I have a couple of questions. hopefully someone
who knows a lot about encryption can answer.
The paper claims there are two lines of attack:
1. B={(AC)^-1}*C
2. G=C^r
For the first attack to be hard we need to
pick p and q carefully. Does this restriction
affect the ease of the second attack?
Also, this negligible probability that the first
attack will be easy seems to have a PR disaster
written all over it. Does RSA have similar
probability issues?
I am not an MS advocate usually, except for one
thing: they take good, sometimes best of the breed
technology that has been superceeded by flashy
hyped product and turn it into a winner it
deserves to be. They took VMS and made it into a
winner just when it looked like it'd die at the
hands of an inferior solution (UNIX). They took
Mosaic and killed Netscape with it, just as that
flashy piece of hype looked like a king. There is
some sentimental appeal in having the best
technology win even if MS version is junk. Of
course it is possible that UNIX, Netscape and
their ilk will win by being reborn free but in the
commercial marketplace they lost.
I kind of agree but Hollywood hasn't even tried
as yet. It is one thing to do movies about whiz
kids who do the impossible and it is quite another
to make movies with the "you too can do this"
message. I have yet to see a compelling realistic
geek on the screen.
Hollywood would have to do a whole lot better
than that. Science is not about whiz kids doing
stuff that amuses the viewer. Hollywood would
need to make it clear in its movies that man's
only reason for existence as a sentient creature
is to understand the world. The rest of society
exists to support the work of knwoledge gatherers.
If Hollywood can carry that message effectively
then research and schooling will both pick up.
Well, I think pay could make teaching more
attractive. To put my estimate on numbers,
I think that if teachers in schools earned
$100K per year there'd be a significant
increase of people striving to be teachers.
You make that number $70K and you get a small
extra trickle of teachers. At current levels
you get a drying supply.
Overall, social elites would have to do more than
pay teachers more. Politicians would have to
influence Hollywood to make science cool. Then
I think a certain code of professionalism and
pride in one's work would grow among teachers,
because they'd be paid well and duly admired.
Within a generation we could have good schools.
Actually, AFAIK, Shakespeare had a tremendous
vocabulary, far greater than an average speaker
at any time. We have more words today because of
techno-speak but that has no relation to describing
states of human existence. For that, most nobody
can even come close to Shakespeare in richness of
expression.
Your last line (sig?) is so true. It also happens
to reinforce my point.
What are you talking about? Both sides of this
debate presuppose the existence of copyright
because both sides formulate their position
with respect to which licensing should be allowed.
Licensing derives from copyright so they are
debating a secondary legal point. No major
revolutionary zeal here, no calls for anarchy,
not even a mention of Ayn Rand.
Your post seems to be mising the point. It is
already illegal to stipulate in your license that
your users will be your slaves in return for using
your software. It is already illegal to demand in
your license that your users kill their friends.
We already have restrictions on license terms and
there is nothing radical about that. The debate
here is strictly how much to restrict what
license terms require of users.
You have a very valid point though, namely that
any discussion of proprietary licensing should
include a discussion of anti-piracy enforcement.
IMHO, the state should have a very secondary role
in license enforcement. A license is a contract
between a developer and a user. The state has no
role in such a private deal. The state's only role
is to provide contract law framework. The state
should not get involved until piracy is proven and
the case is brought to court. All the hunting
and detective work should reside strictly with
the copyright holder. Furthermore, the punishment
for violating a contract should not be up to
the state to decide, it should be stipulated in
contract itself. The only enforcement the state
has to do is the civil judgement verdict enfrcement.
Yeah, I was debating with myself whether to put
garbage in quotation marks but decided that the
meaning was clear enough anyway. Apparently not.
Anyhow, you do reinforce my point. Both Unix and
Posix were slighlty modified by vendors and
engineers. People don't like to just follow what
some guy (or 800 lb gorilla) says, they like to
tweak.
