I run one of the larger AD&D sites on the web (I get about 100,000 hits/month, even though I haven't updated it in a year...:-(
Am I the only one that remembers the problems we (ie the gaming community) had with TSR over writing game extension and new rules? Thankfully, this sorted itself out, and WotC seems to have been content to abide by the TSR decision.
I'm really worried about Hasbro, though. Given that they seem to have a rather (shall we say) zealous approach to "protecting" their Intellectual Property, I'm really worried that they might try to revert to the old ways, and start trying to stop alot of the independent authors of D&D material.
I couldn't fight them if I got sued. I don't have the resources. This despite the fact that I've been EXTREMELY scrupulous about making sure none of the stuff on my site is lifted from TSR material. I'd have to close down, and that would be a shame.
Hopefully, Hasbro will Do The Right Thing, and continue with the current policy. People writing new material for the TSR games help sell "Official" material. And I'm well within my rights to create such stuff. I just can't afford to defend myself in court.
(This is waaaayyy off the original topic, but I'm going to post it here, 'cause it's relevant to the thread we're in...)
First off, there is considerable evidence that Homosexuality is GENETIC, and not a physiological condition. This is not proven yet, but it's definately a strong possibility.
Thus, you aren't going to "Cure" a homosexual, any more than I could get a "straight" person to change.
The AMA and the American Psychologists Association have wised up, and no longer consider homosexuality a "disease" or "correctible-condition". It's who gay people are. Period.
Also, there is considerable natural evidence that homosexuality occurs in a large number of mammals. Many primates have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, and it's also been seen in animals such as wolf/wild dog packs.
Like the poster above pointed out, black skin in humans is an adaptation to an outside stimulus. So is homosexuality. The stimulus in this case is overpopulation. I liken genetic homosexuality as a mutation (remember, mutations can be either Good OR Bad, depending on environmental conditions). It seems to be getting expressed more and more these days, which leads to the question: how badly are we overpopulated that environmental effects are causing this to be expressed? Thus, homosexuality IS A FAVORABLE ADAPTATION IN THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. It may not be favorable for the individual to pass on his or her specific genes, but it's beneficial to the SPECIES.
For a good look at how human society might change over time, w/r/t population and sexuality, I suggest you read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. It's a good Sci-Fi read, and it looks at human evolution on the macro-level (over the course of about 3000 years).
People, you are going to have to accept that homosexuals are here, have always been here, and will continue to be here. I'm rather disgusted to listen to fellow straight folks claim that homosexuals are somehow bad deviants or lesser beings. It makes me sick. Grow Up!
To see how inane you sound, replace the word "homosexual" (or "gay" or "lesbian") with the word "nigger". Oooh. Ooops. You ended up sounding like a nice 1840s intellectual espousing the rightness (and superiority) of whites over the black man. How enlightened.
...that they're almost completely useless for most tasks.
A full discussion of one-time pads can be found in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed, by Bruce Schneier (page 15).
One time pads have several problems that make them useless for anything but locking individual files (and even then, it's quite a pain).
You can never use the same key for more than a single message.
It's a secret key algorithm, which means that sending the message to someone else requires that you get the key to them somehow. Key distribution protocols are generally extremely difficult to impliment in a secure way (which is why public key crypto is so popular, since it provides a nice solution to the problem).
key storage is a problem. Since you have to store all the keys, and since a key is as long as your message, key management is a pain in the ass. Storing them using a pass phrase reduces the security to the level of your pass phrase, so you might as well use RSA or even DES/blowfish.
Onetime pads, while cool in a theoretical sense, are useless to virtually everyone with the exception of diplomats. For diplomatic use, they can solve the key storage/distribution problem via CDROMs/Digital tapes transport via diplomatic courier bags. Everyone else is screwed. Even the millitary doesn't generally use onetime pads because of the key distribution problem.
Stick to high-keylength public key or symetric cyphers. They're far more useful, and the likelihood of them being broken by even the likes of the NSA is not good.
I love lawyers. All they seem to know how to do is threaten and bully, regardless of how empty their threats are.
As I understand it, RBL is a subscription service. That is, the sites that use the RBL have chosen to participate, and are voluntarily not receiving email from anyone on the list. So, if you can't send mail to me, it's because I've chosen not to listen to you. All the ISP's that I've seen that use the RBL announce this fact, so businesses that use them should be aware of this.
Secondly, email is not a legally binding (or allowable) method of conducting business. You can't send invoices only by email, and then claim in court that you gave proper notice (at least in the US). Email has no guaranty of delievery, and the courts have not reconized it as a reliable method for transmitting legal/business documents. So NSI's invoice threat is moot. If they aren't sending invoices to Amazon via methods other than email, then terminate Amazon.com for some reason that was indicated in the email, well, guess who's liable for interference of interstate commerce? NSI!
Dolts.
I don't like the RBL. I think it's a poor (both technical and political) method of attempting to control SPAM. However, I dislike NSI even more. And if the Commerce Department is now stating that the whois database is it's property (which it is), then I can't wait for them to stick it to NSI for illegal use of government property for private commercial gain.
NSI sucks hard. They just need to die. Or at least fire all their top management.
-Erik
Bean was cool, but what about Alai?
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 2
Somehow, I always identified with Alai more than any other character in Ender's Game. I just sat down and read the 4 new chapters, and the new book looks good (I'll probably uy it), but I wish it was about Alai instead.
The interesting thing I saw about Alai is a character that you simply don't see in fiction anywhere: a fully-functional kid who is nonetheless brilliant, yet is content to give the spotlight to someone else. If anything, I think Alai is more of the "mother" figure for Ender than even his sister.
I never really wanted to be Ender. He was too fucked up. Alai on the other hand, was brilliant, and both much more personable and functional as a human being.
While I'm sure the story about Bean is going to be good (based on the sample), I can't help wonder but if the story will end up much too similar to the original in tone and viewpoint. I think Card missed an opportunity to write about the topic from a completely different perspective, rather than one that was only incrementally different.
-Erik
PS - I find that Ender's Game and The Hobbit both suffer the same fate - the original book was so outstanding that it appealed (and was accessible) to both children and adults. The follow-on trilogies, while excellent in their own right, were much more complex pieces, and I think alot of kids got turned off to them because they weren't so accessible, and never returned to read them as an adult, much to their loss...
DNS is an essential service for everyone on the internet. I don't think it's a good idea in any sense to have a single commercial organization at the controls, as NSI has been for the last upteen years.
Instead, what needs to happen is this (and I realize that it's partway there, but not fully):
The US Congress needs to pass a law giving ICANN the same (or similar, since it won't have Constitutional protection) status as the USPS. That is, ICANN sets the standards, makes the rules, and is the final authority on decisions.
ICANN needs to be given the authority to decide name conflicts decisively. That is, ICANN is the final arbiter, not the court system. Of course, ICANN should be obligated to spell out the conflict resolution system in advance, in detail.
ICANN does NOT actually run DNS. They contract it out like they are now to various registries.
$1 (or something like that) should be charged each Registry for a domain. That is, ICANN should get $1 for each domain registered. ICANN should use this for operating costs, etc. They should NOT be allowed to accept outside money of any kind, and should be required to run a balanced budget. Therefore, all their income should come from domain registration fees, insulating them from pressure by big corporate donors, etc.
ICANN should specify that IT OWNS ALL REGISTRATION INFO, and THAT IT MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN REGISTRATION-RELATED ACTIVITIES. No hording the info between Registries. No using it for bulk emailing. No funny business, period.
ICANN should have the legal authority to fine or revoke a Registry's contract should they fail to live up to the standards, or are caught doing something naughty.
