More like 2 million years. We're talking powers of 2 here, so 512 is not twice as hard to break as 256...257 is twice as hard to break as 256. 512 is 2^256 times as hard to break as 256.
Yea, but how do you store your key? That's the weak point. Why try to brute force 1024 bit encryption when you can brute force a 10 character password used to recover an encrypted key?
The biggest flaws in security are always on the user end.
Heh. That just means you'll have to run a calculation in your head when they ask for your key...Is what's encrypted illegal enough to get me more than 2 years? And is it well enough encrypted that they won't be able to break it anyway?
That would be the worst; not giving them the key, and having them break it anyway, so you get two years added on to whatever else they find.
The market will set the price. If 8.00 really is too much, it'll come down. If it's not enough, it'll go up.
The great thing about the market today is that p2p stands as a safety valve. When the cost becomes too high, p2p traffic goes nuts, and the stores and studios are forced to lower prices.
I'm glad to see someone finally offering movies, but I think a lot of its failure/success will depend on the DRM. 8.00 is more than I pay for most of the DVDs I buy (----bargain rack junkie), and if it's less convenient for me to get the file, I'll probably stick to buying or renting, though I don't do too much of that as it stands.
Psssh. That's gotta be a worst case scenario. In my experience, even people who are paranoid enough to encrypt things tend to be careless with their keys. I found one once where the guy had encrypted the hell out of it, and left a copy of the key in the default key gen directory. Some people just throw it in the trash, and then forget to empty the trash, or forget to secure purge it afterward, so the key can be recovered.
For big corporations and places that have enough staff to be able to implement a good crypto policy, I'd be surprised if you COULD crack it in 90 days. 256 isn't anywhere near as high as you could go if you were paranoid, and storing data that you didn't need to read all the time.
I'm not sure this technology can be pushed in that direction...Doesn't seem like they're so much slowing it down as making it take more time to get from point A to point B...fine distinction I know.
But since light traveling in a vacuum isn't really being impeded by anything, I don't know how we could speed it up, except maybe by finding some way to "flatten" the waveform without destroying it.
Eh, you can make coffee grounds with a rock, though I'm sure any number of coffee grinders have been patented. You can bet your ass that the various decaffination processes have been patented at one time or another though.
Don't confuse a mechanical patent (good thing) with an idea patent. If someone patented the idea of coffee grounds, yea, that's ridiculous, but if someone patents a machine to MAKE coffee grounds, that's completely legitimate. That's what the patent system is supposed to be for.
Because the mechanical process needed to make corn flakes was patent worthy. Corn doesn't naturally assume that shape, and it's not like they add a lot of spices or anything to it.
In my mind, depending on the process they're using to work with the beans, this may be patent worthy. If the only way to get this beverage involves some funky machinery that they had to invent, it seems like a good patent.
On the other hand, if someone else makes a completely different machine that makes the same drink in the end, I think that, too, would be a good patent.
Everything I've read suggests that, while hydrogen is indeed quite flammable when mixed with oxygen, it's tendency to disperse almost immediately coupled with it's tendency to rise quickly makes it much less volatile than gasoline in a similar situation.
The Addison Bain (pdf warning) study on the Hindenberg explosion is very interesting in its factual treatment of hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is too rich to burn, and even a large leak mixes it with air too slowly, so you'd need a very large intrusion to introduce the needed O2, and a very timely spark to hit it before it dispersed.
All that together suggests to me that hydrogen is a lot more desirable to have in a crash than gasoline.
I can understand listing the break conditions in a comment upfront, but certain types of event listeners and daemons pretty much run all the time in a while(true){} loop.
Combine that with some threading so it doesn't weigh down your operating system, and you're good to go. That's pretty much the whole principle behind inetd and web services in Linux.
I have taken the time, actually, and it is not a complex theory.
It's greatest weak point is that it immediately falls into an infinite regression. If complexity cannot evolve from natural processes but must have the influence of a creative force, whence comes the creative force?
