Doesn't there have to be a competitor for the Linux box to lose? It doesn't seem that the Win 2000 box has been up long enough to constitute "competition".
When you're running a marathon, it's kinda silly to say that a team who runs runners for 100 meters at a time is "competition."
These little anonymous needlings really point out just how desperate MS is getting these days.
Actually, I think this contest is perfect. One of the main strengths of Linux in the security arena is the ability to only run what you need. Windows, by contrast, tries to be all things to all people all the time.
The only unfairness I see in the whole deal is that Microsoft probably didn't think it would become a contest, and might just have underestimated the hostility of the response. The Linux machine, by contrast, is probably not being targetted quite so ruthlessly.
On the other hand, the fact that this is Windows 2000 (a relatively new operating system) means there might not be as many known exploits out there as there would be otherwise.
Ultimately, no-one should be able to get into either system. The real talking point is whether the systems could stand the strain -- and thus far, Linux(PPC) is the clear winner.
In an all-out (non-nuclear) war, the U.S. would win. The trouble is, I have difficulty believing an all-out war between nuclear powers will stay non-nuclear -- and the Chinese seem to have policies on first-usage of nuclear weapons that are somewhat more liberal than ours (see the Federation of American Scientist's web site -- http://www.fas.org) Furthermore, there are consistent reports that the Chinese have quite a few more long-range nukes than previously believed.
Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that the best way to deal with the Chinese is politically and diplomatically. I don't think anyone really wants another costly and dangerous cold war -- and from what I hear, the Communist party in China may be on its last leg, anyway.
The trend in the world's civilizations is towards democracy, and the Chinese have one of the oldest civilizations in the world. The world would be a much better place with a powerful, democratic China.
But people like Janet Reno are trying to make the world more like China.
No, they're not. They're trying to enforce laws more efficiently, and protect the U.S. from what they perceive as threats. I think there's a natural tendency in law enforcement to concentrate upon catching criminals to the exclusion of most else. It's our job to make sure these drives don't lead to a police state.
The belief that people like Janet Reno are deliberately out to subvert democracy and civil rights only encourages them to become more polarized -- and listen less to the concerns of civil rights activists.
The major difference between communism and capitalism is an ecconomic on and not a political one. That just comes later.
Although I think that's strictly true (I'm no political philosopher), the means adopted to institute communism are almost invariably political -- and totalitarian. For that matter, they usually seem to be top-down: a small group decides communism is a great idea, and forces it non-democratically upon the general populace.
While I think pure egalitarian idealism is laudable, I think it's also impractical -- and we have yet to see an example of socialism or communism that involves more than token democracy.
I wasn't addressing warcrimes, nor was I saying that the U.S. government is not responsible for bad things. In fact, I specifically said that I disagree with things that the U.S. government has and continues to do (you mentioned several of them). Evidently, you wanted to bring up warcrimes -- and I seriously doubt Janet Reno is responsible for most of the examples you gave:) -- encryption's another matter.
My point was (and I repeat, not paraphrase), there's a world of difference between democracy and totalitarianism. Not that both couldn't be responsible for crimes, nor that any government composed of and for human beings would be incapable of the depths to which humans can sink.
If you think the state-sponsored crimes of the U.S. throughout its history come close to the state-sponsored crimes of most totalitarian governments (the U.S.S.R. and China come to mind), then you and I have a serious disagreement.
Sorry, but if you think anything Janet Reno has done comes close to the actions of a totalitarian government like China's, then you're sadly mistaken. The very fact that you can sit there and criticize the government (albeit anonymously), puts the lie to the notion that the two are in any way alike.
I don't like everything the U.S. government has done and is doing, either, but there's a world of difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.
There is absolutely no reason why open-source products cannot be innovative. Just because Microsoft rightly surmised that open-source development "cream skims" the best ideas from proprietary development streams doesn't mean that no innovation takes place. Proprietary houses "cream skim" all the time.
