Note that my suggested attack does nowhere assume that I'm encrypting a number myself. I'm taking encrypted numbers (whoever uses the service will submit such numbers), and do all my calculations with them. If all numbers used within a single calculation have the same random key (which I expect to be necessary in order to combine them without decoding), I'll likely find the two(!) numbers I need.
Of course the decrypted results will tell me nothing about the encoding used for the next submitted calculation. But that only means that I'll have to repeat the attack for each calculation separately. If I know that in this calculation, 0 is encoded by 0x12345678, it likely won't be in the next calculation. However, it doesn't need to be, I'll just take a number from the next calculation and subtract it from itself to get the new representation of zero.
I don't know about the U.S., but here in Germany, paying the cable does not pay the TV broadcasters. It's just like with the internet: You pay your provider for the delivery, but the content providers are separate. You can also get the very same stations per satellite (where you don't have to pay because the senders pay all the transmission fees).
Yeah, the main reason for the success of the IBM PC was that it was more open than the competition (in the sense of: everybody could build a clone, driving the price down), combined with the fact that it was from IBM (making businesses more likely to buy it).
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Of course the majority of people are non-nerds and love talking to other people.
Well, they didn't predict the end of the keyboard and screen. They predicted the end of the PC. Your TV might double as screen for cloud computing/online apps, and your keyboard then may connect to your TV instead of your computer. No, I'm not advocating that model; I prefer my own PC. But I guess many people would prefer the TV/cloud model to the dedicated computer model, if only because it means one less box standing around.
I am worried, though, that the cost of owning a content-creation system will skyrocket. Today a few hundred bucks gets you in the door with a cheap PC. If OS X continues iOS-ification and Windows similarly dumbs itself down, what becomes the content-creation OS of choice?
Linux. After all, of all the non-Windows non-OS X operating systems it's the one with the biggest market share.
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
I do see a danger for biotechnology (especially genetics), because while we certainly will never be able to destroy the world, we will probably one day be able to genetically engineer deadly illnesses with the potential to wipe out most of humanity. Of course this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do biotechnology, because banning biotechnology would not stop people determined to do that, it would only make sure that other people would not have the necessary knowledge to fight against such an engineered illness. About nanotechnology, I don't see much danger. And I don't expect seeing true strong AI in my life time. Apart from being a nice subject for SF, I don't see any reason to worry much about it now.
Life exists to procreate in the same sense as the bird's wings exist in order to enable flight. Both are at the end somewhat coincidental (for bird wings it's obvious because there are many animals without wings; of course any non-procreating life form is long extinct) and somewhat consequential (because of evolutionary pressure; if there had been no evolutionary advantage in growing wings, birds wouldn't have them), but certainly not intentional.
Biology "tries" every possible solution in the vicinity of the current ones. That's because biology is not a sentient being inventing stuff, but a natural process driven by random mutations and genetic recombination.
And BTW, biology started by the "invention" of self-replicating nanostructures. Because that's what micro-organisms are.
Actually AFAIK when the hydrogen bomb was developed, there was a fear among some involved scientists that this could ignite the oceans (because, after all, they contain a lot of hydrogen). Of course, being scientists, they didn't start protests but calculations. Those calculations showed that the fear was unfounded, and therefore they didn't any longer fear this and built the bomb.
Of course, the watering in a washing machine is more intensive than any artificial rain could be (or otherwise you'd have to deal with drowning victims at the festival). Moreover, when washing, you are adding detergents to the water. Therefore it should well be possible to design a colour which keeps sufficiently stable under normal rain (natural or artificial), but not when washing.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that my suggested attack does nowhere assume that I'm encrypting a number myself. I'm taking encrypted numbers (whoever uses the service will submit such numbers), and do all my calculations with them. If all numbers used within a single calculation have the same random key (which I expect to be necessary in order to combine them without decoding), I'll likely find the two(!) numbers I need.
