but if you're going to say "graphically" shouldn't there be... I dunno. A graph?
Technically, each one of the letters on the page counts as a graph. Look at definition 1a for graphical: "of or relating to written expression".
Today, people generally use "graphical" to exclude the possibility of text, when "pictorial" would be more correct for that meaning. The dictionaries haven't yet been rewritten to match, though.
If you're claiming equal access, people that need wheelchair ramps don't have a choice. Running OSS is.
If you're willing to spend a lot of extra money, you can hire a bodybuilder to carry you up and down stairs. Similarly, instead of running OSS free, I could buy Microsoft.
More specifically, heavily proprietary formats like PDF and Office can be harder for a pagereader to process for a blind user. So, mandating a format everyone can process isn't very different from handicap access at all.
But within each state, it depends on - well, their own laws. In this case, the state - sorry, commonwealth (I'll never understand why the fuck Mass calls themself a "commonwealth" but they do)
Maybe because they want to be honest, and technically accurate?
A "state" is an independent, sovereign nation. None of the so-called "states" in the USA are really states. Massachusetts is merely the only one willing to admit it.
Rules of thumb: Presidents control states. Governors control provinces or colonies.
nobody was able to provide a good example of a legitimate use of the "private" label for torrents.
Not you either. If you are sending the data to someone, you are trusting him not to redistribute it further. Whether he mails it out on CD-R, or just publishes the tracker address, the action is the same: someone to whom you gave the data has given it to others.
If you don't trust your approved recipients, your situation is hopeless (and self-contradictory)
The fact that there is mostly illegal files on these sites are mostly coincidental.
It's more than coincidence. For files which are legal to distribute, there is almost always someone with a vested intrest in seeing that distribution increase. Those people are willing to serve leechers, in exchange for getting the data out there. The feeling of sharing and having helped others is all the reward they need.
BitTorrent, in most cases of authorized file distribution, should be pictured as just an accelerator for HTTP-type fileserving, which protects against "Slashdot effect" when there are more than 1 downloader at a time.
can be counted on the fingers of Captain Hook's bad hand
The fact that one of his hands has been ingested by a reptile in no way reduces the number of fingers upon it, especially in an ageless pocket-dimension where objects are not degraded by the passage of time.
A one time pad on one CD is enough to transfer exactly one CDs worth of data.
For practical purposes (and "practical" was the standard you suggested), it is much, much higher.
imagine what it would be like for a business.
It's actually very difficult to imagine businesses with an enormous need to transmit extra-securely between two fixed points.
because you know that you've lost this argument
Well, the actual arguement was against Kish's ludicrous claim that his technique was "absolutely secure", which you already surrendered by changing the subject to "practical" security.
But, as to the more general question of OTP vs newfangled uninterceptible media (QC or Kish's new proposal):
For anything outside of nuclear-missile control, Kish and QC lose the cost argument: carrying more OTPs to the remote site is incomprably more affordable than building and maintaining a dedicated cable.
For nuclear-missile control, Kish and QC lose the robustness argument: if that dedicated cable is sabotaged, there is no way the system can fall back to packet-switched or RF transmission.
No, that's not a one time pad, a one time pad requires regular manual, impractical exchanges of data.
It does not, for a reasonable definition of "regular".
Using consumer-grade optical discs, I can lift in one hand enough random numbers to transmit data for 10 years (assuming new keys are loaded at 100hz, which is faster than proposed QC methods would provide them). And a properly-rigorous security team would reinitialize their OTP (or QC table) more frequently anyway (to bound the damage caused in the unlikely case that someone snuck into the transmission room and copied down the codes).
No, that's not a one time pad, a one time pad requires regular manual, impractical exchanges of data.
Conversly, QC requires continuous, impractical immobility of both sender and reciever. You can't move.
Furthermore, the subtitle of Kish's paper is just laughable: "absolutely secure, fast, inexpensive, robust, maintenance-free...". One what planet does he reside, where installing a new dedicated telephone cable between two facilities is inexpensive, robust, or low-maintenance? (Maybe its only relatively inexpensive compared to QC, which is probably true)
One single impractical exchange (for the initial exchange of private information) is nothing when you get numerous future, practical exchanges as a result.