It absolutely depends on an undesigned designer, a God as it were. Any other creative force would itself require a designer because it is a central premise of ID that complexity does not come about without design.
And as for my not having done my research, you have yet to put forth a single argument in support of ID.
Not one.
I will be happy to argue any such arguments if you can produce them.
I do apologise for my previous tone. At the end of the day I lost it and just started slanging on people. Not very constructive.
However I do stand by my point. Secular is not the same as Atheistic. If someone were to begin trying to espouse the theory that there is no God in a science class that would be just as completely out of place as someone spouting the theory that there is a God, and I would be just as much in favor of getting that crap out of the classroom.
That being said, and despite my humor farther down, two wrongs do not make a right. Adding another religious theory to a class to balance out a religious theory which should never have been there in the first place is wrong on many levels.
And finally, don't split hairs. The christian fundies are the main espousers of ID, and any attempts to make it seem pantheistic are inherently laughable...Imagine the outrage in Kansas if other theories of creation really were given equal time...I think the Islamic version would bother them most, given the current world situation, but the Hindi version would be quite unpopular as well.
If you argue pro-ID, you're arguing pro-fundamentalist christian dogma, and, as such, you cannot complain about being mistaken for a fundamentalist christian. And, as for being a Devil's Advocate, if you do not express such sentements at the start of your argument, they do not apply. Can't shake the Devils hand and say you're only kidding.
Well, having recently rebuilt a druid to be all feral, which is the pure melee tree for those who don't know druids, I can definitely say my healing has gone to hell. It's not like being a pally, where you can fight and heal at the same time. I can fight, OR I can heal, and my heals aren't anywhere near as effective.
Mind you, I freaking rule in melee. But I'm not as good a rogue as a rogue, and I'm not as good a fighter as a fighter. And the lack of a real focus bites you in the ass, as often as not.
I'll be interested to see what they can do with the pally specializations. Right now you either get a little good damage dealing with Retribution (and pay for it by being gimpy in instances), or you get solid defense with Protection, and pay for it by having zero DPS. If you go 100% Holy, you're roadkill.
I call bullshit. It took me about nine days of playing time to get to level 60 with ONE character, and thirty minutes a day for 365 days is only about 8 days of total time, which is a hell of a lot less than the average amount of time it takes to hit sixty.
Your amazing ability to level 6 characters to 60 in 80% of the time it takes a normal insane WoW junkie to hit 60 with ONE character, leads me to the only possible conclusion: No freaking way.
Taking a relatively low amount of time to 60 (ten days) and multiplying it by 6 gives me 60 days, otherwise known as 2 months, which, spread out over a year would indicate a minimum of four hours a day, and you'd have to instantly stop playing a lvl 60 as soon as you hit 60, and move on to the next one, something which seems utterly pointless and unlikely.
You know, I kinda thought they might be angling to open up the Paladins to the Horde and the Shaman's to the Alliance through their choice of new races. Blood Elven paladins aren't that much of a stretch and Pandarin shamans seem almost a given.
I certainly don't have a problem with it. I'd love to see the diehard Horde types play the freaking Paladin that they sooo incessantly complain about, and vice versa with the alliance and the supposedly unstoppable shamans.
Yea I agree, though I wish, on some level, there was a way to enforce standards.
The reality of it is, when the TLDs start trying to enforce standards they're not going to limit themselves to XHTML or whatever, they're going to try and mandate within the existing standards, and it's going to become a nightmare of buerocracy and inefficiency.
In the end, it all comes down to the browsers anyway...Whatever looks best on your browser of choice is going to be "best designed" as far as you're concerned, and this is an unusually savvy crowd. I still get people calling me about Netscape 4.7 javascript errors.
If you'd bothered to read any of this thread, you'd know that I don't give a shit about evolution as a theory. It may be superceded by a much better theory tomorrow, and I wouldn't care.
What I care about is the thing your kind hates most: The unbiased search for truth. It's not in your little book, and you just can't handle that. Far better for you to try to convince people that well documented, well tested, and sound theories are wrong on the basis of zero evidence, than to try and wrap your tiny, closed minds around one single new idea.