Of course the decrypted results will tell me nothing about the encoding used for the next submitted calculation. But that only means that I'll have to repeat the attack for each calculation separately. If I know that in this calculation, 0 is encoded by 0x12345678, it likely won't be in the next calculation. However, it doesn't need to be, I'll just take a number from the next calculation and subtract it from itself to get the new representation of zero.
Mostly, it does. But that doesn't mean every baby step should be patentable. Patents are (or should be) for the occasional big leap.
Hmmm ... maybe I should patent a method where neither the broker nor the shipper, but a third party pushes the message. Too obvious? I don't think so!
I don't know about the U.S., but here in Germany, paying the cable does not pay the TV broadcasters. It's just like with the internet: You pay your provider for the delivery, but the content providers are separate. You can also get the very same stations per satellite (where you don't have to pay because the senders pay all the transmission fees).
Ah, so I also have a data center. I've got a router, and I even have a hard disk with data on it!
It depends. If he writes web sites about Linux, I guess the potential audience with IE6 is negligible.
Not in civilized countries.
Shooting people for any reason except to protect the life of other people is even farther off the limits.
Wasn't that the strategy they actually applied now?
Yeah, the main reason for the success of the IBM PC was that it was more open than the competition (in the sense of: everybody could build a clone, driving the price down), combined with the fact that it was from IBM (making businesses more likely to buy it).
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Of course the majority of people are non-nerds and love talking to other people.
Well, they didn't predict the end of the keyboard and screen. They predicted the end of the PC. Your TV might double as screen for cloud computing/online apps, and your keyboard then may connect to your TV instead of your computer. No, I'm not advocating that model; I prefer my own PC. But I guess many people would prefer the TV/cloud model to the dedicated computer model, if only because it means one less box standing around.
Linux. After all, of all the non-Windows non-OS X operating systems it's the one with the biggest market share.
Maybe Apples patent only covers 10" devices. You know, size matters. :-)
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
I do see a danger for biotechnology (especially genetics), because while we certainly will never be able to destroy the world, we will probably one day be able to genetically engineer deadly illnesses with the potential to wipe out most of humanity. Of course this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do biotechnology, because banning biotechnology would not stop people determined to do that, it would only make sure that other people would not have the necessary knowledge to fight against such an engineered illness. About nanotechnology, I don't see much danger. And I don't expect seeing true strong AI in my life time. Apart from being a nice subject for SF, I don't see any reason to worry much about it now.
Life exists to procreate in the same sense as the bird's wings exist in order to enable flight. Both are at the end somewhat coincidental (for bird wings it's obvious because there are many animals without wings; of course any non-procreating life form is long extinct) and somewhat consequential (because of evolutionary pressure; if there had been no evolutionary advantage in growing wings, birds wouldn't have them), but certainly not intentional.
Biology "tries" every possible solution in the vicinity of the current ones. That's because biology is not a sentient being inventing stuff, but a natural process driven by random mutations and genetic recombination.
And BTW, biology started by the "invention" of self-replicating nanostructures. Because that's what micro-organisms are.
Actually AFAIK when the hydrogen bomb was developed, there was a fear among some involved scientists that this could ignite the oceans (because, after all, they contain a lot of hydrogen). Of course, being scientists, they didn't start protests but calculations. Those calculations showed that the fear was unfounded, and therefore they didn't any longer fear this and built the bomb.
Of course, the watering in a washing machine is more intensive than any artificial rain could be (or otherwise you'd have to deal with drowning victims at the festival). Moreover, when washing, you are adding detergents to the water. Therefore it should well be possible to design a colour which keeps sufficiently stable under normal rain (natural or artificial), but not when washing.
You personally paid them $14 billion?
Sorry but there is no such thing as a "media desktop".
Yes there is. If I put media on the top of my desk, I have a media desktop.
If you decide to use Linux, you've already made a decision. Non-deciders would use Windows.
Learn to make farting noises yourself. Be a producer, not a consumer!
Yeah, that sun flare radiation makes aggressive.
Those sun flares make the brokers nervous.
Save the JWT? Why should he want to save an American advertising company?
What about Gandhi?