non-uniform sampling is not that new.... and data recovery techniques are not dependant on uniform or non-uniform sampling... maxaimum entropy methods, or bayesian analysis are very powerful at this - I wonder if a compaison has been made ?
The remarkable thing about nuclear quantum spin is that it is very weakly coupled with the enviroment. Relaxation times (how long the spin takes to dissapear) is on the order of 100's of milliseconds in many materials.
In this material it may turn out that nuclear relaxation times are of the order of hours ?? (in noble gases you can get relaxtion times of many minutes) due to the shielding of the nucleus from the enviroment by the silicon cage.
The nice thing about single-quanta systems (i.e. a single atom) is that it is in a definite state. A spin-half system is has only two states (read 1 or 0 ). (Im not sure what spin the Tungsten nucleus has). As long as you "refresh" the spin before it relaxes with the enviroment (decays) you can use it like ordinary memory, but obviously at much higher densities...
This Silicon cage is not really like fullerine which I think had 60 carbon atoms in a geodesic dome arrangement ? anyone know
... Two authors of other popular SSH products posted messages at securepoint.com
Wednesday, saying Ylönen hasn't moved to halt their use of the SSH name.
Ian Goldberg, author of Top Gun ssh for the Palm Pilot, wrote that he exchanged email
with Ylönen and others at SSH Communications Security in the summer of 1997. "Tatu
even asked me if I'd be willing to do an implementation of the 2.0 protocol," Goldberg
wrote. "No one ever asked me to not use the 'ssh' name in the program title."
Robert O'Callahan, who released Teraterm SSH for Windows in 1998, wrote that several
universities have distributed his product to their students, and it's been distributed on CD
software collections, including with the book "Unix Secure Shell." He said he's never heard
from SSH Communications Security about a trademark violation...
makes you think about the real reasons behind SSH's sudden change of mind...huh!!
maybe we should pettition SSH to change their name to something else so we stop confusing their product with the protocol !!! showmethemoneySSH or even just $$H (thats going to hurt the shell now!)
the confusion is because SSH want both the protocol AND the trademark.. (and probably the command-line name if they could as well)
thats dangerous and I dont like it.
If Tatu had picked his own name, different from the protocol, then this would be a trademark.
what they are trying to do here is much scarrier and I think Theo is right to hang onto openssh.
If SSH was instead called their product finnishSSH would there be as much confusion ? NO.
The danger if Tatu succesfully prevents ANY ssh implementation from containing the letters ssh, is that the marketplace will think that there is ONE and ONLY ONE implementation of ssh....
just think about it.. SSH wants.. the name of the product, the implementation, the shell command...everything...
YES - I so agree... the confusion is because SSH want both the protocol AND the trademark..
thats dangerous and I dont like it.
If Tatu had picked his own name, different from the protocol, then that would be a trademark.
what they are trying to do here is much scarrier and I think Theo is right to hang onto openssh.
If SSH was instead called "finnishSSH" would there be as much confusion ? NO.
The danger if Tatu succesfully prevents ANY ssh implementation from containing the letters ssh, is that the marketplace will think that there is ONE and ONLY ONE implementation....
just think about it.. SSH wants.. the name of the product, the implementation, the shell command... everything...
I wonder if who ever thought up sh (as in unix shell) therefore has some case against SSH (secure shell) for confusing their product with the original ?
funny how theres no crap about tcsh, ksh, bash, csh... etc etc
But they do force us to address the issues of security, robustness and vunrabilities in our e-mail systems. The longer we go without viruses, the larger the impact they have when they do turn up.
An possible analogy is with how our human immune systems have had to dramticlly improve with the advent (last 1000 years or so) of crowded city-living. "Plagues" in Europe wipped out 50-70 % of the population on many occasions. Pretty severe, but not enough to destroy the population outright.
The same "Plagues" wipped out 100% (in some cases) of native american and south american communities when they were transported across the atlantic. That these communities had had no exposure to epidemic diseases goes a long way to explaining the difference.
If an there exists a possible exploit then it is reasonable to assume that its only a matter of time before the exploit will be used.
So when you are counting the immediate cost of email-viruses, how do you factor-in the long-term benefits ? i.e. Because you implemented stronger virus-protection systems this time, you have averted a catastrophic (fatal) virus infection later.
And is it really such a cost to ditch outlook for a simple, free email client that does not run scripts ?
Isnt the key thing here how it affect different companies... If one company is M$ based and the other Unix then the virus will affect one dramaticly more than the other...
If there are no Linux-based companies then all are affected reasonably similarly, and it will be harder to estimate real competitive loss.
Today the radios are blaring about the Anna K virus, but we have no windows desktops in our company, and consequently have not been affected at all by it... but maybe some of our distributors/suppliers are ? But I havnt spent any time today fixing any email servers / user mailboxes.
Slashdot Mirror
non-uniform sampling is not that new.... and data recovery techniques are not dependant on uniform or non-uniform sampling... maxaimum entropy methods, or bayesian analysis are very powerful at this - I wonder if a compaison has been made ?
