cryptology- cool, but not engrossing- ohh a number sequence
Brown's grasp of cryptography has improved, then, since Digital Fortress? When he started talking about "rotating plaintext" and unbreakable codes, I felt like I was reading a novel about a perpetual motion machine.
Actually, I think it's just the opposite. The first few books came out at fourteen-month intervals, but the reason for the extension is lies with Rigney, not with the publisher. I believe that the interval was first extended with Lord of Chaos, which was badly overdue. At this point, I really don't think that Rigney's work can be edited without his express consent. Kind of like Stephen King. We're getting WOT "at (his) own pace" and published "as-is". No self-respecting editor would go along with the last couple of WOT books unless forced.
Concerning Ender's Game, the first half of that book was published as a novella in the seventies, IIRC. As such, it was a masterpice. The addition of the second half of the book worked pretty well, and Speaker for the Dead raised some interesting issues. Avoid everything after Speaker. IMO, Card is at his very best in short stories.
The really odd thing is that they just seem to be ignoring the PR aspects of the whole thing. They come off as either silly (when the CD DRM scheme was defeated by a magic marker) or evil (when they tried to sue to suppress the information that you could disable CD autoplay on Windows by holding down the shift key). Neither is going to help their sales or image.
The key is definitely the value-add for the consumer, over the perceived inconvenience. But as long as they can't prevent the distribution of DRM-free music, there will always be a convenient alternative. They are potentially creating the conditions for their own demise (as music distributors).
Yes, but say, in five years, you want to buy the new Michael Jackson, er, Metallica CD. It won't play in your computer; it won't play in any of your dedicated pre-DRM CD players. So what do you do?
The answer is clear. Don't buy from these people. Stop buying from them now, not later. I don't think that this (the DRM initiative) will actually succeed. They want people to spend more money for less convenience. But they can try.
Copy protection did not work for computer software. A sufficiently determined individual can always defeat such a system. And distribute the results. Yes, they can be prosecuted using the DMCA, but that will not stop it.
In this case, it is more instructive to look to the profit motive. When they implement a new DRM system, they can sell us new CD and DVD players, and new CDs of all the old music that we've bought (twice, maybe) already. The "replace your old LPs" profit center was a huge one, until it was knocked down by (1) DVDs and (2) saturation. Now, they are hoping to recreate it through technical means.
Thanks. I got the wrong impression from the article. However, the basic principle is the same. The fuel is not his, nor is it a commercial venture. And there are certainly better uses for the avgas than furthering his self-indulgence at the expense of others. What did he expect, starting a 30-hour flight with a two-hour fuel reserve, flying into some of the worst weather on the planet?
They refused to give him the fuel. No mention of him offering to pay for it.
Who says that Antartica is theirs anyways?
No one. But the fuel certainly is theirs. As is the food he is consuming, the shelter he is occupying, the plane that was offered to take him home at no cost, and the ship that would take his plane back to him later.
Is this standard practice for "adventurers": End up stranded somewhere through poor planning, and then expect someone else to bail him out and pay for it? Seems like it from the article. The bases did not refuse to sell him the fuel, they refused to give it to him. He could have offered to buy it, though the cost might be high - it's expensive to ship fuel to Antarctica and store it. Or he could have taken them up on their offer of a free flight home, with his plane to be shipped later.
And, of course, they're feeding and housing him for the time being.
Were I serious about hiding something, I'd dust the books - or change the dates on the files. The actual case might be a little subtler (none of the books might have your valuables, or the period on line x of page y of some book is a microdot), but your points are well-taken. If they have already taken the time to learn more about you (like the burglars getting house plans), then they are pretty much past the point where steganography is very useful.
That does not, however, detract from its usefulness in a situation where you are attempting to avoid suspicion in the first place.
The analogy isn't security through obscurity, it's finding a better place than behind the painting to hide the safe. Or, perhaps more accurately, securing one's valuables in something that is not recognizable as a safe. If the burglar had to look at a thousand books to determine if even one of them had a secret compartment, it would be a much more effective security measure than a safe behind a painting.
