Your analogy is all wrong. I don't know if I can come up with a physical analogy to describe what's going on, but here goes.
You're not sending the passengers, you're sending a bunch of suicide messengers with the magic password to open the impenitrable armor of the vehicle around their neck. If anyone comes into contact with the suicide messenger, they explode, destroying the information. You know someone tampered with your messengers because they show up dead. If that happens, you just change the password. When you get the password without any dead messengers, the armored vehicle can pass safely no matter who's firing at it.
It's been proven mathmatically that a random string of bits XORed with a "meaningful" stream of bits produces an uncrackable string of encrypted bits that can only be decrypted with the original random string of bits. This has been know for years. What makes it unfeasible is the act of exchanging keys. That's why PGP is so great. Not because it's encryption is strong(er), but because of the key exchange issue. Quantum transmission methods allow for a totally secure key exchange. That, coupled with an unbreakable encryption, means 100% secure communication...always. Now all we need is a foolproof way to generate 100% random numbers and we'll be in business.
Even if you can detect the evesdropping, by that time, it's too late; the evesdropper already has part of the message. Granted, it's only a single bit, but it might be the most important bit of the message.
No, no, no, no. All you're sending is the key. If the key is compromised, all you have to do is throw that key away and send another key. No actual data from the message is sent. Once the key is received, and you know it hasn't been comprimised, you can send the encrypted data through any unsecure channel you like at any speed. You could cache the keys in advance so the transmission can be unaffected by a DOS attack on the quantum transmission.
I understand your pain with JPEGs and how they are overused. However, for large resolution photographs, try this experiment: Convert the file to a PNG and also convert it to a JPEG. Use a program that allows you to create a (lossless*) JPEG. In Photoshop, manually set the compression to 12. I remember PhotoShop 6 had 10 as the max value, but you can enter 12 in the box. Now compare the two images. Zoom in. Inspect them side by side. Now look at the file sizes. You may decide that JPEG files can be very effective as permanent storage format. If you want more control over the color, get a better JPEG converter like Web Image Guru.
* Lossless meaning that no transformed data is thrown away. Of course, the whole DCT process will create "loss," but it should be truly negligible.
Oh, BTW, I thought PhotoShop allowed for CMYK JPEGs?
Wavelet compression is only better when comparing highly compressed JPEGs vs. highly compressed wavelet files. When the compression ratio is lower, which is what most people will want to use, there's not much difference.
No. It's the way in which the information is discarded that makes JPEG so
good.
You're not discarding pixels. In a JPEG file, the array of pixels is converted to a new kind of representation of the data using a Discreet Cosine Transform (DCT). If you discard part of the data after it's been transformed, when it's converted back to pixels, the image quality is affected, but not the number of pixels. It's like a low-pass filter for audio. You're filtering out the high-frequency pixel shifts. That's why photo-realistic images work so well, and raster graphics work so poorly.
That's not true in this case. Apple is using two tools at their disposal: Copyright law and the DMCA. What they're saying is that you can't crack the files because it's a violation of the DMCA. The software is used (in their opinion) is a tool to redistribute cracked AAC files and that's copyright infringment. At no time are they talking about any end-user contract. It has no bearing this issue. If Apple goes after end users who use this tool to crack their music files so they can transfer them to other players without ripping them to CD, then you'll have a point.
There's no guessing about the encryption method. It's a One Time Pad. Only the key is sent through the quantum link. After it's received, you can send the encrypted data any way you like. Send it over the Internet though the most insecure channels. It makes no difference as long as the key is secure and non-deterministic.
Absolutely. The greatest movie brainf*ck of my short and pitiful life was when my friends rented "From Dusk Til Dawn" and I had no clue whatsoever about the massive twist that was going to happen about halfway through. My jaw dropped when it happened and I was like "What the--?" and then looked over at all my buddies who had already seen it, and they were all watching my stunned reaction and grinning.
Yeah, me too. I never expected a movie with such a badass opening turn into a half-assed shitty vampire movie gorefest.
MS has been doing this for YEARS. He's just catching on now? What about DriveSpace and the lawsuit by Stac? MS had to change a little code and Stac went out of business. MS stole Apple's quicktime coded for windows 3.11 and all they got was a slap on the wrists. Makes you wonder how much crap they actually got away with.
I've seen enough closed source "roadmaps" change so much that the alternative shouldn't be much of a concern to anyone. Microsoft's original plans for Exchange was for it to be a Lotus Notes killer.
Among the examples listed are multi-player games, online casinos, P2P
networks, anonymous remailers, distributed computing and mobile agents.
