Yes, necessarily. A circle is a shape, not a physical object. The behavior of the universe on a tiny scale is totally irrelevant to the value of pi. You can't use physics to disprove results in mathematics.
And if you don't explain the Rayleigh effect properly (as you did) you actually don't explain why the sky is blue. In other words, your answer isn't explanatory/informative much because you "explained" the explanandum by introducing another one.
But why does the Rayleigh effect work? How is it that particles of matter can diffuse electromagnetic radiation? Indeed, the modern parent is essentially useless without an accurate version of the Grand Unified Theory, as well as the philosophical and theological foundations to establish, to an acceptable standard of proof, the existence of the universe.
It's imperfect, but I don't see another way, unless you're willing to abrogate moral responsibility to the pronouncements of an imaginary deity, which really means "a bunch of guys who wrote moral pronouncements and then claimed they came from god". I happen to prefer the consensus method to the imaginary deity method.
Slashdot forums: Diverting ethical questions into off-topic anti-religion screeds since 1997.
More to the point, your perspective is limited. There are many, many conceptions of morality and ethics that don't devolve into "because God said so" or "because the majority says so."
I know! And "Area51" is like the only dictionary-like password within the constraints you describe, so I can crack the system in a single guess! And I'm practically guaranteed to get classified information with that kind of password!
A meet-in-the-middle attack still works on 3DES, but it can only strip off one layer of DES. Thus, 3DES has 112 bits of security (56*2).
Quoting from the grandparent:
3DES runs the second round backwards, which enables the "meet in the middle" attacks.
I have no idea whether that "second round backwards" thing is true, but this has nothing to do with why 3DES is vulnerable to meet-in-the-middle attacks. Meet-in-the-middle attacks work on any plaintext that's encrypted multiple times with the same cipher but different keys. If you encrypted with AES-128 twice, that ciphertext would also be vulnerable to a meet-in-the-middle attack. (Though the space cost would be see high that such an attack would be even more impossible than an AES-128 bruteforce already is.)
Exactly. Moreover, it's misleading to call all those activities "unlawful." Just because you do something that gives someone a legal remedy against you, doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes, it's actually a good thing when a party breaches a legal obligation. For example, see efficient breach theory.
Mind you, I don't think breach of copyright is analogous to an efficient breach, because infringement usually means the rights-holder gets no compensation. It's a complicated question.
At any rate, "illegal" doesn't have an inherent meaning. There are only breaches of obligations, and consequences ensuing from those breaches.
That's because knowing the number of characters in a password greatly eases the password guessing.
Not actually true. If you have a password alphabet of size k, then the possibility space in an n-character password is k times greater than the possibility space for an (n-1)-character password, k*k times greater than for an (n-2)-character password, etc. Brute-forcing all the possible passwords of length 1 to (n-1) is a trivial amount of work compared to brute-forcing all the passwords of length n.
-
If you're brute-forcing a password, knowing the length doesn't "greatly ease" your guessing - it spares you some insignificant preliminary work. What it does help you do is spot passwords that are weak enough to brute-force, but an enforced minimum password length will prevent this from happening. Basically, there's a reason that the Unix-style login isn't more widely used.
Education is the cornerstone of democracy and it's fantastic that we are setting our bar "high" (yeah, right) for our most precious resource - our future leaders. However, not everyone can be president.
"Welcome, graduates. You are no longer the future."
But if you want some examples, Michelangello produced some nice forms of art. How? By finding someone wanting to pay him for that. But, hey, maybe you don't think that example to be representative since Michelangello didn't produce music. So be it. J.S. Bach, maybe you heard about him, made a live out of composing and playing music. How was that possible? Well, by finding someone wanting to pay him for that. What would have happened if nobody wanted to pay Bach? He simply would have find another way to earn for a living. If distributing media is a bussiness no more, just find a different bussiness.
That doesn't really work today, though. Two problems:
First, Michelangello and Bach lived in an age where wealth was heavily concentrated in the nobility and the clergy, two groups who were very interested in commissioning artistic works. Nobody has that kind of wealth nowadays; Gates and the Waltons aren't nearly as wealthy, proportionately, as the wealthiest people back then.
Second, that only works for certain types of works. Do you know any billionaires who would commission new video games, comic books, or Hollywood blockbusters?
Intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, yes, but it also creates a viable market for information. The ability to control licensing means that rights-holders can force their audience to pay for the value of their content. This gives content producers a strong incentive to create value for their audience.
As simply as that. Really.
