If you can remember the password, it's not strong enough.
Nonsense.
"AlL yOu NeEd Is LoVe"-J.lEnNoN,1967
Unguessable by any means without going down to brute-forcing combinations of upper- and lower-case letters, numbers and punctuation. I bet you could easily type this in a month's time if you remember the method (Start in upper case, then alternate the case with each new letter).
Certainly, if an attacker knew your method of creating a passphrase, it might reduce the search time, but it's still a humungous search space.
I've found music production on Linux to be a non-starter. Getting drivers for MIDI interfaces and high-quality audio interfaces, then getting them working, is decidedly non-trivial.
Then you've got studio-in-a-box packages like Reason which just won't run under anything other than Windows or OSX. It used to be the case that the Mac was the only trouble-free platform for serious audio production, but the Windows world is very well supported, these days. On both platforms, it's plug-and-play initial setup followed by reliable operation in day-to-day use.
Linux is fine for non-real-time editing (using Audacity, for example), but it really isn't suitable for use in a recording studio environment. Pay the Apple or MS tax and be done with it. A small price to pay for a smooth environment when you're being creative.
So long as people use convenient passphrases for their security then no amount of fancy algorithms will save them.
A passphrase can be both convenient and strong. So long as you use a combination of single letters, symbols and numbers, you can create strong passwords that can only be cracked using brute-force methods. You can use multiple dictionary words and still be unable to use a dictionary attack, so long as you intersperse single random characters. Consider this:
If you use upper- and lower-case letters, the numbers 0-9 and the easily-accessible symbols on your keyboard, you have roughly 80 characters available to you. If you create a random password using 56 of these characters, you end up with 80^56 possible combinations. This is a seriously HUGE number. The password would be cracked on average by only half that seriously HUGE number.
One of the strengths of a strong encryption algorithm like Blowfish is that it takes a long time to set up the encryption machine relative to the time it actually takes to encode the plaintext stream. This means that testing each password involves a lengthy process which multiplies the checking process by a factor of thousands. You're talking roughly 3 * 10^106 / 2 * 1000, which is greater than 1 * 10^109.
Even implementing a counter in hardware which ran through all the binary combinations of the password requires an INSANELY HUGE amount of time and energy:
So maybe the less mainstream-looking girl would appeal to somebody on a site like Slashdot, just because the girls they interact with are less mainstream.
Where "less mainstream" actually means "imaginary".
Seriously, other that whining about Ogg Vorbis and other geeky things in relation to music... in exactly what way is the iPod deficient from a geek point of view? Are you upset there's no Haskell port or Emacs for it? It can't run a SNES emulator? No TCP stack?? Not enough squirting for you?
Read the GGP post. You might be ranting at the wrong guy.
You answered yourself with the second sentence; iPods and iPhones aren't targetted at geeks.
Who do you think the early adopters for iPods were? Geeks were definitely among them.
Of course they were. Even geeks like to listen to music, after all ! Apple weren't (and still aren't) actively targetting the geek dollar, though. That's all I meant.
I got to try NeuroSky's device somewhat recently, and it looked like they were going the Jedi route. They even had you levitate an X-wing.
Now this is the sort of thing that could catch on. It's a bit like seeing an autostereogram the first time.
I could imagine a Golden Compass game where you played the part of Lyra trying to read the Alethiometer, having to get into the right frame of mind before it started working.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are they getting so worked up about making a picture of Muhammad ? Michelangelo went one step further and painted Allah !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
Lo! they cannot escape.
I misread that as "Lol".
4114h00 4kH bR !!!
Celing Cat is watching you masturbate !
Of course, I seldom go to the 20th page of search results.
Page 11 is the one to avoid.
If you can remember the password, it's not strong enough.
Nonsense.
"AlL yOu NeEd Is LoVe"-J.lEnNoN,1967
Unguessable by any means without going down to brute-forcing combinations of upper- and lower-case letters, numbers and punctuation. I bet you could easily type this in a month's time if you remember the method (Start in upper case, then alternate the case with each new letter).
Certainly, if an attacker knew your method of creating a passphrase, it might reduce the search time, but it's still a humungous search space.
high, squeaky voices
Actually, helium doesn't affect pitch. The squeaky effect is due to a formant shift.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1803/why-does-helium-make-your-voice-squeaky
The researchers don't say when a commercial version of their flowers will come to the market. They also don't mention a retail price.
They're available now, from £11.99 upwards.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=dancing+flower&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=689581509&ref=pd_sl_2h5hlp7cun_b
Brawndo has electrolytes. It has what plants crave.