Let's face it -- true innovation is a rare thing, no matter what the development model. And up to now, many of the "rising stars" of the open-source movement have been playing "catch-up" to already-existing proprietary products.
The argument against innovation in open-source development is really the same as that which says open-source can't work in the first place. In order for the open-source development model to work, programmers/developers must be receiving some sort of payback/reward for their efforts. Proprietary houses can't see what it is -- to them, reward = salary. That's why you hear about how open-source products "exploit" coders.
Now that we've established that open-source does indeed reward developers, there should be no logical grounds for the belief that open-source cannot innovate. Unless it's true, that is, that creative people and the creative process only respond to monetary incentive -- and in my experience, the direct opposite is usually true.
Is anyone really suprised about this? While companies have been whining for the government to "do something" about the alleged tech worker shortage, they're ignoring the tech workers they have. As a writer I saw recently put it, "it's like complaining that there's a shortage of Porche's for $14,000, and screaming for the government to do something about it".
Pay what people are worth, treat them like you value them, and you'll have all the workers you could ask for. It constantly amazes me how this simple fact escapes brain-dead (or is it just plain greedy?) employers.
If you want to say that the actions of humans in killing the animal off are "a natural part of evolution", then you must acknowledge that humans cloning an animal is also natural. The argument decides nothing either way, and what we're left with is an ethical decision.
Ethically, I think it makes perfect sense to undo damage that we have done. From a purely species-centric standpoint, more biodiversity makes for a more beautiful planet, as well as a healthier environment for us, overall. From an altruistic standpoint, our arrogance and shortsighted selfishness caused the extinction in the first place, and if we have the opportunity to undo our actions, we should.
DES was designed in the 70's through a collaboration between IBM and the NSA. IBM has said that they knew (presumably through work with the NSA) about differential/linear cryptanalysis at the time.
The flip-side of this is, major efforts at public-domain cryptography have only been going on a short while -- pretty much over this decade. Prior to this, it was mostly small efforts outside the NSA. Nonetheless, differential and linear cryptanalysis were discovered after a relatively short time.
IOW, I believe the public-domain efforts are catching up.
I meant, of course, J. Edgar (duh!), not Edgar J. (who the heck was he?):) It's been a long day.
Regardless, Mr. Hoover's tenure in the FBI was widely regarded as the height of its abuses of power. Nonetheless, that power was curtailed through legislative means. Yes, the man had a very successful career, and in many circles, he's honored. In many others, he's villified. How he's remembered isn't the point -- rather, the fact that the democratic system triumphed is.
What we're dealing with (as most seem to agree) is an abuse of power and insufficient oversight. Regardless of the number of people involved, they still, ultimately, answer to/are funded by a democratic system of government. It will probably take courageous folks to rectify it, but such people seem to be taking an interest in the matter, and I have faith that as long as democratic systems of government exist, things like this tend to be rectified.
Perhaps my definition of "lynch mob" is different from yours" (I'm picturing burning buildings, here).
I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. The fact is, quite a few eyes are on the NSA and Echelon right now, and not a few powerful people are up in arms. At the very least, I think the EU is realizing just how economically detrimental it would be if the situation were as bad as some of the stories make it out to be. Echelon is rumored to be the NSA's baby; something that is being used largely for the USA's benefit, often at the EU's expense. Germany has already officially sanctioned strong encryption over this, and I see others following suit. One way or another, the NSA's operations are in for trouble.
Further, things could get much, much worse for the NSA than they are. I really think they'd be overplaying their hand to try blackmail.
We've seen stuff like this before. Does the name E.J.Hoover ring a bell? History is on the side of democracy -- without resorting to the "lynch mob" kind.
You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to convey otherwise.
Oversight of the form necessary to prevent abuse simply isn't there when it comes to the NSA (from what I've read), and much needs to change.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that, should they choose to do so, congress and/or the president most certainly could change or even shut down the NSA. And at least in name, the NSA does answer to these bodies.
