If you want to laugh harder, go find and watch some of the anti-drug (well anit-pot mostly) propaganda from the late 60's, I'm pretty shure that is what he's refering to.
Seems pot back then made one a violent satan worshiping pagan hippy who would protest the government's noble defence of democracy in south-east asia in between the orgies they would drag your young daughter into through decption.
For some reason that once dominant strain of 'loco weed' seems to have died off, all we get now is a few relaxed hours of slowed brain and sped up appetite, sometimes accompanied by mild paranoia and/or the giggles.
When someone says people of group a have an advantage/disadvantage in x relative to people of group b, that person is eigther right or wrong. That person is also eigther biggoted or not. One does not depend on the other.
Knowing what genetic traits are connected to what other traits can be usefull info to society, the real problems arrise when actuall biggots try to use that data as an excuse to justify thier warped views of superiority and inferiority and hatred. Or when that data is used to discriminate in areas where society has a vested intrest, and moral/ethical intrest, in thier being no such discrimination.
Properly used this sort of info can help. Just like knowing your familly history for heart-attacks or breast cancer is good thing if you use it for preventive care and a bad thing when insurance companies refuse you coverage or charge ruinious rates.
Just so long as you don't try to actually talk to someone using the speaker phone.
I've worked jobs where answering a lot of calls from customers. EVERY time someone tried to use a speaker phone to actually talk they were unintelligible, and would invariably get all ticked when you suggested they do it any other way. The person on the speaker phone end can usually hear you well enough, but not the other way around.
If I heard the obvious garbage noise of someone trying to talk into one of those abominations I'd simply say "I'm sorry, you eigther have a bad line or speakerphone and there is no way I can make any sense out of what your saying."
This would invariably be followed by five or six attempts to talk back without picking up the phone. With the acoustics of the sound changing and puzzling out a word or two would tell me they were trying to move the phone or do something other than pick up the damn phone to be heard.
I quickly reached a point where I changed what i said to more of "I'm sorry, it sounds like we have a bad connection or speaker phone on your end. Our phone system hear is incompatable with speakerphones so all I'm hearing is wierd echoed whine, though I've been told I sound fine by others with speakerphones, you'll have to pick up the handset or call back." then if they did the screw with it routine I'd tell them "I'm sorry it must be a bad line as it's not improving, please call back" and hang up.
Otherwise I'd wind up spending 20 minutes on what should take five mostly and succede in only pissing off the speaker phone owner and leaving a bunch of customers on hold pissing them off. I'm not going to piss off a bunch of customers to try and make just one happy when it wont happen anyway.
It always amazed my how often people would react like I'd insulted them and called thier mother names simply because thier speakerphones rendered them unintelligible.
Yeah you could say it's a speed issue. one way to look at it is that you <I> could simulate a 16 processor computer on a 1 processor computer, but it would take 16 times as long plus the overhead. Assuming that the single processor computer is running the same processor as the 16 processor computer is using 16 of.
A quantum computer is sorta running all possible keys at ONCE, to simulate this a transistor computer would have to simulate each quantum state iserially, effectively trying each key one after the other while maintaining the overhead of pretenting to be a quantum computer. Whereas normal brute forceing is just trying each key one after the other.
You should always be able to brute force the key faster than simulating a quantum computer trying all of them.
And modern ciphers such as des and aes rely on brute forcing the keys taking WAY to long to be pratical.
Though what's practical depends on how long your willing to wait for an answer and how much $$ (hardware) your willing to throw at it. If some scientist had come up with a universal cure for cancer that also extended quality life-span to 200+ years and proved it, but fell off a cliff without explaining it and the only copy of how it worked was locked behind encryption I'm quite shure putting a few billion dollars of computer power on the task 24/7 for a decade would be considered quite pratical. The e-mail of joe blow admitting he stole a few hundreed dollars while working at McDonalds however is probably not practicle to do more than check if it's rot-13 'encrypted or not'.