If you are using stegged files (they do not have to be images) to communicate with others, then you are hiding the channel. This is a potentially very useful mechanism against automated monitoring tools, particularly if the data is first encrypted. Isolated information in high-volume channels can be very hard to detect. Another use would be to help defeat traffic analysis.
This is not to say that steganography is a magic means of information hiding. But it is one of the useful tools.
We have the same problem with phones not ringing when they're in someone's pocket. Never been on any service but Sprint, though, so I have nothing to compare with.
Microsoft makes Mac software. The machines were coming in to the receiving department (coincidentally in the same building as the print shop). So there really was nothing given away on the blog, until MS Security decided the picture was damaging information. This would indicate that, were one a competitor, their acquisition of some G5s would be worthy of more detailed investigation. The fact that they fired him gives away more information than he originally disclosed.
Yes, they have a right to fire him, based on either policy violation or to prevent potential leaks. But it's not because he gave away damaging information.
I think that you're probably right, but he's talking about Netflix rentals, not purchased DVDs. If Netflix is $20 per month, and you get three discs at a time, and you turn them around once a week, that's $1.33 per movie viewing (assuming that you watch each one once). CDs are a better value, if you listen to each one at least twelve times. This ignores the fact that you still have the CD, and you can resell it if you no longer want it.
Of course, the usage models are different, so the comparison isn't really very appropriate. I think that it's more instructive to view it from a budgetary perspective. If one has a certain amount per month to spend on this type of entertainment, then a Netflix subscription means that one buys one less CD per month. Each DVD replaces one CD. I think that many consumers perceive a DVD movie as a better value than a CD, partly because they are a new phenomenon. Personally, I've been buying two or three new DVDs per month, and about one CD (this excludes my eBay/Sheryl Crow habit). Many of these are older movies. We probably spend about $25 a month renting DVDs (though this may increase, as we now have five things in the house capable of playing them - three computers and two DVD players (one a Wal-mart $46 special)).
My all-time most-listened to CD is a compilation that I burned for listening in the car. All of the tracks are from legitimately purchased CDs.
It's all about perception, and DVDs are generally perceived as a better value. Release rates are relevant - there are probably four or five movies released per month that I would consider buying, but only one or two CDs. Another factor may be that a DVD movie can be purchased for two to three times the price of a theater ticket, while a CD is one third the price of a concert. I'd think that this would work the other way, though (implying that CDs are a better value).
Excellent. Thanks for the formula; I hoped that someone who knew would bring some accuracy to the discussion. Actually thinking about the real piece of foam - its size and mass - makes both the degree of air-drag deceleration and the damage that it inflicted on the wing more comprehensible. We're talking about a large, relatively massive (probably at least an order of magnitude more massive than an equivalent volume of styrofoam) chunk of material, travelling at a high rate of speed.
On top of this the foam is much lighter than the baseball.
I'm not disputing your conclusion, but the piece of foam that they used for the test was 0.8 kg, significantly more massive than a baseball. They didn't mention the dimensions, though. I believe that the foam is much denser than styrofoam, so the analogies being offered here are somewhat misleading. The rate at which the foam decelerated would also depend on its mass.
As far as helicoptors go, just landing works fine in the VAST majority of emergencies, including catastrophic engine failure.
That was my impression from what I've read on the subject (which is not a lot). I have seen quite a few stories, though, where the ejection process did serious damage to the pilot - it's not exactly the kind of physical stress that the body is equipped to handle. Even when the ejection mechanism functions exactly as designed. In the 1977 story, I get the impression that the pilot would likely not have survived had the plane not hit the water right next to the carrier.
It's the Ka-52 "Alligator" that was brought into service in 1997; it is a two-seat derivative of the Ka-50 "Black Shark" which was put into service in 1982.
