Expect "digital fingerprint remover" software to appear in the digital 'black market' as soon as this thingy is implemented.
Then expect conversations like this to appear in bash:
[Joe]The MPAA is knocking at my house!:( [1337-0]Hahahahahah you forgot to remove the fingerprint? [PhantomZero]ROFL! Pwned! [Joe]It's NOT funny! I have to go, bbs:( [1337-0]bbs, or bbl... way l? [PhantomZero]LMAO!
So short passwords are better than long passphrases?
Well let's see if you can brute force this.
"This is an uber-r4ndom s3ntencE. Try to cracK it."
So if we have say, 6 bits per character, and we have a 40-characters passpharse, what do we get? 640bits! That's 4 times larger than a SHA-1 hash.
The idea here is not how vulnerable passphrases are, but how stronger they can be COMPARED to simple passwords. By just changing ONE letter to a number, dictionary attacks can be foiled.
It says that large enough random data will eventually generate data with a specific meaning to us. Check out this paper from the University of Texas.
One of my science group teammates in the Faculty of Engineering, UNAM already worked on this phenomenon. They built an associative machine (AI pattern recognition program) using a block of memory filled with random data.
In short, Ramsey Theory is nothing but the scientific explanation behind the Bible Code: It's RANDOM DATA. Period.
Well, the guys at Princeton just earned a "-5, stupid" moderation from me. Bet they didn't predict this;-)
I'm a telepath <AdmiralPJ> I can predict things before they happen <AdmiralPJ> yes i know <ari> That's precognition, not telepathy <ari> Ah, damnit... <ari> Good one
Remember the last article on/. about a star flunging away from our own galaxy? It said that could only be possible if the Milky Way orbited around a SM black hole. Which led to the discussion about the role of black holes in galaxy formation.
What strikes me is that just a couple of days after this theoretical discussion, the scientists at Carnegie Mellon come up with a model that predicts exactly the same theory.
Spy der Mann writes: "A slashdot reader also known as 'Anonymous Coward' to protect his identity, just purchased all the Microsoft stock shares from ebay at $1337 bucks. Not each, ALL. He published in his webpage that he plans to release the Windows source code under GPL 3.0. Frankly, I don't care, Linux just became the mainstream OS. But oh well..."
When we realized that humans looked back whenever we looked at them, we realized that there IS intelligent life outside the sea. (Some) humans have earned my respect.
OH darn, I'm drying up. I better go back to my tank.
Yes. However you took from them PHYSICAL property. In this case, the penalty for shoplifting should be MORE than from downloading a pirated file. Of course, the damage in question is less than say, $100 ?
IMHO downloading a pirated file should be fined with not more than the value of the file in question (in this case, the DVD's cost).
So the RIAA and MPAA should go after _ALL_ the people downloading these files. This would result in a greater fear of getting caught, major income for the RIAA, and less pentalties for the infringers.
No, no, no! NATAS exploited a bug in some versions of Thunderbyte's TBCLEAN, which used, at the time, single-step and breakpoint interrupts to trace through an infected program until the virus restored the original execution point and jumped there
What I meant to say is that if you hit ctrl-c, mcaffee's antivirus would execute arbitrary code of NON-infected files. Yes, I know, it's ridiculous, but that's what happened. In any case, thanks for the insight on NATAS.
I did mean CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check). By padding the exe with enough 0's before adding its own code, the CRC of the file was unaltered. Remember we're talking about MS-DOS systems 10 years ago.
Around 1994, the NATAS virus stormed computers all around the world. It was the first polymorphic virus. And it was undetectable with traditional means (didn't alter the exes' CRC).
McAffee released a new (experimental?) version of their antivirus, so that it would clean NATAS. Unfortunately, sometimes if you pressed CTRL-C, part of your programs' code would execute randomly (later, they released a completely different version, which effectively cleaned NATAS and similar viruses, without having such nasty bugs).
Frankly, this execute-to-test-for-viruses was always a bad idea. I don't know why Symantec fell into that. Unless of course, it's more like a buffer overflow, which is understandable.
I'm telling this from experience. I remember that some the hardest times I had was having bad grades. My parents usually said: "If you were stupid, we would understand, but you're not. You're a very smart kid". So, because I was smart, whenever I failed, I became something WORSE than stupid. I became USELESS.
In other words, it was (according to their twisted logic) MY FAULT that I failed. I had to carry that burden for a long time.
So, if anybody here is going to be a parent, please. Do NOT pressure your children. You'll regret later. Oh yes, you will.
