Yes, because they're so easy to fit in your pocket/on your keychain, resistant to dropping/scratching, and since every computer has a CD-R drive with packet writing software that is universally compatible with any program that might be installed on the CD.
Yeah, most likely they'll just chop the DNA up with a few restriction enzymes, run it through gel electrophoresis, and scan the gel to see the location and width of the bands that emerge. Unfortunately, I could easily see someone making a national database of these, and whenever DNA evidence is found they just search it to find a suspect. DNA analysis may be accurate, but not 100%, so if you were the only match and didn't have an alibi then you'd be screwed.
Evolution is a fact because we've seen it happen. Two groups of the same species are separated and exposed to different environments. Bring them back together later and they can't breed because they've changed. They are now two different species. Of course, if you're arguing against evolution as an observed phenomena then I doubt you know what a species is.
I'd prefer it if they had an option during installation to update without user interaction. Similar to Windows autoupdate, except a little more explicit during installation.
Let's try to live in the real world here. Even the US can't survive on its own without foreign trading. You can't just pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.
The US could survive a lot better than most countries, we actually produce enough food to feed our population. Some countries have grown dependent on international trade, but they could wean themselves from it if need be. China should show that point well enough (although there are economic disadvantages).
It matters because it hurt other people or businesses. It matters because it's illegal, and it's illegal for a reason.
Or maybe I should ask you: Why does it matter if I stab you to death?
I'm not saying that it isn't bad when they do it, but if they did it and got away with it then why does it matter now? It's similar to putting an adult in prison for bullying someone in grade school. Sure they shouldn't have done it, but what difference does it make now? Unless there's indisputable proof that they did something illegal then there isn't really anything that can be done about it.
No, it would be better to not rob you in the first place!
That wasn't the question, the question was what to do with the money after the crime, not whether or not to commit it. Say I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, with the logic in that retort I shouldn't take them to a doctor because I shouldn't have hit them in the first place.
Why? He has proven to be an incompetent liar who uses his power to force his religion on everyone else. So what makes the alternatives so much worse?
Ok, incompetent - matter of opinion (nobody has invaded us so he must be doing something right). Liar - a lie is a statement that is intended to mislead (at least that's what every ethics class I took defined it as), not simply an incorrect statement. Saying that Iraq had WMDs was based on what the leading intelligence agencies told him. In fact, if he said that there weren't any that would be a lie, because, while it may be true, it would be contradictory to his information and would therefore be an attempt to deceive. Uses his power to force his religion - I'm atheist, so I do resent that, but at the degree he does it other things are more important. As for the alternatives, Kerry couldn't seem to keep an opinion so it's hard to say what he would have done in office, although I did gain a lot of respect for him after he conceded gracefully (as compared to Gore).
There was nothing emotional about the statement. It was truthful and honest. And Bush has tried to do a decent job before, and failed. Every single company he has run has gone to hell.
Nothing emotional? Then why say it at all. Like I said, Bush haters still hate Bush and everyone else quit listening. It may be honest and truthful, but that doesn't mean that it isn't emotional. As for no support, look at the statement that probably got it modded as flamebait: 'if it's negative and it's about Bush, it's "nonsense"'. Most Slashdot readers seem to dislike/hate Bush. Comments that criticize him tend to be modded up, and those that defend him modded down. Seeing as that your comment contradicts this observation I would prefer to see some form of support for it. Your most recent comment ("has tried to do a decent job") has support so I wouldn't complain about it (or agree but that's another matter).
What on earth are you on about? Where does he say that Bush sucks? And are you going to respond to the statements like I asked if you could do in my previous post? And are you going to tell me if you think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and if you still think he had WMD?
I didn't respond to the points made because I didn't feel like responding to every argument against Bush that can be found, since I suspect that Google could provide anyone with more than could be discredited or confirmed in a lifetime. That said, the poster attacks the people that hold various position
If a country wants to participate in the market, it has to sign those agreements
Keyword: "wants". If the country doesn't like the agreements then they don't have to agree to them. Trading isn't a necessity, it just helps their economy.
