http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203036
for those of you that have advanced degrees in physics... could the rest of us have a translation?
Of course I could be off with the publication, but it is hers and it's the only one Perimeter Institute had for her, and the introduction implies gravity with quantum physics... just a disclaimer. I don't have that advanced physics degree yet.
Re:What needs to happen...
on
ICANN Updates
·
· Score: 1
Actually a republic would be a much better idea. This is what the majority of the civilized word uses, including USA, GB, Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, etc. People should be elected to make knowledgable choices and to handle the mundane choices.
Imagine if a vote is called to all Linux to connect to a.com address. An average person would say "Linux, isn't that some kind of virus? I don't want any flesh eating virus on my computer." Uniformed people resort to rumor and hear-say when they don't know the facts or can't get easy access to the facts. Or take this example to change from IPV4 to IPV6, most people won't think of it as a big deal and won't vote, so IPV2 wins by write in from 15 high schoolers pulling a prank.
Individuals can be very smart, but take a large group of people and the IQ plummets. The masses are fickle and apathetic. Yes electing officials is based on popularity more then qualifications but the officials at least have to know something because of the 1 percent of people that ask intelligent questions.
Everyone could have an alterier motive. That news caster that was on the local news saying that apples are healthy could have owned an apple farm. Or maybe the producer does. They don't have to say that they gain profit from people buying apples. I agree that they should, but then there are so many people involved in publications that it would be difficult to poll every employee to see if they have a conection with every story.
You need to judge every piece of information to see if it has bias, not just the ones where you don't know the source but the ones where you do know the source but don't have a reason to trust the source.
I think the review was by some random person that just picked up the card. The review implies that he enjoys the card but has some problems with it. Which basically describes every piece of software I've ever installed, whether it be closed or open sourced. He's not promoting a competing product, in fact he's almost promoting the product with a disclaimer that it won't work perfectly and that he found a nasty bug. He doesn't work for creative (he pointed out a nasty bug) and he doesn't work for a competitor (he actually enjoys the card).
Just because you can attach a name to someone doesn't mean they're not anyless a stranger then an anonymous.
Actually dividing by zero doesn't give you infinity, it yeilds an undefined. If 4 / 0 was infinity then 0 * infinity would be 4, which it's not.
Also Infinity doesn't always equal Infinity. There are many different types of infinity that may or may not equal. Consider all the counting numbers, thats an Infinity. Now consider all the real numbers, that's a different Infinity. The second Infinity is greater then the first (counting numbers are a subset of all real numbers), hence Infinity doesn't equal Infinity
Using multiple encryption on one message may not increase the difficulty and may even lower it. Encryption algorithms are mathmatical formula so this example will suffice even though it may be simplistic. Say you have two encryption algorithms F(x)=8x and G(x)=x*x*x. You may think that by combining the two would make it more difficult to find x but F(G(x))=(2x)*(2x)*(2x) or 2x cubed which is as difficult as G(x) by itself. But say instead of G(x) you used H(x)=x/8 which would simply decrypt x to it's original value. In short to be able to combine encryption algorithms you have to know what they do and even then there is no garuntee that you're not introducing new holes.
If you modify the encryption algorithm then you're probably introducing new holes into it or at the very least you have to distribure those modifications to whomever you want to decrypt it. In essance a type of one time pad. Either you have to create a new encryption algorithm for each message or group of messages that you send or choose one and stick with it. If you constantly change algorithms or modify you have to have some secure way of getting those modifications to whomever wants to decrypt it, which can be difficult. You could simply create or modify an algorithm and not tell anyone what it is except for the recipient but to do that you'd have to know alot about cryptography and hopefully know the benefits of peer review. The people that encrpt DVDs know the benefits of peer review, now, after they released DVDs using CSS. If your modified algorithm is broken you'd probably never know because who would tell you? The guys that are trying to read your encrypted data or the ones that don't want to read your email and don't have access to your modified algorithm?
The safest thing to do is either use a very long key or learn cryptography develop your own algorithm, get it peer reveiwed and then most likely use a very long key.
