No offence, but the whole article is based on utterly subjective opinions on both systems. No figures, benchmarks or whatever that might even give a clue that what is said is true.
Maybe i didnt got the point of the article, but it doesn't give any information that would make me consider using XP rather than Vista or Vista rather than XP. If it presented results of some kind of benchmark running on XP and Vista over a year and half, that would be totally different. But even in this case, Vista has changed so much till the beta (at least i hope so), that it would still be meaningless to compare it with windows XP.
More seriously, what's the point of getting the internet working on an interplanetary scale when we are heading to a bandwidth dead end on that good old earth internet ?
The problem with popular public key algorithms is that they are based on the assumption that the opponent doesn't have enough computationnal power in order to break it in a reasonnable amount of time, or he doesn't know a polynomial determinist algorithm to do so.
The big advantage of using quantum key distribution is that it will (ideally) ensure that the cryptographic key you get has not been sniffed, and that you can securely exchange a key which is long enough in order to use a one time pad (which is an unconditionnaly secure way of encrypting a message).
Quantum encryption is quite a misleading expression since the quantum mechanics is only used to securely transmit a cryptographic key... not encrypting the message.
Actually, you can't talk about network neutrality with cellphone networks since they were not designed in such a goal. I don't think that the internet would be what it is today (almost neutral) if it was first designed, developped, used as a commercial base by two or three companies.
Ok, skype tries to get something for nothing, but if it initiates a change in the way gsm (and above) networks are used... why not ? To my mind, these networks are not used to their full potential...
Wasn't it shown enough that ensuring total privacy and security is nearly impossible on the internet ?
I mean all current ways of "protecting" and "identifying" individuals are based on techniques which are supposed to be secure because current hardware would take too much time to break them (... needless to say that it's the case provided that the implementation is flawless...).
Moreover, if i don't care people know who i vote for now, maybe it won't be the case in a few years... some guy who recorded my vote may just brute force it with his brand new [insert favourite vendor] station.
Slashdot Mirror
... save the bandwith used for spam.
No offence, but the whole article is based on utterly subjective opinions on both systems. No figures, benchmarks or whatever that might even give a clue that what is said is true.
Maybe i didnt got the point of the article, but it doesn't give any information that would make me consider using XP rather than Vista or Vista rather than XP. If it presented results of some kind of benchmark running on XP and Vista over a year and half, that would be totally different. But even in this case, Vista has changed so much till the beta (at least i hope so), that it would still be meaningless to compare it with windows XP.
In fact, it's already patented chimp, so you'd better drop that ... /stabbed
Tough days for chairs ...
The problem with p2p is that you still share content while downloading, they would still be able to trace you.
Martian v1agra for free !
More seriously, what's the point of getting the internet working on an interplanetary scale when we are heading to a bandwidth dead end on that good old earth internet ?
The problem with popular public key algorithms is that they are based on the assumption that the opponent doesn't have enough computationnal power in order to break it in a reasonnable amount of time, or he doesn't know a polynomial determinist algorithm to do so.
The big advantage of using quantum key distribution is that it will (ideally) ensure that the cryptographic key you get has not been sniffed, and that you can securely exchange a key which is long enough in order to use a one time pad (which is an unconditionnaly secure way of encrypting a message).
Quantum encryption is quite a misleading expression since the quantum mechanics is only used to securely transmit a cryptographic key ... not encrypting the message.
Actually, you can't talk about network neutrality with cellphone networks since they were not designed in such a goal. I don't think that the internet would be what it is today (almost neutral) if it was first designed, developped, used as a commercial base by two or three companies.
Ok, skype tries to get something for nothing, but if it initiates a change in the way gsm (and above) networks are used ... why not ? To my mind, these networks are not used to their full potential ...
Sensationalism strikes back ... and it hurts.
Anyway, it proves that at least one geek in the entire world (universe ?) had sex that night.
I mean all current ways of "protecting" and "identifying" individuals are based on techniques which are supposed to be secure because current hardware would take too much time to break them (... needless to say that it's the case provided that the implementation is flawless ...).
Moreover, if i don't care people know who i vote for now, maybe it won't be the case in a few years ... some guy who recorded my vote may just brute force it with his brand new [insert favourite vendor] station.
Hell yeah ... we ought to stop implementing that BSoD thing.