Uh, if 1024-bit RSA was broken, the world of encryption security would collapse (at least for the short term). Could it happen? Sure, it's possible. Will it happen in time to save your pr0n collection? Highly unlikely.
For one thing, compromise of RSA encryption would render SSL useless.
Question is, does the encryptor rewrite the data in-place, or just encrypt to a new file then delete the original? If the latter, the data is still recoverable with a simple undelete utility.
I'm not exactly sure how you made the leap from "I don't like broadband subsidies" to "I want poor people to die from disease." You are over-generalizing what I said.
The Internet is growing in importance, but comparing it to basic realities like food and health care is still not warranted.
Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.
I seem to pay a bill each month... If it's being subsidized, I didn't ask for that. Tell me where to vote so that it's not subsidized, and I'll do it. If that makes it too expensive, then it's too expensive.
It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.
I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.
A prominent physicist once suggest that antimatter in not antimatter at all but rather matter traveling in anti-time or backwards in time from are perspective.
If that were true, then there should be a precisely equal number of matter particles as antimatter particles. But this is not what we observe.
I "understand" that a quadrillion is 10^15, but it's not a number on a scale I typically work with. On the other hand, I'm very used to dealing with the quantities "billion" and "million" -- we encounter and interact with such quantities every day when using technology. So I can actually start to imagine what a "million billion" is by comparing it with quantities I have already internalized. "Quadrillion" is more abstract. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is "really damn large number."
I actually appreciate having numbers broken down this way, and will often do it myself when dealing with large quantities.
I was originally going to write "the gravitional field from Earth could perturb the experiment", but its not really the field that's the issue. The Earth's magnetic field formed in the Sun's gravitational field. But the Earth's core is in free fall around the sun, so does not feel any weight. (In the Earth's core, down is toward the center. In this experiment, down will be towards some direction outside of the sphere.)
Good point as well. It would be interesting to see the difference in results if the experiment is repeated in free fall (either in orbit, or perhaps more cheaply in a Zero-G Test aircraft)
When I was in elementary school my class tried a delay-line storage experiment. We all sat in a circle, and one kid whispered something into the next kid's ear, who repeated it to the next kid, and so on, until it reached the starting point after about two minutes. Oddly, the message seemed to be completely different after making the circle... Maybe we should have used a redundancy code.
Are they hoping that rotating Sodium will be like moving a solid piece of Iron through the magnetic field of the earth, inducing current in the Sodium, which then creates a secondary EMF, which then creates a secondary magnetic field...?
Without Earth's magnetic field are they lifting themselves by their own bootstraps?
I don't see why it's a problem. The same arguments apply to Earth itself. Could the Earth's magnetic dynamo have formed without the influence of the sun's magnetic field? It's a legitimate part of the question. Also, the universe is hardly empty of magnetic fields. It's not really a stretch to suppose that some "seeding" field was already present.
Sounds like an interesting experiment. However, I have to wonder how accurately it can possibly represent the mechanisms in Earth's core. Just a few things off the top of my head:
Density of sodium is nothing like that of iron
Conductivity of sodium is different
Viscosity of sodium is different
Various constants of electromagnetic self-interaction are different for sodium vs. iron
The pressure at Earth's core is much larger than anything achievable in this experiment
The scale isn't even close
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of magnetic dynamo CAN be created on this small scale, but I'd hesitate to directly apply anything learned here to the physics at Earth's core. Still, worth doing. Just be careful with the sodium. Why not use mercury? At least you could do it at room temperature.
Improve your reading comprehension. Not people. Companies and businesses.
Sorry, not buying it. "Companies and businesses" are nothing but collectives of individuals. On the one hand, you want to hold the component members of business responsible on a personal level for the activities of their businesses. On the other hand, you want to punish these same people (jail time for speech?) in ways that I'm sure you would find reprehensible if they were applied to anyone else.