That is not it. The articles I read were specifically discussing a DES mode, that when used in 3-des, with different sub-keys, had a potential weakness that rendered the resulting ciphertext no more protected than simple des.
What your talking about is a deliberate drop to DES levels, this is flaw in trying to do 3passes with des in a certain mode that renders the results no more secure than with a single 56key.
Though most of the articles indicate the theoretical attack isn't very pratical (large volume attacks with known plaintext to extract the key), the total actuall time is on par with single des. The fear is that this shows a fundemental weakness that could have a more practical exploit.
Try a google on 3des weakness. here's a snippet from one of the links.
"The time requirements for the attacks are not much more than for breaking single DES, but the chosen ciphertext and chosen key requirements are the show stoppers. To pull these off, you really must have access to the encryption process, as it is unlikely your adversary will be a willing accomplice. But if you can get that kind of access, you can probably get plaintext and keys by much simpler methods. Folks like Eric Thompson at AccessData Corp. do this all the time.
Cryptographers worry about these flaws, however, as they might be signs of weaknesses that could be exploited by more practical means. So codes are designed to withstand even theoretical attacks like this. The version of Triple-DES that Biham and Knudsen attacked had already undergone several rounds of revisions to patch up other weaknesses. One has to wonder, however, whether the quest for a method that withstands all theoretical attacks is worth the effort or even has an end."
That's from:http://lists.jammed.com/IWAR/1998/03/0033.html
While I don't know how reliable/trustworthy/knowledgeable that source is, but all the others I've seen say simular things. Of course it's possible I'm missing something here not being a cryptographer, but it shure looks like 3des has, at least theoreticly, issues.
My real point though was that blindly chaining ciphers has potential pitfalls that may be non-obvious as well as adding cpu-time consumeing complexity.
I suppose if you could send 'guestimates' a few frames ahead to several remote cpus for some degree of pre-processing then just grab whichever result is correct at the right time might work, kinda like branch prediction in modern cpus though, if your guesses aren't good enough you waste the extra cpus AND any overhead involved in your guesswork scheme.
Of course to benifit your predictive shceme is going to have to be good enough to pay for it's own overhead.
And of course your could offload less time sensitive things and do more time dependand things locally as another poster suggests.
A good case can go a long way there. I went from a generec beige monster (FULL tower, 6 5.25 bays and 3 3.5 external) to a cooler master. While the OCD types who really work at it can do much better, the difference I notice was rather significant for me. I'm down to a quite hum I can't hear over the room fan I use to circulate air and drown oustide noises out with.
Actually someone HAS just started to offer pentium-m mobo's for desktop systems. IIRC it got mentioned here on/. about a month ago.
Though this is new enough I wouldn't expect to find them on the shelves or in shipping systems yet.
The difference here is instead of cache, you have localized memory. Cache just maps some external ram adress so they pull from a small on board bank of very fast ram. This adds the complexity of making shure that the cache has the same data as the ram.
With what the cell apears to be doing you just load the whole chunk of code to be run by the an apu into its local memory. Then you don't have to worry about the slower mainboard ram untill you have something to put back, which I assume can go anywhere that's free at the moment.
Also with conventional cache schemes you have to pay attention to how the code executes to make shure ALL of that fast loop will fit in cache, and that it winds up there. Modern compilers and such do a lot (practically all if given a specific processor to target) of this work for you, but with cells what winds up in the local memory each apu has is determinable in a more direct fashion. In fact this is part of how you program them, rather than being a programming mechanism to take advantage of a crutch designed to deal with the disparities of speed between processors and normal ram.
Think of it like this, what if your pc's ram was all at full core speed and your hard-drive was as fast as 400mhz ddr. It's somewhat analogous as the apu treats the high-spead local memory like your cpu treats ram and treats the off chip ram like a hdd, it loads each task from ram into it's local memory, executes it, saves the results back out ram, or ships them over to another apu on the chip for another process to use.