I realized that some people will think that this centralizes a lot of power in a gov't-sanctioned organization, but I think it's really the only sane way to keep everything in line. If it's done properly, and the controlling board of ICANN is both fiscally and politically insulated, then I think it would be far and away the best thing for us.
And I thought M$ was bad. Sheesh, I've been around for over 10 years now, and NSI has gone from a nice, little company to a royally assinine monopoly that just needs to be taken apart, brick by brick. I'd LOVE to see Congress strip NSI of its Registry status, sue them for trademark infringement, and fine the living hell out of them for illegal appropriation of gov't property (the whois database).
First off, I live in the Valley. Mountain View, to be precise. I used to live in Boston. I've gone from spliting a $1500 1400 sq ft flat to a $1200 600sq ft 1-br. Not alot of fun.
The problem here is a simple one: No space for new housing, and an influx of people. A secondary issue is the massive amount of wealth that has been suddenly created by the Internet IPOs over the last 2 years. It's a simple Adam Smith problem of supply vs. demand (and ability to pay).
As other people have mentioned, there is a heavy commitment to retaining the larger open spaces here for recreation and preservation. And I can't say I'm really sorry about that (it's actually nice to go biking along the San Andreas:-). The result, though, is that the only real places to build, given the geography, are East (Walnut Creek and such) and North (Marin County).
Now we run into the Curse of Silicon Valley: the world's shittiest public transporation system. There are like 6 million people in the Bay Area. Yet, for all practical purposes, you can't ride any public transporation to work. The system is really a conglomeration of about 15 independently run trains, buses, and light rail, none of which are coordinated with eachother, or connect in any sane manner. So you have to drive to work. And there are huge choke points to getting places, which can't really be fixed (like the GG and Bay Bridges). So, living in Marin County and working in Cupertino isn't an option (can we say a 3-4 hour commute?)
Moving from Boston was a harsh blow on this regards. You could actually live 50 miles from work and only have to drive to the local train stop (maybe 1-2 miles) to get into downtown. Hell, the bus/subway system was so good that you could practically get from any point inside of I-95 to any other point inside with only a couple of blocks walking, total.
Don't I wish this was the case here in the Valley.
Until the Bay Area gets it's head out of it's ass and manages to coherently plan and build a regional transit system, the housing prices will get worse. 'Course, the system should make the Big Dig ($10+ Billion) look like chicken feed when it comes to cost. But it's the only way. Too bad it won't happen before I leave.
I'm buying a house this winter. Expect to pay about $.5m for it, and get a lower-middle-class house I'll do work on. Figure to sell it about 2005 and move somewhere else where the housing prices are sane. 'Course, I might just make $100k or more, since prices are climbing about 10% or more per year.
..there are alot of problems. Here are some that I can think of:
How do I know what to ask for? Currently, the price of an item is primarily determined by demand and production, typical capitalistic methods. The marketplace does an exceedingly good job of maximizing the gain for everyone (granted, software costs are NOT one of these situations). How am I, as an individual, supposed to figure out what a reasonable cost is? If I guess too low, I miss out on (possibly) large sums that I should have made (unfair to me), and if I guess too high, people will not get to see my work (unfair to them) since I won't publish. Price setting is extremely difficult, and perhaps the biggest flaw in the system.
What happens to the money that people contribute if the "goal" isn't made? I assume that it's refunded; however, think of the logistics and costs associated with this. Think of all the problems that happen every time some group cancels a concert. Multiply this thousandfold. Remember, the "Publisher" entrusted with the finished work is also probably the collector of the money. The "Publisher" will almost certainly pass the cost of insurance against such a cancellation to the author, so you might end up cutting out small authors, since the cost of the "Publisher" may be a large chunk of the possible revenue.
How is the product evaluated? Does the Publisher vouch for the safe operation/quality of the product? Demoware? Reviews?
What about support? OK, for books and music, this might be a lesser issue, but what about software? Is it just like GNU stuff nowdays? Or is there some arrangement? And what about liability? Who is responsible if it doesn't work as advertized?
Perhaps the biggest flaw I can see (particularly in the author/music industry) is that no one has any idea of what something is worth. Also, the protocol heavily discriminates against first-time authors, since it depends on reputation as a methods for setting expectations of return. What if I don't want to write 6 books, but have 1 awesome novel?
Overall, it's an interesting idea, but one that has far too many practical flaws for us to ever see it in reality.
You asked three seperate questions, so I think I'll answer them in order:
First off, the 127MB limit was for the older 2.0 series of kernels. The new 2.2 series (and dists based on them) has a much higher limit (I can't remember exactly what is it, but it's ALOT bigger (maybe like 1GB or more)). So, you can make a single swap partition of 256MB or so. If you are using a 2.0-based dist, you should make multiple partitions, each no bigger than 127MB.
IIRC, linux is like the newer Solaris 2, IRIX, and HPUX systems in that swap space is added to physical RAM to come up with the Total Virtual Memory allotable on the system. Under older BSD4.2-based systems (I don't know about current Free/Net/OpenBSD stuff), swap space equal to physical RAM was used to "shadow" the physical memory (and improve swap performance), and thus your Total Virtual Memory was equal to the amount of swap space you had.
For Linux 2.2, the rule of 2x physical memory is perhaps a bit overkill. I prefer the Solaris guidelines: you should have at least 128MB of total swap+physical for a typical end-user system, with 256MB for a developer/power user, and 512MB for someone using high-end graphics (the X-server gets big) or doing serious work. The point here is: swap space is slow. You should have enough swap space to hold applications that you aren't currently using, but huge amounts aren't useful (unless you have an application that likes to map large amounts of Virtual Memory, but doesn't actually use it). For most of us, I think no more than 256MB of swap is best.
Swap being slow, putting your swap drive on the fastest possible disk is a good way to enhance performance. In your case, the performance characteristics of the drive are more important than the interface. Thus, a new drive (6.5ms / 10,000RPM) with a FastSCSI interface is preferable to using an older drive (perhaps 9ms/7200RPM) with WideSCSI. Striping swap is also a good idea, though you should use drives of similar speed.
Also, note that linux can swap to a file, as well as to a raw partition. However, swapping to a partition is faster, and preferable.
That's the point with the MPAA now. What is an "R", or a "PG-13"? There are no published guidelines about what they mean. Sure, you can be reasonably certain that a G movie won't have full frontal nudity, but that's about it.
I've seen PG movies which had enough gore in them to make Scream look mild (though it was "animated" or "fantasy" violence), and on the other hand, the original Pyscho is rated R despite being free of anything I could deem offensive (though it is certainly scary).
Point is, you can't depend on the MPAA for anything other than a massively sweeping generalization, which I can get from looking at a 30-second preview. It serves no useful purpose. How am I supposed to be able to tell if my 14-year old cousin should see the latest super-action PG-13 flick? Certainly not though the MPAA.
I'd rather there NOT be any rating; that way, parents would actually have to pay attention to what reviewers and writeups of the movie said, and be able to make some sort of an informed opinion. Trusting the MPAA to do your judging for you is being a bad parent.
Unfortunately, about the only sure-fire way to kill spam (or at least serious reduce the amount sent) is to go to a pay-for-delivery system. That is, your ISP charges you X amount for each email message sent (multiple recipients count as multiple emails).
Of course, this doesn't preclude anyone sending spam, it just transfers a good deal of the cost back to the people it should be on: the spammer.
I fully expect that the Internet will become pay-as-you-go in the relatively near future (say 5 years at the outside). The only major impediment is the infrastructure to support micro-payments and billing isn't in place yet, though there is no technical reason it couldn't be.
And, realistically, why not? The people who use the Internet the most (whether it be bandwidth, email, http, or whatever) should be paying the most. I have no problem with getting a free DSL Line, and then having to pay $10/Gb transfered and $0.02/email. A good chunk of the problem we're in now has to do with the "once you're on, it's all free" and "all-you-can-eat" mentality.
