you gotta get clear on what Quantum Crypto is.. Though, it's the fault of whoever named it.. An appropriate name would be Quantum Key Exchange. There is no Quantum Computer. A normal computer (theoretically) sends photons of light, polarized in a certain way, to another computer. The main difficulty is transmitting photons over long distances without there being some sort of interference with the light. The key is exchanged in this way (hence the QKE name).
Anyhow, so this is great stuff for banks and any institution that needs secure communication.
I'd prefer that they asked two questions (assuming people could answer):
1. What is you IQ?
2. What is your primary source for news?
The study that the parent cites may simply show that Fox News viewers are fairly dumb. (Watching Fox News for entertainment does not count) If you want to be pedantic about IQ tests being culturally biased... well, come up with your own gauge for intelligence.
You could make all sorts of "funny" associations with Fox News.. maybe 90% of rapists get their news from Fox. Maybe babies prefer Fox News.
Hmmm... this idea that "everyone on the planet should be locked up because they *could* kill other people" is very interesting.. you must contact me so we may discuss this further.
Unless you mean to suggest that the average internet user does not illegally download copyrighted material, your statement is ridiculous pig water.
Now.. I'm not certain about all internet users but most people I know do download music. And, I'd be willing to bet that the main reason the average user wouldn't download music is because they probably can't figure out how to do it.
Also, you aren't making the distinction between stealing from other people and stealing from corporations. I imagine some people see nothing wrong with "stealing from the haves" The question is... how many believe that..
from what I can tell.. the Quantum Key Exchange can be compromised IF "eve" is able to "insert and remove messages without inaccuracy or delay." Now, simply by reading the photons at a certain polarization, Eve is screwing up the transmission.. So it's only compromised in this way if each bit of a key is transmitted using a burst of photons instead of just one. Then maybe eve could snatch only one.. and then maybe store it until she found out what the polarization scheme was. THEN she could record which direction the photon was oriented.
It seems pretty secure.. Theoretically, if they only have to send one photon for each bit of the potential key... it should be unbreakable. The explanations given in some of the links were very poor. The Jamie guy from Dartmouth (http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jford/crypto.html) doesn't seem to give a very good exploration of the "quantum privacy attacks" The whole point of Quantum Crypto is that an eavesdropper has to guess which polarization scheme to measure photon orientation.. and their guess will be identical the the intended receiver's only half the time (generally)..
Mainly, quantum crypto is supposed to allow secure key exchange over insecure lines.
the internet has become self-aware.. these aren't trojans and virii that we see.. (well, they are, but) we're seeing the Internot wake up. It's practicing by attacking blacklists.. since they prevent full unfettered emailing. Network Packets have become the flowing nuerons of it's killer Internett brain.. all these random SoBigs and Slammer.Dongs are multiplying to the point where sentient behaviour must emerge!!!!
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA@@@@#!!  ; you beloNG TO THE INTERRRNOTT@@!!
blah, troll. new uid.. posting between five and sixteen times a day. Only 70 comments. Is there an organization called The Troll Project somewhere? blah, troll
Dr. Bartle is confused on the meaning of the word "theory".. He seems to be talking about a "theorem" which can be proven or demonstrated. A theory is merely tested numerous times and seems to hold. I had this argument before with an Earth Sciences friend about theory v. theorem. They're always used to talking about theories as if they really are true and proven. It's sort of embarrassing that Dr. Bartle is confused on this point in my opinion.
Strangely, even though Bartle confuses theory in his rebuttal.. he did use the word appropriately in the first place.. and humorously enough it seems to be Mr. Rickey who was confused. In any case, theories in art and science are the same in essence since they have to do with accepted and observed "norms". It's just easier to have dueling theories in art since they mainly just describe ideas and not naturally occurring phenomena.
dictionary.com seems to want to toss in an extra def of theory which means a set of theorems in mathematics.. I believe this to be a very particular exception to theory's common usage and meaning.
even though the piddley (sp?) sight is dead, I'm willing to travel out onto a limb and venture that the writer was *joking* when he suggested buying a $350 drill for the plastic case. then again, maybe the people who are bitching about that are actually very dry jokesters.. who knows.
It's almost like a scarey joke.. Someone thinks, "yeah, I'm boycotting those assholes.. I'll just buy music from non-RIAA companies" Then they found out that this means they can only buy CDRW copies of banjo music from the old guy down the street. Oh well. (For the record, I know that's not true. There's just a hilariously large number of RIAA labels.)
