Most MD5 password hashes, such as those used in *nix, are salted, and hence secure from this sort of vulnerability. That Wordpress uses unsalted MD5 sums to store passwords boggles my mind. It shows that the developers know even less about cryptography than I do. That's scary.
Again, it isn't what you eat, it's how much you eat, vs. your metabolism and level of activity. Read the link in my post. Medical science backs every statement made by Walker.
Except that studies published the Journal of the American Medical Association have stated that Atkins and low-carb diets work by essentially tricking people into eating fewer calories. Hence, all Atkins and low-carb data-points are meaningful to my original statement.
From personal, scientifically-measurable experience, I can tell you that gaining and losing weight isn't a matter of 'good calories' or 'bad calories'. It's a matter of calories. Burn more calories than you consume over a period of time, and you will lose weight. Burn fewer calories than you consume over a period of time, and you will gain weight. Yes, it's that simple. I suggest you all put down this claptrap, and read The Hacker's Diet by former AutoCAD developer and AutoDesk VP John Walker. It's done wonders for me.
What a ridiculous idea. I'm sure we humans can all agree it's completely absurd to even wonder if there are extraterrestrials living amongst us humans. I suggest that we all ignore this article, and waste as little time as possible entertaining the laughable notion of aliens living on earth. On with your lives, fellow human friends. Bill Gates? Is that you?
It's certainly possible that we are some kind of alien-primate hybrid or a mutation of primates caused by alien microbes even. There's no real hard evidence to suggest that, but given that there's no hard evidence to eliminate it as a possibility, we must assume that it is one of many available hypotheses.
Not exactly. Google's doing this everywhere. It's not because of privacy laws (there are very, very few privacy laws on the books in the U.S. and Canada, btw -- there is no such thing as a 'Constitutional right to privacy'), but only because of complaints. In the words of Google's Marissa Mayer: "[We] looked at it and we thought that's really silly because that's not the point of this product. The purpose is to show what the stores look like, what houses look like, if someone says, 'Hey, there's a face here,'... it doesn't matter whose face it is." (source)
No, no. Grandparent is correct. The restriction on AGPL is not only upon distribution. If you modify the code and put it on your website for users to interact with, then the special clause in the AGPL says that you have to distribute it:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
So this common Slashdot meme about the GPL does not apply to the AGPL.
Yes, actually, you do have breasts and yes, they are structurally identical to a female's, though probably less prominent. And, yes, men can get breast cancer, though it is somewhat less common.
Um, using a cannabis-derived compound isn't an alternative to chemotherapy, it ischemotherapy, which literally means "treatment with chemicals." Just because a bunch of people have screwed up the meaning of the word like they did with 'hacker' vs. 'cracker', that doesn't make it right.
There's no reason for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). If the RIAA succeeds in redefining copyright law, there might not be any free as in libre software.
, I reasonably expect some 30 or 40 people currently I can see could see me. I reasonably expect a million people are not watching me and what happened there would not come back to haunt me 10 years from now. You do? How do you know CNN isn't conducting a 'hidden camera' investigation? Do you think news crews get releases from everyone that happens to appear in a camera shot that was filmed on a public street?
If 30 or 40 or 300 or 3000 people driving by that day can see you, then you have to expect that everyone can.
were sitting on a streetcorner, photographing everyone walking by, the outcry here on slashdot would be huge Why?
don't really care if you think the fbi would be right doing that, i don't really care if you think the fbi would be wrong doing that
what i care about is thinking the fbi is right/ wrong to do that, and thinking elsewise of google Same logic: if the FBI were doing it, it would be fine. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy of anything that can be viewed from a public street. Besides, the FBI, the ATF, and yes, your local and state police departments do this every day. It's called a stakeout. And it's been ruled legal by the courts over and over.
I must disagree with yours and everyone else's statements that this is an invasion of privacy. What Google records on the public streets is A) protected by the first amendment and B) not a privacy issue because if something is viewable from a public street, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
That's why this is not so bad. You get the "Do you really want to run...?' dialog, so the user knows that something is going on. On older systems the system would just directly run the exe. I assume, as a 'happy Windows developer and user' you are saavy enough NOT to click OK. How about the unwashed masses? How about your grandmother?
Big ISPs, or their ad agencies, are some of DoubleClick's biggest customers. Don't tell me you've never seen banner ads for Comcast or EarthLink or AOL originating from DoubleClick?
BTW these ads are not directly dangerous unless you are running on some old browser/old Windows system, but yes, they are annoying as hell. Um, wrong. Watch the video. The guy is running Windows XP SP 2.
I'm a strong advocate of privacy myself, but I don't see Apple's actions as being particularly unreasonable. You aren't being compelled to buy an iPhone, and it's up to each individual to decide how much they trust Apple with this. If you don't trust them, don't buy an iPhone. It's quite common for people to be asked to reveal personal information in a voluntary exchange (like when you apply for a job or a bank account) and there is always the possibility that this information could be misused or abused, or that the power you give another person to access such information could be misused or abused. But these types of transactions are always voluntary, and it's really a case of caveat emptor. If you don't trust the company, then don't give them your money and your privacy will remain intact.