If Microsoft hadn't used illegal methods, it wouldn't have been where it is today. Heck, the company's entire fortune was founded on ripping off other people.
Like I said earlier, there must be a considerable amount of doubt otherwise they would have been caught. Also, why does it matter? You hypothetical statement doesn't answer that question.
So if I punch you in the face, rob you and your family of your belongings, then after a few years, I start giving a few dollars here and there. Does that make it right? Certainly not.
It wouldn't make it right (not that that really matters, the world isn't fair), but it would be a good thing to do. Would it be better to hoard the money?
Of course you would have modded it down. You can't handle the fact that people keep pointing out Bush's huge mistakes, lies, and inconvenient things like his strong ties with corporations like Enron and Halliburton. The latter got a huge defense contract without having to compete with anyone else.
I know Bush isn't perfect, but I still prefer him to the alternatives, and it is my believe that he is trying to do a decent job. The reason I would have modded your statement down is because it is an emotional statement with no support. Your statement wasn't original or even useful.
All you can manage to do when someone criticizes Bush is to either get all defensive about it, or going on about how poor, innocent Shrub is being picked on all the time.
I said Bush is being picked on, was innocent, and I got defensive about it? Basically I just pointed out how your statements have no support and aren't helpful. If you want to criticize someone, at least be specific. Just saying Bush sucks doesn't cut it.
If it hadn't been for multi-national agreements that benefit multinational corporations. Did you know that corporations can sue countries for enforcing their own laws in some situations? That's right. Multinational corporations are raised above national governments and interests.
I don't see how this is relevant unless Microsoft successfully sued some small country. In any case, governments are more powerful (at least within their borders) than corporations. The reason being because a corporation can whine and complain all they want, but they have no power (other than that which the state granted) to do anything. A government has a military and usually a citizen following, so they have authority. Basically, if Company X wants to sue Country Y then Country Y can simply ignore them (assuming that Company X isn't the sole supplier of a vital resource). It's similar to America's national debt. (Ignore the fact that it was designed at the country's creation to help the economy.) Say America announces that it won't pay anything back. What can the lenders do? Start a war with a super power with a superior military? Of course, it'd be international relations suicide to do so, but it does demonstrate the point I'm trying to convey.
Already answered by another post in this part of the discussion: "It is exactly that attitude that has allowed the status quo to remain largely unchanged, despite the fact that humanity has had the resources and technical knowhow to end all poverty since about the 17th century."
Actually, no, that doesn't invalidate my point. So Bill Gates isn't rich enough to solve all the world's problems, did you expect him to fruitlessly try (and thereby waste what could have helped)? Sure, if there was no politic/economic stratification there might be no poverty, but guess what... that isn't going to happen. I think any reasonable person can think of some of the reasons why so I won't bother explaining. However, even if we could do that, would you really want to live in a world like that? Despite not being politically correct, some people are more capable of success than others. Political and economic stratification will occur unless you forcefully suppress it. Of course, even by having a body that has that authority stratification has occurred. So basically, what would the point of life be? You can't do anything to improve your situation (because it wouldn't be fair to those less able than you), you can't do anything to help others (can't let anyone get special treatment), and no technological advancement can occur (no motivation since suffering is minimized, and all resources/education are equally distributed so nobody has enough to do anything meaningful). Of course, this is similar to a band of indigenous people. They only have to work 20 hours a week on average, suffer from little disease/stress, and tend to be fairly happy. Of course, we would consider that poverty because we're addicted to the benefits of modern life. Essentially, my point is that the world isn't fair, won't be fair, and it would be pretty pointless if it was completely fair. At least this way people can blame their situation for their failures instead of blaming themselves.
So what happens when someone has a lot of debt, and loses his job because Microsoft bankrupted the company he worked for by illegal means?
