I'm sure they'll spin the 64-bit thing as being 'better' just like they've convinced their loyal followers that the mhz-myth makes an 800mhz G4 perform like a 2+ Mhz Athlon or Intel processor.
Well, I would hope so, that's almost 400 times as fast:P
I'm really sucked at the lack of coherent logical thought displayed in this thread. Linux had to reinvent everything that was in BSD? Is that why Linux had multithreading, and multiple CPU support years before BSD?
Don't the wrong impression, I don't give a shit one way or another. But you are quite stupid.
64 bit is nice, but I doubt the chip will be more powerful then an x86 chip at twice speed.
Keep in mind that 64 bit chips do not simply work at twice the speed that 32 bit chips do, unless they are working on 64 bit integer numbers (in which case, they will actually work faster then 2x the speed of a 32 bit chip). Unlike the move from 16 bit to 32 bit, where 16 bit integers (either -32k to 32k or 0 64k values) were to small for lots of work, especially work with memory addresses on machines with >64k of ram:P
Nowadays, most CPUs (including x86) have 64bit floating point coprocessors to handle most mathematical code, so 64bit CPUs won't give you much of an improvement there either.
on machines with >4gb of ram, it will be a big improvement, but with advances in virtual memory it won't be as much of an advance, since programs can work in their own 4gig memory space on systems with more then 4 gigs of ram, and the virtual memory hardware can use more then 32 bits for mapping addresses.
Anyone, one only has to look at the difference between a Nintendo 64 (64 bit CPU) and a PC (32bit CPU) to see that CPU speed (and graphics accelerators!) has a much greater impact on performance then the bit width of the CPU.
And you'll still need a source of electricity to charge it. I'm still holding out for fuel cells.
Why... fuel cells still need to filled. Are you saying you have a more ready supply of methane or hydrogen gas then you do electricity?
Power outlets exist in almost every man made structure in the industrial world. And in most cars too. I can charge my laptop/cellphone/PDA anywhere. The same can't said about the fuels used in fuel cells.
I have a nokia 8000 series phone (i forget the exact model, it's not printed anywhere, oddly)
It's a few years, and pretty 'primitive', but when I'm on the phone that thing get's hot. Not unbearably so, although it does almost get uncomfortable to hold up to my ear.
If these add-ons need so much more power then current cell phone batteries, then they would need to put out a lot more heat too. After all, 1 watt of power used equals about 1 watt of heat produced (not counting things like lights, or EM radiation).
IMO those things would be better served by smaller, cpus with more computational power per unit of actual power.
Of course longer battery life would be helpful to:P
The US constitution dosn't really use many male personal pronouns, for example:
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
The president is refered to as "him" but there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about male reps.
You can't be unbreakable against brute-force attacks because brute-force is guaranteed to work, as long as you have enough time! Brute force means that you try every single possible key!
Actualy, OTP is protected against brute force because every single 'key' works, but they all produce diffrent outputs.
Think about it this way. Imagine for a bit that there are no books longer then the Oxford english dictionary. If you tried to brute force decrypt an OTP copy of the OED, you would have a copy of the OED in your 'pile' of decrypted stuff. You would also have every other book ever writen in your pile, along with every book that will be writen, and every book that anyone ever thought of writing, as well as an insanely large number of books full of garbletygook.
There is no way to tell which book is the 'real' book. In fact, all you're really doing is generating books at random.
Chances are, you'll patent this, and the NSA will come along and 'make you an offer you can't refuse' for the exclusive rights, in which case you'll be a very rich person.
Uh, don't you mean the NSA will come along and laugh their asses off at some moron who dosn't know anything about encryption thinking he's created something revolutionary?
That would be the best encryption you can have. The one only you know about.
The best encryption you can have is OTP. The next best encryption you can have is AES or some of the other advanced encryption methods that are known to be mathematically secure.
Just because you don't know how something was encrypted doesn't mean you can't figure it out if it wasn't done well. And given the fact that this guy thinks OTP is susceptible to plaintext attacks, I would put good money on the fact that anything encrypted with this method would not be done well.
In fact, if you do know the method, cryptanalysis isn't half as much fun.
Remember, in OTP the pad is the same length as the message. So if you plugged "World Trade Center" in at every point, you wouldn't have anything but garbaltygook for the rest of the message. The only way you can get the key to reveal itself is if you have the entire original message. And if you have the entire message what's the point of getting the pad, since it'll never be used again?