Neither the NSA nor any single existing organization has the kind of personnel/computing horsepower to do what you suggest. It's simply impossible, mathematically speaking.
From what I understand, the NSA does have the capability to intercept most, if not all, telephone calls made between America and other countries. I would bet most of these calls are dismissed out of hand as "unimportant".
While it is evidently true that the NSA and equivalent organizations in foreign countries cooperate in the "echelon" program to spy on each other's citizens (since most such departments are prevented by law from spying on their own citizens), I would bet that, again, most communications are simply not important enough to waste valuable time and resources on.
The Internet, by contrast, is potentially a different matter. It is so easy to set up a backbone node and simply scan for keywords that I find it difficult to believe that it's not done. But again, there are practical limits to what the technology can do. I would bet most encrypted messages go unnoticed and undisturbed unless they're between certain people.
Oh, and the NSA does have oversight. Not as good as I (nor many people) would like, but they do answer to congress and the DoD. The trouble is, for the most part, what the NSA does doesn't seem to be routinely brought to congress's attention. Additionally, their budget can be inferred from the fact that they receive their funding as part of the overall DoD budget.
And for what reason do you believe they can "break just about any code"?
64 bit and 1024 bit encryption generally refer to 2 different things. The 64-bit encryption is usually symmetric, and relies upon various mathematical convolutions. The 1024 bit encryption is usually a "public-key" encryption method, and is considerably easier to crack for a given key length. 128-bit RSA, for example (if such a thing were available) would be so insecure as to be virtually useless, whereas 128-bit IDEA or CAST is unbreakable, to the best of public-domain knowledge.
Depends upon the random data used for padding. There are publicly-available random number generators that get their data from the thermal noise of a diode, for example. Quite impossible to guess, and helpful in avoiding the generation of patterns and duplicate cyphertext.
But you're absolutely correct -- a message should be a certain minimum length. Otherwise, the use of a long key and advanced encryption would be pointless.
The NSA has been around for over 50 years, and claims to employ more mathematicians than any other single employer worldwide. They supposedly have substantial on-campus resources such as their own research and semiconductor fab facilities, several of the world's most powerful supercomputers, etc. I seem to recall that their annual budget is in excess of (US) $25 Billion, but don't quote me on it.
All of this info is public knowledge, interestingly enough. 15-20 years ago, noone would even acknowledge that the organization existed. Now they recruit on college campuses.
My, how times have changed:)
It is an interesting question as to whether such an organization could, in ~50 years of dedicated work, defeat mathematical problems that have stood (in some cases, such as the factoring of large numbers) for more than 2000 years as either "extremely difficult" or "unsolvable". My money's on the notion that they're about 10 years ahead of public domain cryptography at this time. They're not gods, however. I'm betting they've probably gone quite a bit further in developing certain technologies useful for cryptography, such as quantum computing (if it can be done), photonics and quantum encryption.
However, it's important to remember that even an organization that could break DES or RC6 (or any encryption, for that matter) in minutes would be overwhelmed if everyone used encryption (real-time mass scanning of internet traffic, for example, would be impossible), and the NSA knows it as well -- this is one reason they've campaigned alongside the FBI to limit the spread of encryption technology.
As far as proof, there are three resources I've found on the NSA. The first is the book "Puzzle Palace" published in the late 70's/early 80's (I don't recall the publisher or the author). The second is the NSA's own website. And the third is hearsay, including alleged NSA employee manuals, etc. published on the 'Net. Needless to say, the last is the least credible.
I'd bet we'll see more possible NSA stunts in the future, as they work more closely with the FBI on high-profile cases that involve criminals and terrorists. Such instances, I would think, would be inherently more visible than the super-secret breaking of Russian launch codes.
Speaking of which, I heard not too long ago that the Russians use RSA encryption for their nuclear launch systems. That alone tells us something of the NSA's capabilities, or lack of same -- assuming it's true.
