If you don't adjust your definition of evil to be usable in everyday life, then I don't see what the point of having the word is....Actually, I didn't even have to adjust it here, these people try to sue grandmothers who've never touched computers out of their homes, just to 'make an example' of them to protect their ill-gotten money. If that doesn't fit your definition of evil then you should really start re-evaluating some things.
Did you read the summary? Potentially a very similar environment as Europa. You don't just fly a probe to Europa and learn how to drill a hole on the fly, you practice and rehearse beforehand. Not really a difficult to understand concept...
Pervasions of terminology are not to be taken lightly. Jargon facilitates effective communication among members of a field and using it improperly does nothing but needlessly fragment the community and stiffle progress.
Your attempts to spread linux to people that do not care enough to actually learn about it will backfire in your face... and annoy the hell out of the rest of us.
He isn't disaproving of the technology, he is disapproving of the terminology (which sounds suspiciously like the terminology used in the 'warez' scene...).
I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...
Besides, everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil. The 'debate' (really a discussion) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.
But hey, never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right?
The worst part of it is, science believes that cats 'self domesticated'. If anything, denying humans the right to keep cats as pets is animal abuse, since it is denying them an adaptation they developed themselves.
The plaintext you're looking for is the private key.
Your terminology is all fucked up because you still have not bothered to research what you are talking about. Keys are keys, plaintext is plaintext, and ciphertext is ciphertext. Do not confuse them.
If you own both endpoints
But you don't. A critical part of the server is the private key. Without the private key any server you may have created is worthless.
If the keystore is protected, the passphrase (or equivalent) to open it is also stored someplace in the clear
If by 'in the clear' you mean 'in some guy's head', then you might be right.
Now, admittedly, if the keystore is on a third server someplace
Of course it is.
..., but since the private key has to be IN THE CLEAR in order to use it for signature purposes, if you can monitor process space you can find it.
You only use the public key for verifying the signature. You can know that all you want and it won't get you anywhere. The private key is used to create signatures on a machine you do not control.
Your original proposal:
What MS should do is to re-register the domain names and point them to a C&C server they host.
Is absolutely worthless. You don't have the private key used to sign commands, so pretending to be a command server gets you shit.
If you can manage to get the private key, then that obviously means you have access to the machine used for signing commands, and the original command servers. In that case "re-register the domain names and point them to a C&C server they host" is once again absolutely pointless.
Seriously man, just go do some preliminary reading or something. It won't be an admission of defeat, I will never even know you did so. Read wikipedia and walk away from this discussion a smarter man, leaving me to think that I was unable to reach you.
today's smartphones are all about the 'software stack,' not the 'radio stack,'
So what? That doesn't mean that software patents are any more important than hardware patents. Actually, quite the opposite, even ignoring the standard 'software patents suck' thing, all that fancy software is worthless if it doesn't have nice radio hardware to run on....
The security of any good cryptosystem must rest solely on the secrecy of the key, not the secrecy of the implementation details. This is Cryptography 101 stuff here, you can't just "capture the enemy enigma machine" and call it a day anymore. Read that link I gave you before you make yourself look even more of a fool.
The bots presumably have a copy of the public key and will only listen to commands signed by the private key. Only the original command server has the private key, given the public key you cannot determine the private key in any realistic amount of time. Not a challenging concept. This isn't defeatism, it is reality, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, but you cannot possibly understand why not unless you get some basic facts right so go do so.
Here, I'll even get you started with some more links:
The short story is, this isn't about not knowing the plaintext (we already know it if we care to know), this is about convincing the bots you are the real command server, which you cannot do without the private key, which you cannot get. Thus: absolutely no point in pretending to be the command server.
There is no excuse for spouting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about when there are so many excellent sources of information right at your fingertips. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Modern day crypto is not your grandfathers cesarean cipher. One does not simply "reverse engineer RSA" which is undoubtably what they are using if they are smart.
Strike that, "which is undoubtably what they are using if they possess the knowledge of your average freshman CS major". It's not exotic stuff.
