The Sahara was green 5000 years ago. It's been desert for several thousand years. The climate is most certainly that unstable. The current instability as we move towards a new stability band is now well documented.
It's ironic that you want to exploit irrational fear to bilk people who wouldn't otherwise want it into investing in space development, but will irrationally ignore the documented threat of Climate Change because it doesn't suit your narrow agenda. And beyond ironic, it's self-limiting to ignore the Climate Change that will undercut all the space development you prefer.
How perfectly Republican of you. Oh, I meant "libertarian".
In case you missed the news, the genetic basis of most human behaviour is now pretty much established. IOW, yes, people who are crooks have crooked tendencies from birth, not just because of environmental factors. Its not "the new phrenology" - it just is.
People who don't like that want to believe that character is mutable. We've seen that it isn't, and that the shrinks who claimed otherwise (many of them followers of Freud) were wrong. For example, we now know that both sexual orientation and gender are fixed before birth.
Even your clarification doesn't prove that sexual orientation is "fixed before birth", whether or not you're really talking about the uterine environment or genetics. But there's no way to tell from what you said that you're talking about prenatal uterine hormones, not genetics. And there is certainly no proof that any prenatal conditions, either genetic or intrauterine, determine whether someone will commit a criminal act (or many of them in a criminal "career"), independent of their environment.
Since I never said that environment is the only factor, your implication that I did by arguing against it is a straw man.
Look, we're not getting anywhere in this debate. I'm familiar with the facts you just presented, and it doesn't change anything I said. In fact, all your presentation of it has done is make me less interested in pursuing this debate, because neither of us are learning anything, and it's devolving into less understandable engagement as it drags on.
The "last mile" network to individual addresses is unnecessary, even if it would be super cool. Just a proper packet switched freight network backbone among city/county centers would be totally worth the investment in digging and operating it. Once packages are zipped among the centers, regular delivery methods could carry it the last mile to the recipient. Properly scheduled, US Mail and private carriers, as well as smaller couriers can all handle the traffic promptly.
This kind of project could be an excellent opportunity for public/private investment. The Federal government could run the overall project as interstate commerce, with the in-state infrastructure produced by the each state itself, including its terminals and switches, according to the standards and specs of the overall project. Existing carriers like FedEx, UPS or even smaller ones could help pay for infrastructure that will subsidize their business, in exchange for discounts on access to it when it opens - carriers contributing only later can pay a higher rate, or wait for the project to recoup its investment after a while. The US Mail could be an "anchor carrier". Any shortfall in funding could be made up by the public like any other infrastructure (like highways and bridges above ground that get public access). But the key would be government initiative and coordination to ensure open access on commercially equal terms.
Then let the carriers themselves operate their freight. Let them pay for the vehicles that run on the network, and operating them remotely. Let the government own the "natural monopoly" of the single tunnel system, but let competitors run their own cars and strategies to offer services on it. That will keep the costs down eliminating redundancy, while preserving competition among the actual services that will balance costs and quality of service.
And when it finally throws the US into 21st Century mass transit for freight, let's start converting our passenger rail to packet switched networks, too. And then let's convert our regular roads, the ones with heavy point-to-point-to-point commuter traffic flows at least, to rails between the points carrying cars that get switched across the larger system. And then drive the last mile on regular roads with much greater efficiency.
For one, I'd like to see this proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
For another, genetic predisposition is different from genetic predetermination. There's no "crook" gene. Laws that crooks break aren't coded in the DNA. And there's plenty of traits that learning can overcome even though genetics coded for them.
Let's say you can prove that sexual orientation is genetic. I'll point to the many people who learned not to be homosexual despite that genetics.
Likewise, criminal disposition is at least as dubious as sexual orientation to be proven as a genetic program. But even if it were, there's plenty of people who aren't criminals but whose DNA would carry the "criminal genes". Like those people who you say never commit crimes because they're afraid of getting caught.
You can't have it both ways. But you're trying. I'd go deeper into your "implicit trust" differences between dogs' loyalty and national politicians', but you've got your hands full just backing up the more fundamental claims you're making.
