This is exactly right. In fact, the maximum efficiency that you can achieve from an engine running off of a difference in heat is
1-(lowtemp/hightemp).
This is called the Carnot efficiency. The temperatures are measured in Kelvins (Celsius plus 373 with 0 as absolute zero, I think). As you can see it is damn hard to get even 50% efficiency like this. You would have to have the liquid nitrogen about halfway between the outside temp and absolute zero. Liquid nitrogen is nowhere near this temperature. This is the real trouble with heat engines. Even the theoretical maximum efficiency (which is never achieved) isn't all that efficient.
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Apparently, they are just going to push the debris out of the way of the space station (you can do that with lasers). This takes a heck of a lot less energy than actually vaporizing stuff though it is a lot less cool.
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
. . . Microsoft nanobots. They wouldn't have to be susceptible to virii anymore. They are them. I wouldn't let those things into my body if my life depended on it. Constantly trying to connect to the internet without my asking by plugging me into a wall outlet via a fork. Ouch.
Ethan Jewett E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
To, partially, answer your question about the number of hits for Twofish and Blowfish, here we go:
There are two types of encryption techniques. There is symmetric (Blowfish, DES, etc.) and asymmetric (Twofish, RSA, etc.). Symmetric algorithms use only one key to encrypt and decrypt information. Asymmetric algorithms, sometimes called public key algorithms use two keys. One public and one private. The public key is used to encrypt while the private key is used to decrypt. Asymmetric algorithms are also usually designed to work in some way as digital signatures or identifiers.
So, first you need to figure out whether you need symmetric or asymmetric encryption. This eliminates an entire catagory. The reason you probably found so many Blowfish hits compared to Twofish is a.: Blowfish is older, and b.: symmetric algorithms tend to be simpler (mathematically) and easier to program.
You can probably find a more thorough explaination of the two algorithms at Schneier's web-page: www.counterpane.com
Ethan Jewett E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Though I think that we've all agreed that copy-protection is pretty generally a dumb idea, the biometric identification via typing habits could concievably be a good idea. We do all have pretty unique typing styles, at least those of us who use a keyboard much, and, if correctly analyzed, these styles could identify a person. This is especially attractive because everyone has a keyboard so no other hardware is really necessary.
Ethan Jewett E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
What is this guy thinking? He claims that he is an open mind that is going to try to look at the ethics of the free/open source software paradigm, then goes on to attack, not the philosophy, but the people who espouse it.
Meyer makes much of the fact that (he believes) free software supporters hold a universal hatred of commercial software (they don't) and attacks that. But most importantly, he makes intensly personal attacks on RMS and ESR based entirely on their personal political or moral beliefs which are entirely unrelated to the free software movement.
It seems to me that Meyer has aquired some hatred of his own. A hatred of Stallman and Raymond that obviously gets in the way of his original mission.
Hmm . . . reminds me of what he says about free software's feelings about commercial software.
Sounds good but just one correction: It wasn't encrypted, it was in a.cab format in an.exe file. You didn't need anything to open it aside from Winzip.
I think the issue here is that Microsoft says this is a trade secret. Something under the GPL is certainly not a trade secret, it usually has a copywrite.
My understanding is that you can put as many restrictions as you want on something that you have copywritten but have to disclose it to whoever asks to see it.
With trade secrets, on the other hand, you get to keep them secret (i.e. you don't have to show them to anyone) but once someone gets a hold of whatever you're hiding, all bets are off.
It looks like another so called editorial error was made and people are taking it for truth.
This is very important: No one ever said that L0phtCrack was illegal or that the two people were charged with possession of said program. They were charged with what is essentially breaking and entering.
This charge is perfectly ligitamate and two perpetrators should be punished for it by all means.
Sorry but this is exactly why software companies are/were saying that open-source is inherently insecure, which we all know to be a false assertion.
The obvious solution is to make sure that your arguements don't have any holes for opposing lawyers to exploit. This, I think, is the whole idea behind this concept.
I understood from reading the d.net documentation that there is an issue of blocks that were never returned to the keyserver. These lost blocks were counted in the percentage but once the project "complete", the non-returned blocks would have to be redistributed assuming that the key had not already been found.
That could account for at least part of the 25%. Especially since the Windows client tends to lose the packet that it is working on when the machine crashes.
Actually, the often ignored but highly advanced Asian cultures (mainly Chinese, I believe) had recognized the concept of a number zero before the year 0. Eventually the idea found its way to Europe where people mentioned above quickly stole it and took credit for it.
Hey, maybe there is something to be said for patents on obvious ideas.
Or rather, has taken down their link to it. The Download Dispatch newsletter stated that Download.com had been contacted by the MPAA and informed that it was illegal to post deCSS and download.com's lawyers concured that it must be taken down.
This brings up a couple of issues. Is deCSS really illegal and, maybe more importantly, is it illegal to link to illegal data on another server?
Somewhat on this subject, when should (sentient, or seemingly so) computers get rights similar to those we have as humans? This situation is disturbingly similar to that in the Confederate south before the civil war. Slave owners weren't concerned with mistreatment of slaves because they weren't even intelligent (sentient), much less human. The same could be said, and is, for the new breed of "creative machines" that we are seeing now. Maybe they really are intelligent and we are simply misunderstanding them, much as the slave owners refused to believe that their slaves were just as intelligent as themselves.