It's possible that a no-copyright commission-based model could work, if audiences/readers/players/etc felt obligated to tip the content producers generously for producing a work. But it's not nearly as simple as you suggest. I'm not totally convinced that it would be better than a copyright system. Certain works would be under-produced - especially high-budget works and works that people might enjoy, but feel ashamed to sponsor. Also, the amount of money going into content-production would almost certainly be less than now - most likely, what people are forced to pay under copyright is often more than what they would pay without compulsion.
The most serious complaint seems to be that "significant content for L4D1 was promised," and L4D2 means that L4D won't get the promised content. Does anybody know where these promises are coming from? I don't remember reading anything about that. If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D didn't, I don't really see the problem. TF2 launched with three or four maps; L4D had 20.
I think it's reasonable to say, also, that the size and vocality of a given anti-fanclub is as good (or perhaps even better) an indicator of the success of a product as that of its fanclub.
How heavily were the original images compressed? Selective Gaussian blur tends to remove compression artifacts, smooth gradients, and keep edges intact. I wonder if Acquine was responding badly to artifacts in your source images.
This doesn't strike me as an issue. I can't imagine how you'd draft a statute that would effectively suppress torrent traffic by content. Users just have to encrypt their torrent traffic, which would render ISPs unable to determine the legality of the traffic over their networks. Granted, they could try banning all torrent traffic, but that's a whole different kind of problem..
The "these do not truly constitute creative expression" bit is just a cop-out for them to save face. They just don't want to come out and say "The only reason is that we're afraid of getting sued by the game companies and we're a bunch of poor pussies who can't afford lawyers. So please stop investing in us now that you know we're too poor to withstand even a small lawsuit."
No, "creative expression" is not a cop-out. Whether or not the new work is a form of "creative expression" changes the underlying copyright issues. Machinima is arguably fair use or fair dealing, depending on what country you're in. For example, machinima often amounts to a parody of the underlying copyrighted work, and parodies are fair use/dealing. A simple gameplay video is far more likely to infringe on copyright.
And what does being able to afford lawyers have to do with anything? There's only so much a lawyer can do to help you if you actually break the law. Defending a suit is pretty expensive, but losing a suit (which is what usually happens if you broke the law) can be extravagantly expensive. Complying with copyright law isn't cowardice; it's non-negotiable.
It follows then that since we had no input on their decision to have children (and rightly so in my opinion) we also have NO responsibility for those children other than to grant them the same basic negative rights [wikipedia.org] that we all enjoy as members of a free society (i.e. the right to an opportunity, the right not to be unduly interfered with, etc).
That's not quite right. A negative right, also known as a "liberty," is a right to be free from interference. That is, they negate the right of others (especially the State), from interfering with your activities in that sphere of liberty. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience are all examples of negative rights.
Economic rights, such as "the right to an opportunity," are usually positive rights. They put a positive obligation on the State, such as affirmative action programs, scholarships, equalization payments across regions of the country, and so forth.
Clearly, children should have negative rights, such as freedom from physical and emotional abuse. Positive rights are more complicated; positive rights cost money, and that money may be more productive in another area, such as healthcare or general law enforcement. However, I think people generally agree that scholarships and bursaries are necessary to ensure that we educate the most talented young people, whatever their socioeconomic background. It's always a balancing act, and it's part of what makes rights debates so much fun.
A key factor here is etiquette and conventions. Where I grew up, people sometimes put old furniture out in front of their house for a few days before carting it off for disposal. It was an open invitation for anyone to take the furniture if it seemed useful. I expect that's a pretty widespread convention. Therefore, it's hard to accuse someone of "stealing" furniture from in front of a house, because the "thief" honestly and reasonably believes that the owner of the furniture was offering it openly.
From what I can tell, modern network etiquette works the same way: open access points are presumed to be free for interested takers. (Of course, excessive bandwidth usage is decidedly impolite.) When I run personal wireless networks, I prefer to keep them open for people to use. Likewise, when I connect to an open access point, I presume that I have their permission. They didn't explicitly give me permission, but that doesn't matter - I'm relying on a generally agreed-upon convention regarding wireless networks.
Of course, letting other people onto your network doesn't mean you can't mess with their heads just a little. I like to call my network "Panopticon."
Before Google, my exposure to computerized searches were from Yahoo and from public library searches, both of which were very poor at returning relevant search results. Before that was the Dewey Decimal system, which is a well designed but ultimately cumbersome paper-based library classification system.
I just don't think that I would have been dumber growing up, just because I got better, quicker, more expansive search results.
This is a common mistake that non-cryptographers make. The above is true only for symmetric algorihtms.
Not quite. Elliptic curve cryptography is a class of public-key schemes which is currently believed to have strong keys. (That is, keys that can only be uncovered by exhaustive brute-force searches.) For communicating over a public channel, many cryptologists favor the Elliptice Curve Diffie Helman key agreement scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, necessarily. A circle is a shape, not a physical object. The behavior of the universe on a tiny scale is totally irrelevant to the value of pi. You can't use physics to disprove results in mathematics.
