But you can't have more bits in the password than there are bits in the salt + crypt(passwd).
The total crypted hash is 13 characters. 2 characters are the salt, leaving 11 bytes out. 11 * 6 bits/character=66 bits, which are used to store the 56 bits of DES output + 8 bits of parity (with 2 bits left over).
For a given salt, each of the 2^56 possible passwords will have different crypts. The only place you'll see duplicates for the same salt is because of truncation effects (only the first 8 characters of the password are used in crypt, and the high bits are thrown out, to get things down to a 56 bit key size).
Sure, but this is a pretty simple thing. It's GPS phones that just monitor where they are when they are supposedly plowing for the state. It's valuable information to have for administering the plow dispatch program, and it's valuable audit information to be sure the plow is actually moving, etc. Once the plow's up, they can turn off their phone and do what they please. I think this is perfectly reasonable information for an employer to have, and I would welcome my employer doing this, over, say, sending a supervisor out to watch and spot check me.
Just like those badge readers are probably used to spot-check verify time & attendance at your work, they're used for the same purpose by the state in managing plowing. They've no need to track when the employee goes to the bathroom or how many mistresses the employee has.
One voice line, one fax line, one cellular phone, all with 911 fees. One DSL circuit that is charged 911 fees as well, for some inexplicable reason, and we get to me paying four times as much 911 tax as my neighbor. They're a household of 5 with small children, we're a household of two. I think they'd be far more likely to use 911 services.
This doesn't count the girlfriend's cellphone which also pays 911 fees and is in the household.
Yet when I was a business owner, employing 150... we paid 911 fees that are only 3-4x what I pay now for my own personal telecom. Why? Because we had a whole ton of phone numbers trunked onto one ISDN PRI.
OK, I give up. People, it's a fucking "public good". If you don't know what that means, check you college economics textbooks. If you want your 911 service to be paid by property taxes and not on your monthly phone bill, then vote for a new town Council/Mayor. Otherwise, you'll have to live with it.
Sure. It is for the public good, but it's not very good at being either a per-head tax right now, nor a use tax, as you had stated. I'm all for paying for 911 service, but I really should pay the same amount as my neighbor. Of course, it's very easy for you, with your lower usage of telecom services, to say that the tax is fair. Not to mention that some of these fees (E911, etc) are imposed by the FCC, and not the local government. Not to mention that these fees are often not even used for the 911 systems.
It should be part of property taxes or sales taxes or other means. Just because I'm telecom heavy and have 4 phone lines here does not mean I deserve to pay 4 times as much as my neighbor for 911 service-- I am not 4times as likely to call.
Compared to say, a business, with a 23 line ISDN PRI shared among 200 people. They pay 23 * the 911 tax... but probably have much greater than 23 times "average" odds of calling 911 because they have 10 people per line.
There's a difference between recovering costs of materials you're selling and recovering NRE. No one says manufacturers need to recover their non-recurring engineering money equally from all markets, or charge the same price anywhere. But selling below actual costs to squash manufacturers to allow you to jack up the price is something entirely different.
If the US manufacturers chose to sell it below the cost of media/packaging/distribution that would be dumping.
Please note that Sony is not a US company, also. Might want to take your objections elsewhere.
Most of the fuss is that it potentially allows other retailers very good competitive intelligence to be able to "scoop" them and beat their pricing by just a bit, I think.
If you're root, and a filevault protected user logs in, the encryption key can be captured and the information stolen. So it's not bulletproof in these kinds of scenarios.
Since electrons have less distance to travel, the resistance of the dielectric is less and less will leak. In extreme cases, for very small geometries, quantum tunnelling becomes an issue as electrons disappear on one side of the gate and appear on the other.
But as other posters said, leakage is currently still fairly insignificant compared to the huge WOOOSH of power that goes into the chip when things switch. Although leakage is becoming now more important for devices that sleep and stop their oscillator to reduce power-- passive power consumption, for the same process, is directly proportional to feature size, die size, and the square of the operating voltage.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Rifter said:
How about you provide some links that don't require thousands of dollars in memberships to read?