Somehow I missed the, "There is no God" part of science class. That's probably because it's not there.
Secular has nothing to do with Athiesm. Secular has nothing to do with any religion, and I agree with you that Athiesm is a religion.
But since Secular also has nothing to do with Christianity, you feel oppressed. Since no one is putting your views over every other religion all the time, you feel oppressed. Oh no, the poor christians. Only control the whole damn country, but they're being oppressed right out of their ability to inject their point of view into every tiny facet of american life.
And, as with all freedoms granted by the consitiution, your right to freedom of religion ends when you start trying to shove it down other peoples throats. Separation of Church and State, which was expressly written into the Consititution because the Founding Fathers were creeped out by the religious zealots that were already here, and which expressly forbids using state money to say ANYTHING AT ALL about God, means that you'll have to just brainwash your kids at home, because the schools aren't gonna do it for ya.
And thank god for that. If I wanted to live in a country dominated by religious fanatics, I'd live in Iraq.
No offense or anything, but when you point me to a page that would double as a humor site if it wasn't so sad as your "proof" that your theory isn't insane, don't even start trying to lecture me on the supposed science behind your superstition.
I have no problem with ID in a theologically centered educational environment. Church affiliated and supported schools have the right to teach any way they like.
But for public schools, schools funded by the state and federal governments, I think the teachings should remain purely secular. This will allow science to be taught without any religion feeling they are beoing slighted, and it will allow parents to more directly supervise their childs religious instruction.
Yes, this is a discussion. This is an absolutely proper place for an exchange of debated beliefs.
Pushing to have a non-scientific theory taught in a science class is an imposition of belief, just as much as if I demanded equal time for the Big Bang Theory in your church.
Slashdot Mirror
More like 2 million years. We're talking powers of 2 here, so 512 is not twice as hard to break as 256...257 is twice as hard to break as 256. 512 is 2^256 times as hard to break as 256.
They'll never do that.
1) Because it would be stupidly unpopular.
and
2) Because evil hackers could fiddle that data they're sending back, making the whole thing pointless.
Sadly pedophiles are pretty tech savvy these days, so I doubt they'd buy it. No doubt there are a couple of them lurking in this very thread. Yech.
Yea, but how do you store your key? That's the weak point. Why try to brute force 1024 bit encryption when you can brute force a 10 character password used to recover an encrypted key?
The biggest flaws in security are always on the user end.
Heh. That just means you'll have to run a calculation in your head when they ask for your key...Is what's encrypted illegal enough to get me more than 2 years? And is it well enough encrypted that they won't be able to break it anyway?
That would be the worst; not giving them the key, and having them break it anyway, so you get two years added on to whatever else they find.
Quite insightful.
The market will set the price. If 8.00 really is too much, it'll come down. If it's not enough, it'll go up.
The great thing about the market today is that p2p stands as a safety valve. When the cost becomes too high, p2p traffic goes nuts, and the stores and studios are forced to lower prices.
I'm glad to see someone finally offering movies, but I think a lot of its failure/success will depend on the DRM. 8.00 is more than I pay for most of the DVDs I buy (----bargain rack junkie), and if it's less convenient for me to get the file, I'll probably stick to buying or renting, though I don't do too much of that as it stands.
Psssh. That's gotta be a worst case scenario. In my experience, even people who are paranoid enough to encrypt things tend to be careless with their keys. I found one once where the guy had encrypted the hell out of it, and left a copy of the key in the default key gen directory. Some people just throw it in the trash, and then forget to empty the trash, or forget to secure purge it afterward, so the key can be recovered.
For big corporations and places that have enough staff to be able to implement a good crypto policy, I'd be surprised if you COULD crack it in 90 days. 256 isn't anywhere near as high as you could go if you were paranoid, and storing data that you didn't need to read all the time.
Thank you, oh obvious master of the obvious.
I'm not sure this technology can be pushed in that direction...Doesn't seem like they're so much slowing it down as making it take more time to get from point A to point B...fine distinction I know.
