Once quantum computers become mainstream, what will we use for encryption? Are there algorithms that are computable by standard computers but are also unbreakable using quantum computers?
Nice. I went to a much smaller school than you (I'd imagine), so we only had two rooms for residents in the house. Sucks, because I feel like I missed out on a lot of shenanigans.
We didn't have little sisters, but there were some girls that just spent all their time at the house. After ritual one year, they made a boat-ton of pancakes and brought them over.
Once, we had a 300-themed mock initiation put on by the AMs. We dressed up like spartans (using diapers instead of loincloths), had a couple drinks, then ran to the Beta house next door. We stole their wood and started a fire in the back yard. Then, like the fist of God opened up over us, it rained hard enough to put the fire out, so we took the now-unlit logs and put it back at the Beta house. They never did figure out why their firewood got half-burned...
I agree with you completely up until you suggest that we don't use CANDU reactors simply because we'd like to commercialize our military enrichment plants. The choice of using CANDU and our current reactor designs is a tradeoff. Canada gets away with not having to build an enrichment plant, but they need a pretty giant heavy water plant (which is expensive) and because it takes more mass of the Uranium, they have to have a much larger containment building (which increases their per-reactor incremental costs). It's a tradeoff, and since we already have a LOT of enriched uranium, it's cheaper to just use that than to use naturally occuring uranium. (In fact, when we get rid of a nuclear warhead, we de-enrich it by mixing the 95% uranium with naturally occuring uranium, then sell that to power plants)
Weird. I was also a LXA, and as our community service, we would dress up in drag and auction ourselves off. (The community service part was that we would donate the proceeds to a battered women's shelter) I _always_ ended up in someone else's room that night, and it always rocked.
I used the wrong word. Sorry. That's why I tried to explain it in plain english.
You're right, the word irrevocable isn't in there, but the way I understand is is this:
Sun works on ODF. They release a version (let's call it 1), covered under the patent covenant. Sun leaves the ODF group. They release a new version (let's call it 2), any additional IP in V2 isn't covered, but everything in V1 is. It is "any subsequent revision" of V1, afterall.
Maybe we parsed the sentences differently. I parse "and any subsequent revision thereof" as meaning just that. It's legalese and written all contorted, but the second clause that you point out "in which development Sun participates" doesn't override that.
IANAL, but it seems like the reasoning goes like this: While sun is developing ODF, they agree that any of their IP in the spec is, in perpetuity, under their covenant not to sue.
When sun stops developing ODF, the other clause is to just cover their ass. It probably doesn't make much sense legally to leave a patent covenant open-ended when they're not involved in the process.
You're right, but I can't think of a way that sun could exploit that to close up ODF, even if they really really wanted to. They'd have to drop out of the standards committee, then somehow convince the committee they just left to put a new feature in that uses one of their patents.
I could understand how that would be objectionable, but I think it's reasonable for Sun to say, "look, we'll give away all these patents as long as we have a hand in the process. If we get out of the process, you can still keep those patents, but we're going to keep the rights to everything else in my patent portfolio"
Firstly, that's incorrect, I'll quote below (emphasis mine)
Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement, submitted by Sun Microsystems, Inc., September 29, 2005
Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses or make equivalent non-assertion covenants. Notwithstanding the commitment above, Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation.
This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun's issued patents cover an OpenDocument Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise.
Similarly, nothing in this statement is intended to relieve Sun of its obligations, if any, under the applicable rules of OASIS. (source)
I don't think there can be such thing as a "perfect" document format. Clearly, both OOXML and ODF will have their limitations. However, "combining" the two implementations would be functionally difficult and doesn't address the underlying issue most people have with OOXML. I'll quote wikipedia and quote for emphasis:
The Office Open XML format was initially made available under a free and perpetual license.[21] for "any of (OOXMLs) essential patent claims in Ecma 376". This patent coverage does not extend to non-essential items, or unrequired-items that are defined in OOXML.
