Slashdot Mirror
AES Announced as Federal Standard
chekhov writes: "Today NIST has finally announced AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) as a Federal Standard after 4 years of development. See the press release. AES is the replacement of DES and is expected to be used in financial systems and secure networks for up to 20 years. More information on the AES homepage."
In 20 years when the encryption is broken, will we then find out what "Rijndael" really means?
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
The article assures us that even though DES can now be (relatively easily) broken, AES would take umpteen quadrillion years to break (plus or minus).
I can't help thinking that back when DES was new, they probably told us the same thing.
Moore's law and all that stuff, but betcha in a decade or so AES is suddenly breakable...!!!!
Who will be required to implement and use the AES?
The AES is now an approved encryption algorithm that can be used by U.S. government organizations to protect sensitive, unclassified information.
...
Commercial and other non-federal organizations are invited-but not required-to adopt and implement the AES and NIST's other cryptographic standards.
If I read this correctly, terrorist cells qualify as "other organizations". I couldn't find any mention of export limitations, civilian key strength limitations, or bans on use by criminal organizations.
What have we done?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
I think that its interesting that the US goverment had the guts to thoose a european developed algorithm. Usually those thing goes to US based companies/scientists.
Heads up for choosing the best solution from a cryptography viewpoint!
AES is Rijndael (ie the name of the cipher selected selected as AES is "Rijndael").
;-) here and here
Find out all about it (including how to say it
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
It seems to be open, and acceptable to alot of people. More information on the cipher is to be found here.
There a big ambiguity that I couldn't really sort out while reading these web pages: Is this an Open standard or a Commercial standard ?
Will I have to pay royalties if I intend to write AES-compliant programs then sell related services?
I actually read in the facts page that the "public" helped building the algorithm and specs but in which way is that AES thing public?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Interesting that the US government was busy asking people to try to crack an encryption standard, while at the same time upholding a law to make breaking encryption illegal.
So, now that this encryption method is officially accepted, will it be illegal to try to crack it?
One of the perks of cryptography seems to be the chance to make up words for big numbers! 1 undecillion = 10^36
10^3 = Thousand
10^6 = Million
10^9 = Billion
10^12 = Trillion
10^15 = Zillion(?)
...
I seem to remeber Douglas Adams invented a 'grillion' but don't know how big that was supposed to be
personally I am a fan of serpant Ross Anderson work because I understand it and after some conversations with people who know both I think its better than AES
the sooner AES is used widely the better though
regards
john 'keys ? no sir I forget things' jones
I found several notes on the openssl users list which seem to indicate that AES/Rijndael support will be available in OpenSSL 0.9.7. This has not been released yet, but is reportedly available in the CVS area.
The AES has selected the variable key lengths of 128, 192, 256 to be used with a 128 bit block
BouncyCastle has had a full implementation of Rijndael since 1.0 beta 4 (now at 1.10)
Disclaimer: I'm a BouncyCastle author.
Points for whoever can produce the explanation why the apparent weakness doesn't matter, and why we shouldn't be jimmying our Rijndaels to do a few more rounds, and calling the variant "RWS" (for Rijndael With Suspenders) or something.
Remember that it was the suspenders added to MD4 to make MD5 that made the cracking of MD4 something other than a disaster.
...developing it, when you can ROT-13 anything and slap anyone who decodes with a copy of the DMCA? :P
RFC2440, which defines the OpenPGP standard, already reserves 3 AES keys sizes (128, 192, 256-bit).
Gnupg already supports AES in all 3 block sizes and so does 'official' PGP v7.0x.
PGP since v7.x hasn't been open source, so you won't find any details at www.pgpi.org. The best way to add AES support to previous 'open source' versions is to use the CKT builds by Imad. These are still based upon the v6.58 code base but contains dozens of fixes and improvements.
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
Now, if I happen to successfully develop an AES "decryptor", may I publish its source code without infringing the DMCA [tompox.com] ?
The inventors of Rijndael, who seem to be exceptionally intelligent and sane people, would probably be more than happy to be challenged with a real attack on the algorithm. Unless you have a PHD in Mathematics specializing cryptoanalysis you probably needn't waste your breath though.
