Now if that quantum circuit to check if a key is correct, depends on the key? That is the key changes the block cipher used? I don't think it applies since if you can make a classic circuit to decrypt then you should be able to make a quantum one that can check. But it is interesting to consider how the classic counterpart can make it hard to do. ie with lots of rounds.
There are some physics I know (I was one once...) that work on quantum computers. They don't think they will ever be faster at cracking than classic computers.
There are 2 reasons.
First a quantum computer construction complexity goes up to the power of qbits. ie a quantum computer with n qbits has construction complexity of O(2^n), so with Moores law in place the number of qbits goes up linearly with time... This is leaving out the extra qbits you need for error correcting with decoherence that makes adding qbits even harder.
Second a 128 qbit quantum computer cannot efficiently simulate a 129 qbit computer. Thus to factor 1024 bit primes you need at least a 1024 qbit computer. This is in contrast to a classic computer where it can emulate larger internal register computer in polynomial time.
There are other things to consider. They are not so good with classic encryption. ie cracking AES. In fact I don't think there is an algorithm to crack AES or other symmetric encryption methods. Also the algo is probably different for each type of block cipher. However I have not bothered to follow the literature on this.
Quantum computers seem to trade a hard math problem with a hard construction problem.... Oh but note we don't know if factoring is hard (ie not in P). Ironically we also don't know that P!=NP, or if trap door functions exist. We just think they do.
By your reasoning only economist should comment on topics of economy, climatologists on topics of global warming, etc...
This is/. you are allowed to speculate and the reader shouldn't be such an idiot to assume every post is by an expert or a lawyer (IANAL crap).
Even more important experts can and should be questioned. People outside the field can give suggestions and should criticize experts if they cannot justify their point of view. The only times we get a group of people that think they cannot be questioned by outsiders... they are usually wrong.
And what are your credentials? Modding expert? Modding consultant?
By the way I am an astronomer by training... Grandparent has a good point.
Well I find it nice to have a tar.bz2 file in the same order, and all of it. So you need to add "sequence" numbers and some form of ACKs in there. All you are doing is moving this function to the application rather than leaving in the stack.
TCP does this pretty well on 99% of the internet *and* the internet is aware of TCP. Its only very "different" connections that things can make a real difference. AKA the microwave link. Though we have wrapped the link with specific hardware/software layer that lets IP work well over it in our cases.
Also when people "roll" their own "superior" UDP transfer protocol, many don't bother to check why TCP does what it does. Flow control is *needed* with ACKs and resends --well any connection, buffers are not infinitely big. There is the 2 generals problem etc. Its not as strait forward as many think.
There is far less energy in 1 ton of lunar soil that 1 ton of coal.(about 5x less). That does not even include the energy required to extract the 0.01ppm of He3 which will be very substantial and its still, well on the moon. Never mind the fact that fusion with DT is still not working and is several 100x easier to do that He3 fusion.
Indeed, orbital velocity is 7.5km/s, and I would expect it to be below that.This lists the "speed" at 6.7 km/s or 24000km/h perhaps parent got the units wrong?
I couldn't find anything more detailed. This speed is at burnout, often as high as 400km. So re-entry velocity will be a bit higher than the listed speed of 6.7km/s.
I am in the EU. I got legal advice. Basically I was told that while you don't make money you will *probably* be left alone. But if you sell your software for money, we don't want to be your lawyers anymore.
Software patents in the EU is not clear and could be enforceable. Thats why EU issues software patents....
At the very least there are bunch of non transferable clauses. ie you would not be able to bundle FF with h.264 in your favorite distribution, since thats redistribution...
If Theora had half the time the different OS implementations of xvid and h.264 encoders things would be a lot different I think.
Unfortunately this is not the case... And I can see this ending up much like the gif situation.
So thanks for at least giving us a debate about what to support and the option for real free beer and freedom. If there was no theora we would be stuck wounding just how much we could get shafted over this.
