Nearly every time a Linux exploit is found, it is patched and tested within hours, if not days. Microsoft doesn't have a particularly good record in this regard. (This is the informed part).
Anytime a story like this comes up, the enthusiastic Linux users like to make themselves feel like they made the right choice. (This is the fanboyism part).
Put the two together, and you'll have what seems like a campaign against Microsoft.
Well, the first two objections aren't that big of a problem, assuming you learned to touch type. (Even if you learned QWERTY by looking at the keys). In practice, typing on a keyboard is a lot like playing a musical instrument. You can get used to pretty much anything if you practice.
Your point about using other keyboards is fair. I found that learning Dvorak while using random QWERTY keyboards was difficult. Mostly because it would take my fingers a few moments to figure out which layout I was using. (That actually made learning Dvorak fun. My fingers got a weird, slightly acid trippy ache at first.) But I found that if you practice both simultaneously, you can learn both fairly easily.
I think the best reason to "switch" isn't because Dvorak is better, but because learning a new way to type will make you a better typist in general. You'll focus on good technique that you haven't thought of in years, if at all. On the other hand, you can use Mavis Beacon - QWERTY edition to the same effect.
Whatever floats your boat. I use QWERTY primarily.:-)
Dvorak is only faster if you're a touch typist, in which case it doesn't matter what letters are printed on the keys anyway. Right now, my keyboard's top row says "ALEXROCKSU". (This makes it impossible for non-touch typists to use my computer)
So just get your hands on some Dvorak learning software and practice both. I did it. It was fun.
Who said anything about the bad guys congregating? Police patrol waypoints are locations that require protection from the bad guys. Convenience stores and gas stations are notorious for getting knocked over. As such, the police make a point of stopping or at least cruising by them frequently, with good results.
Bars and nightclubs are also patrolled regularly, in order to deter drunk driving and general mischief.
I agree the 10mph "efficientcy" idea is dumb, to spot speeders you travel at the limit, to spot other things you often need to slow down.
Really? I had no idea Newtonian physics broke down the moment one stepped into a police car. Hint: to catch speeders while cruising, you can find cars that are keeping pace with yours. Counting on speeders to speed by a police car is a stupid idea.
Surprisingly, it appears that police cars don't have brakes either. Apparently, they can't slow down once they've started speeding.
The police do a lot more than trying to catch speeders. Moving between their waypoints quickly means they can spend more time at them, or have more of them in a given night.
Why? It's not like they're violating anyone's rights by not being cited. And indeed, there are very good reasons why the police might speed, even in non-emergency situations. For instance, by going 10 mph over the speed limit, they can patrol a larger area in a given amount of time. This isn't lazy, and it's in the public's interest.
Good catch. I was wrong about the maximum size a file could be before redundant MD5's must occur. MD5's range has 2^128 elements. So if it is to be bijective on a subset of the domain, that subset needs to have 2^128 elements. Meaning that uniqueness is preserved for files of a given size up to 16 bytes.
I guess the MD5 + filesize concept doesn't buy you much unless you're willing to use very small block sizes. I wrote up a post about using 4kb blocks and realized that the improvement in accuracy was marginal. Basically, for any block size n (in bits), there are 2^n distinct blocks of size n. Meaning that there are \Sum_{i=1}^n 2^i blocks of size n or less. Obviously, the last term dominates the sum.
The iTunes Store is a web store, nominally accessible only through the browser embedded in the iTunes application. Yes, Apple uses cookies to track users. And they have a big database backend to handle one click shopping.
The other issue with FP is that they tend to treat all problems as a collection of simultaneous equations -- things that can be evaluated at any time in any order. There's a huge class of computing problems that can't be described that way. You can't unprint a page on the line printer.
This is what lazy evaluation is for. You actually can describe printing a page functionally. What'll happen, internally, is that the topmost print function won't terminate until it has satisfied all its "dependencies". Just like a procedural language, where a function returns when every function it called returns, recursively. But a functional language is just a little slicker.
Let's consider a plain old mathematics problem. Let's say we want to find the area under the line y = x on (0,1).
