These actions were actually illegal, so they could not have been authorized by the Patriot act.
Also, from the article,
Most such cases involve powers granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the use of secret warrants, wiretaps and other methods as part of investigations of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act was passed in 1978
It seems to me that these are just old-fashioned FBI abuses of power - not abuses of the Patriot act specifically.
The great thing about knowing C is that most other languages can be understood in terms of C - after all, a lot of compilers have been written in C. So when the kids learn perl-style pattern matching, they can think about how they'd implement it in C, and they'll have some idea of how it might work, what might be efficient/inefficient, etc.
If you teach a language like Java, on the other hand, students will be more likely to view stuff like lists as "magic structures" with certain strengths and weaknesses which must be memorized. This is OK if the goal is to make something that works, but not if the goal is to understand.
The situation doesn't evolve like that, because the pirates can't make binding agreements. If 4 could make a deal, then have it enforced, then 5 would have to be far more generous. But if 4 makes a deal, he can just go back on it later, which makes it work as stated on the website.
It's similar to the situation of a kidnapper making a deal. Suppose a kidnapper has gotten his money, and wants to let his hostage go. But he does not want to get caught by the police, and his hostage can easily identify him. So he makes a deal, right? "I let you go, you never identify me." It's clearly beneficial to both of them.
But it's the same problem as the pirates. After the hostage is back at home, what's to stop him from identifying the kidnapper? He'll get his money back, and the kidnapper will be put behind bars. He'll be breaking his deal, but so what? What can the kidnapper do about it?
So as a result of this, the kidnapper won't make the deal in the first place. He'll kill the hostage. And the other pirates won't make a deal with 4. They'll vote for 5's plan, because it's the best they're going to get.
Einstein's general theory of relativity is based on the principle of equivalence, which states that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable to a local observer such as a remote.
So if you are going to use this supposed "device," I hope you use it under conditions of weightlessness, so that the "gravity effect" will not affect your cursor movement!!
It may bear this additional connotation, of which I was not aware. Cutting-edge products always carry a higher degree of risk, so it's hard to be sure from use.
In any case, even if bugginess is a necessary condition for "bleeding-edge," it is not sufficient. "Bleeding-edge" definitely carries the connotation that the thing is at the very forefront of progress, i.e. cutting-edge. While Half Life 2 is among the very latest generation of games, it is not the first or the most technologically advanced of those games. For the most part, the bugs in the game are not because it is at the cutting edge of technology, but because it was released before the bugs had been worked out.
I agree that Half Life 2 could accurately be described as a "bleeding-edge" game as far as linux gaming is concerned, i.e. Half Life 2 support is at the bleeding edge of linux gaming. However, this is not how it was used in the article.
If you're going to use the awful expression "bleeding edge," at least use it in places where "cutting edge" is somehow insufficient.
Example: "My bleeding-edge custom-designed CPU which I requested from some friends at Intel does contain this feature, although you won't find it on the cutting-edge chips reviewed here."
Anti-example: "The bleeding-edge US government (elected scant years ago!) today acted to outlaw the bleeding-edge innovation in music sharing, that is the mp3. Many bleeding-edge innovations in CS are expected to be affected,including Valve's bleeding-edge action shooter Half Life 2, which uses mp3 format for its bleeding-edge musical score."
The car does see the light travel at the velocity C relative to the car. However, because he and the observer are moving apart at.5C, the car sees the light move at only.5C relative to the observer.
It always does travel the same speed. From the observer's point of view, it is travelling toward him at C, in a very easy-to-understand manner.
the car, on the other hand, is moving away from the observer at.5C. So if it saw the light as moving toward the observer at C, then the light would be moving away from the car at 1.5C - an impossibility. The car sees the light receding from it at C, which means that from the car's point of view the light is covering the original distance to the observer at a rate of only.5C.
according to relativity, the car moving away from the observer is equivalent to the observer moving away from the car. So it might be easier to think of it as the observer moving away from the car. From his perspective, even though he's moving away from it, the light travels toward him at C. From the car's perspective, the observer is moving away from the light and hence the light, traveling at C, is only travelling at.5C relative to the observer.