As there was concern that free and open source software (FOSS) could not use the format under the proposed license,[22] Microsoft provided a covenant not to sue[23]. The covenant received a mixed reception, with some like Groklaw identifying problems[24] and others (such as Lawrence Rosen) endorsing it.[25]
Microsoft also added the Office Open XML format to their Microsoft Open Specification Promise in which Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation"). The Office Open XML 1.0 - Ecma 376 and its predecessor Office 2003 XML format are among the covered specifications.[26]
The Office Open XML format therefore can be used under the Covenant not to Sue or the Open Specification Promise, providing only items required in OOXML are implemented. So, we have a format where microsoft promises to not sue over patent use, only if other implementations only implement required items. So, any 'optional' parts of the spec are off-limits to competitors. Is that a document format that the whole world should get behind? A document format where you can only implement the bare minimum, or face the threat of being sued? I think that reason trumps anything else in the debate, and makes OOXML a non-starter for me (and many others)
Anyway don't fool yourself that the iPhone is OSX. It's running on an ARM device, iPhone is as much OsX as windows smartphone is windows XP.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Apple engineered OSX to be very portable, that foresight allowed them to transition macs from ppc to x86. Whatever they did to enable that, probably worked for moving it to ARM.
I agree with everything what you said, could you clarify one thing for me? You borrow $100 into existence but owe $105 at the end of the year, the extra $5 doesn't actually exist, it was never created, so you borrow some more.
What debt is this? It is possible, although impractical to live one's whole life debtless. You don't get how interest works. John borrows $100 with 5% interest. At the end of the year he pays of his debt to the bank by giving them $105. Nowhere in this process does it necessitate that John counterfeits those remaining five dollars.
Okay, so suppose we had a society consisting of only two people (bear with me..) John and Bob. John has $100, and Bob has $0. John loans Bob $100. Bob, at the end of the year, owes $105 due to interest. There's only $100 in the system, how can Bob pay the extra $5 back?
So wait, in 1996, a company sent you a DMCA C&D letter because you were using the term "lava lamp"?
Firstly, the DMCA was passed in 1998. Secondly what copyright protection were you circumventing?
The reason I said trademark is that it would be totally reasonable for them to ask you to use a generic term for "lava lamp" (I have no idea of what that is). If they had the trademark on it, and they didn't defend it, they would automatically lose it.
You're right though, you don't have to defend a copyright constantly to keep it, but trademarks you actually do have to defend.
I think the problem with the C&Ds for DMCA violations is what everyone's saying. The more they clamp down on it, the more they bring attention to the project and the more people are going to be actively trying to break this encryption. I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to get a way to read the keys off the previously-hidden layers, circumventing any workaround they could come up with.
I think they probably sent the C&D because of trademark law. If they didn't go after people who called random lamps lava lamps, the term would be considered generic and they would lose the trademark on it. Hormel has to go after people who talk about spam. Kleenex also has the same problem
You get half the music, the hassle of DRM and are locked to one hardware device - the iPod.
you do realise that you can play AAC files in things other than an iPod. I have a creative nomad and run ubuntu. I have a buddy who encoded all his CDs into AAC, and I can play them fine.
107% of 99 cents is 1.0593 dollars. You'll either pay 1.05 or 1.10, depending. It would be nice if states were required to include sales tax in their prices.
Why are we such pussies? Look around, in the US, something like:
40,000 people die/year in car accidents 20,000 murders/year
And we get all worked up because some people managed to hijack 4 airplanes and killed 3,000 people? It really sucks, and I understand the pain that the people left behind had to face (as well as the people who died that day). But because of that one attack, we've completely gone bonkers and blown an entirely disproportionate amount of money on making sure it doesn't happen again compared to larger social ills.
Not to disagree with your main point, but Iran's constitution makes it so that every minority gets an MP. Whether it's a token gesture or if he actually can do things there is another question.
Or, you could do something where the PC first veirfys that the USB-dongle isn't connected before the transaction starts, and if it is, forcing the user to disconnect/reconnect, so the user would be in somewhat of the habit of disconnecting the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Once quantum computers become mainstream, what will we use for encryption? Are there algorithms that are computable by standard computers but are also unbreakable using quantum computers?
