit for windshield wipers.
Can BountyQuest explain why this can't become just another game where the lawyers win? I'm not pointing fingers at the distinguished staff at BountyQuest, but have they unintentionally fallen into a "Break SDMI" sucker job? The real goal should be not to prove that Amazon (or any other particular company, deep pockets or not) doesn't deserve the patent, but that the concept is not patentable. Perhaps BountyQuest should consult their own attorneys about the patentability of a SETI@Home analog for legal research.
...even a Beowulf cluster of these things can't
stop them from being slashdotted.
going to the trouble of posting a story like this
takes priority over masturbating. Well then,
Legos story out of the way for this week, guess
we're all on the edge of our seats for some real
dishes about some wood-popping anime, eh?
Score 5: Informative's should actually be competent. There is no "Island of Nassau in the Bahamas." Nassau is a city on the island of New Providence. And it's a whole lot cheaper to create a new corporation in the U.S. Not to mention that if you do create a corporation outside of your state of residence, you probably still have to pay a hefty fee to register that corporation to do business in your own state. See: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574101250/ o/qid=969020624/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/ 104-3506991-0795118
Old news, d00d. I have Windows 98 running in
my septic tank right now.
Because a corporation like Inprise/Borland has many lawyers to pay, and lawyers have a vested interest in doing stuff that makes them get paid.
Open source law practice - now there's a concept I could sink my teeth into.
> Jim Starkey, the "Big Bad Wolf" of Interbase and original author claims to have invented the concept of a BLOB (binary large object) stored in a relational database.
_ history.htm
It's quite a story, and you'll find at least 2 errors in the above sentence when you read about it:
http://members.tripod.com/cvalde/misc/blob_true
Check it out: ftp://ftp2.interbase.com/pub/products/beta6.0/ib_b 60_doc.zip There's also a general clean-up of typos and errors underway as well as a whole book being written by the IBDI: http://www.interbase2000.com/ib_handbook.htm Baudtender
> 2) What do people in the villages need with the > Internet anyway?
I have decided that anyone stupid enough to ask
this question doesn't deserve Internet access.
You are hereby sentenced to spend the next year
crapping in your hand and sucking water from the
atmosphere in order to inconvenience Us Really
Important People to the smallest possible
degree (and tell your damned kids to stay the
hell out of MY BANDWIDTH.)
Come back next year and tell us if you've got it
yet.
Baudtender
For those who think no ones cares about this sort
of thing, I gotta say that when I found out about
this keyboard, I did my "happy dance."
Imagine this - a touchscreen 15" LCD monitor with
built-in speakers, one of these keyboards, an
Espresso with a USB Ethernet adapter and a
Hauppauge USB TV tuner mounted "out of the
weather", and what have I got?
Order a beer and surf the net, or frag your
neighbor, or watch whatever damned game you
want, or request a tune from our MP3 jukebox
or MIDI-ized player piano, cause you're sitting
at the coolest bar in town.
Baudtender
Good Lord, Man - Quantum Cryptography is the
easiest thing in the world to understand (unless
you own a cat, and keep it in a box.)
It makes perfect sense, as long as you aren't
looking at it. The decryption may or may not
be correct, depending on when you are observing
it - and if you are observing it, it can't
possibly be, so therefore, it has the same
potential as when you weren't observing it,
meaning, of course, that the encrypted message
has an equal potential of being the message
and you probably would have been better off
masturbating instead of trying to decrypt it
in the first place.
In other words, no matter what the encrypted
data is, the answer is equally likely to be:
1) Your wife is sleeping with another man.
2) You have 15 minutes until the Doomsday
Device goes off.
3) Your body hungers for more refried beans,
and this time, it's not a suggestion.
There are a few other possible answers, also.
I leave them to your mathemagic talents to
postulate.
Buy the book "Iris", read it on the toilet and
try to grok their "quantum scanner" device.
My prediction is that you'll enjoy the poo's
more than the book, but that's O.K.
Baudtender
I'm thinking the whole key-length argument and
export laws are a big smoke screen.
Let's say it's legal to export 40-bit crypto, but
illegal to export 400-bit crypto algorithms
(for sake of easy numbers - although I appreciate
that there are endpoints of diminishing returns.)
I encrypt something with a 40-bit key, and then
re-encrypt the output with a different 40-bit
key, and repeat this until I've done it a total
of 10 times.
The person who decrypts it (with no other
knowlege) needs the equivalent of a 400-bit
unique key, right?
What if I use an unpredictable (not to the
receiver, but to the brute forcer) crypto
algorithm for each re-encryption step - have
I not made the permutations even more enormous?
So when it comes to key lengths, what's all the
hubbub, Bub? Algorithmically, we can absolutely
prove that the most economical way to gain access
to encrypted data is to get it before it is
encrypted or just after it is decrypted - chip
your keyboard, parasite your file system,
intercept radio, EM, or powerline frequency
fluctuations, compromise you (or someone close
enough to you) on a personal level, look over
your shoulder, or pull out your fingernails with needlenose pliers.
I may be Just Another Paranoid - but I think that
the mass of public "crypto gurus" are either
blissfully ignorant, seduced by the lure of
superfluous academic gunk, or are part of The
Game. If you deny any of the above, it's true.
If you admit to any of the above, it's true.
If you make jokes about any of the above, it's
true. Did I leave anything out - if I did, and
it sounds bad, it's probably true. Stop denying
it, and don't you dare admit it.
What _really_ makes me angry is that I can't think
of anything that I need to encrypt (as far as
you know.)
Baudtender
Dancing Demon was one of those wonderful Leo Christopherson hacks using packed strings in BASIC. If you're feeling really nostalgic, you can download a TRS-80 emulator and the Dancing Demon program (among others) here: http://www.trs-80.com/ Baudtender