Having said that, people like the author of TFA are free to object to Apple's policy and to attempt to persuade them to change it. If it annoys enough iPhone customers, then it will go.
Slashdot Mirror
Most MD5 password hashes, such as those used in *nix, are salted, and hence secure from this sort of vulnerability. That Wordpress uses unsalted MD5 sums to store passwords boggles my mind. It shows that the developers know even less about cryptography than I do. That's scary.
Again, it isn't what you eat, it's how much you eat, vs. your metabolism and level of activity. Read the link in my post. Medical science backs every statement made by Walker.
Except that studies published the Journal of the American Medical Association have stated that Atkins and low-carb diets work by essentially tricking people into eating fewer calories. Hence, all Atkins and low-carb data-points are meaningful to my original statement.
From personal, scientifically-measurable experience, I can tell you that gaining and losing weight isn't a matter of 'good calories' or 'bad calories'. It's a matter of calories. Burn more calories than you consume over a period of time, and you will lose weight. Burn fewer calories than you consume over a period of time, and you will gain weight. Yes, it's that simple. I suggest you all put down this claptrap, and read The Hacker's Diet by former AutoCAD developer and AutoDesk VP John Walker. It's done wonders for me.
It's certainly possible that we are some kind of alien-primate hybrid or a mutation of primates caused by alien microbes even. There's no real hard evidence to suggest that, but given that there's no hard evidence to eliminate it as a possibility, we must assume that it is one of many available hypotheses.
Not exactly. Google's doing this everywhere. It's not because of privacy laws (there are very, very few privacy laws on the books in the U.S. and Canada, btw -- there is no such thing as a 'Constitutional right to privacy'), but only because of complaints. In the words of Google's Marissa Mayer: "[We] looked at it and we thought that's really silly because that's not the point of this product. The purpose is to show what the stores look like, what houses look like, if someone says, 'Hey, there's a face here,' ... it doesn't matter whose face it is." (source)
So this common Slashdot meme about the GPL does not apply to the AGPL.
NOTE: Link is NSFW! (shows nude breasts)
Yes, actually, you do have breasts and yes, they are structurally identical to a female's, though probably less prominent. And, yes, men can get breast cancer, though it is somewhat less common.
Um, using a cannabis-derived compound isn't an alternative to chemotherapy, it is chemotherapy, which literally means "treatment with chemicals." Just because a bunch of people have screwed up the meaning of the word like they did with 'hacker' vs. 'cracker', that doesn't make it right.
There should be. :)
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). If the RIAA succeeds in redefining copyright law, there might not be any free as in libre software.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers?
If 30 or 40 or 300 or 3000 people driving by that day can see you, then you have to expect that everyone can.
what i care about is thinking the fbi is right/ wrong to do that, and thinking elsewise of google Same logic: if the FBI were doing it, it would be fine. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy of anything that can be viewed from a public street. Besides, the FBI, the ATF, and yes, your local and state police departments do this every day. It's called a stakeout. And it's been ruled legal by the courts over and over.
I must disagree with yours and everyone else's statements that this is an invasion of privacy. What Google records on the public streets is A) protected by the first amendment and B) not a privacy issue because if something is viewable from a public street, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Indeed. This isn't the first time William Tobin has blown the whistle by any stretch of the imagination. Tobin, who was formerly the chief metallurgist at the FBI, also called into question the investigative practices of individuals involved in the FBI's investigation of TWA Flight 800 and has testified as to various fraudulent activities that took place within various FBI investigations. Apparently this test was the same test used to convict Lee Harvey Oswald, and guess who called it into question? Yup. William A. Tobin.
Curiouser and curiouser, no?
Look. All this crap is is worthless rants about Trolling and Flames to disguise and hide one simple fact:
BSD is dying! Netcraft confirms it!
SCNR.
Big ISPs, or their ad agencies, are some of DoubleClick's biggest customers. Don't tell me you've never seen banner ads for Comcast or EarthLink or AOL originating from DoubleClick?
Here you go:
I'm a strong advocate of privacy myself, but I don't see Apple's actions as being particularly unreasonable. You aren't being compelled to buy an iPhone, and it's up to each individual to decide how much they trust Apple with this. If you don't trust them, don't buy an iPhone. It's quite common for people to be asked to reveal personal information in a voluntary exchange (like when you apply for a job or a bank account) and there is always the possibility that this information could be misused or abused, or that the power you give another person to access such information could be misused or abused. But these types of transactions are always voluntary, and it's really a case of caveat emptor. If you don't trust the company, then don't give them your money and your privacy will remain intact.
Having said that, people like the author of TFA are free to object to Apple's policy and to attempt to persuade them to change it. If it annoys enough iPhone customers, then it will go.