Of course. And we call that technique One Time Pads. It was technically detailed more than 50 years ago, and was informally used much earlier.
Why should anyone be impressed that "You can meet and exchange lists of secret numbers, and then later use those lists to communicate securely?" OTP does all that, and doesn't require an actual copper wire to be installed between the endpoints (which adds tremendous cost and DOS vulnerability to the system)
This "invention" (like QC) is almost as good as "Proposal for Running OTP Wearing a Daffy Hat"- at least the hat costs less than 60 km of cable.
I understand what is traditionally means, but what difference does it make if it's 1 doormat or 10^10 of them?
The difference is, naturally, 99.99999999%. If somebody learns that "Your key is under the doormat", then the more doormats you have, the less likely they are to find the key.
A rule of thumb to see if a protection plan really relies on "security through obscurity" (as meant when cryptographers say it): If an authorized person must be switched to untrusted, can this be done cheaply, without rebuilding the whole system?
But your device isn't identical to what's at each end. If it's not identical
How do you KNOW it's not identical? The only way you can know is if you've got a list of what the "random" resistance selections will be.
How did you get that list? It had to be communicated somehow. If the channel by which the list was transmitted is secure, then the whole random-resistor scheme is redundant. If it's insecure, then it is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle tampering, and so is the whole scheme.
You see, this is why you shouldn't try to analyze something without knowing about cryptography. It amuses me greatly when amateurs pretend they have expertise in an area where they obviously don't have it.
Usually, in order to keep the message secret some type of cipher is applied. That isn't always the case.
So, you're saying that steel forging is "Metallurgic Cryptography", because you can use it to make a strongbox protecting a secret message?
(In reality, not everything related to secret messages qualifies as cryptography)
There has been no misnomer
Unless "Quantum Cryptography" were a subcategory of "Cryptography", then it is a misnomer. A quick rule of thumb for detecting cryptography: can it be used to encode a file on your hard drive?
Even so, you'll have better luck if you understand how it works. Then you'll know to send the ninjas to break into the right cabinet and photograph the pages of random numbers for later use. Historically, OTP has been broken, when the pads were created with a biased RNG.
Everything is breakable, and knowledge allows you to hurt anything more effectively.
Now, how do they get this reliable method of communication to check current measurements with each other, that is secure against a man-in-the-middle attack?
The same complaint can apply to Quantum Cryptography, and although it does mean MIM attacks are not completely impossible, that objection can be overcome in practice.
Most people have available a method which they believe to be reliable and non-intersectible: hand-carried briefcase with armed guards. Problem is, it's slow, and can't respond fast enough in an emergency. Thus, QC can be useful if it "bootstraps" from a slow method and provides faster communication from then on.
(But of course, if you were willing to startup with hand-carried data, could just pack the briefcase with One Time Pads on DVD, and achieve both a lower investment cost and less vulnernabilty to backhoe DOS)
People no longer understand p2p as "point to point", but rather "peer to peer". Point2Point cannot use significant IP addresses, but Peer2Peer must use them (or something similar).
Which means when Bob and Alice trade IP addresses,
I hope you meant "IP address" in some metaphorical way. There is no way QC can be applied to operate over an internet with real IP address. IP requires routing, and routing means packet-forwarding, but QC depends on an photonic signals that are irreproducible, and thus unroutable.
you ought to be able to have each other's IPs
Do you know the IPs of every mail-order vendor from which you might wish to order?
What you're doing is repeating the usual QC-request to have the initial exchange of recognition data left off of the vulnerability analysis, because it is in fact susceptible to every kind of man-in-the-middle assault.
On the other hand, since crytography has nothing to do with the problem he's working on
Nothing? What about the fact that the mass-media is describing his project as "an encryption scheme"?
True, what he's doing isn't technically encryption. But since false claims to the contrary have been made, then cryptography has become relevant, if only to debunk.