Even if Mozilla or co pony up the money. MPEG-LA will not give them a license that allows their uses to redistribute a "licensed" product. The sting is not just that you need a license with MPEG-LA, but that you must sign the contract.... With whatever they want to put in it.
P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne. However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs. In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.
QTF
If there wasn't theora we would not be having this discussion. But rather wondering what happened to solid free browsers....
Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....Are you going to foot the bill?
But wait theres more. In order to get a license you need to sign a contract. Now that contract has things like *all* playback implementations *must* support various DRM etc (aka zones). These strings make firefox or another implementation non free, lack freedom and generally incompatible with most GPL type licenses.
Oh and they are going to charge for content soon too.
I find discussion of quality at these bit rates quite funny. I have decided most people must be blind....
The problem is that the FIREFOX users has to pay the royalties. And soon content providers also have to pay extra fees as well.
For Firefox to have the h.264 "legal" it would cost at least 5Million per year.
But the real rub is the contract that *must* be signed for the license. Not only would it be totally incompatible with open source, free, and freedom. But would require all sorts of extra "controls" to be added to all playback implementations. Like dvd zones and other such rubbish.
Slashdot Mirror
No it won't. They will assume that you faked it to trick them--ie constructed it just prior to them going there....
They way to deal with moon landing conspiracy dudes, is to ignore them.
Now if that quantum circuit to check if a key is correct, depends on the key? That is the key changes the block cipher used? I don't think it applies since if you can make a classic circuit to decrypt then you should be able to make a quantum one that can check. But it is interesting to consider how the classic counterpart can make it hard to do. ie with lots of rounds.
There are some physics I know (I was one once...) that work on quantum computers. They don't think they will ever be faster at cracking than classic computers.
There are 2 reasons.
First a quantum computer construction complexity goes up to the power of qbits. ie a quantum computer with n qbits has construction complexity of O(2^n), so with Moores law in place the number of qbits goes up linearly with time... This is leaving out the extra qbits you need for error correcting with decoherence that makes adding qbits even harder.
Second a 128 qbit quantum computer cannot efficiently simulate a 129 qbit computer. Thus to factor 1024 bit primes you need at least a 1024 qbit computer. This is in contrast to a classic computer where it can emulate larger internal register computer in polynomial time.
There are other things to consider. They are not so good with classic encryption. ie cracking AES. In fact I don't think there is an algorithm to crack AES or other symmetric encryption methods. Also the algo is probably different for each type of block cipher. However I have not bothered to follow the literature on this.
Quantum computers seem to trade a hard math problem with a hard construction problem.... Oh but note we don't know if factoring is hard (ie not in P). Ironically we also don't know that P!=NP, or if trap door functions exist. We just think they do.
its bits, so that should be base 2, not 10. Doesn't change the numbers much however.
By your reasoning only economist should comment on topics of economy, climatologists on topics of global warming, etc...
/. you are allowed to speculate and the reader shouldn't be such an idiot to assume every post is by an expert or a lawyer (IANAL crap).
This is
Even more important experts can and should be questioned. People outside the field can give suggestions and should criticize experts if they cannot justify their point of view. The only times we get a group of people that think they cannot be questioned by outsiders... they are usually wrong.
And what are your credentials? Modding expert? Modding consultant?
By the way I am an astronomer by training... Grandparent has a good point.
IPv6 fixes this issue. If they can use IPv6 on this link, problem solved.
Well I find it nice to have a tar.bz2 file in the same order, and all of it. So you need to add "sequence" numbers and some form of ACKs in there. All you are doing is moving this function to the application rather than leaving in the stack.
TCP does this pretty well on 99% of the internet *and* the internet is aware of TCP. Its only very "different" connections that things can make a real difference. AKA the microwave link. Though we have wrapped the link with specific hardware/software layer that lets IP work well over it in our cases.
