So what you're saying is that because a few hooligans turned up to start a riot and have some fun, none of the other protesters were there for any legitimate reason?
I hadn't heard of people comming pre-dressed for battle before (but then I don't pay much attentiont to the protests). I'm open to the possibility that there might be a group of protesters who actually think that violence will promote their cause rather than contaminate it, but anyone who isn't the police and actually turns up to a protest in ballistic protective gear, a gas mask, and a balaclava, strikes me as being there (paid even) specifically to discredit the entire protest movement as 'just a bunch of hooligans'.
here's the mike - you tell your story in your words." They wouldn't.
And neither would I, the problems with gobalisation are complex and we live in a sound bite generation. The reporter will choose the most sensational sentence - or even fraction of a sentence and air that (normally completely out of context). You know this is true. If you have no editorial control, you cannot tell your story in your own words.
I hear protesters have cottened onto how poor a job the media do and have started bring their own video cameras to protests. Good on them.
However, as much as I like the angle this parody site is presenting the WTO views from, I do have to agree with you that the WTO probably has a legitimate complaint here.
Re:Turing-completeness (slightly OT)
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 2
It's not so hard, imagine you wanted to write a BASIC compiler in BASIC, but no BASIC compiler existed (BASIC compilers do exist, but pretend for now they don't):
A) Obtain an existing BASIC interpretter, or whip one up with lex/yacc - the BASIC interpreter does not need to be written with BASIC (as I said, lex/yacc will do fine), nor does it have to be able to compile BASIC, it just has to be able to run it.
B) Write your BASIC compiler in BASIC
C) Run your BASIC compiler with your interpretter and feed it it's own source code.
Voilla - you now have a standalone BASIC compiler written 100% in BASIC, which is a good thing to do - not only is it more likely that if you were writing a BASIC compiler, BASIC would be your language of choice and hense the language you'd want to be writing the compiler in, but it will also help you identify shortfalls in your implementation of the language, and bugs in your compiler (taste your own medicine so to speak).
Now that you see how it's done you'll probably realise that there's not really any difference between a compiled language and an interpretted one - they are both "real languages" and both turing complete.
(Pragmatically however, since interpretters are a bit more flexible, languages that take advantage of this (for instance, providing an eval() function, or being excessively dynamic) can end up being restricted to interpretters (or interpretter/compiler hybrids) because it's too damn hard to try and fit them into the machines native architecture)
However, surely it would be naive to think that the terrorists' mindset is: "Ok, we showed them, now lets leave them alone unless they retaliate."
Well that's a strawman if ever I saw one.
Nobody advocating peace or a war restricted to the terrorists believes that, what they believe is that the terrorists are a tiny minority right now and if you attack them in any way that causes collateral damage, the terrorists may become a supported majority.
If many more americans die on US soil, then it would have happened regardless
Many more Americans will die on US soil, however right now you have the chance to decide what order of magnitude that 'many more' will take.
for hatred does not fade.
Hatred does fade, over generations. Do you hate the Japanese? If the US decided to stop/not fuck over the middle east for two or three generations you'd find very little hate over there.
Remember that electricity takes the path of least resistance
Where did this come from? Everybody keeps saying this.
Electricity takes all paths and the ones with lower resistance get proportionally more of the electricty flowing through them. If electricity only ever took the path of least resistance then parallel circuits wouldn't work.
Was this phrase intended to mean that taking multiple paths of differing resistance in amounts inversely proportional to that resistance is The Path Of Least Resistance (And that electricity will find that and take it)?
Was this phrase intended to mean exactly what it said, but just not imply that it is the only path taken?
Either way, whoever thought the phrase up probably wants a refreasher course in communication;).
The vast majority of so-called e-mail virii are VB virii, that exploit weaknesses in Outlooks security to hide inside attachements and run without the users knowledge.
