Since an isolating transformer was mentioned numerous times, I have to ask what exactly it gains you in terms of safety. Is it meant to step down the voltage of the mains to a much safer level? Or is it one-to-one, and if so, what is the "isolation" intended to do?
He also said that if you do start from scratch, you continue to develop and support the old system to keep it relevant. Easier to do with deep pockets...
I looked through the paper quickly, and it is a survey of existing techniques. The benefits of non-uniform sampling have long been known. Current low-end graphics hardware uses non-uniform sub-sampling grids to give better anti-aliasing results.
It was shown in the 70's or early 80's by A. Ahumada that the human eye uses a non-uniform distribution of rods and cones (outside the fovea) because it can give better frequency response than a uniform grid (given the same number of cones over a given area).
In short, while this paper makes good reading, don't think that it represent a breakthrough in the field.
They may not have used strong encryption in this case; but the owner of the files doesn't sound like the most competent agent. We shouldn't assume that it'll always (or even often) be this easy.
I've been to Saqqara (where the "step pyramid of Djoser" resides), and the surrounding collapsed pyramids are said to have been built *afterwards*. The designers were less skilled, and the craftsmanship was inferior (probably due to lack of money at the time)
I talked about this last time I saw a cheating discussion on Slashdot; but while getting my Master's degree at Stanford (just finished last summer), I saw a distressing amount of cheating by students who were VERY smart. There is a definite "hive" mentality with many kinds of students, to the point of looking at each others answers on tests. Not a majority, hopefully, but many.
The "Honor" code forbade this, of course, but also forbade teachers from being present during tests. So enforcement was not straightforward, as there was no one to oversee the tests as they were being taken. It was very distressing, but now, as an employer, I know what to look for and what to ask of employees. It is pretty easy to weed out the free thinkers from the drones, if you are prepared to look for it. And a Master's degree from a respected school does NOT mean you aren't a cheater.
It is sad that so many otherwise intelligent people had to resort to cheating (I mean, they could have gotten almost perfect grades without it; they just wanted to get perfect grades...); I would have rather failed on my own, than earn a degree by glancing at my neighbors.
Because the variation # would actually be a VERY long number, probably longer than the original file. Yes, there are that many mappings of long files to a single hash value...
...only to see it used to butcher Japanese civilians five years later by "the good guys"
besides your valid points, I will also point out that the Japanese Army had few equals when it came to butchering civilians... In just a few weeks in Nanking, they killed more chinese civilians (through beheadings, torture, and rape of children followed by murder) than both the allied atomic blasts killed, and their total toll on civilian populations around the world is much, MUCH higher than any reported allied caused civilian death tolls (depending on how you view russia, and whose "ally" they really were).
In any case, huge numbers of civilians were killed around the world (FAR outstripping battlefield casualties), in very large part due to German and Japanese policy. It was not a very honorable war, on any side, but the stakes became too high to expect much compassion.
IMO, it is a wonder that Japan is not a charred cinder annexation of China, as retribution for WWII. (They should be sending thanks to Taiwan every day, for helping to divert national aggression.)
I often look up websites through Google because it lists the main site and often the most relevant sublink (ie. downloads, etc.) Also, I find it is QUICKER than just typing (for example) cnn.com into the URL bar and waiting for the browser to do a "smart search", or whatever other dumb feature is enabled on the various browsers I might have to use.
What I would like to see is some form of capability added to Linux (et. al) such that "tainted" executables can only run in a "sandbox" environment (ie. like BSD jail() ), and thus, be unable to delete my home (since it would lose write ability to all but a virtual home filesystem when run).
Then, all files that were sent through email could be marked as "tainted" until and unless the user untaints them. Thus, even running such a file after it has been saved from an attachment would be safe.
Obviously, there would have to be some safeguards to prevent trojans that run one way when tainted, and then delete everything when they are not. But if most things worked fine when tainted, it might be an effective strategy... Does the idea have merit?
I am using the Nvidia drivers under 2.4.16 w/ kernel pre-emption patches; and unfortunately, it is true that this is still the best overall OpenGL implementation available for Linux (without paying; I haven't used Xig's commercial drivers. I'd like to hear comments if anyone has used them). The ATI drivers are not bad, but miss some useful extensions (Imaging, for example). The Nividia drivers seem to (finally) work well in SMP.