I replied to him: (His post is mine's parent)
It's hard to cite case law if you can't get into Lexis or Westlaw and you aren't in a law library. So I just took one of the top links[lgpatlaw.com] for "company employee intellectual property" from Google:
It's important to look at the threading before you flame away. I know beyond a certain thread depth things look flat and thus can be confusing.
Sorry for replying on your behalf and advancing your argument. I thought I was being suitably clear. I, like you, am bothered when someone spouts their mouth off about something and are totally wrong. Take a second to read the post before you decide the person is on the opposite side, though.
You are an idiot too. I was not replying to your post. Go look at the reply history. In fact, I was -agreeing- with your post. Next time read the post and look at the history before opening your stupid mouth-- I was replying to rifter.
No, I am not an attorney. However in my industry background I've been extensively counseled on these subjects.
My agreement with you is subject to one caveat: the relevent section of California labor code (California is more liberal than most states on this topic) is:
2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
This is vague and can be used to nail/inconvenience you in court.
Noncompete and nondisclosure/invention disclosure agreements are very different.
Labor laws vary greatly from state to state. It is true that MOST noncompetes are unenforcable.
It's hard to cite case law if you can't get into Lexis or Westlaw and you aren't in a law library. So I just took one of the top links for "company employee intellectual property" from Google:
Other cases suggest a more expansive view of scope of employment for copyright ownership purposes. Creating a work to which copyright attaches will be likely held within the scope of employment if such effort is within the employee's job description, was assigned to the employee, was assumed or undertaken by the employee, was necessary or incidental to the work which was assigned, or if it was within the ultimate objective of the employer and not unlikely for the employee to perform to accomplish his duties. This will generally be so even if the work was done after normal working hours and off-site, and the employee is not paid specifically or extra for such work. (See Cubic Corp v. Marty (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 438; Miller v. CP Chemicals, supra(D.C.S.C. 1992) 808 F. Supp. (1238); Marshall v. Miles Lab., Inc. (N.D. Ind. 1986) 647 F.Supp. 1326; Nimmer on Copyright (1994) 5.03[B][1].)
Guess what? The enriched uranium they use in reactors contains in the region of 3% to 4% U-235 - making it litterary too hot to handle. Even 'spendt' reacorfuel contains more U-235 than ordinary oranium-ore, as well as more than a bit of Pu-239 and Pu-240 (the longer the fuel stays in the reacor, the more Pu-240). And Pu-239 and Pu-240 is two isotopes of an element better known as plutonium... granted, it's not weapongrade plutonium, but it's still something I wouldn't have scattered about.
Sure, we "enrich" the uranium-- largely by sorting isotopes. There's no reason why you couldn't choose to de-enrich/deplete the uranium back down for storage, if you thought this was beneficial. This is why it's entombed in glass in many storage proposals, and why it's often reprocessed-- so you can sort the "useful fuel to reuse" and "spent fuel/waste".
There are intermediate-term (80-500 year) storage problems involved with the high level wastes produced in fission reactors. The thing is, these wastes inherently have short half lives and decay to more harmless stuff very quickly.
It's the number of points in the match. You get.5 points for a draw, 1 point for a win. 1 win * 1 + 2 draws *.5 + 1 loss * 0 (for both Fritz and Kasparov) = 2 points apiece, yielding an overall tie at 2:2.
A lot of this worship of altivec is just plain wrong.
Sure, it's nice and fast.. but it's also single precision-- woefully inadequete for accurate CFD work except in the simplest of situations. Dilution of precision is bad.
No, it's based on EIRP. Effective isotropic radiated power. In other words, the amount of power sent in a given direction as would be radiated in that direction by an ideal radiator with a given wattage.
100mW + 10dB of antenna "gain" = 1W EIRP.
Of course, pringle can antennas don't provide much gain, because they're too small to be effective waveguides for 2.4GHz. Most of their benefit is in noise rejection. I have not busted out the spectral analyzer myself on this topic, but I doubt they'd bump a normal wireless card over the legal limit of EIRP.