Really. People need to learn that 'stateful firewall' and 'NAT' are two completely different things. Especially with ipv6 hopefully being deployed enmass sometime this century.
I like the way crowbar makers advertise their produce in a positive light. As if anyone, upon realizing that they need to pull hundreds of deeply sunken nails, is going to go out to the store and buy a heavy 2 foot crowbar. I think the typical usage for crowbars like this is of a more nefarious sort.
I believe that you are taking the whole "get of my lawn" think a bit too seriously. In case you are new here, it is supposed to be a humours jab, indicating both at the same time that someone is lacking the perspective or experience you have, and acknowledging that you are being an old fart (of the type that often complains about kids on their lawn) and probably unreasonable. The correct response, if you wanted to correct my perspective, would be to mention D&D, or whatever, and explain that it was I that should get off of your lawn. People then go back and forth with more and more absurd corrections and demands to stay off lawns. You are taking what I intended to be a comical jab, and use it as the basis for a serious, and non-trivial discussion.
For what it is worth though, there is a significant difference between games like Rogue, which was one of the first graphical adventure games, and D&D. More heavily D&D inspired games would be MUDs and text adventures.
I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941? You may have heard of that country's leader. He's invoked here a lot on Slashdot.
If some kid in high school came up with an idea for a game, and he described it as "Halo, but with space marines fighting demons on mars!"
...I'd tell him to get off my lawn.
I'm not saying I wouldn't play this because he got the terminology wrong, I'm just saying he got the terminology wrong.
Anyway, Diablo was a roguelike, so if it's "close to Diablo", then pretty much by definition it's close to Rogue. The idea of calling things "clone of [well known game]" is distasteful to me though, I think it discredits anything new they may bring to the table. This is why I always disliked the (now almost never heard) phrase "Doom clone".
Right, I was commenting under the assumption that the person that proposed that question did not actually know the difference between arrested and convicted, since they seemed to be confused about what I said in the first place.
It might also be worth noting that anyone who has been convicted has also been arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't adjust your definition of evil to be usable in everyday life, then I don't see what the point of having the word is. ...Actually, I didn't even have to adjust it here, these people try to sue grandmothers who've never touched computers out of their homes, just to 'make an example' of them to protect their ill-gotten money. If that doesn't fit your definition of evil then you should really start re-evaluating some things.
We definitely can reach Europa with probes ...or at least we could. I agree he kind of really fucked us there.
Did you read the summary? Potentially a very similar environment as Europa. You don't just fly a probe to Europa and learn how to drill a hole on the fly, you practice and rehearse beforehand. Not really a difficult to understand concept...
Pervasions of terminology are not to be taken lightly. Jargon facilitates effective communication among members of a field and using it improperly does nothing but needlessly fragment the community and stiffle progress.
Your attempts to spread linux to people that do not care enough to actually learn about it will backfire in your face... and annoy the hell out of the rest of us.
He isn't disaproving of the technology, he is disapproving of the terminology (which sounds suspiciously like the terminology used in the 'warez' scene...).
This is what happens when you bring linux to the masses. A perversion of terminology. Just one of the reasons I am not a linux evangelist.
I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...
Besides, everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil. The 'debate' (really a discussion) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.
But hey, never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right?
The worst part of it is, science believes that cats 'self domesticated'. If anything, denying humans the right to keep cats as pets is animal abuse, since it is denying them an adaptation they developed themselves.
Who ever said these people used logic though?
Your terminology is all fucked up because you still have not bothered to research what you are talking about. Keys are keys, plaintext is plaintext, and ciphertext is ciphertext. Do not confuse them.
But you don't. A critical part of the server is the private key. Without the private key any server you may have created is worthless.
If by 'in the clear' you mean 'in some guy's head', then you might be right.
Of course it is.
You only use the public key for verifying the signature. You can know that all you want and it won't get you anywhere. The private key is used to create signatures on a machine you do not control.
Your original proposal:
Is absolutely worthless. You don't have the private key used to sign commands, so pretending to be a command server gets you shit.
If you can manage to get the private key, then that obviously means you have access to the machine used for signing commands, and the original command servers. In that case "re-register the domain names and point them to a C&C server they host" is once again absolutely pointless.