That said, I originally bought a TNT2 for my home machine when I heard about "open source" drivers for Linux being released; I was VERY annoyed with the first round of obfuscated code. I would very much like to see the Radeon 8500 supported well under linux; I would choose it for my home machine over an Nvidia board for that reason alone (and this after swearing to NEVER buy an ATI again, after dealing with their HORRIFIC old Windows drivers).
But for my job, I simply can't recommend other than Nvidia for Linux, currently. Their drivers are simply the best available at the moment, and they do seem to be commited to supporting Linux well.
As for the kernel hackers, Alan has said he doesn't think the Nvidia drivers are particularly bad (not the more recent ones, anyway). Just that USERS often pester the kernel list for help with problems that cannot be debugged with proprietary drivers running. They came up with a technical solution that helps them more easily weed out the drivers that cannot be debugged by them.
My theory is that a significant portion of drunk drivers only feel comfortable driving dunk when they are.. guess what.. drunk.
That is a tautology. Drunk drivers by definition are drunk. The question is, what is the proper definition of "drunk". In California, that definition (0.08 blood alchohol concentration, or lower depending on circumstances) is quite low (IMO). Yet, by MADD's own statistics, MANY more people are killed in "alchohol related accidents", by blood alchohol concentrations over.1; sadly, they don't break it down by even higher blood alchohol levels.
At those low percentages, it is hard to decorrelate the accidents with low blood alchohol with the non alchohol related accidents (at least, these statistics don't seem to; I would like to know what work has been done in this area. We would have to know how many people are driving around with each BAC level at any time). Perhaps your acctual accident likelihood is not significantly higher at low blood alchohol levels (this is where the propganda wars that set policy have been fought)
My take is that assholes cause accidents, people who drive very poorly, aggresively, foolishly, or who drink a LOT and drive. But if I have two beers at dinner, and drive home right away, I can be considered a criminal, even though I may not have any higher chance of getting into an accident than I normally would (in fact, due to paranoia, I might be driving even more cautiously and attentively than normal)
It was unclear whether the original poster meant that weak keys and other problems reduced the keyspace (to about 55 bits), or that techniques such as differential or linear cryptanalysis attacks, might *POSSIBLY* be able to break it with less than brute force (assuming HUGE amounts of chosen plaintext).
On a nit picky note about your otherwise informative posting, the "255 per second" in the article you quote should actually have been "2 to the power of 55" (ie. 36028797018963968) keys per second, which IS rather a lot...
"And the only people we hate worse than the Romans... Are the fucking Judean People's Front!"
BTW. "The Crook Factory", by Dan Simmons, is a very fun book to read about similar topics. In particular, it is a story about Ernest Hemingway's (real-life) spy ring in Cuba during WWII, and the infighting of the various US and German intelligence agencies during that time.
And what have YOU, personally, done to help remedy this perceived problem, other than bring up this (oft repeated, and spurriously argued) point of view?
Opening a Word document is difficult, because it requires lots of reverse engineering, and many people do play Quake at roughly equal performance under Linux or Windows. XFree is popular because it is FREE, the others you mentioned are commercial (and with other advantages and disadvantages).
So, no, it really isn't all that interesting. It is a banal view point; if things aren't improving in your specific area quick enough for you, then do something about it (coding, guidance, money, bug fixing, bug reporting, whatever) It seems to me that YOU have the ego problem, expecting that everything should do exactly what you want.
While installing some equipment in the cold room, a contractor drilled throught the concrete floor, and cut a high tension support cable for the whole building (one running from diagonal corner to corner). You could hear it recoiling under the building (TWANGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!) and after going outside, a small chunk of concrete on the corner had been blasted off.
Apparently, it was only one or two cable making up a larger sheath of cable supports, so it wasn't catastrophic (or even crucial). But the building owner was there, nervously supervising, at the time. I still have never seen anyone with that combination of looks on their face...
You might want to start using the Freedom of Information Act (Thank you, Ralph Nader) to check your FBI file (among others) in future months and/or years. This may be ended, for now, but good luck if you ever need (even low level) security clearance...
I agree with what you're saying (the protestations of the original poster to your suggestion indicate that he needs to OPEN HIS PROGRAMMING MIND, and be open to different techniques.)
That said, I would simply use assertions to catch these preconditions in debugging, ie:
Slashdot Mirror
Since an isolating transformer was mentioned numerous times, I have to ask what exactly it gains you in terms of safety. Is it meant to step down the voltage of the mains to a much safer level? Or is it one-to-one, and if so, what is the "isolation" intended to do?