In other words, you're a hypocrite. Which way is it? Are companies nothing but collections of individuals (in which case each of those individuals has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to anonymous speech), or are they something above and beyond just a collection of people (in which case this special status can be used as a shield to behave unethically)?
Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud.
Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.
People should be jailed for speaking anonymously? Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?
Meddling in two people's fucked up relationship? Sounds like a great way to get yourself into a position to have your ass sued off. Or maybe you'll get lucky and play a role in triggering a murder or suicide. What are you, an idiot? Run the fuck away.
Just because we haven't figured out the beautiful way to describe it doesn't mean it's not beautiful. I think both GR and QM are inherently beautiful for revealing to us that the universe really doesn't work at all in the way we think it does. We're too large to experience everyday quantum effects, too small for relativistic effects. We live in the boring middle. Whether the math is beautiful or not, the reality certainly is.
As has already been pointed out, the light from the supernova got here 140 years ago. This obviously means that it exploded 26000+140 years ago, not 140 years ago. But leaving that aside...
It's certainly possible, in theory, to know that something has happened in a far-off place before the light actually gets to us. Imagine that you train your telescope on an object which is 26,000 light years away. The object is a bomb, with a digital countdown which ticks once per year. Suppose that the display reads 25860. From this, you can deduce that the bomb must have exploded 140 years ago, even though the light from that explosion will not arrive for another 25860 years.
Hawking is a very smart physicist, but I think most physicists would take issue with putting him in the same list as all those others.
If you asked me to narrow down that list to the "true geniuses" I'd have to say Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Dirac, Feynman, and I'd insert Bethe and Oppenheimer.
The idea of "genius" is a romantic concept which has been dismissed in almost all of the sciences except physics, where people still revere some of their own as demi-gods.
I remember a quote, which I cannot attribute, and I will paraphrase. "An ordinary genius is someone that you or I could be just as good as, if only we were hundreds of times better. An extraordinary genius is someone whose capacity is simply beyond reach." Hawking might be an ordinary genius, but that is still categorically different from the kind of genius exhibited by Einstein.
He's completely on point. The parent poster asked if we should have any expectations of privacy while in public. He shows that yes, we do have some expectations on privacy; the discussion is thus about what those expectations should be.
It doesn't need to be discussed. It's quite clear cut. You have an expectation that people won't photograph up your skirt, because there is a law saying you can't do that. You have an expectation that people won't listen in on your conversations with a mic, because there's a law against eavesdropping without knowledge. You really don't have any right to privacy in a public space aside from what the law grants you, and the law does in fact grant you certain privacies.
So we really don't need to discuss whether you can do X, Y, or Z in public. Look at the law. That's really the bottom line.
A newspaper can for instance not just take a shot of someone on the street, then use that shot for an advertisement (or sell it to an ad agency) - their relative freedom of using other persons likeness is limited to actual news.
Of course a newspaper could do that if they wanted. The reason they don't isn't because it's illegal, but because they would get their ass sued off by the person they photographed. The difference is real, and important.
1. Why tout 16K lines? Why give an exact number? It's like it's a boast. Except it doesn't really take that long to write 16K lines, so it's sort of a weak boast.
2. On the other hand, I wonder why so many lines simply to give me a framebuffer? The card has to be programmed into the right mode, sure, but how can that possibly require 16 thousand lines?
I am sure you will agree that the correct statement sans flamebait modifications does not warrant a "clear contradiction" as many detractors of FOSS who are jumping at this opportunity to point out a example of a fixed bug that was not necessarily a security risk and saying "see, the OSS model is clearly flawed! BSD has a 25year old bug that was only fixed now!"
Take off your paranoid hat. Holy crap. I am an open source author myself. I just have always hated this particular argument.
I've had to send emails to recipients within the Australian Defence Force (specifically, the Army), and every email sent from a civilian must include a keyword within the subject line. The keyword is to do with whether or not the information is classified or unclassified.
You send classified information over email? What the hell are you smoking?
Slashdot Mirror
I was not aware there was a proof that factorization can't be achieved without a quantum computer. Can you point me to your source?
