Believe it or not, WINE isn't meant for people who are using Windows... It's great that Windows suits your purposes, I'm happy that you are happy but otherwise don't give a damn. However, it is naive (and terribly offtopic) to suggest that nobody needs to run Windows applications on non-Windows platforms anymore.
Sure, most classical ciphers are much much weaker than a modern cipher
s/most/all
but there are some that if properly implemented are really bloody strong.
Wrong. Classical ciphers are by definition unsecure. The term is used to refer any number of substitution (ROT13 for instance), transposition, or rotor machine ciphers that were created and used before the mathematical foundations of cryptography were investigated.
Ever hear of a one-time pad? Oh, yeah, that's right...it's a classical cipher.
No. Nobody considers a OTP to be classical cipher. Shannon's proof of OTP's perfect secrecy played a very important role in the early development of modern cryptography. It is by all rights a modern crypto system.
Modern asymmetric encryption systems are great, but it relies on a mathematical problem that could very easily be solved in the near future.
Not all asymmetric systems rely on prime factorization of integers being hard, just most of the most commonly used ones. However, we do however have very good reason to suspect that, without quantum computing, it is.
Contrast this with any classical cipher, (ROT13 in fucking particular) that we know very damned well are not secure.
We can pretend that modern encryption systems are flawless
Exactly nobody in the cryptography community pretends this.
they, too, have their flaws that could very well become their downfall quite quickly
This is known, do you really think you are being insightful here? The difference is when breaks are discovered for modern crypto systems that realistically threaten the security of the system we either fix them, or abandon their use. We don't continue to use something as fundamentally broken and braindead as ROT13.
But this is slashdot, where bullshitting passes as informative.
In my warped computer science oriented opinion, influenced by way too much sci-fi and cyberpunk, life is a far to abstract thing to make definitions about it. Chemical reactions are chemical reactions, there isn't a lot that fundementally seperates "animal life" and "plant life" in my opinion. "Sensations of pain" and whatnot is pretty arbitrary, some plants give off certain chemicals when they are damaged in traumatic ways, who is to say they are not also suffering?
Don't think that only omnivores are guilty of wishy-washy emotionally charged logic.
I've never worked helpdesk so I guess I'm not familiar with the magnitude of stupidity that is possible, but REALLY? People don't know what pacman is? Pacman is a cultural icon, everyone knows what it is in a similar way to tetris. I'm finding it hard to believe that non-techs would both be uninterested in pacman, and not even know what it is.
Classical ciphers, in discussions about modern computing, can't reasonably be considered on the same footing as modern ciphers. Using a classical cipher is no better than not using a cipher at all, hence no encryption.
But hey, this is slashdot where pedantry passes for insightfulness, so what the hell.
The news here is they were claiming to be using encryption, but really were not. Regardless of whether or not encryption is needed in the first place, you don't mislead your customers like that.
The article implies that listening to half a conversation is more taxing on the brain than listening to a full conversation. It doesn't say how taxing on the brain either of them are in comparison to engaging in a conversation. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but it is there.
That said, when I am driving other people, I explicitly forbid them from making or accepting phonecalls. Most people text anyways it seems.
You are under the mistaken assumption that because I dislike other countries customs laws, I must not intensely dislike my own as well. That is a very silly assumption to make, especially on slashdot... I'm particularly puzzled why you might think this after I made a comment that pretty heavily implied I disapprove of both.
That would be pointless. Having something with a permissive license be dual-licenses also with a more restrictive license would accomplish nothing.
Not to mention, I cannot think of a single GPL fan that has any issues with other people using BSD licenses if they chose to. In fact, the only real noise I hear coming from this difference of opinion is BSD fanatics criticising GPL fans for being less free.
That may explain why they are like that, but it does not excuse it. Christian atrocities were unacceptable then, and Islamic atrocities are unacceptable now.
Also, cultural relativism should kindly go fuck itself.
Why would someone want a developer to dual license a BSD licensed project? The BSD license is one of the most permissive there is, especially considering not all countries have the concept of public domain. It's not like it was a GPL/D&R dual licensing situation...
Slashdot Mirror
Liar.
See? I can do that too.
Believe it or not, WINE isn't meant for people who are using Windows... It's great that Windows suits your purposes, I'm happy that you are happy but otherwise don't give a damn. However, it is naive (and terribly offtopic) to suggest that nobody needs to run Windows applications on non-Windows platforms anymore.
s/most/all
Wrong. Classical ciphers are by definition unsecure. The term is used to refer any number of substitution (ROT13 for instance), transposition, or rotor machine ciphers that were created and used before the mathematical foundations of cryptography were investigated.