You can't outlaw Spam without seriously infringing upon other liberties (as it's impossible to exactly define what Spam is). Transferring the costs back to the spammer will allow for legitimate direct-email marketing, and elimiate all those spammers getting a free ride now.
The funny thing about the MPAA, is that it's by far the most influential censorship organ around, and nobody pays any attention to it.
As you and I know, the MPAA ratings are totally capricious, and are heavily influenced by the Big Studios. ("Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" is an X (it was released as "unrated"), while "Silence of the Lambs" is an R?) Any coherent person would look at the MPAA and say "OK, and the raters are on what drugs?"
The problem with the MPAA is that their ratings get turned into laws. What most people don't know is that most communities have zoning laws against various theaters showing "unrated" or X/NC-17 movies. And now, with the push to legalize (ie codify) the "under-17 not admited without an adult" of the R, they're actively engaging in censorship.
I think the MPAA should just go away. Period. I'd love it if there was some way for a PICS-like system to work for movies, but I doubt this will happen. Perhaps something like a 4-number rating system that others have suggested (a Sex/Language/Violent/Adult Content thing). In the end, though, I hate zoning laws, and I absolutely refuse to accept any codification of a ratings system.
Thing is, this is so much more pervasive and allows no discretion on a community basis. At least with indecent/obscenity laws, there is the "community standards" basis. With the MPAA and the coming trend, some bunch of people that you don't know, can't talk to, and have no idea what you're interested may be dictating your viewing simply by applying a label to some movie.
So HiTech catches up with other professions. Alot of the nasty problems people seem to be encountering in hitech are the same for other "glamorous" and attractive professions: lawyering, doctors, investment bankers. Many professions these days are long hours, incredible stress, and low status. The upside of course is the pay.
Unfortunately, people outside the profession in question seldom take the time to consider all the angles before choosing to go into it, and then, WHOA! Big surprise! It's not all gravy! Part of the problem with hi-tech is that it's not old enough to have gotten the slow messsage out (as have lawyers and doctors and other high wage/high stress jobs) that there are downsides to things.
I still don't see this as necessarily bad. I'm 28, been in the business since 22, and plan to bail out before I'm 40. I suspect alot of folks are in the same situation - they'll put up with the downside to make the cash while they're young, then move on to another field which caters to their more "personal" needs later in life. Hell, my earning potential for the 15 or so years I'll be in IT should average out to be at least $100k/year - if I save correctly (or pehaps pay for the big ticket items (can we say house?)) while I'm doing IT, well, then, I can move into a $40k/year jobs that I enjoy (and has much less stress) afterwards and not have to worry about financing.
It's a possible change in the "work-lifecycle" - it used to be:
Start at entry-level, low-paying job
Slowly move up food chain, maximizing your earnings at 45-55 or so
Retire at 60ish to live on your IRA.
Perhaps now, we get:
Start at high-paying job
maximize earnings at 30-40
Switch careers and work at a much lower pace for 40-60
Retire
I for one are more than willing to put up with 15 years of doing a job I like, but that is severely stressful. I figure that about 40 I should have all the cash I want, my kids will be 5-7 or so, and I can be a park ranger (or whatever) and not worry about finances, and still have time for my kids. Fine By Me. You just need to have all the facts going into the equation.
While I do think your argument has technical merit, it overlooks a major problem with crypto stuff - installed base.
Upgrading hardware and software to use larger key sizes is decidedly non-trivial. Most (if not all) hardware has a fixed key size it expects (or at the most, a choice of a couple of key sizes). Thus, the protocols that use crypto specify key lengths.
Good examples are SSL and PGP. SSL supports 512, 768, and 1024 bit key sizes now. PGP supports 512, 768, 1024, and 2048 bit keylengths. While it is not terribly hard to change the software itself to use larger keysizes, changing a published Spec often takes several years.
Given the forsight, we could keep ahead of crypto advances. For instance, specifying NOW that PGP6 should support 4096-bit keys would be good. Unfortunately, software people tend to be very short-sighted, and don't look at the long-term ramifications - they only tend to fix stuff that's broken NOW, not that might break in 5 years.
OK, I sat down and re-read the major sections of both Schiener and Knuth (to refresh my math memory), and then something that the Silverman's analysis jumped out at me:
Current (and expected future) uses of Number Sieve factorization (currently, the General Number Sieve is most efficient) are composed of two parts: the sieving of factors, and then solving a matrix of all the possible factoring equations.
For most of the time, the first operation has dominated in time; however, this first process is also the most ameniable to increases in speed.
As Silverman pointed out, the RSA-140 (465-bit) challenge required 4 weeks of 200 machines to solve, then about 4 days for a single super-fast box to solve the resulting matrix. Using Shamir's new methodology, we can expect a 512-bit number to be done in 5 weeks on 20 machines, with another 4 weeks to do the matrix.
The bottleneck has now become the matrix solution, which is a non-parallizable problem (for now). All that can be done on it currently is to use Moore's Law, which doesn't significantly affect the security of larger keys.
If anything, Shamir's invention will now push the focus of attacking RSA from dicovering the factoring equations (the "sieve" part) to improving the matrix solution problem.
The real danger here is from the NSA and other organizations that may have discovered a way to significantly parallelize the matrix solution. If they can do that, well, RSA is going to be screwed. However, there is no current indication that they can do this. But don't say I warned you.
For those paranoid, here are some relevant numbers on the now-dominant times to solve the matrix for relevant key-bit sizes (all assumptions are using 1999 hardware; divide all times by 10 for each 5 years that have passed to account for Moore's Law).
512-bit key: ~4 weeks
768-bit key: ~1850 years
1024-bit keys: ~5million years
Remember, these numbers are NOT reducible by throwing more hardware at the problem - this is a (currently) serial operation, and must be done by a single machine. I don't see us being able to produce a single-CPU box a million times faster than state-of-the-art within the next two decades (Moore's Law predicts one about 2030 or so). By then, the memory requirements will be mundane. (if we can do 10GB now trivially, 10TB in 30 years shouldn't be any problem. In fact, we should be able to easily do 10TB about 2015 or so.)
In the end, 1024-bit keys should be immune to advances in sieving technology for at least 20 years. The worry is advances in matrix solutions, and development of methodologies better than Number Sieves. But, by the very nature of things, this is unpredictable.
Best Guess (and I'm not Bruce Scheiner): 1024 -bit should be immune to everything until at least 2015, after which 2048-bit should last to mid-century or so.
Perhaps you are thinking of certain symetric cyphers like DES or IDEA. Both have fixed key lengths. However, many other algorithms don't suffer from such a limitation. A good example is Blowfish, which (IIRC) has a key length from 64 to 448 bits, variable.
Check out Applied Cryptography for examples of other variable-length cyphers.
Whether increasing keylength is a good idea or not, though... 128-bit keys are secure against any brute force search for a very long time ( even at 1 billion billion billion try/sec (ie 2^27)) it takes ~8e22 YEARS to break. Increasing a key further than this is silly. Symetric algorithms are invulnerable to advances in factoring and related math; they are vulnerable only to weaknesses in their underlying design.
First off, does anyone expect him to say it's a threat? Since when has any CEO of any company stood up and said, well, yes, company B over there is hammering our ass, OR "there are signs in the industry that we're rapidly becoming obsolete?" Of course not. Things like this aren't ever said. By anyone.
The interesting thing is what Bill decided to point out as the possible competition by Linux and Free Software. No matter what the outcome of the GNOME/KDE projects, Linux/*BSD aren't going to break the Windows chokehold on the PC desktop. There are several reasons why, but I'll only list them (email me if you want to talk more about this): (close enough to) seemless integration, universal hardware support, and installed base/intertia.