Note that it isn't Dr. Kish's fault that the word "encryption" has been wrongly invoked- blame goes to whoever coined the "quantum encryption" misnomer.
It works extremely well as a way to enhance the atmosphere, immersing you into the world of the 1950s
There were zombie epidemics in the 50s? I don't even remember the laser-rifles, robo-butlers, or hovercars!
(Also, that's a 3rd person view... the game's "camera" is not supposed to be your own eyes, so mechanical artifacts will be more plausible in chasecam situations. You're watching Stubbs, not being him)
I'm just saying that if women are interested in video games, they should stop complaining and make them.
Statements of the form "you should stop complaining and do it yourself" are common, especially relating to Open Source software, but are almost never valid.
Complaints are a legitimate part of contributing to development. There is a continuum from complaints, to bug-reports, testing, fixes, and new development- each one both more valuable and more time consuming than the last. It is only through volume of complaints that potential developer volunteers learn what the user public cares about.
If women want to make games that women want to play, make them.
You are exercising the "efficient sidewalk fallacy": 1. The free market efficiently incites producers to fill all consumers' needs. 2. Your need has not been filled. 3. Therefore, either your desire is impossible, or you don't really want it.
In truth, it is not correct to dismiss these complaints with "You can't really have a valid need, or someone would've marketed a solution already"... because it is only by hearing steady complaints over time that an entrepreneur decides to go ahead with a plan to serve that niche.
reading about girl-oriented pornography a while ago. It's interesting to me how similar it is
You might not know what it really is. Female-targeted porn is found in the book isle of grocery stores, and has the label "Romance" on the side of the shelves.
That's because for a (straight) woman, a sex partner is valued more for what he does than what he is. The reasonings go back to Darwinian genetics- an unattractive woman (hips, breasts) is less likely to bear live children, or feed them through the first year. But a man can have be greatly deformed and still breed successfully, as long as he has the ability (wealth) and desire (attentiveness) to feed the family.
PS. The focus on "action over appearance" is also part of why women have a greater ability to enjoy cross-gender gay porn than men... they pay more attention to what happens, less to who does it.
for the underager who can't get real porn yet.
It becomes ever-more difficult to imagine there are still people out there who can play videogames, but can't download some nude jpgs.
they have to be some sort of super-being. That's actually sort of a problem
Related is the Magic Negro syndrome in film. What frequently happens in a game/movie storyline is that the men in the heroic team are there by virtue of natural skill, strength, and cleverness, while the token black or woman is only a valued contributor because of some fluke special power.
This reinforces a feeling of "blacks/women are inferior, because they need a special boost just to keep pace with white men". Look at Fifth Element and Serenity (Firefly movie) for examples of this pattern- both have "normal" human male adventurers teamed with "super chicks".
Your main character is your ship. You level the ship up, get new crew, and eventually scrap it for a more expensive model.
That's a good idea, and it's been done in a 1943 Earth setting. You can play for free at http://www.navyfield.com./
Make death permanent for these characters. The game isn't over, I've just lost a character I really cared about.
Until mysteriously-dropped internet connections are a distant memory, you can't do that in a game. The worst players would accept is a day of "hospitalization" for the wounded character. Plus, given the technology level of the Star Trek world, low-lethality should be quite plausible. With the combination of teleporters and subspended animation, even the gravest wounds will be survivable.
You get a crew that you familiarize yourself with and grow to care about.
Players would probably want to transfer them to other players' ships in an auction system, as with items in other games.
Microsoft has a history of being first to markwt with buggy software.
Um, no, you can't accuse Microsoft of being "first to market". Microsoft's pattern is to wait for smaller companies to build a market in a new field, and then move into that sector once the profitability has been demonstrated. (Using their superior bankroll and OS-integration to crush the pioneers, of course)
This happened back in Windows 1.0 (years later than other PC GUIs), up till Xbox (years later than Playstation).
The word "vaporware" was invented to describe how Microsoft was so slow to actually release long-announced products.
Slashdot Mirror
but if you're going to say "graphically" shouldn't there be... I dunno. A graph?