If you live in the DC area there's patriot.net. It's a small isp but it does have shell hosting for dialup. Mostly the problem with small isps is that they offer more services that most people don't use and then have to charge customers more because they are a small business and need to stay profitable. When some one first signs up with an isp all they look at is price, they figure that service is the same.
ok, people are saying that the states all agree with the federal government, how likely is that? wouldn't the states want to heavily fine MS and then divide the spoils? besides I can think of better ways to curb MS, break it in to 3 companies that all have a copy and rights to all the software. if one of the MS's sells an API to a company then the other's have to accept that the offending company can run on their version of windows or they can change the API, though that will insure that MS will be incompatable with the others. Sure, they might all change their API, but then nothing out there now will run on them and companies can shop around for the cheapest. Yes another monopoly can result from this, but there will be competion before then, lots of it. Course if you just want to put MS out of business then don't let them make exclusive contracts, open their API to everyone, and not allow their marketing dept. to lie.
Can anyone see Microsoft convincing anyone to even port their games to this thing? But wait, if MS uses their market power to "convince" people to port their existing games and to write new ones for it, say in return for access to API's in W2K or some other market technique. I see it having alot of games real fast.
I'd rather have new laws that are well thought out and do what they're supposed to then no laws at all.
I'd like laws that protect my personal information and privacy, yes some old laws cover this but they don't cover the scope or were not written with the abibity to transfer mass amounts of data with little effort.
I'd like laws that prosecute faulty software. Software that doesn't do what it's supposed to or does something more then it's supposed to. I'd like a law the outlaws net taxs, most net sales still use UPS or such, wouldn't be easier to tax them?
I'd like the laws to be enforced by the UN so there isn't any jurisdiction crap, if someone in the US steals credit cards from germany I'd like there to be just one jurisdiction it falls under, not multiple.
I'd like investigators to just copy my hard drive rather then impounding my computer, or atleast give me the dollar value of my equipment when it was impounded.
I'd like a law that says any crpto that can be cracked wasn't a good one in the first place and it's the corperation's problem for not protecting their data.
I'd like to own anything that resides on my computer, if I want to decompile a filtering software to see what it filters, I should be able to.
But most of all I'd like only as many laws as needed to protect the people on the net, not the corperations.
Slashdot Mirror
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203036 for those of you that have advanced degrees in physics... could the rest of us have a translation? Of course I could be off with the publication, but it is hers and it's the only one Perimeter Institute had for her, and the introduction implies gravity with quantum physics... just a disclaimer. I don't have that advanced physics degree yet.
Actually a republic would be a much better idea. This is what the majority of the civilized word uses, including USA, GB, Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, etc. People should be elected to make knowledgable choices and to handle the mundane choices.
.com address. An average person would say "Linux, isn't that some kind of virus? I don't want any flesh eating virus on my computer." Uniformed people resort to rumor and hear-say when they don't know the facts or can't get easy access to the facts. Or take this example to change from IPV4 to IPV6, most people won't think of it as a big deal and won't vote, so IPV2 wins by write in from 15 high schoolers pulling a prank.
Imagine if a vote is called to all Linux to connect to a
Individuals can be very smart, but take a large group of people and the IQ plummets. The masses are fickle and apathetic. Yes electing officials is based on popularity more then qualifications but the officials at least have to know something because of the 1 percent of people that ask intelligent questions.
--Beware bias, I live in the USA
Everyone could have an alterier motive. That news caster that was on the local news saying that apples are healthy could have owned an apple farm. Or maybe the producer does. They don't have to say that they gain profit from people buying apples. I agree that they should, but then there are so many people involved in publications that it would be difficult to poll every employee to see if they have a conection with every story.
You need to judge every piece of information to see if it has bias, not just the ones where you don't know the source but the ones where you do know the source but don't have a reason to trust the source.
I think the review was by some random person that just picked up the card. The review implies that he enjoys the card but has some problems with it. Which basically describes every piece of software I've ever installed, whether it be closed or open sourced. He's not promoting a competing product, in fact he's almost promoting the product with a disclaimer that it won't work perfectly and that he found a nasty bug. He doesn't work for creative (he pointed out a nasty bug) and he doesn't work for a competitor (he actually enjoys the card).
Just because you can attach a name to someone doesn't mean they're not anyless a stranger then an anonymous.
