You would compute the checksum when loading the library, and check it against the filename given in the executable.
Identical checksums are very unlikely if you use long enough checksums (64 bits would allow 16 billion billion unique DLLs). --
When a judge or anybody else draws the distinction between surveillance of a home that records conditions outside the home and surveillance that records conditions inside the home, I have to question that person's understanding of the concept of cause and effect.
The officers measured heat patterns outside the home and used that information to deduce something about conditions inside the home. How would things have been different if they had set up an x-ray emitter on one side of the house and a detector on the other side to measure x-ray levels outside the home, and used that information to deduce something about conditions inside?
The distinction between "off-the-wall" and "through-the-wall" surveillance is completely spurious. If the judge had decided that surveillance from a position outside the home did not constitute a search, I would have understood his position. But the idea that you can find out what's going on in somebody's home without making use of information that originates inside the home is just plain stupid, whether it comes from a Supreme Court judge or anyone else. --
The whole point of shared libraries is to save memory (and disk space, but that's not nearly as important). If each application loads its own version of a library, you defeat the purpose of using libraries - effectively you'd be statically linking everything. (To get an idea of how much bloat that would introduce, add up the resident set size (RSS) of all of your apps in top).
A better alternative is to load libraries by checksum instead of version number - the library's filename would be its checksum, which would be verified by the loader. If two apps were compiled against exactly the same version of a library they would share the same copy in memory, but if one was compiled against 0.8.1 and the other against (supposedly compatible) 0.8.2 they would each load their own version into memory. This approach would waste memory in some cases, but you would never see your apps behaving unexpectedly because of changes to the underlying libraries. I think the memory tradeoff would be worthwhile for the increased stability and, of course, the smug sense of superiority. ("DLL hell? Oh please. Don't tell me you're still loading shared libraries by filename on your OS!?") --
Which brings up a bigger question; after 100 years of modern advertising in America, why are so many still so gullible?
Because they haven't been alive for 100 years. Why do you think advertisers target the 18-30 year olds so hard? Because we're relatively rich and relatively dumb. --
If the officer looks through your window, he is not violating your rights.
If he looks through your window using a pair of spectacles, he is not violating your rights.
If he looks through your curtains using a pair of X-Ray Spex, he is violating your rights.
That's why the ruling focussed on the use of equipment not available to the general public. Surveillance with the unaided senses, or with the senses aided by everyday items such as spectacles and hearing aids, is permissible. Surveillance with high-tech devices (by the standards of the day) requires a warrant.
Unfortunately the dissenting judges didn't appear to understand this distinction. From the Washington Post:
In his dissent, Stevens drew a distinction between "through-the-wall surveillance," which he said was impermissible, and "off-the-wall surveillance" that records conditions outside, but not inside, a home. Since the thermal imaging device that was pointed at Kyllo's home only recorded heat levels outside the structure, "the officers' conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly reasonable," he said.
Stevens overlooked the fact that nothing can be learned about conditions inside the home by measuring signals that are independent of conditions inside the home. Any sensor that is physically located outside the home is measuring conditions outside, but those conditions may reveal an unacceptable amount of information about conditions inside (as in the case of X-Ray Spex that use x-ray levels outside the home to determine the positions of objects inside the home). --
Slashdot's forums reward those who leap before they look, because by the time anybody could read the linked material, there's already a lot of posts.
It should be impossible to moderate responses to a story for ten minutes after the story first appears. This will give readers a chance to read the article without (effectively) losing their chance to comment on it. --
The artist voluntarily sold the work to the record company, and in return the record company paid for the work to be recorded, distributed, played every 10 minutes on MTV, etc. After those costs have been recouped a small proportion of the profits from selling the work that the record company owns goes to the artist.
What's so terrible about that deal? Nobody is forced to sign a recording contract - unknown artists are out there trying desperately to attract the attention of record companies because they want to sell the rights to their songs. If other artists want to distribute their songs online or by mail order instead of going through a record company, then good luck to them. But at the moment most artists want a record deal, so it's nonsense to say that the record companies are exploiting them. If the artists don't like the terms of the contract they won't (or shouldn't) sign. --
Re:Not that impressive
on
DSLBlaster?
·
· Score: 2
The cards were designed for audio - they have filters which remove aliasing artefacts from the output. Sounds better, but it limits the high-frequency response (the filters don't have infinitely sharp cutoff) so the effective dynamic range is less than 16 bits. Also, the Shannon limit is only half the sampling rate, so even without filters you'd "only" be able to get 384 kb/s. --
Oops!:0) I knocked off a few too many zeroes when converting from British billions (10^12) to international billions (10^9). It's still a lot of HTTPS transactions, though! --
Another poster mentioned that the cards use 16-digit numbers, so there are 10 thousand billion billion possible codes. If a billion cards are produced, you would have to search through an average of 10 thousand billion codes before you found a valid one (by which time the retailer might have become a little suspicious).