But since light traveling in a vacuum isn't really being impeded by anything, I don't know how we could speed it up, except maybe by finding some way to "flatten" the waveform without destroying it.
Eh, you can make coffee grounds with a rock, though I'm sure any number of coffee grinders have been patented. You can bet your ass that the various decaffination processes have been patented at one time or another though.
Don't confuse a mechanical patent (good thing) with an idea patent. If someone patented the idea of coffee grounds, yea, that's ridiculous, but if someone patents a machine to MAKE coffee grounds, that's completely legitimate. That's what the patent system is supposed to be for.
Because the mechanical process needed to make corn flakes was patent worthy. Corn doesn't naturally assume that shape, and it's not like they add a lot of spices or anything to it.
In my mind, depending on the process they're using to work with the beans, this may be patent worthy. If the only way to get this beverage involves some funky machinery that they had to invent, it seems like a good patent.
On the other hand, if someone else makes a completely different machine that makes the same drink in the end, I think that, too, would be a good patent.
Everything I've read suggests that, while hydrogen is indeed quite flammable when mixed with oxygen, it's tendency to disperse almost immediately coupled with it's tendency to rise quickly makes it much less volatile than gasoline in a similar situation.
The Addison Bain (pdf warning) study on the Hindenberg explosion is very interesting in its factual treatment of hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is too rich to burn, and even a large leak mixes it with air too slowly, so you'd need a very large intrusion to introduce the needed O2, and a very timely spark to hit it before it dispersed.
All that together suggests to me that hydrogen is a lot more desirable to have in a crash than gasoline.
Originally you couldn't have 000 as the first three numbers, but they changed that later when they started running out of numbers.
I can understand listing the break conditions in a comment upfront, but certain types of event listeners and daemons pretty much run all the time in a while(true){} loop.
Combine that with some threading so it doesn't weigh down your operating system, and you're good to go. That's pretty much the whole principle behind inetd and web services in Linux.
I have taken the time, actually, and it is not a complex theory.
It's greatest weak point is that it immediately falls into an infinite regression. If complexity cannot evolve from natural processes but must have the influence of a creative force, whence comes the creative force?
It absolutely depends on an undesigned designer, a God as it were. Any other creative force would itself require a designer because it is a central premise of ID that complexity does not come about without design.
And as for my not having done my research, you have yet to put forth a single argument in support of ID.
Not one.
I will be happy to argue any such arguments if you can produce them.
I do apologise for my previous tone. At the end of the day I lost it and just started slanging on people. Not very constructive.
However I do stand by my point. Secular is not the same as Atheistic. If someone were to begin trying to espouse the theory that there is no God in a science class that would be just as completely out of place as someone spouting the theory that there is a God, and I would be just as much in favor of getting that crap out of the classroom.
That being said, and despite my humor farther down, two wrongs do not make a right. Adding another religious theory to a class to balance out a religious theory which should never have been there in the first place is wrong on many levels.
And finally, don't split hairs. The christian fundies are the main espousers of ID, and any attempts to make it seem pantheistic are inherently laughable...Imagine the outrage in Kansas if other theories of creation really were given equal time...I think the Islamic version would bother them most, given the current world situation, but the Hindi version would be quite unpopular as well.
If you argue pro-ID, you're arguing pro-fundamentalist christian dogma, and, as such, you cannot complain about being mistaken for a fundamentalist christian. And, as for being a Devil's Advocate, if you do not express such sentements at the start of your argument, they do not apply. Can't shake the Devils hand and say you're only kidding.
Well, having recently rebuilt a druid to be all feral, which is the pure melee tree for those who don't know druids, I can definitely say my healing has gone to hell. It's not like being a pally, where you can fight and heal at the same time. I can fight, OR I can heal, and my heals aren't anywhere near as effective.
Mind you, I freaking rule in melee. But I'm not as good a rogue as a rogue, and I'm not as good a fighter as a fighter. And the lack of a real focus bites you in the ass, as often as not.
