Linux-Advocacy Digest #330, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Aaron Ginn)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 08 May 2001 09:34:41 -0700
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Ginn"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> evolutionary? It amazes me how many people have fallen for the lie of
> mutations being the cause for the existence of all the species of animals
> living today(not to mention how "lucky" we are that a star exploded that
> gave rise to a planet with a perfect enough enviornment to support life
> Talk about order in chaos; far fetched bed time stories more like it).
> It amazes me how scientists can be stupid enough to say
> that a single bolt of lightning (1.21 gigawatts for those BttF fans)
> caused amino acids to go haywire and make something out of nothing (a
> single celled organism) which led to the evolvement (their words,not
> mine) of the human species.
I smell troll, but that's OK.
Actually, I'm a Christian, so I don't really think that luck had that
much to do with it. Evolution has nothing to do with how life
started; it has everything to do with how life adapts to its
environment. All non-living things change when confronted with
changes in the environment (erosion, phase changes, etc.). Why should
living things be any different? We're made out of the same basic
stuff after all.
> I resent the fact that I, as a member of the human race, came from an ape
> and that birds used to be dinosaurs with feathers. Did they just keep
> waiting for 'evolution' to give them hollow enough bones to be able to
> fly? hogwash
Of course you didn't come from an ape. This is a classic strawman
argument against evolution. Somewhere you and an ape did share a
common ancestor, however.
About half of our genes are identical to yeast. If that isn't a
compelling argument that all life is related, I don't know what is.
> > parents to not have to leave their young unattended to go out in search
> > for food. I have to agree that birds definately appear to be more
> > closely releated to reptiles than mammals although I'm no evolutionary
> > biologist, so this is mere speculation on my part.
> >
>
> birds are warm blooded, reptiles are cold blooded if im not mistaken; big
> difference
Of course it's a big difference. However, my argument was that birds
are more closely related to reptiles that mammals, not that birds and
reptiles are close reletives. What makes a mammal? Mammary glands.
Neither birds not reptiles have them. Bigger difference, IMO.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4058
Chandler, AZ 85224 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:11:04 -0400
Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9d4map$3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Actually, I think that the reverse is true.
> > > > > I know a little of Pascal, and the pointers that Pascal have can stump
> > > you
> > > > > if you are transferring your Pascal knowledge to C/C++.
> > > > > Pointers aren't an easy concept in the first place, and C & C++ way of
> > > doing
> > > > > it are nearly identical to the way the machine does it, so it's easier
> > > to
> > > > > learn the C's way, and then learn Pascal, which limits your ability to
> > > use
> > > > > them.
> > > > > As a note, a good C++ programmer shouldn't have much use for raw
> > > pointers.
> > > > > The standard library provides for nearly everything that you need to
> > use
> > > a
> > > > > pointer for, and it does it much better than the average programmer
> > can
> > > hope
> > > > > to do. More safely, too.
> > > > > The big plus of C++ is that you don't have to pay for things that you
> > > don't
> > > > > need.
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > > > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > > > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> > > > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> > > > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> > > > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> > > > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > I don't think so, I think that it's better to know *how* it's done, and
> > > except assembler, C is the best way to learn how it's done, and then move
> > to
> > > the restrictions of Pascal.
> > > And I'm talking as someone who did Pascal first.
> >
> > While I'll agree with the earlier assessment that you can do anything in
> > PASCAL you can in C
>
> not in _standard_ pascal you can't.
>
> one *huge* weakness of pascal is that it interprets vectors and arrays
> of different sizes as wholy different types. thus if you make a
> procedure to handle strings of lenght 10, you need another, distinct,
> procedure to handle strings of length 11.
>
Which is why I say that any USEFUL version of Pascal is, be definition, non_standard.