Now, obviously, we have to evaluate the integral $\integral x dx$. Note that this is an operator on functions. Given a function (of real numbers) f, we can find the anti-derivative $I(f) = \integral f(x) dx$.
To compute the area under the line, you have to evaluate a function A(f,a,b) defined by (I(f))(b) - (I(f))(a). (The value of the anti-derivative of f at b minus the value of the anti-derivative of f at a).
Here's the slick part. The definition of the function is in some sense the computation. I described the functions I and A in one order, but I could have described them in the other, just by using the same notation and implying that the other definition would come soon. And even if I defied A but didn't define I, you would still know that A(x^2, 0, 1) was (I(x^2))(1) - (I(x^2))(0). In a parallel system, that computation can be done at the same time as I(f), I(f)(0), and (I(f))(1), although all three have to be done before you know the actual area.
It's very unlikely that you will find two distinct files that share MD5 hashes and have the same file size. I would even predict that it's provably impossible for small enough (but still huge) files, but I don't have a proof prepared.
(I'm thinking mathematical induction on the length of elements of Sigma**, and using the concatenation property of the MD5 function.)
Which is why you would download a.torrent-like file specifying which of those you want. Then you would download the 99.9999% that agrees from any/all of them (essentially making your personal swarm temporarily bigger), and download the missing.0001% from the version you requested.
This is very straightforward. I don't see how people can misunderstand this idea.
Yes, the personal computer is not a more powerful, extensible tool than a pocket calculator. The C standard library can't do everything your HP can. Nevermind a specialized package like MATLAB or Mathematica -- they can't touch your HP.
Interesting. I thought rm -rf./* would still hit./, from which point on the -r switch would work as described. I just tested it, though, and you were right.
Even GPLed code is subject to copyright law's fair use provisions. Presumably, the OpenBSD guys put the code up for development purposes. Even though the code was publicly accessible, the OpenBSD team had a reasonable expectation that anyone downloading that code had the intention of doing development work, making them defacto team members.
Basically, the CVS issue is a matter of book keeping. It should have been settled amicably. More worrying is the fact that the OpenBSD team was creating a derivative work from the GPL source with the intention to relicense it.
Jesus christ mods, I wasn't suggesting installing Linux over OS X. I was suggesting installing Portage under OS X, similarly to how MacPorts installs ports under OS X, or how fink installs apt-get under OS X. In my experience, Gentoo's OS X overlay is more reliable than fink and ports, since the Gentoo devs write patches when appropriate. MacPorts devs don't. I don't think Fink devs do either.
Whoever modded me a troll is a serious fucking retard. I'll stick to that, "even" if it costs me more karma.
If one fell, I would imagine that it would accelerate to the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 until it hit something at high speed. What else would you think would happen?
TKIP may be subject to a similar attack as mentioned by a previous poster.
It is in principle, but not in practice. Think of WPA TKIP as a strengthened WEP. They both even use the same encryption schemes. But the vulnerability that affects WEP isn't present in WPA TKIP because TKIP is designed to change keys every 10,000 or so packets. Since you need about two orders of magnitude as many unique IV's to crack this encryption scheme in a reasonable amount of time, you're safe.
As it stands, the police are only allowed to actively investigate[1] an individual if they have at least a reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.
This is the standard put into play by the PATRIOT Act, and is a much lower standard than what we used to have. "Merely" collecting information can certainly be illegal.
In any event, "public" meetings can also be private. We still have the right to assemble with whoever we want. That right includes excluding people with whom we don't want to assemble. And that can certainly include the police, unless they have a warrant to collect specific evidence (in which case undercover agents are merely distasteful).
[1] As opposed to passively investigating an individual, say, by collecting an archive of letters to the editor, and other public statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple reason: informed fanboyism.
Nearly every time a Linux exploit is found, it is patched and tested within hours, if not days. Microsoft doesn't have a particularly good record in this regard. (This is the informed part).
Anytime a story like this comes up, the enthusiastic Linux users like to make themselves feel like they made the right choice. (This is the fanboyism part).
Put the two together, and you'll have what seems like a campaign against Microsoft.