The short answer is, "there is no limit". By this I mean, the real question should be "how many calculations per second could be done", or "how much information could be processed in x amount of time". Of course, the speed of light limits the speed at which different parts of a system can communicate with each other (ignoring quantum nonlocal communication methods, which thus far are in the realm of sci fi). As you hinted, though, parallel systems get around these constraints. Quantum computers (for example) get their power from the "massively parallel" computing methods they use -- IOW, they perform many thousands or millions of calculations simultaneously, which now must be done using far less efficient methods.
Of course, we may not be able to approach all forms of information processing in this way.
There are many factors that limit a computer's speed. Saying that the speed of light is one of them is one way to look at it. I prefer to think of the problem as one of gate/transistor density. Of course, if one could go faster than light, then density wouldn't matter much (though switching speed certainly would). The real fundamental limits we're coming to are more along the lines of what makes MOSFET transistors work. The smaller the transistor, the greater the leakage current if threshold voltage is scaled respectively. But keeping threshold voltage high results in reduced switching speed performance, unless you keep power supply voltage high -- a definite problem when dealing with such small devices.
I think "Moore's Law" will eventually be broken -- but the other way around. I think we've got a way to go before the limits of current technology are exhausted, and look at what we've got in the pipe. Silicon-Germanium, HEMT and HBT transistor designs, copper interconnect, silicon-on-insulator and multi-value computing will help extend the limits of today's designs. Advanced photonics is pretty much here, now, and waiting to be exploited on a large scale. Quantum, molecular and DNA computing are advancing by leaps and bounds, and hints of other things, such as "reconfigurable computing" also make for an exciting future.
Things have followed Moore's Law primarily for economic reasons. Once the above become economically feasible, we'll see not just linear advancements, but revolutions in computing power.
Slashdot Mirror
When you're running a marathon, it's kinda silly to say that a team who runs runners for 100 meters at a time is "competition."
These little anonymous needlings really point out just how desperate MS is getting these days.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
You know, they already posted an nmap...
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The only unfairness I see in the whole deal is that Microsoft probably didn't think it would become a contest, and might just have underestimated the hostility of the response. The Linux machine, by contrast, is probably not being targetted quite so ruthlessly.
On the other hand, the fact that this is Windows 2000 (a relatively new operating system) means there might not be as many known exploits out there as there would be otherwise.
Ultimately, no-one should be able to get into either system. The real talking point is whether the systems could stand the strain -- and thus far, Linux(PPC) is the clear winner.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that the best way to deal with the Chinese is politically and diplomatically. I don't think anyone really wants another costly and dangerous cold war -- and from what I hear, the Communist party in China may be on its last leg, anyway.
The trend in the world's civilizations is towards democracy, and the Chinese have one of the oldest civilizations in the world. The world would be a much better place with a powerful, democratic China.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
No, they're not. They're trying to enforce laws more efficiently, and protect the U.S. from what they perceive as threats. I think there's a natural tendency in law enforcement to concentrate upon catching criminals to the exclusion of most else. It's our job to make sure these drives don't lead to a police state.
The belief that people like Janet Reno are deliberately out to subvert democracy and civil rights only encourages them to become more polarized -- and listen less to the concerns of civil rights activists.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Although I think that's strictly true (I'm no political philosopher), the means adopted to institute communism are almost invariably political -- and totalitarian. For that matter, they usually seem to be top-down: a small group decides communism is a great idea, and forces it non-democratically upon the general populace.
While I think pure egalitarian idealism is laudable, I think it's also impractical -- and we have yet to see an example of socialism or communism that involves more than token democracy.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
My point was (and I repeat, not paraphrase), there's a world of difference between democracy and totalitarianism. Not that both couldn't be responsible for crimes, nor that any government composed of and for human beings would be incapable of the depths to which humans can sink.
