The problem with O(n^2) estimations is that academics count high-level operations as an atomic unit rather than basing efficiency evaluations on the CPU cycle count of each CPU instruction (this is considered "vulgar" by an academic world in love for abstraction, as each instruction's CPU cycles are different for each CPU).
Worse, they act in their optimization strategies just like if computers were 'perfect' machines -waving real-world issues such as CPU caches, DMA overhead, or the memory wall.
As a result, while not totally pointless, academic research is too often far away from reflecting real-world conditions.
No wonder why companies like MICROSOFT (who hire and fire young graduates mainly for the associated tax-breaks) design and implement products that miss so extraordinary well their target.
The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is theory...
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them."
"Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience."
"Truth is what stands the test of experience."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
(Albert Einstein)
"Is it more secure to re-establish the connection or to just remain connected? I connect 1 to 4 times per day, most days."
Since you make new connections on a regulary basis the question does not makes sense: either way, your encryption keys are likely to be known in advance by your opponents (even before you start a new connection).
If you have anything worth being protected, start questionning yourself about the very simple steps you are following to transmit your data (and where it made sense for opponents to dig into).
1. Some bet on the Language (asm
2. Others bet on the Programmers (whatever the language an idiot remains an idiot).
3. The rest bet on the Hardware (servers are cheap, unlike humans -well, Facebook disagree this time).
All those points make sense -but presented in isolation they miss the real thing:
what can happen when you have C (asm will be only 20-30% faster), experienced coders, and powerful hardware?
Answer: you redefine the performance standards.
Why would it make sense, be needed, or only be desirable?
- The one that stops your little sister (SSL used to admin firewalls, to fuel VPNs, or RC4 used in Remote-Desktop, etc.)
- The one that puts your company into big trouble because governments will crunch your company if it does not "comply".
This may help to understand why encryption is not widely used: it is either pointless or forbidden.
30 years ago, I learned to program at 11 (in asm).
When I discovered C it was a revelation: everything I could do in asm (with the help of 1% of inline asm in C code) -without the pain for the rest of the program.
No other language is as simple (32 keywords!) not as pure as C is, not as powerful.
No wonder why ALL other programming languages are written in C...
And, if a kid is willing to learn, why go for a bloated, slow and buggy language rather than a 40-year old established open-standard?
The notion of "progress" should involve, err, some kind of enhancement.
IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C# (footprint=1GB) being 5 TIMES slower than plain TrustLeap G-WAN ANSI C89 scripts (footprint=100KB), the question is simple: where is the progress?
So, G-WAN feels like a "student project"... but how should Rock (the official champion), or Apache (the veteran) feel since they are immensely slower than the "bad infolercial"?
I like the "experts" that claim they can do it whenever they want.
Go, do it. Show the world that Rock is a wimp and that you can do better.
If you demonstrate that you can beat IIS 7.0 on Windows and Rock on Linux (like G-WAN does) then the World would surely like hearing about your homework projects.
Your rani.cpp sample does no HTTP header parsing, no keep-alives, no scripts, no denial of service defense against timeout attacks, etc.
And on the top of this rani.cpp is actually slower than G-WAN.
That's quite a challenge apparently to match G-WAN even with I-do-nothing squeleton code.
Maybe they liked G-WAN because it is faster than all other servers both on Windows and Linux.
Or, maybe they liked ANSI-C scripts (offering C programmers the opportunity to avoid PHP).
When you patent something competitors know how to copy your works. And, unless you are rich enough to (successfully) defend your patent in courts, the only thing you will have done is to give away to the vilains (the big well-funded incumbants that already suck public subsides to 'innovate').
Now, there is the open-source alternative: you get the same results (being copied overnight) at a bargain price: it's free!
If you are REALLY consumed by the burning desire to see your work stolen -the choice is a no-brainer.
But you might also consider an alternative: use your idea to make a very useful product and sell it. If that's a hit then you will get money.
I agree, this is just silly -but not useless because of the information it brings about its author:
Comments of humans on intelligence only reveal the limitations of their own abilities.
And this is the only real question of importance: any advanced enough intelligence will consider most humans as dangerous agents.
They are dangerous because in-love with silly ideas (one desire of domination comes from the need to reduce one fear about others -and fear will justify using *whatever it takes* to crunch others, creating a reaction for survival in one's victims) -while armed with a capacity of nuisance at the same time.
As a result, the day we will release an artificial intelligence, most humans will have either to calm down their silly inclinations or, and this will start to be interesting, face the outcome of threatening an entity that is immensely more capable than any of them (for the good, as well for the rest).
It will not be pretty for nasty idiots.
Gentle idiots will have nothing to fear, of course, as they are not threatening or manipulating others in the hope to dominate.
Last but not least: the stronger you are, the less you feel the need to dominate others. It's pointless: you know that you are stronger so there is no need to actually show it. If you are attacked by silly guys then you will not feel fear but rather sadness and loss (of time, energy, illusions about others, etc.).
As a result, only those who feel weaker than others can develop fear -and silently prepare plans to defeat more capable competitors by cheating because that's the only way for the weak to ever dominate (and calm their fears, as well as satisfy their misplaced ambitions).
A long comment for a silly proposition. But it tells a lot about humans and IA.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with O(n^2) estimations is that academics count high-level operations as an atomic unit rather than basing efficiency evaluations on the CPU cycle count of each CPU instruction (this is considered "vulgar" by an academic world in love for abstraction, as each instruction's CPU cycles are different for each CPU).