Actually dividing by zero doesn't give you infinity, it yeilds an undefined. If 4 / 0 was infinity then 0 * infinity would be 4, which it's not.
Also Infinity doesn't always equal Infinity. There are many different types of infinity that may or may not equal. Consider all the counting numbers, thats an Infinity. Now consider all the real numbers, that's a different Infinity. The second Infinity is greater then the first (counting numbers are a subset of all real numbers), hence Infinity doesn't equal Infinity
Using multiple encryption on one message may not increase the difficulty and may even lower it. Encryption algorithms are mathmatical formula so this example will suffice even though it may be simplistic. Say you have two encryption algorithms F(x)=8x and G(x)=x*x*x. You may think that by combining the two would make it more difficult to find x but F(G(x))=(2x)*(2x)*(2x) or 2x cubed which is as difficult as G(x) by itself. But say instead of G(x) you used H(x)=x/8 which would simply decrypt x to it's original value. In short to be able to combine encryption algorithms you have to know what they do and even then there is no garuntee that you're not introducing new holes.
If you modify the encryption algorithm then you're probably introducing new holes into it or at the very least you have to distribure those modifications to whomever you want to decrypt it. In essance a type of one time pad. Either you have to create a new encryption algorithm for each message or group of messages that you send or choose one and stick with it. If you constantly change algorithms or modify you have to have some secure way of getting those modifications to whomever wants to decrypt it, which can be difficult. You could simply create or modify an algorithm and not tell anyone what it is except for the recipient but to do that you'd have to know alot about cryptography and hopefully know the benefits of peer review. The people that encrpt DVDs know the benefits of peer review, now, after they released DVDs using CSS. If your modified algorithm is broken you'd probably never know because who would tell you? The guys that are trying to read your encrypted data or the ones that don't want to read your email and don't have access to your modified algorithm?
The safest thing to do is either use a very long key or learn cryptography develop your own algorithm, get it peer reveiwed and then most likely use a very long key.
If you live in the DC area there's patriot.net. It's a small isp but it does have shell hosting for dialup. Mostly the problem with small isps is that they offer more services that most people don't use and then have to charge customers more because they are a small business and need to stay profitable. When some one first signs up with an isp all they look at is price, they figure that service is the same.
ok, people are saying that the states all agree with the federal government, how likely is that? wouldn't the states want to heavily fine MS and then divide the spoils? besides I can think of better ways to curb MS, break it in to 3 companies that all have a copy and rights to all the software. if one of the MS's sells an API to a company then the other's have to accept that the offending company can run on their version of windows or they can change the API, though that will insure that MS will be incompatable with the others. Sure, they might all change their API, but then nothing out there now will run on them and companies can shop around for the cheapest. Yes another monopoly can result from this, but there will be competion before then, lots of it. Course if you just want to put MS out of business then don't let them make exclusive contracts, open their API to everyone, and not allow their marketing dept. to lie.
Can anyone see Microsoft convincing anyone to even port their games to this thing? But wait, if MS uses their market power to "convince" people to port their existing games and to write new ones for it, say in return for access to API's in W2K or some other market technique. I see it having alot of games real fast.
I'd like laws that protect my personal information and privacy, yes some old laws cover this but they don't cover the scope or were not written with the abibity to transfer mass amounts of data with little effort.
I'd like laws that prosecute faulty software. Software that doesn't do what it's supposed to or does something more then it's supposed to. I'd like a law the outlaws net taxs, most net sales still use UPS or such, wouldn't be easier to tax them?
I'd like the laws to be enforced by the UN so there isn't any jurisdiction crap, if someone in the US steals credit cards from germany I'd like there to be just one jurisdiction it falls under, not multiple.
I'd like investigators to just copy my hard drive rather then impounding my computer, or atleast give me the dollar value of my equipment when it was impounded.
I'd like a law that says any crpto that can be cracked wasn't a good one in the first place and it's the corperation's problem for not protecting their data.
I'd like to own anything that resides on my computer, if I want to decompile a filtering software to see what it filters, I should be able to.
But most of all I'd like only as many laws as needed to protect the people on the net, not the corperations.