Well, ActiveX is very different from Flash in the reasons either is more or less acceptable for a Web platform. And the more standards compliant are the Flash apps on the Web, the more likely they'll run correctly on GNASH (though GNASH has reverse-engineered some "necessary bugs" the SWFs require in their "Flash" player).
Flash is cross-platform, interactive, and has a better IDE for interactive UIs than do other technologies like Java. It's got a place, because it's got momentum, and it's not doomed by security or proprietary limits like ActiveX was. The next hurdle will be Adobe's support for DRM in Flash that goes beyond what's right and legal, as usual, to illegally curtail Fair Use rights of people to their own content. GNASH will not support that kind of DRM. So another possible strike against Flash will be dodged by GNASH. However, I do expect that the Java VMs will increasingly support DRM. Especially as mobile phones (which mostly all run Java) are increasingly used to consume media that people will want to both share with other people and reuse on their own other devices.
More choices of robust platforms means the DRM noose (among others) will be harder to catch a critical mass of people in. That will keep us all more free.
Have you tried GNASH recently? It's been putting out aggressive upgrades, especially in the last few months, as GNASH became a "GNU top priority project" and GNASH nears release 1.0.
Flash is Adobe's brand of "SWF", which is a documented format. SWF isn't open, but it's been reverse engineered enough that other SW can generate, edit and play it. "Flash Video" is the FLV file format, has also been reverse engineered.
Will GNASH, the FOSS SWF player that can also play FLV, run on an iPhone? GNASH isn't as crippled as Adobe's Flash player, offering higher framerates on lower grade HW. GNASH has also been ported to run on more HW than Adobe's Flash player has. For GNASH to play FLV, it needs ffmpeg or GStreamer to run - is there a port or equivalent for iPhone?
And if not, who will take the plunge to port this FOSS to iPhone, and make Steve Jobs for once look less than visionary?
Oh, "civil" rights are exclusive of "inalienable" rights? So my right to, say, free assembly, is either civil or inalienable, but not in the same category?
Don't hand me your condescending claptrap about who's "obviously uninformed". A free press without restrictions would obviously be free to copy anything without restriction. The copyright restriction is obviously a restriction on a free press.
You can merely assert my argument is whatever you want, as is your right, but it's a load of blabber. You talk like freedoms are designed for specific purposes, and aren't simply the natural ability to act without restriction.
That's fool's talk. Obnoxious fool. Making it up as you go along. Your right to be wrong in public.
Copyright is hard to understand because it's made up complexity at odds with our actual rights. Copyright isn't an "inalienable right" that's protected by the government. It's a made up privilege that's just called a right to make people obey it. The Constitution actually abridges the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, which would have no restrictions, to compromise with the late-1700s commercial necessity of a monopoly on copying printed matter so competitors don't have lower costs just reprinting material that cost the author more to create and print. But even then the Constitution said that copyrights are for limited times, which they are no longer, and that they are justified solely "to promote progress in science and the useful arts", which today they more often conflict with.
There is no provision for "making a killing". There is no provision for "protecting the author's heirs". Or anything else, except promoting science and useful arts.
Because the only right in question here is our right to free press. So long as the Constitution (and the law under it) just documents the actual rights we have, and creates a government to protect them, people will understand it. Those "Fair Use" rights are the real rights, which is why people understand them. Rights are familiar to us from real life. They're typically easy to understand. They shouldn't be that hard to protect.
And since science and the useful arts can progress perfectly well these days with the minimum protection from competition, everyone will understand if we roll back copyright to just very limited times, like at most 14 years for print, and as little as a week (or even a day or so) for content like news.
Ho hum, yet another Objectivism dabbler posing as a logician. Throwing your fallacy that I didn't make as a strawman doesn't prove anything except that you'd take Rand's books too seriously, like some kind of bible or something.
Jimmy Wales is spending foundation money on expenses like intimate $325:person steak dinners that aren't really justifiable in a nonprofit like Wikipedia's. That's corruption. The fact that so many other "Conservatives" are corrupt in exactly the same way, spending tax-exempt money (or tax money itself) without benefiting the public, makes him a typical "Conservative". That's why it's remarkable.
But of course your few personal dealings with him, decent and reasonable, are proof that he's not ripping off his foundation.