Sorry, I'm a software guy...
He also said that if you do start from scratch, you continue to develop and support the old system to keep it relevant. Easier to do with deep pockets...
I looked through the paper quickly, and it is a survey of existing techniques. The benefits of non-uniform sampling have long been known. Current low-end graphics hardware uses non-uniform sub-sampling grids to give better anti-aliasing results.
It was shown in the 70's or early 80's by A. Ahumada that the human eye uses a non-uniform distribution of rods and cones (outside the fovea) because it can give better frequency response than a uniform grid (given the same number of cones over a given area).
In short, while this paper makes good reading, don't think that it represent a breakthrough in the field.
They may not have used strong encryption in this case; but the owner of the files doesn't sound like the most competent agent. We shouldn't assume that it'll always (or even often) be this easy.
I've been to Saqqara (where the "step pyramid of Djoser" resides), and the surrounding collapsed pyramids are said to have been built *afterwards*. The designers were less skilled, and the craftsmanship was inferior (probably due to lack of money at the time)
At least, that is what I was told.
I talked about this last time I saw a cheating discussion on Slashdot; but while getting my Master's degree at Stanford (just finished last summer), I saw a distressing amount of cheating by students who were VERY smart. There is a definite "hive" mentality with many kinds of students, to the point of looking at each others answers on tests. Not a majority, hopefully, but many.
The "Honor" code forbade this, of course, but also forbade teachers from being present during tests. So enforcement was not straightforward, as there was no one to oversee the tests as they were being taken. It was very distressing, but now, as an employer, I know what to look for and what to ask of employees. It is pretty easy to weed out the free thinkers from the drones, if you are prepared to look for it. And a Master's degree from a respected school does NOT mean you aren't a cheater.
It is sad that so many otherwise intelligent people had to resort to cheating (I mean, they could have gotten almost perfect grades without it; they just wanted to get perfect grades...); I would have rather failed on my own, than earn a degree by glancing at my neighbors.
Because the variation # would actually be a VERY long number, probably longer than the original file. Yes, there are that many mappings of long files to a single hash value...
besides your valid points, I will also point out that the Japanese Army had few equals when it came to butchering civilians... In just a few weeks in Nanking, they killed more chinese civilians (through beheadings, torture, and rape of children followed by murder) than both the allied atomic blasts killed, and their total toll on civilian populations around the world is much, MUCH higher than any reported allied caused civilian death tolls (depending on how you view russia, and whose "ally" they really were).
In any case, huge numbers of civilians were killed around the world (FAR outstripping battlefield casualties), in very large part due to German and Japanese policy. It was not a very honorable war, on any side, but the stakes became too high to expect much compassion.
IMO, it is a wonder that Japan is not a charred cinder annexation of China, as retribution for WWII. (They should be sending thanks to Taiwan every day, for helping to divert national aggression.)
I often look up websites through Google because it lists the main site and often the most relevant sublink (ie. downloads, etc.) Also, I find it is QUICKER than just typing (for example) cnn.com into the URL bar and waiting for the browser to do a "smart search", or whatever other dumb feature is enabled on the various browsers I might have to use.
In short, Google is awesome.
See: http://www.linux.com/howto/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/l ibrary-c.html
What I would like to see is some form of capability added to Linux (et. al) such that "tainted" executables can only run in a "sandbox" environment (ie. like BSD jail() ), and thus, be unable to delete my home (since it would lose write ability to all but a virtual home filesystem when run).
Then, all files that were sent through email could be marked as "tainted" until and unless the user untaints them. Thus, even running such a file after it has been saved from an attachment would be safe.
Obviously, there would have to be some safeguards to prevent trojans that run one way when tainted, and then delete everything when they are not. But if most things worked fine when tainted, it might be an effective strategy... Does the idea have merit?
I am using the Nvidia drivers under 2.4.16 w/ kernel pre-emption patches; and unfortunately, it is true that this is still the best overall OpenGL implementation available for Linux (without paying; I haven't used Xig's commercial drivers. I'd like to hear comments if anyone has used them). The ATI drivers are not bad, but miss some useful extensions (Imaging, for example). The Nividia drivers seem to (finally) work well in SMP.
That said, I originally bought a TNT2 for my home machine when I heard about "open source" drivers for Linux being released; I was VERY annoyed with the first round of obfuscated code. I would very much like to see the Radeon 8500 supported well under linux; I would choose it for my home machine over an Nvidia board for that reason alone (and this after swearing to NEVER buy an ATI again, after dealing with their HORRIFIC old Windows drivers).