The more important thing here is that Free Software poses a threat to MS in areas that Bill didn't mention, and are very serious ones at that. The continued high quality and increasing availability (from a corporate standpoint) of total end-to-end solutions for the *BSDs and Linux at the server level is a serious concern to MS. At the server level, most of Windows' desktop advantages either are irrelevant or - worse - a detriment. The requirements for a server-level OS are considerably different than a desktop OS, and Windows is in serious jeporady here. This is a very lucrative market for MS, and serious marketshare loss here will really hurt their bottom line.
Secondly, the other place that Free Software is a threat to MS is the thin client/embedded market. See a previous thread for info on how thin clients and the embedded market will (in the relatively near future) seriously hurt the desktop/home PC market. Linux and Free Software have massive advantages in the embedded/thin client market. Microsoft is extremely vulnerable here.
The instances Bill sites (word processing/spreadsheets) are throwaway examples. They're obviously wrong, and are intended to reinforce the idea that Windows is King(tm).
OK - my bias: I'm a SysAdmin. Most of my friends are developers.
My overall experience is that I (and most of the good sysadmins I know) have a far larger repetoir of computer knowledge than the developers I know. The distinction here is breadth vs. depth. Sysadmins tend to be a huge repository for bits of knowledge (most admins I know are excellent at Trival Pursuit), since you never know when that little tidbit is going to be needed. Developers are by their nature more focused and tend to ignore info that isn't really germaine to their job. It's the old generalist vs. specialist argument.
I'm not saying that I'm better than the developers, or that my knowledge is somehow more valuable. It's important to do my job. Theirs is important to do theirs. We couldn't switch positions and do anywhere as well in our new places.
And yes, I can tell a good developers from a great one, and have no problem identifying a poor one (he's the one standing in front of my cube all day).
"Source Code" is an extremely difficult thing to pin down. Which of these should be considered code?
A sequence of binary digits
A bunch of numbers (decimal, hex, and octal) intersperced with short alphanumberic acronyms (JRST, PUSH, MUL)
Some quasi-english junk (STORE ADDR 1000 BACK INTO PREV REG)
An algorithm expressed in mathematical symbols
A high-level functional description ( if (!code) then abend; )
A competely nonsensical symbolic phrase
OK, here's what they are:
Machine code
Assembly code
COBOL
Matlab or Mathematic code
C, C++, LISP, FORTRAN or other high-level langiage
C-INTERCAL
It makes no rational sense to argue for freedom of speech of any of the above categories, and not all of the above. The problem with Source Code is that it is completely unlike any other form of communication. For those of you familiar with Snow Crash, Source Code is a Namshrub - that is, it not only describes what to do, but also does it. As such, it is completely different than instructions to make a bomb, or a recipe to make a cake.
Free Speech as invisioned by the Constitution was for a single purpose: to insure that political debate was unhindered. Over the last two centuries, the US has widened what is considered "political" speech. That's why art, cartoons, plays, flag burning, etc. are now grouped in with the original writing/speaking.
Source Code, however, has no political asperations. It's sole purpose is to enable a computer to perform some task. Wait! I can hear people cry. Bomb-making (or cake-making) instructions have no political intentions either (that is of course debatable, but let's assume it's true for this argument). They are nontheless covered, since it is impossible to readily distinuish (in legal concept, that is) between them and forms of expression that are most definately covered (instructions for staging a rally, a HOW-TO guide for voting, etc.).
Thus, in my eyes, Source Code does not count as Free Speech. From a political perspective, there is absolutely no damage to the political viability of the system if Source Code is not Free Speech. Period.
This does NOT mean I agree with the current methods of regulating Code with the existing Trademark, patent, and copyright laws. Source Code is so unlike any other form of expression that it deserves a completely NEW set of regulations that are tailored to it's uniqueness. The same applies to the Internet. The current attempts to apply the TV/radio model of regulation to the Internet mirror the problems of applying current IP laws to Source Code. Both are taking a completely unsuitable set of standards and attempting to force-fit them. A square peg in a round hole if I may.
The same applies to attempts to label Source Code as Free Speech. It isn't. It's something completely new, and should be treated as such.
I'm a sysadmin. In the end, people like me get stuck with cleaning up the mess whenever any over-hormoned cracker decides to crack/write virii/pingbomb/etc. a machine/network. I can certainly sympathize with alot of the people calling for lynching this guy. Though I don't think that's the right answer.
And, while I can certainly appreciate the skills that go into writing virii, that doesn't mean we should in any way encourage this sort of "skill". That includes the sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink> comments I've seen here. Yeah, Charles Manson was one of the most skillfull and persuasive leaders of the 70s, but I don't want anymore of that type around, either.
Microsoft (and others) deserve to get nailed with a "defective product" suit one of these days for shipping shoddy products. That day will come (sooner, I hope, than later). But encouraging vandals (and let's not kid ourselves, that's what crackers and virus-writers are) isn't the solution.
An analogy, if I may:
In my neighboorhood, 9 of the ten houses are built by XYZ, and come with 10 door locks (of which 5 are broken, and the other 5 are very hard to turn). 1 house (built by ABC) has 3 locks, all easily set. One day, a burgler walks down my street, wiggling the door to each house. If he can open the door, he walks in, re-arranges the furniture, and smashes a few things. If he can't open the door, he goes to the next one. So, guess what! 3 houses get sacked, and they were all made by XYZ. Now, do I complain to the police that XYZ should be held responsible for smashing my furniture? No! I help catch the burgler, send him to jail, and then file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau about the shoddy work that XYZ does (maybe even a civil suit).
Virii-writers are pond scum. If you are smart enough to find a bug/exploit in a program, TELL CERT! That's what they're there for. Sure, the responsible company might not fix it fast. But that doesn't make it right to go smashing other people's property. If the software company isn't responsive to security demands, well, vote with your feet (and dollars). Don't buy from them.
For everyone who hasn't been around too terribly long, April Fools is the only holiday that the whole 'net celebrates. It's been that way since before I was on in 89, and probably forever. I think putting up with a (bit too much this year) humor once per year isn't hard to ask. I think your sensitivity meter is set a little low today.
Sure, there's no hard news on the main page today. Ever stop to think that nothing newsworthy happened today? Gasp!
Tradition on the 'net seems to get trampled all too easily these days. I'd appreciate it if more people showed some respect for the customs and such that got us here. Even if they must slowly change.
Oh, and as an old-timer, I'm not happy with the UF/BD/SF joke. This is un-funny. AFJs are traditionally restricted to April 1, and do NOT completely mimic a very possibly real event. If the whole thing had been done today, well, I'd give them a pat on the back, a short note to pick a different subject next year, and leave it at that. However, I'm quite pissed, and not in the least laughing. Bad people! Bad!
-Erik
All you essay writer-wannabes, READ NEAL'S ESSAY.
on
Tuesday Quickies
·
· Score: 1
If for nothing else, read it to learn how to gracefully express your ideas.
Neal is a Writer. His essay (and almost all of his published works) is an example of how you should strive to express yourself. Look at how he transitions from one point to the next, without any jarring skips, or requiring huge leaps of comprehension. His analogies are well-thought out, and explained in sufficient (but not excruciating) detail where they might be unclear. The wording isn't dense or filled with jargon or buzzwords, and yet conveys clear meaning and the sense of understanding.
All in all, an excellent work. I realize that everyone can't reach this level, and for alot of the short posts here, it's not necessary to put that amount of effort into it.
But, and this is really important, if you want to make yourself understood, put the same effort into your writing as you do your code.
I will always value a good techinical writer above a good coder - I can find good coders all over the place, but someone who can both understand code (usually someone else's) and can clearly and logically document it in a manner that others find usefull, is a gift.