If you think the state-sponsored crimes of the U.S. throughout its history come close to the state-sponsored crimes of most totalitarian governments (the U.S.S.R. and China come to mind), then you and I have a serious disagreement.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Actually, I don't think they should be "harrassing" their own citizens, either.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I don't like everything the U.S. government has done and is doing, either, but there's a world of difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Let's face it -- true innovation is a rare thing, no matter what the development model. And up to now, many of the "rising stars" of the open-source movement have been playing "catch-up" to already-existing proprietary products.
The argument against innovation in open-source development is really the same as that which says open-source can't work in the first place. In order for the open-source development model to work, programmers/developers must be receiving some sort of payback/reward for their efforts. Proprietary houses can't see what it is -- to them, reward = salary. That's why you hear about how open-source products "exploit" coders.
Now that we've established that open-source does indeed reward developers, there should be no logical grounds for the belief that open-source cannot innovate. Unless it's true, that is, that creative people and the creative process only respond to monetary incentive -- and in my experience, the direct opposite is usually true.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Pay what people are worth, treat them like you value them, and you'll have all the workers you could ask for. It constantly amazes me how this simple fact escapes brain-dead (or is it just plain greedy?) employers.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Ethically, I think it makes perfect sense to undo damage that we have done. From a purely species-centric standpoint, more biodiversity makes for a more beautiful planet, as well as a healthier environment for us, overall. From an altruistic standpoint, our arrogance and shortsighted selfishness caused the extinction in the first place, and if we have the opportunity to undo our actions, we should.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The flip-side of this is, major efforts at public-domain cryptography have only been going on a short while -- pretty much over this decade. Prior to this, it was mostly small efforts outside the NSA. Nonetheless, differential and linear cryptanalysis were discovered after a relatively short time.
IOW, I believe the public-domain efforts are catching up.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Regardless, Mr. Hoover's tenure in the FBI was widely regarded as the height of its abuses of power. Nonetheless, that power was curtailed through legislative means. Yes, the man had a very successful career, and in many circles, he's honored. In many others, he's villified. How he's remembered isn't the point -- rather, the fact that the democratic system triumphed is.
What we're dealing with (as most seem to agree) is an abuse of power and insufficient oversight. Regardless of the number of people involved, they still, ultimately, answer to/are funded by a democratic system of government. It will probably take courageous folks to rectify it, but such people seem to be taking an interest in the matter, and I have faith that as long as democratic systems of government exist, things like this tend to be rectified.
Perhaps my definition of "lynch mob" is different from yours" (I'm picturing burning buildings, here).
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Further, things could get much, much worse for the NSA than they are. I really think they'd be overplaying their hand to try blackmail.
We've seen stuff like this before. Does the name E.J.Hoover ring a bell? History is on the side of democracy -- without resorting to the "lynch mob" kind.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Oversight of the form necessary to prevent abuse simply isn't there when it comes to the NSA (from what I've read), and much needs to change.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that, should they choose to do so, congress and/or the president most certainly could change or even shut down the NSA. And at least in name, the NSA does answer to these bodies.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
From what I understand, the NSA does have the capability to intercept most, if not all, telephone calls made between America and other countries. I would bet most of these calls are dismissed out of hand as "unimportant".
While it is evidently true that the NSA and equivalent organizations in foreign countries cooperate in the "echelon" program to spy on each other's citizens (since most such departments are prevented by law from spying on their own citizens), I would bet that, again, most communications are simply not important enough to waste valuable time and resources on.
The Internet, by contrast, is potentially a different matter. It is so easy to set up a backbone node and simply scan for keywords that I find it difficult to believe that it's not done. But again, there are practical limits to what the technology can do. I would bet most encrypted messages go unnoticed and undisturbed unless they're between certain people.
Oh, and the NSA does have oversight. Not as good as I (nor many people) would like, but they do answer to congress and the DoD. The trouble is, for the most part, what the NSA does doesn't seem to be routinely brought to congress's attention. Additionally, their budget can be inferred from the fact that they receive their funding as part of the overall DoD budget.
