digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at metasploit.com

Debian.. You can never be sure

metasploit.com — Dilbert cartoon

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • saxreturns, on 07/06/2008, -50/+698What does the cartoon have to do with Debian?
    • Peterix, on 07/06/2008, -3/+719They had big problems with non-random ssl/ssh keys due to overzealous patching. There were only ~32K possible AFAIK, so it was really easy to bruteforce.
      See http://www.metasploit.com/users/hdm/tools/debian-o ... for more info.
      • saxreturns, on 07/07/2008, -3/+393I was expecting a barrage of 'omg noob' rather than an actual explanation, so thanks!
      • hugolp, on 07/07/2008, -69/+16OMG NOOB!!!! ;)
      • Dylson, on 07/07/2008, -45/+4What?
      • spanglegluppet, on 07/07/2008, -37/+10It's still not very funny.
      • LimeParrot, on 07/07/2008, -41/+5I still don't get the Debian (computers.... *whoosh*) but that is a damn funny comic!
      • Tsalami, on 07/07/2008, -32/+3Why the hell wasn't this posted instead?
      • crazyjake, on 07/07/2008, -10/+141talk about an inside joke...
      • evanfrey, on 07/07/2008, -6/+58I guess thats why it was posted in the "linux_unix" section. Silly poster.
      • cardshark69, on 07/07/2008, -2/+63wow peterix, way to give a staright answer
        if only every digger was like you
      • marksands07, on 07/07/2008, -0/+10Pretty serious issue, "All SSL and SSH keys generated on Debian-based systems (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc) between September 2006 and May 13th, 2008 may be affected." As huge as the Ubuntu community is, there's a lot of people out there that should be worried.
      • merreborn, on 07/07/2008, -10/+4It's worth noting that this wasn't a fault in the random number generator in any way. It was strictly limited to the SSH library.

        The comic really doesn't apply.
      • raulsantos307, on 07/07/2008, -8/+4 Well, you know everyone always loves a "staright" answer.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6great technical reply - and with a working link too!

        For a moment there, I thought I logged into SlashDot.
      • AmaDaden, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3@marksands07 On Ubuntu it was fixed VERY quickly (less then a week i think but i can't remember). The fix would also regenerate your keys. So as long as they update they are fine.
      • feignNU, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Merreborn, sure it applies. The bug was caused because one of the patches crippled the random number seeder, and so it generated the same relatively small set of random numbers for everything. But, as the comic points out, the problem with randomness is that you can never be sure. Even the broken version of SSL *looked* like it was generating acceptable random numbers, but in fact it was not, hence the reason for it taking so long to be discovered.
    • NJank, on 07/07/2008, -132/+3Seriously, this has been answered before. If you can't Google for it yourself, I don't know why you even bothered reading the comic. I mean, maybe if you would just try to educate yourself a little bit, you'd realize that it's really not that hard to figure out on your own.
      • Kakcoo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+56Yeah. The explanation would be really inappropriate in the comments. Thank you for pointing this out.

        /sarcasm
      • jcaino, on 07/07/2008, -1/+24Asking someone and asking Google pretty much is the same thing.
      • Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -1/+29Ow, my aspergers!
      • newsheatdotcom, on 07/07/2008, -0/+29Responses like yours are really starting to piss me off. It's gotten to the point when I Google something, I get a response to a legitimate question telling the person to Google it to find the answer.
      • sg7791, on 07/07/2008, -1/+49Alright, lets see... Dilbert, Debian, Random numbers, 'Search'.

        And the result is...

        This page.

        Jerk.
      • saxreturns, on 07/07/2008, -0/+29I figured I would be likely to get a decent answer from a digger more easily than searching. Normally, when I don't know something but I know where to look for the answer, I'll search for it. If I don't find an answer after a few minutes of searching or don't know where to look, I'll ask an individual or group who are likely to know.

