I know all that, which is why I said that I don't know why I would fear exposing my/etc/passwd file.
Ahh, I see, I misunderstood you:)
Because I miss my good old days of running Windows with IE?
Did any anyone else just hear the music from the shower scene from Psycho? Because I could have sworn that I feared for my own death as soon as I read that sentance:)
In virtually all modern linux-systems, nothing really sensitive is stored in/etc/passwd, all the good stuff is in/etc/shadow (which is only readable by root). This is called shadowing. And by the way, you never store a password, you only store a salted hash of it.
Run the command "cat/etc/shadow" and then run "sudo cat/etc/shadow" and watch the difference. So, unless you are running firefox as root (why, oh why, are you running firefox as root?!?!?!?) you'll be pretty safe.
Sure an applet or some javascript could access another server! Assuming that the database server is located at sql.somecompany.com, the applet could just connect there (and supply the required username and pass). There is no security implication involved. Even if there was, the web-app could just use google's own servers as a middleman (so the app would send instructions to google's servers to go find something, they do it, and then pass it on to the web-app. This isn't even that hard to do.
You're missing his point completely. He doesn't say that the law is unjust, or even a bad law (I think we can all agree that this is a pretty damn good law). The point is that this was outside all due process and was completely illegal. Evidence should be obtained by the police using warrants. Of course, if you know that someone is collecting child porn, you should turn them in, but becoming a spy and vigilante is just plain wrong. How many innocent peoples computer did he hack into before the judge? All those computers are now infected with a trojan that gives complete access to this guy. Is all that ok just because one of the many people he hacked into was guilty.
Leave evidence-searching to the police. Vigilantism is wrong.
That's not necessary, is it? The company could have its own SQL server requiring a username and password that the google app could connect to and present the results in whatever way they want. And besides, Google isn't going to start being a free database host, that's just crazy! It wouldn't be feasible.
No this is basically true (there is a quantum computing algorithm called Shor's algorithm which could crack prime numbers in O((log N)^3) time, a vast improvement over current algorithms) that would make prime-number algorithms obsolete. In that case, quantum cryptography could be something worth looking into (although by that time something else might have come along, quantum computing is at least 100 years from being practically able to do what is needed). I was just making fun of the idea that you would use quantum cryptography to achieve authentication. There are so many easier ways:)
Socrates was executed by a jury, just like American trials use today. Granted, it was a large jury (501 people) who sentenced using a majority-vote system, but it was still a jury. He was accused, found guilty of, and executed for "corrupting the youth of Athens" (the real reason was, as you say, that he was a pain in the ass to some very rich and easily offended people). I agree with your general point, but that was a bad example.
So you could either a) create super-high tech stupidly expensive hardware and use fiber optic cables (or whatever you use to transfer quantum stuff) or b) simply sign your transmissions. I wonder which one is easier?
This is actually a fairly common concept in SF, usually called a Generation Starship. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a great article about it, but if you don't own that (and shame on you if you don't) a poor (albeit up-yo-date) wikipedia article will suffice. The by far most notable (and best) of the bunch of stories is the absolutely fantastic book-long epic poem Aniara written by Nobel-prize winning author and poet Harry Martinson. It's one of those pieces of works that can be called unique in the history of literature.
You just gave me a flashback of me studying the DES standard during breaks and people looking weirdly at me. You know, "Look, these S-boxes are so cool!".
It was nice to impress people by cracking some simple ciphers though. That didn't last long, however....
I can't speak really about google for domains, but if you run that, shouldn't you be able to just redirect the standard portal to the secure one? However, I know nothing about it, so I bow to your knowledge. As for per-mail security I use GnuPG and Thunderbird over POP and I don't have any problem with it (and I get a fuckload of mail). I realize IMAP is better, but surely POP is "good enough" for most circumstances?
If by "improving your security", you mean that they don't use SSL when reading your mail, you are sadly mistaken. You can use SSL, they make it optional. If you go to https://mail.google.com instead of just http://mail.google.com/ (note the https), you get SSL all the way. If you meant "doesn't use PGP", well, no web-mail provider does. Use a client instead.
No... being rude and obnoxious is bad irrelevant of whether you are right or wrong. I don't care about the specific words you use, I have no problem with 'bad' language. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you'd better learn the rules of civil discourse. One of the moderation systems purposes is to raise the level of discussion, so that debating can occur at a sophisticated level. Not slapfights and name-calling.
You didn't learn that and you got modded down. Stop complaining, and learn the rules.
Since pointing people to the relevent document is apparently flamebait
No, but being rude and obnoxious can certainly qualify as flamebait. If you don't want to be modded down, learn some civility. And by the way, bitching about moderation is off-topic.
Why doesn't anyone bother to check the facts before posting things like this? It would literally take two seconds to look up exactly what format a DVD is in. If it is in NTSC, it's 720 × 480, if it is in PAL it's 720 × 576.