IMHO, the reason why people complain about lame content
in Ep. 1 is because they... grew up. I came to the US
when I was a grown up and saw Star Wars episodes for
the first time when I was older than 20. I see no
difference between the episodes in terms of quality.
How is an animated Jamaican-spouting goon worse than
a metal wizard-of-oz'ish charicature of a robot,
or a rolling trash bin with blinking lights?
I am not trying to troll, I am just saying that
SW is aimed at kids and is not bad in that realm.
Ep. II will probably not deviate from this money
making scheme, but where is the grief?
Re:Mozilla ... Netscape ... what't the difference?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
Mozilla was supposed to be the most standards compliant browser out there. That was THE goal, AFAIK, at least for 1.0 release (of course being better than 4.7 in stability and usability too). Tell me if these goals haven't already been achieved. How is Mozilla a failure then?
Mozilla was meant to be standards compliant and there is no shortage of web related standards so "start simply" would contradict the goal of the project. As for "iterate constantly", they have produced the first real alpha of Mozilla with 0.9.1 and this is where we should track the birth of Mozilla from. Since then, updates were happening quite often, not to mention nightly builds which as the name suggests are nightly. Leadership is not there now, at least since jwz left. But so long as they make a fantastic browser I don't care if they are monkeys randomly typing code. Mozilla does remain solid since 0.9.1 days and just keeps getting better. Happy and loyal users exist. I am one.
Well, it's more complicated than this. First of all the paper devotes most of its space to theoretical discussion which in the end shows no quantitative predictions. Being an experimentalist I do not care much for this kind of theory. YMMV.
Chucking theory, we are left with two experimental results: a rather plausible effect and an implausible one. The plausible result is his description of how the discharge evolves through T_c. Still, he gives no explanation of what T_c was and more importantly he never mentions transition width. His mention that in his first experiments the YBCO film degraded makes me think that his temprature control was highly questionable so he may have been still above T_c even with claims to the contrary. Still, he may be right when he says that his setup represents a new or at least unusual N-S junction.
The implausible result is his claims of a force beam and that his beam does not dissipate through walls, air and other things. He claims that his discharge has a side effect of producing a beam capable of significant mechanical effects. The sheer difference in scale between known gravitational effects and his measurements makes me wonder if the beam exists at all. The lack of dissipation combined with its strong effect on the balls leaves me wondering if conservation laws would be violated.
The paper is horridly written. Parts aren't proper English (which I am ready to excuse as he is not from an English speaking country), parts aren't proper physics (like when he claims that the electrons forming his discharge are coming from pair condensate without any justification to substantiate such an implausible scenario), parts aren't proper experimental procedure (e.g his vacuum quality, his lack of pictures to illustrate discharge dynamics, etc). His figures don't have captions and some have unlabeled axes. His theoretical discussion includes passages trying to say, in effect: people don't know where this comes from in high T_c so it may be related to our effect. Still, I would not judge a book by its cover. If only one of the effects he observed is real then he has made a contribution to science, though after reading his paper, I doubt there will be revolutionary advances coming from this.
No, in this case the words people "bandy about" would
be "first sale doctrine". Basically if IP were to be
acknowledged as property then first sale doctrine
must apply to it. I think most people equate
property and first sale and hold this to be self
evident.
I am not sure, but I think you are wrong here.
Most monitors are not rated to display
16-16-16 colors. True, video cards are a limitation
as well, but I would seriously consider taking
a few DACs and writing my own driver if 48-bit
were available on the monitor side.
Sorry, I meant 48-bit color. If you have
16-bit data you want to render it in
16-bit greyscale, but current monitors do
8-bit greyscale only. 'Course SGI makes nice
expensive 48-bit color displays but when can
I buy one at Walmart for cheap?!
In KDE case they forgave use of their own code if any.
But realistically, they have the lawyer power to go
after violators, so if they choose not to intervene
on behalf of the copyright holder, then the likelihood
of a lawsuit is quite small.