This is absurd. The GG actually says, "You better call SCO and ask them about their claim. And don't expect a win by IBM to save you. SCO WILLL GETT YOUUU!!!" Again, I am paraphrasing. Hell, GG even says they see the case as dubious. They mention nothing about fighting back against SCO.. e.g. companies could file a joint lawsuit of some nature (don't ask me what.. maybe that's unfeasible to countersue). They just suggest looking at Solaris or Windows. Who are these tools? It's like they're playing the ideal role in this SCO-play. "Go slow, consider non-Linux software even though SCO may be full of shit."
Anyway, in my dream world, they'd recommend looking at BSD.
Their clarification was that fair use is NOT a right. Fair use simply protects certain behaviour.. don't ask me what that might be, but you aren't guaranteed the ability to copy products for yourself. And, actually, I agree.. bah to the RIAA. If they manage to make it impossible to copy the next Britney Spears album, so the hell what. If the MPAA makes it impossible to copy the "Transvestite Butt-Pirate Movie", I do not care. Fair use should protect things like critique, parody, etc. If you don't like how RIAA does it.. then support truly independent artists. Like they said, the marketplace can decide. So it goes...
Was wondering a little about that.. though, it is a little off base, since all the question were about copywrite infringement.. I just assumed this CCIPS handled IP stuff. UNTIL the coffee kicked in and I remembered what the phrase "computer crime" meant. This is absolutely embarrassing bs that not one single intelligent question about Kevin Mitnick came up. They specifically brag about prosocuting him (http://www.cybercrime.gov/ccips.html). They clearly believe that it was a worthwhile to make an "example" of him. They want to say that "neither industry nor the government has the ability to dictate this amount." Mitnick's "infringement amount" was astronomical until the end of the trial when they were like, "oh well... yeah I guess it isn't really that high.." I want to know the exact legality of "making examples of individuals"
These guys "walk in here" and spell correctly and use complete sentences and everyone says, "Hey, they're kind of nice.. they're just geeky folks who love technology." Just because they gloss over Kevin Mitnick doesn't mean that if asked, they would not support every aspect of his treatment. I could care less about the RIAA and their civil cases. I want to know about when the the DOJ swings the CCIPS at me because I surfed some corporate network and a jerkoff slugg named John Markoff names me as digital satan in the New York Times. (For dramatic effect, I have grossly paraphrased the facts.)
Just because they spend a lot of time helping out "mom and pop" doesn't really make a difference to me. Do you think they will ever weigh in on the SCO case? Maybe someone can argue SCO is circumventing the GPL. Anywhoo... I'm no lawyer, I'm sure it is "way out of their jurisdiction."
"deign"? what do you have, a chauffeur? Does your maid butter your toast for you? Do you wear your sweater around your neck and play polo? Let the insane people go to MIT and Stanford after spending their first 18 years in and out of high dollar private preppy schools and taking expensive test prep courses. Then they can go broke pursuing graduate education in some Top 5 school so they can owe $100,000 in loans unless they were lucky enough to be best of the best and get a fellowship. Of course, this is if they don't commit suicide. These robodroid people can do that all they want.. I'll stick to trusty number 14 (or whatever the very intelligent people at US News & World report rate UT in general at this year). I don't really understand what mission you're on to keep school pride from running away with people but.. dare not to deign!
go vomit your bile on the punk skeezer teenagers at the 7-11, whiney baby.. you make me wish I'd taken a shit in my own mouth instead of wasting time reading your inanity.
Fine, I'll allow that in editing my post I miswrote about Mr. Metz "refusing service"; I took a trip into lala land. I was more interested in WWTFPOA (what was the fucking point of the article) like what does it matter that PGE monkey doesn't "like" the press release. And, I know the entire article is just some crap generated by the reporter to make himself look busy. But I don't need your kneejerk-grumpy-because-your-blood-sugar's-low-you -smell-like-urine-and-you-wonder-why-you're -lonely bitchfest about RTFAing. Yeah, yeah, I know 99% of the posters here may or may not read the fucking articles.. I know it must drive you insane with anger. I'm very, very sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
you gotta get clear on what Quantum Crypto is.. Though, it's the fault of whoever named it.. An appropriate name would be Quantum Key Exchange. There is no Quantum Computer. A normal computer (theoretically) sends photons of light, polarized in a certain way, to another computer. The main difficulty is transmitting photons over long distances without there being some sort of interference with the light. The key is exchanged in this way (hence the QKE name).