Technically, each one of the letters on the page counts as a graph. Look at definition 1a for graphical: "of or relating to written expression".
Today, people generally use "graphical" to exclude the possibility of text, when "pictorial" would be more correct for that meaning. The dictionaries haven't yet been rewritten to match, though.
If you're claiming equal access, people that need wheelchair ramps don't have a choice. Running OSS is.
If you're willing to spend a lot of extra money, you can hire a bodybuilder to carry you up and down stairs. Similarly, instead of running OSS free, I could buy Microsoft.
More specifically, heavily proprietary formats like PDF and Office can be harder for a pagereader to process for a blind user. So, mandating a format everyone can process isn't very different from handicap access at all.
But within each state, it depends on - well, their own laws. In this case, the state - sorry, commonwealth (I'll never understand why the fuck Mass calls themself a "commonwealth" but they do)
Maybe because they want to be honest, and technically accurate?
A "state" is an independent, sovereign nation. None of the so-called "states" in the USA are really states. Massachusetts is merely the only one willing to admit it.
Rules of thumb:
Presidents control states.
Governors control provinces or colonies.
nobody was able to provide a good example of a legitimate use of the "private" label for torrents.
Not you either. If you are sending the data to someone, you are trusting him not to redistribute it further. Whether he mails it out on CD-R, or just publishes the tracker address, the action is the same: someone to whom you gave the data has given it to others.
If you don't trust your approved recipients, your situation is hopeless (and self-contradictory)
The fact that there is mostly illegal files on these sites are mostly coincidental.
It's more than coincidence. For files which are legal to distribute, there is almost always someone with a vested intrest in seeing that distribution increase. Those people are willing to serve leechers, in exchange for getting the data out there. The feeling of sharing and having helped others is all the reward they need.
BitTorrent, in most cases of authorized file distribution, should be pictured as just an accelerator for HTTP-type fileserving, which protects against "Slashdot effect" when there are more than 1 downloader at a time.
can be counted on the fingers of Captain Hook's bad hand
The fact that one of his hands has been ingested by a reptile in no way reduces the number of fingers upon it, especially in an ageless pocket-dimension where objects are not degraded by the passage of time.
For practical purposes (and "practical" was the standard you suggested), it is much, much higher.
imagine what it would be like for a business.
It's actually very difficult to imagine businesses with an enormous need to transmit extra-securely between two fixed points.
because you know that you've lost this argument
Well, the actual arguement was against Kish's ludicrous claim that his technique was "absolutely secure", which you already surrendered by changing the subject to "practical" security.
But, as to the more general question of OTP vs newfangled uninterceptible media (QC or Kish's new proposal):
No, that's not a one time pad, a one time pad requires regular manual, impractical exchanges of data.
It does not, for a reasonable definition of "regular".
Using consumer-grade optical discs, I can lift in one hand enough random numbers to transmit data for 10 years (assuming new keys are loaded at 100hz, which is faster than proposed QC methods would provide them). And a properly-rigorous security team would reinitialize their OTP (or QC table) more frequently anyway (to bound the damage caused in the unlikely case that someone snuck into the transmission room and copied down the codes).
No, that's not a one time pad, a one time pad requires regular manual, impractical exchanges of data.
Conversly, QC requires continuous, impractical immobility of both sender and reciever. You can't move.
Furthermore, the subtitle of Kish's paper is just laughable: "absolutely secure, fast, inexpensive, robust, maintenance-free...". One what planet does he reside, where installing a new dedicated telephone cable between two facilities is inexpensive, robust, or low-maintenance? (Maybe its only relatively inexpensive compared to QC, which is probably true)
One single impractical exchange (for the initial exchange of private information) is nothing when you get numerous future, practical exchanges as a result.
Of course. And we call that technique One Time Pads. It was technically detailed more than 50 years ago, and was informally used much earlier.
Why should anyone be impressed that "You can meet and exchange lists of secret numbers, and then later use those lists to communicate securely?" OTP does all that, and doesn't require an actual copper wire to be installed between the endpoints (which adds tremendous cost and DOS vulnerability to the system)
This "invention" (like QC) is almost as good as "Proposal for Running OTP Wearing a Daffy Hat"- at least the hat costs less than 60 km of cable.