        Doesn't that count as 'trying to educate myself a little bit'?
      • yayintertubes, on 07/07/2008, -1/+19You sir, are a nazi.
      • kamisama, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Seriously , at the rate it's going now, asking people is going to get the fastest results soon. You have to plow through 3 pages of advertisements these days before the good , read relevant, stuff starts to show up.
        A good thing there's still sites as "give me back my google".
      • ktxxx, on 07/07/2008, -2/+14Suck our balls, Douche bag.
      • tacohead, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7It looks like digg has this great blocking feature.
        It blocks all comments from jerkwads that you specify.

        I'm trying it out on you NJank.



      • mourningwood86, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4i wish i could bury this comment twice...
    • Suil, on 07/07/2008, -1/+26You can never be sure.
      • DrivinWest, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Sure you can, you just have to nuke it from orbit.
      • flangepiece, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Now hold on a second. I'm not authorizing that action.
    • SeanRoss, on 07/07/2008, -1/+31I didn't understand either until Peterix explained... but the cartoon by itself was still humorous.
    • pigducksheep, on 07/07/2008, -2/+45I think we are expected to just digg this so we don't look stupid.
    • bitt3n, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8of course you can be sure. you just have to nuke it from orbit.
    • exomni, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Commence shunning ... NOW.
    • Godzilla, on 07/07/2008, -12/+3saxreturns' comment is proof that digg is -unfortunately- no longer a tech site.
      • Scaryclouds, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4Because he is unaware of one esoteric linux bug, this servers as proof that Digg is no longer a tech site? You're pretentious douchebag.
      • notwizt, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Your comment is also proof that you're a total douche.
      • Godzilla, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2I meant no offense. I was just pointing out how many people dugg up saxreturns' comment, and that I miss the old digg.
  • PosedMagnet, on 07/07/2008, -35/+5And this pertains to Debian how?
  • Chan815, on 07/07/2008, -22/+4nine
  • Miamisun, on 07/07/2008, -17/+319Flip a coin....Heads, Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,
    Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,
    Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,
    Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,
    Heads......Still 50/50 on what the next flip will be.
    • rompom7, on 07/07/2008, -22/+53Flip a coin....Heads, Tails,Heads,Tails,Heads,Tails,Tails,Tails,
      Heads,Heads,Heads,Tails,Heads,Heads,Heads,Heads,
      Heads,Tails,Heads,Heads,Tails,Tails,Heads,Heads,Tails,
      Heads,Heads,Tails,Heads,Heads,Tails,Heads,Tails,Heads,
      Tails......Still 50/50 on what the next flip will be.
      • redwallhp, on 07/07/2008, -4/+24Heads I win, tails you lose.
      • ElbertF, on 07/07/2008, -2/+96Tails, Tails, Tails, Tails, Sonic, Tails.
      • FDisk, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8I lost my coin :-/
      • gyrfalcon, on 07/07/2008, -22/+2Unless the coin has issues, the probability or chances remain the same for each throw. The odds that the next flip will be heads decrease though, depending upon how you calculate them.

      • Rammy912, on 07/07/2008, -1/+14gyrfalcon:

        Please, enlighten us on how the probability would decrease depending on how you calculate them.
        If it's 50/50 then it's 50/50 for the next toss too, it's not going to be 60/40 next time around.
      • Rojahon, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6The odds from flip to flip stay the same, but the more flips you do, the exponentially less likely it becomes that you'll be able to flip that same pattern again. The amount of times you flip the coin does not affect the odds of each single flip instance, but, instead, it affects the overall probability of coming up with that particular pattern again.
      • rufsketch1, on 07/07/2008, -5/+2Rojahan is correct.