Anyhow, so this is great stuff for banks and any institution that needs secure communication.
p
I'd prefer that they asked two questions (assuming people could answer):
1. What is you IQ?
2. What is your primary source for news?
The study that the parent cites may simply show that Fox News viewers are fairly dumb. (Watching Fox News for entertainment does not count)
If you want to be pedantic about IQ tests being culturally biased... well, come up with your own gauge for intelligence.
You could make all sorts of "funny" associations with Fox News.. maybe 90% of rapists get their news from Fox. Maybe babies prefer Fox News.
p
Hmmm... this idea that "everyone on the planet should be locked up because they *could* kill other people" is very interesting.. you must contact me so we may discuss this further.
Sincerely,
J.A.
USDOJ
Unless you mean to suggest that the average internet user does not illegally download copyrighted material, your statement is ridiculous pig water.
Now.. I'm not certain about all internet users but most people I know do download music. And, I'd be willing to bet that the main reason the average user wouldn't download music is because they probably can't figure out how to do it.
Also, you aren't making the distinction between stealing from other people and stealing from corporations. I imagine some people see nothing wrong with "stealing from the haves" The question is... how many believe that..
yah, the more accurate phrase IMO is Quantum Key Exchange. You simply exchange a key and then use whatever encryption algorithm you want.
from what I can tell.. the Quantum Key Exchange can be compromised IF "eve" is able to "insert and remove messages without inaccuracy or delay." Now, simply by reading the photons at a certain polarization, Eve is screwing up the transmission.. So it's only compromised in this way if each bit of a key is transmitted using a burst of photons instead of just one. Then maybe eve could snatch only one.. and then maybe store it until she found out what the polarization scheme was. THEN she could record which direction the photon was oriented.
It seems pretty secure.. Theoretically, if they only have to send one photon for each bit of the potential key... it should be unbreakable. The explanations given in some of the links were very poor. The Jamie guy from Dartmouth (http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jford/crypto.html) doesn't seem to give a very good exploration of the "quantum privacy attacks" The whole point of Quantum Crypto is that an eavesdropper has to guess which polarization scheme to measure photon orientation.. and their guess will be identical the the intended receiver's only half the time (generally)..
Mainly, quantum crypto is supposed to allow secure key exchange over insecure lines.
p
Assume,
Kasmir = Kashmir
No, they aren't fighting over whether there should be an 'h' in Kasmir. The BBC uses 'Kasmir' so I assume that is correct.
Equation:
Pakistan + India + Kasmir = Indian Terrorists
Just because they don't terrorize us (or you wherever you are) doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.
the internet has become self-aware.. these aren't trojans and virii that we see.. (well, they are, but) we're seeing the Internot wake up. It's practicing by attacking blacklists.. since they prevent full unfettered emailing. Network Packets have become the flowing nuerons of it's killer Internett brain.. all these random SoBigs and Slammer.Dongs are multiplying to the point where sentient behaviour must emerge!!!!
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA@@@@#!!  ; you beloNG TO THE INTERRRNOTT@@!!
oh... and here's something for all you lonely Lindows users who share a love for the Lord Jesus
for a good time, read atang1's comments
He's the great moderator at lindowsuser.com and I'm certain his tech support savvy will secure a rock solid user base for Lindows.
atang1 gives those tech supporters in Bangalore a run for their money.
e
God does the work of mathematicians.
and what exactly would the cat herders be doing?
blah, troll. new uid.. posting between five and sixteen times a day. Only 70 comments. Is there an organization called The Troll Project somewhere?
blah, troll
Dr. Bartle is confused on the meaning of the word "theory".. He seems to be talking about a "theorem" which can be proven or demonstrated. A theory is merely tested numerous times and seems to hold. I had this argument before with an Earth Sciences friend about theory v. theorem. They're always used to talking about theories as if they really are true and proven. It's sort of embarrassing that Dr. Bartle is confused on this point in my opinion.
Strangely, even though Bartle confuses theory in his rebuttal.. he did use the word appropriately in the first place.. and humorously enough it seems to be Mr. Rickey who was confused. In any case, theories in art and science are the same in essence since they have to do with accepted and observed "norms". It's just easier to have dueling theories in art since they mainly just describe ideas and not naturally occurring phenomena.
dictionary.com seems to want to toss in an extra def of theory which means a set of theorems in mathematics.. I believe this to be a very particular exception to theory's common usage and meaning.
e
even though the piddley (sp?) sight is dead, I'm willing to travel out onto a limb and venture that the writer was *joking* when he suggested buying a $350 drill for the plastic case. then again, maybe the people who are bitching about that are actually very dry jokesters.. who knows.