The problem with the typical Slashdot users' attitudes to Trusted Computing is
that these obvious benefits get ignored while they harp on all the
negatives. That's why articles like this get written. There's good
reason to point out the problems with Trusted Computing. For example, a
multi-player game success story would be the XBOX Live system. By ensuring
the games are signed copies and blacklisting modchipped XBOXes, they've
effectively eliminated cheating and helped prevent piracy. The problem is
that they also prevent third party development for a machine that customers want
apps to be developed for. The Xbox Media Center is an incredible accomplishment
that's stymied by the tight control Microsoft has over this particular form of
Trusted Computing.
If our opinions were more balanced, perhaps the inevibility of Trusted Computing
would be more favorable to consumers and developers.
Specs please. What does it do. What doesn't it do. How much does it cost.
Thank you.
Specs? Ha! Pfft. Spoken like a heterosexual man in his 20s-30s. I guess you
are the one that missed the point. Did you think the I-Mac's #1 selling point
with women and gay men was the single mouse button? Hell no. It was purely
ascetics and what Apple wanted you to believe were selling points. I'm not
knocking Apple, but even Mac fan boys have got to admit the I-Mac wasn't winning
any awards for specs alone.
Doing a google
search yielded some interesting results. A few people have tried to take
credit, but the body of the text still has my name and old email! If you're
going to plagiarize, at least do it correctly.
Linux is made with efficiency and innovation in mind...
Linux was designed to emulate (I mean look and feel, not CPUs) the
Unix experience. Windows was designed to emulate the Mac experience.
Since Unix's roots were command line, Linux is definitely more successful,
albeit not different from Windows when it comes to innovation.
As far as efficiency is concerned, are hundreds of small apps designed to plug
into each other (or pipe into each other) really more efficient that
GUI-based wizards? I supposed that depends on whether you are a developer,
or just a user. Either way, your statement is highly dubious.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is all wrong. I don't know if I can come up with a physical analogy to describe what's going on, but here goes.
You're not sending the passengers, you're sending a bunch of suicide messengers with the magic password to open the impenitrable armor of the vehicle around their neck. If anyone comes into contact with the suicide messenger, they explode, destroying the information. You know someone tampered with your messengers because they show up dead. If that happens, you just change the password. When you get the password without any dead messengers, the armored vehicle can pass safely no matter who's firing at it.
It's been proven mathmatically that a random string of bits XORed with a "meaningful" stream of bits produces an uncrackable string of encrypted bits that can only be decrypted with the original random string of bits. This has been know for years. What makes it unfeasible is the act of exchanging keys. That's why PGP is so great. Not because it's encryption is strong(er), but because of the key exchange issue. Quantum transmission methods allow for a totally secure key exchange. That, coupled with an unbreakable encryption, means 100% secure communication...always. Now all we need is a foolproof way to generate 100% random numbers and we'll be in business.
Even if you can detect the evesdropping, by that time, it's too late; the evesdropper already has part of the message. Granted, it's only a single bit, but it might be the most important bit of the message.
No, no, no, no. All you're sending is the key. If the key is compromised, all you have to do is throw that key away and send another key. No actual data from the message is sent. Once the key is received, and you know it hasn't been comprimised, you can send the encrypted data through any unsecure channel you like at any speed. You could cache the keys in advance so the transmission can be unaffected by a DOS attack on the quantum transmission.
I understand your pain with JPEGs and how they are overused. However, for large resolution photographs, try this experiment: Convert the file to a PNG and also convert it to a JPEG. Use a program that allows you to create a (lossless*) JPEG. In Photoshop, manually set the compression to 12. I remember PhotoShop 6 had 10 as the max value, but you can enter 12 in the box. Now compare the two images. Zoom in. Inspect them side by side. Now look at the file sizes. You may decide that JPEG files can be very effective as permanent storage format. If you want more control over the color, get a better JPEG converter like Web Image Guru.
* Lossless meaning that no transformed data is thrown away. Of course, the whole DCT process will create "loss," but it should be truly negligible.
Oh, BTW, I thought PhotoShop allowed for CMYK JPEGs?
Wavelet compression is only better when comparing highly compressed JPEGs vs. highly compressed wavelet files. When the compression ratio is lower, which is what most people will want to use, there's not much difference.
No. It's the way in which the information is discarded that makes JPEG so good.
You're not discarding pixels. In a JPEG file, the array of pixels is converted to a new kind of representation of the data using a Discreet Cosine Transform (DCT). If you discard part of the data after it's been transformed, when it's converted back to pixels, the image quality is affected, but not the number of pixels. It's like a low-pass filter for audio. You're filtering out the high-frequency pixel shifts. That's why photo-realistic images work so well, and raster graphics work so poorly.
Most sports card DO come with an automatic transmission as an option. Care to try again?