Key generators don't work by trying random numbers, they work because someone reverse-engineered the software and figured out how it validates its codes. If the codes are random, and are validated by checking them against some central list of valid codes, it will not be possible to build a key generator. --
I don't agree that pirates steal information. When you steal, you gain something by depriving someone else of that thing. When you copy information, you gain something without depriving anyone of anything (except the ability to make a profit from that information, and the ability to make a profit should not be a protected "right").
Unless I have signed an agreement saying that I will not do so, I think I have the right to copy any information in my possession.
Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
True. That's why, without laws that distort the market by preventing competition, it would be almost impossible to run a business based on selling information. (Although individual artists might make a living selling information, by depending on the goodwill and honesty of their audience.)
Piracy is anti-competative in that a pirated copy of Windows (to use an example) could be blocking a copy of Linux just as easily as it could be blocking a licen$ed copy of Window$.
Crap. A pirated copy of Windows isn't "blocking" anything. Users install Windows if they want Windows, and Linux if they want Linux. Piracy just gives them a wider range of options, by allowing them to choose software that they can't afford to license.
Piracy is competition - Microsoft offers you Office for $50, w4r3z d00dz offer you the same product for the price of a CDR. If Microsoft gets out-competed, tough shit. Yes, they invested a lot of money to develop the software. But that doesn't give them a "right" to make a profit - try applying that principle to another industry to see how absurd it is. Does your local convenience store have a "right" to stop your local supermarket from selling food, just because the supermarket's undercutting them? Of course not. The convenience store might have invested a lot of money in food that isn't selling. Tough shit.
Piracy is raw competition, and if there's one thing that corporations hate, it's competition.
Photographs don't have source code. Yes you can deliver prints or digital files, but to a photographer, those are the equivilant of binaries.
What is source code? A human-readable description of a program which can be translated into the program using appropriate technology (a compiler). So you should provide a human-readable description of the photograph which can be translated into the photograph using the appropriate technology (a camera).
"Find a girl. Make sure she's really pretty. Get her to stand next to a well wearing a sun-hat. The well should have some blue flowers hanging over it. Oh, you'll need to find a dog too..."
Taking a cue from Sega Genesis and Sony PlayStation 2 (the latter just recently came out where I live), Game Boy Advance contains a 4/8 MHz gb-z80 processor (and the rest of the original GB hardware) as an I/O controller.
Scary thing is, the human brain contains a more-or-less complete reptilian brain for the same reason.
But does "the copyright holder" refer to the copyright holder of the song (eg Sony), or the copyright holder of the technological measure (eg AIMster)? I think it's going to take a million dollar lawsuit to decide that one.:-)
If you moved the first syllable, luck would become ayluck (because it only has one syllable). You move everything before the first vowel sound to the end, and append 'ay'.
One of the practical problems with quantum encryption is that the receiver must receive the same photons that were sent by the transmitter, or the message will be undecipherable. No repeaters can be used. (Repeaters are used to maintain the strength of optical signals over long distances.)
If the beam could be reconstructed with a higher intensity than the original beam, but the same properties (spin etc.), stop-light chambers could be used as repeaters for quantum-encrypted signals.
Onto the topic of an open-source versus secret carnivore, I'd like to see that there really was a system of authority in operation, ie only the named person's email is captured.
Here's a way of ensuring that wiretap data submitted to a court are accurate and complete. The FBI has no reason to refuse to implement this proposal, unless it intends to change wiretap data or gather data outside the scope granted by a warrant.
Open source monitoring software is installed by the ISP on its own machines. The software is pretty simple - when a wiretap is in progress, this software logs all traffic to and from the user's IP address, encrypting the stream with a symmetric cipher before writing it to a log file. The encrypted stream is also forwarded to the FBI. The key is changed daily. Every day, the previous day's key and a hash of the previous day's traffic are sent to the court which granted the warrant.
In the event of legal proceedings, the ISP's log file is decrypted by the court and given to both the prosecution and the defence. The FBI can ensure that the ISP has been logging all the suspect's traffic because the monitoring software is open source. The public can ensure that the ISP has been logging only the suspect's traffic for the same reason. The suspect's lawyers and the FBI can both ensure that the evidence hasn't been tampered with, and more importantly, the court can determine which party tampered with the evidence, because it has a hash of the original traffic log.