Of course, if the media industry has had time to implement AES in one of their ridiculous UHT (User Hostile Tech) schemes, you may well end up under legal attack, as could, very possibly, the authors of the algorithm themselves should they find a flaw. It has been noted that the media industries will probably not go after "academics" in the short term considering how the Felten affair blew up on them (Russian's apparently don't count).
Just because the enemy has usurped the term "secure" for their UHT does not mean that you should confuse all encryption with DMCA etc. These algorithms really are secure, based on real math that most people agree not even the NSA can break, and do not rely on stupid "gun in mouth" schemes to keep people from breaking them as UHT invariably does.
One point twenty one (j)igawatts of power! One point twenty one (j)igawatts of power!! Great Scott!!!
You still use crypto software you have to pay for? [Yes, this was a joke, maybe you only use crypto "for personal use".]
GnuPG, on the other hand, developed AES capability less than 2 days after NIST originally approved Rijndael last year. The next public release wasn't for a week or two, but still.... (Well, NIST officially "approved" it just now, but they "recommended it for approval" just over a year ago.) I remember seeing a message from the GnuPG development list about an hour after the NIST announcement saying "I'm working on it."
GnuPG is similar to the command-line version of PGP and supports the same file formats / protocols, but is free for all uses and isn't affiliated with Phil Zimmerman or Computer Associates. I don't know if it has the same depth of plugin support for third-party apps, but hey, it's supported by all the Linux apps I need it for.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Double rot-13. I hear that's even more secure than rot-26!
Best Slashdot Co
You're right, the algorithm AES (a subset of Rijndael) does not have any backdoors. Therefore it may be secure. And to the best of anyone's knowledge it is secure and free of any backdoors.
The NIST's FIPS standards are used to tendor commercial equipment from suppliers for the US government own use, so it is in the US government's own best interest to make as certain as reasonable possible, using the Cryptographic Module Validation Program, that those products used by the government are safe and secure.
I tought that the number of possible states in a quantum computer is something around 2 to the power of X, where X is the number of qbits.
Does the computing power not increase in a similar way?
If it does, then to brute force a bigger key one just has to use more qbits!!!
Can anyone who really knows about this confirm or deny it????
Security wasn't the only consideration in choosing an algorithm for AES. Another major factor was how efficient the candidate was. The winner had to be not only secure, but also fast on very low-end devices and able to scale up to very powerful machines. You can expect to see AES used on emmbedded microcontrollers, smart cards, and appliances (music players, phones, etc.) and also on hulking encryption "mainframes" dedicated to doing huge amounts of cryptographic operations very, very fast.
I'd guess that Rijndael was more efficient on more types of devices than serpent and that led to its being accepted as the standard.
IMO, that doesn't take anything away from the other top five candidates in terms of their usefullness at hiding information.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
BouncyCastle.
It amazes me how often open source authors pick self-destructive names. A serious effort should not be limited by a humorous or trick name.
A name like BouncyCastle will limit the number of people who adopt the software. People are afraid there is a hidden joke they don't understand.
There are times when it is appropriate to be 100 percent serious.
I am NOT saying anything negative about the software. The ONLY negative thing I am saying about the authors is that they are obviously not professional communicators.
Open Source Software needs marketing communication like any product that wants to reach a large number of people.
Bush's education improvements were
OK, so you mean that if I happen to break it as an algorithm, this is okay, but if I happen to break its implementation as the new killerdvd format, then I may end up in a similar cell as Dmitri Sklyarov's ?
Yes, pretty much.
So this once again makes me wonder whether there is or not a bug in the DMCA :
If some technologies are based upon some free algorithm which get broken, (*breathe here*) why should the happy-genious-hacker be sued as he just pointed out some flaw in a "public" technology?
Don't try to apply logic to law, it will lead you nowhere. The reason the happy-genious-hacker gets sued is because he is a convenient target, who can easily be painted as a villian in the eyes of courts, politicians, and the public.
Actually, as he'll make the technology improve and thus get rid of the given flaw, it'd rather be the fault of the suing organization as they accepted to use a flawed1 algorithm...
You are missing a vital point that a lot of technologists seem to miss, but that has not been lost on the international media cartels. It is this: there is no non-flawed implementation of UHT.