The bonus here is that you showed how objectivists and libertarians like you are as qualified to make "logical" arguments like that as "Conservatives" are to talk about personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism (the core Conservative principles that libertarians, and especially Objectivists, claim makes them "morally superior"), or libertarians are to run government-protected tax-free corporations.
Who pretends the point is somehow hard to see, and that cursing at me in a Slashdot post does anything but prove how stupid fake "Conservatives" are, especially when Conservatives' corruption is being exposed yet again.
KJimmy Wales is a "Conservative", the extreme kind called a "libertarian" (though there are plenty of libertarians who aren't "Conservative", Wales is the kind of libertarian who call themselves "Objectivists" ). Objectivists subscribe to the ideology put together by Ayn Rand that selfishness is the primary, the only virtue, the only possible way to see the world as it truly is.
Objectivism makes for some great fictional novels, like the allegories Rand wrote to tell people about the Objectivism she made up. But selfishness in that extreme is a pretty good excuse for corruption. Ask a Conservative about it.
BTW, doesn't Fark have an entire category of corruption and other stupidity called "Florida"? Seems inevitable that the embezzlement would take place there.
You're not going to live to see the Sahara bloom again. You're going to die as the civilization you depend on crashes around you.
Ask the dead people in the Gulf Coast why to fear the changing climate. Or ask the people a little inland who feared the incoming waves of refugees. Then multiply that by ten thousand.
But of course that's not what I said. So I'd like to know how much you fear this "Death Star" the story discusses. Or are you looking forward to the Earth's atmosphere returned to a primitive condition wherein only exotic primeval plantlife can bloom again?
It always blows my mind that some people will fear this astronomically (pun intended) low risk threat, but insist we ignore the huger, if still <100%, risk of Global Warming and Climate Change.
Excellent summary of the issues (and of _Applied Crytography_;).
The point I made is that though 128 vs 256 AES cracking shouldn't concern us right now, it could concern us in the future. I don't think Moore's Law is linear for computation over the next 84 years, especially when we're up against so many limits today (heat dissipation, litho scale, tractability of parallel programming complexity). A pessimist would say it'll be slower than linear now that we've got limits. An optimist (who knows about nanoscale, about quantum computing, about our history of breakthrus especially when trapped) would say it'll be faster than linear, and likely introduce a new order of speed, even of acceleration.
So eventually it's a good bet that those extra 128 bits will matter. If any data is good for more than 84 years, it already matters. And as we get closer to 2092, that intelligence life hard stop grows shorter, as the "inevitable crack date" grows nearer, even as cracking expertise grows faster.
So the bottom line is that the extra 128 bits is worth more than none extra. The only question, as always in security, is whether that extra security is worth the cost.
You're quite the character. You just gave in to the temptation to conclude "that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role":
Despite the finding that a bacterial infection is the cause of ulcers in 80% of cases, bacterial infection does not appear to explain all ulcers and researchers continue to look at stress as a possible cause, or at least a complication in the development of ulcers.
An expert panel convened by the Academy of Behavioral Medicine research concluded that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role.[1] Researchers are examining how stress might promote H. pylori infection. For example, Helicobacter pylori thrives in an acidic environment, and stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid.
The discovery that Helicobacter pylori is a cause of peptic ulcer has tempted many to conclude that psychological factors are unimportant. But this is dichotomised thinking. There is solid evidence that psychological stress triggers many ulcers and impairs response to treatment, while helicobacter is inadequate as a monocausal explanation as most infected people do not develop ulcers. Psychological stress probably functions most often as a cofactor with H pylori. It may act by stimulating the production of gastric acid or by promoting behavior that causes a risk to health. Unravelling the aetiology of peptic ulcer will make an important contribution to the biopsychosocial model of disease.[6]
A study of peptic ulcer patients in a Thai hospital showed that chronic stress was strongly associated with an increased risk of peptic ulcer, and a combination of chronic stress and irregular mealtimes was a significant risk factor (PMID 12948263).
A study on mice showed that both long-term water-immersion-restraint stress and H. pylori infection were independently associated with the development of peptic ulcers (PMID 12465722).
