Please don't try to isolate the bug and send a report to Rob Malda--he would really hate that. It's much easier for him to find and fix the way you reported it.
Man, I so wish you were right. Unfortunately I don't think you are, as our inheritance of the English common law extends only as far as the applicability of precedent and judge-made law, and doesn't apply to criminal or civil procedure (which are substantially different in the UK and USA today). I love your idea though.
e. e. cummings did not blithely violate the rules of English prose--he carefully and lovingly transcended the conventional forms of poetry as they existed in his day.
Read some of his early work (or even something like "all in green went my love riding" that, apart from the capitalisation, is more or less standard English) to get a sense of what I mean.
Think of Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, Picasso, and others: their early work shows an astonishing command of the medium, and they worked very hard to get to the places they ended up. Don't delude yourself into thinking you could have been as famous as Pollock if you'd suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 1950 and dumped paint from buckets onto whatever flat surface you saw.
Oh, come now. It's not just running some key generators; it's also paying for the care and feeding of lawyers to draw up CSPs and contracts that say things like:
In the event that anything goes wrong, or you use your certificate for some nefarious purpose, you indemnify us of any wrongdoing. We disclaim everything.
Yeah, well, I guess I should be glad we live in a country where we have hundreds of movies to choose from every year, and tens of thousands in the video store.
Don't get me wrong--Ebert is no infallible paragon of movie insight. But I tend to agree with him more often than not, and he's way more on than (e.g.) Janet Maslin or (god forbid) Rex Reed or Joel Siegel.
Sometimes he does get the comedies wrong. But I think he does a pretty good job of knowing what to look for in dramas and action flicks. As for "artsey" (sp)--I couldn't agree less. Unlike most Americans, he's capable of evaluating foreign and/or quasi-magical films on their own merits, and that's worth something.
But whatever. The main reason Roger Ebert rocks the house is that he wrote the screenplays for Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls and Who Killed Bambi?; and for that, he deserves immortality.
1(a). In the US at least, they don't have to pay taxes. That's right! Just like a church, except they get to participate in business ventures, some of which are *very* lucrative, up the wazoo.
Pelt them with rubber bullets. Gas them. If they still don't get the message that their conduct is inexcusable, then maybe they need to be weeded from the gene pool...
Funny--it sounds to me like you'd make a great anarchist.
Oh sure. But what about some broader stuff? Smithsonian, Adbusters, and the Archie McPhee catalog come to mind. I heartily second the mention of New Scientist as well. Of course, my local neighborhood of geekdom may be totally nonrepresentative.
Also (from the not-a-current-periodical-but dept.): My father used to have* a large stack of issues of Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia from 1975-1979. Any of them, if they could be found through eBay or whatever, would likely make a marvelous gift for the history-focussed geek.
*He lost them in a poker game, and I'm still bitter. I was hoping to inherit them.
If you argue that it's protected free speech? I answer that you must place higher value in your desire to hurt and humiliate others than you are truly interested in exercising freedom of speech.
This is linking the permissibility of speech to its content, which is exactly the sort of argument that cuts no ice with knee-jerk ACLUers like me.
I may not like jive, but I will defend to the death the FSF's right to promulgate text files based on it.
If there were a Slashdot moderation option of "-1: Misleading and ill-informed", I would have used it. Since there isn't, I'll respond.
Briefly, taking your comments by paragraph:
(1) First, message integrity is exactly what MACs provide. You can layer them over or under the encryption algorithm, or both, depending on what you need. Your statement that "single-bit encryption cannot be done securely" is both erroneous and unrelated to the issue of integrity.
(2) You're talking about block ciphers in ECB mode here, and not about stream ciphers at all. If you're going to participate in a discussion, learn the technology.
(3) Yes, you can get redundancy through any number of means. Again, this is not exactly relevant. Sure it sounds like virtual circuits and TCP/IP. Whatever.
(4) It sounds like you are (poorly) describing a one-time pad with a unit size of one or more bits. Maybe, if there are feedback buffers involved, you could be talking about a stream cipher. I can't tell. XOR is not an algorithm--at least I hope nobody considers it one--but it's one of the many mathematical operations that form the building blocks of modern block and stream ciphers.
