The fact remains that those rumors that circulate, are most often correct! I know it sounds wrong, but there is ample evidence for it.
Somebody claiming something in an article somewhere on the net is "ample evidence"?
Let's take a look at the link about Hitler being forced into war: did you really read that article? Did you check out the references given? Just to mention one, David Irving is a well-known revisionist who claims that the Holocaust never happened.
Those claims that Hitler was a man of peace are simply ridicilous. Do you really think Germany invaded countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, etc. to preserve peace?
If he ever tried to avoid war with major european powers like England, France or the Soviet Union, this was simply for tactical reasons. Nazi Germany has broken more or less every single treaty it signed, both in letter and in spirit.
The article indirectly cites some guy saying "
Hitler was not thinking of war [...] as the Führer's immense social and cultural plans would take years to fulfill".
These immense social and cultural plans consisted in robbing, enslaving and murdering some ten millions of people, as well as crushing any political opposition. The leaders of germany at that time were nothing but criminals, acting on global scale. It's that simple.
If you are really interested in evidence, check out original sources. In this case, I recommend to read Hitler's "Mein Kampf". This book has been printed millions of times and distributed to more or less every household in the third reich, so you can be pretty sure it is authentic. (OK, it is written in german, as a matter of fact in pretty poor german, so reading it might be difficult for you). This book was written long before Hitler seized the power. It states pretty clear his plans to kill and enslave "inferor races" and to fight a war to avenge the german defeat in WW I. Everybody who tries to deny this is simply a liar or a moron.
Please do not believe everything just because some URL says it is true. Just like in coding:
"Use the source, Luke."
The Golub/Van Loan book is certainly the best text on linear algebra I have ever seen.
However, LINPACK has more or less been obsoleted by LAPACK (which is based on LINPACK). The main difference is that a lot of code has been rewritten to use level 3 BLAS in the inner loops, which will speed up things quite a lot.
Of course, you can't implement quicksort properly in FORTRAN because the language isn't recursive!
Of course you can implement quicksort without recursion. All you need is to manage a stack yourself. Usually, this will also run faster.
See e.g. Sedgwick's Algorithm book.
Which shows that usually it is not a problem of language restrictions, but of lack of knowledge.
This is not exactly news. The second edition of "Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schneier already mentions DNA Computing in the discussion of key size.
According to Schneier, Adleman was able to solve a Directed Hamiltonian Path Problem with 7 vertices already in 1994. It is interesting that it took 8 years to get from 8 to 20 vertices. The difficulties seem to be
enourmous.
Allthough this seems to be excellent research, I still doubt that this is significant for solving real world problems. After all, this is a brute force search (although a massively parallel one). But there are physical limits to consider: there are ~10^50 atoms on this planet, but this only in the order of 42!. (read faculty of 42...) So 42 may not be the answer after all, but the size of the problem...
Modern algorithms for discrete optimisation can do much better than this. Travelling Salesman Problems in the order of several thousand cities have already been solved.
the problem is that *any* cipher applied in a foolish way by people who don't understand cryptographic protocol design will be weak, no matter how good that underlying cipher is.
You are absolutely right. A prime example is the
obsolete SSL v1 protocol. They used RC4, which is fine in itself, but they used CRC32 for message authentication. Unfortunately,
in this setup, it is next to trivial to modify the ciphertext and update the encrypted checksum without ever knowing the plaintext.
However, Netscape was smart enough to learn from this disaster and hire some qualified expert cryptographers. (I think Taher el Gamal was involved in the design of SSL-v2.)
Let's hope that some competent people will redesign this thing from the bottom up.
Linux runs fine on outdated boxes, let's say a P133 with 64 MB, even with X-Windows, if you use a thin window manager, like good old mwm. It's bloated desktops like KDE or gnome that need all the cycles and the RAM.
Of course, recompiling the kernel gives you a nice coffe break, and do not even try to start Star Office...
However, a desktop distribution with a good selection of lightweight applications would be very nice.
Because of this, a security administrator, or even a home user, has to assume that every packet sent over a wireless connection is intercepted.
Provocative question: how is this different from "wired" IP across several routers? That's why you need strong endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, e.g. SSL/TLS.
One additional problem seems to be that a simple way of session hijacking would enable a nasty Denial of Service Attack, but the other points are inherent problems in IP4 without IPsec (i.e. probably 99% of internet traffic) as well.
Longer term, the IEEE Standards body intends to adopt AES [Advanced Encryption Standard], the same security protocol sponsored by the National Institute of Standards.
"AES is state of the art encryption technology," said WECA chairman Eaton.
But AES requires hardware acceleration using a co-processor to off-load the encryption and decryption or it would slow the throughput down to an unacceptable level, according to Eaton as well as Instat's Paulo. It also requires new Wi-Fi cards in the client devices. AES will be available in the first quarter of 2003.