        Scroll down to the section that says "Probability" in big bold letters. I dont feel like explaining it myself.

        http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistic ...
      • breadfred, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Here is Derren Brown doing 10 coin flips. Same result every time!
      • demodawid, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11Call it, friendo.
      • Syphon8, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1@Rammy912 - The odds of getting 36 heads in a row on a coin toss is .5 ^ 36. The odds of the next toss being tails are 1 - .5 ^ 36. Learn probability.
      • gr3yn3t, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1@Syphon8. Are you sure?
      • sorrytheusernam, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Syphon8 is partially correct.

        Although it is rare to get 36 heads in a row, the next flip is a 50% chance either way.
      • Syphon8, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@the two above me, the chance of the next flip being either one is 50% only if you look at as not part of a series. Yes I am sure.
      • Givorden, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Either way you look at it you still leave the casino broke.
    • Calinthalus, on 07/07/2008, -2/+30Consider: One, probability is a factor which operates *within* natural forces. Two, probability is *not* operating as a factor. Three, we are now held within un-, sub- or super-natural forces. Discuss.
      • jrtyrrell, on 07/07/2008, -2/+12~ [another heads] 78 in a row! A new record, I imagine.
        ~ Is that what you imagine? A new record?
        ~ Well...
        ~ No questions? Not a flicker of doubt?
        ~ I could be wrong.

        Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rule... despite being dead ;)
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5I could have sworn that was quoted in Pi.. dammit, now I am going to have to watch it again.
      • porl, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5i don't think it was... perhaps you need to take a bath? :)
      • dshPls, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Perhaps you need to drill part of your brain out?
      • tvanwyk, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Discuss.
      • kaykfrink, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island

        First two paragraphs pretty much take care of that.
      • pak314, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun, so once when I was six, I did.
    • Dean177, on 07/07/2008, -19/+7id say there is no where near a 50/50 chance, if it comes up heads that many times it is clearly a fixed coin, or you assumption of it being a fair coin is wrong
      • Jabertsohn, on 07/07/2008, -12/+2He never said it was a fair coin.
        You are probably right about it not being 50/50 on the next flip.
      • BobMysterioso, on 07/07/2008, -1/+17Well, the parent situation is highly improbable, but given a 2 sided coin (Miamisun doesn't specify it is a 2 sided coin) it is possible, however improbable to flip a coin and have it land on heads that many times in a row.

        Obviously, each successive flip increases the rarity (and thus makes it more unlikely a combination of throws - but not more likely for a single throw to be tails).
      • Karmavs, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13If its taken as a given that the coin is fair, there's a 1/34359738368 chance that this sequence will occur when you flip the coin 35 times (that's how many heads there are). BUT, that's the same likelihood as Rompom7's sequence appearing too. Flip the coin an infinite amount of times, and both sequences are certain to appear.
      • Ryan2845, on 07/07/2008, -0/+14MiamiSun is correct, it's called Statistical Independence. The probability of the sequence of flips is very low, but that doesn't change the probability of the next coin flip. They are independent of each other.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independe ...
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13No, you missed the point completely.
      • Disease, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Nerds.
      • rufsketch1, on 07/07/2008, -3/+0Ryan2845 is wrong. Statistical independence doesn't work in a set, which is what MiamiSun has created by flipping multiple times. if a completely independent non-observer came and threw a coin up, then you would be correct, because that person has created a new set.
      • Ryan2845, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@rufsketch1

        That's exactly what I said. The probability of the "set" or that particular sequence is extremely low. But the probability of the next upcoming coin flip, remains 50/50, no matter what the previous flips were, which is what MiamiSun was demonstrating. He's not saying "what is the probability of flipping Heads 15 times in a row" he's saying "if i've already flipped heads 14 times, what is the probability of heads on my next flip"
      • feoren, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Just because you took a 100-level statistics class 5 years ago doesn't make you an expert on the subject. The original post does have a shred of truth to it. If a coin comes up heads 35 times in a row, the probability it's a fixed coin is about 2% assuming you sampled a random coin from those in circulation. There is a 1:2^35 chance a fair coin would create that pattern. How many coins are there in America? The average coins minted per year between 1999 and 2008 is about 17 trillion. Let's assume coins before 1900 are out of circulation and make the overestimate that 17 trillion were minted every year since then. Then the number of coins in circulation is about 17 trillion * 108 = 1.836 quadrillion. Now let's guess there's one thousand coins in America that always throw heads. The probability the coin that threw 35 heads is a fixed coin is P(fixed | 35 heads) = P(35 heads | fixed) * P(fixed) / P(35 heads) = (1.0) * (1 / 1.836 trillion) / (1 / 2^35 + 1 / 1.836 trillion) = 0.018.