As for other temptations and acting on them, I didn't say it's only a fear of getting caught: you did. You should probably see a shrink about that kind of projection. And mention that when someone proves you're wrong, you whine at them to "grow up". Probably another projection from your childhood treatment. But of course you'd deny that.
Character fetish and denial, crooks are set in their ways by 3yo, "someone you can trust no matter what" - like a unicorn or something. You voted for Bush, didn't you.
That's why I said "almost certainly". These attacks nearly always break only one key bit-length version, because the key length is so closely tied to the successful operation of the algorithm.
In fact, "basically an honest person" vs "basically a crook", incorruptible/incurable, is indeed an 1800s view of psychology. Sure, people will be more or less tempted. But the measure of a crook is that they act on their temptations. The idea that "good people aren't tempted" is Victorian nonsense that ignores how complex the subconscious is, and how powerful and primary is the conscious, and how they're related, but separate.
Oh, yeah, you're not even as smart about stomach ulcers as you say you are. Maybe Scientific American isn't exactly the best place to learn about actual science. Unless you're looking for the crossword puzzle, which can drive you crazy. Maybe even give you an ulcer.
Your argument about encryption algorithms vs products actually argues that encrypted messages will be readable at will earlier than when the algo is broken, not later. And your example of the TV systems is different from how easy it is to access the encrypted messages on the Internet.
You really didn't offer an argument why a message encrypted with AES-128 could be trusted not to be read after AES-128 is eventually broken. Saying "Vista isn't broken yet" isn't a good argument. For one, only a small fraction of people use Vista. When cracking it is as valuable as cracking, say, the current XP installed base, then there will be more people working on cracking it. For another, there's no way to know it isn't cracked. We certainly can't rely on Microsoft to admit it. And of course we can't rely on actual bad guys to report it publicly. We're likely not to know about any working cracks until well after they're a serious risk, which likely would be after Vista is a popular enough to "harvest" it.
And then of course "hasn't been broken in over a year" is hardly "forever".
Everything ever offered to day has been eventually cracked, except for some recent stuff that we have no reason to expect will not eventually be cracked (and except for symmetric/one-time-pad, which is something else). Further, tractability analysis says eventually everything will be cracked. Even the basic models of quantum physics say everything will be cracked, except perhaps simulations of black holes, which aren't available in any products today:).
Freud is indeed modern. Before Freud, "psychology" consisted of talking to a priest, or some slightly less primitive interaction. Freud's own models of the mind have been updated, but they're extremely productive for most patients, and his overall technique and basic model of the interaction of conscious, subconscious and behavior are completely validated - even if it all still has a long way to go.
To argue with Freud, you're citing (without bothering to link or credit) some random blog post, and then merely asserting that the conflict between sex and death drives is both his entire system, and wrong?
I think you need a shrink. Tom Cruise, is that you?
Slashdot Mirror
The Sahara was green 5000 years ago. It's been desert for several thousand years. The climate is most certainly that unstable. The current instability as we move towards a new stability band is now well documented.
It's ironic that you want to exploit irrational fear to bilk people who wouldn't otherwise want it into investing in space development, but will irrationally ignore the documented threat of Climate Change because it doesn't suit your narrow agenda. And beyond ironic, it's self-limiting to ignore the Climate Change that will undercut all the space development you prefer.
How perfectly Republican of you. Oh, I meant "libertarian".
The answers are the same.
Even your clarification doesn't prove that sexual orientation is "fixed before birth", whether or not you're really talking about the uterine environment or genetics. But there's no way to tell from what you said that you're talking about prenatal uterine hormones, not genetics. And there is certainly no proof that any prenatal conditions, either genetic or intrauterine, determine whether someone will commit a criminal act (or many of them in a criminal "career"), independent of their environment.
Since I never said that environment is the only factor, your implication that I did by arguing against it is a straw man.
Look, we're not getting anywhere in this debate. I'm familiar with the facts you just presented, and it doesn't change anything I said. In fact, all your presentation of it has done is make me less interested in pursuing this debate, because neither of us are learning anything, and it's devolving into less understandable engagement as it drags on.
Goodbye.
