It is a written rule of journalists, they economize the amount of letters in a headline. It makes sense with printed press, but at the web they should follow some different gidelines.
No. x86 doesn't offer the best bang per watt. Not on the hight end (IBM, ATI and NVIDIA have some nice offerings here, depending on your needs), or the low end (ARM, MIPS), or anywhere between those.
First, for the benefit of history, the maintaner of SSH commented some lines, a few more than needed, and that was the cause of the problem. SSH was not using unitialized memory as a source of randomness, that would be a very stupid thing.
Now, everything you said also applies to closed source, with the agravating feature that you can not audit at all (not very important, since you wouldn't audit it anyway). The botton line is that one can never absolutely trust a computer, but one can never absolutely trust anything and life goes on despite that. I'm inclined to agree with the people that said that somebody here shouldn't be at the current job, he or that CTO, depending on the circunstances.
I guess 2/3* of all/. moderation prognostics are latter refuted by the mods themselves:) Turns out we must discover if that happens because of the prognostics or independently.
* Completely made-up statics, like the other 72.84% of them.
Well, it is not really evil if Google conspirates with their partners to create a product so usefull that they'll have you hooked. For me "a better platform for developers" means that.
And, just for completeness, when MS was after "developers, developers, developers", that was also not evil. Most of their other actions were, this one was not.
Now, you are wrong. All current crypto key exchange systems seem to be vunerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. That happens because the verification of the key (the step that happens just next to the photons exchange) is vunerable to interceptation, leading the hole thing down.
Now, if somebody come with a verification procedure that is secure and don't use classical cryptography, that would be a nice step foward, and make quantum crpytography just uneconomical.
If by constraints you mean politics, I entirely agree. But if you mean our inability to conduct some experiments and and know what people will do, I disagree. Those later constraints do only lead to weaker theories, not to an unscientific treatment.
"Is it science that underlies this conclusion? Or is it just history, analysis, and a theory of the relationship between the money supply, interest rates and price levels? If I am right, does this become an experiment, and thus make econ science?"
Well, you seem to want to model the real world based on prior experiences (there must be a clippy joke hiden here, but I can't find it). Also, lots of the models make precise predictions, that could be proven false by comparing with the real wolrd; a few don't, but physics also have superstring theory and we didn't stop calling it science.
I'd call it science. A not very powerfull one, but science nonetheless.
"Talking is one, although I've seen some studies that suggested that "disembodied" talking (where the other person isn't right there) is somewhat worse."
That happens becuse the person seated just on your side instinctively knows not to talk about what you must buy at the market while there is a truck approaching at 100km/h at the wrong way.
Somebody on the phone doesn't have this kind of reaction.
That is why SSL includes a key sharing algorithm, that uses a certificate to be sure that nobody in the middle can read or change the key. Of course, you'll have to exchange public keys somehow, that is usualy done manualy, by copying a file (or by validating with a trusted entity whose key you know). On an aftertought, I wouldn't really use SSL, I'd tunel everything trough SSH, like I already do since I have a firewall between my LAN and WLAN at home.
Also, quantum key exchange doesn't really protect against man-in-the-middle attacks. It promisses to do that, but doesn't deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, we are nanomachines that reproduce to consume all resources available. We are grey goo.
All the problem is about us creating another form of grey goo that is able to use some reactions that we can't, what would be a huge advantaje.
Well, call me insane, but I don't think that some 500kw (how big is the US population?) are a big amount of power for an entire country.
It is a written rule of journalists, they economize the amount of letters in a headline. It makes sense with printed press, but at the web they should follow some different gidelines.
No. x86 doesn't offer the best bang per watt. Not on the hight end (IBM, ATI and NVIDIA have some nice offerings here, depending on your needs), or the low end (ARM, MIPS), or anywhere between those.
First, for the benefit of history, the maintaner of SSH commented some lines, a few more than needed, and that was the cause of the problem. SSH was not using unitialized memory as a source of randomness, that would be a very stupid thing.
Now, everything you said also applies to closed source, with the agravating feature that you can not audit at all (not very important, since you wouldn't audit it anyway). The botton line is that one can never absolutely trust a computer, but one can never absolutely trust anything and life goes on despite that. I'm inclined to agree with the people that said that somebody here shouldn't be at the current job, he or that CTO, depending on the circunstances.
He is +5 Interesting right now.
I guess 2/3* of all /. moderation prognostics are latter refuted by the mods themselves :) Turns out we must discover if that happens because of the prognostics or independently.
* Completely made-up statics, like the other 72.84% of them.
Well, it is not really evil if Google conspirates with their partners to create a product so usefull that they'll have you hooked. For me "a better platform for developers" means that.
And, just for completeness, when MS was after "developers, developers, developers", that was also not evil. Most of their other actions were, this one was not.
Now, you are wrong. All current crypto key exchange systems seem to be vunerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. That happens because the verification of the key (the step that happens just next to the photons exchange) is vunerable to interceptation, leading the hole thing down.
Now, if somebody come with a verification procedure that is secure and don't use classical cryptography, that would be a nice step foward, and make quantum crpytography just uneconomical.
Debian will keep the 0.9 version untill the product reaches 3.0, then upgrade to 1.6, or maybe keep maintaining 0.X branch with a different name.
It's quite hard for RIAA be denied an appeal on a final judgement, so they are probably asking for an extra appeal here.
IANAL and I am not from the USA. But that is a quite universal feature of legal systems.
If by constraints you mean politics, I entirely agree. But if you mean our inability to conduct some experiments and and know what people will do, I disagree. Those later constraints do only lead to weaker theories, not to an unscientific treatment.
Well, you seem to want to model the real world based on prior experiences (there must be a clippy joke hiden here, but I can't find it). Also, lots of the models make precise predictions, that could be proven false by comparing with the real wolrd; a few don't, but physics also have superstring theory and we didn't stop calling it science.
I'd call it science. A not very powerfull one, but science nonetheless.
We are talking about normal children here, not the kind of brainless idiots that fill the user support time.
That happens becuse the person seated just on your side instinctively knows not to talk about what you must buy at the market while there is a truck approaching at 100km/h at the wrong way.
Somebody on the phone doesn't have this kind of reaction.
On what reference frame?
S)pin! spin! spin! All the way down!
Email
It's the best part of the joke. How many resumées would the YouTube admins get if it was modded Funny? And informative?
You also can get all that usefull info available at the user comments.
Tell that to Linus
Ok...
Check
Now, something here isn't quite right. They allow your simple scripts to expand into a huge unmaintanable mess.
That is ok too.
So, 3 out of 4. That is why they are usefull, and why they aren't a silver bullet.
See current xkcd
You don't assemble 30 thousand packages toghether without bugs. The kernel + default libs + GUI are a quite stable bundle.
That is why SSL includes a key sharing algorithm, that uses a certificate to be sure that nobody in the middle can read or change the key. Of course, you'll have to exchange public keys somehow, that is usualy done manualy, by copying a file (or by validating with a trusted entity whose key you know). On an aftertought, I wouldn't really use SSL, I'd tunel everything trough SSH, like I already do since I have a firewall between my LAN and WLAN at home.
Also, quantum key exchange doesn't really protect against man-in-the-middle attacks. It promisses to do that, but doesn't deliver.
Open emacs and type 'ALT-x doctor'. You'll see.
P.S. I don't know if that is eliza, or some other algorithm.