I understand what is traditionally means, but what difference does it make if it's 1 doormat or 10^10 of them?
The difference is, naturally, 99.99999999%. If somebody learns that "Your key is under the doormat", then the more doormats you have, the less likely they are to find the key.
A rule of thumb to see if a protection plan really relies on "security through obscurity" (as meant when cryptographers say it): If an authorized person must be switched to untrusted, can this be done cheaply, without rebuilding the whole system?
But your device isn't identical to what's at each end. If it's not identical
How do you KNOW it's not identical? The only way you can know is if you've got a list of what the "random" resistance selections will be.
How did you get that list? It had to be communicated somehow. If the channel by which the list was transmitted is secure, then the whole random-resistor scheme is redundant. If it's insecure, then it is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle tampering, and so is the whole scheme.
You see, this is why you shouldn't try to analyze something without knowing about cryptography. It amuses me greatly when amateurs pretend they have expertise in an area where they obviously don't have it.
Usually, in order to keep the message secret some type of cipher is applied. That isn't always the case.
So, you're saying that steel forging is "Metallurgic Cryptography", because you can use it to make a strongbox protecting a secret message?
(In reality, not everything related to secret messages qualifies as cryptography)
There has been no misnomer
Unless "Quantum Cryptography" were a subcategory of "Cryptography", then it is a misnomer. A quick rule of thumb for detecting cryptography: can it be used to encode a file on your hard drive?
but in the case of Aeris, she was DEAD, not KO
So then the question becomes: Why did a weapon which is a nonlethal KO attack 99.99% of the time mysteriously KILL her when he wanted it to?
And, if he had the ability to KILL people, why didn't he use it more often (like, against the rest of your team)?
Good luck trying to break one time pad.
Even so, you'll have better luck if you understand how it works. Then you'll know to send the ninjas to break into the right cabinet and photograph the pages of random numbers for later use. Historically, OTP has been broken, when the pads were created with a biased RNG.
Everything is breakable, and knowledge allows you to hurt anything more effectively.
Now, how do they get this reliable method of communication to check current measurements with each other, that is secure against a man-in-the-middle attack?
The same complaint can apply to Quantum Cryptography, and although it does mean MIM attacks are not completely impossible, that objection can be overcome in practice.
Most people have available a method which they believe to be reliable and non-intersectible: hand-carried briefcase with armed guards. Problem is, it's slow, and can't respond fast enough in an emergency. Thus, QC can be useful if it "bootstraps" from a slow method and provides faster communication from then on.
(But of course, if you were willing to startup with hand-carried data, could just pack the briefcase with One Time Pads on DVD, and achieve both a lower investment cost and less vulnernabilty to backhoe DOS)
Quantum Encryption is p2p.
People no longer understand p2p as "point to point", but rather "peer to peer". Point2Point cannot use significant IP addresses, but Peer2Peer must use them (or something similar).
Which means when Bob and Alice trade IP addresses,
I hope you meant "IP address" in some metaphorical way. There is no way QC can be applied to operate over an internet with real IP address. IP requires routing, and routing means packet-forwarding, but QC depends on an photonic signals that are irreproducible, and thus unroutable.
you ought to be able to have each other's IPs
Do you know the IPs of every mail-order vendor from which you might wish to order?
What you're doing is repeating the usual QC-request to have the initial exchange of recognition data left off of the vulnerability analysis, because it is in fact susceptible to every kind of man-in-the-middle assault.
On the other hand, since crytography has nothing to do with the problem he's working on
Nothing? What about the fact that the mass-media is describing his project as "an encryption scheme"?
True, what he's doing isn't technically encryption. But since false claims to the contrary have been made, then cryptography has become relevant, if only to debunk.
Note that it isn't Dr. Kish's fault that the word "encryption" has been wrongly invoked- blame goes to whoever coined the "quantum encryption" misnomer.