It's almost like a scarey joke.. Someone thinks, "yeah, I'm boycotting those assholes.. I'll just buy music from non-RIAA companies" Then they found out that this means they can only buy CDRW copies of banjo music from the old guy down the street. Oh well. (For the record, I know that's not true. There's just a hilariously large number of RIAA labels.)
This is absurd. The GG actually says, "You better call SCO and ask them about their claim. And don't expect a win by IBM to save you. SCO WILLL GETT YOUUU!!!" Again, I am paraphrasing. Hell, GG even says they see the case as dubious. They mention nothing about fighting back against SCO.. e.g. companies could file a joint lawsuit of some nature (don't ask me what.. maybe that's unfeasible to countersue). They just suggest looking at Solaris or Windows. Who are these tools? It's like they're playing the ideal role in this SCO-play. "Go slow, consider non-Linux software even though SCO may be full of shit."
Anyway, in my dream world, they'd recommend looking at BSD.
Their clarification was that fair use is NOT a right. Fair use simply protects certain behaviour.. don't ask me what that might be, but you aren't guaranteed the ability to copy products for yourself. And, actually, I agree.. bah to the RIAA. If they manage to make it impossible to copy the next Britney Spears album, so the hell what. If the MPAA makes it impossible to copy the "Transvestite Butt-Pirate Movie", I do not care. Fair use should protect things like critique, parody, etc. If you don't like how RIAA does it.. then support truly independent artists. Like they said, the marketplace can decide. So it goes...
Was wondering a little about that.. though, it is a little off base, since all the question were about copywrite infringement.. I just assumed this CCIPS handled IP stuff. UNTIL the coffee kicked in and I remembered what the phrase "computer crime" meant. This is absolutely embarrassing bs that not one single intelligent question about Kevin Mitnick came up. They specifically brag about prosocuting him (http://www.cybercrime.gov/ccips.html). They clearly believe that it was a worthwhile to make an "example" of him. They want to say that "neither industry nor the government has the ability to dictate this amount." Mitnick's "infringement amount" was astronomical until the end of the trial when they were like, "oh well... yeah I guess it isn't really that high.." I want to know the exact legality of "making examples of individuals"
These guys "walk in here" and spell correctly and use complete sentences and everyone says, "Hey, they're kind of nice.. they're just geeky folks who love technology." Just because they gloss over Kevin Mitnick doesn't mean that if asked, they would not support every aspect of his treatment. I could care less about the RIAA and their civil cases. I want to know about when the the DOJ swings the CCIPS at me because I surfed some corporate network and a jerkoff slugg named John Markoff names me as digital satan in the New York Times. (For dramatic effect, I have grossly paraphrased the facts.)
Just because they spend a lot of time helping out "mom and pop" doesn't really make a difference to me. Do you think they will ever weigh in on the SCO case? Maybe someone can argue SCO is circumventing the GPL. Anywhoo... I'm no lawyer, I'm sure it is "way out of their jurisdiction."
e
"deign"? what do you have, a chauffeur? Does your maid butter your toast for you? Do you wear your sweater around your neck and play polo? Let the insane people go to MIT and Stanford after spending their first 18 years in and out of high dollar private preppy schools and taking expensive test prep courses. Then they can go broke pursuing graduate education in some Top 5 school so they can owe $100,000 in loans unless they were lucky enough to be best of the best and get a fellowship. Of course, this is if they don't commit suicide. These robodroid people can do that all they want.. I'll stick to trusty number 14 (or whatever the very intelligent people at US News & World report rate UT in general at this year). I don't really understand what mission you're on to keep school pride from running away with people but.. dare not to deign!
go vomit your bile on the punk skeezer teenagers at the 7-11, whiney baby.. you make me wish I'd taken a shit in my own mouth instead of wasting time reading your inanity.
point taken.
Fine, I'll allow that in editing my post I miswrote about Mr. Metz "refusing service"; I took a trip into lala land. I was more interested in WWTFPOA (what was the fucking point of the article) like what does it matter that PGE monkey doesn't "like" the press release. And, I know the entire article is just some crap generated by the reporter to make himself look busy. But I don't need your kneejerk-grumpy-because-your-blood-sugar's-low-you -smell-like-urine-and-you-wonder-why-you're -lonely bitchfest about RTFAing. Yeah, yeah, I know 99% of the posters here may or may not read the fucking articles.. I know it must drive you insane with anger. I'm very, very sorry.
you mean all those 802.11 PDAs and cellphones? The ones that require a carbattery to run?