Like I said, NOT DESTROYED. Earlier you mentioned the poor helpless suffering masses, (s)he's still better off then them, right? Also, why does it matter if the methods used were illegal or not, the consequences are the same (i.e. does it matter if someone kills you accidently or if it was murder). Just because that person doesn't succeed that time doesn't mean that they will never get another opurtunity, and what if they were going to fail anyway? By loosing their job then they might have been saved years of fruitless labour. In any case, one should be able to move on if they loose their job, AKA life not destroyed.
What business practices would those be? What I'm saying is that any nation that is significantly affected by the actions of a computer company is probably advance enough to take care of their own people. In fact, one could just as easily argue that he is helping those people by his recent philanthropy. Some people may have been left unemployed or whatever because of him, but I seriously doubt anyone's life was "destroyed" (and in which case it would have been too fragile to begin with). Now he has enough money that he can do some real good if he wants to (which it would appear that he does). What would you have preferred that he done, played completely nice and never succeed in the business world, give every penny he made to some poor nation (in which case why aren't you doing the same), or what? Rich and powerful people might want to retain their place in the world (Gates seems to be wanting to donate most of his fortune to various causes), but they aren't the root of all evil.
Well, the language is still one contraction short. There's "I'm", "He's", "They're", "Your", and "We're"; one contraction for each variation of "to be". The contraction for "I am not" used to be "I ain't" (following the pattern), but it was removed. You can also say things like "they're not", or "she's not", but it's a different structure.
After 30 years nobody has found and come public with a way around DES
Like I said, the keyspace is just one problem. After it became ridiculously easy to crack DES then people stopped trying to come up with better ways to do so. Look at the link I provided before, DES is still vulnurable to time-memory trade off attacks (needs about 1 TB of storage and 5 days of computation with a normal computer), differential cryptanalysis, and linear cryptanalysis. Triple-DES also suffers from DES's chopping off of the last bit in every byte of the key, dramatically reducing the keyspace (2^128 compared to 2^112). The other problem with Triple-DES is that it is slower than AES or most other algorithms. Here are some more reasons that AES would have been a better choice than Triple-DES.
I have a Sony VAIO, which is an awesome laptop if you don't use anything but the software they provided. I've been wanting to start using Linux for some time now, so I decided to download a distro and install it. I eventually settled on SuSE, being that it was the first that I was actually able to get working. I currently have about half of my hardware running in Linux. I haven't done any more yet because I am sick of the way the fonts look on my LCD screen. I know there's a fix for this, but I just haven't bothered fixing it. In fact, Linux supports my hardware only slightly better than BeOS (the only difference is with USB). In fact, try finding manufacturer created drivers for BeOS. nVida used to do it, and their cards are still well supported, but I can't think of any others. Just because your hardware is supported doesn't mean that everyone's is (and I'm sure my case isn't unique or that rare).
I can see your point, but DES does have other weaknesses. Just last year, for my research project in math I wrote a perl script that could crack any word document encrypted with an alphabetic key in less than a day. But of course that is fairly easy since the alphabet is only 14 characters when encrypted in DES (the last bit is discarded). Given, I exploited the small keyspace, but I still wouldn't trust a DES derivative over AES or one of the other modern ciphers.
Well, didn't somebody make an "MP3" version of their soundcards? I didn't read the specs on it (I assume it was a decent card given the price), but how exactly was it supposed to help mp3 playing? Play them faster, louder? But I'd say that those three letters on the box helped sell more cards.
So, under the same logic, a spy shouldn't be punished (captured/whatever) until they succeed, but if they do succeed then they aren't at fault because the facility wasn't secure enough? Only one part of security is making sure that your defenses are adequate, the other part is reducing the likelihood of attack.