At least that is kinda how I see it.
As you indirectly imply this comes down to nature vs nurture.
Girls are routinely told that they wont be that good at math. Now the question is: is this a self fullfilling prophesy (who want's to put out a lot of effort to be mediocre at best?), or does it have some biological basis in fact?
Personally I suspect the latter, but it is possible that potential ability with math and some other things might by 'set' by the time one reaches a certain age. Like how past a certain age(around 6-8 years IIRC) the brain shuts down (or more likely re-purposes) much of it's language aquisition ability making learning a new language in high school/college much harder than it would be in pre-school. It could be that how much of the brain is geared to learning math is determined by factors prior to some specific age (or more likely age range).
A friend of mine only recently got a new drivers liscense. I'm not shure if he had one before.
Of course loosing an eye in a major accident when he was younger rather left him with a lack of desire to travel by car much, let alone drive one.
He's fine now, but to add insult to injury his sister (a nice girl, much more than nice looking) recently got into a BAD accident about a 6-7 weeks ago.
Actually manual steering was still NORMAL on some cars sold as late as 1997.
I'm not talking about 3rd world cars, or kit cars for replicas of antiques or other such things, I'm talking cars made by a major manufacturer and sold in the US and Canada.
I know I own one. The Ford Aspire was sold sans power steering, by design. Though I believe it was an option, but I bought mine used in 2000.
It actually steers quite well at most speeds, just a tad stiff under 5mph (approx 8kmh).
Mycroft
Re:Look closer, there are those who just chat.
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
Problem is if they (IRCOPS) start 'cleaning' up thier servers in some jurisdiction this makes them liable for EVERYTHING. Do nothing and at worst some of your users get in trouble for thier own stupidity/bad luck. Do anything and the first time someone gets caught doing something bad you go down as an accomplice or contributor or careless in the leagly liable meaning of the word.
So if you're and IRCOP or simular already working on keeping the thing up and running which would you rather do: add on more work and risk jail time and fines, or stick to fixing net-splits, code glitches that op everyone, dealing with people chan-flooding, etc. ?
I hope you live in a different country than the usa then. Here by 'keeping most of that crap off our network' you likely increase the chances that you can be held liable for the ones that get through.
The theory being that since you police your network to eleminate some types of material you are supporting anything you don't remove.
Of course having the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, err I mean disclaimers and acceptable use policies, placed prominently you might be able to mitigate this.
However IANAL and may not be accurate in my understanding so get a qualified lawyer if you want actual leagle advice which this isn't.
Mycroft
Re:IRC analysis fatally flawed
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
Actually he said the largest 6 channels on each of the ten largest irc networks.
If it'd been the TOP 60 channels from a list command it'd have been more like:
#####!!!!111111sex
##########AAAAAA!all_first_timers
#######1111000spankmymonkey...
at least that's what I remember from my irc days in the late 90's.
Actually 3des is the broken one I was refering to but couldn't recall the name of. In some circumstances it winds up no more secure than normal des.
DES uses 56bit keys, 3des uses 3 passes with different keys for each pass. The problem apparently lies in the fact that des has several 'modes' that can be used to encrypt. One of these modes renders 3des's 168 bit key actually no stronger than 56 bits in regular des.
The concept that simply stacking encryption methods will result in stronger encryption is not always right as the kinds of math operation used might have cummulative properties that expose risks not otherwise present in any single encryption scheme.
I would imagine that it's neigther a common happening, nor necessarily easy to find or take advantage of. But then again solid encryption isn't so trivial itself. However all it takes for one person to figure out how to break it and post a howto.
This is in part why 3des is being as a crypto standard for many institutions that MUST have secure crypto.
Because you'd be simulating a process that would require more cpu power than simply brute forcing the problem would use.
As poster above explained, it would take as long as doing it the hard way with a regular computer PLUS the overhead of the simulation.
