A Core2 Duo has two processors running at say 3Ghz. Let's say it's 30 times faster than a P200.
So you'd still need 100,000 / 30 = 3000 PCs running for 22 hours. Even if a modern machine were 300 times faster than a P200 which it isn't, it would still take 300 PCs 22 hours.
Now 3000 PCs running for 22 hours is problem if you're the NSA (and they could probably have do it cheaper and in a much smaller space with FPGAs or ASICs), but the grand parent can't crack it in a few days on his 9 machines.
So the white majority could vote to enslave the black minority and that would be democracy? Or in a few years when hispanics are in a majority, they could vote to enslave everyone else, or confiscate some or all of their belongings?
Democracy is a more subtle idea than you think it is.
The strange thing is that his comment applies to most media. Almost all TV channels newspapers and blogs simplify things to the point that they are inaccurate, misrepresent or ignore true stories that don't fit their political prejudices and hype blatantly untrue ones that do.
If you happen to agree with their prejudices, this is actually quite hard to spot and vaguely comforting.
This implies that the law will criminalize a lot of acts that the society in broad does not consider to be criminal, even if the law says so.
So if most people consider downloading things to be ok, it should be legalised, even if the owners of the material are bankrupted?
That seems like a very dangerous idea, despite the fact it would benefit me in the short term since I get free stuff and don't need to worry about getting busted. Even if the people that actually create the content I like continue to do so in the absence of any payment, it just doesn't seem fair. And how do I know that some technological change in future might put me in their situation - a minority that the majority decides it is ok to expropriate from?
I can crack 56-bit on my home system in a few days. Granted my home system is six machines consisting of about 26GHz spread across 11 CPUs sharing 9 Gigs of memory, connected by a GigE backbone, but still - in the bigger scheme of things my system isn't really considered that powerful anymore (and I'm actually considering an upgrade.) Dude, you're a badass hacker. But trying 2^56 combinations still takes time.
E.g. http://www.news.com/Record-set-in-cracking-56-bit-crypto/2100-1017_3-220333.html
Deep Crack and Distributed.Net's network of nearly 100,000 PCs on the Internet won DES Challenge III in 22 hours and 15 minutes.
Given sufficient encrypted data and even a smidgen of insight into what some of the data contains (ie, the directory structure on a Windows box generally has a lot of similar files in similar places) Even if you know the plaintext a priori, you still need to do a trial decryption for each of the 2^56 combinations and check if you guessed right. So it would take longer than a few days on your system.
As far as I know, if you collect any data that shows someone has committed a crime, you're obliged to tell the police. E.g. psychologists have to report criminal activity if they are told about it, despite doctor/patient confidentiality. Let's suppose they collect a bunch of data on file accesses, which showed you downloading from bittorrent. If it is analyzed by a machine, I guess you haven't told a Microsoft employee and Microsoft is in the clear. But what happens if they send the log to a real person and he spots what you're doing? Then he'd know that you'd committed a crime and I think if he asked the company lawyers they'd advise him to report it.
Maybe they can anonymize the logs so that a real person wouldn't know the identity of the person being monitored. But that seems like destruction of evidence to me. I'm not sure. But there was a case where a judge ordered a torrent site to turn over a list of IP addresses. They said that they only kept them in Ram, and they were ordered to log them to disk.
So it seems like not only are you obligated to turn over evidence of criminal activity, you can actually be forced to record it permanently if you weren't already. I guess if you refuse, that would be destruction of evidence or contempt of court or something which would have serious penalties. All of which makes collecting data from people a bit of a minefield. It seems like if it is anonymous enough for them to sign up it will be too anonymous for a court if there is a possibility that any of the people you are collecting from are bittorrent users.
You clearly mean well, but you seem to be ignoring the Slashdot writing style guide.
Genuine Disadvantage. Very witty, but this is non standard. Microsoft: This is not to be used. Microshaft is the preferred way to refer to this company. M$ is an acceptable abbreviation.
Remember, advocacy only works if we all use the same satirical terms for things. This gives the impression that not only are we rabid, obsessed and angry, we are disciplined too.
That's the feeback program. You can get free Vista but to do so you need to sign up to the feedback program, and that uses some spyware, er, software that needs Vista or XP.
In makefile terms
freevista: pc_with_xp_or_vista
Let's hope that the terrorists are short of money and care about using legitimate software;-)
From the sound of, they seem unlikely to grasp the fact that the export version of Windows uses 56 bit keys (which the NSA can presumably crack quickly) rather than 128 bit ones.
