One-time pads work great. The question is, what's the point.
For every message, a different one-time pad must be created and secretly exchanged. Hm.... why doesn't the party just give the message to the other, unencrypted and secretly, in the first place? Nothing is really accomplished by using this encryption.
There are, of course, some rare incidents where secure means of exchange are not available at the time of the message, but were before.
Legally, one cannot truly trademark a dictionary word such as Illustrator; their claims on it are limited. However, the product is very similar to Illustrator; not in appearance but in functionality. Therefore, it does constitute as a trademark violation.
Everyone complains that consumers won't get Internet2 access because it is being used for research.
Heh, look at the Internet in preliminary stages (actually NEARnet, ARPAnet, FARnet, etc.). It was practically only used for research and government.
Slashdot Mirror
One-time pads work great. The question is, what's the point.
For every message, a different one-time pad must be created and secretly exchanged. Hm.... why doesn't the party just give the message to the other, unencrypted and secretly, in the first place? Nothing is really accomplished by using this encryption.
There are, of course, some rare incidents where secure means of exchange are not available at the time of the message, but were before.
Legally, one cannot truly trademark a dictionary word such as Illustrator; their claims on it are limited. However, the product is very similar to Illustrator; not in appearance but in functionality. Therefore, it does constitute as a trademark violation.
Did we mention that the viewers must wear stereoscopic glasses?
Everyone complains that consumers won't get Internet2 access because it is being used for research. Heh, look at the Internet in preliminary stages (actually NEARnet, ARPAnet, FARnet, etc.). It was practically only used for research and government.