Make it w/ 64 MB for history's sake, and have a 128 MB version.
Hey, we're talking about a machine that had a special addressing mode just for accessing the first 256 bytes of memory! Do you remember the freakish nightmare that was "DPMI" back in the DOS days? Imagine the horror of trying to map a 64 megabyte space into a single 64 kilobyte window. And then getting applications to support it.
Now I can imagine a machine with 64 megabytes running 1024 virtual C64's simultaneously, and that would be pretty cool:-)
The VIN isn't just an ID, though, it encodes all sorts of relevant information. Each car manufacturer follows the same basic scheme, but the details of how the data are encoded varies between car makers.
For example, the VIN can encode the make, model, year, original color, original interior type, factory accessories, the manufacturing line it came off of, etc. It is true that this information could be compressed to some degree, but one of the key features of the VIN is that it is human readable (at least by people who are experienced with it), and doing "clever" things to compress the data into fewer digits will break that.
For example, consider what would happen if we applied your advice to the Y2K problem and tried to find a clever encoding to make "better use" of the available digits.
It was common to encode a date using 6 digits: 2 for the day, 2 for the month, and 2 for the year. Suppose we continue to use 6 digits, but instead of encoding the date as MM-DD-YY, simply write the number of days it has been since January 1, 1970. Using this encoding, it is possible to represent dates for (approximately) the next 2700 years, without making the date field wider than 6 digits.
It should be obvious, though, that such an encoding would be extremely frustrating since it doesn't map to our normal concept of months and days. Quick, what month does day number 516672 fall in? This is exactly why the right choice for Y2K was to simply expand the fields to use the entire year. And the same argument applies to VINs.
for number 2 they just do the test, at a target... If it fails, it is still a dirty bomb, if it suceeds, well then they blew up a city...
A uranium bomb will not be "dirty" if it fails. Uranium is not very radioactive at all. If the detonator explodes but the uranium does not start fissioning, all that will happen is that a bunch of chunks of uranium will get dispersed as shrapnel.
It is the fission products which are "dirty" (very strongly radioactive) and a "dirty bomb" made of these fission products could never be used as a fission bomb. In other words, a dirty bomb and an actual fission device are very different things, and it isn't really possible to build something which is both at the same time.
Change 60 Hz to a few kilohertz, and you've described the phone system. Yet, DSL works.
It's nothing like the phone system. The phone system is much lower current (and radiation is therefore proportionally less). It uses twisted pair, which cancels the magnetic field of the signal in the wire, reducing radiation even further. And it is commonly buried underground, where the moist soil acts like conductive shielding, instead of being strung high in the air on poles.
And the signal isn't even analog the entire way -- do you think the telephone companies still send analog signals all over the place? Once the signal is in the digital domain, it can be sent over fiber optics, which do not interfere with anything.
Yes, DSL works. Because it's absolutely nothing like BPL, which is a harebrained monstrosity.
Why turn something into a big protected park when there is essentially nothing there?
Because it's the only example of completely desolate continent we have on this planet.
Why not declare, say, the congo to be a big protected park, and shift mining operations to antarctica, if you really care about the environment?
Because it costs more than ten times as much to run equipment in such an environment, not to mention the wages that would be demanded by the laborers. How much would you be willing to work for in Antarctica? I doubt it would be a minimum wage.
Even waste spills are less damaging, as you have hundreds of thousands of years to clean them up before they pollute the world's water supply
All the more reason to avoid doing it. Pollutants would be trapped by the currents encircling the continent, and build up at a rapid pace. Sure, they wouldn't mingle much with the rest of the ocean, but you'd be turning the Antarctic coastline into a toxic sludge dump. As you yourself mentioned, the coastline is a breeding ground for extremely diverse marine life. The last thing you want is a buildup of pollutants in that zone.
In mountaineering, it is very common to place "protection" (anchors in the rock) even when it isn't obvious whether they will hold or not.