I guess they're just not as smart as some of us.
That are NOT using any end-user contracts to make their point. There is NO end-user contract between the people hosting the site and Apple.
You mean I gotta live off only video games, and the Internet for a week? I'll go crazy!
That's not true in this case. Apple is using two tools at their disposal: Copyright law and the DMCA. What they're saying is that you can't crack the files because it's a violation of the DMCA. The software is used (in their opinion) is a tool to redistribute cracked AAC files and that's copyright infringment. At no time are they talking about any end-user contract. It has no bearing this issue. If Apple goes after end users who use this tool to crack their music files so they can transfer them to other players without ripping them to CD, then you'll have a point.
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist.
Tell that to the stockholders.
There's no guessing about the encryption method. It's a One Time Pad. Only the key is sent through the quantum link. After it's received, you can send the encrypted data any way you like. Send it over the Internet though the most insecure channels. It makes no difference as long as the key is secure and non-deterministic.
The trailer for Hellboy, which I've not seen yet, seems to give a good mix of enticement and still not be a complete give-away.
Holy shit! You can give a review of a trailer you haven't even seen? I'm impressed.
Absolutely. The greatest movie brainf*ck of my short and pitiful life was when my friends rented "From Dusk Til Dawn" and I had no clue whatsoever about the massive twist that was going to happen about halfway through. My jaw dropped when it happened and I was like "What the--?" and then looked over at all my buddies who had already seen it, and they were all watching my stunned reaction and grinning.
Yeah, me too. I never expected a movie with such a badass opening turn into a half-assed shitty vampire movie gorefest.
Some participants in the study said the sound made them 'feel insecure...
No wonder my self-esteem is so low!
MS has been doing this for YEARS. He's just catching on now? What about DriveSpace and the lawsuit by Stac? MS had to change a little code and Stac went out of business. MS stole Apple's quicktime coded for windows 3.11 and all they got was a slap on the wrists. Makes you wonder how much crap they actually got away with.
If you want to wait for Microsoft Announceware, you could get the Windows Media Center Extender for XBOX and use the XBOX to stream video to your TV.
Or install modchip and do it today.
I've seen enough closed source "roadmaps" change so much that the alternative shouldn't be much of a concern to anyone. Microsoft's original plans for Exchange was for it to be a Lotus Notes killer.
Simple. Buy an XBOX without a modchip. Burn a copy of XBMC on a CD or DVD. Try to run it.
Among the examples listed are multi-player games, online casinos, P2P networks, anonymous remailers, distributed computing and mobile agents.
The problem with the typical Slashdot users' attitudes to Trusted Computing is that these obvious benefits get ignored while they harp on all the negatives. That's why articles like this get written. There's good reason to point out the problems with Trusted Computing. For example, a multi-player game success story would be the XBOX Live system. By ensuring the games are signed copies and blacklisting modchipped XBOXes, they've effectively eliminated cheating and helped prevent piracy. The problem is that they also prevent third party development for a machine that customers want apps to be developed for. The Xbox Media Center is an incredible accomplishment that's stymied by the tight control Microsoft has over this particular form of Trusted Computing.
If our opinions were more balanced, perhaps the inevibility of Trusted Computing would be more favorable to consumers and developers.
Oops, this is Slashdot. (Rosanne Roseannadana Voice) Nevermind!!
Wrong character. Try again.
Specs please. What does it do. What doesn't it do. How much does it cost. Thank you.
Specs? Ha! Pfft. Spoken like a heterosexual man in his 20s-30s. I guess you are the one that missed the point. Did you think the I-Mac's #1 selling point with women and gay men was the single mouse button? Hell no. It was purely ascetics and what Apple wanted you to believe were selling points. I'm not knocking Apple, but even Mac fan boys have got to admit the I-Mac wasn't winning any awards for specs alone.
With the news that Full Throttle 2 is being cancelled, I remembered that I was the one who wrote the first Full Throttle's walkthrough:
u ll.throttle.4.html
http://www.the-spoiler.com/ADVENTURE/Lucas.Arts/f
Doing a google search yielded some interesting results. A few people have tried to take credit, but the body of the text still has my name and old email! If you're going to plagiarize, at least do it correctly.
Linux is made with efficiency and innovation in mind...
Linux was designed to emulate (I mean look and feel, not CPUs) the Unix experience. Windows was designed to emulate the Mac experience. Since Unix's roots were command line, Linux is definitely more successful, albeit not different from Windows when it comes to innovation. As far as efficiency is concerned, are hundreds of small apps designed to plug into each other (or pipe into each other) really more efficient that GUI-based wizards? I supposed that depends on whether you are a developer, or just a user. Either way, your statement is highly dubious.