I don't think that anyone disagrees that programmers should have control over their code. Simply that it is better to license it under an open license than a proprietary one so others can use it for whatever they like. This insures that you're code becomes as good as it can be, unless of course it already is, in which case you (and your users) have nothing to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . writting on one of these things. Holy crap! Why do I keep getting these little holes in my paper!?
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
This is exactly right. In fact, the maximum efficiency that you can achieve from an engine running off of a difference in heat is
1-(lowtemp/hightemp).This is called the Carnot efficiency. The temperatures are measured in Kelvins (Celsius plus 373 with 0 as absolute zero, I think). As you can see it is damn hard to get even 50% efficiency like this. You would have to have the liquid nitrogen about halfway between the outside temp and absolute zero. Liquid nitrogen is nowhere near this temperature. This is the real trouble with heat engines. Even the theoretical maximum efficiency (which is never achieved) isn't all that efficient.
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
To, partially, answer your question about the number of hits for Twofish and Blowfish, here we go:
There are two types of encryption techniques. There is symmetric (Blowfish, DES, etc.) and asymmetric (Twofish, RSA, etc.). Symmetric algorithms use only one key to encrypt and decrypt information. Asymmetric algorithms, sometimes called public key algorithms use two keys. One public and one private. The public key is used to encrypt while the private key is used to decrypt. Asymmetric algorithms are also usually designed to work in some way as digital signatures or identifiers.
So, first you need to figure out whether you need symmetric or asymmetric encryption. This eliminates an entire catagory. The reason you probably found so many Blowfish hits compared to Twofish is a.: Blowfish is older, and b.: symmetric algorithms tend to be simpler (mathematically) and easier to program.
You can probably find a more thorough explaination of the two algorithms at Schneier's web-page: www.counterpane.com
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
Though I think that we've all agreed that copy-protection is pretty generally a dumb idea, the biometric identification via typing habits could concievably be a good idea. We do all have pretty unique typing styles, at least those of us who use a keyboard much, and, if correctly analyzed, these styles could identify a person. This is especially attractive because everyone has a keyboard so no other hardware is really necessary.
Ethan Jewett
E-mail: Now what spa I mean e-mail site does Microsoft run again?
What is this guy thinking? He claims that he is an open mind that is going to try to look at the ethics of the free/open source software paradigm, then goes on to attack, not the philosophy, but the people who espouse it.
Meyer makes much of the fact that (he believes) free software supporters hold a universal hatred of commercial software (they don't) and attacks that. But most importantly, he makes intensly personal attacks on RMS and ESR based entirely on their personal political or moral beliefs which are entirely unrelated to the free software movement.
It seems to me that Meyer has aquired some hatred of his own. A hatred of Stallman and Raymond that obviously gets in the way of his original mission.
Hmm . . . reminds me of what he says about free software's feelings about commercial software.
Sounds good but just one correction: It wasn't encrypted, it was in a .cab format in an .exe file. You didn't need anything to open it aside from Winzip.
I think the issue here is that Microsoft says this is a trade secret. Something under the GPL is certainly not a trade secret, it usually has a copywrite.
My understanding is that you can put as many restrictions as you want on something that you have copywritten but have to disclose it to whoever asks to see it.
With trade secrets, on the other hand, you get to keep them secret (i.e. you don't have to show them to anyone) but once someone gets a hold of whatever you're hiding, all bets are off.
It looks like another so called editorial error was made and people are taking it for truth.
This is very important: No one ever said that L0phtCrack was illegal or that the two people were charged with possession of said program. They were charged with what is essentially breaking and entering.
This charge is perfectly ligitamate and two perpetrators should be punished for it by all means.
Sorry but this is exactly why software companies are/were saying that open-source is inherently insecure, which we all know to be a false assertion.
The obvious solution is to make sure that your arguements don't have any holes for opposing lawyers to exploit. This, I think, is the whole idea behind this concept.
I understood from reading the d.net documentation that there is an issue of blocks that were never returned to the keyserver. These lost blocks were counted in the percentage but once the project "complete", the non-returned blocks would have to be redistributed assuming that the key had not already been found.
That could account for at least part of the 25%. Especially since the Windows client tends to lose the packet that it is working on when the machine crashes.
Actually, the often ignored but highly advanced Asian cultures (mainly Chinese, I believe) had recognized the concept of a number zero before the year 0. Eventually the idea found its way to Europe where people mentioned above quickly stole it and took credit for it.
Hey, maybe there is something to be said for patents on obvious ideas.
Or rather, has taken down their link to it. The Download Dispatch newsletter stated that Download.com had been contacted by the MPAA and informed that it was illegal to post deCSS and download.com's lawyers concured that it must be taken down.
This brings up a couple of issues. Is deCSS really illegal and, maybe more importantly, is it illegal to link to illegal data on another server?
Somewhat on this subject, when should (sentient, or seemingly so) computers get rights similar to those we have as humans? This situation is disturbingly similar to that in the Confederate south before the civil war. Slave owners weren't concerned with mistreatment of slaves because they weren't even intelligent (sentient), much less human. The same could be said, and is, for the new breed of "creative machines" that we are seeing now. Maybe they really are intelligent and we are simply misunderstanding them, much as the slave owners refused to believe that their slaves were just as intelligent as themselves.
I don't think that anyone disagrees that programmers should have control over their code. Simply that it is better to license it under an open license than a proprietary one so others can use it for whatever they like. This insures that you're code becomes as good as it can be, unless of course it already is, in which case you (and your users) have nothing to worry about.