I always figured you said it like "File System Checking". "Yeah, baby, you want to come over to my place and File System Check?" It seems appropriate for a slashdot slang term.
All four episodes were available on bittorrent networks long before they aired on tv (lets just say I can personally attest to that fact;). Fox had sent out screeners to every critic they could think of, so naturally they made it onto the web.
It's not such a bizarre statement to say that the constitution should be updated every now and again. I mean, after the initial framing and the formation of the Bill of Rights, there have been an additional, what, 17 amendments? That's a whole mess of amendments. Doesn't that tell you that in the past at least, they considered the constitution something that should be changed?
And look at for instance the second amendment which was written at a drastically different time than today. I mean, "a well regulated militia", WTF? Nowadays, people getting guns and forming a private army would be a threat to the freedom of the state, not the other way around. It was clearly written for a different world than ours, and it should be revised.
And by the way, my constitution (I'm Swedish) is updated every now and then using referendums and the like. Like the US constitution it's pretty old (the first part, the Freedom of the Press act, dates back to 1766), but there is no fundamentalist belief that it shouldn't change based on the will of the people. For instance, the aforementioned Freedom of the Press act was altered in 1772, 1810, 1812, 1949 and 1982. More recently, the constitution was changed when we entered into the EU in 1995 (and it would have been changed again in 2003, had we voted yes to introducing the Euro) and the Act of Succession was altered to allow the eldest daughter of our king to become the heir-apparent instead of her younger brother (isn't that quaint, we have heirs-apparent;) Also we added a whole new part to it in 1992 (making it a total of four parts), the Fundamental law of Freedom of Expression (it had previously been covered by the Freedom of the Press act).
Saying that you can enumerate a number of things that will ensure a perfectly running state for centuries to come is not only silly, it's hubris. For a state to function for the future, it needs to adapt to changing times and the will of the people.
People always bring up that damn incompleteness theorem! You have to remember that in 99% of all mathematics (including computer science), incompletness is pretty much irrelevant, virtually all theorems that mathematicians deal with are provably true or false. I know several people who have been mathematicians all their life and never even come across it (we all know it only because of GEB). So while strictly speaking you are correct, it is a very silly way to look at maths. Unless you're trying to write the halting program, you can be pretty sure that you can prove whether or not a program will overflow. If you can't, you can at the very least prove that it's not provable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, I see, I misunderstood you :)
Did any anyone else just hear the music from the shower scene from Psycho? Because I could have sworn that I feared for my own death as soon as I read that sentance :)
In virtually all modern linux-systems, nothing really sensitive is stored in /etc/passwd, all the good stuff is in /etc/shadow (which is only readable by root). This is called shadowing. And by the way, you never store a password, you only store a salted hash of it.
Run the command "cat /etc/shadow" and then run "sudo cat /etc/shadow" and watch the difference. So, unless you are running firefox as root (why, oh why, are you running firefox as root?!?!?!?) you'll be pretty safe.
Sure an applet or some javascript could access another server! Assuming that the database server is located at sql.somecompany.com, the applet could just connect there (and supply the required username and pass). There is no security implication involved. Even if there was, the web-app could just use google's own servers as a middleman (so the app would send instructions to google's servers to go find something, they do it, and then pass it on to the web-app. This isn't even that hard to do.
You're missing his point completely. He doesn't say that the law is unjust, or even a bad law (I think we can all agree that this is a pretty damn good law). The point is that this was outside all due process and was completely illegal. Evidence should be obtained by the police using warrants. Of course, if you know that someone is collecting child porn, you should turn them in, but becoming a spy and vigilante is just plain wrong. How many innocent peoples computer did he hack into before the judge? All those computers are now infected with a trojan that gives complete access to this guy. Is all that ok just because one of the many people he hacked into was guilty.
Leave evidence-searching to the police. Vigilantism is wrong.
That's not necessary, is it? The company could have its own SQL server requiring a username and password that the google app could connect to and present the results in whatever way they want. And besides, Google isn't going to start being a free database host, that's just crazy! It wouldn't be feasible.
No this is basically true (there is a quantum computing algorithm called Shor's algorithm which could crack prime numbers in O((log N)^3) time, a vast improvement over current algorithms) that would make prime-number algorithms obsolete. In that case, quantum cryptography could be something worth looking into (although by that time something else might have come along, quantum computing is at least 100 years from being practically able to do what is needed). I was just making fun of the idea that you would use quantum cryptography to achieve authentication. There are so many easier ways :)
Socrates was executed by a jury, just like American trials use today. Granted, it was a large jury (501 people) who sentenced using a majority-vote system, but it was still a jury. He was accused, found guilty of, and executed for "corrupting the youth of Athens" (the real reason was, as you say, that he was a pain in the ass to some very rich and easily offended people). I agree with your general point, but that was a bad example.
So you could either a) create super-high tech stupidly expensive hardware and use fiber optic cables (or whatever you use to transfer quantum stuff) or b) simply sign your transmissions. I wonder which one is easier?