Well, the FSF has a history of forgiving companies
and groups for initial mistakes with the GPL so long as they choose to become compliant. The latest one
was KDE/Qt debacle. The FSF seems to use its
leniency as a bargaining chip to bring people into
GPL compliance. IMHO, not a bad tactic.
That said, I am not seeing any indication of FSF
position in this case wrt past violations. They
may yet go to court, though I'd guess they have
better use for their money. OTOH, that press release
had "Open Source" all over it, so maybe RMS will
be pissed enough...
The "trouble" here is that there are free alternatives
to everything MS makes. In a couple of years they
will have to compete with Openoffice and Koffice
on price/performance. Do you think they will first
give away Windows and then Office? Because that's
the logical chain if one follows your argument.
As an aside, I think that network-based apps will
not fly because networks have latency and they
go down. Passport already exists and is a luaghing
stock of identification providers (Hotmail security?),
.NET may be good (it may succed on the client but
is unlikely to displace java on the server) and
Hailstorm will be a huge mess. Microsoft's new
business model looks like a money losing disaster
in the making.
Well, from what I gather, KDE people have done some
SOAP work but their general remarks tend to be along
the lines of: we'll implement stuff once users
need it. Frankly, I think cloning.NET things
before they are even certified by ECMA (or whoever
winds up certifying it in the end - maybe noone)
is a bad idea. This.NET thing is still a moving
target, why shoot for it?
So I am looking for visualization solutions and
it ain't gonna be SGI 'cause they may not be there
in ten years. So who else can render 120 million
triangles per second (that's real, not zero pixel
triangles, shaded, lit by four lights or more and
textured with 1024x1024 texture)?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a couple of questions. hopefully someone
who knows a lot about encryption can answer.
The paper claims there are two lines of attack:
1. B={(AC)^-1}*C
2. G=C^r
For the first attack to be hard we need to
pick p and q carefully. Does this restriction
affect the ease of the second attack?
Also, this negligible probability that the first
attack will be easy seems to have a PR disaster
written all over it. Does RSA have similar
probability issues?
I am not an MS advocate usually, except for one
thing: they take good, sometimes best of the breed
technology that has been superceeded by flashy
hyped product and turn it into a winner it
deserves to be. They took VMS and made it into a
winner just when it looked like it'd die at the
hands of an inferior solution (UNIX). They took
Mosaic and killed Netscape with it, just as that
flashy piece of hype looked like a king. There is
some sentimental appeal in having the best
technology win even if MS version is junk. Of
course it is possible that UNIX, Netscape and
their ilk will win by being reborn free but in the
commercial marketplace they lost.
I kind of agree but Hollywood hasn't even tried
as yet. It is one thing to do movies about whiz
kids who do the impossible and it is quite another
to make movies with the "you too can do this"
message. I have yet to see a compelling realistic
geek on the screen.
Hollywood would have to do a whole lot better
than that. Science is not about whiz kids doing
stuff that amuses the viewer. Hollywood would
need to make it clear in its movies that man's
only reason for existence as a sentient creature
is to understand the world. The rest of society
exists to support the work of knwoledge gatherers.
If Hollywood can carry that message effectively
then research and schooling will both pick up.
Well, I think pay could make teaching more
attractive. To put my estimate on numbers,
I think that if teachers in schools earned
$100K per year there'd be a significant
increase of people striving to be teachers.
You make that number $70K and you get a small
extra trickle of teachers. At current levels
you get a drying supply.
Overall, social elites would have to do more than
pay teachers more. Politicians would have to
influence Hollywood to make science cool. Then
I think a certain code of professionalism and
pride in one's work would grow among teachers,
because they'd be paid well and duly admired.
Within a generation we could have good schools.
Actually, AFAIK, Shakespeare had a tremendous
vocabulary, far greater than an average speaker
at any time. We have more words today because of
techno-speak but that has no relation to describing
states of human existence. For that, most nobody
can even come close to Shakespeare in richness of
expression.
Your last line (sig?) is so true. It also happens
to reinforce my point.