Also, because the pad should be random, there is no way to tell if you've gotten a valid result for a piece of text. So in other words, every single message of the right length could possibly be the actual message.
Aright, so the one-time-pad is totally unbreakable, as long as the key is random, and no one decrypts it. The weakness lies in, if you use the same pad two times, you can XOR the two encrypted messages together, and get message A XOR message B. This is a critical weakness of the OTP.
But once you encrypt another file with same pad, it's no longer a ONE TIME pad. So you're right that it's weak, you're wrong in that it's a weakness of OTP, not OTP anymore.
What you're saying is like "a clean mirror isn't that shiny, once you get it dirty you can't see yourself at all"
I seriously doubt you've found anything substantial that some of the worlds greatest mathematical minds just sort of 'passed over'. I mean, seriously. It's been proven that the only secure encryption technique is OTP. You could no more have come up with something more secure then I could add 2 + 2 and end up with 64,000.
Finally, you can actually both "give it to the world" and "make money". In fact, the whole point of the patent system is to get people to give out their secrets by granting them a limited monopoly.
If you really have something worth while, you can simply license you're concepts for general use. Public Key crypto has been patented for 30 years (almost expired) but it's used everywhere and has been a great boon to secure communications. Why? Because the authors licensed it for reasonable rates and allowed it to be used for free.
Patents only cost about $700, and once you get one it's yours for the next N years (or whatever, not sure about the exact number of years, it may be different in different fields). You can still let people use it for N-1 years and then try to get money out of it in year N (see the Unisys GIF patent). Patents aren't like trademarks where you have to keep policing them or you lose them, despite what morons on Slashdot (such as Hemos, even... btw whatever happened to him?) seem to believe.
One other thing:
The advantages are proof (i.e. unbreakable) against brute force attacks and known-plaintext attacks (unlike the OTP).
If I'm reading this right, you seem to think OTP is susceptible to brute force attacks. If this is true, you basically know jack about encryption.
that other not-for-profits are even shadier - should not be tolerated in the current business climate. It's like saying we should give a blank check to corruption at any company that's less corrupt than Enron!
Well, given the fact that he works for WorldCom, a company that's made up about $10 billion (that we know about) compared to Enron's $300m or so, it's not to surprising.
UPv6 is a big challenge. But the fact is that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) got more addresses than The Republic of China alltogether.
Technically you're probably still correct, but you probably meant the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China is a capitalistic democracy with about 20 million citizens. People usually call it "Taiwan" these days. It's called the Republic of China, because the government used to rule all of china, but after the communists took over they fled to Taiwan where they have sat for the past 50 years.
anytime you let the great unwashed masses publish anything in any medium this is what you will get. has nothing to do with the Internet has more to do with the fact that people suck.
Well, yes, I guess if you want to get technical they suck quite a bit... I would hope they wash up before they do it though, I mean if they're going to be taking pictures.
Seriously though, do you really think people photographing each other naked is "sucky" in any way other then as a bad pun?
Pff... You know how hard it was for me as a little kid to find porn? When I visited my dad I scrounged the whole house for those playboys, and that was only a few months out of the year. Oh sure, my mom had some things like The Joy of Sex, with it's pencil illustrations, The Kama Sutra, but that hardly counts.
Then, in the early to mid 90s something wonderful happened. The web. And suddenly a vast world of pornography opened itself up to me. Without the internet, I probably wouldn't have been pornographically self-sufficient until I was 18, and I would have had to pay for it. How suck would that be. I mean, can you imagine paying for porno? Even as an adult, porno on the Internet is a wonderful opportunity. Especially in the age of p2p, massive broadband and filesharing...
But seriously though, what's wrong with pornography? I agree that Spam sucks donkey balls, and spammers should be shot in the street, but porn? Whatever.
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of porn sites out there are basically run by money grubbing sociopath, who degrade women and flood screens with popups in a desperate attempted to wring every available penny out of the 'net, the concept of sexually arousing 'art' is hardly evil or wrong, unless you're one of those puritan wank-heads with all kinds of fucked up ideas about sex and masturbation.
In conclusion: sex is good, porn is good, and the Internet is good. People with puritanical value systems, money grubbing wankers, and spammers all suck.