IANAC, but as I understand it in some cases this might actually make it easier to crack. Or at least I remeber reading where one cipher with a limited keysize was chained with itself such that the first part of a longer key was used the first time through, the second part on the second time through, ect. And there was some speculation that this could actually make the cipher weaker for some subset of keys. This is all kinda vauge memory so if I'm missrembering or someone has better explanation please step up.
The other problem is some ciphers use a fair amount of cpu power, the more that are chained together the longer it takes to encypt the plaintext. Indeed IIRC public key crypto like we're used to hearing about is most often used to just encrypt the key for a faster symetric cypher (same key encodes and decodes) that is harder to break for a given keysize because public key (asymetric) is too cpu intensive for many tasks, especially on embeded systems and older computers with weaker processors.
That sounds a bit like the kinda 'insight' one gets in the last couple hours of a mild acid trip.
Not that I'm calling names or being disparraging, I am just speaking from (ancient) experience. The ressonance with my memory of such events over a decade ago was to strong to ignore.
Well considering when I did it for ep1 (just mostly overnight) the variety of people I met were pretty cool. And yes they mostly had jobs, including one police officer. Kinda freaked out a couple of my friends when he first pulled up (just off work, still in uniform, driving his police car) as we figured we were going to be chased off (that and the fact it was NOT tobbaco in thier cigaretts). But he just asked if we were waiting in line for ep1 one, said "cool" when we said yes, parked, swapped uniform shirt for sweater and joined in. Even did his fair share of getting the right answers to random questions from the SW trivial pursuit (though nobody could answer as many as one guy, who often gave the answer PLUS the reason for the answer, and probably knew the best grips son's best freind's middle name).
Even had a couple of the local tv stations film a few seconds for a short bit on the news about time the crowds started to show up.
Friendly nit (based on opinion, common opinion, but opinion nonetheless). HE did do something great, problem is he tried to follow up on it and failed, not to mention he tampered with the original in an attempt to improve it and failed.
Still he had a hand in the Indiana Jones trillogy, that has to count for something.
I waited in line for the ep1 from about 3 am myself, there was a smallish group of us. Was much more fun than the movie, which if it hadn't been (according to Lucas anyway) a starwars movie woulda been o.k., not horrid, not good, just o.k.
Then they choose who went first (to buy tickets) by a lottery system.
Ignoring that you are probably a troll and the whole thing is off topic. But the only part you got right in your interpretation is the word unorganized. Even that's not quite a bingo.
Seems the person your responding to might know more about it than you do. The founding fathers SPECIFICALLY said they meant all male adults not senile or insane, when they said militia.
They meant trained in using thier guns and able to work together when they said regulated.
Regulated back then was a referent to mechanical terminology as in 'a well regulated machine'. Just like gay once ment happy and carefree, but has come to be more used in conjunction with the homosexual community today.
Also the statistics don't say what you seem to think they say.
Comparing say Japans various crime rates to Nigeria's to the U.S.'s fails to figure in cultural differences. However once you compare simular locals within the us with differing legislation on guns you find an interesting tendancy, criminals don't like an armed populous and people generaly don't tend to go on shootings spree's just because guns are easier to own (just like most road rage involves the middle finger and a few words, not ramming the idiot who just cut you off only to slow down for no reason).
Hmm well I can understand your worry I guess. Though I kinda like most of the changes (the goal is still the same, only difference is they KNOW the name of earth in this version).
I guesse one of the reasons I like what I've seen sofar is that this feels like what BSG could have been, kinda like the promise the original series had, but never quite lived up to. Though a LOT of shows in that era did that to me, I thought they were o.k., but could be great if they ever decided to put some real effort into the story.
The other thing I like is it looks like this is going to be more serial in nature with some real continuity.