The "last mile" network to individual addresses is unnecessary, even if it would be super cool. Just a proper packet switched freight network backbone among city/county centers would be totally worth the investment in digging and operating it. Once packages are zipped among the centers, regular delivery methods could carry it the last mile to the recipient. Properly scheduled, US Mail and private carriers, as well as smaller couriers can all handle the traffic promptly.
This kind of project could be an excellent opportunity for public/private investment. The Federal government could run the overall project as interstate commerce, with the in-state infrastructure produced by the each state itself, including its terminals and switches, according to the standards and specs of the overall project. Existing carriers like FedEx, UPS or even smaller ones could help pay for infrastructure that will subsidize their business, in exchange for discounts on access to it when it opens - carriers contributing only later can pay a higher rate, or wait for the project to recoup its investment after a while. The US Mail could be an "anchor carrier". Any shortfall in funding could be made up by the public like any other infrastructure (like highways and bridges above ground that get public access). But the key would be government initiative and coordination to ensure open access on commercially equal terms.
Then let the carriers themselves operate their freight. Let them pay for the vehicles that run on the network, and operating them remotely. Let the government own the "natural monopoly" of the single tunnel system, but let competitors run their own cars and strategies to offer services on it. That will keep the costs down eliminating redundancy, while preserving competition among the actual services that will balance costs and quality of service.
And when it finally throws the US into 21st Century mass transit for freight, let's start converting our passenger rail to packet switched networks, too. And then let's convert our regular roads, the ones with heavy point-to-point-to-point commuter traffic flows at least, to rails between the points carrying cars that get switched across the larger system. And then drive the last mile on regular roads with much greater efficiency.
Packets for all my friends!
For one, I'd like to see this proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
For another, genetic predisposition is different from genetic predetermination. There's no "crook" gene. Laws that crooks break aren't coded in the DNA. And there's plenty of traits that learning can overcome even though genetics coded for them.
Let's say you can prove that sexual orientation is genetic. I'll point to the many people who learned not to be homosexual despite that genetics.
Likewise, criminal disposition is at least as dubious as sexual orientation to be proven as a genetic program. But even if it were, there's plenty of people who aren't criminals but whose DNA would carry the "criminal genes". Like those people who you say never commit crimes because they're afraid of getting caught.
You can't have it both ways. But you're trying. I'd go deeper into your "implicit trust" differences between dogs' loyalty and national politicians', but you've got your hands full just backing up the more fundamental claims you're making.
Well, ActiveX is very different from Flash in the reasons either is more or less acceptable for a Web platform. And the more standards compliant are the Flash apps on the Web, the more likely they'll run correctly on GNASH (though GNASH has reverse-engineered some "necessary bugs" the SWFs require in their "Flash" player).
Flash is cross-platform, interactive, and has a better IDE for interactive UIs than do other technologies like Java. It's got a place, because it's got momentum, and it's not doomed by security or proprietary limits like ActiveX was. The next hurdle will be Adobe's support for DRM in Flash that goes beyond what's right and legal, as usual, to illegally curtail Fair Use rights of people to their own content. GNASH will not support that kind of DRM. So another possible strike against Flash will be dodged by GNASH. However, I do expect that the Java VMs will increasingly support DRM. Especially as mobile phones (which mostly all run Java) are increasingly used to consume media that people will want to both share with other people and reuse on their own other devices.
More choices of robust platforms means the DRM noose (among others) will be harder to catch a critical mass of people in. That will keep us all more free.
Have you tried GNASH recently? It's been putting out aggressive upgrades, especially in the last few months, as GNASH became a "GNU top priority project" and GNASH nears release 1.0.
Flash is Adobe's brand of "SWF", which is a documented format. SWF isn't open, but it's been reverse engineered enough that other SW can generate, edit and play it. "Flash Video" is the FLV file format, has also been reverse engineered.
Will GNASH, the FOSS SWF player that can also play FLV, run on an iPhone? GNASH isn't as crippled as Adobe's Flash player, offering higher framerates on lower grade HW. GNASH has also been ported to run on more HW than Adobe's Flash player has. For GNASH to play FLV, it needs ffmpeg or GStreamer to run - is there a port or equivalent for iPhone?
And if not, who will take the plunge to port this FOSS to iPhone, and make Steve Jobs for once look less than visionary?