All the consumer 802.11* products today are half duplex. That is, they can't transmit at the same time they're receiving, and only one party can talk at a time while still allowing the signal to be demodulated successfully. (Vivato is doing some really neat work with phased arrays to receive from multiple people at once, but that is high-end $10K+ hardware).
Channel arbitration, or deciding who can talk when, is expensive, and isn't perfect. A certain amount of the time, two wireless transmitters will decide to talk at the same time.
802.11 uses a CSMA/CA protocol to prevent this "doubling". CS is Carrier Sense-- side A can tell when the other side is transmitting.. but in this case usually only when side A is not transmitting itself. MA indicates that it is a multiple access channel. CA=collision avoidance specifies that a protocol is involved where one side transmits for a little while, and then stops and checks to make sure there's no one else transmitting.
The amount of time needed to spend on the test carrier is related to the propagation delay between stations-- in other words the speed of light and distance, as well as the switching times from transmit/receive and the amount of listening time necessary to determine if someone else is transmitting, as well as various other probablistic answers (the odds of someone else both starting to transmit and also checking for someone else at the same time, for instance-- adjusted for propagation delay, of course).
All of this arbitration, waiting, etc, wastes bandwidth, and thus lowers real world throughput.
First, there's fundamental thermodynamic/information theoretical limits on the amount of information that can be carried in a given amount of spectrum for a given number of symbol values. This is because any "modulation" of a carrier causes the carrier to have spectral products off the carrier frequency. Modulating the carrier at faster rates makes the overall signal wider. I could go deep into sampling theory here but I won't.
The wider a signal in spectrum, the more noise there is over that spectrum, and the more power must be spread over that spectrum to be detectable over the noise floor.
Maximum Theoretical Throughput in BPS = Bandwidth * Log2 (S/N+1)
Where S is the signal strength and N is the total amount of noise in the signal bandwidth. Note that N increases linearly with bandwidth in typical RF applications.
Frequency also matters because the amount of noise present on different parts of the spectrum varies. Almost all noise above 100MHz, though, is created either thermally inside the receiver.. or comes from man-made sources.
It comes down to you need to know what you're buying and the builder involved.
You can get a great prefab home-- you can also get a big pile of tin, lousy wood, and shoddy construction.
The quality of tract housing is widely variable as well. I've had lots of friends who've had bad experiences.. but my experience with my current builder has been top-notch; everything is well over code and anything that's out of square or otherwise not quite right has been promptly squawked by their foremen/inspectors and fixed.
For two, he's talking about tractor-trailers carrying extra-wide loads-- with the big yellow and black "OVERSIZED LOAD" signs and the trucks with the flashing lights on either side of them.
And yes, most prefab homes will travel at least partially in that way.. making you the idiot.
The technology does not exist to make an afforadable car that weighs 1000 pounds and can survive a side impact with most vehicles on the road, sorry.
Ah, the tragedy of the commons. We should all buy bigger-than-average cars to have a greater degree of safety on the roads (obviously this doesn't work). Whereas if I buy a smaller-than-average car to be socially responsible, I must assume additional risk from those who are not. This is the kind of hidden costs that capitalism as implemented in America does not distribute well.
But plasma televisions have severe burn-in issues. If this is something you'd regularly do, it seems like the quickest way to turn your $8000 big screen into a $20 art print with lower resolution and a cheap-looking plastic frame.
Not to mention that power dissipation/efficiency of plasma televisions is not -wonderful-.
Shared libraries = dynamic link libraries. Same thing, same concept.
And sometimes the dependency graphs get messy between shared libraries and applications. However, I think both Windows and Mac are pretty good in this regard these days-- dynalinking "just works" 99.9% on both.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can't have more bits in the password than there are bits in the salt + crypt(passwd).
The total crypted hash is 13 characters. 2 characters are the salt, leaving 11 bytes out. 11 * 6 bits/character=66 bits, which are used to store the 56 bits of DES output + 8 bits of parity (with 2 bits left over).