If you back up regularly (and if you don't, what the hell are you thinking -- hard drives last forever?) then this is a non-issue. Yawn.
Uh, if 1024-bit RSA was broken, the world of encryption security would collapse (at least for the short term). Could it happen? Sure, it's possible. Will it happen in time to save your pr0n collection? Highly unlikely.
For one thing, compromise of RSA encryption would render SSL useless.
Question is, does the encryptor rewrite the data in-place, or just encrypt to a new file then delete the original? If the latter, the data is still recoverable with a simple undelete utility.
I'm not exactly sure how you made the leap from "I don't like broadband subsidies" to "I want poor people to die from disease." You are over-generalizing what I said.
The Internet is growing in importance, but comparing it to basic realities like food and health care is still not warranted.
Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.
I seem to pay a bill each month... If it's being subsidized, I didn't ask for that. Tell me where to vote so that it's not subsidized, and I'll do it. If that makes it too expensive, then it's too expensive.
It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.
I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.
A prominent physicist once suggest that antimatter in not antimatter at all but rather matter traveling in anti-time or backwards in time from are perspective.
If that were true, then there should be a precisely equal number of matter particles as antimatter particles. But this is not what we observe.
I "understand" that a quadrillion is 10^15, but it's not a number on a scale I typically work with. On the other hand, I'm very used to dealing with the quantities "billion" and "million" -- we encounter and interact with such quantities every day when using technology. So I can actually start to imagine what a "million billion" is by comparing it with quantities I have already internalized. "Quadrillion" is more abstract. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is "really damn large number."
I actually appreciate having numbers broken down this way, and will often do it myself when dealing with large quantities.
I was originally going to write "the gravitional field from Earth could perturb the experiment", but its not really the field that's the issue. The Earth's magnetic field formed in the Sun's gravitational field. But the Earth's core is in free fall around the sun, so does not feel any weight. (In the Earth's core, down is toward the center. In this experiment, down will be towards some direction outside of the sphere.)
Good point as well. It would be interesting to see the difference in results if the experiment is repeated in free fall (either in orbit, or perhaps more cheaply in a Zero-G Test aircraft)
When I was in elementary school my class tried a delay-line storage experiment. We all sat in a circle, and one kid whispered something into the next kid's ear, who repeated it to the next kid, and so on, until it reached the starting point after about two minutes. Oddly, the message seemed to be completely different after making the circle... Maybe we should have used a redundancy code.
Are they hoping that rotating Sodium will be like moving a solid piece of Iron through the magnetic field of the earth, inducing current in the Sodium, which then creates a secondary EMF, which then creates a secondary magnetic field...? Without Earth's magnetic field are they lifting themselves by their own bootstraps?
I don't see why it's a problem. The same arguments apply to Earth itself. Could the Earth's magnetic dynamo have formed without the influence of the sun's magnetic field? It's a legitimate part of the question. Also, the universe is hardly empty of magnetic fields. It's not really a stretch to suppose that some "seeding" field was already present.
Sounds like an interesting experiment. However, I have to wonder how accurately it can possibly represent the mechanisms in Earth's core. Just a few things off the top of my head:
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of magnetic dynamo CAN be created on this small scale, but I'd hesitate to directly apply anything learned here to the physics at Earth's core. Still, worth doing. Just be careful with the sodium. Why not use mercury? At least you could do it at room temperature.
Improve your reading comprehension. Not people. Companies and businesses.
Sorry, not buying it. "Companies and businesses" are nothing but collectives of individuals. On the one hand, you want to hold the component members of business responsible on a personal level for the activities of their businesses. On the other hand, you want to punish these same people (jail time for speech?) in ways that I'm sure you would find reprehensible if they were applied to anyone else.
In other words, you're a hypocrite. Which way is it? Are companies nothing but collections of individuals (in which case each of those individuals has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to anonymous speech), or are they something above and beyond just a collection of people (in which case this special status can be used as a shield to behave unethically)?