Nice. I went to a much smaller school than you (I'd imagine), so we only had two rooms for residents in the house. Sucks, because I feel like I missed out on a lot of shenanigans.
We didn't have little sisters, but there were some girls that just spent all their time at the house. After ritual one year, they made a boat-ton of pancakes and brought them over.
Once, we had a 300-themed mock initiation put on by the AMs. We dressed up like spartans (using diapers instead of loincloths), had a couple drinks, then ran to the Beta house next door. We stole their wood and started a fire in the back yard. Then, like the fist of God opened up over us, it rained hard enough to put the fire out, so we took the now-unlit logs and put it back at the Beta house. They never did figure out why their firewood got half-burned...
I agree with you completely up until you suggest that we don't use CANDU reactors simply because we'd like to commercialize our military enrichment plants. The choice of using CANDU and our current reactor designs is a tradeoff. Canada gets away with not having to build an enrichment plant, but they need a pretty giant heavy water plant (which is expensive) and because it takes more mass of the Uranium, they have to have a much larger containment building (which increases their per-reactor incremental costs). It's a tradeoff, and since we already have a LOT of enriched uranium, it's cheaper to just use that than to use naturally occuring uranium. (In fact, when we get rid of a nuclear warhead, we de-enrich it by mixing the 95% uranium with naturally occuring uranium, then sell that to power plants)
It's money, not a conspiracy.
Weird. I was also a LXA, and as our community service, we would dress up in drag and auction ourselves off. (The community service part was that we would donate the proceeds to a battered women's shelter) I _always_ ended up in someone else's room that night, and it always rocked.
I used the wrong word. Sorry. That's why I tried to explain it in plain english.
You're right, the word irrevocable isn't in there, but the way I understand is is this:
Sun works on ODF.
They release a version (let's call it 1), covered under the patent covenant.
Sun leaves the ODF group.
They release a new version (let's call it 2), any additional IP in V2 isn't covered, but everything in V1 is. It is "any subsequent revision" of V1, afterall.
That's how I understand it. How do you?
Maybe we parsed the sentences differently. I parse "and any subsequent revision thereof" as meaning just that. It's legalese and written all contorted, but the second clause that you point out "in which development Sun participates" doesn't override that.
IANAL, but it seems like the reasoning goes like this: While sun is developing ODF, they agree that any of their IP in the spec is, in perpetuity, under their covenant not to sue.
When sun stops developing ODF, the other clause is to just cover their ass. It probably doesn't make much sense legally to leave a patent covenant open-ended when they're not involved in the process.
You're right, but I can't think of a way that sun could exploit that to close up ODF, even if they really really wanted to. They'd have to drop out of the standards committee, then somehow convince the committee they just left to put a new feature in that uses one of their patents.
I could understand how that would be objectionable, but I think it's reasonable for Sun to say, "look, we'll give away all these patents as long as we have a hand in the process. If we get out of the process, you can still keep those patents, but we're going to keep the rights to everything else in my patent portfolio"
Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses or make equivalent non-assertion covenants. Notwithstanding the commitment above, Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation.
This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun's issued patents cover an OpenDocument Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise.
Similarly, nothing in this statement is intended to relieve Sun of its obligations, if any, under the applicable rules of OASIS. (source)
As there was concern that free and open source software (FOSS) could not use the format under the proposed license,[22] Microsoft provided a covenant not to sue[23]. The covenant received a mixed reception, with some like Groklaw identifying problems[24] and others (such as Lawrence Rosen) endorsing it.[25]
Microsoft also added the Office Open XML format to their Microsoft Open Specification Promise in which Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation"). The Office Open XML 1.0 - Ecma 376 and its predecessor Office 2003 XML format are among the covered specifications.[26]
The Office Open XML format therefore can be used under the Covenant not to Sue or the Open Specification Promise, providing only items required in OOXML are implemented. So, we have a format where microsoft promises to not sue over patent use, only if other implementations only implement required items. So, any 'optional' parts of the spec are off-limits to competitors. Is that a document format that the whole world should get behind? A document format where you can only implement the bare minimum, or face the threat of being sued? I think that reason trumps anything else in the debate, and makes OOXML a non-starter for me (and many others)
can I write if I don't live in MA?
