I find this so funny... letting the people just blame one of the two parties in America and bickering about it amongst yourselves seems to me to be the ultimate weapon politicians devised to keep you under their rule.
Not a whole lot for quite a few applications, as most databases today will comfortably fit in the memory of any decent server. Only databases dealing with lots of (automatically) gathered information, graphics/video or other high volume datasets might benefit. Not too big though, as then we are in Harddisk terroritory again.
How is that the same as a publisher going out of business and taking everyone's copy of the game with it? Not just your copy, because you lost the booklet... with current games, WoW is the perfect example. Not only can Blizzard terminate your account at a whim, they can dictate what software can and cannot be run on your system and could pull the plug anytime they wish (ie, as soon as it is no longer profitable). It is beyond your control, unlike having made a copy of the booklet for safe keeping.
Even if you bought a new original DRM'd copy still in the store for sale, it wouldn't work anymore, unlike games with code wheels, codes in manuals, etc.
It is not the same by a long shot. They aim to cure the same problem (as publishers see it), but DRM is much more devious. Painless DRM will never exist. Companies are greedy fucks that care little for their public image if it means more profits. If it benefitted Steam/Blizzard/Sony to screw over their entire userbase, they would.
I'm not in favor of giving some organization, that does not represent ALL rightsholders, money for counting bits going through my connection. If they however can sort the bits into nice buckets so I can clearly see who they belong to, than it might work. I'd prefer an organization like this on my monthly bill:
1) total amount of bits downloaded 2) number of copyrighted bits downloaded 3) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder 4) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder represented by this organisation
Plot them in a nice graph, with green, yellow, orange and red bars, so I know which flavor I downloaded the most./sarcasm
It is just unbelievable that this was modded insightful. Parent couldn't be further off base.
I shudder to think what would happen when the approx. 500 million modern consumers in this world are joined by another 5.5 billion modern consumers. It would probably result in a direct proportional increase in natural resource expenditure and environmental destruction. This planet cannot support the people that are on it now in the way we have been living so far, and you think that transforming those 5 billion poor people into Americans is the solution?
If copyright law were reasonable copyrights would expire in a reasonable timeframe. The result would be a huge public domain where Eleanor could take her pick of free popular songs.
This.
It is the reason why copyright keeps getting extended and retroactively at that. They donot WANT a public domain, simply because it would keep growing and growing until it contains enough material that it will last anyone a lifetime. Just imagine 100's of years of entertainment, with only the last 15 years of it currently "unavailable" because of copyright. What would be the value of the most recent material? It would start approaching zero.
That's why there will never be any reasonable stance on copyright from the people that stand to gain from it -- the public domain is their enemy, plain and simple. As long as the discussion is about how to change copyright, you will get nowhere. Getting rid of it completely or deciding that our cultural heritage is the sole property of corporations are the only two options.
And what these researchers don't seem to get is that for application flow and implementing business logic, which is what most programmers are concerned with, there's no need for programming for multiple CPU's.
Everything that really sucks the life out of your CPU/GPU is usually trivial to run in parallel (and the most time critical stuff is doing so already), and it perhaps represent as little as 5% of all code run by these processors. All the other code that most programmers concern themselves with daily does not need a new programming model.
I don't think you completely understand either how encryption scales then or how computer power scales at the moment.
Computers typically have become around twice as fast every two years orso in recent history, although this is becoming quite hard to keep up nowadays.
Most encryption algorithms on the other hand can be scaled up arbitrarely high, by just changing a parameter. Brute forcing 128 bit AES vs 256 bit AES is not a factor two harder. It is a factor 2^128 harder.
Want it even harder? Just change the algorithm (or a parameter) to use 512 bits. The only reason AES 128 and AES 256 are in use at the moment is because experts agree that these are highly unlikely to be brute-forced in the near future, not because 256 bits is somekind of practical limit. You could create a 200000 bit encryption algorithm if you wanted to, but there is simply no point.
Why so difficult? How about I just generate a random 256-bit number for the key? Good luck attacking that when there's no relation to it and the real world at all.
All it takes is say:
- combining parts of two commonly found files on the internet. - fully random, stored on a different, harder to find encrypted volume, but accessible by a 2nd, easier to remember, key. - for the truly paranoid, base64 encode a random 256-bit number and memorize the resulting 40 characters.
Or a sentence that is long enough to give 256-bit entropy (~60 characters should suffice). Get one from a book, or just make up your own damn sentence/lyric/poetry or number sequence. This is not weak, as it contains the full entropy required. One might argue that the attacked only has to try all possible poetry, spelling variations, possible number sequence that are possible, but I'm pretty sure those exceed the 256-bit space as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I find this so funny... letting the people just blame one of the two parties in America and bickering about it amongst yourselves seems to me to be the ultimate weapon politicians devised to keep you under their rule.
Maybe not, but I doubt it would cause any fatal errors in otherwise properly written software.
Luckily, Slashdot functions just fine with javascript off. Better I would say even.
That's pointless. Better to confiscate all their personal digital equipment.
Not a whole lot for quite a few applications, as most databases today will comfortably fit in the memory of any decent server. Only databases dealing with lots of (automatically) gathered information, graphics/video or other high volume datasets might benefit. Not too big though, as then we are in Harddisk terroritory again.