What are you talking about? Both sides of this
debate presuppose the existence of copyright
because both sides formulate their position
with respect to which licensing should be allowed.
Licensing derives from copyright so they are
debating a secondary legal point. No major
revolutionary zeal here, no calls for anarchy,
not even a mention of Ayn Rand.
Your post seems to be mising the point. It is
already illegal to stipulate in your license that
your users will be your slaves in return for using
your software. It is already illegal to demand in
your license that your users kill their friends.
We already have restrictions on license terms and
there is nothing radical about that. The debate
here is strictly how much to restrict what
license terms require of users.
You have a very valid point though, namely that
any discussion of proprietary licensing should
include a discussion of anti-piracy enforcement.
IMHO, the state should have a very secondary role
in license enforcement. A license is a contract
between a developer and a user. The state has no
role in such a private deal. The state's only role
is to provide contract law framework. The state
should not get involved until piracy is proven and
the case is brought to court. All the hunting
and detective work should reside strictly with
the copyright holder. Furthermore, the punishment
for violating a contract should not be up to
the state to decide, it should be stipulated in
contract itself. The only enforcement the state
has to do is the civil judgement verdict enfrcement.
Yeah, I was debating with myself whether to put
garbage in quotation marks but decided that the
meaning was clear enough anyway. Apparently not.
Anyhow, you do reinforce my point. Both Unix and
Posix were slighlty modified by vendors and
engineers. People don't like to just follow what
some guy (or 800 lb gorilla) says, they like to
tweak.
>>Is anyone complaining?
What's interesting is your nick. See, Be people have written their OS precisely to dispose of old garbage like Unix API.
>>POSIX is perhaps the most successful OS API in history.
Notice that most OS's are not Posix compliant, not Linux, not Windows, not Mac, not Be, not Atheos, not Hurd. Full Posix compliance is hard to find.
May I ask why? Aren't teflon caps about as good?
IMHO, the reason why people complain about lame content in Ep. 1 is because they ... grew up. I came to the US
when I was a grown up and saw Star Wars episodes for
the first time when I was older than 20. I see no
difference between the episodes in terms of quality.
How is an animated Jamaican-spouting goon worse than
a metal wizard-of-oz'ish charicature of a robot,
or a rolling trash bin with blinking lights?
I am not trying to troll, I am just saying that
SW is aimed at kids and is not bad in that realm.
Ep. II will probably not deviate from this money
making scheme, but where is the grief?
Mozilla was supposed to be the most standards compliant browser out there. That was THE goal, AFAIK, at least for 1.0 release (of course being better than 4.7 in stability and usability too). Tell me if these goals haven't already been achieved. How is Mozilla a failure then?
Mozilla was meant to be standards compliant and there is no shortage of web related standards so "start simply" would contradict the goal of the project. As for "iterate constantly", they have produced the first real alpha of Mozilla with 0.9.1 and this is where we should track the birth of Mozilla from. Since then, updates were happening quite often, not to mention nightly builds which as the name suggests are nightly. Leadership is not there now, at least since jwz left. But so long as they make a fantastic browser I don't care if they are monkeys randomly typing code. Mozilla does remain solid since 0.9.1 days and just keeps getting better. Happy and loyal users exist. I am one.
Well, it's more complicated than this. First of all the paper devotes most of its space to theoretical discussion which in the end shows no quantitative predictions. Being an experimentalist I do not care much for this kind of theory. YMMV.
Chucking theory, we are left with two experimental results: a rather plausible effect and an implausible one. The plausible result is his description of how the discharge evolves through T_c. Still, he gives no explanation of what T_c was and more importantly he never mentions transition width. His mention that in his first experiments the YBCO film degraded makes me think that his temprature control was highly questionable so he may have been still above T_c even with claims to the contrary. Still, he may be right when he says that his setup represents a new or at least unusual N-S junction.