Am I missing something here? AES is an approved standard, implementations have been available for years.
Concerning Speed: the Rijndael AES proposal gives 70.5 Mbits/s for a VisualC++ Implemetation of Rijndael on a P200. This should be fast enough for the clients. Can anyone provide accurate figures, e.g. for the current implementation used in gpg?
Above all: AES is a symmetric block cipher, so this has nothing to do with the security problems adressed, as these seem to be flaws in the protocol. (session hijacking, man in the middle, etc.) These are questions of key managment, not of the block cipher used.
Seems that the chairman is not exactly an expert in crypto...
"No, what's great news is that Intel's compilers are available now on Linux."
I totally agree. Unix has always been popular in scientific computing and egineering, but I know of several people switching to WindowsNT because
a) intel systems are extremly cheap (compared to architecures optimized for number crunching like RS6K)
b) compilers available for NT produced MUCH faster code, e.g. Digital fortran. (Yes, I know... but still a lot of excellent scientific computing software is written in fortran77, e.g. LAPACK)
When it comes to numerical simulation, run times in the order of weeks are not unusual, so a performance penalty of 50 percent is simply unacceptable.
So this may turn out to be a big win for linux in the scientific computing area.
Intel clearly states that this compiler CAN NOT compile the linux Kernel. As a matter of fact, the linux kernel contains a lot of inline assembler... Some versions of gcc also had problems with this, but this was mainly caused by incorrect kernel code. I never heard of somebody compiling the linux kernel with anything else but gcc, "the recommended compiler". I do not know about other kernels, but I would be very surprised if there was a *nix which did not use its native compiler for its kernel.
Some differences between a competent admin and a wannabee can be found by answering the following questions:
- ooops, you just contracted this ugly thing. Would you notice? (== do you run intrusion detection? log file auditing, anybody?...)
- ooops, the system has been compromised, what now? (yes, there is a site security policy. Yes, i have backups. and, yes, i DID check they can be replayed....)
"No, I will never type rm -rf/" sounds good, but "uh uh, I just wiped the whole file system... this will take an hour to get everything running again:-(" sounds even better to me.
The basic idea behind imake is to use a configuration database, (i.e. some files that live in your X11 tree). This works fine, if this database is up-to-date (which is probably OK on platforms like AIX or IRIX), and all you do is X-specific.
On a typical linux-system, the imake configuration files do not know how to handle OpenGL or Motif, leave alone Qt or GTK, or non-X stuff like SSL . I have never seen an imake template that handles shared libraries in a portable way. If a software package does not support imake templates (few open source projects do), imake will not help you at all.
On the other hand, autoconf uses compile time tests to decide system characteristics. It will try to compile/link/execute little test programs, or execute shell scripts. (By the way, autoconf uses imake to find out X specific stuff:-). If you do not like the tests that come with autoconf, write your own.
The basic problem is: autoconf will help you to check for system-specific stuff, but it will not write portable code for you.
At least here in Austria, similar laws were passed right after world war 2. (Under the supervision of the allied forces, including the US, of course.)
At that time, this was simply necessary, because a lot of nazis were still working as teachers and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Those claims that Hitler was a man of peace are simply ridicilous. Do you really think Germany invaded countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, etc. to preserve peace? If he ever tried to avoid war with major european powers like England, France or the Soviet Union, this was simply for tactical reasons. Nazi Germany has broken more or less every single treaty it signed, both in letter and in spirit.
The article indirectly cites some guy saying " Hitler was not thinking of war [...] as the Führer's immense social and cultural plans would take years to fulfill". These immense social and cultural plans consisted in robbing, enslaving and murdering some ten millions of people, as well as crushing any political opposition. The leaders of germany at that time were nothing but criminals, acting on global scale. It's that simple.
If you are really interested in evidence, check out original sources. In this case, I recommend to read Hitler's "Mein Kampf". This book has been printed millions of times and distributed to more or less every household in the third reich, so you can be pretty sure it is authentic. (OK, it is written in german, as a matter of fact in pretty poor german, so reading it might be difficult for you). This book was written long before Hitler seized the power. It states pretty clear his plans to kill and enslave "inferor races" and to fight a war to avenge the german defeat in WW I. Everybody who tries to deny this is simply a liar or a moron.
Please do not believe everything just because some URL says it is true. Just like in coding: "Use the source, Luke."
The Golub/Van Loan book is certainly the best text on linear algebra I have ever seen. However, LINPACK has more or less been obsoleted by LAPACK (which is based on LINPACK). The main difference is that a lot of code has been rewritten to use level 3 BLAS in the inner loops, which will speed up things quite a lot.