Did you read that story that he referenced? The pilot was very lucky to have survived. There's a bunch of interesting information at that site. I thought that it was interesting that the Russian system for the Ka-50 and Ka-52 was the only helicopter system mentioned, despite the fact that extraction systems were cited for experimental planes (XB-70, NASA flying wing), and spacecraft (shuttle, Gemini). The Ka-52 has six blades (three on each of two top-mounted rotors, counter-rotating), and only one of the explosive bolt sets needs to fail to make the whole ejection proposition rather, shall we say, dicey.
I'd be interested to know if the Russian system has ever been used successfully, particularly in the course of a normal attack helicopter mission profile (that is, low-level or nap-of-the-earth flight). IANAP, but I think that I would be more inclined to ride the helicopter down than to trust that ejectction system (unless at a very high altitude).
And, I think, that is the whole point of this discussion (or at least one of them). To have an effective flight system, the pilots have to trust it.
Anyone reading here is likely aware of the monthly price, or could find out fairly easily. However, a less well-informed person will likely not know to look for news releases or Web sites. My point was, specifically, that when you go to the LucasArts site to buy the game, they pointedly tell you that you will be told the subscription price only after you install the software. Will the subscription price be printed on the outside of the box? Seems unlikely, given what they stated on the web site. The point is not that they are trying to keep some big secret. It's that their attitude toward their customers is something less than desirable.
LucasArts has made a bunch of good games. My kids even enjoyed Yoda Stories, so you know that I have to like the company.:-) But I don't like the way that they handled the issue of subscription price in their store.
A valid credit card and additional recurring fees are required to play this game. Fee information and pricing plans will be provided after installation of software.
Don't you just love this way of doing business? "We'll set you a client for $50, but we won't tell you how much we charge for server access until after you've bought and installed it." Giving you a 30-day subscription improves it somewhat, but it's still rather shady dealing with customers.
Slashdot Mirror
cryptology- cool, but not engrossing- ohh a number sequence
Brown's grasp of cryptography has improved, then, since Digital Fortress? When he started talking about "rotating plaintext" and unbreakable codes, I felt like I was reading a novel about a perpetual motion machine.
Actually, I think it's just the opposite. The first few books came out at fourteen-month intervals, but the reason for the extension is lies with Rigney, not with the publisher. I believe that the interval was first extended with Lord of Chaos, which was badly overdue. At this point, I really don't think that Rigney's work can be edited without his express consent. Kind of like Stephen King. We're getting WOT "at (his) own pace" and published "as-is". No self-respecting editor would go along with the last couple of WOT books unless forced.
Concerning Ender's Game, the first half of that book was published as a novella in the seventies, IIRC. As such, it was a masterpice. The addition of the second half of the book worked pretty well, and Speaker for the Dead raised some interesting issues. Avoid everything after Speaker. IMO, Card is at his very best in short stories.
I'm an atheist and I'm married you bumbling moron.
No, you're not. Engaging in "marrige" is a felony, you blithering idiot.
--
Anonymous Posters for Christ
The really odd thing is that they just seem to be ignoring the PR aspects of the whole thing. They come off as either silly (when the CD DRM scheme was defeated by a magic marker) or evil (when they tried to sue to suppress the information that you could disable CD autoplay on Windows by holding down the shift key). Neither is going to help their sales or image.
The key is definitely the value-add for the consumer, over the perceived inconvenience. But as long as they can't prevent the distribution of DRM-free music, there will always be a convenient alternative. They are potentially creating the conditions for their own demise (as music distributors).
Yes, but say, in five years, you want to buy the new Michael Jackson, er, Metallica CD. It won't play in your computer; it won't play in any of your dedicated pre-DRM CD players. So what do you do?
The answer is clear. Don't buy from these people. Stop buying from them now, not later. I don't think that this (the DRM initiative) will actually succeed. They want people to spend more money for less convenience. But they can try.
Copy protection did not work for computer software. A sufficiently determined individual can always defeat such a system. And distribute the results. Yes, they can be prosecuted using the DMCA, but that will not stop it.