This is actually a fairly common concept in SF, usually called a Generation Starship. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a great article about it, but if you don't own that (and shame on you if you don't) a poor (albeit up-yo-date) wikipedia article will suffice. The by far most notable (and best) of the bunch of stories is the absolutely fantastic book-long epic poem Aniara written by Nobel-prize winning author and poet Harry Martinson. It's one of those pieces of works that can be called unique in the history of literature.
447564652C207468617420776F756C64206861766520626565 6E207761792066756E6E69657220696620796F75206861646E 2774206D65737365642075702074686520617363696900
You just gave me a flashback of me studying the DES standard during breaks and people looking weirdly at me. You know, "Look, these S-boxes are so cool!".
It was nice to impress people by cracking some simple ciphers though. That didn't last long, however....
I can't speak really about google for domains, but if you run that, shouldn't you be able to just redirect the standard portal to the secure one? However, I know nothing about it, so I bow to your knowledge. As for per-mail security I use GnuPG and Thunderbird over POP and I don't have any problem with it (and I get a fuckload of mail). I realize IMAP is better, but surely POP is "good enough" for most circumstances?
If by "improving your security", you mean that they don't use SSL when reading your mail, you are sadly mistaken. You can use SSL, they make it optional. If you go to https://mail.google.com instead of just http://mail.google.com/ (note the https), you get SSL all the way. If you meant "doesn't use PGP", well, no web-mail provider does. Use a client instead.
No... being rude and obnoxious is bad irrelevant of whether you are right or wrong. I don't care about the specific words you use, I have no problem with 'bad' language. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you'd better learn the rules of civil discourse. One of the moderation systems purposes is to raise the level of discussion, so that debating can occur at a sophisticated level. Not slapfights and name-calling.
You didn't learn that and you got modded down. Stop complaining, and learn the rules.
Since pointing people to the relevent document is apparently flamebait
No, but being rude and obnoxious can certainly qualify as flamebait. If you don't want to be modded down, learn some civility. And by the way, bitching about moderation is off-topic.
Why doesn't anyone bother to check the facts before posting things like this? It would literally take two seconds to look up exactly what format a DVD is in. If it is in NTSC, it's 720 × 480, if it is in PAL it's 720 × 576.
See? Now wasn't that easy.
Yes, I agree, cleaning your bedroom is far worse than having to deal with a battalion of intergalactic missiles.
You're last on the first page for me.
I am the number one google search result for mac fanboy
You're also a top result for whiney.
I always figured you said it like "File System Checking". "Yeah, baby, you want to come over to my place and File System Check?" It seems appropriate for a slashdot slang term.
All four episodes were available on bittorrent networks long before they aired on tv (lets just say I can personally attest to that fact ;). Fox had sent out screeners to every critic they could think of, so naturally they made it onto the web.
They use something called Anycast. See article for details.
Dude, Need for Slow: Cataract! I HAVE to have that game. Get me that game. NOW. Man, that would be awesome.
It's not such a bizarre statement to say that the constitution should be updated every now and again. I mean, after the initial framing and the formation of the Bill of Rights, there have been an additional, what, 17 amendments? That's a whole mess of amendments. Doesn't that tell you that in the past at least, they considered the constitution something that should be changed?
And look at for instance the second amendment which was written at a drastically different time than today. I mean, "a well regulated militia", WTF? Nowadays, people getting guns and forming a private army would be a threat to the freedom of the state, not the other way around. It was clearly written for a different world than ours, and it should be revised.
And by the way, my constitution (I'm Swedish) is updated every now and then using referendums and the like. Like the US constitution it's pretty old (the first part, the Freedom of the Press act, dates back to 1766), but there is no fundamentalist belief that it shouldn't change based on the will of the people. For instance, the aforementioned Freedom of the Press act was altered in 1772, 1810, 1812, 1949 and 1982. More recently, the constitution was changed when we entered into the EU in 1995 (and it would have been changed again in 2003, had we voted yes to introducing the Euro) and the Act of Succession was altered to allow the eldest daughter of our king to become the heir-apparent instead of her younger brother (isn't that quaint, we have heirs-apparent ;) Also we added a whole new part to it in 1992 (making it a total of four parts), the Fundamental law of Freedom of Expression (it had previously been covered by the Freedom of the Press act).
Saying that you can enumerate a number of things that will ensure a perfectly running state for centuries to come is not only silly, it's hubris. For a state to function for the future, it needs to adapt to changing times and the will of the people.
People always bring up that damn incompleteness theorem! You have to remember that in 99% of all mathematics (including computer science), incompletness is pretty much irrelevant, virtually all theorems that mathematicians deal with are provably true or false. I know several people who have been mathematicians all their life and never even come across it (we all know it only because of GEB). So while strictly speaking you are correct, it is a very silly way to look at maths. Unless you're trying to write the halting program, you can be pretty sure that you can prove whether or not a program will overflow. If you can't, you can at the very least prove that it's not provable.