`` Supporters of the Hollings proposal
don't couch the legislation in terms of
protecting embattled copyright
interests. They frame it as a measure
designed to promote digital content
and the use of broadband, high-speed
Internet services. If Hollywood could
be assured that its content would be
protected on the broadband Internet,
the argument goes, it would develop
more compelling programs for the
Web and spur greater consumer
demand for broadband.''
Excuse me. The single greatest spurs for broadband *ALREADY* exist; Hell, hollywood is doing their utmost to shut them down. They're Napster, Morpheus, Gnutella.
If it hadn't been for those programs, internet bandwidth would be a fraction what it is now. Furthermore, there'd be much less reason to PURCHASE broadband anymore.
Hollywood: If you don't put your own goods online now, where people want them, then someone else will do it for you. (which is already occurring.)
Isn't the real reason for the war the fact that they didn't turn over the terrorists?
IE, we're not invading them because they have terrorists inside their borders (in which case, we'd have to invade half of the world), but because they didn't turn over *the* group of terrorists that killed 3000 of our people.
Which is chump change. Telephone and communications companies make more in a year than hollywood has made SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE VCR.
Furthermore, they, as a group, have a monopoly on the creation of new fictional entertainment... Does this give you ideas?
If hollywood could (say) get even a small part of the communications (aka, the delivery) pie, they'd make more money a year than they do now.
Does this give you ideas for other sources of revenue? Make everything literally free (to download) on the internet. With, maybe, a royalty on home-user (IE, non-business) bandwidth, with statistical sampling to determine how much of that royalty should go to which entertainment industries for mass-market entertainment. Maybe add in hard drives or cd blanks. Basically, make something similar to the Audio-CDR mechanism.
After all, if they increased home telephone/communication bills by even 10% for such a royalty. 100 million people spending $100/month (cable, telephone, internet), with a 10% royalty toward entertainment production starts moving into the billions of dollars/year range.
Not only that, but suddenly there is MUCH less fighting over copyrights, hollywood doesn't have to worry about extra duplication, caues every duplication is more profit for them. It lets people do whatever they want on and with their computers.
Yeah, its annoying, and if you only backup your hard drive onto CD's, you're subsidizing brittney spears. But on the other hand, it *will* give hollywood billions and billions of dollars, and stop digital control technology.
And, in such a world, napster/gnutella/morpheus for movies would be the best thing ever for movies. 10x the bandwidth, means 10x the money coming in! Furthermore, they could make even more money from premium servers where you pay, but you get high-quality, uncorrupted, fast downloads.
The idea is to not fight humanity, but try to go along with them.
So, a reference please for the claim that per-capita energy use in the US is higher than other countries.
I researched this a few months ago and determined that, counting only first-world industrial countries, at least in terms of electrical usage, Americans are about in the middle. Some Europeans use more electricity per person, others use less.
I also saw that electricity usage per GNP was somewhat lower in the US compared to several european countries.
Numbers for GNP, electricity usage, and population were taken from the CIA world factbook, 2000 edition, then divided with a calculator.
I think I remember the origional Morris worm as being fairly buggy and unreliable.
By this, I meant assuming a worm that was carefully tested and not buggy. Many of the worms out there are buggy. Even the origional code red had flaws.
The nightmare scenario.. Three hours from when a widespread bug (like the recent XP one) and having millions of windows machines trashing everything they touch.
That is the future, and it will happen someday.
Here's how:
Use the warhol worm spreading technique. Read it and be frightened. He claims 8 MINUTES from first infection to millions of infections.
I'm not quite as confident as he is in that number. But I'll definitely agree that 2 hours is more than enough time. (1 million vulnerable hosts, 5 scans/sec. Start with 1000 hosts, each second, 5000 probes, finding one vulnerable host. Thus, after 15 minutes, 2000 hosts, and doubling every 15 minutes.)
And, the more vulnerable hosts, the faster it spreads.
Now imagine a truly destructive payload. One which does not delete files, but corrupts them, starting with the fileservers. It restores datestamps to make it impossible to identify what files are corrupted.
Three hours from exploit to millions of computers corrupting thousands of files. Antivirus won't keep up, hell, warninsgs won't even reach most people until after its demolished their fileserver. With obfuscation techniques, the worm could survive 3 hours without being reverse-engineered.