Yeah, I mean there is a lot of Spam, misogynic attitudes, and underhandedness associated with it, but really that's only a product of the fact that porn is supposedly an 'underground' activity in our ridiculously puritan society.
I guess Mr. Cerf feels people shouldn't get off unless they have a significant other of the opposite gender readily available, and only then with the lights off in the missionary position. I mean, after all sex is A Bad Thing especially when there's a number of people that isn't both even and prime.
I say if people want to get naked and take pictures more power too 'em. It would be nice if they could do it without degrading women, spamming, and flooding browsers with popups, of course. But pornography in and of itself isn't bad.
I wonder if Mr. Cerf find European late night television a failure of the promise of TV (among many failings of that particular medium).
Sure, but which icon do you click? "The light orange-green one with a picture of a letter and a clock" What if there are 50 icons on the screen?
My mom is a total techno neophite. Dispite that, she found it easier to dail in and use a unix terminal to check her email because she only had to remember a few things to type in, while using a GUI required remembering lots of pictures and screen locations to click on. In general a lot more steps.
You're instructions really only help people who only have on icon on their screen.
Don't believe me? Go ahead. Try to use AOL to find copies of the Anarchist's cookbook without using the unspecified and user-unfriendly "Web".
What does that have to do with user-friendlyness? If AOL stood for Anarchy Online, I'm sure it would be pretty easy to find the anarchist cookbook.
Btw, it's been several years since I used AOL (back when 2400baud to AOL was the only way to get online in Ames, IA) But at the time AOL would default to a general web search when there were no keywords, and the pages would show up in AOLs thing. So typing "Anarchists cookbook" in AOL today would probably bring it up, unless you had turned on parental controls.
Even then, the scope of an information store has nothing to do with the userfrendlyness or flexibility of the interface to that information store.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they'll spin the 64-bit thing as being 'better' just like they've convinced their loyal followers that the mhz-myth makes an 800mhz G4 perform like a 2+ Mhz Athlon or Intel processor.
:P
Well, I would hope so, that's almost 400 times as fast
Can you give us an example of any car that is faster then a car with an engine where the peak RPM is more then 2.2 times as high?
I'm really sucked at the lack of coherent logical thought displayed in this thread. Linux had to reinvent everything that was in BSD? Is that why Linux had multithreading, and multiple CPU support years before BSD?
Don't the wrong impression, I don't give a shit one way or another. But you are quite stupid.
Hrm, intel/AMD will be at what then, 4ghz? :P
:P
64 bit is nice, but I doubt the chip will be more powerful then an x86 chip at twice speed.
Keep in mind that 64 bit chips do not simply work at twice the speed that 32 bit chips do, unless they are working on 64 bit integer numbers (in which case, they will actually work faster then 2x the speed of a 32 bit chip). Unlike the move from 16 bit to 32 bit, where 16 bit integers (either -32k to 32k or 0 64k values) were to small for lots of work, especially work with memory addresses on machines with >64k of ram
Nowadays, most CPUs (including x86) have 64bit floating point coprocessors to handle most mathematical code, so 64bit CPUs won't give you much of an improvement there either.
on machines with >4gb of ram, it will be a big improvement, but with advances in virtual memory it won't be as much of an advance, since programs can work in their own 4gig memory space on systems with more then 4 gigs of ram, and the virtual memory hardware can use more then 32 bits for mapping addresses.
Anyone, one only has to look at the difference between a Nintendo 64 (64 bit CPU) and a PC (32bit CPU) to see that CPU speed (and graphics accelerators!) has a much greater impact on performance then the bit width of the CPU.
And you'll still need a source of electricity to charge it. I'm still holding out for fuel cells.
Why... fuel cells still need to filled. Are you saying you have a more ready supply of methane or hydrogen gas then you do electricity?
Power outlets exist in almost every man made structure in the industrial world. And in most cars too. I can charge my laptop/cellphone/PDA anywhere. The same can't said about the fuels used in fuel cells.
I have a nokia 8000 series phone (i forget the exact model, it's not printed anywhere, oddly)
:P
It's a few years, and pretty 'primitive', but when I'm on the phone that thing get's hot. Not unbearably so, although it does almost get uncomfortable to hold up to my ear.
If these add-ons need so much more power then current cell phone batteries, then they would need to put out a lot more heat too. After all, 1 watt of power used equals about 1 watt of heat produced (not counting things like lights, or EM radiation).
