For me Eclipse with TeXlipse plugin has been the best so far. It can compile the document and any non-obvious errors get marked on the exact place. Using SVN or git is easy too. Furthermore, common syntax and citation keys can be autocompleted, which is nice if you're working with large bibtex databases.
Convergence seems to solve the problem of a government (Iran) placing fake certs in front of their users and decrypting their GMail and FB SSL connections, and what have you. But what if the fake cert is placed much closer to the target website which is being spoofed?
That could be mitigated by having at least one notary running DNSSEC, but then you can't have a consensus, you have to have all notaries agree, and require the DNSSEC one to agree. This would work, but in that case, just use DNSSEC (Which I do/not/ like the idea of on its face).
...Or some notaries could use the current CA system. The point is _trust agility_ and that you if you employ these certificate checks as an extra measure, you can not be in a worse situation than with the current CA system. In a nutshell: You don't have to trust CAs, you don't have to trust DNSSEC and you don't have to trust notaries that just compare certificates. But you can choose to trust them if they agree (and even if they don't).
But to use for security? That's as lame as installing anti-virus software because you know your OS can't handle security.
I've said for some time that anti-virus is not security. It is damage control, at best.
Damage control is security at its finest. We do not aim for the theoretically secure and perfect locked-down-restricted-with-airgap situation if implementing that security would be more costly than the damages in case of a compromise.
Quote from article: "The theory is still largely speculation
I fucking hate it when people talk about a hypothesis as a theory. Theory is something that works, generalizable and models the real world accurately. Hypothesis could be something like that, but necessarily isn't.
Hack your neighbours access point, turn wifi off and change all the passwords. Bonus points if you can upload custom firmware with different factory password so that even reset doesn't grant them access.
On dos you can rename fairly intuitively, "ren *.txt *.text". On Linux, you're likely to hurt yourself and/or your files (most likely in a different order) if you try that.
File extensions are intuitive in DOS and Windows. In Linux they're just parts of the name. I personally try to avoid file extensions and I absolutely hate it when a program forces me to use them. The file command is for figuring out the content.
Remember people, if you want to be taken seriously, snail mail is the only way to go. I think that in this case it could be actually better to call them. Repeatedly.
An incovenient truth: There really is only about thousand linux users. However they are a very vocal minority and because it's somewhat cool to be a linux guy some people claim that they run linux when infact they don't. I personally run Windows Vista Home Basic but I pretend to be a linux expert on various internet forums. Linux's "popularity" is really just a scam to fool newbies into thinking that people actually run linux. Then the newbies try actually installing linux and fail miserably, you must really be a kernel hacker to install it. Frustrated newbies then ask questions on the various forums and on irc and everybody answers to them in complete gibberish. We all get a good laugh that way (expect the noobs, they try the bogus solutions and fail once again).
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
Is it really that easy now to learn an undocumented language, just from verbal radio transmissions and knowledge of related war events? Given enough time, it is.
Incidentally, I suspect security through obscurity can serve a purpose in encryption. As I understand it, with public key encryption, it may be computationally intensive, but at least it can be automated and the problem is well-defined. If the eavesdropper had to first figure out, from the set of all possible encryption methods, which encryption method you were using, it may force her to apply human labor to finding the solution, which may be the scarcer resource. You must also exchange the rules of the language secretly if you want to maintain the security. Also the assumption that we would need a human to figure out the language isn't necessarily true.
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Can this be downloaded for free? I though Red Hat was free? Red Hat isn't free as in beer, but it will be in available for free in few days... http://centos.org/
Did you have to tweak your wine config?
When I try to run it under wine it says that there is no c:\boot.ini, and suggest that my version of windows might be too old or damaged.
Re:It can only be the result of a higher power...
on
New Ice Age Theory
·
· Score: 1
... when God decides to turn the dimmer switch down to save electricity for the next miracle! Religion always provides an answer, not fucking scientists with their peer reviewed ideas. God is fighting the universal warming, which will come if he wastes energy on us.
No big deal. I mean really, they're not trying to hire them. They're trying to convince these guys to work for them for free instead of the other guys. The "invitation" is an invitation to go to some classes so people can learn how to get accepted to work for free. I can't believe people do this.If you don't understand why someone would "work for free" it's your problem. If the exchange of money is answer to life, universe and everything, then yes, they are working for free. He is asking them to join the community, not to join a sweatshop.
I'm pretty sure that the term "censorship" has been around long before there was electronic media of any kind. Back then, if you wanted to censor something you had to physically stop it from being published, and that is precisely what has happened here. The internet didn't magically redefine the meaning of censorship; it only introduced new methods of it which didn't necessitate brute force. This is merely the older, more brutal, more effective form of censorship.The AC pretty much told what I was thinking. The material in question got published, and the OP:s link was about censorship in the meaning of preventing publishing, the government controls the media. In this case they were free to publish their photos and the punishment came afterwards, in any country the freedom of speech doesn't equal to lack of consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
For me Eclipse with TeXlipse plugin has been the best so far. It can compile the document and any non-obvious errors get marked on the exact place. Using SVN or git is easy too. Furthermore, common syntax and citation keys can be autocompleted, which is nice if you're working with large bibtex databases.
