I guess it's ok to be tolorant [sic] of pedophiles or Islamic extremists or cross-dressing 1st grade teachers, but its not ok to respect the personal beliefs of Christians who are not imposing it on anyone.
There's a hierarchy here. Cross-dressing 1st grade teachers don't harrass people in the streets, so they're absolutely fine. Pedophiles and Islamic extremists don't harrass me on the streets, although they harrass others, so I (sympathetically) consider them less okay. Christians harrass me on the streets, so they're at the bottom of the pile.
(And before you say I'm letting a minority influence my views of the majority, that's true of the pedophiles and extremists, too, and you seem to have no problem with that...)
But both lens and sensor quality (and at a slower pace, film quality) are improving. 2k or 3k makes sense now; in ten years, 4k will be very reasonable.
This 1TB number is truly unimpressive. It serves more as a reminder that (2D) optical has a limited future due to nasty things like wavelength, rather than as a technology to lust over.
It's for a memory chip... when was the last time you had a memory chip that produced a noticeable amount of heat? (Hint: Rambus.) When was the last time you had a memory chip that produced an unacceptable amount of heat? (Well, if you're stretching, some of the SRAM's that HP used for caches in the PA-RISC boxes...)
Why couldn't it go in user space? The fact that people suggested it implies it might have been workable... and keeping stuff out of the kernel is worth some extra effort.
Um, there's no requirement for belief... they'll publish their algorithm, we'll look over it, say "hmm that makes sense"... exactly as happens for any other successful cryptanalysis. The only difference here is they can say "and it has practical application" (that is, is computationally feasible), which (a) makes it easier to publish and (b) is interesting in and of itself.
SHA-0 is a 160-bit hash. Now, you might at first think that means it would take aorund 2^160 tries to get two strings that collided, but because of the birthday paradox (what's the probability that two people on a football field have the same birthday) it's actually supposed to be the square root of that, or 2^80.
Unfortunately, 2^51 is much, much less than 2^80. Which means that this crack was not just brute force (which is kinda redundant, since the definition of a crack to a cryptosystem is a violation like this without using brute force, but whatever). That means they've found a mathematical technique for making this 'easy'. Generally, once the idea is out there for an easy crack, people can gnaw on it and make it more general or easier, bringing this down to every-day-concern level.
Why wouldn't they release the details? Expect a full paper to follow as soon as they can get it polished off... something like this should breeze through peer review. This is good cryptanalysis and good science... this is what mathematicians (well, a subset of them) do. Why wouldn't they release the details?
how the heck did the parent get modded up informative?
There always going to be collisions in check-sums. If that weren't the case than we wouldn't need to distribute actual files, just check-sums.
Um, wow. Let's start from the top.
1) Yes, there's always going to be collisions in check-sums. Fewer bits than the checksum than the data, pigeon hole principle, yada yada.
2) Even if there were no collisions, the whole point (well, one of two... more on the second below) is that they're NOT REVERSIBLE. So perhaps just distributing collisionless hashes would be a good replacement for kazaa (it's all about collection, not actually listening, doncha know)... but for those who like to be able to use files, it's kinda missing the point.
3) And that point is, no KNOWN collisions. More importantly, no way, given a known data/hash pair, to generate another data string with the same hash. If you violate that principle, you've made the cryptosystem useless for ensuring that the data is the same data that was originally hashed. And that's exactly what this article is about... a technique (who knows how general yet?) to find collisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it's ok to be tolorant [sic] of pedophiles or Islamic extremists or cross-dressing 1st grade teachers, but its not ok to respect the personal beliefs of Christians who are not imposing it on anyone.
There's a hierarchy here. Cross-dressing 1st grade teachers don't harrass people in the streets, so they're absolutely fine. Pedophiles and Islamic extremists don't harrass me on the streets, although they harrass others, so I (sympathetically) consider them less okay. Christians harrass me on the streets, so they're at the bottom of the pile.
(And before you say I'm letting a minority influence my views of the majority, that's true of the pedophiles and extremists, too, and you seem to have no problem with that...)
the omelette.