Seriously man, just go do some preliminary reading or something. It won't be an admission of defeat, I will never even know you did so. Read wikipedia and walk away from this discussion a smarter man, leaving me to think that I was unable to reach you.
So what? That doesn't mean that software patents are any more important than hardware patents. Actually, quite the opposite, even ignoring the standard 'software patents suck' thing, all that fancy software is worthless if it doesn't have nice radio hardware to run on....
Fuck em. I'm sure there is some mention of 1 kilobyte equalling 1024 bytes somewhere in POSIX.
If not, there should be.
An HR person with a sense of humour? Yeah, you are right, that is probably the case.
The security of any good cryptosystem must rest solely on the secrecy of the key, not the secrecy of the implementation details. This is Cryptography 101 stuff here, you can't just "capture the enemy enigma machine" and call it a day anymore. Read that link I gave you before you make yourself look even more of a fool.
The bots presumably have a copy of the public key and will only listen to commands signed by the private key. Only the original command server has the private key, given the public key you cannot determine the private key in any realistic amount of time. Not a challenging concept. This isn't defeatism, it is reality, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, but you cannot possibly understand why not unless you get some basic facts right so go do so.
Here, I'll even get you started with some more links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cryptography#Modern_cryptography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
The short story is, this isn't about not knowing the plaintext (we already know it if we care to know), this is about convincing the bots you are the real command server, which you cannot do without the private key, which you cannot get. Thus: absolutely no point in pretending to be the command server.
There is no excuse for spouting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about when there are so many excellent sources of information right at your fingertips. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Modern day crypto is not your grandfathers cesarean cipher. One does not simply "reverse engineer RSA" which is undoubtably what they are using if they are smart.
Strike that, "which is undoubtably what they are using if they possess the knowledge of your average freshman CS major". It's not exotic stuff.
Really. People need to learn that 'stateful firewall' and 'NAT' are two completely different things. Especially with ipv6 hopefully being deployed enmass sometime this century.
I like the way crowbar makers advertise their produce in a positive light. As if anyone, upon realizing that they need to pull hundreds of deeply sunken nails, is going to go out to the store and buy a heavy 2 foot crowbar. I think the typical usage for crowbars like this is of a more nefarious sort.
Rarely have I seen that indicate anything reliably. ;)
I believe that you are taking the whole "get of my lawn" think a bit too seriously. In case you are new here, it is supposed to be a humours jab, indicating both at the same time that someone is lacking the perspective or experience you have, and acknowledging that you are being an old fart (of the type that often complains about kids on their lawn) and probably unreasonable. The correct response, if you wanted to correct my perspective, would be to mention D&D, or whatever, and explain that it was I that should get off of your lawn. People then go back and forth with more and more absurd corrections and demands to stay off lawns. You are taking what I intended to be a comical jab, and use it as the basis for a serious, and non-trivial discussion.
For what it is worth though, there is a significant difference between games like Rogue, which was one of the first graphical adventure games, and D&D. More heavily D&D inspired games would be MUDs and text adventures.
Now what exactly does RMS have to do with this?
Exactly! The comparison makes no sense. It's like saying your muffler is a far better car than Ford Pinto!
I'm not saying I wouldn't play this because he got the terminology wrong, I'm just saying he got the terminology wrong.
Anyway, Diablo was a roguelike, so if it's "close to Diablo", then pretty much by definition it's close to Rogue. The idea of calling things "clone of [well known game]" is distasteful to me though, I think it discredits anything new they may bring to the table. This is why I always disliked the (now almost never heard) phrase "Doom clone".
"Diablo clone"? The proper term is "roguelike".
Now get off my lawn!
As often as I feel is warranted. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "we should focus on problems at home" line...
Right, I was commenting under the assumption that the person that proposed that question did not actually know the difference between arrested and convicted, since they seemed to be confused about what I said in the first place.
It might also be worth noting that anyone who has been convicted has also been arrested.
Yes....
That is exactly what I have said. I am against collecting DNA from arrested people.