The odds of having an Fboy *at all* are higher if there are two boys than if there are a boy and a girl. That's the clue of the problem: you cannot ignore the a-priori probabilities in that case.
After having heard that Obama was born on a Friday, a parent remarked: "I have two children, one of whom is a boy born on a Friday. What's the probability that my other child is a boy?"
With the problem restated like this, the mathematical answer should be more acceptable.
While I've seen that system successfully used in organizations held to much stricter standards than ISO 9001, I'll be the last one to say it's the best way of doing it.
Some Wiki with proper access controls? Any version control system with proper access control?
So they're concluding that performing a complex multidisciplinary task requiring thinking, planning and problem solving skills, but that is also fun improves student performance and learning?
>Kind of sucks when you are designing a $20000 dollar circuit board in your first month and you put the >PGA socket lands in backwards.
Shouldn't they have fired whoever was signing off on your work?
I can't imagine a company letting a newbie design a 200000 USD board and then not having a more experienced engineer sign off on it. For all the things wrong that were wrong at my past job, what you describe sure as hell wasn't one of them.
Pretty much every hash in the competition can work in tree mode. Not all submitters defined a tree mode, but that shouldn't stop NIST from defining a good one.
There are better performers than Skein, so unless those are all seriously weakened I doubt it can win. Skein looks good on high end hardware, and not so good on anything else (compared to some other top competitors).
>Actually the time to make a new compiler is >reduced *and* the optimization performance of the >compiler increased when compared to standard GCC >(whichis what the 18% refers to).
Yes, 18% performance increase on an IBM p system running an embedded application benchmark. Ahem. Let's not talk about the compilation time, either.
It seems to be basically a very smart way to find the optimal combination of gcc optimization flags.
Now, how this will achieve:
"The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler."
>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, >because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.
The time to *make a new compiler* for a certain processor is reduced, and the process of figuring which optimizations are should be in the compiler for that architecture is automated.
This is for the kind of research where they attempt to make many specialized processors on a single chip instead of a general monolithic one. In this case, you need many compilers and tuning those is important. It's the time optimizing THOSE that is lowered, not the one of writing the software that is compiled itself.
I see no real relevance to the "normal" desktop situation on that website.
>If Ogg/Theora comes under fire, guess who will get >targeted: some game developers or Apple and its >$30 billion. If MPEG4 gets targeted, it will be >one troll vs. the rest of the world.
So? What does that change? They get sued either way.
>Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent >trolls. That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.
The patent pools provide ZERO protection against patent trolls.
Several people got sued DESPITE paying for patent licenses to the MPEG patent pool. The MPEG LA provides no guarantee they cover all patents applying to their technologies.
The original post was surprised that the attack worked against AES-256 but not AES-128. That isn't surprising. Reality is that It's fairly typical for the reasons I stated.
Even before this attack, 10 rounds of AES-256 were broken, but only 7 rounds of AES-128. That's not because AES-256 has weaker rounds than AES-128.
It's irrelevant to the point. The explanation is about why an attack with a given complexity can be a break for Cipher-256 but not for Cipher-128, but not necessarily mean that Cipher-128 is stronger than Cipher-256.
If the break found would have been 2^129 instead of 2^119, what I described would have exactly been the case.
Not really. The thing is that a break against AES-256 can use up to 2^256-1 operations and be considered faster than brute force. The same technique wouldn't count as a break against AES-128, because that is brute forceable in 2^128 anyway.
If there's an attack against AES-256 that takes 2^200 operations, it's considered a break. But this is still more effort than the one needed to just brute force AES-128. So AES-256 would still be more secure.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of having an Fboy *at all* are higher if there are two boys than if there are a boy and a girl. That's the clue of the problem: you cannot ignore the a-priori probabilities in that case.
Mod parent up please, it's one of the very few sane replies that points out the real issue. News for Geeks? Not for Math Geeks, it seems :)
I agree. Let's try this:
After having heard that Obama was born on a Friday, a parent remarked: "I have two children, one of whom is a boy born on a Friday. What's the probability that my other child is a boy?"
With the problem restated like this, the mathematical answer should be more acceptable.