No. Nobody considers a OTP to be classical cipher. Shannon's proof of OTP's perfect secrecy played a very important role in the early development of modern cryptography. It is by all rights a modern crypto system.
Not all asymmetric systems rely on prime factorization of integers being hard, just most of the most commonly used ones. However, we do however have very good reason to suspect that, without quantum computing, it is.
Contrast this with any classical cipher, (ROT13 in fucking particular) that we know very damned well are not secure.
Exactly nobody in the cryptography community pretends this.
This is known, do you really think you are being insightful here? The difference is when breaks are discovered for modern crypto systems that realistically threaten the security of the system we either fix them, or abandon their use. We don't continue to use something as fundamentally broken and braindead as ROT13.
Thanks for providing a fine example of this.
In my warped computer science oriented opinion, influenced by way too much sci-fi and cyberpunk, life is a far to abstract thing to make definitions about it. Chemical reactions are chemical reactions, there isn't a lot that fundementally seperates "animal life" and "plant life" in my opinion. "Sensations of pain" and whatnot is pretty arbitrary, some plants give off certain chemicals when they are damaged in traumatic ways, who is to say they are not also suffering?
Don't think that only omnivores are guilty of wishy-washy emotionally charged logic.
A certain amount of pedantry is of course always good fun but I agree, this is just too much.
I've never worked helpdesk so I guess I'm not familiar with the magnitude of stupidity that is possible, but REALLY? People don't know what pacman is? Pacman is a cultural icon, everyone knows what it is in a similar way to tetris. I'm finding it hard to believe that non-techs would both be uninterested in pacman, and not even know what it is.
Classical ciphers, in discussions about modern computing, can't reasonably be considered on the same footing as modern ciphers. Using a classical cipher is no better than not using a cipher at all, hence no encryption.
But hey, this is slashdot where pedantry passes for insightfulness, so what the hell.
Well, lets ask one such person and find out:
Hey 'The Flymaster (112510)'! Do you know what 'conflate' means?
The news here is they were claiming to be using encryption, but really were not. Regardless of whether or not encryption is needed in the first place, you don't mislead your customers like that.
They weren't conservative however they, like most current "conservatives" in America, where right-wing as all fucking hell.
Conservative/Liberal and Left/Right are fairly orthogonal traits.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
The article implies that listening to half a conversation is more taxing on the brain than listening to a full conversation. It doesn't say how taxing on the brain either of them are in comparison to engaging in a conversation. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but it is there.
That said, when I am driving other people, I explicitly forbid them from making or accepting phonecalls. Most people text anyways it seems.
No, his answer is "Yes". Read his post again, but this time remember to turn on your brain and interpret the words he says.
The only thing that has changed is the cost and payment method, something that has always changed and does not warrant a new buzzword.
I had Wolfenstien :)
Of course I've done most of my calc game playing on an 89, those things are nuts.
You are under the mistaken assumption that because I dislike other countries customs laws, I must not intensely dislike my own as well. That is a very silly assumption to make, especially on slashdot... I'm particularly puzzled why you might think this after I made a comment that pretty heavily implied I disapprove of both.
Uh, missing the point much?
And you think that makes it OK?!?
That's just all the more reason to call it out as idiotic!
I have no idea why this is modded troll, as the AC kindly provided a link to such an article, as the GP requested...
Most of us have been reading slashdot long enough that "several times a year" qualifies as sufficiently regular.
In other words: get off my fucking lawn.
That would be pointless. Having something with a permissive license be dual-licenses also with a more restrictive license would accomplish nothing.
Not to mention, I cannot think of a single GPL fan that has any issues with other people using BSD licenses if they chose to. In fact, the only real noise I hear coming from this difference of opinion is BSD fanatics criticising GPL fans for being less free.
Ah-ha, I guess that is why he liked to fuck little girls.
You know what offends me?
Someone telling me they want me to be beheaded because I drew a doodle.
That may explain why they are like that, but it does not excuse it. Christian atrocities were unacceptable then, and Islamic atrocities are unacceptable now.
Also, cultural relativism should kindly go fuck itself.
There are many different varieties or flavours of Buddhism. In some of them Buddha is for all intents and purposes a "diety".
Why would someone want a developer to dual license a BSD licensed project? The BSD license is one of the most permissive there is, especially considering not all countries have the concept of public domain. It's not like it was a GPL/D&R dual licensing situation...