(5) This I agree with.
I wouldn't even care about your apparent ignorance, were it not for your user profile which lists you as a "security software professional". That scares me.
You know it's funny....I was just playing Hangman in a restaurant with my gf (who's a recovering industrial goth) and I was floored to find that she didn't know:wumpscut:. I guess she left the scene a little too early.
I would shop the domain around to see if Perdue Chicken, Perdue Heavy Industries, Will Perdue, A friend of yours named Perdue, or anybody else is interested in the domain.
Which would be great if any of them were interested, but since the name of the university is spelled "Purdue", I doubt it.
"It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken" ~Frank Perdue
Well, sure, but so should those in the mainstream press who have been taking him way too seriously (at least until recently--the Forbes article is a start).
Being exposed on Slashdot as a whining baby (who can't hold up one's end of an argument or cogently respond to pertinent criticisms) seems like a good way to make that happen.
Yep. The Total Perspective Vortex (Adams) and the Laplacian Omniscience Fallacy (Laplace). (I may not have the canonical name of the fallacy, but it's close.)
IIRC, quantum uncertainty is the bugaboo, and not even infinitely precise measurements and calculations will save you: there's a Gedankenexperiment involving dropping an elastic, symmetrical, smooth sphere--precisely vertically--onto a similar hemisphere in a vacuum. How many times will it bounce before it goes off center?
I took the TGV from Paris to Genève and experienced exactly the phenomenon you describe--the ride was so smooth it felt like I was going slower than on an Amtrak train at home (which typically don't go much above 110 km/h). I had to do some careful estimation using my watch and the spacing of the telegraph poles along the route to convince myself otherwise.
I seem to remember a while back (late 80's?) that John Fogerty was sued by the other members of Creedence Clearwater Revival for producing solo work that was overly similar to theirs in terms of musical style, and that they lost the case in fairly short order.
Peripherally relatedly, y'all should check out David Cope's book Computers and Musical Style, as well as either of the CDs of music written by Cope's programs. Fascinating stuff (e.g.: counterintuitively, the program seemed to do a better job of imitating Chopin than Bach).
Slashdot Mirror
Non do anus ratti (conversational) or Ego non do anus ratti (emphatic).
Cheers.
Please don't try to isolate the bug and send a report to Rob Malda--he would really hate that. It's much easier for him to find and fix the way you reported it.
(ObDisclaimer: IANAL.)
Yuh. Also note that dear Lenore is in "Advertising/Marketing", which means that after the Collapse of Civilisation she'll be really useful....
...as food, I suppose.
This is a specious and misleading argument.
e. e. cummings did not blithely violate the rules of English prose--he carefully and lovingly transcended the conventional forms of poetry as they existed in his day.
Read some of his early work (or even something like "all in green went my love riding" that, apart from the capitalisation, is more or less standard English) to get a sense of what I mean.
Think of Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, Picasso, and others: their early work shows an astonishing command of the medium, and they worked very hard to get to the places they ended up. Don't delude yourself into thinking you could have been as famous as Pollock if you'd suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 1950 and dumped paint from buckets onto whatever flat surface you saw.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
In the event that anything goes wrong, or you use your certificate for some nefarious purpose, you indemnify us of any wrongdoing. We disclaim everything.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Don't get me wrong--Ebert is no infallible paragon of movie insight. But I tend to agree with him more often than not, and he's way more on than (e.g.) Janet Maslin or (god forbid) Rex Reed or Joel Siegel.
Sometimes he does get the comedies wrong. But I think he does a pretty good job of knowing what to look for in dramas and action flicks. As for "artsey" (sp)--I couldn't agree less. Unlike most Americans, he's capable of evaluating foreign and/or quasi-magical films on their own merits, and that's worth something.
But whatever. The main reason Roger Ebert rocks the house is that he wrote the screenplays for Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls and Who Killed Bambi?; and for that, he deserves immortality.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
You forgot:
1(a). In the US at least, they don't have to pay taxes. That's right! Just like a church, except they get to participate in business ventures, some of which are *very* lucrative, up the wazoo.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Yep. Just like the AOL's and Prodigy's decision to allow NNTP access caused the Death of Usenet in 1994.
