Really? So tell me. You own a gun, are you part of a 'well regulated militia'? Because *that's* the reason for giving the people the right to bare arms, its stated right there in the constitution.
Mmm. This all assumes, I think, that this program has the sheer computing power to decrypt *everything* that goes through it. Could any encryption experts give a general big-Oh rating for how complex decryption algorithms are? If its large enough(and given the amount of traffic it wouldn't have to be that large at all, perhaps O(n^2) would do it) then it simply wouldn't be practical for the computer to decrypt all the messages passing through it. And while the DoD is willing to spend a lot of money to keep up with the pace, there has to be a point where they simply can't spend anymore.
The moral of this story: if everyone encrypts, then we're pretty much safe:>
This is assuming, of course, that you're a math major with a talent for encryption algorithms? Just making a simple change to some code is not goign to make your message more secure, in fact it could make it *less* secure. There's a *reason* that cryptology is a hot area in mathematics, people:>
Uhm. This seems like a silly argument. The marketing execs are responsible entirely? That..doesn't make any sort of sense, unless you're trying to tell me that the marketing execus keep Lucas tied up in a chair and force him to sign these contracts.
Actually, its not bull at all. In all the other engineering fields you can take a design and, through the correct application of mathematics, prove that it is correct. In a vast majority of cases, thats simply not possible in computer science.
Well. Isn't this interesting. An anonymous poster, *claiming* to work for Acer, *claiming* to have access to a K7 chip and the kinds of hardware that he writes about *claims* to have benchmarks claiming the Pentium III will outperform the K7.
Well isn't this just *nice*. All scientific and wonderful. There's a problem, though, scientific studies are built on their ability to be *reproduced*. These results are not reproducable. No one has these systems. Furthermore the author has denied us even the oppertunity to contact him in order to find out what conditions the tests were undertaken as.
People, think back a week ago to the Mindspring-Microsoft scandal. That was a well-published, well-documented study claiming that Microsoft was better than Linux. And you know something? It was hogwash. All of it.
Benchmarks can just be affected *to* many ways for me to have much faith in well-documented tests. I *certainly* am not going to take the word of an anonymous test, no matter what he's waving about. Sorry, but I'll wait for the first real tests and take this as FUD.
Wow. This line of articles on Slashdot has been simply the best coverage of the issues surrounding this possible. The so-called news agencies continually bombard us with images of what happened and with their mis-informed and wrong-headed ideas of why it happened. Only here have we even begun to examine an explanation for 'why' that even starts to make *sense*.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm. Thank you, I didn't know that. So tell me, who would command this militia and thus would have the right to pass standard weapons regulations?
Really? So tell me. You own a gun, are you part of a 'well regulated militia'? Because *that's* the reason for giving the people the right to bare arms, its stated right there in the constitution.
Mmm. This all assumes, I think, that this program has the sheer computing power to decrypt *everything* that goes through it. Could any encryption experts give a general big-Oh rating for how complex decryption algorithms are? If its large enough(and given the amount of traffic it wouldn't have to be that large at all, perhaps O(n^2) would do it) then it simply wouldn't be practical for the computer to decrypt all the messages passing through it. And while the DoD is willing to spend a lot of money to keep up with the pace, there has to be a point where they simply can't spend anymore.
The moral of this story: if everyone encrypts, then we're pretty much safe:>
This is assuming, of course, that you're a math major with a talent for encryption algorithms? Just making a simple change to some code is not goign to make your message more secure, in fact it could make it *less* secure. There's a *reason* that cryptology is a hot area in mathematics, people:>
Uhm. This seems like a silly argument. The marketing execs are responsible entirely? That..doesn't make any sort of sense, unless you're trying to tell me that the marketing execus keep Lucas tied up in a chair and force him to sign these contracts.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty nifty that we made the list.
Actually, its not bull at all. In all the other engineering fields you can take a design and, through the correct application of mathematics, prove that it is correct. In a vast majority of cases, thats simply not possible in computer science.
Well. Isn't this interesting. An anonymous poster, *claiming* to work for Acer, *claiming* to have access to a K7 chip and the kinds of hardware that he writes about *claims* to have benchmarks claiming the Pentium III will outperform the K7.
Well isn't this just *nice*. All scientific and wonderful. There's a problem, though, scientific studies are built on their ability to be *reproduced*. These results are not reproducable. No one has these systems. Furthermore the author has denied us even the oppertunity to contact him in order to find out what conditions the tests were undertaken as.
People, think back a week ago to the Mindspring-Microsoft scandal. That was a well-published, well-documented study claiming that Microsoft was better than Linux. And you know something? It was hogwash. All of it.
Benchmarks can just be affected *to* many ways for me to have much faith in well-documented tests. I *certainly* am not going to take the word of an anonymous test, no matter what he's waving about. Sorry, but I'll wait for the first real tests and take this as FUD.
--Virtual Adept
Wow. This line of articles on Slashdot has been simply the best coverage of the issues surrounding this possible. The so-called news agencies continually bombard us with images of what happened and with their mis-informed and wrong-headed ideas of why it happened. Only here have we even begun to examine an explanation for 'why' that even starts to make *sense*.
Nifty.