Suppose you've got some sort of method to communicate instantly. And suppose you've got a car that can travel at half the speed of light.
set it up like this. The car is 1 light minute from an observer. It's travelling away from the observer at.5C. It flashes its rear lights.
from the observer's point of view, it will see the headlights flash 1 minute later. It communicates this instantly to the car, so the car finds out about this at T+1 minute.
Now from the car's perspective, the light is moving away from it at C, but it's moving forward at.5C, so the light is only getting closer to the observer at.5C. Hence it takes two minutes to reach the observer. At T+1 minute, the light has not reached the observer. So the guy in the car is surprised by the announcement that it has, and sends back an instant communique for confirmation.
"Confirmation?" asks the observer, "I haven't sent you anything yet!" After all the light has not yet reached the observer, so how could he have sent the communication?
This is the theoretical problem with instant communication. It breaks the principle of causality. This principle has never been observed to have been broken, and is basic to our understanding of the universe.
This is why it is unlikely that an instantaneous communication device will ever be invented. Quantum entanglement has been shown not to allow such a device - the entanglement does not transmit any information.
Armies must be constantly tested in the real world (that means wars) or they will not know what is effective and what is not. Sort of like compiling a program to work out the bugs. If the American army stopped going to war as regularly as it did, soon you would see far more silly initiatives and such, because there would be no consequence. This is a nuance which liberals often miss in their "anti-war" stance.
These guys are great at fighting terrorism in a game that has almost no relation to real life. Counter strike tactics would get them killed very quickly in real life (they die in the game after all, only it doesn't matter so much).
This is utterly ridiculous. Like horses worried about car exhaust. We ruthlessly kill bacteria and bugs and such as a matter of course because we are so much superior to them, but then nanotechnology is as superior to us as we are to bugs, and yet we protest at dying to support its first stirrings! Truly the human race is the most arrogant, if not the most intelligent, thing that will ever exist on the planet!
I'm personally startled by the degree to which "shoot and reload" games like Thief 1(1998) have been replaced by stealthy games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Surely it heralds a new era of gaming!!!!!
Their method isn't just a brute-force attack or a "brute-memory" list of PLAINTEXT:HASH. It is faster than brute-force, and uses far less memory than "brute-memory"
It is a time-memory tradeoff. They come up with a "reduction function" R, which maps hashes into keys. It is not a reversal of the md5 algorithm, it just generates some key based on the hash. Then they create sequences of hash, key, hash, key, hash, key... with each key being the reduction function applied to the previous hash, and each hash being the hash function applied to the previous key. They stop their sequences when they reach "distinguished values," which may e.g. have 0's for the first 12 bits. Then they store the start and endpoints of the sequence.
So now they have a list of start and endpoints for these chains of hashes and keys. To crack a hash, they apply the same process to it - reduction function, hash, reduction function, hash, until they reach a value that is in their table of endpoints. Then they begin at the startpoint associated with that endpoint, and regenerate the sequence up to the hash they're trying to crack. Since the key directly before that hash hashes to that hash, they've successfully cracked the hash.
The "rainbow" refers to the recent innovation of using a different reduction function for each step of the sequence, i.e. using R1 on the first hash, R2 on the second, etc. This means that, even if two sequences contain the same hash, they probably won't be exactly the same after that - a significant problem with the older method of having a single reduction function.
If you want to read about this in more detail with math symbols and such, the pdf is linked from the site.
There are several recent series which I, at least, liked a lot. "Monster," "Last Exile," "Gilgamesh." Even if you disagree that these are any good, they're certainly inventive and interesting.
There's also a certain tendency to think only of the good when considering the past. You remember "Citizen Kane," but not the dozens of awful movies that came out the same year. Same thing applies with anime.
1) it is not FTL communication. No information is transmitted.
2) The theory of relativity already takes into account the fact that time can be bent. It is my understanding that general relativity considers the universe as a 4-dimensional space which can be distorted by various effects.
3) time can be nonlinear without being entirely reversible. Causality remains in the theory of relativity, which is well-accepted at this point, even though the theory also incorporates nonlinear time.