Still the only time I've ever come close to your problem of the remake spoiling the original is the butchers job they did on Starship Troopers, I could've liked it if they'd just not tried to lie and claim it had anything to do with the book.
Well in your case if my advice is worth anything (hmm, anonymous stranger on the 'net? don't see likely value there:/ ) Your best bet is to probably ask a freind or two who's seen both thier opinion and derive the risk based on your knowledge of them and thier tastes.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to laugh harder, go find and watch some of the anti-drug (well anit-pot mostly) propaganda from the late 60's, I'm pretty shure that is what he's refering to.
Seems pot back then made one a violent satan worshiping pagan hippy who would protest the government's noble defence of democracy in south-east asia in between the orgies they would drag your young daughter into through decption.
For some reason that once dominant strain of 'loco weed' seems to have died off, all we get now is a few relaxed hours of slowed brain and sped up appetite, sometimes accompanied by mild paranoia and/or the giggles.
Mycroft
When someone says people of group a have an advantage/disadvantage in x relative to people of group b, that person is eigther right or wrong. That person is also eigther biggoted or not. One does not depend on the other.
Knowing what genetic traits are connected to what other traits can be usefull info to society, the real problems arrise when actuall biggots try to use that data as an excuse to justify thier warped views of superiority and inferiority and hatred. Or when that data is used to discriminate in areas where society has a vested intrest, and moral/ethical intrest, in thier being no such discrimination.
Properly used this sort of info can help. Just like knowing your familly history for heart-attacks or breast cancer is good thing if you use it for preventive care and a bad thing when insurance companies refuse you coverage or charge ruinious rates.
Mycroft
Just so long as you don't try to actually talk to someone using the speaker phone.
I've worked jobs where answering a lot of calls from customers. EVERY time someone tried to use a speaker phone to actually talk they were unintelligible, and would invariably get all ticked when you suggested they do it any other way. The person on the speaker phone end can usually hear you well enough, but not the other way around.
If I heard the obvious garbage noise of someone trying to talk into one of those abominations I'd simply say "I'm sorry, you eigther have a bad line or speakerphone and there is no way I can make any sense out of what your saying."
This would invariably be followed by five or six attempts to talk back without picking up the phone. With the acoustics of the sound changing and puzzling out a word or two would tell me they were trying to move the phone or do something other than pick up the damn phone to be heard.
I quickly reached a point where I changed what i said to more of "I'm sorry, it sounds like we have a bad connection or speaker phone on your end. Our phone system hear is incompatable with speakerphones so all I'm hearing is wierd echoed whine, though I've been told I sound fine by others with speakerphones, you'll have to pick up the handset or call back." then if they did the screw with it routine I'd tell them "I'm sorry it must be a bad line as it's not improving, please call back" and hang up.
Otherwise I'd wind up spending 20 minutes on what should take five mostly and succede in only pissing off the speaker phone owner and leaving a bunch of customers on hold pissing them off. I'm not going to piss off a bunch of customers to try and make just one happy when it wont happen anyway.
It always amazed my how often people would react like I'd insulted them and called thier mother names simply because thier speakerphones rendered them unintelligible.
Mycroft
Yeah you could say it's a speed issue.
one way to look at it is that you <I> could simulate a 16 processor computer on a 1 processor computer, but it would take 16 times as long plus the overhead. Assuming that the single processor computer is running the same processor as the 16 processor computer is using 16 of.
A quantum computer is sorta running all possible keys at ONCE, to simulate this a transistor computer would have to simulate each quantum state iserially, effectively trying each key one after the other while maintaining the overhead of pretenting to be a quantum computer. Whereas normal brute forceing is just trying each key one after the other.
You should always be able to brute force the key faster than simulating a quantum computer trying all of them.
And modern ciphers such as des and aes rely on brute forcing the keys taking WAY to long to be pratical.