This seems to be the general opensource response to what I posted (and posts like mine). But how many VB viruses have you actually recieved? VBscript viruses just don't spread, Outlook warns you that you are about to run something potentially very damaging and asks whether you're sure you want to continue (very scarey stuff for not-very-computer-literate people) before running the script, and virus checkers can spot them all a mile off without even needing a footprint. I don't think I've ever been sent a vbs based virus but I've been sent a lot of exe's and screen savers. Sircam for example is executable code.
While scripting in an email client is just plain dumb, it isn't what makes outlook good for viruses [anymore].
You have to detach the attachement, then set it's permissions to executable, then execute it. Only a total fool would do that.
Then total fools make up 90% of email users and we just have to live with that, because that's the exact equivalent of what they do in Windows. If you're claiming that the solution is to make it really irritating to do something as useful and legitimate as using stuff your friends send you, then I suggest you look for better solutions;)
(and don't read that as me condoning the user interface Outlook uses for that task)
Yes we will see more of them, but at least we try to build systems that will fight them, not welcome them with open arms.
This is true. I feel Microsoft's response to Outlook viruses has been superficial at best, and they do deserve some blame.
Because they not MS's fault despite what the open source community would have you believe. I used to believe the same thing, but think about it:
Viruses must be targetted at the most prevalent software - a virus written for mutt isn't going to spread anywhere as it will be mailed to 9 Outlooks, 2 NS messengers, and a pine.
Security priviledges don't make you any more secure for these. So the attachment you ran isn't running root, so what - it still has access to your address list file, it can still send email, and it can still delete the files you actually care about (as opposed to the ones that come with the distro).
Unix poeple are normally computer savvy so are a less likely target for social manipulation, but if the answer was to switch to linux then all the people who have to work with computers but don't care for them or know much about them (non IT businesses) would be using linux. If these people got an email from a coworker asking them to run the attachment, they would.
Social manipulation asside. There have been the odd viruses taking advantage of MS security flaws - ones where you don't even have to open the attachment to get infected, granted. Any software written in C running on windows or linux is vulernable to things like this - NS Messenger for instance (runs on many platforms) had a buffer overrun bug meaning you could run arbitrary code on someones machine just by sending them a message. pine and mutt etc might have many but since they aren't popular it doesn't matter.
Sure, Microsoft haven't doen nearly as much to prevent this stuff as they should have, but I think that if every man and his dog was running your 'safe' email client on your 'safe' OS, you would find it wasn't very safe at all.
Rather than everyone switch from outlook, the solution is probably for everyone to be a little less inbred with which email clients they use.
Delphi is already a popular and easy to use language, but is not free for Windows
Delphi 5 for Windows is free (as in beer), well... as free as the cost of the June 2001 NZ PC World magazine (a full version is on the cover disk) - about US$3 free. Borland doesn't seem to mention Delphi 5 on their site tho.
Delphi 5/Object Pascal rocks (this is one seriously converted C coder), but it doesn't have CLX.
If Borland were to release a Delphi Open Edition, it could be a strong argument to switch from the VCL to CLX - and then later on... if you're using CLX, why not use Kylix too.
This is an awsome move by Borland, Kylix was prohibitively expensive and I just couldn't see it taking off on a Free OS, but now I agree, it's win-win.
I still say it's nuts to allow the system to be broken, and then blindly repair it every time. That's papering over the problem, not fixing it.
I dunno, maybe it's windows developers who cause the DLL problems?
It is precisely windows developers who cause the DLL problems.
With Win2k Microsoft has finally done what they should have a long time ago and told developers in no uncertain terms that installing your own DLL's in the system directory is not OK.
Because people will still be installing old crap software...
<rant>I say crap, because you have always been able to write apps in Windows that don't overwrite the system (as an added bonus those apps will run over a network as their non-standard DLLs are located with their exe), and it's been obvious for a long long time that this is a much cleaner approach</rant>
...and there will always be dumbass developers doing dumbass things in their application installation, Microsoft's "papering over the problem" both tells developers their apps will no longer run if they insist on playing silly buggers with the OS, and makes the system immune to the old crap software. Damn fine solution IMHO. (They should have done it in '98).