I strive to reach Neal's level of writing. While I'm not there yet, hopefully I'm better than I used to be.
-Erik
Oh, and for all of those/.-ers still in H.S.: Pay Attention In English Class. For those in college: Take a good Expository Writing class. Both are as valuable to your future as any C.S. class; in fact, I would value them as MORE important than any single C.S. class.
...it's quite easy for the "reverse" rape to occur. Read the post above about the nature of rape (ie, it's about Power and Control, NOT sex).
You also assume that the man can always leave. Not so. While the average US male is larger and stronger than the average US female, there are huge chunks of society where this is not true. Hell, I'm a strong, 6' guy, and I used to date a 5" 4' girl who could kick my ass if she wanted to.
As you note, rape doesn't have to include intercourse. Would I consider it rape if someone forced me to go down on them? You bet. It's even quite possible to keep a man erect without "normal" sexual stimulation. As your local dominatrix about that. I wouldn't know. Also, ever considered that the woman might be using other "aids" in the rape (ie, something long and round...)
Rape is about the worst thing you can do to another person. Unfortunately, in this country (the US), it's a crime that is mixed with sex, which we don't deal well with as a society. The result is a total mess, from all sides. If we're lucky, maybe we can get to the point where people who force sex on others get their just rewards, and those who cry "rape" as a cover for their other problems get ostricized as they deserve for crying wolf over such a serious charge.
Is that they are under a government contract, and are trying to claim that they own the work from that contract, not the government. I'd love to see the actual contract between the USgov and NSI.
It's also much more than just ethics. There's now alot of civil law involved now.
With the story on the Federal Courts considering domain names property, the "redirection" of internic.net to NSI is (ahem) interesting. The gov't is effectively having its domain "stolen" by NSI. I can see this as a perfect excuse for the gov't to terminate their contract, demand the contents of the WHOIS and registry databases, and walking away from NSI.
Slashdot Mirror
I run one of the larger AD&D sites on the web (I get about 100,000 hits/month, even though I haven't updated it in a year... :-(
Am I the only one that remembers the problems we (ie the gaming community) had with TSR over writing game extension and new rules? Thankfully, this sorted itself out, and WotC seems to have been content to abide by the TSR decision.
I'm really worried about Hasbro, though. Given that they seem to have a rather (shall we say) zealous approach to "protecting" their Intellectual Property, I'm really worried that they might try to revert to the old ways, and start trying to stop alot of the independent authors of D&D material.
I couldn't fight them if I got sued. I don't have the resources. This despite the fact that I've been EXTREMELY scrupulous about making sure none of the stuff on my site is lifted from TSR material. I'd have to close down, and that would be a shame.
Hopefully, Hasbro will Do The Right Thing, and continue with the current policy. People writing new material for the TSR games help sell "Official" material. And I'm well within my rights to create such stuff. I just can't afford to defend myself in court.
-Erik
(This is waaaayyy off the original topic, but I'm going to post it here, 'cause it's relevant to the thread we're in...)
First off, there is considerable evidence that Homosexuality is GENETIC, and not a physiological condition. This is not proven yet, but it's definately a strong possibility.
Thus, you aren't going to "Cure" a homosexual, any more than I could get a "straight" person to change.
The AMA and the American Psychologists Association have wised up, and no longer consider homosexuality a "disease" or "correctible-condition". It's who gay people are. Period.
Also, there is considerable natural evidence that homosexuality occurs in a large number of mammals. Many primates have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, and it's also been seen in animals such as wolf/wild dog packs.
Like the poster above pointed out, black skin in humans is an adaptation to an outside stimulus. So is homosexuality. The stimulus in this case is overpopulation. I liken genetic homosexuality as a mutation (remember, mutations can be either Good OR Bad, depending on environmental conditions). It seems to be getting expressed more and more these days, which leads to the question: how badly are we overpopulated that environmental effects are causing this to be expressed? Thus, homosexuality IS A FAVORABLE ADAPTATION IN THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. It may not be favorable for the individual to pass on his or her specific genes, but it's beneficial to the SPECIES.
For a good look at how human society might change over time, w/r/t population and sexuality, I suggest you read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. It's a good Sci-Fi read, and it looks at human evolution on the macro-level (over the course of about 3000 years).
People, you are going to have to accept that homosexuals are here, have always been here, and will continue to be here. I'm rather disgusted to listen to fellow straight folks claim that homosexuals are somehow bad deviants or lesser beings. It makes me sick. Grow Up!
To see how inane you sound, replace the word "homosexual" (or "gay" or "lesbian") with the word "nigger". Oooh. Ooops. You ended up sounding like a nice 1840s intellectual espousing the rightness (and superiority) of whites over the black man. How enlightened.
-Erik
We fear what we do not understand...
...that they're almost completely useless for most tasks.
A full discussion of one-time pads can be found in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed, by Bruce Schneier (page 15).
One time pads have several problems that make them useless for anything but locking individual files (and even then, it's quite a pain).
Onetime pads, while cool in a theoretical sense, are useless to virtually everyone with the exception of diplomats. For diplomatic use, they can solve the key storage/distribution problem via CDROMs/Digital tapes transport via diplomatic courier bags. Everyone else is screwed. Even the millitary doesn't generally use onetime pads because of the key distribution problem.
Stick to high-keylength public key or symetric cyphers. They're far more useful, and the likelihood of them being broken by even the likes of the NSA is not good.
-Erik
I love lawyers. All they seem to know how to do is threaten and bully, regardless of how empty their threats are.
As I understand it, RBL is a subscription service. That is, the sites that use the RBL have chosen to participate, and are voluntarily not receiving email from anyone on the list. So, if you can't send mail to me, it's because I've chosen not to listen to you. All the ISP's that I've seen that use the RBL announce this fact, so businesses that use them should be aware of this.
Secondly, email is not a legally binding (or allowable) method of conducting business. You can't send invoices only by email, and then claim in court that you gave proper notice (at least in the US). Email has no guaranty of delievery, and the courts have not reconized it as a reliable method for transmitting legal/business documents. So NSI's invoice threat is moot. If they aren't sending invoices to Amazon via methods other than email, then terminate Amazon.com for some reason that was indicated in the email, well, guess who's liable for interference of interstate commerce? NSI!
Dolts.
I don't like the RBL. I think it's a poor (both technical and political) method of attempting to control SPAM. However, I dislike NSI even more. And if the Commerce Department is now stating that the whois database is it's property (which it is), then I can't wait for them to stick it to NSI for illegal use of government property for private commercial gain.
NSI sucks hard. They just need to die. Or at least fire all their top management.
-Erik
Somehow, I always identified with Alai more than any other character in Ender's Game. I just sat down and read the 4 new chapters, and the new book looks good (I'll probably uy it), but I wish it was about Alai instead.
The interesting thing I saw about Alai is a character that you simply don't see in fiction anywhere: a fully-functional kid who is nonetheless brilliant, yet is content to give the spotlight to someone else. If anything, I think Alai is more of the "mother" figure for Ender than even his sister.
I never really wanted to be Ender. He was too fucked up. Alai on the other hand, was brilliant, and both much more personable and functional as a human being.
While I'm sure the story about Bean is going to be good (based on the sample), I can't help wonder but if the story will end up much too similar to the original in tone and viewpoint. I think Card missed an opportunity to write about the topic from a completely different perspective, rather than one that was only incrementally different.
-Erik
PS - I find that Ender's Game and The Hobbit both suffer the same fate - the original book was so outstanding that it appealed (and was accessible) to both children and adults. The follow-on trilogies, while excellent in their own right, were much more complex pieces, and I think alot of kids got turned off to them because they weren't so accessible, and never returned to read them as an adult, much to their loss...