If there was one that did something like Drivecrypt's partition hiding then that'd be scary. What it does is use the freespace in your windows partition to hold encrypted data for a separate partition. This hidden partition is even bootable and AFAIK can hold encrypted partitions of its own in its freespace. Of course, the MBR would have to be altered for it to run, but perhaps it could make the MBR seems as if it hasn't been altered (catch filesystem calls).
Ok... so if they don't want to do it then why complain? Just because they don't want to do it isn't a reason that Google shouldn't. Or are you suggesting that the French are delusional enough to expect the world to be completely fair and want Google to simultaneously work on every piece of written material in every language?
I'm tempted to poke fun at your lack of proper capitalization and incomplete sentences and such in that post, but I suppose merely pointing it out is enough. One reason that people ignore the "rules" is because they are an simplified idealized interpretation of the language used to be by a group of people who though they they knew how to speak it perfectly. Language evolves. That's why we have casual and formal (American) English. Take the contraction "ain't" for instance. It used to be proper grammar but people started using it for everything, so someone made a rule that dictated not to use it. So now we have "You aren't", "He isn't", "We aren't", "They aren't", and nothing for "I am not". Of course, bad grammar often irritates me, but I cope. My pet peeve is when people use the word "literally" figuratively ("That problem was so hard that my head literally exploded!"). But look at the words "really" and "very". Today they don't mean much, but look at the construction. "Really" probably meant "in reality", and "very" is related to Veritas, or truth (truthfully perhaps?).
No kidding. Come to think of it, didn't he just describe a variation of Diffie-Hellman key exchange? And wasn't that ARP cache poisoning that he was describing with "It is not known how to protect against routing based stealth attacks. In fact, it has been shown in a recent publication that one cannot eradicate such attacks without introducing other vulnerabilities in the system."? Come to think of it, isn't there a program called anti-spoof which does protect against this type of attack?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because they're so easy to fit in your pocket/on your keychain, resistant to dropping/scratching, and since every computer has a CD-R drive with packet writing software that is universally compatible with any program that might be installed on the CD.
Yeah, most likely they'll just chop the DNA up with a few restriction enzymes, run it through gel electrophoresis, and scan the gel to see the location and width of the bands that emerge. Unfortunately, I could easily see someone making a national database of these, and whenever DNA evidence is found they just search it to find a suspect. DNA analysis may be accurate, but not 100%, so if you were the only match and didn't have an alibi then you'd be screwed.
Evolution is a fact because we've seen it happen. Two groups of the same species are separated and exposed to different environments. Bring them back together later and they can't breed because they've changed. They are now two different species. Of course, if you're arguing against evolution as an observed phenomena then I doubt you know what a species is.
It's the same, I just had to change mine yesterday.
I wonder what would happen if someone injected saline solution into someone who thought they were getting a lethal injection?
I'd prefer it if they had an option during installation to update without user interaction. Similar to Windows autoupdate, except a little more explicit during installation.
Seems like someone is in for a surprise when they open their inbox tomorrow...
Even if you do trust the government to keep the patches to themselves, what if someone other than Microsoft discovers the exploit?
Or their life doesn't get better and they keep trying until they succeed...
Let's try to live in the real world here. Even the US can't survive on its own without foreign trading. You can't just pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.
The US could survive a lot better than most countries, we actually produce enough food to feed our population. Some countries have grown dependent on international trade, but they could wean themselves from it if need be. China should show that point well enough (although there are economic disadvantages).
It matters because it hurt other people or businesses. It matters because it's illegal, and it's illegal for a reason. Or maybe I should ask you: Why does it matter if I stab you to death?
I'm not saying that it isn't bad when they do it, but if they did it and got away with it then why does it matter now? It's similar to putting an adult in prison for bullying someone in grade school. Sure they shouldn't have done it, but what difference does it make now? Unless there's indisputable proof that they did something illegal then there isn't really anything that can be done about it.
No, it would be better to not rob you in the first place!
That wasn't the question, the question was what to do with the money after the crime, not whether or not to commit it. Say I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, with the logic in that retort I shouldn't take them to a doctor because I shouldn't have hit them in the first place.