For remote-booting thin clients I would recommend the network block device. It allows you to mount any filesystem on a TCP connection, although you can't use it for swap space (at least not in 2.2-series kernels).
Considering how poorly you understand Freenet, you seem very confident in predicting its demise.;p
Freenet's efficiency would be inversely proportional to its size, if it didn't use route compression and document clustering.
Large files could cause a problem, if the clients didn't insert a large file in a number of smaller chunks, along with an index file listing the keys of the chunks.
Multiple versions of files will not necessarily cripple the network. Napster works. Gnutella sort of works. It's important to allow multiple different encodings of a file, because otherwise somebody could insert a bogus version of a document and there would be no way to replace it with the bona fide version. (This is known as "key squatting".) We are assuming that people will start to build up indices (on Freenet) of "good" files, causing the "good" files to be requested more often than the "bad" files, which will eventually disappear from Freenet. Freenet avoids multiple identical encodings of a file, so no space is wasted by storing two identical documents on the same node.
Slashdot Mirror
You would compute the checksum when loading the library, and check it against the filename given in the executable.
Identical checksums are very unlikely if you use long enough checksums (64 bits would allow 16 billion billion unique DLLs).
--
They're addicted to the rush.
--
The officers measured heat patterns outside the home and used that information to deduce something about conditions inside the home. How would things have been different if they had set up an x-ray emitter on one side of the house and a detector on the other side to measure x-ray levels outside the home, and used that information to deduce something about conditions inside?
The distinction between "off-the-wall" and "through-the-wall" surveillance is completely spurious. If the judge had decided that surveillance from a position outside the home did not constitute a search, I would have understood his position. But the idea that you can find out what's going on in somebody's home without making use of information that originates inside the home is just plain stupid, whether it comes from a Supreme Court judge or anyone else.
--
A better alternative is to load libraries by checksum instead of version number - the library's filename would be its checksum, which would be verified by the loader. If two apps were compiled against exactly the same version of a library they would share the same copy in memory, but if one was compiled against 0.8.1 and the other against (supposedly compatible) 0.8.2 they would each load their own version into memory. This approach would waste memory in some cases, but you would never see your apps behaving unexpectedly because of changes to the underlying libraries. I think the memory tradeoff would be worthwhile for the increased stability and, of course, the smug sense of superiority. ("DLL hell? Oh please. Don't tell me you're still loading shared libraries by filename on your OS!?")
--
Because they haven't been alive for 100 years. Why do you think advertisers target the 18-30 year olds so hard? Because we're relatively rich and relatively dumb.
--
If he looks through your window using a pair of spectacles, he is not violating your rights.
If he looks through your curtains using a pair of X-Ray Spex, he is violating your rights.
That's why the ruling focussed on the use of equipment not available to the general public. Surveillance with the unaided senses, or with the senses aided by everyday items such as spectacles and hearing aids, is permissible. Surveillance with high-tech devices (by the standards of the day) requires a warrant. Unfortunately the dissenting judges didn't appear to understand this distinction. From the Washington Post:
Stevens overlooked the fact that nothing can be learned about conditions inside the home by measuring signals that are independent of conditions inside the home. Any sensor that is physically located outside the home is measuring conditions outside, but those conditions may reveal an unacceptable amount of information about conditions inside (as in the case of X-Ray Spex that use x-ray levels outside the home to determine the positions of objects inside the home).--
It should be impossible to moderate responses to a story for ten minutes after the story first appears. This will give readers a chance to read the article without (effectively) losing their chance to comment on it.
--
Don't confuse the Latin alphabet with the English language! In Czech, the Latin alphabet (plus a few accents) is used phonetically.
--
What's so terrible about that deal? Nobody is forced to sign a recording contract - unknown artists are out there trying desperately to attract the attention of record companies because they want to sell the rights to their songs. If other artists want to distribute their songs online or by mail order instead of going through a record company, then good luck to them. But at the moment most artists want a record deal, so it's nonsense to say that the record companies are exploiting them. If the artists don't like the terms of the contract they won't (or shouldn't) sign.
--
The cards were designed for audio - they have filters which remove aliasing artefacts from the output. Sounds better, but it limits the high-frequency response (the filters don't have infinitely sharp cutoff) so the effective dynamic range is less than 16 bits. Also, the Shannon limit is only half the sampling rate, so even without filters you'd "only" be able to get 384 kb/s.
--
Oops! :0) I knocked off a few too many zeroes when converting from British billions (10^12) to international billions (10^9). It's still a lot of HTTPS transactions, though!
