...so it's reasonably to expect that they take more training to use effectively.
User: OK, I just got into my car. Nothing happens. Now what?
Support: When you took driver training, you were told to press the gas pedal.
User: Gas pedal?
Support: Just press the little pedal to your right.
User: OK, I pressed it. Nothing happened.
Support: Did you start the car?
User: OK, I started the car and pressed the gas pedal with my foot. Nothing happened.
Support: What do you see in front of you?
User: There is a dial with a bunch of numbers from 0 to 140, and a red circle around the letter P.
Support: Did you put the car in gear?
User: What's that?
Support: Do you even have a driver's license?
User: License? Isn't that only for software? A car should just work, right?
Support: Wha, whaa.... I... Wha?
User: Oh, forget it!
Kish's system depends on Alice's actions having an effect on Bob. That effect is going to propagate---at most---at the speed of light.
The problem here is that Kish is an electrical engineer, rather than a physicist. As an engineer, he's used to throwing away unimportant details. The problem (which is a common problem among otherwise competent engineers who try to design cryptosystems) is that those "unimportant" details are exactly what an attacker is going to use to break your system.
For a new installation, Subversion is probably a better choice than CVS, mainly because changesets are committed atomically, directories are versioned, and it has better security when dealing with remote access.
So you replace copyright law with strengthened consumer protection law that makes such retaliation illegal? If you're going to refute arguments in favour of the abolition of copyright, at least try to refute the best arguments.
...when the common man realizes how shoddy the science (at least, what's shown) on MythBusters really is. It will mean that people are actually starting to "get" science.
That should read, "XP is a pretty good version of Windows".
I don't think I'd go so far as to call any version of Windows "good" without further qualification.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
1) Bumper tag between 4 cars ahead of me. Unable to stop for the suddenly stopped vehicle ahead of me.
2) Truck on intersecting road ran stop sign, stopped IN the intersection. Very interesting demonstration of the transfer of kinetic energy. (I stopped, he went in the direction I was traveling)
3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.
#1 and #3 are probably your own fault for following too closely, going too fast, or both. #2 might also be, but I don't have the information to claim that here.
I don't care about which compression mechanism works the fastest or produces the smallest files. I care about usefulness. The format has to be open and widely-used, and the algorithms have to be reasonably fast. That means I either use.zip,.tar.gz, or.tar.bz2. Goofy formats like.rar and.ace just aren't worth the headache.
It's not just about honest people. If you are attacking a system that's protected by a physical lock, defeating a lock means that you are more likely to be ignored by a third-party bystander if one happens to see you. That increases your chances of success.
How about changing the labels: Under Saddam they lived in relative "peace", and now they live in "total chaos". Which would you choose?
People in America lived in relative peace before 1776, and then they lived in "total chaos", and a good chunk of their population died as a result. Should they not have revolted?
The Internet won't be replaced this way, but it's still a useful exercise. You spend some money researching the "what if" scenario, get some results you didn't expect, and then you adapt the technology to the existing infrastructure.
The productivity hit from using a Windows desktop to maintain a Unix server is next to zero.
I'd tend to disagree, simply because I've done both, but I suspect it depends on what the maintainer is used to, and what the maintenance entails.
if Mr. Summary Writer really needs an Unix environment for some reason, he can install one for Windows, or have them buy VMWare.
My experience is that Cygwin, while better than Windows alone, doesn't hold a candle to Debian in terms of usability. VMware on Windows (VMware Server, anyway) running Linux (even with the VMware Tools) seems to have a weird bug where keyboard keys end up repeating a lot more than they should. It makes it really frustrating to write code under VMware.
If you can make a convincing business case for moving your desktop to Unix, then do so. If you can't, then STFU.
Well, it honestly shouldn't be the individual employees' jobs to make the business case. That's the job of their manager. But yeah, the business case should be made by somebody. On the flip side, the business case for paying for unnecessary Windows licenses should also be there. "We've always done it that way" shouldn't get special treatment.
Right now, Verisign (or any of the widely-trusted X.509/SSL certificate authorities) can generate fake certificates for arbitrary sites, and your ISP can poison the DNS (from your perspective).
Incompetent government employees (or corrupt or foreign governments) are not the only adversaries we need to deal with. DNSSEC, like the current HTTPS trust system, reduces the number of potential attackers, but it doesn't eliminate them all. We know this, and we deal with it by only vesting a limited amount of trust in these systems.
The discussion should not be about whether or not the US DHS specifically should be given access to the keys; The discussion should be about the importance of minimizing the number of points where the system can be attacked: Only those entities who strictly need the keys in order to administer the DNSSEC system should be given access. The DHS doesn't need DNSSEC keys in order to make DNSSEC work, so the DHS should not get the keys. It's as simple as that.
"We provide one operating system because it allows us to standarize our support costs, personnel training, security procedures, and software licences".
This is when upper management is supposed to look at the problem and ask, "Which is more costly? Paying IT to support all the platforms we need, or paying for extra developers (expensive and hard-to-find) because the existing ones can't get their work done efficiently---or are leaving because they are frustrated with the work environment?"
Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top
level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material
or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered
idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical
points of view.
Actually, it helps *very* much with power consumption. Usually, resistance goes up as the tempeature does. For example, this is what an incandescent bulb relies on.
IIRC, semiconductors don't work that way; Their resistance tends to decrease with increasing temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
So according to you, double-blind trials aren't necessary for anything that isn't chemically inert?
