No crypto is powerful, or clever enough (yet!) to be completely unbreakable
Forgive me if I am taking your statement too literally, but there is one method of encryption that is mathematically unbreakable. It is called a "one-time pad".
It is conceptually very simple. Generate a Key filled with cryptographic-quality random data that is as long as the plaintext. XOR the plaintext with the key to get the cyphertext. XOR the cyphertext with the key to get the plaintext. Because of the nature of the algorithm, there is absolutely no way to determine the plaintext or Key form the cyphertext.
Key management for a one-time pad is a huge problem, which makes it only appropriate under certain circumstances, and even then a given key can only be used once if you want it to still be considered "secure".
Just to make a minor commentary on the original story... No hash algorithm that produces output smaller than the data it is hashing can be considered collision-free. The trick is making a hash algorithm in which the only way to find a collision is through a brute force attack.
I know this isn't exactly the point of your post, but why not just make your own cables? If you do a lot with ethernet cables, then the cost of a crimper pays for itself very quickly.
But as another poster pointed out, the music you "purchase" in iTMS or Napster is still not really yours, because you're still restricted by their DRM from doing a lot of things (protected by fair use) with the music you payed for.
iTunes "FairPlay" DRM is one of the most liberal DRM schemes around. I can burn CD's(As long as I don't burn the same playlist more than 7 times) and put the music on multiple computers (up to three).
This is one of the reasons that Apple is doing so well. Their DRM allows people to actually exercise fair use, and their free jukebox software (iTunes) is one of the best out there.
There are a handful of ways to strip the DRM off of the songs if that's your thing. In my experience though, I haven't found a need yet.
That the analysis "did not fit the person" is exactly the point I am making. Why would someone's handwriting say one thing about one person, yet the same handwriting say something different for someone else? Methinks that, at the very least, this specific case is total bunk.
I have yet to see any compelling case study showing the accuracy of determining one's state of mind solely through handwriting analysis. It just seems too far fetched for me to take on faith.
You are responding to the wrong assertion. I make no claim that attempting to change one's writing style is not difficult.
My assertion was that there is little basis for a link between one's individual handwriting style and their state of mind. The example in this story would appear to corroborate this.
That one's handwriting is generally consistent and hard to change is not in contention. What is in contention is the correlation between one's handwriting and one's state of mind.
The reason that the handwriting was analyzed at all was because they thought it was Tony Blair's handwriting, and they wanted to take a pot-shot at him--describing him as 'struggling to concentrate', 'not a natural leader', 'struggling to keep control of a confusing world' and 'an unstable man who is feeling under enormous pressure'. Now that we know it was in fact good ol' Bill's note, it gets on slashdot.:)
The key difference here is that you can scroll in two dimensions--ie: you can scroll left-right as easily as you can scroll up-down.
You can even use it as a track-wheel by making a circular motion with two fingers.
Just try it on a table to see how it feels. Just keep your fingers right next to each other, no need to spread them out. Feels pretty natural to me, much more natural than "scroll zone" stuff (which I loathe).
It's kinda sad when you go over to a windows laptop and you find yourself trying to Ctrl-Click on stuff. Although I do admit that the new scroll feature on the track-pad is wicked cool.
At least the keyboard lights up all cool and stuff.
Meh, not really because he isn't doing any modulation or demodulation. He is simply playing one sound if the bit is on, and another sound if the bit is off. This is very slow, but in this case it was the "The right tool for the job".
If you want to take what I said out of context to label me an anti-intellectual, go right ahead--I can't stop you. I'm getting kinda tired of explaining myself over and over again anyway.
But the second paragraph I found interesting.
If Gates is trying to do something wonderful for the world (and I don't doubt that he is), he's still in the unenviable position of serving two masters.
I'm not quite sure what two masters you are referring to. Care to elaborate?
If the Mafia gave to charity, I would not attack them explicitly for giving to charity. I might attack them for their illegal activities, but the charity bit wouldn't be a part of it.