IMO those things would be better served by smaller, cpus with more computational power per unit of actual power.
Of course longer battery life would be helpful to
The US constitution dosn't really use many male personal pronouns, for example:
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
The president is refered to as "him" but there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about male reps.
That bush spesificaly said that he was against lessing in this case, right?
The strnig "OTP" is clearly part of the comment I was commenting on. The person I replied to said OTP is weak. OTP is not weak.
For those of you who are curious, the submitter's website is right here
You can't be unbreakable against brute-force attacks because brute-force is guaranteed to work, as long as you have enough time! Brute force means that you try every single possible key!
Actualy, OTP is protected against brute force because every single 'key' works, but they all produce diffrent outputs.
Think about it this way. Imagine for a bit that there are no books longer then the Oxford english dictionary. If you tried to brute force decrypt an OTP copy of the OED, you would have a copy of the OED in your 'pile' of decrypted stuff. You would also have every other book ever writen in your pile, along with every book that will be writen, and every book that anyone ever thought of writing, as well as an insanely large number of books full of garbletygook.
There is no way to tell which book is the 'real' book. In fact, all you're really doing is generating books at random.
Chances are, you'll patent this, and the NSA will come along and 'make you an offer you can't refuse' for the exclusive rights, in which case you'll be a very rich person.
Uh, don't you mean the NSA will come along and laugh their asses off at some moron who dosn't know anything about encryption thinking he's created something revolutionary?
10 to 1, there is a huge hole in the idea.
Erm, more like infinity to one...
That would be the best encryption you can have. The one only you know about.
The best encryption you can have is OTP. The next best encryption you can have is AES or some of the other advanced encryption methods that are known to be mathematically secure.
Just because you don't know how something was encrypted doesn't mean you can't figure it out if it wasn't done well. And given the fact that this guy thinks OTP is susceptible to plaintext attacks, I would put good money on the fact that anything encrypted with this method would not be done well.
In fact, if you do know the method, cryptanalysis isn't half as much fun.
I'm sure he can patent it, but I doubt he'll be able to sell it, because he's a complete moron who dosn't know what he's talking about at all.
Dude, you are totaly wrong.
Remember, in OTP the pad is the same length as the message. So if you plugged "World Trade Center" in at every point, you wouldn't have anything but garbaltygook for the rest of the message. The only way you can get the key to reveal itself is if you have the entire original message. And if you have the entire message what's the point of getting the pad, since it'll never be used again?
Also, because the pad should be random, there is no way to tell if you've gotten a valid result for a piece of text. So in other words, every single message of the right length could possibly be the actual message.
Someone please mod the above post back down.
Aright, so the one-time-pad is totally unbreakable, as long as the key is random, and no one decrypts it. The weakness lies in, if you use the same pad two times, you can XOR the two encrypted messages together, and get message A XOR message B. This is a critical weakness of the OTP.
But once you encrypt another file with same pad, it's no longer a ONE TIME pad. So you're right that it's weak, you're wrong in that it's a weakness of OTP, not OTP anymore.
What you're saying is like "a clean mirror isn't that shiny, once you get it dirty you can't see yourself at all"
Um, XOR or modulo addition are usualy used in the final stage to actualy encrypt things, after you've done all the math.
Also, if you only use your large random digit file once it is perfictly secure. The more you use it, the weaker it gets.
I seriously doubt you've found anything substantial that some of the worlds greatest mathematical minds just sort of 'passed over'. I mean, seriously. It's been proven that the only secure encryption technique is OTP. You could no more have come up with something more secure then I could add 2 + 2 and end up with 64,000.
Finally, you can actually both "give it to the world" and "make money". In fact, the whole point of the patent system is to get people to give out their secrets by granting them a limited monopoly.
If you really have something worth while, you can simply license you're concepts for general use. Public Key crypto has been patented for 30 years (almost expired) but it's used everywhere and has been a great boon to secure communications. Why? Because the authors licensed it for reasonable rates and allowed it to be used for free.
Patents only cost about $700, and once you get one it's yours for the next N years (or whatever, not sure about the exact number of years, it may be different in different fields). You can still let people use it for N-1 years and then try to get money out of it in year N (see the Unisys GIF patent). Patents aren't like trademarks where you have to keep policing them or you lose them, despite what morons on Slashdot (such as Hemos, even... btw whatever happened to him?) seem to believe.