Because UHT relies on your computer controlling you (what "user hostile" means) and in at least some sense your computer is always actually under your control, regardless of implementation it will always be possible to crack it. Hackers like Sklyarov and Beale Screamer are not helping improve the UHT technology because whatever is done it will always stay vulnerable, and the vulnerablilities they exposed were undoubtably known by the implementors. If you support the existance of UHT (or copyright law, with doubtlessly requires UHT to be enforced) then the DMCA is not only a justified, but a necessary law. In fact, the DMCA does not go nearly far enough, which is why laws like the 'SS'SCA are very necessary as well.
I guess the DMCA seriously sucks because of its lack of consistance :
They should rather not use any protection at all than inventing some stupid placebo and whining it's been broken into by some clever hacker.
The DMCA provides the international media cartels with a weapon to harrass technologists who want to use computers freely as they see fit rather than under the control of the cartels' authority. It may not be too helpful against software hackers, though it has certainly slowed down many projects, but it certainly works for other purposes (consider why you will never see a CD-ROM drive that by default ignores the broken error-correction codes on those new "copy-proof" CDs).
1 : though this argumentation is purely 100% hypothetical, I assume there are flaws until one mathematically demonstrates there aren't...
Unfortunately that puts you in a quite a bad place, as to my knowledge there are no(*) current ciphers that are mathematically proven to be uncrackable. There are a couple of, at least hypothetical, asymmetric ciphers that have been shown to be "NP-complete" meaning, roughly, that if they can be cracked then a whole class of problems nobody has found any answers to yet can be solved as well (you may have heard of the N != NP conjecture), but the common ones (RSA, DSA, ElGamal) are not even that. Newly designed ciphers like Rijndael/AES (which is a symmetric cipher, so should not be confused with those mentioned before) are not proved to be mathematically secure, but simply engineered to be secure against all currently known attack vectors.
(*) In order to avoid the obligatory lamer responding with ("There is a provably secure cipher, it's called One Time Tap"), I digress that there is a provably secure cipher called a one time pad, which uses keys as large as the messages that can only be used once. OTP can only be used as a type of secrecy delay - if you have a secure channel between two parties at one point in time, they can exchange random key data that will allow them to securely communicate the exact same amount of data securely over an insecure channel later. There is also the algorithm that I believe came from a student of Adi Shamir last year which hid the data in a stream of random data so large there would be no way to cache it long enough to crack the cyrpto (in theory anyways).
In 1976 Donald Knuth published a paper titled Coping with Finiteness in which he names a number Super K. It is defined as 10^^^^3 where 10^^10 = 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 or 10^10 10 times.
I couldn't find the paper (damnit) but Knuth says in Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About
"If you don't agree that Super K is so large as to be beyond human comprehension, I can at least prove conclusively that if you consider all the numbers less than or equal to Super K, almost all of them are impossible to describe in any way in the univerise"
I dunno, is that bigger than a googleplex? I wouldn't be surprised if the Guinness people spent less than 30 seconds researching this - in fact I suspect this was just some piece of useless trivia someone who happened to be in the office that day happened to know
Oh great. Here's a site that calls itself "I mad".
Poll: Would you use software from a site called "I mad"?
Bush's education improvements were
In other news, Attorney General John Ashcroft "detained" all 857 employees of the NIST as "suspected terrorists". They are being held incommunicado at an undisclosed location, awaiting execution by a miliary tribunal. "We can't just have people releasing encryption algorithms whenever they feel like it, even if they are employees of the US Government," said Ashcroft. When it was pointed out to him that bin Laden avoids technical means of communication in favor of face-to-ear whispers among trusted family members, Ashcroft replied: "That's OK. Better to execute 857 innocent geeks than allow one terrorist to slip through."
sPh
What is almost never mentioned in discussions of cryptography is that brute force or most mathematical attacks require that the method of encryption be known.
If the method of encryption is not known, then it can be impossible to decrypt a message. For example, if several kinds of strong encryption are used, and the kinds and order are not known, then brute force or mathematical attacks don't work. (Using several methods of encryption together is called "chaining".)
This is of limited use since, in many cases, it is impossible or impractical or difficult to keep the methods of encryption secret.
Nevertheless, software that used several encryption methods and varied the methods depending on the passphrase would have value in some cases where there is plenty of computing power.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Cryptonomicon is a good book, as is Enigma by Robert Harris.. however, they are works of fiction.
