There's no guarantee that time will end before it cracks it... at most only that time will end before it can be guaranteed to have been successfully cracked.
There is a difference.
Taking some highly remote chance and saying that it is so unlikely to ever happen that you can assume it never actually will may very well be valid assumption for all practical purposes, but that doesn't make it true.
Clearly not... or you would realize that such factors as what you mention are, from the standpoint of the problem, merely imposed limits on the frequency with which one may actually make attempts to solve the problem. And even then, still don't guarantee that any given one wouldn't be solved.
Absolutely *NO* password is uncrackable... a person may, in fact, get it even on their first try.
The most that one can say about "unbreakable" password protection is that it might be unbreakable for all practical purposes. That is not remotely the same thing as saying it's impossible to do.
What does "should not" have to do with any of this? They will, whether it's illegal or not, and regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it. Near as I can figure, we can all either metaphorically bend over and take it up the ass like good bitches, or just go and move elsewhere. It's not going to change just because of some subjective notion that they "shouldn't" do it... because they think they should, and they have the means by which to accomplish it, and that's all that matters to them. There's not a darn thing that any citizen can actually do about it that won't ultimately land them in prison, where one could end up taking things up the ass far more literally.
But OKCupid goes a step further than merely voicing their objection... by boycotting the browser over a particular political issue, they are attempting to manipulate their users into making an alleged "choice" that furthers the political agenda that OKCupid happens to favor (in this case, equal rights for gays). Whether or not what OKCupid is wanting in this regard is right or wrong is immaterial.... their means to that end are still inappropriate.
Too much big money is tied up in the value of software patents, and I don't think the Supreme Court is interested in doing what would probably amount to irreparable harm to that many corporations.
Not saying it *CAN'T* happen that the court could rule against them, stranger things have happened in the past - but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Goodness knows I'd sorely enjoy being wrong about this, however.
The limiting factor to seeing more colors is not in the brain. it is in the eyes themseves. It's my understanding that some frequencies get blocked out by the lens, but the far greater limitation is in the cones within the eye. The 3 major types of cones in human eyes (some people have more, but let's stick to the norm here) each respond to specific frequencies of photons, which create electrical signals that your brain interprets as color. If you changed the type of cones you had in your eyes, you would change the electrical signals received by the brain and could very easily end up seeing entirely new colors that you have never seen before. Particularly if the signals sent by the new types of cones were different than the regular ones. There's no reason at all to suspect that the brain would process different types of input in terms of what it already knows how to process beyond our own inability to imagine what it would actually be like.
People with 4 types of cones in their eyes can already quite easily perceive the differences in many hues and shades that are completely indistinguishable for an average individual who has otherwise even perfect visual clarity. Expanding the types of cones in the eyes to include UV or IR should, by all rights (amounts blocked by the lens itself notwithstanding), enable being able to see many entirely new colors as well.
That is, the only way the phone can be "killed" is via the additional specification of a password that the user chose and had previously assigned to the device, and is not erased from the device when the battery is taken out or sim card replaced. When a phone phone receives the kill signal that is intended for it, if the password does not match what is on the device, the signal should of course be ignored, so that in general the only person who can remote kill the phone is the person who assigned the pasword for it. Changing the password would, of course, require physically entering the old one on the device. This would prevent anyone from being able to potentially kill somebody else's phone (barring successfully guessing the password, of course), but enable the end user to still remote lock their device if it should get stolen with at least some measure of confidence and security. Of course, if the device should get recovered, they should be able to restore it to its proper functionality by entering the correct password on the physical device, and if fairly strict limits (say up to three failed attempts per day) are imposed by the hardware in how many times you can retry to unlock the device after a failed attempt, then it is generally going to be impractical for a thief to attempt to brute force the password and unlock it in this matter. Obviously, if the remote kill also implements a remote wipe (which may or may not be overkill with this kind of system, I don't know), then the user would obviously still have to manually restore the data on their phone after such recovery. Such a locked device would not be usable for any purpose at all beyond calling 911, or whatever the emergency phone number is that is applicable to the provider and region.
When you talk about creating entire armies in the context of discussing 3d printing, my brain immediately went to those plastic green army men that kids used to get in stores for like a buck for a bag of a hundred or so.
We can cross that bridge when we get to it.... or at least not worry about crossing it until it's imminent.
