Nice reply... Much of that is still application level stuff, and we'll see if those graphic improvements are worth it... But I'd imagine that many elements in that list are going to be available for XP too, including Avalon, WinFX, Indigo...
BTW, I found this too, I wonder if it's true...
some of the BIOS settings can be changed within Windows and you won't even have to reboot to apply the new settings
People, let's try making a list of that which we do know that (for now at least) will be in Longhorn. Each person who replies just has to copy paste the previous list and add his content:P
Let me start with:
* RSOD (red screens of death) * Dropping the prefix "My" from "My computer", "My network places", etc
Congrats for writing that post... I already knew the old versions, of which I mostly appreciated the "do you wish to allow mov eax, ebx ?" part. The best thing added seems to be the mandatory line numbers in c++, the "proactive 24/7 web services" stuff and the damn "Longtooth Pirate Edition, $1.":)
Well, you're of course a troll, but for people who might not be very informed about this... That unlikely event that you talk about has just been purposely produced. And they could have used any different collision they wanted for this effect, since if you append the same content (ANY content will do) to two files which are an MD5 collision, you end up with... two files which are an MD5 collision.
I may be wrong but I think that for that purpose, the use of MD5 is still quite secure. What those researchers did was make 2 files with the same MD5, they didn't choose the md5 value itself. In order to crack the schemes you're mentioning the md5 value is a given value for which you want to generate another file (many times with the additional restriction that the file sizes must match).
Read about collision attacks versus preimage attacks here.
Unless you're assuming that at least one of the people responsible for redistributing the software have bad intentions?
Yes, that shows a drawback of the method - evidence of the attack is present on both files, you just have to hex edit them and look for their content...
Nevertheless, it's a good way to shut the mouths of the ones who say that hash function attacks are still theoretical...
I don't think you are avoiding that risk. Check this out (straight from the GPL):
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
OK, maybe that's what they meant in the article, but they could have been more clear about it, instead of beginning with "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman". That doesn't seem like a purpose to me at all...
I think he was just referring to the fact that that goal was listed as one of the four fundamental goals of the GPL, as if the name of the person who did it influences what happens to software licensed under it or something...
That said, I don't think he distrusts them either.
To trust them in this matter would be unnecessary (what goal could it possibly serve?), so why do it? I would do the same myself, and I think all people should:)
Don't give in to fallacies, they are the dark side. Many horrible things are made in the name of religion, and they only get done because the people doing them are backed up by the religious hierarchies. I don't want to sound like an idiot but judging from your post it seems you have never heard about the Inquisition.
The point is - powerful entities (and religious entities are powerful) should act responsibly. Many times, they don't.
That's like someone claiming to be me, wearing my clothes, who commits a murder, and you blame it on me, cause hey! - he had my clothes, he said he was me!
No it's more like - someone wearing clothes you gave him/her, does all sorts of horrible things while you support his actions.
I believe that rocket jumping wasn't a planned feature in the original quake
According to ID software and all probability that's a true statement, but there was something funny in the E4M4 level, according to the QDQ team, read this page:). Either that or they just thought of tossing a grenade against a monster in order to do the jump (which is also a somewhat used trick in speed running).
Ah, the speedrunning days./me cries of nostalgia;)
Well, in portuguese those two words sound very similar. Are you sure they sound disimilar in latin too? (yes, I'm aware that that wasn't what you claimed)
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
/me imagines videos of small machines destroying viruses :)
With appropriate chemical coatings, they might be able to pick out biomolecules such as DNA, specific proteins, or even whole viruses.
Imagine the kind of cures that we'll have in the future!
Why are mods so trigger-happy? :|
Post us a link then, if you think it's worth it :P
Nice reply... Much of that is still application level stuff, and we'll see if those graphic improvements are worth it... But I'd imagine that many elements in that list are going to be available for XP too, including Avalon, WinFX, Indigo...
BTW, I found this too, I wonder if it's true...
some of the BIOS settings can be changed within Windows and you won't even have to reboot to apply the new settings
Maybe to gain some advantage later? "Hey, we supported you!"...
People, let's try making a list of that which we do know that (for now at least) will be in Longhorn. Each person who replies just has to copy paste the previous list and add his content :P
Let me start with:
* RSOD (red screens of death)
* Dropping the prefix "My" from "My computer", "My network places", etc
Congrats for writing that post... I already knew the old versions, of which I mostly appreciated the "do you wish to allow mov eax, ebx ?" part. The best thing added seems to be the mandatory line numbers in c++, the "proactive 24/7 web services" stuff and the damn "Longtooth Pirate Edition, $1." :)
Keep it up...
Well, you're of course a troll, but for people who might not be very informed about this... That unlikely event that you talk about has just been purposely produced. And they could have used any different collision they wanted for this effect, since if you append the same content (ANY content will do) to two files which are an MD5 collision, you end up with... two files which are an MD5 collision.
I may be wrong but I think that for that purpose, the use of MD5 is still quite secure. What those researchers did was make 2 files with the same MD5, they didn't choose the md5 value itself. In order to crack the schemes you're mentioning the md5 value is a given value for which you want to generate another file (many times with the additional restriction that the file sizes must match).
Read about collision attacks versus preimage attacks here.
Unless you're assuming that at least one of the people responsible for redistributing the software have bad intentions?
Care to explain why?
Yes, that shows a drawback of the method - evidence of the attack is present on both files, you just have to hex edit them and look for their content...
Nevertheless, it's a good way to shut the mouths of the ones who say that hash function attacks are still theoretical...
Please enlighten us with a few examples from famous OSS programs, Mr. Troll.
OK, maybe that's what they meant in the article, but they could have been more clear about it, instead of beginning with "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman". That doesn't seem like a purpose to me at all...
I think he was just referring to the fact that that goal was listed as one of the four fundamental goals of the GPL, as if the name of the person who did it influences what happens to software licensed under it or something...
That said, I don't think he distrusts them either.
:)
To trust them in this matter would be unnecessary (what goal could it possibly serve?), so why do it? I would do the same myself, and I think all people should
No, let's get rid of the stupid AND bad people.
Why wouldn't we praise them for doing something that most companies wouldn't do?
The point is - powerful entities (and religious entities are powerful) should act responsibly. Many times, they don't.
No it's more like - someone wearing clothes you gave him/her, does all sorts of horrible things while you support his actions.
Ok, maybe I should have said "my speedrunning days" :)
According to ID software and all probability that's a true statement, but there was something funny in the E4M4 level, according to the QDQ team, read this page
Ah, the speedrunning days.
Geez man, you made my day... Or minute, at least :)
we have an expression for this, which I can translate more or less like - "Arrested for having a dog, and arrested for not having one...".
:)
I think there's an equivalent expression in English but I don't remember it right now
Well, in portuguese those two words sound very similar. Are you sure they sound disimilar in latin too? (yes, I'm aware that that wasn't what you claimed)
They can simulate the universe but can't withstand a slashdotting? ...