In this case, it is more instructive to look to the profit motive. When they implement a new DRM system, they can sell us new CD and DVD players, and new CDs of all the old music that we've bought (twice, maybe) already. The "replace your old LPs" profit center was a huge one, until it was knocked down by (1) DVDs and (2) saturation. Now, they are hoping to recreate it through technical means.
Thanks. I got the wrong impression from the article. However, the basic principle is the same. The fuel is not his, nor is it a commercial venture. And there are certainly better uses for the avgas than furthering his self-indulgence at the expense of others. What did he expect, starting a 30-hour flight with a two-hour fuel reserve, flying into some of the worst weather on the planet?
They refused to give him the fuel. No mention of him offering to pay for it.
Who says that Antartica is theirs anyways?
No one. But the fuel certainly is theirs. As is the food he is consuming, the shelter he is occupying, the plane that was offered to take him home at no cost, and the ship that would take his plane back to him later.
Is this standard practice for "adventurers": End up stranded somewhere through poor planning, and then expect someone else to bail him out and pay for it? Seems like it from the article. The bases did not refuse to sell him the fuel, they refused to give it to him. He could have offered to buy it, though the cost might be high - it's expensive to ship fuel to Antarctica and store it. Or he could have taken them up on their offer of a free flight home, with his plane to be shipped later.
And, of course, they're feeding and housing him for the time being.
Were I serious about hiding something, I'd dust the books - or change the dates on the files. The actual case might be a little subtler (none of the books might have your valuables, or the period on line x of page y of some book is a microdot), but your points are well-taken. If they have already taken the time to learn more about you (like the burglars getting house plans), then they are pretty much past the point where steganography is very useful.
That does not, however, detract from its usefulness in a situation where you are attempting to avoid suspicion in the first place.
The analogy isn't security through obscurity, it's finding a better place than behind the painting to hide the safe. Or, perhaps more accurately, securing one's valuables in something that is not recognizable as a safe. If the burglar had to look at a thousand books to determine if even one of them had a secret compartment, it would be a much more effective security measure than a safe behind a painting.
If you are using stegged files (they do not have to be images) to communicate with others, then you are hiding the channel. This is a potentially very useful mechanism against automated monitoring tools, particularly if the data is first encrypted. Isolated information in high-volume channels can be very hard to detect. Another use would be to help defeat traffic analysis.
This is not to say that steganography is a magic means of information hiding. But it is one of the useful tools.
Please don't tell me that Larry is involved in this, too.
We have the same problem with phones not ringing when they're in someone's pocket. Never been on any service but Sprint, though, so I have nothing to compare with.
Microsoft makes Mac software. The machines were coming in to the receiving department (coincidentally in the same building as the print shop). So there really was nothing given away on the blog, until MS Security decided the picture was damaging information. This would indicate that, were one a competitor, their acquisition of some G5s would be worthy of more detailed investigation. The fact that they fired him gives away more information than he originally disclosed.
Yes, they have a right to fire him, based on either policy violation or to prevent potential leaks. But it's not because he gave away damaging information.
I think that you're probably right, but he's talking about Netflix rentals, not purchased DVDs. If Netflix is $20 per month, and you get three discs at a time, and you turn them around once a week, that's $1.33 per movie viewing (assuming that you watch each one once). CDs are a better value, if you listen to each one at least twelve times. This ignores the fact that you still have the CD, and you can resell it if you no longer want it.
Of course, the usage models are different, so the comparison isn't really very appropriate. I think that it's more instructive to view it from a budgetary perspective. If one has a certain amount per month to spend on this type of entertainment, then a Netflix subscription means that one buys one less CD per month. Each DVD replaces one CD. I think that many consumers perceive a DVD movie as a better value than a CD, partly because they are a new phenomenon. Personally, I've been buying two or three new DVDs per month, and about one CD (this excludes my eBay/Sheryl Crow habit). Many of these are older movies. We probably spend about $25 a month renting DVDs (though this may increase, as we now have five things in the house capable of playing them - three computers and two DVD players (one a Wal-mart $46 special)).
