...that Peter Schor came up with a quantum computing algorithm which factors large numbers in polynomial time, back in *1994*? For that reason, RSA encryption should be looked upon as insecure if being used to protect data for more than, say, five years. As soon as they build a quantum computer, RSA is effectively worthless. Sure it would be nice to have a P-class algorithm to run on a regular computer too, but that's beside the point if the cat is already effectively out of the bag. (For those suggesting that very very fast massively parallel computers can be used to factor v. large numbers, remember that adding a single decimal digit to the key increases the computational effort required to factor it by orders of magnitude.)
Who's to define what socialising means anymore? How can more and more people talking/E-mailing/SMS-ing etc possibly make people more distant from each other? Sure, there are still people who view the Internet as an end in itself... but the same is true of bars and coffee houses. If I want to be sociable, why should I have to conform to someone else's way of doing so?
You're right, I think they've just realised they need to think about ditching anaolgue communications products (bit slow there...); they seem to be hedging their bets a little about which way they expect global telecoms to go (wired or wireless), sounds like they'll just wait and see?
There's nothing in the press release that screams "Innovative".
Well I for one would certainly love to see some decent sequencing/audio manipulation software on Linux; it's basically the only reason I still have a dual-boot 'doze system. I'm not sure exactly about the technical issues behind (for example) real-time digital multitracking and signal processing. UNIX (and thus Linux) is really good at getting decent performance out of any hardware you care to throw it at; but it's also got the overhead of file abstractions and security. On low-end hardware, Windows/DOS software often has a perceived performance edge, because it's only dealing with a single user system, and doesn't have to worry about giving applications direct access to the hardware. Then again, I guess anyone using pro-audio software is going to be running on a dedicated workstation where they can suid root no end... but... ew. We'll probably start something along the lines of the GIMP (which let's face it, is pretty limited ATM), then once the snowball is rolling the contributers can pile on their code. I doubt anyone (or any one group) is going to code us a Cubase clone and open-source it overnight! Just my 2p.
In most cases, anything a college student knocks up in their spare time isn't going to be worth making a fuss over. If it is such a bit issue, then generally the university will offer to back the development/research/whatever. I've never heard of an instance where such "legislation" has actually been exercised.
Hmmm indeed. I reckon there's not much of a way round the virus cycle (i.e. someone writes and releases something malicious, someone else notices, works out how to detect/cure/remove it etc. etc), and it doesn't matter what the underlying system is. What I *do* believe is that Linux will be less prone to virus attacks than certain existing desktop OSes, because its security model is fundamentally much more sound.
(OK, UNIX security was an afterthought. But Windows Security.... is there any??)
Slashdot Mirror
...that Peter Schor came up with a quantum computing algorithm which factors large numbers in polynomial time, back in *1994*? For that reason, RSA encryption should be looked upon as insecure if being used to protect data for more than, say, five years. As soon as they build a quantum computer, RSA is effectively worthless. Sure it would be nice to have a P-class algorithm to run on a regular computer too, but that's beside the point if the cat is already effectively out of the bag. (For those suggesting that very very fast massively parallel computers can be used to factor v. large numbers, remember that adding a single decimal digit to the key increases the computational effort required to factor it by orders of magnitude.)
Hmmm. There's always a cynic. :-)
Who's to define what socialising means anymore? How can more and more people talking/E-mailing/SMS-ing etc possibly make people more distant from each other? Sure, there are still people who view the Internet as an end in itself... but the same is true of bars and coffee houses. If I want to be sociable, why should I have to conform to someone else's way of doing so?
(...OFF TOPIC!!)
You're right, I think they've just realised they need to think about ditching anaolgue communications products (bit slow there...); they seem to be hedging their bets a little about which way they expect global telecoms to go (wired or wireless), sounds like they'll just wait and see?
There's nothing in the press release that screams "Innovative".
Well I for one would certainly love to see some decent sequencing/audio manipulation software on Linux; it's basically the only reason I still have a dual-boot 'doze system. I'm not sure exactly about the technical issues behind (for example) real-time digital multitracking and signal processing. UNIX (and thus Linux) is really good at getting decent performance out of any hardware you care to throw it at; but it's also got the overhead of file abstractions and security. On low-end hardware, Windows/DOS software often has a perceived performance edge, because it's only dealing with a single user system, and doesn't have to worry about giving applications direct access to the hardware. Then again, I guess anyone using pro-audio software is going to be running on a dedicated workstation where they can suid root no end... but... ew. We'll probably start something along the lines of the GIMP (which let's face it, is pretty limited ATM), then once the snowball is rolling the contributers can pile on their code. I doubt anyone (or any one group) is going to code us a Cubase clone and open-source it overnight! Just my 2p.
In most cases, anything a college student knocks up in their spare time isn't going to be worth making a fuss over. If it is such a bit issue, then generally the university will offer to back the development/research/whatever. I've never heard of an instance where such "legislation" has actually been exercised.
Hmmm indeed. I reckon there's not much of a way round the virus cycle (i.e. someone writes and releases something malicious, someone else notices, works out how to detect/cure/remove it etc. etc), and it doesn't matter what the underlying system is. What I *do* believe is that Linux will be less prone to virus attacks than certain existing desktop OSes, because its security model is fundamentally much more sound.
(OK, UNIX security was an afterthought. But Windows Security.... is there any??)