Try this with Broadcom or Xilinx :)
While I've seen that system successfully used in organizations held to much stricter standards than ISO 9001, I'll be the last one to say it's the best way of doing it.
Some Wiki with proper access controls?
Any version control system with proper access control?
>are supposed to be...learning to reintegrate into society
>Sitting around playing games and watching TV all day
Makes perfect sense to me!
So they're concluding that performing a complex multidisciplinary task requiring thinking, planning and problem solving skills, but that is also fun improves student performance and learning?
I'm shocked!
>Kind of sucks when you are designing a $20000 dollar circuit board in your first month and you put the
>PGA socket lands in backwards.
Shouldn't they have fired whoever was signing off on your work?
I can't imagine a company letting a newbie design a 200000 USD board and then not having a more experienced engineer sign off on it. For all the things wrong that were wrong at my past job, what you describe sure as hell wasn't one of them.
Both are Penryn. P vs T is indeed the power efficiency.
>It is not Microsoft or Coca Cola who have access to the information right now.
Yes, because government officials can't be bribed. Especially not by corporations that have lots of money.
>The thing I like about Skein is its tree mode.
Pretty much every hash in the competition can work in tree mode. Not all submitters defined a tree mode, but that shouldn't stop NIST from defining a good one.
There are better performers than Skein, so unless those are all seriously weakened I doubt it can win. Skein looks good on high end hardware, and not so good on anything else (compared to some other top competitors).
It had too strong attacks against it.
Because the Rijndael guys submitted something much better: Keccak.
It's unclear this tweak lowers security, probably the opposite. It has more rounds than the original submission.
Seconded. Another 100% satisfied gandi.net customer here.
>Actually the time to make a new compiler is
>reduced *and* the optimization performance of the
>compiler increased when compared to standard GCC
>(whichis what the 18% refers to).
Yes, 18% performance increase on an IBM p system running an embedded application benchmark. Ahem. Let's not talk about the compilation time, either.
It seems to be basically a very smart way to find the optimal combination of gcc optimization flags.
Now, how this will achieve:
"The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler."
It won't. The summary is complete bollocks.
>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software,
>because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.
The time to *make a new compiler* for a certain processor is reduced, and the
process of figuring which optimizations are should be in the compiler for that architecture
is automated.
This is for the kind of research where they attempt to make many specialized processors
on a single chip instead of a general monolithic one. In this case, you need many
compilers and tuning those is important. It's the time optimizing THOSE that is lowered,
not the one of writing the software that is compiled itself.
I see no real relevance to the "normal" desktop situation on that website.
>If Ogg/Theora comes under fire, guess who will get
>targeted: some game developers or Apple and its
>$30 billion. If MPEG4 gets targeted, it will be
>one troll vs. the rest of the world.
So? What does that change? They get sued either way.
>Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent
>trolls. That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.
The patent pools provide ZERO protection against patent trolls.
Several people got sued DESPITE paying for patent licenses to the MPEG patent pool. The MPEG LA provides no guarantee they cover all patents applying to their technologies.
The original post was surprised that the attack worked against AES-256 but not AES-128. That isn't surprising. Reality is that It's fairly typical for the reasons I stated.
Even before this attack, 10 rounds of AES-256 were broken, but only 7 rounds of AES-128. That's not because AES-256 has weaker rounds than AES-128.
Only if 2^0 memory is involved. The attack requires 2^128 memory, which increases the total complexity.
It's irrelevant to the point. The explanation is about why an attack with a given complexity can be a break for Cipher-256 but not for Cipher-128, but not necessarily mean that Cipher-128 is stronger than Cipher-256.
If the break found would have been 2^129 instead of 2^119, what I described would have exactly been the case.
>Um, even if you brute force AES 128, wouldn't you only have a complexity of 2^64?
No. This is an encryption function, not a hash.
Not really. The thing is that a break against AES-256 can use up to 2^256-1 operations and be considered faster than brute force. The same technique wouldn't count as a break against AES-128, because that is brute forceable in 2^128 anyway.
If there's an attack against AES-256 that takes 2^200 operations, it's considered a break. But this is still more effort than the one needed to just brute force AES-128. So AES-256 would still be more secure.
Windows pricing is exactly opposite as you describe, so you just reinforced the original posters point.