It spreads so fast, there's no defense. It spreads so fast, you won't be aware its trashing all files until its already started. The only reason we've survived this long is that nobody really competent has worked on a worm.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The only question is when it will occur, and whether you will be running Windows when the time comes. I hope you keep good backups.
I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush. Then, when nobody buys it, I'm going to complain that I can't make money, that imported commie toothbrushes are destroying my market.
And then, I'm going to demand protection by the government to make sure that I *do* make money.
Or, I could see the writing on the wall and make cheaper toothbrushes. If I make $10 toothbrushes or $1,000,000 movies, its harder to lose your shirt.
Yeah, in the future, the $100,000,000 movie may not exist. So? Home Alone cost a couple of million dollars. There's no way India's film industry (bigger than hollywood) makes movies costing that much.
Trust the free market. They'll make money; hell, like television and the VCR, this will probably lead to more profit than ever before. (despite their origional claims to the contrary) The demand for Entertainment is insatiable, and hollywood is DAMNED good at manufacturing it by the ton-lots.
At one time, about 15 years ago when I was 8, Cable TV didn't have commercials at all. They had breaks in the program, but those breaks were advertisements for other programs.
They didn't have commercials.. I wonder what law got changed that let them both increase prices, and force commercials down our throats. And cable TV survived too!
If it hadn't been for the evil hoards plagarizing his plays, they never would have been put down on paper to be read (and hated) by schoolchildren everywhere.
(Then again, Shakespear plagarized his most of the plays attributed him..)
Methinks someone is viewing history through rosy glasses.
Weapons treaties are there to be ignored by a the parties signing them.
THink of it, you sign a treat to (say) not research biological weapons for offensive purposes, say, like Russia did. Then, you secretly violate the treaty, and now you have weapon the other side doesn't have. Its happened in the past, it'll happen in the future.
Weapons treaties only penalize the honest countries. Dishonest countries won't care. At least we actually do (for the most part) obey our treaties.
I challenge you to name a business that never made a mistake.
They all do, or they all will make a mistake. Pointing out that Netscape or Real lost because of a mistake is disingenious, because EVERY business makes some sort of mistake. They spend too much time adding on buggy features, or they spend too much time getting it stable that they lack features, or both at the same time.
But, Microsoft's monopoly position mean that they're almost immune from mistakes. They can afford to have 3 teams rewriting code. They can afford to be a loss-leader for YEARS. They can write crap, but make sure it gets users from version 2.0.
And, Microsoft makes mistakes, mistakes that would put any other software house out of business. Look at how late they got into the internet, and how many people they bought out to catch up? The billions of dollars spent developing IE.
At that level, Microsoft doesn't need to give a fuck if they make a mistake. They have immunity from mistakes. They can use their monopoly to hide it, cover it up, or get a second chance later. Others, without a monopoly, cannot afford the expense of keeping up.
The display encryption idea from intel, that is the much ballyhooed HDCP, that was the subject of Niels Ferguson a few months ago. (also on slashdot), and one week ago, slashdot posted a news story announcing that it is completely broken.
BTW, its not vapor, Apparently, a ten thousand bux 42 inch rear-projection TV from JVC actually is using the piece of digital control crap.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. I also was considering making the same types of choices you are looking at.
My code deals with building massive 3d arrays containing tens of millions of cells and manipulating them. Obviously, the inner loops of the manipulation would be the bottleneck.
So I ran my trusty profiler.... And found out that 90% of my time was being spent READING THE DATA IN.
It took two lines of code to make that three times faster, making my program 2.5x faster.
Interesting... Then, a couple of weeks later, I took a large deployed system with an active developer community, www.squeak.org, and ran that through a profiler, and found out how changing one line of code lead to 4% speedup in the core intererpreter, and lead to other simple changes that were just as valuable. I also ran the benchmarking in the interpreter, and sped up syntax hilighting by 40%.
If I was doing something like what you were, I'd probably go all-out at using a more dynamic language (Smalltalk) for the extreme flexibility.
Only devolve into C/assembly for the critical parts.
Many times, the bottlenecks aren't where you think or might predict they are. Why spend weeks guessing incorrectly and optimizing code that won't help you go faster when the profiler will tell you exactly what magic bits to re-examine.
It can also find O(n^2) artifacts and all the rest.
If your code is currently running, run it through gprof and see where the CPU time is really going.
I think I remember of once hearing about a study that found HIV antibodies in samples taken from people who died in the very early part of this century.