Well, the first two objections aren't that big of a problem, assuming you learned to touch type. (Even if you learned QWERTY by looking at the keys). In practice, typing on a keyboard is a lot like playing a musical instrument. You can get used to pretty much anything if you practice.
:-)
Your point about using other keyboards is fair. I found that learning Dvorak while using random QWERTY keyboards was difficult. Mostly because it would take my fingers a few moments to figure out which layout I was using. (That actually made learning Dvorak fun. My fingers got a weird, slightly acid trippy ache at first.) But I found that if you practice both simultaneously, you can learn both fairly easily.
I think the best reason to "switch" isn't because Dvorak is better, but because learning a new way to type will make you a better typist in general. You'll focus on good technique that you haven't thought of in years, if at all. On the other hand, you can use Mavis Beacon - QWERTY edition to the same effect.
Whatever floats your boat. I use QWERTY primarily.
Dvorak is only faster if you're a touch typist, in which case it doesn't matter what letters are printed on the keys anyway. Right now, my keyboard's top row says "ALEXROCKSU". (This makes it impossible for non-touch typists to use my computer)
So just get your hands on some Dvorak learning software and practice both. I did it. It was fun.
Who said anything about the bad guys congregating? Police patrol waypoints are locations that require protection from the bad guys. Convenience stores and gas stations are notorious for getting knocked over. As such, the police make a point of stopping or at least cruising by them frequently, with good results.
Bars and nightclubs are also patrolled regularly, in order to deter drunk driving and general mischief.
There are plenty of other examples.
Unless you distribute a Word document exploiting the bug by email, for instance.
I agree the 10mph "efficientcy" idea is dumb, to spot speeders you travel at the limit, to spot other things you often need to slow down.
Really? I had no idea Newtonian physics broke down the moment one stepped into a police car. Hint: to catch speeders while cruising, you can find cars that are keeping pace with yours. Counting on speeders to speed by a police car is a stupid idea.
Surprisingly, it appears that police cars don't have brakes either. Apparently, they can't slow down once they've started speeding.
The police do a lot more than trying to catch speeders. Moving between their waypoints quickly means they can spend more time at them, or have more of them in a given night.
Why? It's not like they're violating anyone's rights by not being cited. And indeed, there are very good reasons why the police might speed, even in non-emergency situations. For instance, by going 10 mph over the speed limit, they can patrol a larger area in a given amount of time. This isn't lazy, and it's in the public's interest.
Good catch. I was wrong about the maximum size a file could be before redundant MD5's must occur. MD5's range has 2^128 elements. So if it is to be bijective on a subset of the domain, that subset needs to have 2^128 elements. Meaning that uniqueness is preserved for files of a given size up to 16 bytes.
I guess the MD5 + filesize concept doesn't buy you much unless you're willing to use very small block sizes. I wrote up a post about using 4kb blocks and realized that the improvement in accuracy was marginal. Basically, for any block size n (in bits), there are 2^n distinct blocks of size n. Meaning that there are \Sum_{i=1}^n 2^i blocks of size n or less. Obviously, the last term dominates the sum.
The iTunes Store is a web store, nominally accessible only through the browser embedded in the iTunes application. Yes, Apple uses cookies to track users. And they have a big database backend to handle one click shopping.
The other issue with FP is that they tend to treat all problems as a collection of simultaneous equations -- things that can be evaluated at any time in any order. There's a huge class of computing problems that can't be described that way. You can't unprint a page on the line printer.
This is what lazy evaluation is for. You actually can describe printing a page functionally. What'll happen, internally, is that the topmost print function won't terminate until it has satisfied all its "dependencies". Just like a procedural language, where a function returns when every function it called returns, recursively. But a functional language is just a little slicker.
Let's consider a plain old mathematics problem. Let's say we want to find the area under the line y = x on (0,1).
Now, obviously, we have to evaluate the integral $\integral x dx$. Note that this is an operator on functions. Given a function (of real numbers) f, we can find the anti-derivative $I(f) = \integral f(x) dx$.