It works extremely well as a way to enhance the atmosphere, immersing you into the world of the 1950s
There were zombie epidemics in the 50s? I don't even remember the laser-rifles, robo-butlers, or hovercars!
(Also, that's a 3rd person view... the game's "camera" is not supposed to be your own eyes, so mechanical artifacts will be more plausible in chasecam situations. You're watching Stubbs, not being him)
I'm just saying that if women are interested in video games, they should stop complaining and make them.
Statements of the form "you should stop complaining and do it yourself" are common, especially relating to Open Source software, but are almost never valid.
Complaints are a legitimate part of contributing to development. There is a continuum from complaints, to bug-reports, testing, fixes, and new development- each one both more valuable and more time consuming than the last. It is only through volume of complaints that potential developer volunteers learn what the user public cares about.
If women want to make games that women want to play, make them.
You are exercising the "efficient sidewalk fallacy":
1. The free market efficiently incites producers to fill all consumers' needs.
2. Your need has not been filled.
3. Therefore, either your desire is impossible, or you don't really want it.
In truth, it is not correct to dismiss these complaints with "You can't really have a valid need, or someone would've marketed a solution already"... because it is only by hearing steady complaints over time that an entrepreneur decides to go ahead with a plan to serve that niche.
reading about girl-oriented pornography a while ago. It's interesting to me how similar it is
You might not know what it really is. Female-targeted porn is found in the book isle of grocery stores, and has the label "Romance" on the side of the shelves.
That's because for a (straight) woman, a sex partner is valued more for what he does than what he is. The reasonings go back to Darwinian genetics- an unattractive woman (hips, breasts) is less likely to bear live children, or feed them through the first year. But a man can have be greatly deformed and still breed successfully, as long as he has the ability (wealth) and desire (attentiveness) to feed the family.
PS. The focus on "action over appearance" is also part of why women have a greater ability to enjoy cross-gender gay porn than men... they pay more attention to what happens, less to who does it.
for the underager who can't get real porn yet.
It becomes ever-more difficult to imagine there are still people out there who can play videogames, but can't download some nude jpgs.
they have to be some sort of super-being. That's actually sort of a problem
Related is the Magic Negro syndrome in film. What frequently happens in a game/movie storyline is that the men in the heroic team are there by virtue of natural skill, strength, and cleverness, while the token black or woman is only a valued contributor because of some fluke special power.
This reinforces a feeling of "blacks/women are inferior, because they need a special boost just to keep pace with white men". Look at Fifth Element and Serenity (Firefly movie) for examples of this pattern- both have "normal" human male adventurers teamed with "super chicks".
Leveling isn't a good thing for any game ever. Its boring, pointless, and mind numbing. It drives players away in droves.
Yeah, drives them away. That's why EQ is out of business and WoW has only 34 players left.
In reality, those two games are parts of genres which have hardly any gameplay outside of levelling- like it or not, that's what their players want.
Your main character is your ship. You level the ship up, get new crew, and eventually scrap it for a more expensive model.
That's a good idea, and it's been done in a 1943 Earth setting. You can play for free at http://www.navyfield.com./
Make death permanent for these characters. The game isn't over, I've just lost a character I really cared about.
Until mysteriously-dropped internet connections are a distant memory, you can't do that in a game. The worst players would accept is a day of "hospitalization" for the wounded character. Plus, given the technology level of the Star Trek world, low-lethality should be quite plausible. With the combination of teleporters and subspended animation, even the gravest wounds will be survivable.
You get a crew that you familiarize yourself with and grow to care about.
Players would probably want to transfer them to other players' ships in an auction system, as with items in other games.
Microsoft has a history of being first to markwt with buggy software.
Um, no, you can't accuse Microsoft of being "first to market". Microsoft's pattern is to wait for smaller companies to build a market in a new field, and then move into that sector once the profitability has been demonstrated. (Using their superior bankroll and OS-integration to crush the pioneers, of course)
This happened back in Windows 1.0 (years later than other PC GUIs), up till Xbox (years later than Playstation).
The word "vaporware" was invented to describe how Microsoft was so slow to actually release long-announced products.