Furthermore, there is such a thing as chance and coincidence and unexpected correlations. For example, the influenza epidemic of 1918 might have been very little, had there not been the transport architecture we have now in place. It also was probably a chance mutation that just happened to get a whole lot nastier all of the sudden.
Similarily, smallpox presumabely started off as a case of the more mild cow-pox that mutated into the scourge that killed tens (hundreds?) of millions (billions?) of people. This also happens to predate modern medicine by a long shot.
I'll agree that evolution seems about as safe a bet as newtonian mechanics.
I'll even consent that there *may* be a small trend of the planet getting warmer since the 'little ice age' 300 years ago.
But, I won't agree that that trend is long term (See the 'medieval warming' period just before the little ice age; apparently it was somewhat warmer then than it is now.)
But, I won't agree that humanity has affected any such warming trend, if it exists, more than an unmeasurable epsilon.
At least without proof from non-cranks. (I note that most climate models have huge fudge factors, and don't take into account such things as clouds. I do not consider them anything more than mental masturbation.) Note, I am asking proof for anthropogenic caused global warming of more than a trivial amount.
Fascinating redux on nuclear power; its nice to hear from non-ignorant people.
I have one question though; I've heard that much of the operating costs and construction costs of a plant are unrelated to actual expenses, but rather related to regulation and innumerable scientific studies, Not related to the safety systems, but paperwork defending the safety systems.
I'd read an article that clocked up the cost per kilowatt hour as being about.50 cents, including refining the uranium, using it, and disposing of it. The majority of the total (a few cents) was amortized cost of the construction of the plant.
True, false, or you don't know?
Eh well, Nuclear sucks. The question is, does it suck more or less than the alternatives? (really, coal)
Mickey Mouse and national security
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 4, Funny
``Mickey Mouse is more important than national security; Mickey Mouse has gotten a federal appeals court to agree that they can have scientific research and/or software censored, while the DoJ, representing national security interests, was unable to get an appeals court to censor encryption reserach, publication, or software.'' -- Scott A Crosby
NEWS: 2600 has lost the appeal in the DVD case.
on
Wu-ftpd Remote Root Hole
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Hello, it doesn't belong here, but, as the slashdot authors *rejected* the story:
2001-11-28 23:52:31 2600 lost the appeal (articles,censorship) (rejected)
The first amendment gives freedom of speech. Thus, it trumps the vaguely worded copyright clause.
So, this would make copyright nominally unconstitutional. Oops!
How the courts repair this problem is by stating that copyright law must be as *weak* as possible, as least-restrictive as possible, for if it becomes one whit more restrictive than necessary, it immediately becomes unconstitutional because of the conflict with the first amendment.
`Fair use' is just a codification of SOME of the things that copyright cannot control. A guide enumerating some restrictions that cannot be claimed by any copyright holder. That does not preculde the many OTHER rights granted by the first amendment.
IE, 'fair use' is not a case of 'all thats not fair use is infringement', but rather, 'at least the things listed as fair use are legal'. The digital control industries want us to think of fair use as being the first definition, when its actually the second definition.
As I ran the math earlier on a post a couple of weeks ago, you'd need thousands of square miles of ocean for creating enough electricity to satisfy, for example, the US yearly demand.
I don't know about you, but covering thousands of square miles of ocean surface seems... unwise.
Go with nuclear, cause everything else just sucks more.
Just because its an algorithm that could be built by a blind monkey given a typewriter doesn't mean that the crack isn't an analysis.
I'm not disagreeing about its lameness, just claiming that I didn't do a cryptoanalysis.:)
Also, the slides do elide out a few things, the operations occur in the ring of the integers modulo 2^56, This is a ring, not a field because even numbers to not have multiplicative inverses. You also have to worry about mistakenly assuming that you can construct stronger attacks than are actually provable based on the specification.
Second semester algebra might be pushing it, but I'd agree that just about any junior in math could crack it in about 10 minutes after pointing out the relevant section of the specification.
I've thought over possible designs very carefully, but, given the DMCA, and my lack of a desire to aid, abet, or otherwise supply any support to any of these digital control technology schemes in any way.. But, with high confidence, I'd say that you could make something essentially hackproof.
I'll be mum, at least, but I can at least reference two proposed standards for you to read. See www.trustedpc.org (with CPRM hard drives, signed drivers, signed bioses, 'trusted windows'), or microsofts slides on the topic. Also, see DTCP, there they *did* use real public key crypto.