I'll be interested to see what they can do with the pally specializations. Right now you either get a little good damage dealing with Retribution (and pay for it by being gimpy in instances), or you get solid defense with Protection, and pay for it by having zero DPS. If you go 100% Holy, you're roadkill.
I call bullshit. It took me about nine days of playing time to get to level 60 with ONE character, and thirty minutes a day for 365 days is only about 8 days of total time, which is a hell of a lot less than the average amount of time it takes to hit sixty.
Your amazing ability to level 6 characters to 60 in 80% of the time it takes a normal insane WoW junkie to hit 60 with ONE character, leads me to the only possible conclusion: No freaking way.
Taking a relatively low amount of time to 60 (ten days) and multiplying it by 6 gives me 60 days, otherwise known as 2 months, which, spread out over a year would indicate a minimum of four hours a day, and you'd have to instantly stop playing a lvl 60 as soon as you hit 60, and move on to the next one, something which seems utterly pointless and unlikely.
You know, I kinda thought they might be angling to open up the Paladins to the Horde and the Shaman's to the Alliance through their choice of new races. Blood Elven paladins aren't that much of a stretch and Pandarin shamans seem almost a given.
I certainly don't have a problem with it. I'd love to see the diehard Horde types play the freaking Paladin that they sooo incessantly complain about, and vice versa with the alliance and the supposedly unstoppable shamans.
Yea I agree, though I wish, on some level, there was a way to enforce standards.
The reality of it is, when the TLDs start trying to enforce standards they're not going to limit themselves to XHTML or whatever, they're going to try and mandate within the existing standards, and it's going to become a nightmare of buerocracy and inefficiency.
In the end, it all comes down to the browsers anyway...Whatever looks best on your browser of choice is going to be "best designed" as far as you're concerned, and this is an unusually savvy crowd. I still get people calling me about Netscape 4.7 javascript errors.
If you'd bothered to read any of this thread, you'd know that I don't give a shit about evolution as a theory. It may be superceded by a much better theory tomorrow, and I wouldn't care.
What I care about is the thing your kind hates most: The unbiased search for truth. It's not in your little book, and you just can't handle that. Far better for you to try to convince people that well documented, well tested, and sound theories are wrong on the basis of zero evidence, than to try and wrap your tiny, closed minds around one single new idea.
Somehow I missed the, "There is no God" part of science class. That's probably because it's not there.
Secular has nothing to do with Athiesm. Secular has nothing to do with any religion, and I agree with you that Athiesm is a religion.
But since Secular also has nothing to do with Christianity, you feel oppressed. Since no one is putting your views over every other religion all the time, you feel oppressed. Oh no, the poor christians. Only control the whole damn country, but they're being oppressed right out of their ability to inject their point of view into every tiny facet of american life.
And, as with all freedoms granted by the consitiution, your right to freedom of religion ends when you start trying to shove it down other peoples throats. Separation of Church and State, which was expressly written into the Consititution because the Founding Fathers were creeped out by the religious zealots that were already here, and which expressly forbids using state money to say ANYTHING AT ALL about God, means that you'll have to just brainwash your kids at home, because the schools aren't gonna do it for ya.
And thank god for that. If I wanted to live in a country dominated by religious fanatics, I'd live in Iraq.
No offense or anything, but when you point me to a page that would double as a humor site if it wasn't so sad as your "proof" that your theory isn't insane, don't even start trying to lecture me on the supposed science behind your superstition.
I have no problem with ID in a theologically centered educational environment. Church affiliated and supported schools have the right to teach any way they like.
But for public schools, schools funded by the state and federal governments, I think the teachings should remain purely secular. This will allow science to be taught without any religion feeling they are beoing slighted, and it will allow parents to more directly supervise their childs religious instruction.
Yes, this is a discussion. This is an absolutely proper place for an exchange of debated beliefs.
Pushing to have a non-scientific theory taught in a science class is an imposition of belief, just as much as if I demanded equal time for the Big Bang Theory in your church.