I think it's the hanging comparisons that should be considered illegal.
"cleans better than most other brands"
What other brands? Tell me - now you have to be able to back up your statements to said other brands.
Not only that but hopefully the ads would become mudslinging affairs that would help regulate the corporations "Court finds Bob's Shoe Company justified in advertising that Nike uses sweatshops". "Kettle Fries are fried in vegitable oil, unlike [******] Chips which are fried in animal fat".
The less marketting the better, so make marketting work against big business, and for the consumer.
Compatible in this context means does the GPL satisfy the University's minimum license terms (As opposed to the usual context of 'GPL compatible' which is the other way around and something along the lines of can something that was released under this license be GPL'ed)
I can't see any reason why the GPL isn't compatible in this context - can the University use an original GPL'ed work in its internally administered programs of teaching, research, and public service on a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis? Yes.
Releasing the code to the University, then releasing it seperately under the GPL is nice, but you might want the copy the university uses to be distributable beyond the university and under the GPL.
Well, OK, you might not need more than 30 depending on what you are doing, but you can certainly see far higher than 30. You're probably being confused by motion blur. You should also ask yourself whether the concept of 'frames per second' is really applicable to how the human eye works.
hello, this is reality calling. I like pink floyd. Who should I make the check out to? Roger? David? Or maybe I should send it to the funny farm, care of ol' pink.
The company does not know you are boycotting their product.
The company does not why you are boycotting their product.
The public is not aware that you are boycotting a product and so cannot decide to boycott for the same reason. Likewise, you are only aware of a fraction of the products you might want to boycott if you knew the gory details.
You (and the public) are often not aware of an good alternative product (good means a product that satisfies your requirements and hopefully competes directly in the market with the boycotted product)
All of these can be addressed by a website, you type in a product name, company name or barcode etc and are presented with a list of people boycotting the product, why, and an alternate product.
Mainstream appeal can be gained because the boycotts don't have to be ethically or politically motivated - "Don't buy blarg model TV because their power switches break", "blarg potatoe chips are fried in animal fat not vegitable oil" etc.
I would make the site, but don't want to be dragged through courts by some company who doesn't want the world knowing their product sucks. The owner of www.boycott.org may have something similar in mind, but he has not gotten around to anything for a while.
As for cars, in some cities you do need them, luckily not this one. I do not have a car, though I could buy one tommorrow if I needed one (On the odd ocassion I do need one, I taxi). However I often feel like I want a car... why? Because your fucked up culture is continually bombarding me with the idea that a car is a status symbol and only losers don't have one.
Yes, I found that living without TV is remarkably easy, however that's because the internet is my TV now - instead of blobing infront of the TV I blob on the internet, I've replaced my cigarettes with food:).
My only complaint is that I'm no longer force-fed current affairs - something that does appear to be of social significance.
The only thing that seems to regularly put me outside the norm is when someone walks up to me and asks "Hey did you see that funny new TV commercial?"
We had a TV commerical here that everyone was talking about, we had the moral minority full-tilt writing letters to editors about it, everyone else saying how great it was, references to it poping up in the local culture etc. Took me about 3 months to finally see it.
Which is one reason I have yet to invest my money in the sharemarket. I have to admit that discovering that a friend owned lots of shares in one of the evil corporations (say monsanto) would affect the way I percieved them.
However it is not just the fault of the shareholders, but also the law. I hear stories of floating a new sharemarket, one where the legal responsibility of the company is not just the profit, but environmental and community concerns as well.
I would consider investing in such a market (even if the dividends are slightly lower).
Also, by "regular people" I presume you're talking about the tiny minority of the people on this planet who consume the vast majority of the resources and create the vast majority of waste and pollution.
I have used functional languages in university, but the chances of that making you see the beauty of them has been likened to seeing the beauty in shakespear when you are forced to read it in high school.
I think I'm missing something, here's what I see as different:
Often iteration is implemented using recursion.
Syntax is often minimalistic.