Here we had a serial killer that killed those guys. He seems to have stopped spontaneously but I doubt any jury would have convicted him if he'd been caught.
Here's a hint: all rights have limits, and these limits are when infringing on the rights of others. Your First Amendment rights do not give you the right to stand on my lawn in the middle of the night with a megaphone to advertise your goods BZZT! Wrong!
Even burning a cross on your lawn is speech that is constitutionally protected from prior restraint.
And sending commercial emails is too. http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml anti-spam laws act to block all speech in a manner similar to those cases, i.e. by imposing a limitation on the sending of emails over private networks, this article treats the proposed federal anti-spam statute as a prior restraint on free speech... The proposed federal anti-spam law provides a punishment for the use of an ISP's network to send spam; the threat of punishment operates as a prior restraint on the exercise of free speech since its effect is the same as an injunction - namely, it allows the ISP to license which sender, if any, may use its network and block all others even before a message is sent. The Supreme Court has adopted a strong presumption disfavoring prior restraints on the exercise of free speech.
Anyone who says otherwise is most likely a spammer. Right, and anyone who criticizes Gitmo is a terrorist. Ad hominem attacks are sign that you're losing the argument.
You could just use http://www.usblyzer.com/ or somethimg like it to work out what USB packets are sent by the Windows program to adjust spindown and then write some code for Linux to send them there.
So someone exercises their First Amendment rights by sending emails you you don't like and they forfeit any possibility of taking credit card payments ever? Sound unconsitutional to me! Plus they could avoid it easily by just getting a merchant account overseas where your regulations don't apply.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Link (Thanks, Jef!)
I usually buy Microsoft stuff. It's not that it's much better than the alternatives, it's just that promote it with underhand skullduggery and ruthlessness. So it usually wins in the end. Which means early adopters aren't likely to end up owning something unsupported.
Slashdot Mirror
A Core2 Duo has two processors running at say 3Ghz. Let's say it's 30 times faster than a P200.
So you'd still need 100,000 / 30 = 3000 PCs running for 22 hours. Even if a modern machine were 300 times faster than a P200 which it isn't, it would still take 300 PCs 22 hours.
Now 3000 PCs running for 22 hours is problem if you're the NSA (and they could probably have do it cheaper and in a much smaller space with FPGAs or ASICs), but the grand parent can't crack it in a few days on his 9 machines.
So the white majority could vote to enslave the black minority and that would be democracy? Or in a few years when hispanics are in a majority, they could vote to enslave everyone else, or confiscate some or all of their belongings?
Democracy is a more subtle idea than you think it is.
The strange thing is that his comment applies to most media. Almost all TV channels newspapers and blogs simplify things to the point that they are inaccurate, misrepresent or ignore true stories that don't fit their political prejudices and hype blatantly untrue ones that do.
If you happen to agree with their prejudices, this is actually quite hard to spot and vaguely comforting.
I hope not, then we'll get posts here about how people poor peoples rights to 256kbps music is being violated by evil DRM and the MAFIAA.
This implies that the law will criminalize a lot of acts that the society in broad does not consider to be criminal, even if the law says so.
So if most people consider downloading things to be ok, it should be legalised, even if the owners of the material are bankrupted?
That seems like a very dangerous idea, despite the fact it would benefit me in the short term since I get free stuff and don't need to worry about getting busted. Even if the people that actually create the content I like continue to do so in the absence of any payment, it just doesn't seem fair. And how do I know that some technological change in future might put me in their situation - a minority that the majority decides it is ok to expropriate from?
E.g.
http://www.news.com/Record-set-in-cracking-56-bit-crypto/2100-1017_3-220333.html Deep Crack and Distributed.Net's network of nearly 100,000 PCs on the Internet won DES Challenge III in 22 hours and 15 minutes. Given sufficient encrypted data and even a smidgen of insight into what some of the data contains (ie, the directory structure on a Windows box generally has a lot of similar files in similar places) Even if you know the plaintext a priori, you still need to do a trial decryption for each of the 2^56 combinations and check if you guessed right. So it would take longer than a few days on your system.
Penguins are dieing out, many Microsoft funded studies confirm it.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Very interesting. Quite a lot of Vista users - 12% Only about 7.5 of all users can use DirectX 10 The Intel/AMD split is 56%/43% too, so the Core2 hasn't killed AMD by any means.
Python is good for beginners but a bit mainstream for my tastes.