People need to get this straight. For some hilarious examples of people believing that quantum entanglement can be used for communications, see the scientifically ridiculous movie "The Core" and this slashdot article
All they do to obtain global warming is find a line of best fit for various temperature data. Greenhouse theory has some complexity to it, but the trend it explains - global warming - is as simple as noticing that it's getting hotter, on average.
I'm sure it will become "in vogue" for the equation for a linear regression to spit out a negative slope any day now.
Slashdot Mirror
These actions were actually illegal, so they could not have been authorized by the Patriot act.
Also, from the article,
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act was passed in 1978It seems to me that these are just old-fashioned FBI abuses of power - not abuses of the Patriot act specifically.
The great thing about knowing C is that most other languages can be understood in terms of C - after all, a lot of compilers have been written in C. So when the kids learn perl-style pattern matching, they can think about how they'd implement it in C, and they'll have some idea of how it might work, what might be efficient/inefficient, etc.
If you teach a language like Java, on the other hand, students will be more likely to view stuff like lists as "magic structures" with certain strengths and weaknesses which must be memorized. This is OK if the goal is to make something that works, but not if the goal is to understand.
It's similar to the situation of a kidnapper making a deal. Suppose a kidnapper has gotten his money, and wants to let his hostage go. But he does not want to get caught by the police, and his hostage can easily identify him. So he makes a deal, right? "I let you go, you never identify me." It's clearly beneficial to both of them.
But it's the same problem as the pirates. After the hostage is back at home, what's to stop him from identifying the kidnapper? He'll get his money back, and the kidnapper will be put behind bars. He'll be breaking his deal, but so what? What can the kidnapper do about it?
So as a result of this, the kidnapper won't make the deal in the first place. He'll kill the hostage. And the other pirates won't make a deal with 4. They'll vote for 5's plan, because it's the best they're going to get.
So if you are going to use this supposed "device," I hope you use it under conditions of weightlessness, so that the "gravity effect" will not affect your cursor movement!!
In any case, even if bugginess is a necessary condition for "bleeding-edge," it is not sufficient. "Bleeding-edge" definitely carries the connotation that the thing is at the very forefront of progress, i.e. cutting-edge. While Half Life 2 is among the very latest generation of games, it is not the first or the most technologically advanced of those games. For the most part, the bugs in the game are not because it is at the cutting edge of technology, but because it was released before the bugs had been worked out.
I agree that Half Life 2 could accurately be described as a "bleeding-edge" game as far as linux gaming is concerned, i.e. Half Life 2 support is at the bleeding edge of linux gaming. However, this is not how it was used in the article.
Example: "My bleeding-edge custom-designed CPU which I requested from some friends at Intel does contain this feature, although you won't find it on the cutting-edge chips reviewed here."
Anti-example: "The bleeding-edge US government (elected scant years ago!) today acted to outlaw the bleeding-edge innovation in music sharing, that is the mp3. Many bleeding-edge innovations in CS are expected to be affected,including Valve's bleeding-edge action shooter Half Life 2, which uses mp3 format for its bleeding-edge musical score."
A better term in this case would be "recent."
why do people think that half life is based on the quake II engine? Half Life 1 was based on quake I, Half Life 2 is a completely new engine.
because liberals don't try to deny evolution.
If there's no universal time than "instant" communication obviously makes no sense which was the whole point of my thought experiment.
The car does see the light travel at the velocity C relative to the car. However, because he and the observer are moving apart at .5C, the car sees the light move at only .5C relative to the observer.
the car, on the other hand, is moving away from the observer at .5C. So if it saw the light as moving toward the observer at C, then the light would be moving away from the car at 1.5C - an impossibility. The car sees the light receding from it at C, which means that from the car's point of view the light is covering the original distance to the observer at a rate of only .5C.
according to relativity, the car moving away from the observer is equivalent to the observer moving away from the car. So it might be easier to think of it as the observer moving away from the car. From his perspective, even though he's moving away from it, the light travels toward him at C. From the car's perspective, the observer is moving away from the light and hence the light, traveling at C, is only travelling at .5C relative to the observer.
set it up like this. The car is 1 light minute from an observer. It's travelling away from the observer at .5C. It flashes its rear lights.
from the observer's point of view, it will see the headlights flash 1 minute later. It communicates this instantly to the car, so the car finds out about this at T+1 minute.