People "printing" their own consumer products as a general practice isn't likely to present any threat to existing business models for at least another generation or so.
Yes. but owing to the fact that I had already prefaced the whole comment with "This may not necessarily apply to every use case..." one would generally figure that facing a "... distinct possibility of being cut off from the Internet entirely" wasn't ever intended to apply to systems which do not regularly utilize an internet connection in the first place.
I see disastrous things if they try to mix their core business with Occulous
I think that everybody who is against this does... what's more is that the most of the people who are against this believe that FB is liable to try this anyways.
But if they can make an awesome VR system that's reasonably priced without turning it some kind of facebook appliance, that's just great. I hope that's what they do.... it's not, however, what I seriously expect to happen.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm suggesting that critizing a refutation of streaming just because there may be alternatives to streaming that the refutation doesn't apply to is wrong.
The comment to which I respoonded was talking about streaming, and suggested that not everyone can afford high speed internet for this task. This can be very true, but I pointed out in addition to that...
Even if one *CAN* afford high speed internet, the service that actually does get offered to home consumers may simply not be reliable enough to use for prolonged high-speed streaming.
And then you followed up with...
Talk for yourself. Back here Internet is prevalent and it is becoming the norm to have 50-100Mbps in the big cities.
When I suggested
The internet is prevalent where I live too... but that doesn't mean it's always reliable for extended high speed streaming.
Try seeing just how annoying it gets trying to watch something when "buffering" keeps coming up every 3 or 4 minutes, even though it's only for a few seconds each time.
Then you brought up the point of digital downloads, which my point may not apply to, but which is even at best a non-sequitor. whether you want to admit to it or not. You even criticized the fact that I was talking about streaming when you were the one who initially decided to argue with me about the merits of streaming in the first place. So yes, you moved the goalposts of this discussion, whether or not you care to admit it (which you evidently don't, but that's not my problem), You can feel free to rant against this point or argue more with anyone else who responds if you are so inclined... there's nothing more I feel that I need to say here.
There's nothing wrong at all with using downloading services as an alternative to streaming, but suggesting that arguments which might dismiss streaming as viable because they are inapplicable to refuting downloading services is flat-out wrong.
The internet is prevalent where I live too... but that doesn't mean it's always reliable for extended high speed streaming.
Try seeing just how annoying it gets trying to watch something when "buffering" keeps coming up every 3 or 4 minutes, even though it's only for a few seconds each time.
You better hope that either a) no remote exploits for XP get discovered after april 8th, or b) your systems do not need any kind of connection to the internet.
Certain types of infected computers which have an impact on network usage (zombies, in particular) can be detected by the ISP and disconnected from their network (and it is usually in their best interests to do so)
This may not necessarily apply to every use case, but I'd suggest that any reason why one might need to run an older system is probably trumped by the distinct possibility of being cut off from the Internet entirely.
Because if or when any previpously unknown exploits for XP get discovered after April 8th, they will probably not be patched, Virus detection can only go so far to stopping vulnerabilities in the underlying OS.
Alert ISP's that can detect the presence of zombie computers on their network and will be able disconnect any that they find
This is singularly the best reason I know of to stay current with regards to whatever operating system one uses to stay online. If one does not have the hardware to remain current, then they may just have to accept staying offline until they do.
It means that something which is called a "DVD Player" (that is, a device that plays DVD's), and is "modern" (that is, purchased relatively recently... say, within the past 4 or 5 years or so) is an "appliance" (ttat is, a device or piece of equipment designed to perform a specific task and which is usable for such a task by home consumers, without requiring any training) which is also capable of "streaming" (that is, assuming it is has an internet connection of sufficient bandwidth, it is capable of receiving multimedia content over said connection in real time while the same content is also being watched or listened to).
Even if one *CAN* afford high speed internet, the service that actually does get offered to home consumers may simply not be reliable enough to use for prolonged high-speed streaming.
Most notably, it seems that Netflix rarely has the content that I like, so I continue to buy stuff on DVD.
Plus, with Netflix one is at the mercy of what can sometimes be an unreliable bandwidth connection. Trying to watch a movie that keeps pausing for about 10 seconds every minute or two is just not an enjoyable experience.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no guarantee that time will end before it cracks it... at most only that time will end before it can be guaranteed to have been successfully cracked.
There is a difference.