Tend to be interpretted, so have the advantaged of being interpretted (altering source at run-time etc)
Different philosophy regardling variables, sometimes completely untyped, sometime no variables at all.
Tell me what I don't see? Or are seeing incorrectly, or do you really 'have to be there'. Take it to email if you like.
Unless the datastream keeps speeding up, that requirement of storage space is a constant, and not increasing at all. Also, as Kevin said, with quantum computers around the corner TimeTakenToDecryptStartKey may become insignificant.
I assume (and agree with you that I can't tell from the NYT article - so would appreciate your feedback) that what Rabin has proved is that it is not possible to decrypt every message encoded in this system, as opposed to proving it impossible to decrypt any message encoded in the system.
Having said this, I think a method like this getting lots of public exposure is excellent, as (regardless of practical security) I've been waiting for cryptogrphy to shift to a time based sytem where after t time, a message and all its copies will expire permenently. This is something he appears to have proved, and with the publicity, this thing might just happen.
They are advocating IE and NS. They are also advocating that people use versions of these browsers that aren't broken - something that would vastly improve the quality of the web if it were to happen. It would vastly improve the quality of one of my jobs too.
Once we have statistics indicating that, say, less than 10% of the browsing population are using incompatible browsers we can stop all this multi-coding nonsense, ignore them, and get on with coding proper pages. They'll figure it out eventually.
I'm sure you would like W3C to be advocating plaintext so you could pick at them, but I'm afriad they're not, and neither is the wsp.
Netscape 6 complies with five important Web standards, including full support for XML and the DOM. These technologies can help Web builders create powerful sites that work well. The browser is available free of charge.
from the Web Standards Project launches browser upgrade campaign page:
To greater or lesser degrees, Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 6, and Opera 5 now support HTML 4, CSS-1, ECMAScript, and the DOM. Yet we continue to write incompatible Netscape-4-specific and IE-4-specific...
I don't see any blasting here, or are you refering to that article months ago that was blasting NS6 for being so late?
That's exactly what this is about - there are no browsers that support "HTML4,css1/2 javascript and java" except the ones W3C is advocating that we force people to upgrade to.
W3C is not doing this to promote flash, shockwave, realvideo or wmf. W3C is trying to provide us with HTML that isn't broken.
The phrase "tech-smart but world dumb" is sometimes used to describe even brilliant programmers and computing executives. It captures Gates perfectly. In fact, he embodies it.
I would have put Gates in the "world-smart but tech-dumb" category.
He acted much like a middleman with DOS and from that deal managed to leveraged his way to controlling the OS market. He was a business genius (if somewhat immoral, but that's hardly uncommon in business) but not exactly an innovator.
I hear he wrote a basic interpreter once? Anyone know of anything else he wrote or built? What about designed? I imagine he always got his way with the Windows design but does anybody know if he contributed anything useful to GUI OS design?
I suppose he was tech smart in the sense that he could recognise something good when he saw it - like the Macintosh.
Basically, I imagine there are many people here who can match Gates' personal technical achievments, but I doubt there are as many who are capable of building an empire out of it.
(VisualBASIC is the closest thing to innovation I can think of from Microsoft, and I don't know if it was the the first, or merely the first well known GUI/RAD language)
For those of the population who labour under the impression that my knowledge of where on the internet to locate a study somehow affects it's margin of error, you can find many links on Minnesota study of twins reared apart. I doubt this is the study I was refering to, which tended to focus on the cases with large environment difference - one being raised jewish and the other nazi for instance, but the Minnesota study of twins reared apart is probably more balanced.
And there you hit the nail on the head. Children are as much a product of their upbringing as their genetic makeup (IANAParent, but I have looked after other people's children).
Not according to a study of identical twins split at birth, infact nurture has surprising little to do with it. Apparently someone growing up in a nurturing environment eventually turns out pretty much the same as someone genitically identical who was raised in an abusive one.
Sorry, I don't have a relevent link and I don't know the margin of error.