Though what's practical depends on how long your willing to wait for an answer and how much $$ (hardware) your willing to throw at it. If some scientist had come up with a universal cure for cancer that also extended quality life-span to 200+ years and proved it, but fell off a cliff without explaining it and the only copy of how it worked was locked behind encryption I'm quite shure putting a few billion dollars of computer power on the task 24/7 for a decade would be considered quite pratical. The e-mail of joe blow admitting he stole a few hundreed dollars while working at McDonalds however is probably not practicle to do more than check if it's rot-13 'encrypted or not'.
Mycroft
What your talking about is a deliberate drop to DES levels, this is flaw in trying to do 3passes with des in a certain mode that renders the results no more secure than with a single 56key.
Though most of the articles indicate the theoretical attack isn't very pratical (large volume attacks with known plaintext to extract the key), the total actuall time is on par with single des. The fear is that this shows a fundemental weakness that could have a more practical exploit.
Try a google on 3des weakness. here's a snippet from one of the links.
That's from
While I don't know how reliable/trustworthy/knowledgeable that source is, but all the others I've seen say simular things. Of course it's possible I'm missing something here not being a cryptographer, but it shure looks like 3des has, at least theoreticly, issues.
My real point though was that blindly chaining ciphers has potential pitfalls that may be non-obvious as well as adding cpu-time consumeing complexity.
Mycroft
I suppose if you could send 'guestimates' a few frames ahead to several remote cpus for some degree of pre-processing then just grab whichever result is correct at the right time might work, kinda like branch prediction in modern cpus though, if your guesses aren't good enough you waste the extra cpus AND any overhead involved in your guesswork scheme.
Of course to benifit your predictive shceme is going to have to be good enough to pay for it's own overhead.
And of course your could offload less time sensitive things and do more time dependand things locally as another poster suggests.
Mycroft
A good case can go a long way there. I went from a generec beige monster (FULL tower, 6 5.25 bays and 3 3.5 external) to a cooler master. While the OCD types who really work at it can do much better, the difference I notice was rather significant for me. I'm down to a quite hum I can't hear over the room fan I use to circulate air and drown oustide noises out with.
Mycroft
Actually someone HAS just started to offer pentium-m mobo's for desktop systems. IIRC it got mentioned here on /. about a month ago.
Though this is new enough I wouldn't expect to find them on the shelves or in shipping systems yet.
Mycroft
The difference here is instead of cache, you have localized memory. Cache just maps some external ram adress so they pull from a small on board bank of very fast ram. This adds the complexity of making shure that the cache has the same data as the ram.
With what the cell apears to be doing you just load the whole chunk of code to be run by the an apu into its local memory. Then you don't have to worry about the slower mainboard ram untill you have something to put back, which I assume can go anywhere that's free at the moment.
Also with conventional cache schemes you have to pay attention to how the code executes to make shure ALL of that fast loop will fit in cache, and that it winds up there. Modern compilers and such do a lot (practically all if given a specific processor to target) of this work for you, but with cells what winds up in the local memory each apu has is determinable in a more direct fashion. In fact this is part of how you program them, rather than being a programming mechanism to take advantage of a crutch designed to deal with the disparities of speed between processors and normal ram.
Think of it like this, what if your pc's ram was all at full core speed and your hard-drive was as fast as 400mhz ddr. It's somewhat analogous as the apu treats the high-spead local memory like your cpu treats ram and treats the off chip ram like a hdd, it loads each task from ram into it's local memory, executes it, saves the results back out ram, or ships them over to another apu on the chip for another process to use.
At least that is kinda how I see it.
Mycroft
As you indirectly imply this comes down to nature vs nurture.
Girls are routinely told that they wont be that good at math. Now the question is: is this a self fullfilling prophesy (who want's to put out a lot of effort to be mediocre at best?), or does it have some biological basis in fact?