The implausible result is his claims of a force beam and that his beam does not dissipate through walls, air and other things. He claims that his discharge has a side effect of producing a beam capable of significant mechanical effects. The sheer difference in scale between known gravitational effects and his measurements makes me wonder if the beam exists at all. The lack of dissipation combined with its strong effect on the balls leaves me wondering if conservation laws would be violated.
The paper is horridly written. Parts aren't proper English (which I am ready to excuse as he is not from an English speaking country), parts aren't proper physics (like when he claims that the electrons forming his discharge are coming from pair condensate without any justification to substantiate such an implausible scenario), parts aren't proper experimental procedure (e.g his vacuum quality, his lack of pictures to illustrate discharge dynamics, etc). His figures don't have captions and some have unlabeled axes. His theoretical discussion includes passages trying to say, in effect: people don't know where this comes from in high T_c so it may be related to our effect. Still, I would not judge a book by its cover. If only one of the effects he observed is real then he has made a contribution to science, though after reading his paper, I doubt there will be revolutionary advances coming from this.
No, in this case the words people "bandy about" would
be "first sale doctrine". Basically if IP were to be
acknowledged as property then first sale doctrine
must apply to it. I think most people equate
property and first sale and hold this to be self
evident.
I am not sure, but I think you are wrong here.
Most monitors are not rated to display
16-16-16 colors. True, video cards are a limitation
as well, but I would seriously consider taking
a few DACs and writing my own driver if 48-bit
were available on the monitor side.
Sorry, I meant 48-bit color. If you have
16-bit data you want to render it in
16-bit greyscale, but current monitors do
8-bit greyscale only. 'Course SGI makes nice
expensive 48-bit color displays but when can
I buy one at Walmart for cheap?!
I don't care about thinness. When will they come out
with 48-bit monitors at regular CRT prices?????!!!!!
CNet's latest update claims MS has acknowledged
that some of its servers were unpatched and thus
infected.
That's like every Slashdotter sending every line
in Debian source tree to whitehouse.gov.
One line at a time!
In KDE case they forgave use of their own code if any.
But realistically, they have the lawyer power to go
after violators, so if they choose not to intervene
on behalf of the copyright holder, then the likelihood
of a lawsuit is quite small.
Well, the FSF has a history of forgiving companies
and groups for initial mistakes with the GPL so long as they choose to become compliant. The latest one
was KDE/Qt debacle. The FSF seems to use its
leniency as a bargaining chip to bring people into
GPL compliance. IMHO, not a bad tactic.
That said, I am not seeing any indication of FSF
position in this case wrt past violations. They
may yet go to court, though I'd guess they have
better use for their money. OTOH, that press release
had "Open Source" all over it, so maybe RMS will
be pissed enough...
The "trouble" here is that there are free alternatives
to everything MS makes. In a couple of years they
will have to compete with Openoffice and Koffice
on price/performance. Do you think they will first
give away Windows and then Office? Because that's
the logical chain if one follows your argument.
As an aside, I think that network-based apps will
not fly because networks have latency and they
go down. Passport already exists and is a luaghing
stock of identification providers (Hotmail security?),
.NET may be good (it may succed on the client but
is unlikely to displace java on the server) and
Hailstorm will be a huge mess. Microsoft's new
business model looks like a money losing disaster
in the making.
Hmm, so do you plan to speak at Adobe headquaters.
Those are a bunch of guys whose balls need to be
busted.
Well, from what I gather, KDE people have done some .NET things
.NET thing is still a moving
SOAP work but their general remarks tend to be along
the lines of: we'll implement stuff once users
need it. Frankly, I think cloning
before they are even certified by ECMA (or whoever
winds up certifying it in the end - maybe noone)
is a bad idea. This
target, why shoot for it?
So I am looking for visualization solutions and
it ain't gonna be SGI 'cause they may not be there
in ten years. So who else can render 120 million
triangles per second (that's real, not zero pixel
triangles, shaded, lit by four lights or more and
textured with 1024x1024 texture)?