I prefer BrainFuck.
As far as I know, if you collect any data that shows someone has committed a crime, you're obliged to tell the police. E.g. psychologists have to report criminal activity if they are told about it, despite doctor/patient confidentiality. Let's suppose they collect a bunch of data on file accesses, which showed you downloading from bittorrent. If it is analyzed by a machine, I guess you haven't told a Microsoft employee and Microsoft is in the clear. But what happens if they send the log to a real person and he spots what you're doing? Then he'd know that you'd committed a crime and I think if he asked the company lawyers they'd advise him to report it.
Maybe they can anonymize the logs so that a real person wouldn't know the identity of the person being monitored. But that seems like destruction of evidence to me. I'm not sure. But there was a case where a judge ordered a torrent site to turn over a list of IP addresses. They said that they only kept them in Ram, and they were ordered to log them to disk.
E.g. here
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1912247
So it seems like not only are you obligated to turn over evidence of criminal activity, you can actually be forced to record it permanently if you weren't already. I guess if you refuse, that would be destruction of evidence or contempt of court or something which would have serious penalties. All of which makes collecting data from people a bit of a minefield. It seems like if it is anonymous enough for them to sign up it will be too anonymous for a court if there is a possibility that any of the people you are collecting from are bittorrent users.
You clearly mean well, but you seem to be ignoring the Slashdot writing style guide.
Genuine Disadvantage. Very witty, but this is non standard.
Microsoft: This is not to be used. Microshaft is the preferred way to refer to this company. M$ is an acceptable abbreviation.
Remember, advocacy only works if we all use the same satirical terms for things. This gives the impression that not only are we rabid, obsessed and angry, we are disciplined too.
That's the feeback program. You can get free Vista but to do so you need to sign up to the feedback program, and that uses some spyware, er, software that needs Vista or XP.
;-)
In makefile terms
freevista: pc_with_xp_or_vista
Let's hope that the terrorists are short of money and care about using legitimate software
Actually, that reminds me. A reporter in Afghanistan just after the fall of the Taliban bought a looted al Qaeda laptop -
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/cullison
From the sound of, they seem unlikely to grasp the fact that the export version of Windows uses 56 bit keys (which the NSA can presumably crack quickly) rather than 128 bit ones.
http://www.news.com/2100-1023-204556.html
Here we had a serial killer that killed those guys. He seems to have stopped spontaneously but I doubt any jury would have convicted him if he'd been caught.
Even burning a cross on your lawn is speech that is constitutionally protected from prior restraint.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=RAV_v_St_Paul
And sending commercial emails is too.
http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml
anti-spam laws act to block all speech in a manner similar to those cases, i.e. by imposing a limitation on the sending of emails over private networks, this article treats the proposed federal anti-spam statute as a prior restraint on free speech
The proposed federal anti-spam law provides a punishment for the use of an ISP's network to send spam; the threat of punishment operates as a prior restraint on the exercise of free speech since its effect is the same as an injunction - namely, it allows the ISP to license which sender, if any, may use its network and block all others even before a message is sent. The Supreme Court has adopted a strong presumption disfavoring prior restraints on the exercise of free speech. Anyone who says otherwise is most likely a spammer. Right, and anyone who criticizes Gitmo is a terrorist. Ad hominem attacks are sign that you're losing the argument.
You could just use http://www.usblyzer.com/ or somethimg like it to work out what USB packets are sent by the Windows program to adjust spindown and then write some code for Linux to send them there.
So someone exercises their First Amendment rights by sending emails you you don't like and they forfeit any possibility of taking credit card payments ever? Sound unconsitutional to me! Plus they could avoid it easily by just getting a merchant account overseas where your regulations don't apply.
That's not secure though - spammers could just start sacrificial businesses or use someone else's name like their family or friends.
The only solution when you catch them would be to kill them and everyone they ever met.
I saw it ten years ago on Usenet.
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/02/25/universal-crackpot-s.html This is a very funny checkbox-based form-letter for responding to crackpot spam solutions proposed in message-board posts: Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Link (Thanks, Jef!)
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Do you have an astronaut and a Nobel prize winner too by any chance?
Don't click the links in the parent - they redirect to a shock site that spawns a load of windows.
I usually buy Microsoft stuff. It's not that it's much better than the alternatives, it's just that promote it with underhand skullduggery and ruthlessness. So it usually wins in the end. Which means early adopters aren't likely to end up owning something unsupported.