Why? He has proven to be an incompetent liar who uses his power to force his religion on everyone else. So what makes the alternatives so much worse?
Ok, incompetent - matter of opinion (nobody has invaded us so he must be doing something right). Liar - a lie is a statement that is intended to mislead (at least that's what every ethics class I took defined it as), not simply an incorrect statement. Saying that Iraq had WMDs was based on what the leading intelligence agencies told him. In fact, if he said that there weren't any that would be a lie, because, while it may be true, it would be contradictory to his information and would therefore be an attempt to deceive. Uses his power to force his religion - I'm atheist, so I do resent that, but at the degree he does it other things are more important. As for the alternatives, Kerry couldn't seem to keep an opinion so it's hard to say what he would have done in office, although I did gain a lot of respect for him after he conceded gracefully (as compared to Gore).
There was nothing emotional about the statement. It was truthful and honest. And Bush has tried to do a decent job before, and failed. Every single company he has run has gone to hell.
Nothing emotional? Then why say it at all. Like I said, Bush haters still hate Bush and everyone else quit listening. It may be honest and truthful, but that doesn't mean that it isn't emotional. As for no support, look at the statement that probably got it modded as flamebait: 'if it's negative and it's about Bush, it's "nonsense"'. Most Slashdot readers seem to dislike/hate Bush. Comments that criticize him tend to be modded up, and those that defend him modded down. Seeing as that your comment contradicts this observation I would prefer to see some form of support for it. Your most recent comment ("has tried to do a decent job") has support so I wouldn't complain about it (or agree but that's another matter).
What on earth are you on about? Where does he say that Bush sucks? And are you going to respond to the statements like I asked if you could do in my previous post? And are you going to tell me if you think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and if you still think he had WMD?
I didn't respond to the points made because I didn't feel like responding to every argument against Bush that can be found, since I suspect that Google could provide anyone with more than could be discredited or confirmed in a lifetime. That said, the poster attacks the people that hold various position
If a country wants to participate in the market, it has to sign those agreements
Keyword: "wants". If the country doesn't like the agreements then they don't have to agree to them. Trading isn't a necessity, it just helps their economy.
If Microsoft hadn't used illegal methods, it wouldn't have been where it is today. Heck, the company's entire fortune was founded on ripping off other people.
Like I said earlier, there must be a considerable amount of doubt otherwise they would have been caught. Also, why does it matter? You hypothetical statement doesn't answer that question.
So if I punch you in the face, rob you and your family of your belongings, then after a few years, I start giving a few dollars here and there. Does that make it right? Certainly not.
It wouldn't make it right (not that that really matters, the world isn't fair), but it would be a good thing to do. Would it be better to hoard the money?
Of course you would have modded it down. You can't handle the fact that people keep pointing out Bush's huge mistakes, lies, and inconvenient things like his strong ties with corporations like Enron and Halliburton. The latter got a huge defense contract without having to compete with anyone else.
I know Bush isn't perfect, but I still prefer him to the alternatives, and it is my believe that he is trying to do a decent job. The reason I would have modded your statement down is because it is an emotional statement with no support. Your statement wasn't original or even useful.
All you can manage to do when someone criticizes Bush is to either get all defensive about it, or going on about how poor, innocent Shrub is being picked on all the time.
I said Bush is being picked on, was innocent, and I got defensive about it? Basically I just pointed out how your statements have no support and aren't helpful. If you want to criticize someone, at least be specific. Just saying Bush sucks doesn't cut it.
If it hadn't been for multi-national agreements that benefit multinational corporations. Did you know that corporations can sue countries for enforcing their own laws in some situations? That's right. Multinational corporations are raised above national governments and interests.