Taking some highly remote chance and saying that it is so unlikely to ever happen that you can assume it never actually will may very well be valid assumption for all practical purposes, but that doesn't make it true.
Did you read the first seven words of my comment?
Clearly not... or you would realize that such factors as what you mention are, from the standpoint of the problem, merely imposed limits on the frequency with which one may actually make attempts to solve the problem. And even then, still don't guarantee that any given one wouldn't be solved.
Absolutely *NO* password is uncrackable... a person may, in fact, get it even on their first try.
The most that one can say about "unbreakable" password protection is that it might be unbreakable for all practical purposes. That is not remotely the same thing as saying it's impossible to do.
Given enough opportunities to try different combinations, any password can be guessed in a finite amount of time, eventually.
Or maybe they just mean impossible for all practical purposes...?
My point being that no matter how right you may be, it's not something that most people are really willing to risk life or liberty for.
What does "should not" have to do with any of this? They will, whether it's illegal or not, and regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it. Near as I can figure, we can all either metaphorically bend over and take it up the ass like good bitches, or just go and move elsewhere. It's not going to change just because of some subjective notion that they "shouldn't" do it... because they think they should, and they have the means by which to accomplish it, and that's all that matters to them. There's not a darn thing that any citizen can actually do about it that won't ultimately land them in prison, where one could end up taking things up the ass far more literally.
You radically overestimate the will of the sheeple.
But OKCupid goes a step further than merely voicing their objection... by boycotting the browser over a particular political issue, they are attempting to manipulate their users into making an alleged "choice" that furthers the political agenda that OKCupid happens to favor (in this case, equal rights for gays). Whether or not what OKCupid is wanting in this regard is right or wrong is immaterial.... their means to that end are still inappropriate.
But they *will* be decided based on the repercussions... what you or I think *should* happen is entirely irrelevant.
Too much big money is tied up in the value of software patents, and I don't think the Supreme Court is interested in doing what would probably amount to irreparable harm to that many corporations.
Not saying it *CAN'T* happen that the court could rule against them, stranger things have happened in the past - but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Goodness knows I'd sorely enjoy being wrong about this, however.
The limiting factor to seeing more colors is not in the brain. it is in the eyes themseves. It's my understanding that some frequencies get blocked out by the lens, but the far greater limitation is in the cones within the eye. The 3 major types of cones in human eyes (some people have more, but let's stick to the norm here) each respond to specific frequencies of photons, which create electrical signals that your brain interprets as color. If you changed the type of cones you had in your eyes, you would change the electrical signals received by the brain and could very easily end up seeing entirely new colors that you have never seen before. Particularly if the signals sent by the new types of cones were different than the regular ones. There's no reason at all to suspect that the brain would process different types of input in terms of what it already knows how to process beyond our own inability to imagine what it would actually be like.
People with 4 types of cones in their eyes can already quite easily perceive the differences in many hues and shades that are completely indistinguishable for an average individual who has otherwise even perfect visual clarity. Expanding the types of cones in the eyes to include UV or IR should, by all rights (amounts blocked by the lens itself notwithstanding), enable being able to see many entirely new colors as well.
That is, the only way the phone can be "killed" is via the additional specification of a password that the user chose and had previously assigned to the device, and is not erased from the device when the battery is taken out or sim card replaced. When a phone phone receives the kill signal that is intended for it, if the password does not match what is on the device, the signal should of course be ignored, so that in general the only person who can remote kill the phone is the person who assigned the pasword for it. Changing the password would, of course, require physically entering the old one on the device. This would prevent anyone from being able to potentially kill somebody else's phone (barring successfully guessing the password, of course), but enable the end user to still remote lock their device if it should get stolen with at least some measure of confidence and security. Of course, if the device should get recovered, they should be able to restore it to its proper functionality by entering the correct password on the physical device, and if fairly strict limits (say up to three failed attempts per day) are imposed by the hardware in how many times you can retry to unlock the device after a failed attempt, then it is generally going to be impractical for a thief to attempt to brute force the password and unlock it in this matter. Obviously, if the remote kill also implements a remote wipe (which may or may not be overkill with this kind of system, I don't know), then the user would obviously still have to manually restore the data on their phone after such recovery. Such a locked device would not be usable for any purpose at all beyond calling 911, or whatever the emergency phone number is that is applicable to the provider and region.