And if you don't explain the Rayleigh effect properly (as you did) you actually don't explain why the sky is blue. In other words, your answer isn't explanatory/informative much because you "explained" the explanandum by introducing another one.
But why does the Rayleigh effect work? How is it that particles of matter can diffuse electromagnetic radiation? Indeed, the modern parent is essentially useless without an accurate version of the Grand Unified Theory, as well as the philosophical and theological foundations to establish, to an acceptable standard of proof, the existence of the universe.
It's imperfect, but I don't see another way, unless you're willing to abrogate moral responsibility to the pronouncements of an imaginary deity, which really means "a bunch of guys who wrote moral pronouncements and then claimed they came from god". I happen to prefer the consensus method to the imaginary deity method.
Slashdot forums: Diverting ethical questions into off-topic anti-religion screeds since 1997.
More to the point, your perspective is limited. There are many, many conceptions of morality and ethics that don't devolve into "because God said so" or "because the majority says so."
New feature in Ceiling Cat: Incognito mode?
I know! And "Area51" is like the only dictionary-like password within the constraints you describe, so I can crack the system in a single guess! And I'm practically guaranteed to get classified information with that kind of password!
A meet-in-the-middle attack still works on 3DES, but it can only strip off one layer of DES. Thus, 3DES has 112 bits of security (56*2).
Quoting from the grandparent:
3DES runs the second round backwards, which enables the "meet in the middle" attacks.
I have no idea whether that "second round backwards" thing is true, but this has nothing to do with why 3DES is vulnerable to meet-in-the-middle attacks. Meet-in-the-middle attacks work on any plaintext that's encrypted multiple times with the same cipher but different keys. If you encrypted with AES-128 twice, that ciphertext would also be vulnerable to a meet-in-the-middle attack. (Though the space cost would be see high that such an attack would be even more impossible than an AES-128 bruteforce already is.)
Exactly. Moreover, it's misleading to call all those activities "unlawful." Just because you do something that gives someone a legal remedy against you, doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes, it's actually a good thing when a party breaches a legal obligation. For example, see efficient breach theory.
Mind you, I don't think breach of copyright is analogous to an efficient breach, because infringement usually means the rights-holder gets no compensation. It's a complicated question.
At any rate, "illegal" doesn't have an inherent meaning. There are only breaches of obligations, and consequences ensuing from those breaches.
That's because knowing the number of characters in a password greatly eases the password guessing.
Not actually true. If you have a password alphabet of size k, then the possibility space in an n-character password is k times greater than the possibility space for an (n-1)-character password, k*k times greater than for an (n-2)-character password, etc. Brute-forcing all the possible passwords of length 1 to (n-1) is a trivial amount of work compared to brute-forcing all the passwords of length n.
-
If you're brute-forcing a password, knowing the length doesn't "greatly ease" your guessing - it spares you some insignificant preliminary work. What it does help you do is spot passwords that are weak enough to brute-force, but an enforced minimum password length will prevent this from happening. Basically, there's a reason that the Unix-style login isn't more widely used.
Yeah, but don't forget that the Deltas make a difference.
Also, I hear they like to walk all over the Epsilons. But in fairness, the Epsilons are very small.
Education is the cornerstone of democracy and it's fantastic that we are setting our bar "high" (yeah, right) for our most precious resource - our future leaders. However, not everyone can be president.
"Welcome, graduates. You are no longer the future."
(Thanks, Simpsons.)
But if you want some examples, Michelangello produced some nice forms of art. How? By finding someone wanting to pay him for that. But, hey, maybe you don't think that example to be representative since Michelangello didn't produce music. So be it. J.S. Bach, maybe you heard about him, made a live out of composing and playing music. How was that possible? Well, by finding someone wanting to pay him for that. What would have happened if nobody wanted to pay Bach? He simply would have find another way to earn for a living. If distributing media is a bussiness no more, just find a different bussiness.
That doesn't really work today, though. Two problems:
First, Michelangello and Bach lived in an age where wealth was heavily concentrated in the nobility and the clergy, two groups who were very interested in commissioning artistic works. Nobody has that kind of wealth nowadays; Gates and the Waltons aren't nearly as wealthy, proportionately, as the wealthiest people back then.
Second, that only works for certain types of works. Do you know any billionaires who would commission new video games, comic books, or Hollywood blockbusters?
Intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, yes, but it also creates a viable market for information. The ability to control licensing means that rights-holders can force their audience to pay for the value of their content. This gives content producers a strong incentive to create value for their audience.
As simply as that. Really.