For a given salt, each of the 2^56 possible passwords will have different crypts. The only place you'll see duplicates for the same salt is because of truncation effects (only the first 8 characters of the password are used in crypt, and the high bits are thrown out, to get things down to a 56 bit key size).
Sure, but this is a pretty simple thing. It's GPS phones that just monitor where they are when they are supposedly plowing for the state. It's valuable information to have for administering the plow dispatch program, and it's valuable audit information to be sure the plow is actually moving, etc. Once the plow's up, they can turn off their phone and do what they please. I think this is perfectly reasonable information for an employer to have, and I would welcome my employer doing this, over, say, sending a supervisor out to watch and spot check me.
Just like those badge readers are probably used to spot-check verify time & attendance at your work, they're used for the same purpose by the state in managing plowing. They've no need to track when the employee goes to the bathroom or how many mistresses the employee has.
Wow, flame flame flame.
One voice line, one fax line, one cellular phone, all with 911 fees. One DSL circuit that is charged 911 fees as well, for some inexplicable reason, and we get to me paying four times as much 911 tax as my neighbor. They're a household of 5 with small children, we're a household of two. I think they'd be far more likely to use 911 services.
This doesn't count the girlfriend's cellphone which also pays 911 fees and is in the household.
Yet when I was a business owner, employing 150... we paid 911 fees that are only 3-4x what I pay now for my own personal telecom. Why? Because we had a whole ton of phone numbers trunked onto one ISDN PRI.
OK, I give up. People, it's a fucking "public good". If you don't know what that means, check you college economics textbooks. If you want your 911 service to be paid by property taxes and not on your monthly phone bill, then vote for a new town Council/Mayor. Otherwise, you'll have to live with it.
Sure. It is for the public good, but it's not very good at being either a per-head tax right now, nor a use tax, as you had stated. I'm all for paying for 911 service, but I really should pay the same amount as my neighbor. Of course, it's very easy for you, with your lower usage of telecom services, to say that the tax is fair. Not to mention that some of these fees (E911, etc) are imposed by the FCC, and not the local government. Not to mention that these fees are often not even used for the 911 systems.
Sure, but the "everyone" is very arbitrary.
It should be part of property taxes or sales taxes or other means. Just because I'm telecom heavy and have 4 phone lines here does not mean I deserve to pay 4 times as much as my neighbor for 911 service-- I am not 4times as likely to call.
Compared to say, a business, with a 23 line ISDN PRI shared among 200 people. They pay 23 * the 911 tax... but probably have much greater than 23 times "average" odds of calling 911 because they have 10 people per line.
There's a difference between recovering costs of materials you're selling and recovering NRE. No one says manufacturers need to recover their non-recurring engineering money equally from all markets, or charge the same price anywhere. But selling below actual costs to squash manufacturers to allow you to jack up the price is something entirely different.
If the US manufacturers chose to sell it below the cost of media/packaging/distribution that would be dumping.
Please note that Sony is not a US company, also. Might want to take your objections elsewhere.
Most of the fuss is that it potentially allows other retailers very good competitive intelligence to be able to "scoop" them and beat their pricing by just a bit, I think.
If you're root, and a filevault protected user logs in, the encryption key can be captured and the information stolen. So it's not bulletproof in these kinds of scenarios.
Nah, it's actually the opposite of that.
Since electrons have less distance to travel, the resistance of the dielectric is less and less will leak. In extreme cases, for very small geometries, quantum tunnelling becomes an issue as electrons disappear on one side of the gate and appear on the other.
But as other posters said, leakage is currently still fairly insignificant compared to the huge WOOOSH of power that goes into the chip when things switch. Although leakage is becoming now more important for devices that sleep and stop their oscillator to reduce power-- passive power consumption, for the same process, is directly proportional to feature size, die size, and the square of the operating voltage.
No.. Let me just spell this out for you.
You said:
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Rifter said:
How about you provide some links that don't require thousands of dollars in memberships to read?