> > (Especially using Borland's implementation which I have
> > since v3.0), you'll miss out on key points of C/C++ if you stick to that
> > mindset. Dealing with templates and smart-pointers can be rather difficult
> > if you're thinking PASCAL - Particularly when you get into OLE VARIANT
> > types. Data can be far more abstracted than PASCAL will allow and your
> > clients need not know or care what's being tossed at them. This sort of
> > thing seemed anethma to me when I started out and I had to fight to make
> > sense of it. You see the beauty of it eventually, but, strong-type thinking
> > will slow the process.
>
> --
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:31 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> DOS didn't have API.
> >
> >Sure, it did. It was not *called* that, but what
> >you had were a set of interrupts that you
> >could trip to do things like open files or read
> >from them.
> >
> >Windows does it with a DLL, and DOS didn't
> >have those. [...]
>
> Nor did it have these other things; they are a part of the BIOS, and
> have nothing much to do with DOS, other than as proof of its bogosity.
I think I can say with fair confidence that
Microsoft's Disk Operating System did in fact
contain code to perform disk operations, like reading
and writing files.
These were accessed through an interrupt, just
like BIOS functions were.
That really doesn't make much of a difference,
though.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I know that you are trolling, and my grammar is fine, thanks. Sorry
you
> >> couldn't follow the pronouns; try reading it over again, slowly, until
> >> you figure it out.
> >
> >Perhaps you mean "with IBM" or "in IBM's case"?
>
> The latter, though it is unnecessary; my grammar is correct. "IBM" is a
> company, itself an abstraction, so anything "in IBM" is "in IBM's case".
Most dubious. But I suppose that admitting to
a typo is beyond you.
> >But it still makes little sense. IBM can just drop by
> >the corner Egghead to pick up the tools. What's MS
> >gonna do about it?
>
> "Can"? Restraint of trade is not limited to physical barriers, Daniel.
> Doh! I know you'd like to wave your hand and make anti-trust laws go
> away, but you haven't presented even the most rudimentary argument about
> that, so presuming that only physical barriers can exclude competition
> is, well, stupid.
I didn't say a thing about physical barriers. I asked:
What's MS going to do about it? Sue Egghead? Sue
IBM? On what grounds?
[snip]
> >Saying "you can only use our SDK if you create only
> >Windows software" is a flat out poison pill; doing that
> >would destroy IBM overnight.
> >
> >I doubt MS said that. It would be silly.
>
> You are saying IBM executives committed not just perjury (you've just
> called their testimony a lie) but criminal conspiracy (to account for
> the documentation which supports the testimony)?
No, Max, I'm not saying they lied. I'm saying that you
are lying. You are probably playing the same games as
Rick- reading what you want to be true into court
testimony that doesn't say it.
> Boy, you really have
> to make quite a stretch to try to cover up Microsoft's illegal activity,
> don't you? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
I don't need to stretch *that* much. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
> >> The real world proves you wrong.
> >
> >It's fairly obvious they didn't need to
> >eat the costs.
>
> It doesn't matter if they could; either way, they are less profitable
> than a company that doesn't either "eat the cost" or "pass it on to the
> customer" (not that there's really a difference between the two, without
> simply reducing the discussion to quibbling about accounting practices).
That's true as long as they can't gain marketshare by
offering non-MS OSes.
Which, indeed, they can't.
[snip]
> >> And conversely not popular with the vast majority of non-techno-elite.
> >
> >Right. *Windows* is popular with them.
>
> We have no way of knowing if Windows is "popular" with anyone. We only
> know it is common. If you're assigning competitive merit to the fact
> that unknowledgeable consumers are more easily duped into buying shoddy
> goods, you've got an uphill climb, so let's just pretend that we're not
> second-guessing why things were purchased, and confine ourselves to
> whether they were or weren't.
You are the one that is assuming everyone but you is
stupid.
There are alternatives out there; customers could buy
them if they wanted them. OEMs could offer them
if they *thought* customers would want them.
None of this happens because what customers
want is *applications*.
[snip]
> >No way. But then, if they were selling a minority
> >of Windows systems, a per-copy license might be
> >the cheapest for them.
>
> Are you claiming MS offered *them* the choice? I've seen no
> documentation to support this assertion, and some to deny it.