I'm not giving credit to anyone. I'm saying you shouldn't outright attack someone just because they are doing a good thing, even in enlightened self interest.
It doesn't make Microsoft good. I just want people to have a more coherent argument than "anything Microsoft does is bad, so this must be bad too. Quick! somebody find the evil! It has got to be in there somewhere!".
You seem to have a better grasp of things than the original comment I was replying to. I'm only replying now because you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying.
Unlike most people on slashdot, I use Linux every day. I am an avid open source advocate. I am not a cog of the Microsoft machine. I just don't think it helps the free-software cause to attack donations that Bill (directly or indirectly) makes. I'm not asking ANYONE to give him credit, nor do I want them to give him credit.
damnit, I'm not saying that it is "personal or selfless sacrifice on the part of the Gates" or anything like that, and I'm starting to get pissed off that people are characterizing it that way.
Making me out to be some kind of pro-microsoft pro-gates fanatic is ridiculous! I don't use windows!
What I'm saying is quite simple: DON'T BASH PEOPLE FOR DOING GOOD THINGS. Nothing more. Nothing less.
What frustrates me is that he took action to help people, and you criticize him for it. Whether is is worthy praise or not, I don't really give a shit. It's pretty obvious that you aren't impressed, and that's fine--I respect that.
What I give a shit about is when someone does a good thing and the first words out of someone else's mouth make it seem like he just shouldn't have bothered. Not that it wasn't enough or that he could do more, but that he was trying to do something illegal to begin with. "He couldn't possibly be trying to help people, he must be trying to screw us over somehow!"
Why can't it just be taken at face value? He gave $750 to helps kids get vaccinated around the world. Not impressed? Shrug, and move on.
I think the part that he is referring to is the line that aid "Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity". That line is most certainly flamebait.
Bill Gates has been very successful, and he wants to spread it around to good causes. Nothing wrong with that. It's almost expected from someone in his position. It's really silly to somehow pit his generosity against the linux/open-source/free-software community. The two have nothing to do with each other.
One could easily argue that the value to society of open-source and free-software exceed $750M by several times, perhaps more. Saying that Bill Gates is more generous than the open-source/free-software community is misguided and pointless. The two situations are incomparable.
I think it is great that Bill Gates is doing this. But is this article flamebait? Most certainly, if only for the line mentioned above.
Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right. Besides, this isn't about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about our right to criticize our government without fear of recourse. Sharing trade secrets is not about freedom of expression. It is about sabotage.
NDA's are an important part of how a company protects it's trade secrets. Apple would be foolish not to have them, and Apple would also be foolish not to enforce them.
By signing the NDA, you agree to not tell your wife or anyone else about it. If you don't like it don't sign it. Simple. Lots of people refuse to sign NDAs for that very reason. No one is being "oppressed".
You agree not to tell anyone. They agree to share information. You share that information with ThinkSecret. They get pissed as hell. Duh. Why is this a controversy?
As a small aside... The specific case of one's "wife" is a little bit more complicated because of "spousal privilege". ie: they couldn't put you on the stand to testify against your wife and vise versa.
Next time you feel like doing something illegal and obnoxious, how about just changing the default admin password and leaving the rest of the access point as it was. Considering that that the only real thing they have to fear if the kind of valdalism you executed, changing the password would protect them from their own ignorance.
That is, of course, if you actually are trying to help someone rather than just get juvenile kicks from network vandalism.
If I remember correctly, the factor which is most destructive for an LED's operation is heat. If properly heat-sinked, you can actually drive the LED's at a higher voltage, making it brighter without significantly reducing the life-span. This is probably why these floodlights look so funny--they are mostly heat-sink!
Slashdot Mirror
- No crypto is powerful, or clever enough (yet!) to be completely unbreakable
Forgive me if I am taking your statement too literally, but there is one method of encryption that is mathematically unbreakable. It is called a "one-time pad".It is conceptually very simple. Generate a Key filled with cryptographic-quality random data that is as long as the plaintext. XOR the plaintext with the key to get the cyphertext. XOR the cyphertext with the key to get the plaintext. Because of the nature of the algorithm, there is absolutely no way to determine the plaintext or Key form the cyphertext.