I replied to him: (His post is mine's parent)
It's hard to cite case law if you can't get into Lexis or Westlaw and you aren't in a law library. So I just took one of the top links[lgpatlaw.com] for "company employee intellectual property" from Google:
It's important to look at the threading before you flame away. I know beyond a certain thread depth things look flat and thus can be confusing.
Sorry for replying on your behalf and advancing your argument. I thought I was being suitably clear. I, like you, am bothered when someone spouts their mouth off about something and are totally wrong. Take a second to read the post before you decide the person is on the opposite side, though.
You are an idiot too. I was not replying to your post. Go look at the reply history. In fact, I was -agreeing- with your post. Next time read the post and look at the history before opening your stupid mouth-- I was replying to rifter.
No, I am not an attorney. However in my industry background I've been extensively counseled on these subjects.
My agreement with you is subject to one caveat: the relevent section of California labor code (California is more liberal than most states on this topic) is:
2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
This is vague and can be used to nail/inconvenience you in court.
You sir, are an idiot.
Noncompete and nondisclosure/invention disclosure agreements are very different.
Labor laws vary greatly from state to state. It is true that MOST noncompetes are unenforcable.
It's hard to cite case law if you can't get into Lexis or Westlaw and you aren't in a law library. So I just took one of the top links for "company employee intellectual property" from Google:
Other cases suggest a more expansive view of scope of employment for copyright ownership purposes. Creating a work to which copyright attaches will be likely held within the scope of employment if such effort is within the employee's job description, was assigned to the employee, was assumed or undertaken by the employee, was necessary or incidental to the work which was assigned, or if it was within the ultimate objective of the employer and not unlikely for the employee to perform to accomplish his duties. This will generally be so even if the work was done after normal working hours and off-site, and the employee is not paid specifically or extra for such work. (See Cubic Corp v. Marty (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 438; Miller v. CP Chemicals, supra(D.C.S.C. 1992) 808 F. Supp. (1238); Marshall v. Miles Lab., Inc. (N.D. Ind. 1986) 647 F.Supp. 1326; Nimmer on Copyright (1994) 5.03[B][1].)
Guess what? The enriched uranium they use in reactors contains in the region of 3% to 4% U-235 - making it litterary too hot to handle. Even 'spendt' reacorfuel contains more U-235 than ordinary oranium-ore, as well as more than a bit of Pu-239 and Pu-240 (the longer the fuel stays in the reacor, the more Pu-240). And Pu-239 and Pu-240 is two isotopes of an element better known as plutonium... granted, it's not weapongrade plutonium, but it's still something I wouldn't have scattered about.
Sure, we "enrich" the uranium-- largely by sorting isotopes. There's no reason why you couldn't choose to de-enrich/deplete the uranium back down for storage, if you thought this was beneficial. This is why it's entombed in glass in many storage proposals, and why it's often reprocessed-- so you can sort the "useful fuel to reuse" and "spent fuel/waste".
There are intermediate-term (80-500 year) storage problems involved with the high level wastes produced in fission reactors. The thing is, these wastes inherently have short half lives and decay to more harmless stuff very quickly.
It's the number of points in the match. You get .5 points for a draw, 1 point for a win. 1 win * 1 + 2 draws *.5 + 1 loss * 0 (for both Fritz and Kasparov) = 2 points apiece, yielding an overall tie at 2:2.
A lot of this worship of altivec is just plain wrong.
Sure, it's nice and fast.. but it's also single precision-- woefully inadequete for accurate CFD work except in the simplest of situations. Dilution of precision is bad.
No, it's based on EIRP. Effective isotropic radiated power. In other words, the amount of power sent in a given direction as would be radiated in that direction by an ideal radiator with a given wattage.
100mW + 10dB of antenna "gain" = 1W EIRP.
Of course, pringle can antennas don't provide much gain, because they're too small to be effective waveguides for 2.4GHz. Most of their benefit is in noise rejection. I have not busted out the spectral analyzer myself on this topic, but I doubt they'd bump a normal wireless card over the legal limit of EIRP.
Oh, yah, I forgot to discuss C.