DNS is an essential service for everyone on the internet. I don't think it's a good idea in any sense to have a single commercial organization at the controls, as NSI has been for the last upteen years.
Instead, what needs to happen is this (and I realize that it's partway there, but not fully):
I realized that some people will think that this centralizes a lot of power in a gov't-sanctioned organization, but I think it's really the only sane way to keep everything in line. If it's done properly, and the controlling board of ICANN is both fiscally and politically insulated, then I think it would be far and away the best thing for us.
And I thought M$ was bad. Sheesh, I've been around for over 10 years now, and NSI has gone from a nice, little company to a royally assinine monopoly that just needs to be taken apart, brick by brick. I'd LOVE to see Congress strip NSI of its Registry status, sue them for trademark infringement, and fine the living hell out of them for illegal appropriation of gov't property (the whois database).
-Erik
First off, I live in the Valley. Mountain View, to be precise. I used to live in Boston. I've gone from spliting a $1500 1400 sq ft flat to a $1200 600sq ft 1-br. Not alot of fun.
The problem here is a simple one: No space for new housing, and an influx of people. A secondary issue is the massive amount of wealth that has been suddenly created by the Internet IPOs over the last 2 years. It's a simple Adam Smith problem of supply vs. demand (and ability to pay).
As other people have mentioned, there is a heavy commitment to retaining the larger open spaces here for recreation and preservation. And I can't say I'm really sorry about that (it's actually nice to go biking along the San Andreas :-). The result, though, is that the only real places to build, given the geography, are East (Walnut Creek and such) and North (Marin County).
Now we run into the Curse of Silicon Valley: the world's shittiest public transporation system. There are like 6 million people in the Bay Area. Yet, for all practical purposes, you can't ride any public transporation to work. The system is really a conglomeration of about 15 independently run trains, buses, and light rail, none of which are coordinated with eachother, or connect in any sane manner. So you have to drive to work. And there are huge choke points to getting places, which can't really be fixed (like the GG and Bay Bridges). So, living in Marin County and working in Cupertino isn't an option (can we say a 3-4 hour commute?)
Moving from Boston was a harsh blow on this regards. You could actually live 50 miles from work and only have to drive to the local train stop (maybe 1-2 miles) to get into downtown. Hell, the bus/subway system was so good that you could practically get from any point inside of I-95 to any other point inside with only a couple of blocks walking, total.
Don't I wish this was the case here in the Valley.
Until the Bay Area gets it's head out of it's ass and manages to coherently plan and build a regional transit system, the housing prices will get worse. 'Course, the system should make the Big Dig ($10+ Billion) look like chicken feed when it comes to cost. But it's the only way. Too bad it won't happen before I leave.
I'm buying a house this winter. Expect to pay about $.5m for it, and get a lower-middle-class house I'll do work on. Figure to sell it about 2005 and move somewhere else where the housing prices are sane. 'Course, I might just make $100k or more, since prices are climbing about 10% or more per year.
What's the old saying? Takes Money To Make Money?
-Erik
..there are alot of problems. Here are some that I can think of:
Perhaps the biggest flaw I can see (particularly in the author/music industry) is that no one has any idea of what something is worth. Also, the protocol heavily discriminates against first-time authors, since it depends on reputation as a methods for setting expectations of return. What if I don't want to write 6 books, but have 1 awesome novel?
Overall, it's an interesting idea, but one that has far too many practical flaws for us to ever see it in reality.
-Erik
You asked three seperate questions, so I think I'll answer them in order:
First off, the 127MB limit was for the older 2.0 series of kernels. The new 2.2 series (and dists based on them) has a much higher limit (I can't remember exactly what is it, but it's ALOT bigger (maybe like 1GB or more)). So, you can make a single swap partition of 256MB or so. If you are using a 2.0-based dist, you should make multiple partitions, each no bigger than 127MB.
IIRC, linux is like the newer Solaris 2, IRIX, and HPUX systems in that swap space is added to physical RAM to come up with the Total Virtual Memory allotable on the system. Under older BSD4.2-based systems (I don't know about current Free/Net/OpenBSD stuff), swap space equal to physical RAM was used to "shadow" the physical memory (and improve swap performance), and thus your Total Virtual Memory was equal to the amount of swap space you had.
For Linux 2.2, the rule of 2x physical memory is perhaps a bit overkill. I prefer the Solaris guidelines: you should have at least 128MB of total swap+physical for a typical end-user system, with 256MB for a developer/power user, and 512MB for someone using high-end graphics (the X-server gets big) or doing serious work. The point here is: swap space is slow. You should have enough swap space to hold applications that you aren't currently using, but huge amounts aren't useful (unless you have an application that likes to map large amounts of Virtual Memory, but doesn't actually use it). For most of us, I think no more than 256MB of swap is best.
Swap being slow, putting your swap drive on the fastest possible disk is a good way to enhance performance. In your case, the performance characteristics of the drive are more important than the interface. Thus, a new drive (6.5ms / 10,000RPM) with a FastSCSI interface is preferable to using an older drive (perhaps 9ms/7200RPM) with WideSCSI. Striping swap is also a good idea, though you should use drives of similar speed.
Also, note that linux can swap to a file, as well as to a raw partition. However, swapping to a partition is faster, and preferable.
-Erik
I've seen PG movies which had enough gore in them to make Scream look mild (though it was "animated" or "fantasy" violence), and on the other hand, the original Pyscho is rated R despite being free of anything I could deem offensive (though it is certainly scary).
Point is, you can't depend on the MPAA for anything other than a massively sweeping generalization, which I can get from looking at a 30-second preview. It serves no useful purpose. How am I supposed to be able to tell if my 14-year old cousin should see the latest super-action PG-13 flick? Certainly not though the MPAA.
I'd rather there NOT be any rating; that way, parents would actually have to pay attention to what reviewers and writeups of the movie said, and be able to make some sort of an informed opinion. Trusting the MPAA to do your judging for you is being a bad parent.
Of course, this doesn't preclude anyone sending spam, it just transfers a good deal of the cost back to the people it should be on: the spammer.
I fully expect that the Internet will become pay-as-you-go in the relatively near future (say 5 years at the outside). The only major impediment is the infrastructure to support micro-payments and billing isn't in place yet, though there is no technical reason it couldn't be.
And, realistically, why not? The people who use the Internet the most (whether it be bandwidth, email, http, or whatever) should be paying the most. I have no problem with getting a free DSL Line, and then having to pay $10/Gb transfered and $0.02/email. A good chunk of the problem we're in now has to do with the "once you're on, it's all free" and "all-you-can-eat" mentality.
You can't outlaw Spam without seriously infringing upon other liberties (as it's impossible to exactly define what Spam is). Transferring the costs back to the spammer will allow for legitimate direct-email marketing, and elimiate all those spammers getting a free ride now.
As you and I know, the MPAA ratings are totally capricious, and are heavily influenced by the Big Studios. ("Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" is an X (it was released as "unrated"), while "Silence of the Lambs" is an R?) Any coherent person would look at the MPAA and say "OK, and the raters are on what drugs?"
The problem with the MPAA is that their ratings get turned into laws. What most people don't know is that most communities have zoning laws against various theaters showing "unrated" or X/NC-17 movies. And now, with the push to legalize (ie codify) the "under-17 not admited without an adult" of the R, they're actively engaging in censorship.
I think the MPAA should just go away. Period. I'd love it if there was some way for a PICS-like system to work for movies, but I doubt this will happen. Perhaps something like a 4-number rating system that others have suggested (a Sex/Language/Violent/Adult Content thing). In the end, though, I hate zoning laws, and I absolutely refuse to accept any codification of a ratings system.
