As far as I can tell, "murk" will only produce a small patch if bytes *change* without inserting or deleting new bytes. Rsyncrypto is much smarter than Murk in this regard. With Murk, deleting (not changing) a single byte at the front causes the entire cipher text to change.
(However, I believe murk and rsyncrypto share some fundamental insecurities (more than just diff-based attacks) so these statements are not an endorsement of either.)
It's stable, been around a while, and is written by me:-)
I believe rsyncrypto leaks information even if the attacker only sees one version (this is in addition to the diff based attack mentioned by others). As the author, would you agree with these analysis? Do have any further analysis of the security of rsyncrypto anywhere?
I ask because I have thought about using rsyncrypto, but was stopped by what I perceived as insecurities, and I would like to give you a chance to correct me if I'm mistaken. (Yeah, diff based attacks may be a necessary evil, but attacks without even seing the diff are scary.)
Rsyncrypto is insecure. By resetting to the IV, it opens an information leak similar to the one with ECB mode (see the picture of the penguin on that page).
To see why CBC with occasional reset-to-IV is insecure (regardless of trigger function), consider a long repeating pattern of the same bytes (e.g. the white spaces in the penguin picture). CBC won't encrypt them to the same value (like ECB does), but every time the IV resets the same sequence of encrypted bytes will appear. This pattern is detectable and further the places where this pattern is disrupted is detectable. So going back to the penguin picture, the non-background portions will have a shadow that disrupts the repeating background pattern and revealing the content of the file.
The reason that EULAs are important is because software publisher asserts that you are not an owner of a copy. And, if you're not an owner of a copy, then Section 117(a) doesn't apply. There have been court decisions on both sides of this one.
Since Section 101 says that copies are "material objects... in which a work is fixed" and I don't think anyone could reasonably claim you don't own the physical media of a game bought from the store, it really puzzles me how those rulings came about.
17 USC 117 explicitly allows you to make as many copies as necessarily to utilize a computer program. So it sound to me like if you own a legal copy(*) you are allowed to install it.
(*) "Copy" is defined by 17 USC 101 to be the material object "in which a work is fixed" so legally owning a CD with the program on it is owning a legal copy.
(IANAL but I want to understand, so corrections from more informed readers are welcome. Glider is a bit of a puzzle to me so I'm not sure how it jives with this section of the law.)
True, but two floating eye-holes are a lot harder to spot than an entire person in battle field conditions. (In an office they would probably be more conspicuous.)
It seems I have offended you. So that I do not give offense in the future, please tell me what in my post provoked such a crass reaction from you. The link you provided has convinced me that I had my facts wrong, but why did you fly off the handle so? Those words hurt considering that from my perspective I was just calling you on an uncited and initially preposterous sounding claim.
This is incidental to your main point, but it is not a crime to attempt to commit a crime think you are committing a crime. First example, trying to break the speed limit only to be foiled by your car not willing to go that fast. Second example, if you think the speed limit is 25 and you go 40 when the speed limit is 45, it is not a crime.
There are a few exceptions (e.g. murder) where attempting to perform a particular act is explicitly listed as a crime. But in general "attempted" crimes are not crimes (e.g. no one ever got arrested for attempted jaywalking).
Free market doesn't mean no-regulation and a regulated market doesn't mean socialism. I challenge anyone to call the New York stock exchange socialist, but it is very highly regulated by the SEC.
The difference between socialism and capitalism isn't whether there should be regulations, but the kind of regulations. In a pure free-market, the interactions of the sellers and buyers are regulated (e.g. honest sale, no collusion) but the goods and their prices are not. There is nothing baroque or byzantine about these rules so how you leap to the conclusion that proper free-market regulations become "steadily less stable and credible" is beyond me. (You provided no justification for that assertion; you just asserted it.)
I am on the side of reason and fair discussion. But you made a fallacious claim and truth is not served by bad logic regardless of whether I agree with the conclusion. "Iron sharpens iron" so I point out this flaw so you may improve.
I agree with you that the burden of proof lies with those who hold that Mary was a "Perpetual Virgin" (it appears "perpetual" is the more common term than "eternal"). But you made an affirmative claim which shifts the burden to you to substantiate that claim regardless of where the burden of proof started.
Specifically, you said in reference to Matthew 1:25, "If that doesn't say they 'did it', I don't know what would...". As I have pointed out, the words and phrasing used do not imply the affirmative that they "did it", but rather are neutral on the subject. Thus you failed your burden of proof in making such a claim.