Whatever. As posters get stupider, software will just get smarter.
Cheers.
Kindly put a sock in it.
Funny--it sounds to me like you'd make a great anarchist.
That's pretty funny. Especially the "isuck" part. Give an AC enough rope....
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
For the first time since I joined Slashdot, I've been inspired to change my signature.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Then he can find a sympathetic lawyer who'll work on a contingency fee to tell them the same thing, with the following changes:
s/Fuck you!/To whom it may concern:/
s/probably/provably/
s/assholes/above-named defendants/
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Really?
/. user for over a year and I can't recall that being a very common formula. Maybe I'm reading the wrong comments.
I've been a
If there are any that come to mind, could you point me to the cids?
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Also (from the not-a-current-periodical-but dept.): My father used to have* a large stack of issues of Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia from 1975-1979. Any of them, if they could be found through eBay or whatever, would likely make a marvelous gift for the history-focussed geek.
*He lost them in a poker game, and I'm still bitter. I was hoping to inherit them.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
This is linking the permissibility of speech to its content, which is exactly the sort of argument that cuts no ice with knee-jerk ACLUers like me.
I may not like jive, but I will defend to the death the FSF's right to promulgate text files based on it.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
If there were a Slashdot moderation option of "-1: Misleading and ill-informed", I would have used it. Since there isn't, I'll respond.
Briefly, taking your comments by paragraph:
(1) First, message integrity is exactly what MACs provide. You can layer them over or under the encryption algorithm, or both, depending on what you need. Your statement that "single-bit encryption cannot be done securely" is both erroneous and unrelated to the issue of integrity.
(2) You're talking about block ciphers in ECB mode here, and not about stream ciphers at all. If you're going to participate in a discussion, learn the technology.
(3) Yes, you can get redundancy through any number of means. Again, this is not exactly relevant. Sure it sounds like virtual circuits and TCP/IP. Whatever.
(4) It sounds like you are (poorly) describing a one-time pad with a unit size of one or more bits. Maybe, if there are feedback buffers involved, you could be talking about a stream cipher. I can't tell. XOR is not an algorithm--at least I hope nobody considers it one--but it's one of the many mathematical operations that form the building blocks of modern block and stream ciphers.
(5) This I agree with.
I wouldn't even care about your apparent ignorance, were it not for your user profile which lists you as a "security software professional". That scares me.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
You know it's funny....I was just playing Hangman in a restaurant with my gf (who's a recovering industrial goth) and I was floored to find that she didn't know :wumpscut:. I guess she left the scene a little too early.
It's a great Hangman word though.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Which would be great if any of them were interested, but since the name of the university is spelled "Purdue", I doubt it.
"It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken"
~Frank Perdue
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Well, sure, but so should those in the mainstream press who have been taking him way too seriously (at least until recently--the Forbes article is a start).
Being exposed on Slashdot as a whining baby (who can't hold up one's end of an argument or cogently respond to pertinent criticisms) seems like a good way to make that happen.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Yep. The Total Perspective Vortex (Adams) and the Laplacian Omniscience Fallacy (Laplace). (I may not have the canonical name of the fallacy, but it's close.)
IIRC, quantum uncertainty is the bugaboo, and not even infinitely precise measurements and calculations will save you: there's a Gedankenexperiment involving dropping an elastic, symmetrical, smooth sphere--precisely vertically--onto a similar hemisphere in a vacuum. How many times will it bounce before it goes off center?
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
I took the TGV from Paris to Genève and experienced exactly the phenomenon you describe--the ride was so smooth it felt like I was going slower than on an Amtrak train at home (which typically don't go much above 110 km/h). I had to do some careful estimation using my watch and the spacing of the telegraph poles along the route to convince myself otherwise.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL.
I seem to remember a while back (late 80's?) that John Fogerty was sued by the other members of Creedence Clearwater Revival for producing solo work that was overly similar to theirs in terms of musical style, and that they lost the case in fairly short order.
Peripherally relatedly, y'all should check out David Cope's book Computers and Musical Style, as well as either of the CDs of music written by Cope's programs. Fascinating stuff (e.g.: counterintuitively, the program seemed to do a better job of imitating Chopin than Bach).