Thing is, this is so much more pervasive and allows no discretion on a community basis. At least with indecent/obscenity laws, there is the "community standards" basis. With the MPAA and the coming trend, some bunch of people that you don't know, can't talk to, and have no idea what you're interested may be dictating your viewing simply by applying a label to some movie.
This is simply about as un-American as it gets.
So HiTech catches up with other professions. Alot of the nasty problems people seem to be encountering in hitech are the same for other "glamorous" and attractive professions: lawyering, doctors, investment bankers. Many professions these days are long hours, incredible stress, and low status. The upside of course is the pay.
Unfortunately, people outside the profession in question seldom take the time to consider all the angles before choosing to go into it, and then, WHOA! Big surprise! It's not all gravy! Part of the problem with hi-tech is that it's not old enough to have gotten the slow messsage out (as have lawyers and doctors and other high wage/high stress jobs) that there are downsides to things.
I still don't see this as necessarily bad. I'm 28, been in the business since 22, and plan to bail out before I'm 40. I suspect alot of folks are in the same situation - they'll put up with the downside to make the cash while they're young, then move on to another field which caters to their more "personal" needs later in life. Hell, my earning potential for the 15 or so years I'll be in IT should average out to be at least $100k/year - if I save correctly (or pehaps pay for the big ticket items (can we say house?)) while I'm doing IT, well, then, I can move into a $40k/year jobs that I enjoy (and has much less stress) afterwards and not have to worry about financing.
It's a possible change in the "work-lifecycle" - it used to be:
Perhaps now, we get:
I for one are more than willing to put up with 15 years of doing a job I like, but that is severely stressful. I figure that about 40 I should have all the cash I want, my kids will be 5-7 or so, and I can be a park ranger (or whatever) and not worry about finances, and still have time for my kids. Fine By Me. You just need to have all the facts going into the equation.
IT - it's not for wimps. :-)
-Erik
(Oh, I'm a SysAdmin/MIS type)
While I do think your argument has technical merit, it overlooks a major problem with crypto stuff - installed base.
Upgrading hardware and software to use larger key sizes is decidedly non-trivial. Most (if not all) hardware has a fixed key size it expects (or at the most, a choice of a couple of key sizes). Thus, the protocols that use crypto specify key lengths.
Good examples are SSL and PGP. SSL supports 512, 768, and 1024 bit key sizes now. PGP supports 512, 768, 1024, and 2048 bit keylengths. While it is not terribly hard to change the software itself to use larger keysizes, changing a published Spec often takes several years.
Given the forsight, we could keep ahead of crypto advances. For instance, specifying NOW that PGP6 should support 4096-bit keys would be good. Unfortunately, software people tend to be very short-sighted, and don't look at the long-term ramifications - they only tend to fix stuff that's broken NOW, not that might break in 5 years.
Such is life.
-Erik
OK, I sat down and re-read the major sections of both Schiener and Knuth (to refresh my math memory), and then something that the Silverman's analysis jumped out at me:
Current (and expected future) uses of Number Sieve factorization (currently, the General Number Sieve is most efficient) are composed of two parts: the sieving of factors, and then solving a matrix of all the possible factoring equations.
For most of the time, the first operation has dominated in time; however, this first process is also the most ameniable to increases in speed.
As Silverman pointed out, the RSA-140 (465-bit) challenge required 4 weeks of 200 machines to solve, then about 4 days for a single super-fast box to solve the resulting matrix. Using Shamir's new methodology, we can expect a 512-bit number to be done in 5 weeks on 20 machines, with another 4 weeks to do the matrix.
The bottleneck has now become the matrix solution, which is a non-parallizable problem (for now). All that can be done on it currently is to use Moore's Law, which doesn't significantly affect the security of larger keys.
If anything, Shamir's invention will now push the focus of attacking RSA from dicovering the factoring equations (the "sieve" part) to improving the matrix solution problem.
The real danger here is from the NSA and other organizations that may have discovered a way to significantly parallelize the matrix solution. If they can do that, well, RSA is going to be screwed. However, there is no current indication that they can do this. But don't say I warned you.
For those paranoid, here are some relevant numbers on the now-dominant times to solve the matrix for relevant key-bit sizes (all assumptions are using 1999 hardware; divide all times by 10 for each 5 years that have passed to account for Moore's Law).
Remember, these numbers are NOT reducible by throwing more hardware at the problem - this is a (currently) serial operation, and must be done by a single machine. I don't see us being able to produce a single-CPU box a million times faster than state-of-the-art within the next two decades (Moore's Law predicts one about 2030 or so). By then, the memory requirements will be mundane. (if we can do 10GB now trivially, 10TB in 30 years shouldn't be any problem. In fact, we should be able to easily do 10TB about 2015 or so.)
In the end, 1024-bit keys should be immune to advances in sieving technology for at least 20 years. The worry is advances in matrix solutions, and development of methodologies better than Number Sieves. But, by the very nature of things, this is unpredictable.
Best Guess (and I'm not Bruce Scheiner): 1024 -bit should be immune to everything until at least 2015, after which 2048-bit should last to mid-century or so.
Happy Hacking!
-Erik
Perhaps you are thinking of certain symetric cyphers like DES or IDEA. Both have fixed key lengths. However, many other algorithms don't suffer from such a limitation. A good example is Blowfish, which (IIRC) has a key length from 64 to 448 bits, variable.
Check out Applied Cryptography for examples of other variable-length cyphers.
Whether increasing keylength is a good idea or not, though... 128-bit keys are secure against any brute force search for a very long time ( even at 1 billion billion billion try/sec (ie 2^27)) it takes ~8e22 YEARS to break. Increasing a key further than this is silly. Symetric algorithms are invulnerable to advances in factoring and related math; they are vulnerable only to weaknesses in their underlying design.
-Erik
First off, does anyone expect him to say it's a threat? Since when has any CEO of any company stood up and said, well, yes, company B over there is hammering our ass, OR "there are signs in the industry that we're rapidly becoming obsolete?" Of course not. Things like this aren't ever said. By anyone.
The interesting thing is what Bill decided to point out as the possible competition by Linux and Free Software. No matter what the outcome of the GNOME/KDE projects, Linux/*BSD aren't going to break the Windows chokehold on the PC desktop. There are several reasons why, but I'll only list them (email me if you want to talk more about this): (close enough to) seemless integration, universal hardware support, and installed base/intertia.
The more important thing here is that Free Software poses a threat to MS in areas that Bill didn't mention, and are very serious ones at that. The continued high quality and increasing availability (from a corporate standpoint) of total end-to-end solutions for the *BSDs and Linux at the server level is a serious concern to MS. At the server level, most of Windows' desktop advantages either are irrelevant or - worse - a detriment. The requirements for a server-level OS are considerably different than a desktop OS, and Windows is in serious jeporady here. This is a very lucrative market for MS, and serious marketshare loss here will really hurt their bottom line.
Secondly, the other place that Free Software is a threat to MS is the thin client/embedded market. See a previous thread for info on how thin clients and the embedded market will (in the relatively near future) seriously hurt the desktop/home PC market. Linux and Free Software have massive advantages in the embedded/thin client market. Microsoft is extremely vulnerable here.
The instances Bill sites (word processing/spreadsheets) are throwaway examples. They're obviously wrong, and are intended to reinforce the idea that Windows is King(tm).
Oh well.
-Erik
OK - my bias: I'm a SysAdmin. Most of my friends are developers.
My overall experience is that I (and most of the good sysadmins I know) have a far larger repetoir of computer knowledge than the developers I know. The distinction here is breadth vs. depth. Sysadmins tend to be a huge repository for bits of knowledge (most admins I know are excellent at Trival Pursuit), since you never know when that little tidbit is going to be needed. Developers are by their nature more focused and tend to ignore info that isn't really germaine to their job. It's the old generalist vs. specialist argument.