        I realize that 35 heads in a row is no less likely than any other pattern of length 35, but the difference is that there are no trick coins that throw the pattern H-T-T-H-T-H-H-T-H-H-T-H-T-T-H-H-H...
    • whyufail, on 07/07/2008, -0/+52Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead?
      • redwallhp, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3I liked that movie, though it was a little odd.
      • AzureRise, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2The book kicked ass too.
      • SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1yes they were killed by the limeys
    • NJank, on 07/07/2008, -1/+57...Heads, Heads, Edge. Damn, now I have to redo the logic tree.
    • boneit, on 07/07/2008, -3/+9Not always 50/50. Ask a referee. Sometimes the coins land on their edge in the grass.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/07/2008, -6/+2In the grass. on a table it would roll off of a table and hit the floor, where it would inevitably 'land' heads or tails.
      • sexybobo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+16not always some times you flip a coin and it lands on its edge when you buy a paper then you can hear what every one thinks for the rest of the day till you buy a paper again that night.
      • falkonv7l, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Twilight Zone marathon over the weekend, I caught that episode.
      • blakmajik, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Actually happened to me at a soccer game.
      • FuckThaMeme, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4sexybobo - WTF are you on about!?
      • sexybobo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@FTM
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Penny_for_Your_Thou ...
      • nickbarber, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@lamiaconfitor

        There is always the chance that it stays on the table if it is perfectly level, and even if it did roll off, it has the possibility of landing on it's edge again. Just because it seems like it could never happen doesn't render it impossible.
    • iamausername, on 07/07/2008, -0/+17yes 50/50 chance for the next one to be heads, however, the chance that there would be 35 heads to begin with is 2^35 or about 1 in 34 billion
      • ChromaticDragon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8
        For a single execution of the RNG for a series of 35 binary numbers, all possible choices (ought to) have the the same probability. That is, the chance for any series you could dream up (all tails, any PARTICULAR pattern of heads/tails) the chance is also about 1 in 34 billion.

        Getting an output of all heads (for a single run) is not at all evidence that the RNG is flawed. As the cartoon says... you can never be sure. That pattern (all heads) SHOULD appear, albeit rarely.

        Now stop, reseed and run again a trillion times. Now let's measure the frequency of getting all heads. Now you might have something.
      • exomni, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1Yeah, but the chances he'll get tails after 35 heads flips is less than 1 in 68.7 billion.
      • Syphon8, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1No, it's .5 ^ 35.
    • cornflakepirate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13@ Miamisun: Not if it's a biased coin, which a Bayesian probability approach would take into account.
      • akfish, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Yay for Bayesian statistics! If anyone has the opportunity to take a Bayesian inference class, I strongly recommend it; after taking a Bayesian comp sci grad class, I'll never look at traditional statistics the same way again.
      • feoren, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3It's about a 51% chance to come up heads again, coming from a few gross assumptions that there are 1000 trick coins in America and 1.836 quadrillion coins in circulation. There are realistically probably much fewer coins than that, and probably more than 1000 heads-only trick coins, so the probability is slightly higher than that.
    • Bilabrin, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15Let's have a closer look at that coin shall we?
    • GTanaka, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4I'm thoroughly amazed how many people know what this is talking about.
      • freakydingo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I've given up. I'm just going to enjoy the cartoon by itself without looking any further into "Debian".
      • danthemanhan, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2This is digg, you know. (start that song that they play during presedential speeches....you know, the song that goes duuuuuh duhduhduh duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh duuuuuuuuuuuuh. duh duh duhduhduhhhhhh duuuuuuuuuhh) these are the people who read xkcd, spend more time surfing than eating, showering, or spending quality time with others. These are the people who make a difference, by clicking where no man has clicked before! These are the people, for whom extensive knowledge of mathematics is not just sought after, it's mandatory! These are the people, who sacrifice girlfriends for the knowledge that they are making a difference by bringing pictures of cute cats and video game trivia to the front page! WE DIGG! BECAUSE WE CARE! AND WERE DAMN PROUD OF IT!
    • wsvoorhees, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Only if you believe frequentists statistics, look of Bayesian statistics.
    • freexe, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=68712363 ...
      • djblac, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1nice! i watched the entire episode on youtube ...
    • AYork, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Yeah, you go ahead and say 50-50, but I'm putting my money on "heads, fixed coin."