I don't see how this is relevant unless Microsoft successfully sued some small country. In any case, governments are more powerful (at least within their borders) than corporations. The reason being because a corporation can whine and complain all they want, but they have no power (other than that which the state granted) to do anything. A government has a military and usually a citizen following, so they have authority. Basically, if Company X wants to sue Country Y then Country Y can simply ignore them (assuming that Company X isn't the sole supplier of a vital resource). It's similar to America's national debt. (Ignore the fact that it was designed at the country's creation to help the economy.) Say America announces that it won't pay anything back. What can the lenders do? Start a war with a super power with a superior military? Of course, it'd be international relations suicide to do so, but it does demonstrate the point I'm trying to convey.
Already answered by another post in this part of the discussion:
"It is exactly that attitude that has allowed the status quo to remain largely unchanged, despite the fact that humanity has had the resources and technical knowhow to end all poverty since about the 17th century."
Actually, no, that doesn't invalidate my point. So Bill Gates isn't rich enough to solve all the world's problems, did you expect him to fruitlessly try (and thereby waste what could have helped)? Sure, if there was no politic/economic stratification there might be no poverty, but guess what... that isn't going to happen. I think any reasonable person can think of some of the reasons why so I won't bother explaining. However, even if we could do that, would you really want to live in a world like that? Despite not being politically correct, some people are more capable of success than others. Political and economic stratification will occur unless you forcefully suppress it. Of course, even by having a body that has that authority stratification has occurred. So basically, what would the point of life be? You can't do anything to improve your situation (because it wouldn't be fair to those less able than you), you can't do anything to help others (can't let anyone get special treatment), and no technological advancement can occur (no motivation since suffering is minimized, and all resources/education are equally distributed so nobody has enough to do anything meaningful). Of course, this is similar to a band of indigenous people. They only have to work 20 hours a week on average, suffer from little disease/stress, and tend to be fairly happy. Of course, we would consider that poverty because we're addicted to the benefits of modern life. Essentially, my point is that the world isn't fair, won't be fair, and it would be pretty pointless if it was completely fair. At least this way people can blame their situation for their failures instead of blaming themselves.
So what happens when someone has a lot of debt, and loses his job because Microsoft bankrupted the company he worked for by illegal means?
Like I said, NOT DESTROYED. Earlier you mentioned the poor helpless suffering masses, (s)he's still better off then them, right? Also, why does it matter if the methods used were illegal or not, the consequences are the same (i.e. does it matter if someone kills you accidently or if it was murder). Just because that person doesn't succeed that time doesn't mean that they will never get another opurtunity, and what if they were going to fail anyway? By loosing their job then they might have been saved years of fruitless labour. In any case, one should be able to move on if they loose their job, AKA life not destroyed.
Uh, i
What business practices would those be? What I'm saying is that any nation that is significantly affected by the actions of a computer company is probably advance enough to take care of their own people. In fact, one could just as easily argue that he is helping those people by his recent philanthropy. Some people may have been left unemployed or whatever because of him, but I seriously doubt anyone's life was "destroyed" (and in which case it would have been too fragile to begin with). Now he has enough money that he can do some real good if he wants to (which it would appear that he does). What would you have preferred that he done, played completely nice and never succeed in the business world, give every penny he made to some poor nation (in which case why aren't you doing the same), or what? Rich and powerful people might want to retain their place in the world (Gates seems to be wanting to donate most of his fortune to various causes), but they aren't the root of all evil.
Well, the language is still one contraction short. There's "I'm", "He's", "They're", "Your", and "We're"; one contraction for each variation of "to be". The contraction for "I am not" used to be "I ain't" (following the pattern), but it was removed. You can also say things like "they're not", or "she's not", but it's a different structure.
Well, what if he lives on the top of a very tall mountain and wants to know his weight/mass to several decimal places?