But both lens and sensor quality (and at a slower pace, film quality) are improving. 2k or 3k makes sense now; in ten years, 4k will be very reasonable.
This 1TB number is truly unimpressive. It serves more as a reminder that (2D) optical has a limited future due to nasty things like wavelength, rather than as a technology to lust over.
Do you know how well "Have you ever had sex in outer space?" works as a pick-up line?
Yes. Yes, I do.
I could use a smaller fan if I could reduce the amount of heat being generated. Quiet, reliable, efficient and cool computers are good.
Bigger fans are quieter, more reliable, more efficient, and cool better.
Poorly written patent. Basing it on an ATM netowrk (which does need globally-unique identifiers) isn't covered.
Chess program offers best possible countermove
Um?
We really need a -1, Doesn't Know Ass from Hole In Ground moderation option...
And the corresponding +1, My Bad, He Really Was Buried Head Down option...
He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.
Who cares if they're local jobs? The IT sector isn't something outside your front door, it's international. As is the economy.
fnorgby?
It's exactly as possible with AGP as with PCI Express. Both are point-to-point ports; you can have as many as you'd like on a board.
Re: Apple's "graphics-engine" (quartz extreme): the advantage is performance, pure and simple.
It's for a memory chip... when was the last time you had a memory chip that produced a noticeable amount of heat? (Hint: Rambus.) When was the last time you had a memory chip that produced an unacceptable amount of heat? (Well, if you're stretching, some of the SRAM's that HP used for caches in the PA-RISC boxes...)
N(CH3)3 is trimethyl amine, not triethyl.
Why couldn't it go in user space? The fact that people suggested it implies it might have been workable... and keeping stuff out of the kernel is worth some extra effort.
How can code from a game crash the OS?
Not sure about foobly either... but definitely superfluous.
Um, there's no requirement for belief... they'll publish their algorithm, we'll look over it, say "hmm that makes sense"... exactly as happens for any other successful cryptanalysis. The only difference here is they can say "and it has practical application" (that is, is computationally feasible), which (a) makes it easier to publish and (b) is interesting in and of itself.
With 30 what?
Good question. :-)
The complexity of the attack was around 2^51.
SHA-0 is a 160-bit hash. Now, you might at first think that means it would take aorund 2^160 tries to get two strings that collided, but because of the birthday paradox (what's the probability that two people on a football field have the same birthday) it's actually supposed to be the square root of that, or 2^80.
Unfortunately, 2^51 is much, much less than 2^80. Which means that this crack was not just brute force (which is kinda redundant, since the definition of a crack to a cryptosystem is a violation like this without using brute force, but whatever). That means they've found a mathematical technique for making this 'easy'. Generally, once the idea is out there for an easy crack, people can gnaw on it and make it more general or easier, bringing this down to every-day-concern level.
Why wouldn't they release the details? Expect a full paper to follow as soon as they can get it polished off... something like this should breeze through peer review. This is good cryptanalysis and good science... this is what mathematicians (well, a subset of them) do. Why wouldn't they release the details?
how the heck did the parent get modded up informative?
There always going to be collisions in check-sums. If that weren't the case than we wouldn't need to distribute actual files, just check-sums.
Um, wow. Let's start from the top.
1) Yes, there's always going to be collisions in check-sums. Fewer bits than the checksum than the data, pigeon hole principle, yada yada.
2) Even if there were no collisions, the whole point (well, one of two... more on the second below) is that they're NOT REVERSIBLE. So perhaps just distributing collisionless hashes would be a good replacement for kazaa (it's all about collection, not actually listening, doncha know)... but for those who like to be able to use files, it's kinda missing the point.
3) And that point is, no KNOWN collisions. More importantly, no way, given a known data/hash pair, to generate another data string with the same hash. If you violate that principle, you've made the cryptosystem useless for ensuring that the data is the same data that was originally hashed. And that's exactly what this article is about... a technique (who knows how general yet?) to find collisions.
Always forgetting about us Linux PPC folk! It only supports x86!
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Yep, that's the analog hole all right. It's just not what was being discussed.