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't heard of people comming pre-dressed for battle before (but then I don't pay much attentiont to the protests). I'm open to the possibility that there might be a group of protesters who actually think that violence will promote their cause rather than contaminate it, but anyone who isn't the police and actually turns up to a protest in ballistic protective gear, a gas mask, and a balaclava, strikes me as being there (paid even) specifically to discredit the entire protest movement as 'just a bunch of hooligans'.
And neither would I, the problems with gobalisation are complex and we live in a sound bite generation. The reporter will choose the most sensational sentence - or even fraction of a sentence and air that (normally completely out of context). You know this is true. If you have no editorial control, you cannot tell your story in your own words.
I hear protesters have cottened onto how poor a job the media do and have started bring their own video cameras to protests. Good on them.
However, as much as I like the angle this parody site is presenting the WTO views from, I do have to agree with you that the WTO probably has a legitimate complaint here.
It's not so hard, imagine you wanted to write a BASIC compiler in BASIC, but no BASIC compiler existed (BASIC compilers do exist, but pretend for now they don't):
A) Obtain an existing BASIC interpretter, or whip one up with lex/yacc - the BASIC interpreter does not need to be written with BASIC (as I said, lex/yacc will do fine), nor does it have to be able to compile BASIC, it just has to be able to run it.
B) Write your BASIC compiler in BASIC
C) Run your BASIC compiler with your interpretter and feed it it's own source code.
Voilla - you now have a standalone BASIC compiler written 100% in BASIC, which is a good thing to do - not only is it more likely that if you were writing a BASIC compiler, BASIC would be your language of choice and hense the language you'd want to be writing the compiler in, but it will also help you identify shortfalls in your implementation of the language, and bugs in your compiler (taste your own medicine so to speak).
Now that you see how it's done you'll probably realise that there's not really any difference between a compiled language and an interpretted one - they are both "real languages" and both turing complete.
(Pragmatically however, since interpretters are a bit more flexible, languages that take advantage of this (for instance, providing an eval() function, or being excessively dynamic) can end up being restricted to interpretters (or interpretter/compiler hybrids) because it's too damn hard to try and fit them into the machines native architecture)
Yes, but that doesn't contradict rcw-home's point.
If you just copied a list of names and phone numbers from a phone book then you didn't create an independant work - you just copied someone elses.
Well that's a strawman if ever I saw one.
Nobody advocating peace or a war restricted to the terrorists believes that, what they believe is that the terrorists are a tiny minority right now and if you attack them in any way that causes collateral damage, the terrorists may become a supported majority.
Many more Americans will die on US soil, however right now you have the chance to decide what order of magnitude that 'many more' will take.
Hatred does fade, over generations. Do you hate the Japanese? If the US decided to stop/not fuck over the middle east for two or three generations you'd find very little hate over there.
Electricity takes all paths and the ones with lower resistance get proportionally more of the electricty flowing through them. If electricity only ever took the path of least resistance then parallel circuits wouldn't work.
Was this phrase intended to mean that taking multiple paths of differing resistance in amounts inversely proportional to that resistance is The Path Of Least Resistance (And that electricity will find that and take it)?
Was this phrase intended to mean exactly what it said, but just not imply that it is the only path taken?
Either way, whoever thought the phrase up probably wants a refreasher course in communication
While scripting in an email client is just plain dumb, it isn't what makes outlook good for viruses [anymore]. Then total fools make up 90% of email users and we just have to live with that, because that's the exact equivalent of what they do in Windows. If you're claiming that the solution is to make it really irritating to do something as useful and legitimate as using stuff your friends send you, then I suggest you look for better solutions
(and don't read that as me condoning the user interface Outlook uses for that task) This is true. I feel Microsoft's response to Outlook viruses has been superficial at best, and they do deserve some blame.
- Viruses must be targetted at the most prevalent software - a virus written for mutt isn't going to spread anywhere as it will be mailed to 9 Outlooks, 2 NS messengers, and a pine.