Suppose you've got a really good placement (what a climber would call a "bomber" anchor) and you're sure it will hold. Do you place another, potentially less secure anchor in parallel, given the opportunity? Of course you do. You never pass up the chance to add a layer of protection. Even if you don't think it will be needed, and especially even if you don't think it will hold you. A terrible anchor is better than no anchor. And a good anchor plus a terrible anchor is better than a good anchor.
Adding more layers of protection is never the wrong decision. Regardless of the academic whinging of some researcher in a basement somewhere.
will a general purpose CPU be able to do the AES at 54Mbit/sec??
Having actually implemented the AES algorithm, I would guess it is possible if the code were carefully optimized. It would peg the CPU completely, though. And what are we talking about when you say "general purpose CPU?" A Pentium 4? Or a 200 MHz MIPS chip?
AES isn't a very complicated cipher (from an implementation standpoint).
Re:Now we can start waiting for a total break of A
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's not a US algorithm; the original name was Rijndael
Although it is correct that it was not invented by Americans, the term "Rijndael" is not a foreign word. It is simply a contraction of the names of the two inventors: Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen.
How do the nodes generate and exchange a shared session key? Or do you have to enter an AES key manually before you even hook up?
You would not have to ask this question if you had even a basic understanding of cryptography.
The Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol is well known and very secure.
Alternatively, it could be done how SSL does it: use a public-key method to exchange the symmetric-key cipher keys. You didn't actually think SSL sent all the data through a public-key cryptosystem, did you?
Public-key systems are very rarely used to encrypt large amounts of data. They are too computationally expensive. Rather, they are typically used in order to exchange a symmetric key, and the actual data channel is encrypted using a symmetric cipher.
When I took stats, a larger sample size would reduce the error percentage.
The error percentage is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you can reject or accept the null hypothesis, as determined by a chi-squared significance test.
Anyone else find it earie that the \ is an "escape" character, and he came up with the Esc key as well?;)
No, it isn't eerie at all, because what he came up with was the concept of an escape character, not the ESC key. Once again, Slashdot gets the story wrong.
We won't list the sites that are reported to be infected in order to prevent further abuse
Oh, fuck you and your "abuse prevention." The web sites that were compromised got what was coming to them. I have utterly no interest in protecting those sites at the moment. I am entirely interested in being able to tell my mother which sites she should probably not browse to. Yet they won't tell us what these sites are because somebody else might "further abuse" them? Who gives a fuck what happens to those sites at this point? They've definitely lost my trust, and nobody else should ever trust them either.
Forget making crude copies of authorized fingerprints... It's even easier than that.
A friend of mine in the office has some sort of skin condition which causes his hands to produce very acidic sweat. It's acidic enough to buff the leather on his steering wheel and gear shifter. His fingers will erase the letters off the keys on some keyboards (I assume some keyboards use better quality ink that is more resistant). Coffee mugs with cheap paint on them suffer the same fate on the handles.
This person can open any fingerprint-protected laptop in the office (we bought a bunch of these from some company who was beta-testing them, they are now out of production) and make it boot. He just smears his fingertip onto the sensor and wiggles it a little bit, and the machine accepts it as an authorized print.
These fingerprint detectors are of the capacitance-coupling variety. I don't know if the same trick works with the other fingerprint sensor technologies.
I think you're over-stereotyping Americans. In the Midwest, sure, "tea" is almost invariably iced, but on the West Coast if you ask for "tea" you will get the hot stuff.
You put a meaningless jumble of words together. "Architect" in this context was anything but meaningless. If you can't figure out what was meant, that indicates a lack of brain power on your part, nothing more.
How do you think those usages get placed in dictionaries? They don't fall from the sky. The noun "input" got verbed. And the use of "verb" as a verb will also eventually be accepted in the dictionary.
Acceptance in the dictionary, and acceptance as usage in language are two distinct things, however.
Given the obvious advantages of huge muscles, what are the downsides that apparently more than negate it?
His heart is affected just as much as any other muscle in his body. He is probably going to be in for a host of heart related health problems throughout his life.