My all-time most-listened to CD is a compilation that I burned for listening in the car. All of the tracks are from legitimately purchased CDs.
It's all about perception, and DVDs are generally perceived as a better value. Release rates are relevant - there are probably four or five movies released per month that I would consider buying, but only one or two CDs. Another factor may be that a DVD movie can be purchased for two to three times the price of a theater ticket, while a CD is one third the price of a concert. I'd think that this would work the other way, though (implying that CDs are a better value).
The AMPL link points to nothing; it should be http://www.ampl.com.
This is already being done.
Excellent. Thanks for the formula; I hoped that someone who knew would bring some accuracy to the discussion. Actually thinking about the real piece of foam - its size and mass - makes both the degree of air-drag deceleration and the damage that it inflicted on the wing more comprehensible. We're talking about a large, relatively massive (probably at least an order of magnitude more massive than an equivalent volume of styrofoam) chunk of material, travelling at a high rate of speed.
On top of this the foam is much lighter than the baseball.
I'm not disputing your conclusion, but the piece of foam that they used for the test was 0.8 kg, significantly more massive than a baseball. They didn't mention the dimensions, though. I believe that the foam is much denser than styrofoam, so the analogies being offered here are somewhat misleading. The rate at which the foam decelerated would also depend on its mass.
As far as helicoptors go, just landing works fine in the VAST majority of emergencies, including catastrophic engine failure.
That was my impression from what I've read on the subject (which is not a lot). I have seen quite a few stories, though, where the ejection process did serious damage to the pilot - it's not exactly the kind of physical stress that the body is equipped to handle. Even when the ejection mechanism functions exactly as designed. In the 1977 story, I get the impression that the pilot would likely not have survived had the plane not hit the water right next to the carrier.
It's the Ka-52 "Alligator" that was brought into service in 1997; it is a two-seat derivative of the Ka-50 "Black Shark" which was put into service in 1982.
Did you read that story that he referenced? The pilot was very lucky to have survived. There's a bunch of interesting information at that site. I thought that it was interesting that the Russian system for the Ka-50 and Ka-52 was the only helicopter system mentioned, despite the fact that extraction systems were cited for experimental planes (XB-70, NASA flying wing), and spacecraft (shuttle, Gemini). The Ka-52 has six blades (three on each of two top-mounted rotors, counter-rotating), and only one of the explosive bolt sets needs to fail to make the whole ejection proposition rather, shall we say, dicey.
I'd be interested to know if the Russian system has ever been used successfully, particularly in the course of a normal attack helicopter mission profile (that is, low-level or nap-of-the-earth flight). IANAP, but I think that I would be more inclined to ride the helicopter down than to trust that ejectction system (unless at a very high altitude).
And, I think, that is the whole point of this discussion (or at least one of them). To have an effective flight system, the pilots have to trust it.
Anyone reading here is likely aware of the monthly price, or could find out fairly easily. However, a less well-informed person will likely not know to look for news releases or Web sites. My point was, specifically, that when you go to the LucasArts site to buy the game, they pointedly tell you that you will be told the subscription price only after you install the software. Will the subscription price be printed on the outside of the box? Seems unlikely, given what they stated on the web site. The point is not that they are trying to keep some big secret. It's that their attitude toward their customers is something less than desirable.
:-) But I don't like the way that they handled the issue of subscription price in their store.
LucasArts has made a bunch of good games. My kids even enjoyed Yoda Stories, so you know that I have to like the company.
From the LucasArts company store:
A valid credit card and additional recurring fees are required to play this game. Fee information and pricing plans will be provided after installation of software.
Don't you just love this way of doing business? "We'll set you a client for $50, but we won't tell you how much we charge for server access until after you've bought and installed it." Giving you a 30-day subscription improves it somewhat, but it's still rather shady dealing with customers.