--
Key generators don't work by trying random numbers, they work because someone reverse-engineered the software and figured out how it validates its codes. If the codes are random, and are validated by checking them against some central list of valid codes, it will not be possible to build a key generator.
--
Unless I have signed an agreement saying that I will not do so, I think I have the right to copy any information in my possession.
Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
True. That's why, without laws that distort the market by preventing competition, it would be almost impossible to run a business based on selling information. (Although individual artists might make a living selling information, by depending on the goodwill and honesty of their audience.)
Crap. A pirated copy of Windows isn't "blocking" anything. Users install Windows if they want Windows, and Linux if they want Linux. Piracy just gives them a wider range of options, by allowing them to choose software that they can't afford to license.
Piracy is competition - Microsoft offers you Office for $50, w4r3z d00dz offer you the same product for the price of a CDR. If Microsoft gets out-competed, tough shit. Yes, they invested a lot of money to develop the software. But that doesn't give them a "right" to make a profit - try applying that principle to another industry to see how absurd it is. Does your local convenience store have a "right" to stop your local supermarket from selling food, just because the supermarket's undercutting them? Of course not. The convenience store might have invested a lot of money in food that isn't selling. Tough shit.
Piracy is raw competition, and if there's one thing that corporations hate, it's competition.
What is source code? A human-readable description of a program which can be translated into the program using appropriate technology (a compiler). So you should provide a human-readable description of the photograph which can be translated into the photograph using the appropriate technology (a camera).
"Find a girl. Make sure she's really pretty. Get her to stand next to a well wearing a sun-hat. The well should have some blue flowers hanging over it. Oh, you'll need to find a dog too..."
Scary thing is, the human brain contains a more-or-less complete reptilian brain for the same reason.
Advance is a noun too. As in "The Relentless Advance of the Game Boy".
On the contrary, I learned the most about computers as a kid when I broke them and had to work out how to fix them.
It's called X11. You might have heard of it.
But does "the copyright holder" refer to the copyright holder of the song (eg Sony), or the copyright holder of the technological measure (eg AIMster)? I think it's going to take a million dollar lawsuit to decide that one. :-)
If you moved the first syllable, luck would become ayluck (because it only has one syllable). You move everything before the first vowel sound to the end, and append 'ay'.
One of the practical problems with quantum encryption is that the receiver must receive the same photons that were sent by the transmitter, or the message will be undecipherable. No repeaters can be used. (Repeaters are used to maintain the strength of optical signals over long distances.)
If the beam could be reconstructed with a higher intensity than the original beam, but the same properties (spin etc.), stop-light chambers could be used as repeaters for quantum-encrypted signals.
Here's a way of ensuring that wiretap data submitted to a court are accurate and complete. The FBI has no reason to refuse to implement this proposal, unless it intends to change wiretap data or gather data outside the scope granted by a warrant.
Open source monitoring software is installed by the ISP on its own machines. The software is pretty simple - when a wiretap is in progress, this software logs all traffic to and from the user's IP address, encrypting the stream with a symmetric cipher before writing it to a log file. The encrypted stream is also forwarded to the FBI. The key is changed daily. Every day, the previous day's key and a hash of the previous day's traffic are sent to the court which granted the warrant.
In the event of legal proceedings, the ISP's log file is decrypted by the court and given to both the prosecution and the defence. The FBI can ensure that the ISP has been logging all the suspect's traffic because the monitoring software is open source. The public can ensure that the ISP has been logging only the suspect's traffic for the same reason. The suspect's lawyers and the FBI can both ensure that the evidence hasn't been tampered with, and more importantly, the court can determine which party tampered with the evidence, because it has a hash of the original traffic log.
For remote-booting thin clients I would recommend the network block device. It allows you to mount any filesystem on a TCP connection, although you can't use it for swap space (at least not in 2.2-series kernels).
Freenet's efficiency would be inversely proportional to its size, if it didn't use route compression and document clustering.
Large files could cause a problem, if the clients didn't insert a large file in a number of smaller chunks, along with an index file listing the keys of the chunks.
Multiple versions of files will not necessarily cripple the network. Napster works. Gnutella sort of works. It's important to allow multiple different encodings of a file, because otherwise somebody could insert a bogus version of a document and there would be no way to replace it with the bona fide version. (This is known as "key squatting".) We are assuming that people will start to build up indices (on Freenet) of "good" files, causing the "good" files to be requested more often than the "bad" files, which will eventually disappear from Freenet. Freenet avoids multiple identical encodings of a file, so no space is wasted by storing two identical documents on the same node.