      Anyone care to do the chi^2 on that one?
      • zakatov, on 07/07/2008, -4/+2Why? It's a fixed coin, so probability of heads = 1
    • GeoNine, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Yeah, that's true, but what does it have to do with the Debian Open SSH/SSL bug and the comic?
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Well the chances of flipping 35 heads in a row is about 1 in 32 billion. But these are the same odds of flipping any particular combination of 35 coins.

      It depends how you acquired the answer. Did you just look at a random result? Or did you pick out a special one from a bunch of them?

      Because this will happen on average every 1.12 trillion coin flips you do. I am assuming these are computer coin flips and not real coin flips. And a computer can do a lot of coin flips in a short amount of time.

      If you are talking about real coins, if everyone in the world flipped a coin 160 times (assuming 7 billion people), it is likely one person would do it.

      The math I did is slightly approximate.
    • FreshPineSent, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Side.
    • kinerry, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Law of Large Numbers
    • mianos, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1That many heads is very unlikely. Think outside the box. It's probably rigged. I'll take your money and bet heads. Only a poor maths major would say it's the same odds in this case,
    • rufsketch1, on 07/07/2008, -5/+0Rojahan is correct.

      Miamisun is amazingly, brain numbingly, wrong. the odds of getting heads again are amazingly low.


      Scroll down to the section that says "Probability" in big bold letters. I dont feel like explaining it myself.

      http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistic ...
    • Signa91, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1odds is different from probability.
    • joeanon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Take a statistics class and all will be revealed
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -0/+140% of statistics classes suck.
    • DreadKnight, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You just won the lottery. :P
    • Gepetto, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Depends if you're Keynesian or Bayesian
  • rompom7, on 07/07/2008, -11/+2I visually perceive the events that you partook at that location.
  • 2Deluxe, on 07/07/2008, -21/+3I.. Don't get it.

    Someone with geek knowledge, enlighten me.
  • mwaleed86, on 07/07/2008, -20/+0HAHAHAHAHAH!....Funny as *****!!




    *Wow..now thats a random comment*
  • 7errated, on 07/07/2008, -5/+147Everyone who doesn't get it

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/153 ...
    http://research.swtch.com/2008/05/lessons-from-deb ...

    It was pretty big news in the tech circles.
    • scabbers, on 07/07/2008, -8/+110I remember when Digg was a tech circle :(

