Maby you missed the "someone whould have to be using _another_ tool to copy it with" part. Cat is by my definition an _other_ tool than the linux source. Programs that output such a significant portion of their _own_ source code that their output can be considered to be a der. product naturally aren't covered by "Basically"!
Whould anyone wote for me? I whould remove these stupid export laws the first day in office. I whould also try to fight this "USA must be the imperial world police" mentality. I'm currently trying to find ways to get rid of this religous-legasy that does nothig but harm. The last bit seems really difficult sice "GOD" appears to be wery important to many americans. If i have any time left over i'll open the CIA-archives so people can see what these guys were really up to back in the "good old days" of the cold war.
Plaese don't moderate this as off topic, having someone _else_ to vote for is the only way to influence the established politians who get _dumb ideas_. (you might or might not see a tcfp.webprovider.com in the future).
Really, the source being GPL'd won't make the programs output GPL'd because it's _not_ a der. work of it. Basically anything that a program outputs during normal use is _your_ work. For your hardcoded data to remain GPL'd someone whould have to be using _onother_ tool to copy it with.
Note: This is true for the GPL, there _are_other_ licences too.
The chance that double encrypting a message weakens it is so small that there is no risk involved in doing so. Any system that whould commit suicide like this IS already weak since the attacker can doit too. I mean if you have a 128bit system then if it's more likely than 2^-128 that it gets weaker when repeated, then the attacker can benefit from either you or him doing it and it doesn't matter if you doit or not. That system IS weak anyway! Point: Cryptosystems that are vorse than "groups" are already crap repeat or no repeat.
Here's how to choose a sufficent key size: Choose a risc-faktor(1k year). Ok now make sure that now one can search 1/10^100th of all the keys within that time. If someone can search 7e12keys a year and that doubles every 18monts you figure it out.
You mean NSA not RSA? I don't think that an algo. is much interested in peoples data, i don't see one being interested in much anything.
It doesn't take any energy to move something. I guess that if one calculated the maximal number of times that elecron could be moved at the speed of light and divided this with the number of times this operation could be done in parallell. Then chose a reasonabe time. Then chose a risc factor like 10^-100 and said that only the risc factor times the key space could be seached in this time you get a key size to fit your req's.
A one-time pad can be cracked! Even though the method for this whould be a joke for longer messages. Here goes: Use traffic analysis to figure out possible topics for the message. Use a dictionary attack to get all possible messages that confirm to the message lenght. Then filter out anything that doesn't confirm to the possible topics. Of course this can't tell the difference between "I HATE You!" and "I LOVE You!", but this would unscramble with old fashion psychosocial-analysis. |=8)
The almost so called 1024 bit encryption they are talking about is probably not one of the as. it's brobably one of these large-key symmetric algos that all kinds of laymen are writing. Thease normally have a variable key size and require so 1Mbit of true random to be stored somewhere to be reasonably safe.
To the gui above: PGP is not a assymmetric scipher. It's a program that uses one(You probably knew this(You just expressed yourself poorly)).
Isn't it time for x86 to die? I mean theres no use for chipmakers to make thease internal risc hardwareemulating x86cisc CPU's enymore is there? This must cost lots of money? Why not just go risc all the way? I mean more speed less cost. Cars don't look like horsecariges anymore no do they?
But that won't work for computers. Everyone has access to source code for the old players. And since there is no real mathematical way of stopping compression/playback there will always be "free" players on the market. And besides bandwith and storage capacity will allow distrubution of uncompressed audio on the web soon.
Slashdot Mirror
It's compatible all the way back to the MC68000 and has the performace they boast about.
Maby you missed the "someone whould have to be using _another_ tool to copy it with" part. Cat is by my definition an _other_ tool than the linux source. Programs that output such a significant portion of their _own_ source code that their output can be considered to be a der. product naturally aren't covered by "Basically"!
Whould anyone wote for me? I whould remove these stupid export laws the first day in office. I whould also try to fight this "USA must be the imperial world police" mentality. I'm currently trying to find ways to get rid of this religous-legasy that does nothig but harm. The last bit seems really difficult sice "GOD" appears to be wery important to many americans. If i have any time left over i'll open the CIA-archives so people can see what these guys were really up to back in the "good old days" of the cold war.
Plaese don't moderate this as off topic, having someone _else_ to vote for is the only way to influence the established politians who get _dumb ideas_.
(you might or might not see a tcfp.webprovider.com in the future).
Really, the source being GPL'd won't make the programs output GPL'd because it's _not_ a der. work of it. Basically anything that a program outputs during normal use is _your_ work. For your hardcoded data to remain GPL'd someone whould have to be using _onother_ tool to copy it with.
Note: This is true for the GPL, there _are_other_ licences too.
yes but their peed encreases exponentially.
It whould only be 10^18 3 years from now...
6: 10^16
9: 10^14
12: 10^12
15: 10^10
...
??
The chance that double encrypting a message weakens it is so small that there is no risk involved in doing so. Any system that whould commit suicide like this IS already weak since the attacker can doit too. I mean if you have a 128bit system then if it's more likely than 2^-128 that it gets weaker when repeated, then the attacker can benefit from either you or him doing it and it doesn't matter if you doit or not. That system IS weak anyway!
Point: Cryptosystems that are vorse than "groups" are already crap repeat or no repeat.
Here's how to choose a sufficent key size: Choose a risc-faktor(1k year). Ok now make sure that now one can search 1/10^100th of all the keys within that time. If someone can search 7e12keys a year and that doubles every 18monts you figure it out.
You mean NSA not RSA? I don't think that an algo. is much interested in peoples data, i don't see one being interested in much anything.
It doesn't take any energy to move something. I guess that if one calculated the maximal number of times that elecron could be moved at the speed of light and divided this with the number of times this operation could be done in parallell. Then chose a reasonabe time. Then chose a risc factor like 10^-100 and said that only the risc factor times the key space could be seached in this time you get a key size to fit your req's.
A one-time pad can be cracked! Even though the method for this whould be a joke for longer messages. Here goes: Use traffic analysis to figure out possible topics for the message. Use a dictionary attack to get all possible messages that confirm to the message lenght. Then filter out anything that doesn't confirm to the possible topics. Of course this can't tell the difference between "I HATE You!" and "I LOVE You!", but this would unscramble with old fashion psychosocial-analysis. |=8)
The almost so called 1024 bit encryption they are talking about is probably not one of the as. it's brobably one of these large-key symmetric algos that all kinds of laymen are writing. Thease normally have a variable key size and require so 1Mbit of true random to be stored somewhere to be reasonably safe.
To the gui above: PGP is not a assymmetric scipher. It's a program that uses one(You probably knew this(You just expressed yourself poorly)).
off topic? Is it possible to tell win{9[5,8],NT}
not to shut the power on shutdown?
Can you set this in other Unices(!Linux)?
I get power from my old AT even when nothing's connected?!?!?...
Isn't it time for x86 to die? I mean theres no use for chipmakers to make thease internal risc hardwareemulating x86cisc CPU's enymore is there?
This must cost lots of money? Why not just go risc all the way? I mean more speed less cost.
Cars don't look like horsecariges anymore no do they?
Why not just push for shareware-like licenses:
while(software)
{
Get();
for(day=0;day=maxdays;day++)
Test();
if (anygood)
{
pay();
keep();
}
else throwaway();
}
But that won't work for computers. Everyone has access to source code for the old players. And since there is no real mathematical way of stopping compression/playback there will always be "free" players on the market. And besides bandwith and storage capacity will allow distrubution of uncompressed audio on the web soon.