So it wasn't Explosion Traditional, but more like Explosion Pro? Perhaps Explosion Pro Gold Edition?
Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud. Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.
People should be jailed for speaking anonymously? Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?
Meddling in two people's fucked up relationship? Sounds like a great way to get yourself into a position to have your ass sued off. Or maybe you'll get lucky and play a role in triggering a murder or suicide. What are you, an idiot? Run the fuck away.
Just because we haven't figured out the beautiful way to describe it doesn't mean it's not beautiful. I think both GR and QM are inherently beautiful for revealing to us that the universe really doesn't work at all in the way we think it does. We're too large to experience everyday quantum effects, too small for relativistic effects. We live in the boring middle. Whether the math is beautiful or not, the reality certainly is.
As has already been pointed out, the light from the supernova got here 140 years ago. This obviously means that it exploded 26000+140 years ago, not 140 years ago. But leaving that aside...
It's certainly possible, in theory, to know that something has happened in a far-off place before the light actually gets to us. Imagine that you train your telescope on an object which is 26,000 light years away. The object is a bomb, with a digital countdown which ticks once per year. Suppose that the display reads 25860. From this, you can deduce that the bomb must have exploded 140 years ago, even though the light from that explosion will not arrive for another 25860 years.
Hawking is a very smart physicist, but I think most physicists would take issue with putting him in the same list as all those others.
If you asked me to narrow down that list to the "true geniuses" I'd have to say Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Dirac, Feynman, and I'd insert Bethe and Oppenheimer.
The idea of "genius" is a romantic concept which has been dismissed in almost all of the sciences except physics, where people still revere some of their own as demi-gods.
I remember a quote, which I cannot attribute, and I will paraphrase. "An ordinary genius is someone that you or I could be just as good as, if only we were hundreds of times better. An extraordinary genius is someone whose capacity is simply beyond reach." Hawking might be an ordinary genius, but that is still categorically different from the kind of genius exhibited by Einstein.
He's completely on point. The parent poster asked if we should have any expectations of privacy while in public. He shows that yes, we do have some expectations on privacy; the discussion is thus about what those expectations should be.
It doesn't need to be discussed. It's quite clear cut. You have an expectation that people won't photograph up your skirt, because there is a law saying you can't do that. You have an expectation that people won't listen in on your conversations with a mic, because there's a law against eavesdropping without knowledge. You really don't have any right to privacy in a public space aside from what the law grants you, and the law does in fact grant you certain privacies.
So we really don't need to discuss whether you can do X, Y, or Z in public. Look at the law. That's really the bottom line.
A newspaper can for instance not just take a shot of someone on the street, then use that shot for an advertisement (or sell it to an ad agency) - their relative freedom of using other persons likeness is limited to actual news.
Of course a newspaper could do that if they wanted. The reason they don't isn't because it's illegal, but because they would get their ass sued off by the person they photographed. The difference is real, and important.
I had two immediate thoughts:
1. Why tout 16K lines? Why give an exact number? It's like it's a boast. Except it doesn't really take that long to write 16K lines, so it's sort of a weak boast.
2. On the other hand, I wonder why so many lines simply to give me a framebuffer? The card has to be programmed into the right mode, sure, but how can that possibly require 16 thousand lines?
I am sure you will agree that the correct statement sans flamebait modifications does not warrant a "clear contradiction" as many detractors of FOSS who are jumping at this opportunity to point out a example of a fixed bug that was not necessarily a security risk and saying "see, the OSS model is clearly flawed! BSD has a 25year old bug that was only fixed now!"
Take off your paranoid hat. Holy crap. I am an open source author myself. I just have always hated this particular argument.
We use this in a 160 user company.
How about s/user/person/ or at least s/user/employee/ ? People are people, not "users."
I've had to send emails to recipients within the Australian Defence Force (specifically, the Army), and every email sent from a civilian must include a keyword within the subject line. The keyword is to do with whether or not the information is classified or unclassified.
You send classified information over email? What the hell are you smoking?