      Now it's full of morons who digg comics they don't even understand.
      • helleborus, on 07/07/2008, -8/+33The comic was funny even to someone who never heard of Debian. And, surprisingly, it turns out that not all people who never heard of Debian are actually 'morons'. So sorry that that the exclusivity of your sandbox has been destroyed by people whose knowledge base is not identical to yours - that's gotta be tough to take.
      • smpx, on 07/07/2008, -6/+2Why is this getting dugg down?
      • DeathGod321, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3That might change soon, now I'm getting my news faster than slashdot with the recommendation engine.
    • alexkball, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2so is masturbating
    • drakethegreat, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3This should be a test then. If you don't get this then you don't digg. Seriously give us back our digg all you sheeple!
  • ansatsu29, on 07/07/2008, -9/+36"thats the problem with randomness, you can never be sure" -- that's a funny line
    • Bilabrin, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Yes, also it's true. How can you define randomness? There really is no such thing as truly random. It all goes back to how a number was generated and all physical forms of number generation (All number generation) are biased (have a non-random mechanical process).
    • imdeanlabouty, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Yes, Dilbert truly is the zenith of American cartooning.
    • ahjkl67435, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2its funny because its the punchline
  • DMFlash, on 07/07/2008, -13/+135http://xkcd.com/221/

    Guaranteed to be random.
  • teknic111, on 07/07/2008, -10/+30For those who don't know...This is a spoof on a security issue in Debian's openssl.
    • Avian00, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13Don't know why you're getting dugg down. It's an obviously important explanation considering most people (including myself) didn't get the joke.
    • jaderobbins, on 07/07/2008, -3/+4No no no, I totally knew about the whole Debian SSL thing, I just wasn't able to connect the two until your comment just now.

      You are the greatest american hero, teknick111.
  • boobsbr, on 07/07/2008, -6/+174the comic is funny, the motivational poster is not.
    • heyiquit, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Agreed, I don't even think the poster is necessary. Isn't it just repeating what the comic plainly says?
  • lickmyback, on 07/07/2008, -10/+80DIGG USERS:- Stamp any picture with the word "FAIL" or put it into a motivational poster frame, and they'll find it funny.
  • tr0y85, on 07/07/2008, -9/+2An overdone meme needs an overdone comment, take your pick:
    FAIL.
    EPIC FAIL.
    *Head Explodes*
    /sarcasm
    • NJank, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6sorry, thats "head asplode"
    • tr0y85, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4If I could give myself a negative digg I would, well corrected sir, well corrected...
    • megamod, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4another overdone meme:
      whining...
    • tr0y85, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2ZING!
  • caffeinelover, on 07/07/2008, -1/+26Original strip:
    http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/
    • futur4m4, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5I like how in the original (color) strip, the thing Dilbert is talking to changes color in the last strip... was that intentional?
      • ostracize, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5You can never be sure...
      • sexybobo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6The original strip was B&W they recolored all of the dilbert strips back to 1995 recently when they updated the web site. I doubt scott adams did to much quality control on the coloring of the 5000+strips
  • gordmoo, on 07/07/2008, -2/+51its two months ago... my time machine worked!
  • nathangl, on 07/07/2008, -8/+1I don't often laugh at motivational posters, but this one definitely made me chuckle. IT took some creativity and intelligence to come up with this on the creators part and I'd have to give him the thumbs up for that! win
  • xual, on 07/07/2008, -12/+0ya dont know why

    www.xual.page.tl
  • amire80, on 07/07/2008, -12/+2Lame, damn it, so lame. Digg is jumping the shark big time. What a waste of time
    • Acglaphotis, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2No, it isn't. Stories are just getting back to what they were before the influx of retards with the HD-DVD key scandal.
  • boshuda, on 07/07/2008, -12/+12Shows how stupid I am, I thought a Debian was that masturbating thing for women.
    • stonedthot, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I think digg users are getting their rocks off on the maths in this one than a woman sitting on a vibrator reaching orgasm could ever achieve.
    • tacohead, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Did you come up with that one yourself, or did you have help with it?
    • kamikazekeety, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1i believe you're thinking of the Sybian machine. :]
  • mariachi, on 07/07/2008, -2/+40When it's a feature, it's Ubuntu; when it's a bug, it's Debian.

    http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA08-137A.ht ...
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/07/2008, -12/+6When it's a feature, it's Mac; when it's a bug, it's Windows.