Personally I suspect the latter, but it is possible that potential ability with math and some other things might by 'set' by the time one reaches a certain age. Like how past a certain age(around 6-8 years IIRC) the brain shuts down (or more likely re-purposes) much of it's language aquisition ability making learning a new language in high school/college much harder than it would be in pre-school. It could be that how much of the brain is geared to learning math is determined by factors prior to some specific age (or more likely age range).
Mycroft
What happens if your swap religeous belief for political ideology? They're both equally mutable.
Mycroft
A friend of mine only recently got a new drivers liscense. I'm not shure if he had one before.
Of course loosing an eye in a major accident when he was younger rather left him with a lack of desire to travel by car much, let alone drive one.
He's fine now, but to add insult to injury his sister (a nice girl, much more than nice looking) recently got into a BAD accident about a 6-7 weeks ago.
Mycroft
Actually manual steering was still NORMAL on some cars sold as late as 1997.
I'm not talking about 3rd world cars, or kit cars for replicas of antiques or other such things, I'm talking cars made by a major manufacturer and sold in the US and Canada.
I know I own one. The Ford Aspire was sold sans power steering, by design. Though I believe it was an option, but I bought mine used in 2000.
It actually steers quite well at most speeds, just a tad stiff under 5mph (approx 8kmh).
Mycroft
Problem is if they (IRCOPS) start 'cleaning' up thier servers in some jurisdiction this makes them liable for EVERYTHING. Do nothing and at worst some of your users get in trouble for thier own stupidity/bad luck. Do anything and the first time someone gets caught doing something bad you go down as an accomplice or contributor or careless in the leagly liable meaning of the word.
So if you're and IRCOP or simular already working on keeping the thing up and running which would you rather do: add on more work and risk jail time and fines, or stick to fixing net-splits, code glitches that op everyone, dealing with people chan-flooding, etc. ?
Mycroft
I hope you live in a different country than the usa then. Here by 'keeping most of that crap off our network' you likely increase the chances that you can be held liable for the ones that get through.
The theory being that since you police your network to eleminate some types of material you are supporting anything you don't remove.
Of course having the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, err I mean disclaimers and acceptable use policies, placed prominently you might be able to mitigate this.
However IANAL and may not be accurate in my understanding so get a qualified lawyer if you want actual leagle advice which this isn't.
Mycroft
Actually he said the largest 6 channels on each of the ten largest irc networks. ...
If it'd been the TOP 60 channels from a list command it'd have been more like:
#####!!!!111111sex
##########AAAAAA!all_first_timers
#######1111000spankmymonkey
at least that's what I remember from my irc days in the late 90's.
Mycroft
Actually 3des is the broken one I was refering to but couldn't recall the name of. In some circumstances it winds up no more secure than normal des.
DES uses 56bit keys, 3des uses 3 passes with different keys for each pass. The problem apparently lies in the fact that des has several 'modes' that can be used to encrypt. One of these modes renders 3des's 168 bit key actually no stronger than 56 bits in regular des.
The concept that simply stacking encryption methods will result in stronger encryption is not always right as the kinds of math operation used might have cummulative properties that expose risks not otherwise present in any single encryption scheme.
I would imagine that it's neigther a common happening, nor necessarily easy to find or take advantage of. But then again solid encryption isn't so trivial itself. However all it takes for one person to figure out how to break it and post a howto.
This is in part why 3des is being as a crypto standard for many institutions that MUST have secure crypto.
Mycroft
Because you'd be simulating a process that would require more cpu power than simply brute forcing the problem would use.
As poster above explained, it would take as long as doing it the hard way with a regular computer PLUS the overhead of the simulation.
Mycroft
IANAC, but as I understand it in some cases this might actually make it easier to crack. Or at least I remeber reading where one cipher with a limited keysize was chained with itself such that the first part of a longer key was used the first time through, the second part on the second time through, ect. And there was some speculation that this could actually make the cipher weaker for some subset of keys. This is all kinda vauge memory so if I'm missrembering or someone has better explanation please step up.