But for my job, I simply can't recommend other than Nvidia for Linux, currently. Their drivers are simply the best available at the moment, and they do seem to be commited to supporting Linux well.
As for the kernel hackers, Alan has said he doesn't think the Nvidia drivers are particularly bad (not the more recent ones, anyway). Just that USERS often pester the kernel list for help with problems that cannot be debugged with proprietary drivers running. They came up with a technical solution that helps them more easily weed out the drivers that cannot be debugged by them.
Out of Sight, is a good movie too (Actually, it is way better than At First Sight, IMO).
That is a tautology. Drunk drivers by definition are drunk. The question is, what is the proper definition of "drunk". In California, that definition (0.08 blood alchohol concentration, or lower depending on circumstances) is quite low (IMO). Yet, by MADD's own statistics, MANY more people are killed in "alchohol related accidents", by blood alchohol concentrations over
At those low percentages, it is hard to decorrelate the accidents with low blood alchohol with the non alchohol related accidents (at least, these statistics don't seem to; I would like to know what work has been done in this area. We would have to know how many people are driving around with each BAC level at any time). Perhaps your acctual accident likelihood is not significantly higher at low blood alchohol levels (this is where the propganda wars that set policy have been fought)
My take is that assholes cause accidents, people who drive very poorly, aggresively, foolishly, or who drink a LOT and drive. But if I have two beers at dinner, and drive home right away, I can be considered a criminal, even though I may not have any higher chance of getting into an accident than I normally would (in fact, due to paranoia, I might be driving even more cautiously and attentively than normal)
Then lets do it!
It was unclear whether the original poster meant that weak keys and other problems reduced the keyspace (to about 55 bits), or that techniques such as differential or linear cryptanalysis attacks, might *POSSIBLY* be able to break it with less than brute force (assuming HUGE amounts of chosen plaintext).
In addition, AES may have problems we don't even know yet. DES turned out not to require brute forcing.
True, although those were effectively solved with 3DES; hopefully a 3AES won't be needed for a long while.
On a nit picky note about your otherwise informative posting, the "255 per second" in the article you quote should actually have been "2 to the power of 55" (ie. 36028797018963968) keys per second, which IS rather a lot...
"And the only people we hate worse than the Romans... Are the fucking Judean People's Front!"
BTW. "The Crook Factory", by Dan Simmons, is a very fun book to read about similar topics. In particular, it is a story about Ernest Hemingway's (real-life) spy ring in Cuba during WWII, and the infighting of the various US and German intelligence agencies during that time.
And what have YOU, personally, done to help remedy this perceived problem, other than bring up this (oft repeated, and spurriously argued) point of view?
Opening a Word document is difficult, because it requires lots of reverse engineering, and many people do play Quake at roughly equal performance under Linux or Windows. XFree is popular because it is FREE, the others you mentioned are commercial (and with other advantages and disadvantages).
So, no, it really isn't all that interesting. It is a banal view point; if things aren't improving in your specific area quick enough for you, then do something about it (coding, guidance, money, bug fixing, bug reporting, whatever) It seems to me that YOU have the ego problem, expecting that everything should do exactly what you want.
Besides, you are WAY off topic.
While installing some equipment in the cold room, a contractor drilled throught the concrete floor, and cut a high tension support cable for the whole building (one running from diagonal corner to corner). You could hear it recoiling under the building (TWANGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!) and after going outside, a small chunk of concrete on the corner had been blasted off.
Apparently, it was only one or two cable making up a larger sheath of cable supports, so it wasn't catastrophic (or even crucial). But the building owner was there, nervously supervising, at the time. I still have never seen anyone with that combination of looks on their face...
You might want to start using the Freedom of Information Act (Thank you, Ralph Nader) to check your FBI file (among others) in future months and/or years. This may be ended, for now, but good luck if you ever need (even low level) security clearance...
I agree with what you're saying (the protestations of the original poster to your suggestion indicate that he needs to OPEN HIS PROGRAMMING MIND, and be open to different techniques.)
// or use unsigned index
That said, I would simply use assertions to catch these preconditions in debugging, ie:
assert(nIndex 0)
Where are they on the list of yearly profits? Just curious.
The third trailer, longer and containing more adult-oriented material than
the first teaser trailer
Any word on Natalie Portman pouring hot grits down her pants, with 70's funk music in the background?