Ah... an Enterprise drive. Interesting marketing speak, but it still manages to gets its effect I see.
There's a flaw in your logic. The signal we receive does not need to be 100000 years more advanced, as the signal would also be 100000 years old.
Not that I believe that intelligent radio transmissions would still be detectable from 100000 light years away...
Unless they are more worried about their economy than their grandkids.
My theory is that the world was created yesterday. I can use the same arguments as the creationists to explain it all.
I'm sure that "extreme" amounts 15 years ago will comfortably fit on my mobile now.
How is that the same as a publisher going out of business and taking everyone's copy of the game with it? Not just your copy, because you lost the booklet... with current games, WoW is the perfect example. Not only can Blizzard terminate your account at a whim, they can dictate what software can and cannot be run on your system and could pull the plug anytime they wish (ie, as soon as it is no longer profitable). It is beyond your control, unlike having made a copy of the booklet for safe keeping.
Even if you bought a new original DRM'd copy still in the store for sale, it wouldn't work anymore, unlike games with code wheels, codes in manuals, etc.
It is not the same by a long shot. They aim to cure the same problem (as publishers see it), but DRM is much more devious. Painless DRM will never exist. Companies are greedy fucks that care little for their public image if it means more profits. If it benefitted Steam/Blizzard/Sony to screw over their entire userbase, they would.
I'm not in favor of giving some organization, that does not represent ALL rightsholders, money for counting bits going through my connection. If they however can sort the bits into nice buckets so I can clearly see who they belong to, than it might work. I'd prefer an organization like this on my monthly bill:
1) total amount of bits downloaded
2) number of copyrighted bits downloaded
3) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder
4) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder represented by this organisation
Plot them in a nice graph, with green, yellow, orange and red bars, so I know which flavor I downloaded the most. /sarcasm
Perhaps you should add the monthly fees too, then you'll see the big difference
...but you would think that a graphics specialist would know this stuff.
I assume then you made that question part of the interview process?
It is just unbelievable that this was modded insightful. Parent couldn't be further off base.
I shudder to think what would happen when the approx. 500 million modern consumers in this world are joined by another 5.5 billion modern consumers. It would probably result in a direct proportional increase in natural resource expenditure and environmental destruction. This planet cannot support the people that are on it now in the way we have been living so far, and you think that transforming those 5 billion poor people into Americans is the solution?
This.
It is the reason why copyright keeps getting extended and retroactively at that. They donot WANT a public domain, simply because it would keep growing and growing until it contains enough material that it will last anyone a lifetime. Just imagine 100's of years of entertainment, with only the last 15 years of it currently "unavailable" because of copyright. What would be the value of the most recent material? It would start approaching zero.
That's why there will never be any reasonable stance on copyright from the people that stand to gain from it -- the public domain is their enemy, plain and simple. As long as the discussion is about how to change copyright, you will get nowhere. Getting rid of it completely or deciding that our cultural heritage is the sole property of corporations are the only two options.
My car already only needs to be refilled monthly...
Given the feature set of Twitter, I'm gonna assume it won't be bigger than some of the projects I wrote alone in my spare time.
Remake with shakey cam? No thanks.
And what these researchers don't seem to get is that for application flow and implementing business logic, which is what most programmers are concerned with, there's no need for programming for multiple CPU's.
Everything that really sucks the life out of your CPU/GPU is usually trivial to run in parallel (and the most time critical stuff is doing so already), and it perhaps represent as little as 5% of all code run by these processors. All the other code that most programmers concern themselves with daily does not need a new programming model.
How are you gonna use it as evidence in a court case then though?
FBI: "That's correct your honor, we waved our magic wand and it produced this evidence clearly showing that the accused is guilty ... "
I don't think you completely understand either how encryption scales then or how computer power scales at the moment.
Computers typically have become around twice as fast every two years orso in recent history, although this is becoming quite hard to keep up nowadays.
Most encryption algorithms on the other hand can be scaled up arbitrarely high, by just changing a parameter. Brute forcing 128 bit AES vs 256 bit AES is not a factor two harder. It is a factor 2^128 harder.
Want it even harder? Just change the algorithm (or a parameter) to use 512 bits. The only reason AES 128 and AES 256 are in use at the moment is because experts agree that these are highly unlikely to be brute-forced in the near future, not because 256 bits is somekind of practical limit. You could create a 200000 bit encryption algorithm if you wanted to, but there is simply no point.
That would mean that a truecrypt volume is distinguishable from random data?
Why so difficult? How about I just generate a random 256-bit number for the key? Good luck attacking that when there's no relation to it and the real world at all.
All it takes is say:
- combining parts of two commonly found files on the internet.
- fully random, stored on a different, harder to find encrypted volume, but accessible by a 2nd, easier to remember, key.
- for the truly paranoid, base64 encode a random 256-bit number and memorize the resulting 40 characters.
Or a sentence that is long enough to give 256-bit entropy (~60 characters should suffice). Get one from a book, or just make up your own damn sentence/lyric/poetry or number sequence. This is not weak, as it contains the full entropy required. One might argue that the attacked only has to try all possible poetry, spelling variations, possible number sequence that are possible, but I'm pretty sure those exceed the 256-bit space as well.