The Germans changed the wheel order, start positions, and reflector positions on the Enigma machines nightly, but that wasn't enough. The operators often used the same start codes over and over again, they sent predictable messages, and, like I said, there were issues with the Enigma itself. The UK RAF set up 'traps' by mining specific locations of the English Channel, and then Bletchly Park knew that the messages from specific lookout posts would contain the coordinates of the mines.. a very useful crib.
Try books such as Station X, Engima, Seizing The Enigma, and The Code Book for a readable history..
(The Code Book even has a nice challenge at the end (although the prize has been claimed))
http://twitter.com/onion2k
While there are two different approaches (the US "billion" is a British "millard"), they both follow the convention of the Latin (or is it Greek?) "combining form" for a number followed by "illion." So 1, 2, 3, 4 -- "mil-, bi-, tri-, quad-" -- becomes "million," "billion," "trillion" and quadrillion.
If we use our familiar SI prefixes:
deca: decillion: 1e30
hecto: hectillion: 1e300
kilo: kilillion: 1e3000
mega: megillion: 1e3000000
giga: gigillion: 1e3000000000
tera: terillion: 1e3000000000000
exa: exillion: 1e3000000000000000
and so forth. (In other words, what comes after exa-?)
And never forget
triskadillion: 1e39
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Oops, all of those exponents should be bumped by three. I'm from an alternate reality where all of this was rationalized years ago..., yeah, that's it!
So a gigillion is 1e3000000003, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
How does Rijndael's 256-bit key compare to PGP's 4,096-bit key (assuming a well-chosen passphrase)? Can I assume that my PGP key is safer than Rijndael from brute-forcing? Or is there something about PGP's crypto that reduces the key/search space?
IOW, just how does PGP compare? Thanks!
GTRacer
- I'll stick with Enigma, thanks.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
And that's why satellite TV hackers have gone to the lengths of ion-beam analysis of the smart card chips to decode what's stored in them.
And as many people have pointed out before, information can be spread much easier than most other commodities. (Which is why they're trying to protect this stuff in the first place!) So once hacker A has disassembled the chip, and hacker B has written a chip emulator for the PC, all non-hackers C-Z have to do is download the emulator and they're ( watching free porn && stealing TV service ).
IBM has proposed addressing this with "secure" hard drives and "digital monitors". Sony and others have pushed for SDMI music players. Retailers have used this for more than 10 years with the ubiquitous Verifone PIN pads you see at retailers and gas stations everywhere.
John
John
I think you're confused. RSA claimed, in their Scientific American article at least, that their 100-bit key would take millions of years to break. In fact, advances in factoring algorithms (and to a far less extent, raw computing power) lead to it being broken in less than 20 years. Now the minimal recommended key size is 400 bits longer, amd most of us use keys 900 bits longer.
DES was never expected to have a lifetime longer than 25 years or so. The cryptanalysts who designed DES never heard of Moore's law, and wouldn't have cared about it if they had. They knew that the most important factor was algorithm efficiency, not the raw computing power.
In fact, a study in Programming Pearls a while back compared the effects of improved algorithms vs. improved hardware speed for several historically hard problems. The results were clear - hardware is getting faster, but you could still run circles around the latest supercomputer running 1960s era algorithms with your PDA running current algorithms. (Okay, the original article compared Crays to TRS-80s, but kids today may not know what a trash-80 is.)
The only reason computers seem slower is that they're used to solve far bigger problems. People tend to be willing to spend the same amount of time solving problems, and for a given time O(nlg(n)) has a far larger value of 'n' than O(n^3).
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
- The new standard contains a sophisticated mathematical formula known as an algorithm.
Did anyone else find this to be hilarious? I can see a manager saying something like, "We need to write this at a 6th-grade level of comprehension. Be sure to define the word 'algorithm'."Check out Chad's News
Power for the Future
At least it is not a joke. Back before IBM sold PCs, I was selling Morrow Microdecision PCs, that ran the CP/M operating system. Back then it was unusual that someone would own a computer. 4.77 Megahertz for $2,300. No hard drive, 13 inch monochrome monitor.
I chose that trademark to signify exactly what it says.