I grant that the failure of your affirmative claim does not settle the bigger question, but that is not the issue I bring forth. The issue is rather that independent of the answer to the bigger question, the reasons you give are fallacious.
(As an aside and in fairness, the bigger question is not an open and shut case either way. Wikipedia lists a number of early Christian writings in favor of it. And there are proof texts (e.g. Luke 1:34, Ezekiel 44:2) in favor of the "Perpetual Virginity" (though perhaps as just weak as Matthew 1:25).)
It may be a possible reading but that is not the only reasonable reading since the Greek word "heos" doesn't have the same connotations that the English word "until" does.
The point is that that particular verse doesn't provide any insight into which reading is more correct and thus the GGP's using it as a proof text is erroneous. That verse doesn't prove it one way or the other.
It was as recently as the previous century or two that possession of a manuscript Bible in English would get you burned.
That is (yet another) a myth. Vanacular translations of varying completeness and quality existed for centuries, for example Cyril and Methodius (c. 800) who invented the Cyrillic alphabet just so they could translate the bible into the vernacular.
This myth seems to have been derived from the council at Toulouse, France in 1229. It was in was attempting to counter the Albigensian or Catharist heresy (a variant of Manichism) which held that marriage is evil because all matter is evil. The Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (much like Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctored translation of the bible). This specific translation was forbidden.
(Aside from the above, your main point that the increase in the number of vernacular (not just English) translations that happened in 1400-1500 was "heralding" something is exactly right. But it was probably heralding the rise of literacy rather than any religious shifts.)
"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"
The word used for "until" is Heos in Greek and doesn't mean "until after". It is the same word rendered as "unto" in Luke 1:80 "[John] was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel." But we know for a fact that John was in the deserts after his going public to Israel.
I stand by the point that the church certainly did not go to pains to educate the people.
Anyone who could afford the time to be educated, was educated. Cathedral and monastery schools dotted the landscape and you didn't have to become a monk or priest to join these schools.
Unfortunately most peasants couldn't afford the time to get educated. They were too busy growing crops and living like peasants. That isn't the Church's fault. That's the result of the inefficient food production system at the time. It would be dishonest to ascribe sinister motives to this simple fact of life.
On the other hand, those that could afford the time, would usually prefer to become doctors, lawyers or priests after they were educated instead of going back to their peasant lives. In other words, there were no educated peasants because once a peasant was educated, he was no longer a peasant.
I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.
I believe you meant this sarcastically, but it shouldn't be so. The Church did both a lot of good things and a lot of bad things, just like any other organization that has been around for any period of time.
In this case though, the Church mitigated the effects of the fragmentation that occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire simply by being a Pan-European organization that survived the fall. The very act of it continuing to function would have encouraged more contact between the fragments than would have happened otherwise.
Wasn't it a mob of rabid Christians that finally succeeded in destroying the great library of Alexandria?
We don't know. The Wikipedia page lists at least four theories about how or when the library was destroyed. Two are due to conquests by the Roman Emperor, one due to conquest by Muslims and one by Christians when the pagan temples were ordered destroyed by the Roman Emperor.
Good, bad or ugly, it's still a fact that more knowledge was preserved with the Church than would have been without. The monks may have shown bias in which texts they copied, but it's not like anyone else was copying or distributing other works on as large a scale.
LyX and Equation Editor can also be keyboarded rather nicely. For example to get "\alpha^2" you'd enter (once you are in math mode (Ctrl-M)) "\alpha^2".
Err... ok, that last one was too simple so try "\frac" [space] [Alt-M] "(" "\sqrt" [space] "\frac" [space] "1" [downarrow] "2" [downarrow] "3". This will get you "\frac{\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\right)}{3}" (copy and pasted from LyX.
Equation editor has similar (though not as good) keyboard short cuts, you just kind of have to hunt for them.
There are different aspects of 'best looking'. TeX gets some of those right (e.g. line breaking and page breaking) but the rest is up to the style designer.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, "murk" will only produce a small patch if bytes *change* without inserting or deleting new bytes. Rsyncrypto is much smarter than Murk in this regard. With Murk, deleting (not changing) a single byte at the front causes the entire cipher text to change.
(However, I believe murk and rsyncrypto share some fundamental insecurities (more than just diff-based attacks) so these statements are not an endorsement of either.)