All the consumer 802.11* products today are half duplex. That is, they can't transmit at the same time they're receiving, and only one party can talk at a time while still allowing the signal to be demodulated successfully. (Vivato is doing some really neat work with phased arrays to receive from multiple people at once, but that is high-end $10K+ hardware).
Channel arbitration, or deciding who can talk when, is expensive, and isn't perfect. A certain amount of the time, two wireless transmitters will decide to talk at the same time.
802.11 uses a CSMA/CA protocol to prevent this "doubling". CS is Carrier Sense-- side A can tell when the other side is transmitting.. but in this case usually only when side A is not transmitting itself. MA indicates that it is a multiple access channel. CA=collision avoidance specifies that a protocol is involved where one side transmits for a little while, and then stops and checks to make sure there's no one else transmitting.
The amount of time needed to spend on the test carrier is related to the propagation delay between stations-- in other words the speed of light and distance, as well as the switching times from transmit/receive and the amount of listening time necessary to determine if someone else is transmitting, as well as various other probablistic answers (the odds of someone else both starting to transmit and also checking for someone else at the same time, for instance-- adjusted for propagation delay, of course).
All of this arbitration, waiting, etc, wastes bandwidth, and thus lowers real world throughput.
All of the above!
First, there's fundamental thermodynamic/information theoretical limits on the amount of information that can be carried in a given amount of spectrum for a given number of symbol values. This is because any "modulation" of a carrier causes the carrier to have spectral products off the carrier frequency. Modulating the carrier at faster rates makes the overall signal wider. I could go deep into sampling theory here but I won't.
The wider a signal in spectrum, the more noise there is over that spectrum, and the more power must be spread over that spectrum to be detectable over the noise floor.
Maximum Theoretical Throughput in BPS = Bandwidth * Log2 (S/N+1)
Where S is the signal strength and N is the total amount of noise in the signal bandwidth. Note that N increases linearly with bandwidth in typical RF applications.
Frequency also matters because the amount of noise present on different parts of the spectrum varies. Almost all noise above 100MHz, though, is created either thermally inside the receiver.. or comes from man-made sources.
It comes down to you need to know what you're buying and the builder involved.
You can get a great prefab home-- you can also get a big pile of tin, lousy wood, and shoddy construction.
The quality of tract housing is widely variable as well. I've had lots of friends who've had bad experiences.. but my experience with my current builder has been top-notch; everything is well over code and anything that's out of square or otherwise not quite right has been promptly squawked by their foremen/inspectors and fixed.
For one, it's a joke.
For two, he's talking about tractor-trailers carrying extra-wide loads-- with the big yellow and black "OVERSIZED LOAD" signs and the trucks with the flashing lights on either side of them.
And yes, most prefab homes will travel at least partially in that way.. making you the idiot.
I agree with you up to this point:
The technology does not exist to make an afforadable car that weighs 1000 pounds and can survive a side impact with most vehicles on the road, sorry.
Ah, the tragedy of the commons. We should all buy bigger-than-average cars to have a greater degree of safety on the roads (obviously this doesn't work). Whereas if I buy a smaller-than-average car to be socially responsible, I must assume additional risk from those who are not. This is the kind of hidden costs that capitalism as implemented in America does not distribute well.
My Ford Expedition has the highest cargo capacity of any sports car. It's not what it's marketed as, it's how I drive.
Color Classic
Sure, it post-dates the MacII. But Apple did build color all-in-ones before the iMac.
But plasma televisions have severe burn-in issues. If this is something you'd regularly do, it seems like the quickest way to turn your $8000 big screen into a $20 art print with lower resolution and a cheap-looking plastic frame.
Not to mention that power dissipation/efficiency of plasma televisions is not -wonderful-.
Apple doesn't sell "upgrade" versions-- it's the full thing or nothing.
Maybe your friend bought the educational version? That's the only way to save $60 that I know of.
Shared libraries = dynamic link libraries. Same thing, same concept.
And sometimes the dependency graphs get messy between shared libraries and applications. However, I think both Windows and Mac are pretty good in this regard these days-- dynalinking "just works" 99.9% on both.