Oh, "civil" rights are exclusive of "inalienable" rights? So my right to, say, free assembly, is either civil or inalienable, but not in the same category?
Don't hand me your condescending claptrap about who's "obviously uninformed". A free press without restrictions would obviously be free to copy anything without restriction. The copyright restriction is obviously a restriction on a free press.
You can merely assert my argument is whatever you want, as is your right, but it's a load of blabber. You talk like freedoms are designed for specific purposes, and aren't simply the natural ability to act without restriction.
That's fool's talk. Obnoxious fool. Making it up as you go along. Your right to be wrong in public.
Copyright is hard to understand because it's made up complexity at odds with our actual rights. Copyright isn't an "inalienable right" that's protected by the government. It's a made up privilege that's just called a right to make people obey it. The Constitution actually abridges the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, which would have no restrictions, to compromise with the late-1700s commercial necessity of a monopoly on copying printed matter so competitors don't have lower costs just reprinting material that cost the author more to create and print. But even then the Constitution said that copyrights are for limited times, which they are no longer, and that they are justified solely "to promote progress in science and the useful arts", which today they more often conflict with.
There is no provision for "making a killing". There is no provision for "protecting the author's heirs". Or anything else, except promoting science and useful arts.
Because the only right in question here is our right to free press. So long as the Constitution (and the law under it) just documents the actual rights we have, and creates a government to protect them, people will understand it. Those "Fair Use" rights are the real rights, which is why people understand them. Rights are familiar to us from real life. They're typically easy to understand. They shouldn't be that hard to protect.
And since science and the useful arts can progress perfectly well these days with the minimum protection from competition, everyone will understand if we roll back copyright to just very limited times, like at most 14 years for print, and as little as a week (or even a day or so) for content like news.
Ho hum, yet another Objectivism dabbler posing as a logician. Throwing your fallacy that I didn't make as a strawman doesn't prove anything except that you'd take Rand's books too seriously, like some kind of bible or something.
Jimmy Wales is spending foundation money on expenses like intimate $325:person steak dinners that aren't really justifiable in a nonprofit like Wikipedia's. That's corruption. The fact that so many other "Conservatives" are corrupt in exactly the same way, spending tax-exempt money (or tax money itself) without benefiting the public, makes him a typical "Conservative". That's why it's remarkable.
But of course your few personal dealings with him, decent and reasonable, are proof that he's not ripping off his foundation.
The bonus here is that you showed how objectivists and libertarians like you are as qualified to make "logical" arguments like that as "Conservatives" are to talk about personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism (the core Conservative principles that libertarians, and especially Objectivists, claim makes them "morally superior"), or libertarians are to run government-protected tax-free corporations.
Enron!
Perfect example.
Yeah, among them fake, wasteful, dishonest "Conservatives". And Anonymous Cowards who just blurt trite insults without backing them up.
"AC": "Anonymous Coward", "Another Conservative"
Who pretends the point is somehow hard to see, and that cursing at me in a Slashdot post does anything but prove how stupid fake "Conservatives" are, especially when Conservatives' corruption is being exposed yet again.
KJimmy Wales is a "Conservative", the extreme kind called a "libertarian" (though there are plenty of libertarians who aren't "Conservative", Wales is the kind of libertarian who call themselves "Objectivists" ). Objectivists subscribe to the ideology put together by Ayn Rand that selfishness is the primary, the only virtue, the only possible way to see the world as it truly is.
Objectivism makes for some great fictional novels, like the allegories Rand wrote to tell people about the Objectivism she made up. But selfishness in that extreme is a pretty good excuse for corruption. Ask a Conservative about it.
BTW, doesn't Fark have an entire category of corruption and other stupidity called "Florida"? Seems inevitable that the embezzlement would take place there.
You're not going to live to see the Sahara bloom again. You're going to die as the civilization you depend on crashes around you.
Ask the dead people in the Gulf Coast why to fear the changing climate. Or ask the people a little inland who feared the incoming waves of refugees. Then multiply that by ten thousand.