It's stable, been around a while, and is written by me :-)
I believe rsyncrypto leaks information even if the attacker only sees one version (this is in addition to the diff based attack mentioned by others). As the author, would you agree with these analysis? Do have any further analysis of the security of rsyncrypto anywhere?
I ask because I have thought about using rsyncrypto, but was stopped by what I perceived as insecurities, and I would like to give you a chance to correct me if I'm mistaken. (Yeah, diff based attacks may be a necessary evil, but attacks without even seing the diff are scary.)
Rsyncrypto is insecure. By resetting to the IV, it opens an information leak similar to the one with ECB mode (see the picture of the penguin on that page).
To see why CBC with occasional reset-to-IV is insecure (regardless of trigger function), consider a long repeating pattern of the same bytes (e.g. the white spaces in the penguin picture). CBC won't encrypt them to the same value (like ECB does), but every time the IV resets the same sequence of encrypted bytes will appear. This pattern is detectable and further the places where this pattern is disrupted is detectable. So going back to the penguin picture, the non-background portions will have a shadow that disrupts the repeating background pattern and revealing the content of the file.
The reason that EULAs are important is because software publisher asserts that you are not an owner of a copy. And, if you're not an owner of a copy, then Section 117(a) doesn't apply. There have been court decisions on both sides of this one.
Since Section 101 says that copies are "material objects ... in which a work is fixed" and I don't think anyone could reasonably claim you don't own the physical media of a game bought from the store, it really puzzles me how those rulings came about.
17 USC 117 explicitly allows you to make as many copies as necessarily to utilize a computer program. So it sound to me like if you own a legal copy(*) you are allowed to install it.
(*) "Copy" is defined by 17 USC 101 to be the material object "in which a work is fixed" so legally owning a CD with the program on it is owning a legal copy.
(IANAL but I want to understand, so corrections from more informed readers are welcome. Glider is a bit of a puzzle to me so I'm not sure how it jives with this section of the law.)
Thanks for the good info, but what if the car is on private land or some place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Wow, eyes floating in mid-air... THAT's inconspicuous.
In an office, floating 5 feet above ground, yes, a problem. In a forest or field, floating 6 inches above ground, kind of hard to spot.
True, but two floating eye-holes are a lot harder to spot than an entire person in battle field conditions. (In an office they would probably be more conspicuous.)
Yeah the "u.s. terrorism sector" took a hit after the patriot act. Oh wait ... your talking about the "tourism" sector.
... you arrogant dipshit.
It seems I have offended you. So that I do not give offense in the future, please tell me what in my post provoked such a crass reaction from you. The link you provided has convinced me that I had my facts wrong, but why did you fly off the handle so? Those words hurt considering that from my perspective I was just calling you on an uncited and initially preposterous sounding claim.
You are wrong. "They" is plural(*). "Team" is singular. Unless you want to also claim "My team are a good team" is proper grammar.
You should substitute "the team" with "it" not with "they" and it makes sense.
(*) Singular pronouns: I, you, he/she/it. Plural pronouns: we, you, they.
This is incidental to your main point, but it is not a crime to attempt to commit a crime think you are committing a crime. First example, trying to break the speed limit only to be foiled by your car not willing to go that fast. Second example, if you think the speed limit is 25 and you go 40 when the speed limit is 45, it is not a crime.
There are a few exceptions (e.g. murder) where attempting to perform a particular act is explicitly listed as a crime. But in general "attempted" crimes are not crimes (e.g. no one ever got arrested for attempted jaywalking).
Free markets go either of two ways.
Free market doesn't mean no-regulation and a regulated market doesn't mean socialism. I challenge anyone to call the New York stock exchange socialist, but it is very highly regulated by the SEC.
The difference between socialism and capitalism isn't whether there should be regulations, but the kind of regulations. In a pure free-market, the interactions of the sellers and buyers are regulated (e.g. honest sale, no collusion) but the goods and their prices are not. There is nothing baroque or byzantine about these rules so how you leap to the conclusion that proper free-market regulations become "steadily less stable and credible" is beyond me. (You provided no justification for that assertion; you just asserted it.)
I am on the side of reason and fair discussion. But you made a fallacious claim and truth is not served by bad logic regardless of whether I agree with the conclusion. "Iron sharpens iron" so I point out this flaw so you may improve.
I agree with you that the burden of proof lies with those who hold that Mary was a "Perpetual Virgin" (it appears "perpetual" is the more common term than "eternal"). But you made an affirmative claim which shifts the burden to you to substantiate that claim regardless of where the burden of proof started.