Read them, but don't try to break them; I don't want you to aid abet, or otherwise support the digital control freaks any way.
Slashdot Mirror
`` Supporters of the Hollings proposal
don't couch the legislation in terms of
protecting embattled copyright
interests. They frame it as a measure
designed to promote digital content
and the use of broadband, high-speed
Internet services. If Hollywood could
be assured that its content would be
protected on the broadband Internet,
the argument goes, it would develop
more compelling programs for the
Web and spur greater consumer
demand for broadband.''
Excuse me. The single greatest spurs for broadband *ALREADY* exist; Hell, hollywood is doing their utmost to shut them down. They're Napster, Morpheus, Gnutella.
If it hadn't been for those programs, internet bandwidth would be a fraction what it is now. Furthermore, there'd be much less reason to PURCHASE broadband anymore.
Hollywood: If you don't put your own goods online now, where people want them, then someone else will do it for you. (which is already occurring.)
Isn't the real reason for the war the fact that they didn't turn over the terrorists?
IE, we're not invading them because they have terrorists inside their borders (in which case, we'd have to invade half of the world), but because they didn't turn over *the* group of terrorists that killed 3000 of our people.
Which is chump change. Telephone and communications companies make more in a year than hollywood has made SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE VCR.
Furthermore, they, as a group, have a monopoly on the creation of new fictional entertainment... Does this give you ideas?
If hollywood could (say) get even a small part of the communications (aka, the delivery) pie, they'd make more money a year than they do now.
Does this give you ideas for other sources of revenue? Make everything literally free (to download) on the internet. With, maybe, a royalty on home-user (IE, non-business) bandwidth, with statistical sampling to determine how much of that royalty should go to which entertainment industries for mass-market entertainment. Maybe add in hard drives or cd blanks. Basically, make something similar to the Audio-CDR mechanism.
After all, if they increased home telephone/communication bills by even 10% for such a royalty. 100 million people spending $100/month (cable, telephone, internet), with a 10% royalty toward entertainment production starts moving into the billions of dollars/year range.
Not only that, but suddenly there is MUCH less fighting over copyrights, hollywood doesn't have to worry about extra duplication, caues every duplication is more profit for them. It lets people do whatever they want on and with their computers.
Yeah, its annoying, and if you only backup your hard drive onto CD's, you're subsidizing brittney spears. But on the other hand, it *will* give hollywood billions and billions of dollars, and stop digital control technology.
And, in such a world, napster/gnutella/morpheus for movies would be the best thing ever for movies. 10x the bandwidth, means 10x the money coming in! Furthermore, they could make even more money from premium servers where you pay, but you get high-quality, uncorrupted, fast downloads.
The idea is to not fight humanity, but try to go along with them.
I heard about this idea, oh, about 3 years ago.
So, what do you think.
You're ringing my bullshit detector. :)
So, a reference please for the claim that per-capita energy use in the US is higher than other countries.
I researched this a few months ago and determined that, counting only first-world industrial countries, at least in terms of electrical usage, Americans are about in the middle. Some Europeans use more electricity per person, others use less.
I also saw that electricity usage per GNP was somewhat lower in the US compared to several european countries.
Numbers for GNP, electricity usage, and population were taken from the CIA world factbook, 2000 edition, then divided with a calculator.
Please cite a source for your claim.
I think I remember the origional Morris worm as being fairly buggy and unreliable.
By this, I meant assuming a worm that was carefully tested and not buggy. Many of the worms out there are buggy. Even the origional code red had flaws.
They're doing permutation scanning.
The nightmare scenario.. Three hours from when a widespread bug (like the recent XP one) and having millions of windows machines trashing everything they touch.
That is the future, and it will happen someday.
Use the warhol worm spreading technique. Read it and be frightened. He claims 8 MINUTES from first infection to millions of infections.
I'm not quite as confident as he is in that number. But I'll definitely agree that 2 hours is more than enough time. (1 million vulnerable hosts, 5 scans/sec. Start with 1000 hosts, each second, 5000 probes, finding one vulnerable host. Thus, after 15 minutes, 2000 hosts, and doubling every 15 minutes.)
And, the more vulnerable hosts, the faster it spreads.
Now imagine a truly destructive payload. One which does not delete files, but corrupts them, starting with the fileservers. It restores datestamps to make it impossible to identify what files are corrupted.