One other thing:
The advantages are proof (i.e. unbreakable) against brute force attacks and known-plaintext attacks (unlike the OTP).
If I'm reading this right, you seem to think OTP is susceptible to brute force attacks. If this is true, you basically know jack about encryption.
that other not-for-profits are even shadier - should not be tolerated in the current business climate. It's like saying we should give a blank check to corruption at any company that's less corrupt than Enron!
Well, given the fact that he works for WorldCom, a company that's made up about $10 billion (that we know about) compared to Enron's $300m or so, it's not to surprising.
UPv6 is a big challenge. But the fact is that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) got more addresses than The Republic of China alltogether.
Technically you're probably still correct, but you probably meant the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China is a capitalistic democracy with about 20 million citizens. People usually call it "Taiwan" these days. It's called the Republic of China, because the government used to rule all of china, but after the communists took over they fled to Taiwan where they have sat for the past 50 years.
anytime you let the great unwashed masses publish anything in any medium this is what you will get. has nothing to do with the Internet has more to do with the fact that people suck.
Well, yes, I guess if you want to get technical they suck quite a bit... I would hope they wash up before they do it though, I mean if they're going to be taking pictures.
Seriously though, do you really think people photographing each other naked is "sucky" in any way other then as a bad pun?
Pff... You know how hard it was for me as a little kid to find porn? When I visited my dad I scrounged the whole house for those playboys, and that was only a few months out of the year. Oh sure, my mom had some things like The Joy of Sex, with it's pencil illustrations, The Kama Sutra, but that hardly counts.
Then, in the early to mid 90s something wonderful happened. The web. And suddenly a vast world of pornography opened itself up to me. Without the internet, I probably wouldn't have been pornographically self-sufficient until I was 18, and I would have had to pay for it. How suck would that be. I mean, can you imagine paying for porno? Even as an adult, porno on the Internet is a wonderful opportunity. Especially in the age of p2p, massive broadband and filesharing...
But seriously though, what's wrong with pornography? I agree that Spam sucks donkey balls, and spammers should be shot in the street, but porn? Whatever.
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of porn sites out there are basically run by money grubbing sociopath, who degrade women and flood screens with popups in a desperate attempted to wring every available penny out of the 'net, the concept of sexually arousing 'art' is hardly evil or wrong, unless you're one of those puritan wank-heads with all kinds of fucked up ideas about sex and masturbation.
In conclusion: sex is good, porn is good, and the Internet is good. People with puritanical value systems, money grubbing wankers, and spammers all suck.
Whats wrong with porn?
Yeah, I mean there is a lot of Spam, misogynic attitudes, and underhandedness associated with it, but really that's only a product of the fact that porn is supposedly an 'underground' activity in our ridiculously puritan society.
I guess Mr. Cerf feels people shouldn't get off unless they have a significant other of the opposite gender readily available, and only then with the lights off in the missionary position. I mean, after all sex is A Bad Thing especially when there's a number of people that isn't both even and prime.
I say if people want to get naked and take pictures more power too 'em. It would be nice if they could do it without degrading women, spamming, and flooding browsers with popups, of course. But pornography in and of itself isn't bad.
I wonder if Mr. Cerf find European late night television a failure of the promise of TV (among many failings of that particular medium).
Spammers, on the other hand, need to die.
Sure, but which icon do you click? "The light orange-green one with a picture of a letter and a clock" What if there are 50 icons on the screen?
My mom is a total techno neophite. Dispite that, she found it easier to dail in and use a unix terminal to check her email because she only had to remember a few things to type in, while using a GUI required remembering lots of pictures and screen locations to click on. In general a lot more steps.
You're instructions really only help people who only have on icon on their screen.
Don't believe me? Go ahead. Try to use AOL to find copies of the Anarchist's cookbook without using the unspecified and user-unfriendly "Web".
What does that have to do with user-friendlyness? If AOL stood for Anarchy Online, I'm sure it would be pretty easy to find the anarchist cookbook.
Btw, it's been several years since I used AOL (back when 2400baud to AOL was the only way to get online in Ames, IA) But at the time AOL would default to a general web search when there were no keywords, and the pages would show up in AOLs thing. So typing "Anarchists cookbook" in AOL today would probably bring it up, unless you had turned on parental controls.
Even then, the scope of an information store has nothing to do with the userfrendlyness or flexibility of the interface to that information store.