Convergence seems to solve the problem of a government (Iran) placing fake certs in front of their users and decrypting their GMail and FB SSL connections, and what have you. But what if the fake cert is placed much closer to the target website which is being spoofed?
That could be mitigated by having at least one notary running DNSSEC, but then you can't have a consensus, you have to have all notaries agree, and require the DNSSEC one to agree. This would work, but in that case, just use DNSSEC (Which I do /not/ like the idea of on its face).
...Or some notaries could use the current CA system. The point is _trust agility_ and that you if you employ these certificate checks as an extra measure, you can not be in a worse situation than with the current CA system. In a nutshell: You don't have to trust CAs, you don't have to trust DNSSEC and you don't have to trust notaries that just compare certificates. But you can choose to trust them if they agree (and even if they don't).
But to use for security? That's as lame as installing anti-virus software because you know your OS can't handle security.
I've said for some time that anti-virus is not security. It is damage control, at best.
Damage control is security at its finest. We do not aim for the theoretically secure and perfect locked-down-restricted-with-airgap situation if implementing that security would be more costly than the damages in case of a compromise.
Quote from article: "The theory is still largely speculation
I fucking hate it when people talk about a hypothesis as a theory. Theory is something that works, generalizable and models the real world accurately. Hypothesis could be something like that, but necessarily isn't.
Hack your neighbours access point, turn wifi off and change all the passwords. Bonus points if you can upload custom firmware with different factory password so that even reset doesn't grant them access.
On dos you can rename fairly intuitively, "ren *.txt *.text". On Linux, you're likely to hurt yourself and/or your files (most likely in a different order) if you try that.
File extensions are intuitive in DOS and Windows. In Linux they're just parts of the name.
I personally try to avoid file extensions and I absolutely hate it when a program forces me to use them. The file command is for figuring out the content.
Security scanners with suspicious minds.
This doesn't me since use I UDP all communications communications for.
Even better and proven:
1^2-1 = 1 (prime)
1^2-1 = 1 (prime)
1^2-1 = 1 (prime)
1^2-1 = 1 (prime)
1^2-1 = 1 (prime)
But this works with crypted drives.
An incovenient truth: There really is only about thousand linux users.
However they are a very vocal minority and because it's somewhat cool to be a linux guy
some people claim that they run linux when infact they don't.
I personally run Windows Vista Home Basic but I pretend to be a linux expert on various internet forums.
Linux's "popularity" is really just a scam to fool newbies into thinking that people actually run linux.
Then the newbies try actually installing linux and fail miserably,
you must really be a kernel hacker to install it.
Frustrated newbies then ask questions on the various forums and on irc and everybody answers to them in complete gibberish. We all get a good laugh that way (expect the noobs, they try the bogus solutions and fail once again).
Given enough time, it is. Incidentally, I suspect security through obscurity can serve a purpose in encryption. As I understand it, with public key encryption, it may be computationally intensive, but at least it can be automated and the problem is well-defined. If the eavesdropper had to first figure out, from the set of all possible encryption methods, which encryption method you were using, it may force her to apply human labor to finding the solution, which may be the scarcer resource. You must also exchange the rules of the language secretly if you want to maintain the security.
Also the assumption that we would need a human to figure out the language isn't necessarily true.
http://xkcd.com/c257.html
Navajo code is pretty easy to crack.
It's all about pipelining the station wagons.
Did you have to tweak your wine config? When I try to run it under wine it says that there is no c:\boot.ini, and suggest that my version of windows might be too old or damaged.
... when God decides to turn the dimmer switch down to save electricity for the next miracle! Religion always provides an answer, not fucking scientists with their peer reviewed ideas. God is fighting the universal warming, which will come if he wastes energy on us.Just send them an attachment named pornviewer.exe.
Yes. Please buy me a hooker so I don't kill myself.
Yes, they have clearly kidnapped Richard Dean Anderson.
"Your weapons are useress against this goa'urd technorogy"
--Kim Jong Il
Because his brain will fry if he gets out of his cage.
No big deal. I mean really, they're not trying to hire them. They're trying to convince these guys to work for them for free instead of the other guys. The "invitation" is an invitation to go to some classes so people can learn how to get accepted to work for free. I can't believe people do this.If you don't understand why someone would "work for free" it's your problem. If the exchange of money is answer to life, universe and everything, then yes, they are working for free.
He is asking them to join the community, not to join a sweatshop.
I'm pretty sure that the term "censorship" has been around long before there was electronic media of any kind. Back then, if you wanted to censor something you had to physically stop it from being published, and that is precisely what has happened here. The internet didn't magically redefine the meaning of censorship; it only introduced new methods of it which didn't necessitate brute force. This is merely the older, more brutal, more effective form of censorship.The AC pretty much told what I was thinking.
The material in question got published, and the OP:s link was about censorship in the meaning of preventing publishing, the government controls the media.
In this case they were free to publish their photos and the punishment came afterwards, in any country the freedom of speech doesn't equal to lack of consequences.