Summer school students?
coondoggie sends us to a Network World story, as is his wont,
At least the editors admit that coondoggie is filling the queue up with network world stories. Maybe they'll do something about it at some point
Bzzt. Wrong. Linus Torvaldis explains this pretty often The "or later" clause is optional, and was never in the License that the linux kernel was released under.
Anyway don't fool yourself that the iPhone is OSX. It's running on an ARM device, iPhone is as much OsX as windows smartphone is windows XP.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Apple engineered OSX to be very portable, that foresight allowed them to transition macs from ppc to x86. Whatever they did to enable that, probably worked for moving it to ARM.
I agree with everything what you said, could you clarify one thing for me?
You borrow $100 into existence but owe $105 at the end of the year, the extra $5 doesn't actually exist, it was never created, so you borrow some more.
What debt is this? It is possible, although impractical to live one's whole life debtless. You don't get how interest works. John borrows $100 with 5% interest. At the end of the year he pays of his debt to the bank by giving them $105. Nowhere in this process does it necessitate that John counterfeits those remaining five dollars.
Okay, so suppose we had a society consisting of only two people (bear with me..) John and Bob. John has $100, and Bob has $0. John loans Bob $100. Bob, at the end of the year, owes $105 due to interest. There's only $100 in the system, how can Bob pay the extra $5 back?
because inflation makes it so that each dollar buys less and less things. If you put a dollar in a shoebox in 1900, it'd be worth a _lot_ less now.
Are you the guy that argued with me about this a couple months ago?
Which 6 axes are being detected?
So wait, in 1996, a company sent you a DMCA C&D letter because you were using the term "lava lamp"?
Firstly, the DMCA was passed in 1998. Secondly what copyright protection were you circumventing?
The reason I said trademark is that it would be totally reasonable for them to ask you to use a generic term for "lava lamp" (I have no idea of what that is). If they had the trademark on it, and they didn't defend it, they would automatically lose it.
You're right though, you don't have to defend a copyright constantly to keep it, but trademarks you actually do have to defend.
I think the problem with the C&Ds for DMCA violations is what everyone's saying. The more they clamp down on it, the more they bring attention to the project and the more people are going to be actively trying to break this encryption. I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to get a way to read the keys off the previously-hidden layers, circumventing any workaround they could come up with.
I think they probably sent the C&D because of trademark law. If they didn't go after people who called random lamps lava lamps, the term would be considered generic and they would lose the trademark on it. Hormel has to go after people who talk about spam. Kleenex also has the same problem
You get half the music, the hassle of DRM and are locked to one hardware device - the iPod.
you do realise that you can play AAC files in things other than an iPod. I have a creative nomad and run ubuntu. I have a buddy who encoded all his CDs into AAC, and I can play them fine.
107% of 99 cents is 1.0593 dollars. You'll either pay 1.05 or 1.10, depending. It would be nice if states were required to include sales tax in their prices.
Made by Northrup Grunman, a company based in LA.
Why are we such pussies? Look around, in the US, something like:
40,000 people die/year in car accidents
20,000 murders/year
And we get all worked up because some people managed to hijack 4 airplanes and killed 3,000 people? It really sucks, and I understand the pain that the people left behind had to face (as well as the people who died that day). But because of that one attack, we've completely gone bonkers and blown an entirely disproportionate amount of money on making sure it doesn't happen again compared to larger social ills.
Ugh, it just burns me.
Not to disagree with your main point, but Iran's constitution makes it so that every minority gets an MP. Whether it's a token gesture or if he actually can do things there is another question.
Or, you could do something where the PC first veirfys that the USB-dongle isn't connected before the transaction starts, and if it is, forcing the user to disconnect/reconnect, so the user would be in somewhat of the habit of disconnecting the thing.
So, youtube, myspace, fark....oh, anything that lets users post content can be shutdown just by posting a pornographic image and telling the cops?
It seems like a good idea, but I think it would be ultimately unworkable.