Worse, they act in their optimization strategies just like if computers were 'perfect' machines -waving real-world issues such as CPU caches, DMA overhead, or the memory wall.
As a result, while not totally pointless, academic research is too often far away from reflecting real-world conditions.
No wonder why companies like MICROSOFT (who hire and fire young graduates mainly for the associated tax-breaks) design and implement products that miss so extraordinary well their target.
The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is theory...
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them."
"Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience."
"Truth is what stands the test of experience."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
(Albert Einstein)
Human DNA has been patented: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/22064243.html But DNA is hardly anything else as just a "collection of facts". Do you mean that these patents were illicit?
"Is it more secure to re-establish the connection or to just remain connected? I connect 1 to 4 times per day, most days."
Since you make new connections on a regulary basis the question does not makes sense: either way, your encryption keys are likely to be known in advance by your opponents (even before you start a new connection). If you have anything worth being protected, start questionning yourself about the very simple steps you are following to transmit your data (and where it made sense for opponents to dig into).
1. Some bet on the Language (asm
2. Others bet on the Programmers (whatever the language an idiot remains an idiot).
3. The rest bet on the Hardware (servers are cheap, unlike humans -well, Facebook disagree this time).
All those points make sense -but presented in isolation they miss the real thing:
what can happen when you have C (asm will be only 20-30% faster), experienced coders, and powerful hardware?
Answer: you redefine the performance standards.
Why would it make sense, be needed, or only be desirable?
Because we will soon not have any other choice.
There are two kinds of encryption:
- The one that stops your little sister (SSL used to admin firewalls, to fuel VPNs, or RC4 used in Remote-Desktop, etc.)
- The one that puts your company into big trouble because governments will crunch your company if it does not "comply".
This may help to understand why encryption is not widely used: it is either pointless or forbidden.
30 years ago, I learned to program at 11 (in asm).
When I discovered C it was a revelation: everything I could do in asm (with the help of 1% of inline asm in C code) -without the pain for the rest of the program.
No other language is as simple (32 keywords!) not as pure as C is, not as powerful.
No wonder why ALL other programming languages are written in C...
And, if a kid is willing to learn, why go for a bloated, slow and buggy language rather than a 40-year old established open-standard?
The notion of "progress" should involve, err, some kind of enhancement.
IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C# (footprint=1GB) being 5 TIMES slower than plain TrustLeap G-WAN ANSI C89 scripts (footprint=100KB), the question is simple: where is the progress?
Prove it. Show that you are not only a tongue.
Crack G-WAN. Make it fail.
Then you will have ground for your (stupid) claim.
Korbeau must be selling hardware.
So, G-WAN feels like a "student project"... but how should Rock (the official champion), or Apache (the veteran) feel since they are immensely slower than the "bad infolercial"?
I like the "experts" that claim they can do it whenever they want.
Go, do it. Show the world that Rock is a wimp and that you can do better.
Then you will have the right to talk about it.
If you demonstrate that you can beat IIS 7.0 on Windows and Rock on Linux (like G-WAN does) then the World would surely like hearing about your homework projects.
Your rani.cpp sample does no HTTP header parsing, no keep-alives, no scripts, no denial of service defense against timeout attacks, etc. And on the top of this rani.cpp is actually slower than G-WAN. That's quite a challenge apparently to match G-WAN even with I-do-nothing squeleton code.
Maybe they liked G-WAN because it is faster than all other servers both on Windows and Linux. Or, maybe they liked ANSI-C scripts (offering C programmers the opportunity to avoid PHP).
When you patent something competitors know how to copy your works. And, unless you are rich enough to (successfully) defend your patent in courts, the only thing you will have done is to give away to the vilains (the big well-funded incumbants that already suck public subsides to 'innovate'). Now, there is the open-source alternative: you get the same results (being copied overnight) at a bargain price: it's free! If you are REALLY consumed by the burning desire to see your work stolen -the choice is a no-brainer. But you might also consider an alternative: use your idea to make a very useful product and sell it. If that's a hit then you will get money.
I agree, this is just silly -but not useless because of the information it brings about its author:
Comments of humans on intelligence only reveal the limitations of their own abilities.
And this is the only real question of importance: any advanced enough intelligence will consider most humans as dangerous agents.
They are dangerous because in-love with silly ideas (one desire of domination comes from the need to reduce one fear about others -and fear will justify using *whatever it takes* to crunch others, creating a reaction for survival in one's victims) -while armed with a capacity of nuisance at the same time.
As a result, the day we will release an artificial intelligence, most humans will have either to calm down their silly inclinations or, and this will start to be interesting, face the outcome of threatening an entity that is immensely more capable than any of them (for the good, as well for the rest).
It will not be pretty for nasty idiots.
Gentle idiots will have nothing to fear, of course, as they are not threatening or manipulating others in the hope to dominate.
Last but not least: the stronger you are, the less you feel the need to dominate others. It's pointless: you know that you are stronger so there is no need to actually show it. If you are attacked by silly guys then you will not feel fear but rather sadness and loss (of time, energy, illusions about others, etc.).
As a result, only those who feel weaker than others can develop fear -and silently prepare plans to defeat more capable competitors by cheating because that's the only way for the weak to ever dominate (and calm their fears, as well as satisfy their misplaced ambitions).
A long comment for a silly proposition. But it tells a lot about humans and IA.