Also when people "roll" their own "superior" UDP transfer protocol, many don't bother to check why TCP does what it does. Flow control is *needed* with ACKs and resends --well any connection, buffers are not infinitely big. There is the 2 generals problem etc. Its not as strait forward as many think.
Better quality games will not reduce piracy any more than lowing the drinking age with reduce alcohol consumption.
In the countries I have lived in. Getting your fav console mod chip, cost about 10 bucks at the shop. No soldiering Iron required.
My brother who is in the army plays DF2 precisely because of this. Its pretty accurate really.
Seriously. Why one way or the other. Why not both?
And you burn most of that energy getting the .01ppm He3 out of the rock. Even in this situation mining the moon for He3 makes no sense at all.
If we have He3 fusion we have DD fusion and that would be a far cheaper way to "breed" He3 in every way.
There is far less energy in 1 ton of lunar soil that 1 ton of coal.(about 5x less). That does not even include the energy required to extract the 0.01ppm of He3 which will be very substantial and its still, well on the moon. Never mind the fact that fusion with DT is still not working and is several 100x easier to do that He3 fusion.
He3 is a terrible reason to go to the moon.
I remember reading about that sort of thing in National Geographic in the 80s (micro-plants etc). Deserves the prize? Maybe. 20 years ahead. No.
Indeed, orbital velocity is 7.5km/s, and I would expect it to be below that.This lists the "speed" at 6.7 km/s or 24000km/h perhaps parent got the units wrong?
I couldn't find anything more detailed. This speed is at burnout, often as high as 400km. So re-entry velocity will be a bit higher than the listed speed of 6.7km/s.
I am in the EU. I got legal advice. Basically I was told that while you don't make money you will *probably* be left alone. But if you sell your software for money, we don't want to be your lawyers anymore.
Software patents in the EU is not clear and could be enforceable. Thats why EU issues software patents....
Try getting a license.....
At the very least there are bunch of non transferable clauses. ie you would not be able to bundle FF with h.264 in your favorite distribution, since thats redistribution...
Amateurs can take photos from small telescopes... slightly more professional methods are not inaccessible either.
If Theora had half the time the different OS implementations of xvid and h.264 encoders things would be a lot different I think.
Unfortunately this is not the case... And I can see this ending up much like the gif situation.
So thanks for at least giving us a debate about what to support and the option for real free beer and freedom. If there was no theora we would be stuck wounding just how much we could get shafted over this.
Even if Mozilla or co pony up the money. MPEG-LA will not give them a license that allows their uses to redistribute a "licensed" product. The sting is not just that you need a license with MPEG-LA, but that you must sign the contract.... With whatever they want to put in it.
People have long forgotten the gif debacle my friend (or mp3 for that matter). They need to learn the lesson again...
CPU hell... if you want HD. But then with ~2000kps we are *not* talking about HD now are we*.
Dirac is for high end quality where you burn bits. Here even h.264 is not really better than mpeg2 and not better than xvid.
* I have decided most people must be quite blind to find these kind of things acceptable to watch. Even for free.
P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne. However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs. In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.
QTF
If there wasn't theora we would not be having this discussion. But rather wondering what happened to solid free browsers....
Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....Are you going to foot the bill?
But wait theres more. In order to get a license you need to sign a contract. Now that contract has things like *all* playback implementations *must* support various DRM etc (aka zones). These strings make firefox or another implementation non free, lack freedom and generally incompatible with most GPL type licenses.
Oh and they are going to charge for content soon too.
I find discussion of quality at these bit rates quite funny. I have decided most people must be blind....
The problem is that the FIREFOX users has to pay the royalties. And soon content providers also have to pay extra fees as well.
For Firefox to have the h.264 "legal" it would cost at least 5Million per year.
But the real rub is the contract that *must* be signed for the license. Not only would it be totally incompatible with open source, free, and freedom. But would require all sorts of extra "controls" to be added to all playback implementations. Like dvd zones and other such rubbish.