Modern medicine might be able to make him comfortable or at least keep him alive, but if this had happened a few hundred years ago he'd probably be doomed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, we're talking about a machine that had a special addressing mode just for accessing the first 256 bytes of memory! Do you remember the freakish nightmare that was "DPMI" back in the DOS days? Imagine the horror of trying to map a 64 megabyte space into a single 64 kilobyte window. And then getting applications to support it.
Now I can imagine a machine with 64 megabytes running 1024 virtual C64's simultaneously, and that would be pretty cool :-)
For example, the VIN can encode the make, model, year, original color, original interior type, factory accessories, the manufacturing line it came off of, etc. It is true that this information could be compressed to some degree, but one of the key features of the VIN is that it is human readable (at least by people who are experienced with it), and doing "clever" things to compress the data into fewer digits will break that.
For example, consider what would happen if we applied your advice to the Y2K problem and tried to find a clever encoding to make "better use" of the available digits.
It was common to encode a date using 6 digits: 2 for the day, 2 for the month, and 2 for the year. Suppose we continue to use 6 digits, but instead of encoding the date as MM-DD-YY, simply write the number of days it has been since January 1, 1970. Using this encoding, it is possible to represent dates for (approximately) the next 2700 years, without making the date field wider than 6 digits.
It should be obvious, though, that such an encoding would be extremely frustrating since it doesn't map to our normal concept of months and days. Quick, what month does day number 516672 fall in? This is exactly why the right choice for Y2K was to simply expand the fields to use the entire year. And the same argument applies to VINs.
A uranium bomb will not be "dirty" if it fails. Uranium is not very radioactive at all. If the detonator explodes but the uranium does not start fissioning, all that will happen is that a bunch of chunks of uranium will get dispersed as shrapnel.
It is the fission products which are "dirty" (very strongly radioactive) and a "dirty bomb" made of these fission products could never be used as a fission bomb. In other words, a dirty bomb and an actual fission device are very different things, and it isn't really possible to build something which is both at the same time.
It's nothing like the phone system. The phone system is much lower current (and radiation is therefore proportionally less). It uses twisted pair, which cancels the magnetic field of the signal in the wire, reducing radiation even further. And it is commonly buried underground, where the moist soil acts like conductive shielding, instead of being strung high in the air on poles.
And the signal isn't even analog the entire way -- do you think the telephone companies still send analog signals all over the place? Once the signal is in the digital domain, it can be sent over fiber optics, which do not interfere with anything.
Yes, DSL works. Because it's absolutely nothing like BPL, which is a harebrained monstrosity.
Because it's the only example of completely desolate continent we have on this planet.
Why not declare, say, the congo to be a big protected park, and shift mining operations to antarctica, if you really care about the environment?
Because it costs more than ten times as much to run equipment in such an environment, not to mention the wages that would be demanded by the laborers. How much would you be willing to work for in Antarctica? I doubt it would be a minimum wage.
Even waste spills are less damaging, as you have hundreds of thousands of years to clean them up before they pollute the world's water supply
All the more reason to avoid doing it. Pollutants would be trapped by the currents encircling the continent, and build up at a rapid pace. Sure, they wouldn't mingle much with the rest of the ocean, but you'd be turning the Antarctic coastline into a toxic sludge dump. As you yourself mentioned, the coastline is a breeding ground for extremely diverse marine life. The last thing you want is a buildup of pollutants in that zone.
Suppose you've got a really good placement (what a climber would call a "bomber" anchor) and you're sure it will hold. Do you place another, potentially less secure anchor in parallel, given the opportunity? Of course you do. You never pass up the chance to add a layer of protection. Even if you don't think it will be needed, and especially even if you don't think it will hold you. A terrible anchor is better than no anchor. And a good anchor plus a terrible anchor is better than a good anchor.
Adding more layers of protection is never the wrong decision. Regardless of the academic whinging of some researcher in a basement somewhere.