      When it's a feature, it's a 360; when it's a bug, it's a PS3.

      When she's hot, it's your mom; I did your mom.
    • jaderobbins, on 07/07/2008, -3/+7I see a vanilla debian user has ubuntu penis envy.
  • Jareth86, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3The only de-motivational poster ever written for the newyorker...
  • silfiriel, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3So is this fixed or what?
    • bigsteve, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Yea, OpenSSL was patched, and for Ubuntu users at least, enormous key blocklists were handed down via auto-updates.
  • thetenthlisten, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Cannot divide by 0.
  • sb66, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3I like ***** like this that proves so many are even nerdier than I.
  • HorseloverFat8, on 07/07/2008, -2/+10Wow, this is the most specialised comedy I've ever seen.
  • chewbie, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2can someone pls post a mirror? I need it because metasploit is blocked from my workplace. "category: hacking"
  • leladax, on 07/07/2008, -3/+5debian is the epitome of distros. simply the best.
  • Ansem, on 07/07/2008, -7/+2Oh no, not more Linux humor...
  • charlietuna, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1It should read "OpenBSD, You can never be sure."
    Shop pleeze
  • bpeacock22, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Dugg just cuz it's Dilbert. Surprised more of him doesn't make it's way into the irony sections of Digg.
  • Rawclyce, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12I'm smart because I dugg this, right?
  • lunarworks, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2HURRRRR!!!!!!
  • audleylibrary, on 07/07/2008, -7/+4psshh dilbert is just an xkcd knockoff
  • Fubeman, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Loved the comic strip and even the reference to Debian. But why do people still use these ***** "motivational" poster templates is beyond me. Yes, we get the pun - ha, ha, ha. Funny, funny. You are quite the jokester.

    Doesn't anyone have any originality anymore? Are we so dumbed-down when it comes to laying out a simple poster that they can't come up with something clean and simple. Why does this even need the "motivational" poster template? It would work just as well without it. Even a simple image with text in Helvetica below it would be better than this crap. It's like those "Got Milk" rip-offs. Very original - yeah, right. I want to make one of these into t-shirts and posters. It would just simply say:

    Got an Original Idea?
    Stop Ripping-Off the "Got Milk" Ads Assholes!
  • MrSkills, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7I read the title as "Lesbian.. you can never be sure"
  • bman85, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Captain! Were approaching critical nerdiness! Full scale dweeb status imminent!
  • BrokenBrick, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2As far as I am concerned I can never be sure about anything, assuming that Descartes was wrong anyways. Does this make me smartz too? Love me praise me!!
  • icurl, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Dugg for funny Dilbert cartoon regardless to complicated computerish meaning...
  • kuehlschrank, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1The cat says "Meow!" The pig says "Oink!" The cow says "Moo!" The cow says "Moo!" The cow says "Moo!" The dog says "Nine... nine... nine... nine... nine..."
  • vawksel, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1In an infinitely long random set of numbers every sequence of numbers will be generated.

    You want three hundred 9's in a row? You got it. You want the Windows XP source code as ASCII codes? You got it.

    All we need is infinity.
  • vawksel, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1In an infinitely long set of random numbers we can find any pattern of any length.

    We believe PI to be random, but because we can't generate PI to an infinite degree, you won't be finding the Windows XP source code encoded in binary in it today, but if you could generate an infinite number of digits of Pi then it would be there in perfect sequence.

    Use this tool, search for your phone number, or perhaps social security number, you might be surprised to see what you find in Pi:

    http://www.angio.net/pi/piquery

    My social security number is around ~164,564,000 digits into pi, I won't give the exact location, because I don't want to give out my SS#, but it is there :-)
  • piedood, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"All SSL and SSH keys generated on Debian-based systems (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc) between September 2006 and May 13th, 2008 may be affected" OH MY GAWD
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.