It's possible that a no-copyright commission-based model could work, if audiences/readers/players/etc felt obligated to tip the content producers generously for producing a work. But it's not nearly as simple as you suggest. I'm not totally convinced that it would be better than a copyright system. Certain works would be under-produced - especially high-budget works and works that people might enjoy, but feel ashamed to sponsor. Also, the amount of money going into content-production would almost certainly be less than now - most likely, what people are forced to pay under copyright is often more than what they would pay without compulsion.
The most serious complaint seems to be that "significant content for L4D1 was promised," and L4D2 means that L4D won't get the promised content. Does anybody know where these promises are coming from? I don't remember reading anything about that. If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D didn't, I don't really see the problem. TF2 launched with three or four maps; L4D had 20.
For £30 - £35 I expect a game, not a mod.
And L4D2 is a mod because it uses the same engine? By that logic, wasn't Half Life a Quake 2 mod?
I think it's reasonable to say, also, that the size and vocality of a given anti-fanclub is as good (or perhaps even better) an indicator of the success of a product as that of its fanclub.
N-Gage. Virtual Boy. Phantom.
How I mine for mods!?! Help Plz!!
I mean, what hint would you have that you're not just there until she finds someone with a bigger tool or more stamina?
Benchmarks?
How heavily were the original images compressed? Selective Gaussian blur tends to remove compression artifacts, smooth gradients, and keep edges intact. I wonder if Acquine was responding badly to artifacts in your source images.
This doesn't strike me as an issue. I can't imagine how you'd draft a statute that would effectively suppress torrent traffic by content. Users just have to encrypt their torrent traffic, which would render ISPs unable to determine the legality of the traffic over their networks. Granted, they could try banning all torrent traffic, but that's a whole different kind of problem..
No, "creative expression" is not a cop-out. Whether or not the new work is a form of "creative expression" changes the underlying copyright issues. Machinima is arguably fair use or fair dealing, depending on what country you're in. For example, machinima often amounts to a parody of the underlying copyrighted work, and parodies are fair use/dealing. A simple gameplay video is far more likely to infringe on copyright.
And what does being able to afford lawyers have to do with anything? There's only so much a lawyer can do to help you if you actually break the law. Defending a suit is pretty expensive, but losing a suit (which is what usually happens if you broke the law) can be extravagantly expensive. Complying with copyright law isn't cowardice; it's non-negotiable.
That's not quite right. A negative right, also known as a "liberty," is a right to be free from interference. That is, they negate the right of others (especially the State), from interfering with your activities in that sphere of liberty. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience are all examples of negative rights.
Economic rights, such as "the right to an opportunity," are usually positive rights. They put a positive obligation on the State, such as affirmative action programs, scholarships, equalization payments across regions of the country, and so forth.
Clearly, children should have negative rights, such as freedom from physical and emotional abuse. Positive rights are more complicated; positive rights cost money, and that money may be more productive in another area, such as healthcare or general law enforcement. However, I think people generally agree that scholarships and bursaries are necessary to ensure that we educate the most talented young people, whatever their socioeconomic background. It's always a balancing act, and it's part of what makes rights debates so much fun.
They don't need to hear all this. We've assured the administrator that nothing can go wrong.
A key factor here is etiquette and conventions. Where I grew up, people sometimes put old furniture out in front of their house for a few days before carting it off for disposal. It was an open invitation for anyone to take the furniture if it seemed useful. I expect that's a pretty widespread convention. Therefore, it's hard to accuse someone of "stealing" furniture from in front of a house, because the "thief" honestly and reasonably believes that the owner of the furniture was offering it openly.
From what I can tell, modern network etiquette works the same way: open access points are presumed to be free for interested takers. (Of course, excessive bandwidth usage is decidedly impolite.) When I run personal wireless networks, I prefer to keep them open for people to use. Likewise, when I connect to an open access point, I presume that I have their permission. They didn't explicitly give me permission, but that doesn't matter - I'm relying on a generally agreed-upon convention regarding wireless networks.
Of course, letting other people onto your network doesn't mean you can't mess with their heads just a little. I like to call my network "Panopticon."
Before Google, my exposure to computerized searches were from Yahoo and from public library searches, both of which were very poor at returning relevant search results. Before that was the Dewey Decimal system, which is a well designed but ultimately cumbersome paper-based library classification system.
I just don't think that I would have been dumber growing up, just because I got better, quicker, more expansive search results.
Not quite. Elliptic curve cryptography is a class of public-key schemes which is currently believed to have strong keys. (That is, keys that can only be uncovered by exhaustive brute-force searches.) For communicating over a public channel, many cryptologists favor the Elliptice Curve Diffie Helman key agreement scheme.