I'm not saying that I'm better than the developers, or that my knowledge is somehow more valuable. It's important to do my job. Theirs is important to do theirs. We couldn't switch positions and do anywhere as well in our new places.
And yes, I can tell a good developers from a great one, and have no problem identifying a poor one (he's the one standing in front of my cube all day).
-Erik
"Source Code" is an extremely difficult thing to pin down. Which of these should be considered code?
OK, here's what they are:
It makes no rational sense to argue for freedom of speech of any of the above categories, and not all of the above. The problem with Source Code is that it is completely unlike any other form of communication. For those of you familiar with Snow Crash, Source Code is a Namshrub - that is, it not only describes what to do, but also does it. As such, it is completely different than instructions to make a bomb, or a recipe to make a cake.
Free Speech as invisioned by the Constitution was for a single purpose: to insure that political debate was unhindered. Over the last two centuries, the US has widened what is considered "political" speech. That's why art, cartoons, plays, flag burning, etc. are now grouped in with the original writing/speaking.
Source Code, however, has no political asperations. It's sole purpose is to enable a computer to perform some task. Wait! I can hear people cry. Bomb-making (or cake-making) instructions have no political intentions either (that is of course debatable, but let's assume it's true for this argument). They are nontheless covered, since it is impossible to readily distinuish (in legal concept, that is) between them and forms of expression that are most definately covered (instructions for staging a rally, a HOW-TO guide for voting, etc.).
Thus, in my eyes, Source Code does not count as Free Speech. From a political perspective, there is absolutely no damage to the political viability of the system if Source Code is not Free Speech. Period.
This does NOT mean I agree with the current methods of regulating Code with the existing Trademark, patent, and copyright laws. Source Code is so unlike any other form of expression that it deserves a completely NEW set of regulations that are tailored to it's uniqueness. The same applies to the Internet. The current attempts to apply the TV/radio model of regulation to the Internet mirror the problems of applying current IP laws to Source Code. Both are taking a completely unsuitable set of standards and attempting to force-fit them. A square peg in a round hole if I may.
The same applies to attempts to label Source Code as Free Speech. It isn't. It's something completely new, and should be treated as such.
-Erik
I'm a sysadmin. In the end, people like me get stuck with cleaning up the mess whenever any over-hormoned cracker decides to crack/write virii/pingbomb/etc. a machine/network. I can certainly sympathize with alot of the people calling for lynching this guy. Though I don't think that's the right answer.
And, while I can certainly appreciate the skills that go into writing virii, that doesn't mean we should in any way encourage this sort of "skill". That includes the sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink> comments I've seen here. Yeah, Charles Manson was one of the most skillfull and persuasive leaders of the 70s, but I don't want anymore of that type around, either.
Microsoft (and others) deserve to get nailed with a "defective product" suit one of these days for shipping shoddy products. That day will come (sooner, I hope, than later). But encouraging vandals (and let's not kid ourselves, that's what crackers and virus-writers are) isn't the solution.
An analogy, if I may:
In my neighboorhood, 9 of the ten houses are built by XYZ, and come with 10 door locks (of which 5 are broken, and the other 5 are very hard to turn). 1 house (built by ABC) has 3 locks, all easily set. One day, a burgler walks down my street, wiggling the door to each house. If he can open the door, he walks in, re-arranges the furniture, and smashes a few things. If he can't open the door, he goes to the next one. So, guess what! 3 houses get sacked, and they were all made by XYZ. Now, do I complain to the police that XYZ should be held responsible for smashing my furniture? No! I help catch the burgler, send him to jail, and then file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau about the shoddy work that XYZ does (maybe even a civil suit).
Virii-writers are pond scum. If you are smart enough to find a bug/exploit in a program, TELL CERT! That's what they're there for. Sure, the responsible company might not fix it fast. But that doesn't make it right to go smashing other people's property. If the software company isn't responsive to security demands, well, vote with your feet (and dollars). Don't buy from them.
-Erik
Please...
For everyone who hasn't been around too terribly long, April Fools is the only holiday that the whole 'net celebrates. It's been that way since before I was on in 89, and probably forever. I think putting up with a (bit too much this year) humor once per year isn't hard to ask. I think your sensitivity meter is set a little low today.
Sure, there's no hard news on the main page today. Ever stop to think that nothing newsworthy happened today? Gasp!
Tradition on the 'net seems to get trampled all too easily these days. I'd appreciate it if more people showed some respect for the customs and such that got us here. Even if they must slowly change.
Oh, and as an old-timer, I'm not happy with the UF/BD/SF joke. This is un-funny. AFJs are traditionally restricted to April 1, and do NOT completely mimic a very possibly real event. If the whole thing had been done today, well, I'd give them a pat on the back, a short note to pick a different subject next year, and leave it at that. However, I'm quite pissed, and not in the least laughing. Bad people! Bad!
-Erik
If for nothing else, read it to learn how to gracefully express your ideas.
Neal is a Writer. His essay (and almost all of his published works) is an example of how you should strive to express yourself. Look at how he transitions from one point to the next, without any jarring skips, or requiring huge leaps of comprehension. His analogies are well-thought out, and explained in sufficient (but not excruciating) detail where they might be unclear. The wording isn't dense or filled with jargon or buzzwords, and yet conveys clear meaning and the sense of understanding.
All in all, an excellent work. I realize that everyone can't reach this level, and for alot of the short posts here, it's not necessary to put that amount of effort into it.
But, and this is really important, if you want to make yourself understood, put the same effort into your writing as you do your code.
I will always value a good techinical writer above a good coder - I can find good coders all over the place, but someone who can both understand code (usually someone else's) and can clearly and logically document it in a manner that others find usefull, is a gift.
I strive to reach Neal's level of writing. While I'm not there yet, hopefully I'm better than I used to be.
-Erik
Oh, and for all of those /.-ers still in H.S.: Pay Attention In English Class. For those in college: Take a good Expository Writing class. Both are as valuable to your future as any C.S. class; in fact, I would value them as MORE important than any single C.S. class.
...it's quite easy for the "reverse" rape to occur. Read the post above about the nature of rape (ie, it's about Power and Control, NOT sex).
You also assume that the man can always leave. Not so. While the average US male is larger and stronger than the average US female, there are huge chunks of society where this is not true. Hell, I'm a strong, 6' guy, and I used to date a 5" 4' girl who could kick my ass if she wanted to.
As you note, rape doesn't have to include intercourse. Would I consider it rape if someone forced me to go down on them? You bet. It's even quite possible to keep a man erect without "normal" sexual stimulation. As your local dominatrix about that. I wouldn't know. Also, ever considered that the woman might be using other "aids" in the rape (ie, something long and round...)
Rape is about the worst thing you can do to another person. Unfortunately, in this country (the US), it's a crime that is mixed with sex, which we don't deal well with as a society. The result is a total mess, from all sides. If we're lucky, maybe we can get to the point where people who force sex on others get their just rewards, and those who cry "rape" as a cover for their other problems get ostricized as they deserve for crying wolf over such a serious charge.
-Erik
Hey!
I resemble that remark!
:-P
-Erik
Is that they are under a government contract, and are trying to claim that they own the work from that contract, not the government. I'd love to see the actual contract between the USgov and NSI.
It's also much more than just ethics. There's now alot of civil law involved now.
With the story on the Federal Courts considering domain names property, the "redirection" of internic.net to NSI is (ahem) interesting. The gov't is effectively having its domain "stolen" by NSI. I can see this as a perfect excuse for the gov't to terminate their contract, demand the contents of the WHOIS and registry databases, and walking away from NSI.
Here's to hoping they do exactly that.
-Erik