Key management for a one-time pad is a huge problem, which makes it only appropriate under certain circumstances, and even then a given key can only be used once if you want it to still be considered "secure".
Just to make a minor commentary on the original story... No hash algorithm that produces output smaller than the data it is hashing can be considered collision-free. The trick is making a hash algorithm in which the only way to find a collision is through a brute force attack.
I know this isn't exactly the point of your post, but why not just make your own cables? If you do a lot with ethernet cables, then the cost of a crimper pays for itself very quickly.
- But as another poster pointed out, the music you "purchase" in iTMS or Napster is still not really yours, because you're still restricted by their DRM from doing a lot of things (protected by fair use) with the music you payed for.
iTunes "FairPlay" DRM is one of the most liberal DRM schemes around. I can burn CD's(As long as I don't burn the same playlist more than 7 times) and put the music on multiple computers (up to three).This is one of the reasons that Apple is doing so well. Their DRM allows people to actually exercise fair use, and their free jukebox software (iTunes) is one of the best out there.
There are a handful of ways to strip the DRM off of the songs if that's your thing. In my experience though, I haven't found a need yet.
Hey, it's all good. If they are out there, I'm sure I'll run across them one day. :)
That the analysis "did not fit the person" is exactly the point I am making. Why would someone's handwriting say one thing about one person, yet the same handwriting say something different for someone else? Methinks that, at the very least, this specific case is total bunk.
I have yet to see any compelling case study showing the accuracy of determining one's state of mind solely through handwriting analysis. It just seems too far fetched for me to take on faith.
You are responding to the wrong assertion. I make no claim that attempting to change one's writing style is not difficult.
My assertion was that there is little basis for a link between one's individual handwriting style and their state of mind. The example in this story would appear to corroborate this.
That one's handwriting is generally consistent and hard to change is not in contention. What is in contention is the correlation between one's handwriting and one's state of mind.
The reason that the handwriting was analyzed at all was because they thought it was Tony Blair's handwriting, and they wanted to take a pot-shot at him--describing him as 'struggling to concentrate', 'not a natural leader', 'struggling to keep control of a confusing world' and 'an unstable man who is feeling under enormous pressure'. Now that we know it was in fact good ol' Bill's note, it gets on slashdot. :)
The key difference here is that you can scroll in two dimensions--ie: you can scroll left-right as easily as you can scroll up-down.
You can even use it as a track-wheel by making a circular motion with two fingers.
Just try it on a table to see how it feels. Just keep your fingers right next to each other, no need to spread them out. Feels pretty natural to me, much more natural than "scroll zone" stuff (which I loathe).
The keyboard is the only flaw...?
*cough* one mouse button *cough*
It's kinda sad when you go over to a windows laptop and you find yourself trying to Ctrl-Click on stuff. Although I do admit that the new scroll feature on the track-pad is wicked cool.
At least the keyboard lights up all cool and stuff.
I stand corrected.
Meh, not really because he isn't doing any modulation or demodulation. He is simply playing one sound if the bit is on, and another sound if the bit is off. This is very slow, but in this case it was the "The right tool for the job".
A true modem encodes data somewhat differently.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
If you want to take what I said out of context to label me an anti-intellectual, go right ahead--I can't stop you. I'm getting kinda tired of explaining myself over and over again anyway.
But the second paragraph I found interesting.
If Gates is trying to do something wonderful for the world (and I don't doubt that he is), he's still in the unenviable position of serving two masters.
I'm not quite sure what two masters you are referring to. Care to elaborate?
If the Mafia gave to charity, I would not attack them explicitly for giving to charity. I might attack them for their illegal activities, but the charity bit wouldn't be a part of it.
I'm not giving credit to anyone. I'm saying you shouldn't outright attack someone just because they are doing a good thing, even in enlightened self interest.