It depends. I have ADHD (Attention Defficit with Hyperactivity Disorder), and yet I have a high IQ. These can be related, but not always.
Maybe it was my inability to relate to other kids in classroom that I found a refuge in science. Luckily, my math skills made me excel in science, and of course, programming:).
But to excel you need study and practice, it's not just genetics, and certainly, not only ADD. Not all people with ADD or ADHD are good at school - mainly because they can't pay enough attention at what the teacher says.
My advantage is that my father was a computer pioneer - when all the kids were playing around with their Star Wars toys, I was typing a C64 game from the RUN magazine.
So it very much depends on the environment surrounding people with ADD. Some can become geniuses, an others, common criminals.
However, you have a good point. How many of the great men of science have or had ADD? I'd like to see a study on this.
Also, people trained to follow rules choke when they're asked to be inventive. A friend works as an executive in a major fast food business, and he told me how they classify employees according to their way of solving problems (psychometric test). The worst thing you can do to somebody who "follows the rules" is ask him to be inventive. He'll break up in no time.
All the linked posts were modded "Funny". Who knows if they were from _ACTUAL_ windows source code. And yet, the parent post is modded INSIGHTFUL! Shouldn't it be modded funny, too? Or maybe "interesting"?
Slashdot Mirror
Expect "digital fingerprint remover" software to appear in the digital 'black market' as soon as this thingy is implemented.
:( :(
Then expect conversations like this to appear in bash:
[Joe]The MPAA is knocking at my house!
[1337-0]Hahahahahah you forgot to remove the fingerprint?
[PhantomZero]ROFL! Pwned!
[Joe]It's NOT funny! I have to go, bbs
[1337-0]bbs, or bbl... way l?
[PhantomZero]LMAO!
I bet they didn't hear Evil Captain Kirk's speech in a famous Startrek Convention :P
So short passwords are better than long passphrases?
Well let's see if you can brute force this.
"This is an uber-r4ndom s3ntencE. Try to cracK it."
So if we have say, 6 bits per character, and we have a 40-characters passpharse, what do we get? 640bits! That's 4 times larger than a SHA-1 hash.
The idea here is not how vulnerable passphrases are, but how stronger they can be COMPARED to simple passwords. By just changing ONE letter to a number, dictionary attacks can be foiled.
It says that large enough random data will eventually generate data with a specific meaning to us. Check out this paper from the University of Texas.
;-)
One of my science group teammates in the Faculty of Engineering, UNAM already worked on this phenomenon. They built an associative machine (AI pattern recognition program) using a block of memory filled with random data.
In short, Ramsey Theory is nothing but the scientific explanation behind the Bible Code: It's RANDOM DATA. Period.
Well, the guys at Princeton just earned a "-5, stupid" moderation from me. Bet they didn't predict this
I'm a telepath
<AdmiralPJ> I can predict things before they happen
<AdmiralPJ> yes i know
<ari> That's precognition, not telepathy
<ari> Ah, damnit...
<ari> Good one
Remember the last article on /. about a star flunging away from our own galaxy? It said that could only be possible if the Milky Way orbited around a SM black hole. Which led to the discussion about the role of black holes in galaxy formation.
What strikes me is that just a couple of days after this theoretical discussion, the scientists at Carnegie Mellon come up with a model that predicts exactly the same theory.
It all points to the theory being actually true.
Slashdotter buys Microsoft (Microsoft, Software)
From the its-a-bit-too-late-for-that dept.
Spy der Mann writes:
"A slashdot reader also known as 'Anonymous Coward' to protect his identity, just purchased all the Microsoft stock shares from ebay at $1337 bucks.
Not each, ALL. He published in his webpage that he plans to release the Windows source code under GPL 3.0. Frankly, I don't care, Linux just became the mainstream OS. But oh well..."
Well if the law is literal, you can do something _VERY_ simple:
;-)
1) Rip the CD to WAV.
2) Make your own CD with WAV data.
3) Delete WAV data.
4) Rip the "own CD with WAV data" to MP3.
5) copyright laws 0wn3d
than the "normal" version?
From TFA:
"Windows speed chart - times are given in seconds"
Firefox 1.0 (Moox):
20.33,2.78,3.18,1.57,26,2.84,41
Firefox 1.0:
11.54,2.52,1.81,1.48,23,2.05,41
Can anybody explain to me? The "unoptimized version" performs better than the optimized one?