But of course that's not what I said. So I'd like to know how much you fear this "Death Star" the story discusses. Or are you looking forward to the Earth's atmosphere returned to a primitive condition wherein only exotic primeval plantlife can bloom again?
It always blows my mind that some people will fear this astronomically (pun intended) low risk threat, but insist we ignore the huger, if still <100%, risk of Global Warming and Climate Change.
Excellent summary of the issues (and of _Applied Crytography_ ;).
The point I made is that though 128 vs 256 AES cracking shouldn't concern us right now, it could concern us in the future. I don't think Moore's Law is linear for computation over the next 84 years, especially when we're up against so many limits today (heat dissipation, litho scale, tractability of parallel programming complexity). A pessimist would say it'll be slower than linear now that we've got limits. An optimist (who knows about nanoscale, about quantum computing, about our history of breakthrus especially when trapped) would say it'll be faster than linear, and likely introduce a new order of speed, even of acceleration.
So eventually it's a good bet that those extra 128 bits will matter. If any data is good for more than 84 years, it already matters. And as we get closer to 2092, that intelligence life hard stop grows shorter, as the "inevitable crack date" grows nearer, even as cracking expertise grows faster.
So the bottom line is that the extra 128 bits is worth more than none extra. The only question, as always in security, is whether that extra security is worth the cost.
Moderation +2
50% Insightful
30% Overrated
20% Interesting
Looks like TrollMods can pollute the vote counts only when it's really close.
As for other temptations and acting on them, I didn't say it's only a fear of getting caught: you did. You should probably see a shrink about that kind of projection. And mention that when someone proves you're wrong, you whine at them to "grow up". Probably another projection from your childhood treatment. But of course you'd deny that.
Character fetish and denial, crooks are set in their ways by 3yo, "someone you can trust no matter what" - like a unicorn or something. You voted for Bush, didn't you.
That's why I said "almost certainly". These attacks nearly always break only one key bit-length version, because the key length is so closely tied to the successful operation of the algorithm.
In fact, "basically an honest person" vs "basically a crook", incorruptible/incurable, is indeed an 1800s view of psychology. Sure, people will be more or less tempted. But the measure of a crook is that they act on their temptations. The idea that "good people aren't tempted" is Victorian nonsense that ignores how complex the subconscious is, and how powerful and primary is the conscious, and how they're related, but separate.
Oh, yeah, you're not even as smart about stomach ulcers as you say you are. Maybe Scientific American isn't exactly the best place to learn about actual science. Unless you're looking for the crossword puzzle, which can drive you crazy. Maybe even give you an ulcer.
Your argument about encryption algorithms vs products actually argues that encrypted messages will be readable at will earlier than when the algo is broken, not later. And your example of the TV systems is different from how easy it is to access the encrypted messages on the Internet.
:).
You really didn't offer an argument why a message encrypted with AES-128 could be trusted not to be read after AES-128 is eventually broken. Saying "Vista isn't broken yet" isn't a good argument. For one, only a small fraction of people use Vista. When cracking it is as valuable as cracking, say, the current XP installed base, then there will be more people working on cracking it. For another, there's no way to know it isn't cracked. We certainly can't rely on Microsoft to admit it. And of course we can't rely on actual bad guys to report it publicly. We're likely not to know about any working cracks until well after they're a serious risk, which likely would be after Vista is a popular enough to "harvest" it.
And then of course "hasn't been broken in over a year" is hardly "forever".
Everything ever offered to day has been eventually cracked, except for some recent stuff that we have no reason to expect will not eventually be cracked (and except for symmetric/one-time-pad, which is something else). Further, tractability analysis says eventually everything will be cracked. Even the basic models of quantum physics say everything will be cracked, except perhaps simulations of black holes, which aren't available in any products today
Freud is indeed modern. Before Freud, "psychology" consisted of talking to a priest, or some slightly less primitive interaction. Freud's own models of the mind have been updated, but they're extremely productive for most patients, and his overall technique and basic model of the interaction of conscious, subconscious and behavior are completely validated - even if it all still has a long way to go.
To argue with Freud, you're citing (without bothering to link or credit) some random blog post, and then merely asserting that the conflict between sex and death drives is both his entire system, and wrong?
I think you need a shrink. Tom Cruise, is that you?