To compute the area under the line, you have to evaluate a function A(f,a,b) defined by (I(f))(b) - (I(f))(a). (The value of the anti-derivative of f at b minus the value of the anti-derivative of f at a).
Here's the slick part. The definition of the function is in some sense the computation. I described the functions I and A in one order, but I could have described them in the other, just by using the same notation and implying that the other definition would come soon. And even if I defied A but didn't define I, you would still know that A(x^2, 0, 1) was (I(x^2))(1) - (I(x^2))(0). In a parallel system, that computation can be done at the same time as I(f), I(f)(0), and (I(f))(1), although all three have to be done before you know the actual area.
Also, check out: http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html
It's very unlikely that you will find two distinct files that share MD5 hashes and have the same file size. I would even predict that it's provably impossible for small enough (but still huge) files, but I don't have a proof prepared.
(I'm thinking mathematical induction on the length of elements of Sigma**, and using the concatenation property of the MD5 function.)
Which is why you would download a .torrent-like file specifying which of those you want. Then you would download the 99.9999% that agrees from any/all of them (essentially making your personal swarm temporarily bigger), and download the missing .0001% from the version you requested.
This is very straightforward. I don't see how people can misunderstand this idea.
Yes, the personal computer is not a more powerful, extensible tool than a pocket calculator. The C standard library can't do everything your HP can. Nevermind a specialized package like MATLAB or Mathematica -- they can't touch your HP.
Interesting. I thought rm -rf ./* would still hit ./, from which point on the -r switch would work as described. I just tested it, though, and you were right.
Even GPLed code is subject to copyright law's fair use provisions. Presumably, the OpenBSD guys put the code up for development purposes. Even though the code was publicly accessible, the OpenBSD team had a reasonable expectation that anyone downloading that code had the intention of doing development work, making them defacto team members.
Basically, the CVS issue is a matter of book keeping. It should have been settled amicably. More worrying is the fact that the OpenBSD team was creating a derivative work from the GPL source with the intention to relicense it.
rm -rf / will definitely delete "hidden" files. The 'r' switch means "recursively delete everything in the target directory".
Globbing has nothing to do with it.
That's what 'cp' is for.
Jesus christ mods, I wasn't suggesting installing Linux over OS X. I was suggesting installing Portage under OS X, similarly to how MacPorts installs ports under OS X, or how fink installs apt-get under OS X. In my experience, Gentoo's OS X overlay is more reliable than fink and ports, since the Gentoo devs write patches when appropriate. MacPorts devs don't. I don't think Fink devs do either.
Whoever modded me a troll is a serious fucking retard. I'll stick to that, "even" if it costs me more karma.
Gentoo works nicely too.
o otstrap-macos.xml
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/b
Or you can get pre-built binaries from http://metissian.com/projects/macosx/subversion/. They're a little behind though.
If one fell, I would imagine that it would accelerate to the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 until it hit something at high speed. What else would you think would happen?
TKIP may be subject to a similar attack as mentioned by a previous poster.
It is in principle, but not in practice. Think of WPA TKIP as a strengthened WEP. They both even use the same encryption schemes. But the vulnerability that affects WEP isn't present in WPA TKIP because TKIP is designed to change keys every 10,000 or so packets. Since you need about two orders of magnitude as many unique IV's to crack this encryption scheme in a reasonable amount of time, you're safe.
Linky, for your convenience.
If anyone did, it was Russell.
Why don't you just use a CD-RW or DVD-RW or two for your Linux distros? Nobody's forcing you to keep an archive of old Linux discs.
As it stands, the police are only allowed to actively investigate[1] an individual if they have at least a reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.
This is the standard put into play by the PATRIOT Act, and is a much lower standard than what we used to have. "Merely" collecting information can certainly be illegal.
In any event, "public" meetings can also be private. We still have the right to assemble with whoever we want. That right includes excluding people with whom we don't want to assemble. And that can certainly include the police, unless they have a warrant to collect specific evidence (in which case undercover agents are merely distasteful).
[1] As opposed to passively investigating an individual, say, by collecting an archive of letters to the editor, and other public statements.