Now from the car's perspective, the light is moving away from it at C, but it's moving forward at .5C, so the light is only getting closer to the observer at .5C. Hence it takes two minutes to reach the observer. At T+1 minute, the light has not reached the observer. So the guy in the car is surprised by the announcement that it has, and sends back an instant communique for confirmation.
"Confirmation?" asks the observer, "I haven't sent you anything yet!" After all the light has not yet reached the observer, so how could he have sent the communication?
This is the theoretical problem with instant communication. It breaks the principle of causality. This principle has never been observed to have been broken, and is basic to our understanding of the universe.
This is why it is unlikely that an instantaneous communication device will ever be invented. Quantum entanglement has been shown not to allow such a device - the entanglement does not transmit any information.
Armies must be constantly tested in the real world (that means wars) or they will not know what is effective and what is not. Sort of like compiling a program to work out the bugs. If the American army stopped going to war as regularly as it did, soon you would see far more silly initiatives and such, because there would be no consequence. This is a nuance which liberals often miss in their "anti-war" stance.
These guys are great at fighting terrorism in a game that has almost no relation to real life. Counter strike tactics would get them killed very quickly in real life (they die in the game after all, only it doesn't matter so much).
This is utterly ridiculous. Like horses worried about car exhaust. We ruthlessly kill bacteria and bugs and such as a matter of course because we are so much superior to them, but then nanotechnology is as superior to us as we are to bugs, and yet we protest at dying to support its first stirrings! Truly the human race is the most arrogant, if not the most intelligent, thing that will ever exist on the planet!
Is there a linux version of this software?
I'm personally startled by the degree to which "shoot and reload" games like Thief 1(1998) have been replaced by stealthy games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Surely it heralds a new era of gaming!!!!!
It is a time-memory tradeoff. They come up with a "reduction function" R, which maps hashes into keys. It is not a reversal of the md5 algorithm, it just generates some key based on the hash. Then they create sequences of hash, key, hash, key, hash, key... with each key being the reduction function applied to the previous hash, and each hash being the hash function applied to the previous key. They stop their sequences when they reach "distinguished values," which may e.g. have 0's for the first 12 bits. Then they store the start and endpoints of the sequence.
So now they have a list of start and endpoints for these chains of hashes and keys. To crack a hash, they apply the same process to it - reduction function, hash, reduction function, hash, until they reach a value that is in their table of endpoints. Then they begin at the startpoint associated with that endpoint, and regenerate the sequence up to the hash they're trying to crack. Since the key directly before that hash hashes to that hash, they've successfully cracked the hash.
The "rainbow" refers to the recent innovation of using a different reduction function for each step of the sequence, i.e. using R1 on the first hash, R2 on the second, etc. This means that, even if two sequences contain the same hash, they probably won't be exactly the same after that - a significant problem with the older method of having a single reduction function.
If you want to read about this in more detail with math symbols and such, the pdf is linked from the site.
Al Qaeda is very experienced at providing CAVEs to a wide variety of businesses.
There are several recent series which I, at least, liked a lot. "Monster," "Last Exile," "Gilgamesh." Even if you disagree that these are any good, they're certainly inventive and interesting.
There's also a certain tendency to think only of the good when considering the past. You remember "Citizen Kane," but not the dozens of awful movies that came out the same year. Same thing applies with anime.
As a final point, Cowboy Bebop sucked.
1) it is not FTL communication. No information is transmitted.
2) The theory of relativity already takes into account the fact that time can be bent. It is my understanding that general relativity considers the universe as a 4-dimensional space which can be distorted by various effects.
3) time can be nonlinear without being entirely reversible. Causality remains in the theory of relativity, which is well-accepted at this point, even though the theory also incorporates nonlinear time.
People need to get this straight. For some hilarious examples of people believing that quantum entanglement can be used for communications, see the scientifically ridiculous movie "The Core" and this slashdot article
I'm sure it will become "in vogue" for the equation for a linear regression to spit out a negative slope any day now.
Random noise should be slightly smaller as a .bmp in most cases.
Good job dodging everything I said.