Max, you see what you want to see. We all know
that.
> >Of course in the real world that virtualy
> >never happens; Windows is far too popular.
> >
> >But *if* Windows were widely disliked, it
> >would be true.
>
> If you had a brain, you'd be smart. Something like that, you mean?
:D
> >> Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
> >
> >I never let that stop me! :D
>
> Thus, my reminder that it lowers other's estimate of your intelligence
> when you do it, as well as undermining your honesty.
Oh, come now. I'm just like everyone else on
Usenet that way.
It's *tradition*. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
> [...]
> >Hmmm. Your argument seem to presuppose that
> >if MS is engaging in "restraint of trade", then they are
> >excluding competitors.
> >
> >Is that not so?
>
> No, that is not so. Since the actions they are accused of is
> restraining trade by excluding competitors, if they are found on that
> evidence to be restraining trade, they are then presumed (not
> presupposed) to have excluded competitors. Get it?
Ah, so you are saying that you accuse them of
excluding competitors and *this* implies restraint
of trade?
I had it backwards.
But may I ask why you want to bring
"restraint of trade" into this at all?
> >> It is only a trivial category error that you are making, but it
> >> is obviously you would sorely love to blow it up into a full-fledge
pile
> >> of bullshit.
> >
> >Well, why think small? :D
>
> Because stop responding when I get annoyed with your petty bullshit.
I can hardly wait for you to explain how this
is grammatical. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Quotes from customers aren't enough?
> >
> >Well, Rick says that there are quotes from "M$
> >executives" to support this.
>
> No, Judge Jackson says there are quotes from MS executives to support
> this.
Jackson isn't here to argue about it. I daresay Jackson
thinks the quotes support *his* conclusions, rather
than Ricks.
> >There are certainly a small number of customers who
> >do not want Windows. Getting a few "Windows Suxors"
> >quotes from *them* should be very easy.
>
> If the small number of customers who do not want Windows is even the
> tiniest bit larger than the unknown number of customers who did not want
> it but bought it anyway, Microsoft has violated federal law. Capice?
That's a new one for me. What federal law is that?
> >Getting MS to admit it would be another story, though.
>
> Thus, the court evidence which convicted them sans confession, and the
> remedy formulated sans admission of guilt.
Naturally. MS is a very stubborn company.
> >MS's whole pricing structure is predicated on Windows
> >being very popular. I think that alone shows they think
> >that it is popular.
>
> Actually, that alone shows they have broken the law, and it is merely a
> monopoly, if you are knowledgable of anti-trust law. Ironic you would
> point it out; perhaps you're actually an anti-MS troll, who poses as a
> sock puppet for kicks?
Well, they may have broken your, um, creatively interpreted
version of the law, but I suspect even Judge Jackson wouldn't
go as far as you would.
My point is that Microsoft's pricing structure presumes
that most computers are going to be sold with Windows
*anyway*. If it were a minority, things like per-processor
licenses would not buy MS a thing.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:16:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You are happy your trolling is frustrating him, because you are an
> >> immature child. The rest of your position and statements are just
> >> posturing.
> >
> >... And loving it! :D
>
> I know, I know. I just wish others could enjoy it as much as you do,
> you know?
C'mon. Put yer back into it. Grit your teeth and enjoy it! :D
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:17:27 -0400
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Chad Everett wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
> > > [...]
> > >>I said a "rosetta stone" *OR* some way to identify at least one character or
> > >>word in the data.
> > >
> > >Statistically trivial.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >>You're assuming that someone just ran a file through zip. That's not what
> > >>i'm talking about. There are many compression algorithms that you can apply
> > >>without creating file information. The output of the algorithm should
> > >>appear random if you don't know that it is compressed data.
> > >
> > >No assumptions. Regardless of what mangling you try to do to obfuscate
> > >the data, the data is trivially vulnerable without strong encryption.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >>No, a 4 bit key simply means that the key is 4 bits. The key may not use
> > >>factors at all, it might be the value that is XOR'd for example, or any of a
> > >>billion other ways those 4 bits might be used to encode the data. You're
> > >>making the critical error of assuming the use of a known algorithm, which is
> > >>exactly my point.