When you talk about creating entire armies in the context of discussing 3d printing, my brain immediately went to those plastic green army men that kids used to get in stores for like a buck for a bag of a hundred or so.
Really?
Try it.
See how well it meshes with real lego.
Then come back and tell me just how capable 3d printers are of printing lego.
Maybe someday.... but not yet.
People "printing" their own consumer products as a general practice isn't likely to present any threat to existing business models for at least another generation or so.
Yes. but owing to the fact that I had already prefaced the whole comment with "This may not necessarily apply to every use case..." one would generally figure that facing a "... distinct possibility of being cut off from the Internet entirely" wasn't ever intended to apply to systems which do not regularly utilize an internet connection in the first place.
You didn't read the first 9 words that I wrote above, did you?
I think that everybody who is against this does... what's more is that the most of the people who are against this believe that FB is liable to try this anyways.
But if they can make an awesome VR system that's reasonably priced without turning it some kind of facebook appliance, that's just great. I hope that's what they do.... it's not, however, what I seriously expect to happen.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm suggesting that critizing a refutation of streaming just because there may be alternatives to streaming that the refutation doesn't apply to is wrong. The comment to which I respoonded was talking about streaming, and suggested that not everyone can afford high speed internet for this task. This can be very true, but I pointed out in addition to that...
And then you followed up with...
When I suggested
Then you brought up the point of digital downloads, which my point may not apply to, but which is even at best a non-sequitor. whether you want to admit to it or not. You even criticized the fact that I was talking about streaming when you were the one who initially decided to argue with me about the merits of streaming in the first place. So yes, you moved the goalposts of this discussion, whether or not you care to admit it (which you evidently don't, but that's not my problem), You can feel free to rant against this point or argue more with anyone else who responds if you are so inclined... there's nothing more I feel that I need to say here.
Nobody said it was the only alternative, but the article was discussing the convenience or inconvenience of DVDs compared to streaming services like Netflix, not downloading services like iTunes. Neither the post to which I first responded in this thread nor your previous post in the same thread mentioned such alternatives, so as near as I can figure, you're just shifting the goalposts of what we were talking about.
There's nothing wrong at all with using downloading services as an alternative to streaming, but suggesting that arguments which might dismiss streaming as viable because they are inapplicable to refuting downloading services is flat-out wrong.
The internet is prevalent where I live too... but that doesn't mean it's always reliable for extended high speed streaming.
Try seeing just how annoying it gets trying to watch something when "buffering" keeps coming up every 3 or 4 minutes, even though it's only for a few seconds each time.
You better hope that either a) no remote exploits for XP get discovered after april 8th, or b) your systems do not need any kind of connection to the internet.
Certain types of infected computers which have an impact on network usage (zombies, in particular) can be detected by the ISP and disconnected from their network (and it is usually in their best interests to do so)
This may not necessarily apply to every use case, but I'd suggest that any reason why one might need to run an older system is probably trumped by the distinct possibility of being cut off from the Internet entirely.
Because if or when any previpously unknown exploits for XP get discovered after April 8th, they will probably not be patched, Virus detection can only go so far to stopping vulnerabilities in the underlying OS.
Alert ISP's that can detect the presence of zombie computers on their network and will be able disconnect any that they find
This is singularly the best reason I know of to stay current with regards to whatever operating system one uses to stay online. If one does not have the hardware to remain current, then they may just have to accept staying offline until they do.
It means that something which is called a "DVD Player" (that is, a device that plays DVD's), and is "modern" (that is, purchased relatively recently... say, within the past 4 or 5 years or so) is an "appliance" (ttat is, a device or piece of equipment designed to perform a specific task and which is usable for such a task by home consumers, without requiring any training) which is also capable of "streaming" (that is, assuming it is has an internet connection of sufficient bandwidth, it is capable of receiving multimedia content over said connection in real time while the same content is also being watched or listened to).
Even if one *CAN* afford high speed internet, the service that actually does get offered to home consumers may simply not be reliable enough to use for prolonged high-speed streaming.
Most notably, it seems that Netflix rarely has the content that I like, so I continue to buy stuff on DVD.
Plus, with Netflix one is at the mercy of what can sometimes be an unreliable bandwidth connection. Trying to watch a movie that keeps pausing for about 10 seconds every minute or two is just not an enjoyable experience.