Bush's education improvements were
US Government classified information? What the heck are they using for classified info crypto? From the article:
Q: What is the chance that someone could use the "DES Cracker"-like hardware to crack an AES key?
In the late 1990s, specialized "DES Cracker" machines were built that could recover a DES key after a few hours. In other words, by trying possible key values, the hardware could determine which key was used to encrypt a message.
A: Assuming that one could build a machine that could recover a DES key in a second (i.e., try 255 keys per second), then it would take that machine approximately 149 thousand-billion (149 trillion) years to crack a 128-bit AES key. To put that into perspective, the universe is believed to be less than 20 billion years old.
snip...
The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) will be a new Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication that will specify a cryptographic algorithm for use by U.S. Government organizations to protect sensitive (unclassified) information.
I remember taking a tour of the school in fourth grade, and my teacher taking the class down to the boiler room, where she mentioned gigajoules. I always thought that was a funny word.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
If the software chose the methods of encryption, and the sequence in which the methods were used, based on the password, then chaining would be secure.
The problem with this is that it does not allow public key encryption. So, some independent way must be found to distribute the password. In many cases, however, there is no difficulty with distributing passwords. For example, if employees of a company often visit the home office, they can receive new passwords.
Bush's education improvements were
Please don't sound superior about this.
If I lived in Iran, I would change my name to Moshen. Why? Because I don't want to sound Christian in a country where that is not favored. (Because Christians killed Muslims during the Crusades.)
I suggested to a friend of mine whose name is Mohammad that he pick another name for use in the U.S., since someone named Mohammad had bombed a TWA flight, and Mohammad Salameh bombed the World Trade Center the first time it was bombed. He strongly agreed, and now calls himself Mike when communicating with people who don't understand his culture.
I had a Japanese-Brazilian acquaintance whose last name is Asso, which is pronounced to rhyme with asshole. When he says his last name, it sounds like he is saying asshole. If he came here, I would recommend he adopt a different name.
I heard about a German man, now living in the U.S., who changed his last name. Before the change, it was Raper, a perfectly good name in German.
Un-intentional communication has killed many Open Source Software projects, and commercial companies, too. I have found that this is a very radical opinion on Slashdot, but it is the standard opinion of professional communicators and marketing people. My opinion is that OSS must adopt good communication methods to avoid silly problems like this.
I'm not saying that someone who is named Imad should change his name. He should arrange his communication, however, so people who are new to knowing him don't read it as "I mad", which is what a native English speaker is likely to do.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Also, the processor time and memory is roughly proportional to key length
In other words, the time to decrypt a message with an n-bit key is O(n). The time to bruteforce a message (decrypt a message with all n-bit keys) is thus O(n*2^n) which is still O(2^n) at high values of n. So you still lose a bit of key length to Moore's law of transistor density every 18 months.
So if you double the capabilities of your computer then you can double the key length without taking a performance hit.
But then you and everybody you communicate with would have to make new keys. And even then, you often can't use more than 128-bit keys across national borders.
Well computers probably got fast enough in the last 80s, but encryption-for-everybody still hasn't really taken off. I guess social factors are harder to model than CPU speeds!
Another problem is that PGP/GnuPG "web of trust" model requires you to know somebody face-to-face who is already part of the web of trust so that you can validate her key and gain access to the rest of the keys. In fact, there must be a path in the graph of PGP users that leads to Phil Zimmermann or to Richard M. Stallman (see also Oracle of Bacon).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Moores law says nothing about computer speed doubling. It refers to the transistor count doubling.
Distributed.net relies on the fact that all other factors being equal, brute-forcing a key (decrypting a message with all possible keys) scales linearly with the number of processors involved because of the inherent parallelism. If transistor density doubles, the number of crypto datapaths you can put on a given-sized die doubles. Therefore, Moore's law of gate density translates directly into speed increases.
Will I retire or break 10K?
wow, for once the US has a consistent, well thought out naming scheme, and the rest of the world uses something equally bizzare as the imperial system of measures...
They're both pretty well defined. Given n as the prefix-number (mi=1, bi=2, tri=3, quadri=4, quinti=5...):
The U.S. system: n-llion == 10^(3n+3).