According to Schneier, Adleman was able to solve a Directed Hamiltonian Path Problem with 7 vertices already in 1994. It is interesting that it took 8 years to get from 8 to 20 vertices. The difficulties seem to be enourmous.
Allthough this seems to be excellent research, I still doubt that this is significant for solving real world problems. After all, this is a brute force search (although a massively parallel one). But there are physical limits to consider: there are ~10^50 atoms on this planet, but this only in the order of 42!. (read faculty of 42...) So 42 may not be the answer after all, but the size of the problem...
Modern algorithms for discrete optimisation can do much better than this. Travelling Salesman Problems in the order of several thousand cities have already been solved.
However, Netscape was smart enough to learn from this disaster and hire some qualified expert cryptographers. (I think Taher el Gamal was involved in the design of SSL-v2.)
Let's hope that some competent people will redesign this thing from the bottom up.
Of course, recompiling the kernel gives you a nice coffe break, and do not even try to start Star Office...
However, a desktop distribution with a good selection of lightweight applications would be very nice.
Provocative question: how is this different from "wired" IP across several routers? That's why you need strong endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, e.g. SSL/TLS.
One additional problem seems to be that a simple way of session hijacking would enable a nasty Denial of Service Attack, but the other points are inherent problems in IP4 without IPsec (i.e. probably 99% of internet traffic) as well.
Concerning Speed: the Rijndael AES proposal gives 70.5 Mbits/s for a VisualC++ Implemetation of Rijndael on a P200. This should be fast enough for the clients. Can anyone provide accurate figures, e.g. for the current implementation used in gpg?
Above all: AES is a symmetric block cipher, so this has nothing to do with the security problems adressed, as these seem to be flaws in the protocol. (session hijacking, man in the middle, etc.) These are questions of key managment, not of the block cipher used.
Seems that the chairman is not exactly an expert in crypto..."No, what's great news is that Intel's compilers are available now on Linux."
... but still a lot of excellent scientific computing software is written in fortran77, e.g. LAPACK)
I totally agree. Unix has always been popular in scientific computing and egineering, but I know of several people switching to WindowsNT because
a) intel systems are extremly cheap (compared to architecures optimized for number crunching like RS6K)
b) compilers available for NT produced MUCH faster code, e.g. Digital fortran. (Yes, I know
When it comes to numerical simulation, run times in the order of weeks are not unusual, so a performance penalty of 50 percent is simply unacceptable.
So this may turn out to be a big win for linux in the scientific computing area.
Intel clearly states that this compiler CAN NOT compile the linux Kernel. As a matter of fact, the linux kernel contains a lot of inline assembler... Some versions of gcc also had problems with this, but this was mainly caused by incorrect kernel code. I never heard of somebody compiling the linux kernel with anything else but gcc, "the recommended compiler". I do not know about other kernels, but I would be very surprised if there was a *nix which did not use its native compiler for its kernel.
for those of you who speak german: there is even a gravenreuth-FAQ: http://www.klostermaier.de/fvg/faq.html
Some differences between a competent admin and a wannabee can be found by answering the following questions:
...)
...)
/" sounds good, but "uh uh, I just wiped the whole file system ... this will take an hour to get everything running again :-(" sounds even better to me.
- ooops, you just contracted this ugly thing. Would you notice? (== do you run intrusion detection? log file auditing, anybody?
- ooops, the system has been compromised, what now? (yes, there is a site security policy. Yes, i have backups. and, yes, i DID check they can be replayed.
"No, I will never type rm -rf
The basic idea behind imake is to use a configuration database, (i.e. some files that live in your X11 tree). This works fine, if this database is up-to-date (which is probably OK on platforms like AIX or IRIX), and all you do is X-specific.
:-). If you do not like the tests that come with autoconf, write your own.
On a typical linux-system, the imake configuration files do not know how to handle OpenGL or Motif, leave alone Qt or GTK, or non-X stuff like SSL . I have never seen an imake template that handles shared libraries in a portable way. If a software package does not support imake templates (few open source projects do), imake will not help you at all.
On the other hand, autoconf uses compile time tests to decide system characteristics. It will try to compile/link/execute little test programs, or execute shell scripts. (By the way, autoconf uses imake to find out X specific stuff
The basic problem is: autoconf will help you to check for system-specific stuff, but it will not write portable code for you.
if you are using gnumake, that's easy:
in your Makefile.in, put:
VPATH = @srcdir@
in configure.in, you need:
AC_SUBST_FILE(srcdir)
the VPATH variable is documented in the gnumake-manuals.
At least here in Austria, similar laws were passed right after world war 2. (Under the supervision of the allied forces, including the US, of course.) At that time, this was simply necessary, because a lot of nazis were still working as teachers and the like.