They're called cell phones. And as a bonus they can serve as a microphone.
And a 3D sonic imaging system. At least, Batman made them do that.
Maybe it's just me, but there's something odd about someone smiling so happily holding so many worms... I can't really put my finger on it...
Here in the UK, we call pedos 'kiddie fiddlers'. Perhaps his smile is the 'worm fiddler's' equivalent of 'pedo-smile':
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo
Round here the seagulls pound the grass with their feet to attract worms
If fishermen were doing this illegally, would they be sent to Pound-You-In-The-Grass prison ?
"You are accessing /." + "Only know of using computers for porn" = "You consider /. to be porn"
Scary.
You're forgetting Rule 34, dude.
I've found music production on Linux to be a non-starter. Getting drivers for MIDI interfaces and high-quality audio interfaces, then getting them working, is decidedly non-trivial.
Then you've got studio-in-a-box packages like Reason which just won't run under anything other than Windows or OSX. It used to be the case that the Mac was the only trouble-free platform for serious audio production, but the Windows world is very well supported, these days. On both platforms, it's plug-and-play initial setup followed by reliable operation in day-to-day use.
Linux is fine for non-real-time editing (using Audacity, for example), but it really isn't suitable for use in a recording studio environment. Pay the Apple or MS tax and be done with it. A small price to pay for a smooth environment when you're being creative.
Sex Change Team ?
MS don't know anything about Ethex, so they held this in Thuthex:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ukschools/archive/2008/04/01/east-sussex-harnessing-whole-school-technology-conference.aspx
So long as people use convenient passphrases for their security then no amount of fancy algorithms will save them.
A passphrase can be both convenient and strong. So long as you use a combination of single letters, symbols and numbers, you can create strong passwords that can only be cracked using brute-force methods. You can use multiple dictionary words and still be unable to use a dictionary attack, so long as you intersperse single random characters. Consider this:
Slashdot_is_OvEr9000_of_my_F4v3_websites:*^*EVAH*^*!!1!!
Convenient and memorable, yet as strong as a random string of characters of the same length.
If you use upper- and lower-case letters, the numbers 0-9 and the easily-accessible symbols on your keyboard, you have roughly 80 characters available to you. If you create a random password using 56 of these characters, you end up with 80^56 possible combinations. This is a seriously HUGE number. The password would be cracked on average by only half that seriously HUGE number.
One of the strengths of a strong encryption algorithm like Blowfish is that it takes a long time to set up the encryption machine relative to the time it actually takes to encode the plaintext stream. This means that testing each password involves a lengthy process which multiplies the checking process by a factor of thousands. You're talking roughly 3 * 10^106 / 2 * 1000, which is greater than 1 * 10^109.
Even implementing a counter in hardware which ran through all the binary combinations of the password requires an INSANELY HUGE amount of time and energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_force_attack#Theoretical_limits
If it's any consolation, it's the government of the UK who used the label, not the people of the UK.
Will you fight back against Number 2?
"Who does Number 2 work for ?"
"That's right buddy ! You show that turd who's boss !"
So maybe the less mainstream-looking girl would appeal to somebody on a site like Slashdot, just because the girls they interact with are less mainstream.
Where "less mainstream" actually means "imaginary".
Slashdot. Interact with girls. I LOL'd.
Seriously, other that whining about Ogg Vorbis and other geeky things in relation to music ... in exactly what way is the iPod deficient from a geek point of view? Are you upset there's no Haskell port or Emacs for it? It can't run a SNES emulator? No TCP stack?? Not enough squirting for you?
Read the GGP post. You might be ranting at the wrong guy.
See: Michael Crichton - The Terminal Man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_terminal_man
You answered yourself with the second sentence; iPods and iPhones aren't targetted at geeks.
Who do you think the early adopters for iPods were? Geeks were definitely among them.
Of course they were. Even geeks like to listen to music, after all ! Apple weren't (and still aren't) actively targetting the geek dollar, though. That's all I meant.
It's difficult to see how a geneticist could actually make such an absurd statement.
Maybe he just said it for the lulz.
Humans still breed through sexual reproduction. Human DNA still mutates. Humans are still subject to natural selection.
Human beings are still evolving. The only time evolution stops for a species is when you reproduce purely by cloning a specific sample of DNA.
I got to try NeuroSky's device somewhat recently, and it looked like they were going the Jedi route. They even had you levitate an X-wing.
Now this is the sort of thing that could catch on. It's a bit like seeing an autostereogram the first time.
I could imagine a Golden Compass game where you played the part of Lyra trying to read the Alethiometer, having to get into the right frame of mind before it started working.