- Security priviledges don't make you any more secure for these. So the attachment you ran isn't running root, so what - it still has access to your address list file, it can still send email, and it can still delete the files you actually care about (as opposed to the ones that come with the distro).
- Unix poeple are normally computer savvy so are a less likely target for social manipulation, but if the answer was to switch to linux then all the people who have to work with computers but don't care for them or know much about them (non IT businesses) would be using linux. If these people got an email from a coworker asking them to run the attachment, they would.
- Social manipulation asside. There have been the odd viruses taking advantage of MS security flaws - ones where you don't even have to open the attachment to get infected, granted. Any software written in C running on windows or linux is vulernable to things like this - NS Messenger for instance (runs on many platforms) had a buffer overrun bug meaning you could run arbitrary code on someones machine just by sending them a message. pine and mutt etc might have many but since they aren't popular it doesn't matter.
Sure, Microsoft haven't doen nearly as much to prevent this stuff as they should have, but I think that if every man and his dog was running your 'safe' email client on your 'safe' OS, you would find it wasn't very safe at all.Rather than everyone switch from outlook, the solution is probably for everyone to be a little less inbred with which email clients they use.
Delphi 5/Object Pascal rocks (this is one seriously converted C coder), but it doesn't have CLX.
If Borland were to release a Delphi Open Edition, it could be a strong argument to switch from the VCL to CLX - and then later on... if you're using CLX, why not use Kylix too.
This is an awsome move by Borland, Kylix was prohibitively expensive and I just couldn't see it taking off on a Free OS, but now I agree, it's win-win.
With Win2k Microsoft has finally done what they should have a long time ago and told developers in no uncertain terms that installing your own DLL's in the system directory is not OK.
Because people will still be installing old crap software...
<rant>I say crap, because you have always been able to write apps in Windows that don't overwrite the system (as an added bonus those apps will run over a network as their non-standard DLLs are located with their exe), and it's been obvious for a long long time that this is a much cleaner approach</rant>
I think it's the hanging comparisons that should be considered illegal.
"cleans better than most other brands"
What other brands? Tell me - now you have to be able to back up your statements to said other brands.
Not only that but hopefully the ads would become mudslinging affairs that would help regulate the corporations "Court finds Bob's Shoe Company justified in advertising that Nike uses sweatshops". "Kettle Fries are fried in vegitable oil, unlike [******] Chips which are fried in animal fat".
The less marketting the better, so make marketting work against big business, and for the consumer.
Compatible does not mean the same as.
Compatible in this context means does the GPL satisfy the University's minimum license terms (As opposed to the usual context of 'GPL compatible' which is the other way around and something along the lines of can something that was released under this license be GPL'ed)
I can't see any reason why the GPL isn't compatible in this context - can the University use an original GPL'ed work in its internally administered programs of teaching, research, and public service on a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis? Yes.
Releasing the code to the University, then releasing it seperately under the GPL is nice, but you might want the copy the university uses to be distributable beyond the university and under the GPL.
Well, OK, you might not need more than 30 depending on what you are doing, but you can certainly see far higher than 30. You're probably being confused by motion blur. You should also ask yourself whether the concept of 'frames per second' is really applicable to how the human eye works.
Boycotts will fail for the following reasons
- The company does not know you are boycotting their product.
- The company does not why you are boycotting their product.
- The public is not aware that you are boycotting a product and so cannot decide to boycott for the same reason. Likewise, you are only aware of a fraction of the products you might want to boycott if you knew the gory details.
- You (and the public) are often not aware of an good alternative product (good means a product that satisfies your requirements and hopefully competes directly in the market with the boycotted product)
All of these can be addressed by a website, you type in a product name, company name or barcode etc and are presented with a list of people boycotting the product, why, and an alternate product.Mainstream appeal can be gained because the boycotts don't have to be ethically or politically motivated - "Don't buy blarg model TV because their power switches break", "blarg potatoe chips are fried in animal fat not vegitable oil" etc.