The continental system: n-llion == 10^(6n); n-lliard == 10^(6n+3).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Windows was a carefully selected name. At the time Microsoft picked it, windowing was an advanced ability for a PC.
These ideas about avoiding the chance of miscommunication are completely accepted by the people who sell all the consumer products you use. I'm surprised these ideas are so difficult for Slashdot readers to accept. My posts about this have consistently been modded down.
Bush's education improvements were
The basic idea with quantum computing is that you can do compuations on all of the possible inputs simultaneously. It appears that some of the problems we'd like to solve with quantum computers may not be able to be expressed efficiently with the quantum operations at our disposal. Someone mentioned in another post that quantum computers don't seem to be able to break block ciphers as efficiently as they can factor large numbers.
If everything is working properly, the Qbits probably aren't exactly ones or zeroes until you look at them. (In the world of quantum mechanics, particles act differently when you look at them. Look up Schrodinger's Cat on Google if you're not familiar with the basic idea of quantum.) The state of each qbit is a pair of complex numbers, called amplitudes. The square of a magnitude (vector length squared for the spatial thinkers among you. The dot product of a vector and its complex conjugate for those of you that prefer linear algebra.) is a probability.
The qbit is most likely not totally a 1 or a zero. The qbit is partially a one and partially a zero and these parts are represented as amplitudes. This indertiminant state is called a quantum superposition. In Ket notation we say a qbit is alpha |0> + beta |1> where alpha and beta are those complex amplitudes I mentioned earlier.
Stay with me. I'm almost done with the stuff that makes your head swell.
When you observe the qbit, it magically becomes exactly a one or exactly a zero, with probability determined by the amplitudes. Therefore, the sum of the squares of the magnitudes of alpha and beta always add up to one, sonce the probabilities of the qbit being observed as a zero or one must sum to 100%.
So, what does this all mean? It means that all of your computations are done with the qbits being BOTH zero and one at the same time. (Okay, so you set come of the qbits to specific values in order to control the quantum gates.) This means that with n qbits, it's like doing computation on 2^n data points simultaneously. You set up your computations so that in the end when you look at your qbits, you have a high probability of seeing the correct answer.
There's a big problem keeping very many qbits in quantum superposition for very long. A random neutrino or other minor disturbance has the same effect as looking at the qbits in mid computation.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
"Can liberty be destroyed by the truth?"
Of course. It depends on how selective one is about which truths are allowed.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's amazing how difficult this concept is on Slashdot.
I'm not "judging people by their name". I'm NOT judging a person at all. I'm saying don't call your web site or open source software product by a name that has any possible unfortunate meanings or connotations.
I did not invent this idea. It is universally used by people who design professional communication.
Why avoid side communication? Because long experience has shown that products with such communication don't do well in the marketplace.
I repeat. This has NOTHING to do with "judging people by their name".
I have a Korean woman friend whose name is "Go-oon". I suggested that, if she stayed in the U.S., she call herself "Susan". "Go-oon" sounds like "Goon" and is difficult to pronounce correctly for English speakers.
She didn't accept my suggestion; she didn't stay in the U.S. long. But she certainly did not take my suggestion as anything negative. She was 19. Why is it that a 19-year-old Korean woman understands this issue, but not many Slashdot readers? (Incidentally, she ran Linux. So, she is an above-average 19-year-old Korean woman. But still.)
Bush's education improvements were
As for whether Moore's law will actually fail in 12 years or not, that remains to be seen. Looking at current processor designs tells you nothing about that: current processor and systems designs should have been abandoned decades ago. The only reason we still stick with them is because it has been easier to push processes than design. I very much hope we'll hit the limit on processes soon so that we can then focus on getting better performance through better overall systems design.
..in any sense of the word. Most have no clue about software design in any sort, and consider the ability to write a shell script makes them a 'programmer'... more like dweebs and wannabes with too much time on their hands.
-
damn cutting and pasting.. or just "damn, I should have read the preview..."
;-)
Nice name, but room for improvement.
I see your point. Part of the problem was that Linus did not care how it was pronounced until people began asking him.
Please, however, give me examples of truly bad names of commercial products.
Bush's education improvements were
thats if you had to try all the possibilities.You could get it right on the first try. Likely? no.Possible?yes.
It doesn't take into acoung advance in algorithms and hardware.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on