O_o
You're right, obviously something's wrong here. Somebody please give the guy the REAL optimized version.
If I got a penny for each redundant /. post...
there should be a RTFRPFYM (Read the F* Redundant posts first, you moron) acronym.
What do you think, guys?
Is this why today my MSN asked me to upgrade to a new version? Or is the new version still vulnerable to this? I'm using version 6.2.0205
When we realized that humans looked back whenever we looked at them, we realized that there IS intelligent life outside the sea. (Some) humans have earned my respect.
OH darn, I'm drying up. I better go back to my tank.
*plop*
From TFW:
"The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity."
Oh boy. I can't wait 'til the MPAA go after the patent offices!
It went something like this:
;-)
"Round 1. FIGHT!"
Yes, but shouldn't the Operating System files be PROTECTED from such trojans? i.e. setting access privileges or something?
Only the store is hurt.
Yes. However you took from them PHYSICAL property. In this case, the penalty for shoplifting should be MORE than from downloading a pirated file. Of course, the damage in question is less than say, $100 ?
IMHO downloading a pirated file should be fined with not more than the value of the file in question (in this case, the DVD's cost).
So the RIAA and MPAA should go after _ALL_ the people downloading these files. This would result in a greater fear of getting caught, major income for the RIAA, and less pentalties for the infringers.
No, no, no! NATAS exploited a bug in some versions of Thunderbyte's TBCLEAN, which used, at the time, single-step and breakpoint interrupts to trace through an infected program until the virus restored the original execution point and jumped there
What I meant to say is that if you hit ctrl-c, mcaffee's antivirus would execute arbitrary code of NON-infected files. Yes, I know, it's ridiculous, but that's what happened. In any case, thanks for the insight on NATAS.
I did mean CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check). By padding the exe with enough 0's before adding its own code, the CRC of the file was unaltered. Remember we're talking about MS-DOS systems 10 years ago.
Around 1994, the NATAS virus stormed computers all around the world. It was the first polymorphic virus. And it was undetectable with traditional means (didn't alter the exes' CRC).
McAffee released a new (experimental?) version of their antivirus, so that it would clean NATAS. Unfortunately, sometimes if you pressed CTRL-C, part of your programs' code would execute randomly (later, they released a completely different version, which effectively cleaned NATAS and similar viruses, without having such nasty bugs).
Frankly, this execute-to-test-for-viruses was always a bad idea. I don't know why Symantec fell into that. Unless of course, it's more like a buffer overflow, which is understandable.
I'm telling this from experience. I remember that some the hardest times I had was having bad grades. My parents usually said: "If you were stupid, we would understand, but you're not. You're a very smart kid". So, because I was smart, whenever I failed, I became something WORSE than stupid. I became USELESS.
In other words, it was (according to their twisted logic) MY FAULT that I failed. I had to carry that burden for a long time.
So, if anybody here is going to be a parent, please. Do NOT pressure your children. You'll regret later. Oh yes, you will.
It depends. I have ADHD (Attention Defficit with Hyperactivity Disorder), and yet I have a high IQ. These can be related, but not always.
:).
Maybe it was my inability to relate to other kids in classroom that I found a refuge in science. Luckily, my math skills made me excel in science, and of course, programming
But to excel you need study and practice, it's not just genetics, and certainly, not only ADD. Not all people with ADD or ADHD are good at school - mainly because they can't pay enough attention at what the teacher says.
My advantage is that my father was a computer pioneer - when all the kids were playing around with their Star Wars toys, I was typing a C64 game from the RUN magazine.
So it very much depends on the environment surrounding people with ADD. Some can become geniuses, an others, common criminals.
However, you have a good point. How many of the great men of science have or had ADD? I'd like to see a study on this.
And also, there are the know-it alls who love to bash people smarter than them and make their life miserable.
Also, people trained to follow rules choke when they're asked to be inventive. A friend works as an executive in a major fast food business, and he told me how they classify employees according to their way of solving problems (psychometric test). The worst thing you can do to somebody who "follows the rules" is ask him to be inventive. He'll break up in no time.
All the linked posts were modded "Funny". Who knows if they were from _ACTUAL_ windows source code. And yet, the parent post is modded INSIGHTFUL! Shouldn't it be modded funny, too? Or maybe "interesting"?
Just a thought. */
And when you've glanced at it, you've doomed yourself and your Open Source company from ever using you as a developer ever again.
That's right. Who would hire a developer whose mind became infected with spaguetti code?