And for what reason do you believe they can "break just about any code"?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
You are correct. All keys would be tried in 7.16 minutes, and on average, the correct key would be found in half that time.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
If you're talking about Ft. Meade, MD, it's not so secret :)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
64 bit and 1024 bit encryption generally refer to 2 different things. The 64-bit encryption is usually symmetric, and relies upon various mathematical convolutions. The 1024 bit encryption is usually a "public-key" encryption method, and is considerably easier to crack for a given key length. 128-bit RSA, for example (if such a thing were available) would be so insecure as to be virtually useless, whereas 128-bit IDEA or CAST is unbreakable, to the best of public-domain knowledge.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
But you're absolutely correct -- a message should be a certain minimum length. Otherwise, the use of a long key and advanced encryption would be pointless.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
All of this info is public knowledge, interestingly enough. 15-20 years ago, noone would even acknowledge that the organization existed. Now they recruit on college campuses.
My, how times have changed :)
It is an interesting question as to whether such an organization could, in ~50 years of dedicated work, defeat mathematical problems that have stood (in some cases, such as the factoring of large numbers) for more than 2000 years as either "extremely difficult" or "unsolvable". My money's on the notion that they're about 10 years ahead of public domain cryptography at this time. They're not gods, however. I'm betting they've probably gone quite a bit further in developing certain technologies useful for cryptography, such as quantum computing (if it can be done), photonics and quantum encryption.
However, it's important to remember that even an organization that could break DES or RC6 (or any encryption, for that matter) in minutes would be overwhelmed if everyone used encryption (real-time mass scanning of internet traffic, for example, would be impossible), and the NSA knows it as well -- this is one reason they've campaigned alongside the FBI to limit the spread of encryption technology.
As far as proof, there are three resources I've found on the NSA. The first is the book "Puzzle Palace" published in the late 70's/early 80's (I don't recall the publisher or the author). The second is the NSA's own website. And the third is hearsay, including alleged NSA employee manuals, etc. published on the 'Net. Needless to say, the last is the least credible.
I'd bet we'll see more possible NSA stunts in the future, as they work more closely with the FBI on high-profile cases that involve criminals and terrorists. Such instances, I would think, would be inherently more visible than the super-secret breaking of Russian launch codes.
Speaking of which, I heard not too long ago that the Russians use RSA encryption for their nuclear launch systems. That alone tells us something of the NSA's capabilities, or lack of same -- assuming it's true.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Actually, quantum encryption beats quantum computing. You can't tap the data stream without collapsing the wave function.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is absolutely correct -- and is a main driving force behind much of the research behind direct human-computer interfaces.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Of course, we may not be able to approach all forms of information processing in this way.
There are many factors that limit a computer's speed. Saying that the speed of light is one of them is one way to look at it. I prefer to think of the problem as one of gate/transistor density. Of course, if one could go faster than light, then density wouldn't matter much (though switching speed certainly would). The real fundamental limits we're coming to are more along the lines of what makes MOSFET transistors work. The smaller the transistor, the greater the leakage current if threshold voltage is scaled respectively. But keeping threshold voltage high results in reduced switching speed performance, unless you keep power supply voltage high -- a definite problem when dealing with such small devices.
I think "Moore's Law" will eventually be broken -- but the other way around. I think we've got a way to go before the limits of current technology are exhausted, and look at what we've got in the pipe. Silicon-Germanium, HEMT and HBT transistor designs, copper interconnect, silicon-on-insulator and multi-value computing will help extend the limits of today's designs. Advanced photonics is pretty much here, now, and waiting to be exploited on a large scale. Quantum, molecular and DNA computing are advancing by leaps and bounds, and hints of other things, such as "reconfigurable computing" also make for an exciting future.
Things have followed Moore's Law primarily for economic reasons. Once the above become economically feasible, we'll see not just linear advancements, but revolutions in computing power.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from