> > >
> > >You misunderstand the analytical meaning of the term 'key', which
> > >suggests prime factor-based strong encryption. Your "algorithmic
> > >obfuscation" simply isn't real security, Erik. Get it?
> > >
> >
> > Erik is making a classic mistake. His translation table AND the 4 bit
> > index is "the key".
> >
> > You can never have a secure system if you base security on the secrecy of
> > the algorithm.
> >
> > From "Applied Cryptography", Bruce Schneier: "All of the security [in these
> > algorithms] is based in the key (or keys); none is based in the details
> > of the algorithm. This means that the algorithm can be published and
> > analyzed. Products using the algorithm can be mass-produced. It doesn't
> > matter if an eavesdropper knows your algorithm, if she doesn't know your
> > particular key, she can't read your messages".
> >
> > >>> Enigma was originally cracked without any knowledge of the algorithm,
> > >>> and it had a key length of 26^7 IIRC.
> >
> > False. The crackers knew it was rotor machine, had information on its
> > construction and operation, etc, etc.
> >
> > >>
> > >>If that were the case, they wouldn't have needed to capture the enigma
> > >>machines.
> >
> > They didn't need to capture enigma machines. Your history is a little off
> > here.
> >
> > The Polish, and later the French and British cracked most of the enigma
> > without ever having captured a single enigma machine. They actually
> > built duplicates based on their amazing work in cryptography and mathematics.
> > See http://insci14.ucsd.edu/~ma187s/students/enigma.html
> >
> > >
> > >At the time, they did. That's WHY they had to capture the enigma
> > >machine. They didn't have 386's with megs of RAM, remember?
> > >
> >
> > Again, you're incorrect here. They didn't need to capture the enigma. They
> > cracked enigma without ever capturing a single enigma machine.
>
> Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything he
> says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
And most of that would be setting up the command line.
>
> --
> V
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:18:53 -0400
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Eric Leblanc wrote:
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the algorithm,
> > > you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that match
> > > known language patterns. If you disguise the language patterns by making
> > > sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes, then
> > > you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
> >
> > Just a historical point here.
> >
> > When the German made the Enigma machine they made it so that if you encoded
> > the letter 'A' it never coded itself to 'A'. From what i read, it helped the
> > Allies find pattern.
> >
> > >
> > > > > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > > > > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
> > > data
> > > > > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
> > > the
> > > > > right algorithm.
> > > >
> > > > There are only 16 possible 4 bit keys. NSA would probably spend about 16
> > > > microseconds decrypting your message, no matter how you applied the key.
> > >
> > > I doubt it.
> >
> > Post your algorithm to sci.crypt.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
> > Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
> > account be allowed to do the job.
> > -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
>
> Hehehe... that's a good idea, posting. Can you imagine trying to
> decipher a message when the data stream you intercept is continual
> gibberish that never stops?
YOu mean like the combined works of
flatfish- - -, Chad Myers, Pete Goodwin, and Erik Funkybreath, et al?
>
> --
> V
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 13:35:59 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> We have no way of knowing if Windows is "popular" with anyone. We only
> know it is common.
Yes we do have a way of knowing:
Popularity with ME released
http://cws.internet.com/polls/poll31.html
Popularity with Win2k released
http://cws.internet.com/polls/poll27.html
Consumers assign a grade to IE5
http://cws.internet.com/polls/poll5.html
Then theres this poll by business week:
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/18/b3576075.htm
If you use Microsoft's software, how would you rate it in terms of
usefulness,
ease of use, and reliability?
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Usefulness 52% 42% 6% 0%
Ease of use 37% 44% 17% 2%
Reliability 36% 40% 19% 5%
Then of course there's all the millions of upgrades which are sold. The
upgrades require customers to actually go out and re-affirm their choice
while at the same time looking at the other OS choices on the store shelf.
Then theres the millions buying Windows 2000.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