Having actually implemented the AES algorithm, I would guess it is possible if the code were carefully optimized. It would peg the CPU completely, though. And what are we talking about when you say "general purpose CPU?" A Pentium 4? Or a 200 MHz MIPS chip?
AES isn't a very complicated cipher (from an implementation standpoint).
Although it is correct that it was not invented by Americans, the term "Rijndael" is not a foreign word. It is simply a contraction of the names of the two inventors: Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen.
You would not have to ask this question if you had even a basic understanding of cryptography.
The Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol is well known and very secure.
Alternatively, it could be done how SSL does it: use a public-key method to exchange the symmetric-key cipher keys. You didn't actually think SSL sent all the data through a public-key cryptosystem, did you?
Public-key systems are very rarely used to encrypt large amounts of data. They are too computationally expensive. Rather, they are typically used in order to exchange a symmetric key, and the actual data channel is encrypted using a symmetric cipher.
Go pick up any basic cryptography book.
The error percentage is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you can reject or accept the null hypothesis, as determined by a chi-squared significance test.
I think you misspelled "rebel." The asshats will just be replaced by other asshats.
That's a bogus way to conduct a poll. By definition, you are only getting data from people who go to that site.
It's called a "self-selecting sample" and in statistics it's a no-no.
2,500 randomly selected sample points will give very accurate results, and in fact a lot of poll-takers would be envious of such a large sample.
No, it isn't eerie at all, because what he came up with was the concept of an escape character, not the ESC key. Once again, Slashdot gets the story wrong.
If integers are still only 32 bits wide in 2034, I'll die of shame.
Don't you mean 1 1\2 years?
We won't list the sites that are reported to be infected in order to prevent further abuse
Oh, fuck you and your "abuse prevention." The web sites that were compromised got what was coming to them. I have utterly no interest in protecting those sites at the moment. I am entirely interested in being able to tell my mother which sites she should probably not browse to. Yet they won't tell us what these sites are because somebody else might "further abuse" them? Who gives a fuck what happens to those sites at this point? They've definitely lost my trust, and nobody else should ever trust them either.
A friend of mine in the office has some sort of skin condition which causes his hands to produce very acidic sweat. It's acidic enough to buff the leather on his steering wheel and gear shifter. His fingers will erase the letters off the keys on some keyboards (I assume some keyboards use better quality ink that is more resistant). Coffee mugs with cheap paint on them suffer the same fate on the handles.
This person can open any fingerprint-protected laptop in the office (we bought a bunch of these from some company who was beta-testing them, they are now out of production) and make it boot. He just smears his fingertip onto the sensor and wiggles it a little bit, and the machine accepts it as an authorized print.
These fingerprint detectors are of the capacitance-coupling variety. I don't know if the same trick works with the other fingerprint sensor technologies.
I think you're over-stereotyping Americans. In the Midwest, sure, "tea" is almost invariably iced, but on the West Coast if you ask for "tea" you will get the hot stuff.
I don't know about our friends on the East Coast.
True, but neither is ignoring his points simply because he had some attitude.
I do think he handled the stress a little poorly.
No need to bother yourself. This guy has already done it, and has videos of the results.
His page is full of all kinds of very cool, dangerous experiments.
You put a meaningless jumble of words together. "Architect" in this context was anything but meaningless. If you can't figure out what was meant, that indicates a lack of brain power on your part, nothing more.
Long live patents! I mean, er... uh... What am I supposed to do, again?
You measure your email in milligrams?
How do you think those usages get placed in dictionaries? They don't fall from the sky. The noun "input" got verbed. And the use of "verb" as a verb will also eventually be accepted in the dictionary.
Acceptance in the dictionary, and acceptance as usage in language are two distinct things, however.
His heart is affected just as much as any other muscle in his body. He is probably going to be in for a host of heart related health problems throughout his life.
Modern medicine might be able to make him comfortable or at least keep him alive, but if this had happened a few hundred years ago he'd probably be doomed.