...so it's reasonably to expect that they take more training to use effectively.
User: OK, I just got into my car. Nothing happens. Now what?
Support: When you took driver training, you were told to press the gas pedal.
User: Gas pedal?
Support: Just press the little pedal to your right.
User: OK, I pressed it. Nothing happened.
Support: Did you start the car?
User: OK, I started the car and pressed the gas pedal with my foot. Nothing happened.
Support: What do you see in front of you?
User: There is a dial with a bunch of numbers from 0 to 140, and a red circle around the letter P.
Support: Did you put the car in gear?
User: What's that?
Support: Do you even have a driver's license?
User: License? Isn't that only for software? A car should just work, right?
Support: Wha, whaa.... I... Wha?
User: Oh, forget it!
It was on his blog last December.
In any case, the system can be defeated using a directional coupler.
Not unless Einstein was wrong.
Kish's system depends on Alice's actions having an effect on Bob. That effect is going to propagate---at most---at the speed of light.
The problem here is that Kish is an electrical engineer, rather than a physicist. As an engineer, he's used to throwing away unimportant details. The problem (which is a common problem among otherwise competent engineers who try to design cryptosystems) is that those "unimportant" details are exactly what an attacker is going to use to break your system.
This system was discussed on Bruce Schneier's blog last year, and it should be looked at with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Moderators: Please mod the parent post up. This attack obviously didn't get enough attention last time this technique was posted to Slashdot.
For a new installation, Subversion is probably a better choice than CVS, mainly because changesets are committed atomically, directories are versioned, and it has better security when dealing with remote access.
So you replace copyright law with strengthened consumer protection law that makes such retaliation illegal? If you're going to refute arguments in favour of the abolition of copyright, at least try to refute the best arguments.
...when the common man realizes how shoddy the science (at least, what's shown) on MythBusters really is. It will mean that people are actually starting to "get" science.
You and your jokes! I don't think you fully understand the gravity of the situation.
That should read, "XP is a pretty good version of Windows".
I don't think I'd go so far as to call any version of Windows "good" without further qualification.
2) Truck on intersecting road ran stop sign, stopped IN the intersection. Very interesting demonstration of the transfer of kinetic energy. (I stopped, he went in the direction I was traveling)
3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.
#1 and #3 are probably your own fault for following too closely, going too fast, or both. #2 might also be, but I don't have the information to claim that here.
I don't care about which compression mechanism works the fastest or produces the smallest files. I care about usefulness. The format has to be open and widely-used, and the algorithms have to be reasonably fast. That means I either use .zip, .tar.gz, or .tar.bz2. Goofy formats like .rar and .ace just aren't worth the headache.
It's not just about honest people. If you are attacking a system that's protected by a physical lock, defeating a lock means that you are more likely to be ignored by a third-party bystander if one happens to see you. That increases your chances of success.
People in America lived in relative peace before 1776, and then they lived in "total chaos", and a good chunk of their population died as a result. Should they not have revolted?
Why would democracy imply a free society?
Are you saying that Chinese characters are alphabetic? I thought they were morphemes.
Java couldn't do it, therefore it can't be done.
The Internet won't be replaced this way, but it's still a useful exercise. You spend some money researching the "what if" scenario, get some results you didn't expect, and then you adapt the technology to the existing infrastructure.
It's the alternative to RGB mode on the Tandy CoCo 3?
I'd tend to disagree, simply because I've done both, but I suspect it depends on what the maintainer is used to, and what the maintenance entails.
if Mr. Summary Writer really needs an Unix environment for some reason, he can install one for Windows, or have them buy VMWare.My experience is that Cygwin, while better than Windows alone, doesn't hold a candle to Debian in terms of usability. VMware on Windows (VMware Server, anyway) running Linux (even with the VMware Tools) seems to have a weird bug where keyboard keys end up repeating a lot more than they should. It makes it really frustrating to write code under VMware.
If you can make a convincing business case for moving your desktop to Unix, then do so. If you can't, then STFU.Well, it honestly shouldn't be the individual employees' jobs to make the business case. That's the job of their manager. But yeah, the business case should be made by somebody. On the flip side, the business case for paying for unnecessary Windows licenses should also be there. "We've always done it that way" shouldn't get special treatment.
Right now, Verisign (or any of the widely-trusted X.509/SSL certificate authorities) can generate fake certificates for arbitrary sites, and your ISP can poison the DNS (from your perspective).
Incompetent government employees (or corrupt or foreign governments) are not the only adversaries we need to deal with. DNSSEC, like the current HTTPS trust system, reduces the number of potential attackers, but it doesn't eliminate them all. We know this, and we deal with it by only vesting a limited amount of trust in these systems.
The discussion should not be about whether or not the US DHS specifically should be given access to the keys; The discussion should be about the importance of minimizing the number of points where the system can be attacked: Only those entities who strictly need the keys in order to administer the DNSSEC system should be given access. The DHS doesn't need DNSSEC keys in order to make DNSSEC work, so the DHS should not get the keys. It's as simple as that.
This is when upper management is supposed to look at the problem and ask, "Which is more costly? Paying IT to support all the platforms we need, or paying for extra developers (expensive and hard-to-find) because the existing ones can't get their work done efficiently---or are leaving because they are frustrated with the work environment?"
IIRC, semiconductors don't work that way; Their resistance tends to decrease with increasing temperature.
... which is like violence; If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.