You can use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) techniques to read nuclear spin.
The decay of the spin depends on its coupling to the enviroment (T1 relaxation rate)
For weakly coupled systems this can be from many seconds to minutes.
The remarkable thing about nuclear quantum spin is that it is very weakly coupled with the enviroment. Relaxation times (how long the spin takes to dissapear) is on the order of 100's of milliseconds in many materials.
In this material it may turn out that nuclear relaxation times are of the order of hours ?? (in noble gases you can get relaxtion times of many minutes) due to the shielding of the nucleus from the enviroment by the silicon cage.
The nice thing about single-quanta systems (i.e. a single atom) is that it is in a definite state. A spin-half system is has only two states (read 1 or 0 ). (Im not sure what spin the Tungsten nucleus has). As long as you "refresh" the spin before it relaxes with the enviroment (decays) you can use it like ordinary memory, but obviously at much higher densities...
This Silicon cage is not really like fullerine which I think had 60 carbon atoms in a geodesic dome arrangement ? anyone know
Ian Goldberg, author of Top Gun ssh for the Palm Pilot, wrote that he exchanged email with Ylönen and others at SSH Communications Security in the summer of 1997. "Tatu even asked me if I'd be willing to do an implementation of the 2.0 protocol," Goldberg wrote. "No one ever asked me to not use the 'ssh' name in the program title."
Robert O'Callahan, who released Teraterm SSH for Windows in 1998, wrote that several universities have distributed his product to their students, and it's been distributed on CD software collections, including with the book "Unix Secure Shell." He said he's never heard from SSH Communications Security about a trademark violation...
makes you think about the real reasons behind SSH's sudden change of mind...huh!!
maybe we should pettition SSH to change their name to something else so we stop confusing their product with the protocol !!! showmethemoneySSH or even just $$H (thats going to hurt the shell now!)
the confusion is because SSH want both the protocol AND the trademark.. (and probably the command-line name if they could as well)
thats dangerous and I dont like it.
If Tatu had picked his own name, different from the protocol, then this would be a trademark.
what they are trying to do here is much scarrier and I think Theo is right to hang onto openssh.
If SSH was instead called their product finnishSSH would there be as much confusion ? NO.
The danger if Tatu succesfully prevents ANY ssh implementation from containing the letters ssh, is that the marketplace will think that there is ONE and ONLY ONE implementation of ssh....
just think about it.. SSH wants.. the name of the product, the implementation, the shell command...everything...
reeks of M$ behaviour IMHO...
YES - I so agree ... the confusion is because SSH want both the protocol AND the trademark..
thats dangerous and I dont like it.
If Tatu had picked his own name, different from the protocol, then that would be a trademark.
what they are trying to do here is much scarrier and I think Theo is right to hang onto openssh.
If SSH was instead called "finnishSSH" would there be as much confusion ? NO.
The danger if Tatu succesfully prevents ANY ssh implementation from containing the letters ssh, is that the marketplace will think that there is ONE and ONLY ONE implementation....
just think about it.. SSH wants.. the name of the product, the implementation, the shell command... everything...
reeks of M$ behaviour IMHO...
I wonder if who ever thought up sh (as in unix shell) therefore has some case against SSH (secure shell) for confusing their product with the original ?
funny how theres no crap about tcsh, ksh, bash, csh... etc etc
Are they only trying to protect their "brand" product SSH ?
Or is this a first step towards claiming the SSH protocol (a la M$) ?
If you could write a client with the same (outlook) interface, but better (*nix) code/OS behind it then this point would be mute.
But they do force us to address the issues of security, robustness and vunrabilities in our e-mail systems. The longer we go without viruses, the larger the impact they have when they do turn up.
An possible analogy is with how our human immune systems have had to dramticlly improve with the advent (last 1000 years or so) of crowded city-living. "Plagues" in Europe wipped out 50-70 % of the population on many occasions. Pretty severe, but not enough to destroy the population outright.
The same "Plagues" wipped out 100% (in some cases) of native american and south american communities when they were transported across the atlantic. That these communities had had no exposure to epidemic diseases goes a long way to explaining the difference.
If an there exists a possible exploit then it is reasonable to assume that its only a matter of time before the exploit will be used.
So when you are counting the immediate cost of email-viruses, how do you factor-in the long-term benefits ? i.e. Because you implemented stronger virus-protection systems this time, you have averted a catastrophic (fatal) virus infection later.
And is it really such a cost to ditch outlook for a simple, free email client that does not run scripts ?
Isnt the key thing here how it affect different companies... If one company is M$ based and the other Unix then the virus will affect one dramaticly more than the other... If there are no Linux-based companies then all are affected reasonably similarly, and it will be harder to estimate real competitive loss. Today the radios are blaring about the Anna K virus, but we have no windows desktops in our company, and consequently have not been affected at all by it... but maybe some of our distributors/suppliers are ? But I havnt spent any time today fixing any email servers / user mailboxes.