I would make the site, but don't want to be dragged through courts by some company who doesn't want the world knowing their product sucks. The owner of www.boycott.org may have something similar in mind, but he has not gotten around to anything for a while.
As for cars, in some cities you do need them, luckily not this one. I do not have a car, though I could buy one tommorrow if I needed one (On the odd ocassion I do need one, I taxi). However I often feel like I want a car... why? Because your fucked up culture is continually bombarding me with the idea that a car is a status symbol and only losers don't have one.
My only complaint is that I'm no longer force-fed current affairs - something that does appear to be of social significance. We had a TV commerical here that everyone was talking about, we had the moral minority full-tilt writing letters to editors about it, everyone else saying how great it was, references to it poping up in the local culture etc. Took me about 3 months to finally see it.
Which is one reason I have yet to invest my money in the sharemarket. I have to admit that discovering that a friend owned lots of shares in one of the evil corporations (say monsanto) would affect the way I percieved them.
However it is not just the fault of the shareholders, but also the law. I hear stories of floating a new sharemarket, one where the legal responsibility of the company is not just the profit, but environmental and community concerns as well.
I would consider investing in such a market (even if the dividends are slightly lower).
Also, by "regular people" I presume you're talking about the tiny minority of the people on this planet who consume the vast majority of the resources and create the vast majority of waste and pollution.
(yep, that'd be me)
So what is the difference?
I am not enlightened.
I have used functional languages in university, but the chances of that making you see the beauty of them has been likened to seeing the beauty in shakespear when you are forced to read it in high school.
I think I'm missing something, here's what I see as different:
- Often iteration is implemented using recursion.
- Syntax is often minimalistic.
- Tend to be interpretted, so have the advantaged of being interpretted (altering source at run-time etc)
- Different philosophy regardling variables, sometimes completely untyped, sometime no variables at all.
Tell me what I don't see? Or are seeing incorrectly, or do you really 'have to be there'. Take it to email if you like.Surely the only storage requirement to break the scheme is:
BandwidthOfDataStream * (TimeTakenToDecryptStartKey + BreathingSpaceForHumans)
Unless the datastream keeps speeding up, that requirement of storage space is a constant, and not increasing at all. Also, as Kevin said, with quantum computers around the corner TimeTakenToDecryptStartKey may become insignificant.
I assume (and agree with you that I can't tell from the NYT article - so would appreciate your feedback) that what Rabin has proved is that it is not possible to decrypt every message encoded in this system, as opposed to proving it impossible to decrypt any message encoded in the system.
Having said this, I think a method like this getting lots of public exposure is excellent, as (regardless of practical security) I've been waiting for cryptogrphy to shift to a time based sytem where after t time, a message and all its copies will expire permenently. This is something he appears to have proved, and with the publicity, this thing might just happen.
I already have a clone.
He is my twin (I was born first).
He appears to be coping.
umm, did you read anything?
They are advocating IE and NS. They are also advocating that people use versions of these browsers that aren't broken - something that would vastly improve the quality of the web if it were to happen. It would vastly improve the quality of one of my jobs too.
Once we have statistics indicating that, say, less than 10% of the browsing population are using incompatible browsers we can stop all this multi-coding nonsense, ignore them, and get on with coding proper pages. They'll figure it out eventually.
I'm sure you would like W3C to be advocating plaintext so you could pick at them, but I'm afriad they're not, and neither is the wsp.
That's exactly what this is about - there are no browsers that support "HTML4,css1/2 javascript and java" except the ones W3C is advocating that we force people to upgrade to.
W3C is not doing this to promote flash, shockwave, realvideo or wmf. W3C is trying to provide us with HTML that isn't broken.
For those of the population who labour under the impression that my knowledge of where on the internet to locate a study somehow affects it's margin of error, you can find many links on Minnesota study of twins reared apart. I doubt this is the study I was refering to, which tended to focus on the cases with large environment difference - one being raised jewish and the other nazi for instance, but the Minnesota study of twins reared apart is probably more balanced.
Sorry, I don't have a relevent link and I don't know the margin of error.