It doesn't make Microsoft good. I just want people to have a more coherent argument than "anything Microsoft does is bad, so this must be bad too. Quick! somebody find the evil! It has got to be in there somewhere!".
You seem to have a better grasp of things than the original comment I was replying to. I'm only replying now because you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying.
Unlike most people on slashdot, I use Linux every day. I am an avid open source advocate. I am not a cog of the Microsoft machine. I just don't think it helps the free-software cause to attack donations that Bill (directly or indirectly) makes. I'm not asking ANYONE to give him credit, nor do I want them to give him credit.
damnit, I'm not saying that it is "personal or selfless sacrifice on the part of the Gates" or anything like that, and I'm starting to get pissed off that people are characterizing it that way.
Making me out to be some kind of pro-microsoft pro-gates fanatic is ridiculous! I don't use windows!
What I'm saying is quite simple: DON'T BASH PEOPLE FOR DOING GOOD THINGS. Nothing more. Nothing less.
What frustrates me is that he took action to help people, and you criticize him for it. Whether is is worthy praise or not, I don't really give a shit. It's pretty obvious that you aren't impressed, and that's fine--I respect that.
What I give a shit about is when someone does a good thing and the first words out of someone else's mouth make it seem like he just shouldn't have bothered. Not that it wasn't enough or that he could do more, but that he was trying to do something illegal to begin with. "He couldn't possibly be trying to help people, he must be trying to screw us over somehow!"
Why can't it just be taken at face value? He gave $750 to helps kids get vaccinated around the world. Not impressed? Shrug, and move on.
Jesus christ, the guy gives 3/4 of a billion dollars to help children around the world get vaccinations, and all you can do is make accusations?
You, sir, are a true hater.
I think the part that he is referring to is the line that aid "Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity". That line is most certainly flamebait.
Bill Gates has been very successful, and he wants to spread it around to good causes. Nothing wrong with that. It's almost expected from someone in his position. It's really silly to somehow pit his generosity against the linux/open-source/free-software community. The two have nothing to do with each other.
One could easily argue that the value to society of open-source and free-software exceed $750M by several times, perhaps more. Saying that Bill Gates is more generous than the open-source/free-software community is misguided and pointless. The two situations are incomparable.
I think it is great that Bill Gates is doing this. But is this article flamebait? Most certainly, if only for the line mentioned above.
Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right. Besides, this isn't about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about our right to criticize our government without fear of recourse. Sharing trade secrets is not about freedom of expression. It is about sabotage.
NDA's are an important part of how a company protects it's trade secrets. Apple would be foolish not to have them, and Apple would also be foolish not to enforce them.
By signing the NDA, you agree to not tell your wife or anyone else about it. If you don't like it don't sign it. Simple. Lots of people refuse to sign NDAs for that very reason. No one is being "oppressed".
You agree not to tell anyone. They agree to share information. You share that information with ThinkSecret. They get pissed as hell. Duh. Why is this a controversy?
As a small aside... The specific case of one's "wife" is a little bit more complicated because of "spousal privilege". ie: they couldn't put you on the stand to testify against your wife and vise versa.
Access points and repeaters are pretty cheap these days. Check out the dlink stuff.
:)
Look on ebay and you'll find it even cheaper.
There's no good reason why your yard shouldn't be blessed with broadband.
Next time you feel like doing something illegal and obnoxious, how about just changing the default admin password and leaving the rest of the access point as it was. Considering that that the only real thing they have to fear if the kind of valdalism you executed, changing the password would protect them from their own ignorance.
That is, of course, if you actually are trying to help someone rather than just get juvenile kicks from network vandalism.
saw this one as I was driving around the u-district in seattle.
Here is a link to what this guy is talking about.
If I remember correctly, the factor which is most destructive for an LED's operation is heat. If properly heat-sinked, you can actually drive the LED's at a higher voltage, making it brighter without significantly reducing the life-span. This is probably why these floodlights look so funny--they are mostly heat-sink!
I would be fascinated in learning more about this. Do you have any links about how Steve Jobs was involved early on in NeXTstep?