Specifically, you said in reference to Matthew 1:25, "If that doesn't say they 'did it', I don't know what would...". As I have pointed out, the words and phrasing used do not imply the affirmative that they "did it", but rather are neutral on the subject. Thus you failed your burden of proof in making such a claim.
I grant that the failure of your affirmative claim does not settle the bigger question, but that is not the issue I bring forth. The issue is rather that independent of the answer to the bigger question, the reasons you give are fallacious.
(As an aside and in fairness, the bigger question is not an open and shut case either way. Wikipedia lists a number of early Christian writings in favor of it. And there are proof texts (e.g. Luke 1:34, Ezekiel 44:2) in favor of the "Perpetual Virginity" (though perhaps as just weak as Matthew 1:25).)
It may be a possible reading but that is not the only reasonable reading since the Greek word "heos" doesn't have the same connotations that the English word "until" does.
The point is that that particular verse doesn't provide any insight into which reading is more correct and thus the GGP's using it as a proof text is erroneous. That verse doesn't prove it one way or the other.
It was as recently as the previous century or two that possession of a manuscript Bible in English would get you burned.
That is (yet another) a myth. Vanacular translations of varying completeness and quality existed for centuries, for example Cyril and Methodius (c. 800) who invented the Cyrillic alphabet just so they could translate the bible into the vernacular.
This myth seems to have been derived from the council at Toulouse, France in 1229. It was in was attempting to counter the Albigensian or Catharist heresy (a variant of Manichism) which held that marriage is evil because all matter is evil. The Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (much like Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctored translation of the bible). This specific translation was forbidden.
(Aside from the above, your main point that the increase in the number of vernacular (not just English) translations that happened in 1400-1500 was "heralding" something is exactly right. But it was probably heralding the rise of literacy rather than any religious shifts.)
Perfection != Sinlessness. Induction problem solved.
"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"
The word used for "until" is Heos in Greek and doesn't mean "until after". It is the same word rendered as "unto" in Luke 1:80 "[John] was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel." But we know for a fact that John was in the deserts after his going public to Israel.
And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection
The official position of the Church as established in the Papal encyclical "Humani generis" is the opposite of what you claim it is.
I stand by the point that the church certainly did not go to pains to educate the people.
Anyone who could afford the time to be educated, was educated. Cathedral and monastery schools dotted the landscape and you didn't have to become a monk or priest to join these schools.
Unfortunately most peasants couldn't afford the time to get educated. They were too busy growing crops and living like peasants. That isn't the Church's fault. That's the result of the inefficient food production system at the time. It would be dishonest to ascribe sinister motives to this simple fact of life.
On the other hand, those that could afford the time, would usually prefer to become doctors, lawyers or priests after they were educated instead of going back to their peasant lives. In other words, there were no educated peasants because once a peasant was educated, he was no longer a peasant.
I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.
I believe you meant this sarcastically, but it shouldn't be so. The Church did both a lot of good things and a lot of bad things, just like any other organization that has been around for any period of time.
In this case though, the Church mitigated the effects of the fragmentation that occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire simply by being a Pan-European organization that survived the fall. The very act of it continuing to function would have encouraged more contact between the fragments than would have happened otherwise.
Wasn't it a mob of rabid Christians that finally succeeded in destroying the great library of Alexandria?
We don't know. The Wikipedia page lists at least four theories about how or when the library was destroyed. Two are due to conquests by the Roman Emperor, one due to conquest by Muslims and one by Christians when the pagan temples were ordered destroyed by the Roman Emperor.
Good, bad or ugly, it's still a fact that more knowledge was preserved with the Church than would have been without. The monks may have shown bias in which texts they copied, but it's not like anyone else was copying or distributing other works on as large a scale.
LyX and Equation Editor can also be keyboarded rather nicely. For example to get "\alpha^2" you'd enter (once you are in math mode (Ctrl-M)) "\alpha^2".
Err ... ok, that last one was too simple so try "\frac" [space] [Alt-M] "(" "\sqrt" [space] "\frac" [space] "1" [downarrow] "2" [downarrow] "3". This will get you "\frac{\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\right)}{3}" (copy and pasted from LyX.
Equation editor has similar (though not as good) keyboard short cuts, you just kind of have to hunt for them.
There are different aspects of 'best looking'. TeX gets some of those right (e.g. line breaking and page breaking) but the rest is up to the style designer.