After 30 years nobody has found and come public with a way around DES
Like I said, the keyspace is just one problem. After it became ridiculously easy to crack DES then people stopped trying to come up with better ways to do so. Look at the link I provided before, DES is still vulnurable to time-memory trade off attacks (needs about 1 TB of storage and 5 days of computation with a normal computer), differential cryptanalysis, and linear cryptanalysis. Triple-DES also suffers from DES's chopping off of the last bit in every byte of the key, dramatically reducing the keyspace (2^128 compared to 2^112). The other problem with Triple-DES is that it is slower than AES or most other algorithms. Here are some more reasons that AES would have been a better choice than Triple-DES.
I have a Sony VAIO, which is an awesome laptop if you don't use anything but the software they provided. I've been wanting to start using Linux for some time now, so I decided to download a distro and install it. I eventually settled on SuSE, being that it was the first that I was actually able to get working. I currently have about half of my hardware running in Linux. I haven't done any more yet because I am sick of the way the fonts look on my LCD screen. I know there's a fix for this, but I just haven't bothered fixing it. In fact, Linux supports my hardware only slightly better than BeOS (the only difference is with USB). In fact, try finding manufacturer created drivers for BeOS. nVida used to do it, and their cards are still well supported, but I can't think of any others. Just because your hardware is supported doesn't mean that everyone's is (and I'm sure my case isn't unique or that rare).
I can see your point, but DES does have other weaknesses. Just last year, for my research project in math I wrote a perl script that could crack any word document encrypted with an alphabetic key in less than a day. But of course that is fairly easy since the alphabet is only 14 characters when encrypted in DES (the last bit is discarded). Given, I exploited the small keyspace, but I still wouldn't trust a DES derivative over AES or one of the other modern ciphers.
Ah, MP3 software... because Winamp isn't good enough?
Well, didn't somebody make an "MP3" version of their soundcards? I didn't read the specs on it (I assume it was a decent card given the price), but how exactly was it supposed to help mp3 playing? Play them faster, louder? But I'd say that those three letters on the box helped sell more cards.
So, under the same logic, a spy shouldn't be punished (captured/whatever) until they succeed, but if they do succeed then they aren't at fault because the facility wasn't secure enough? Only one part of security is making sure that your defenses are adequate, the other part is reducing the likelihood of attack.
If there was one that did something like Drivecrypt's partition hiding then that'd be scary. What it does is use the freespace in your windows partition to hold encrypted data for a separate partition. This hidden partition is even bootable and AFAIK can hold encrypted partitions of its own in its freespace. Of course, the MBR would have to be altered for it to run, but perhaps it could make the MBR seems as if it hasn't been altered (catch filesystem calls).
Ok... so if they don't want to do it then why complain? Just because they don't want to do it isn't a reason that Google shouldn't. Or are you suggesting that the French are delusional enough to expect the world to be completely fair and want Google to simultaneously work on every piece of written material in every language?
I'm tempted to poke fun at your lack of proper capitalization and incomplete sentences and such in that post, but I suppose merely pointing it out is enough. One reason that people ignore the "rules" is because they are an simplified idealized interpretation of the language used to be by a group of people who though they they knew how to speak it perfectly. Language evolves. That's why we have casual and formal (American) English. Take the contraction "ain't" for instance. It used to be proper grammar but people started using it for everything, so someone made a rule that dictated not to use it. So now we have "You aren't", "He isn't", "We aren't", "They aren't", and nothing for "I am not". Of course, bad grammar often irritates me, but I cope. My pet peeve is when people use the word "literally" figuratively ("That problem was so hard that my head literally exploded!"). But look at the words "really" and "very". Today they don't mean much, but look at the construction. "Really" probably meant "in reality", and "very" is related to Veritas, or truth (truthfully perhaps?).
No kidding. Come to think of it, didn't he just describe a variation of Diffie-Hellman key exchange? And wasn't that ARP cache poisoning that he was describing with "It is not known how to protect against routing based stealth attacks. In fact, it has been shown in a recent publication that one cannot eradicate such attacks without introducing other vulnerabilities in the system."? Come to think of it, isn't there a program called anti-spoof which does protect against this type of attack?