The other problem is some ciphers use a fair amount of cpu power, the more that are chained together the longer it takes to encypt the plaintext. Indeed IIRC public key crypto like we're used to hearing about is most often used to just encrypt the key for a faster symetric cypher (same key encodes and decodes) that is harder to break for a given keysize because public key (asymetric) is too cpu intensive for many tasks, especially on embeded systems and older computers with weaker processors.
Mycroft
That sounds a bit like the kinda 'insight' one gets in the last couple hours of a mild acid trip.
Not that I'm calling names or being disparraging, I am just speaking from (ancient) experience. The ressonance with my memory of such events over a decade ago was to strong to ignore.
Mycroft
Well considering when I did it for ep1 (just mostly overnight) the variety of people I met were pretty cool. And yes they mostly had jobs, including one police officer. Kinda freaked out a couple of my friends when he first pulled up (just off work, still in uniform, driving his police car) as we figured we were going to be chased off (that and the fact it was NOT tobbaco in thier cigaretts). But he just asked if we were waiting in line for ep1 one, said "cool" when we said yes, parked, swapped uniform shirt for sweater and joined in. Even did his fair share of getting the right answers to random questions from the SW trivial pursuit (though nobody could answer as many as one guy, who often gave the answer PLUS the reason for the answer, and probably knew the best grips son's best freind's middle name) .
Even had a couple of the local tv stations film a few seconds for a short bit on the news about time the crowds started to show up.
Mycroft
Friendly nit (based on opinion, common opinion, but opinion nonetheless). HE did do something great, problem is he tried to follow up on it and failed, not to mention he tampered with the original in an attempt to improve it and failed.
Still he had a hand in the Indiana Jones trillogy, that has to count for something.
Mycroft
I waited in line for the ep1 from about 3 am myself, there was a smallish group of us. Was much more fun than the movie, which if it hadn't been (according to Lucas anyway) a starwars movie woulda been o.k., not horrid, not good, just o.k.
Then they choose who went first (to buy tickets) by a lottery system.
Mycroft
Ignoring that you are probably a troll and the
whole thing is off topic. But the only part you got right in your interpretation is the word unorganized. Even that's not quite a bingo.
Seems the person your responding to might know more about it than you do. The founding fathers SPECIFICALLY said they meant all male adults not senile or insane, when they said militia.
They meant trained in using thier guns and able to work together when they said regulated.
Regulated back then was a referent to mechanical terminology as in 'a well regulated machine'. Just like gay once ment happy and carefree, but has come to be more used in conjunction with the homosexual community today.
Also the statistics don't say what you seem to think they say.
Comparing say Japans various crime rates to Nigeria's to the U.S.'s fails to figure in cultural differences. However once you compare simular locals within the us with differing legislation on guns you find an interesting tendancy, criminals don't like an armed populous and people generaly don't tend to go on shootings spree's just because guns are easier to own (just like most road rage involves the middle finger and a few words, not ramming the idiot who just cut you off only to slow down for no reason).
Mycroft
Hmm well I can understand your worry I guess. :/ ) Your best bet is to probably ask a freind or two who's seen both thier opinion and derive the risk based on your knowledge of them and thier tastes.
Though I kinda like most of the changes (the goal is still the same, only difference is they KNOW the name of earth in this version).
I guesse one of the reasons I like what I've seen sofar is that this feels like what BSG could have been, kinda like the promise the original series had, but never quite lived up to. Though a LOT of shows in that era did that to me, I thought they were o.k., but could be great if they ever decided to put some real effort into the story.
The other thing I like is it looks like this is going to be more serial in nature with some real continuity.
Still the only time I've ever come close to your problem of the remake spoiling the original is the butchers job they did on Starship Troopers, I could've liked it if they'd just not tried to lie and claim it had anything to do with the book.
Well in your case if my advice is worth anything (hmm, anonymous stranger on the 'net? don't see likely value there
Mycroft