Three hours from exploit to millions of computers corrupting thousands of files. Antivirus won't keep up, hell, warninsgs won't even reach most people until after its demolished their fileserver. With obfuscation techniques, the worm could survive 3 hours without being reverse-engineered.
It spreads so fast, there's no defense. It spreads so fast, you won't be aware its trashing all files until its already started. The only reason we've survived this long is that nobody really competent has worked on a worm.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The only question is when it will occur, and whether you will be running Windows when the time comes. I hope you keep good backups.
I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush. Then, when nobody buys it, I'm going to complain that I can't make money, that imported commie toothbrushes are destroying my market.
And then, I'm going to demand protection by the government to make sure that I *do* make money.
Or, I could see the writing on the wall and make cheaper toothbrushes. If I make $10 toothbrushes or $1,000,000 movies, its harder to lose your shirt.
Yeah, in the future, the $100,000,000 movie may not exist. So? Home Alone cost a couple of million dollars. There's no way India's film industry (bigger than hollywood) makes movies costing that much.
Trust the free market. They'll make money; hell, like television and the VCR, this will probably lead to more profit than ever before. (despite their origional claims to the contrary) The demand for Entertainment is insatiable, and hollywood is DAMNED good at manufacturing it by the ton-lots.
They will find a way to make money.
At one time, about 15 years ago when I was 8, Cable TV didn't have commercials at all. They had breaks in the program, but those breaks were advertisements for other programs.
They didn't have commercials.. I wonder what law got changed that let them both increase prices, and force commercials down our throats. And cable TV survived too!
If it hadn't been for the evil hoards plagarizing his plays, they never would have been put down on paper to be read (and hated) by schoolchildren everywhere.
(Then again, Shakespear plagarized his most of the plays attributed him..)
Methinks someone is viewing history through rosy glasses.
Weapons treaties are there to be ignored by a the parties signing them.
THink of it, you sign a treat to (say) not research biological weapons for offensive purposes, say, like Russia did. Then, you secretly violate the treaty, and now you have weapon the other side doesn't have. Its happened in the past, it'll happen in the future.
Weapons treaties only penalize the honest countries. Dishonest countries won't care. At least we actually do (for the most part) obey our treaties.
I challenge you to name a business that never made a mistake.
They all do, or they all will make a mistake. Pointing out that Netscape or Real lost because of a mistake is disingenious, because EVERY business makes some sort of mistake. They spend too much time adding on buggy features, or they spend too much time getting it stable that they lack features, or both at the same time.
But, Microsoft's monopoly position mean that they're almost immune from mistakes. They can afford to have 3 teams rewriting code. They can afford to be a loss-leader for YEARS. They can write crap, but make sure it gets users from version 2.0.
And, Microsoft makes mistakes, mistakes that would put any other software house out of business. Look at how late they got into the internet, and how many people they bought out to catch up? The billions of dollars spent developing IE.
At that level, Microsoft doesn't need to give a fuck if they make a mistake. They have immunity from mistakes. They can use their monopoly to hide it, cover it up, or get a second chance later. Others, without a monopoly, cannot afford the expense of keeping up.
The display encryption idea from intel, that is the much ballyhooed HDCP, that was the subject of Niels Ferguson a few months ago. (also on slashdot), and one week ago, slashdot posted a news story announcing that it is completely broken.
BTW, its not vapor, Apparently, a ten thousand bux 42 inch rear-projection TV from JVC actually is using the piece of digital control crap.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. I also was considering making the same types of choices you are looking at.
My code deals with building massive 3d arrays containing tens of millions of cells and manipulating them. Obviously, the inner loops of the manipulation would be the bottleneck.
So I ran my trusty profiler.... And found out that 90% of my time was being spent READING THE DATA IN.
It took two lines of code to make that three times faster, making my program 2.5x faster.
Interesting... Then, a couple of weeks later, I took a large deployed system with an active developer community, www.squeak.org, and ran that through a profiler, and found out how changing one line of code lead to 4% speedup in the core intererpreter, and lead to other simple changes that were just as valuable. I also ran the benchmarking in the interpreter, and sped up syntax hilighting by 40%.
If I was doing something like what you were, I'd probably go all-out at using a more dynamic language (Smalltalk) for the extreme flexibility.
Only devolve into C/assembly for the critical parts.
Many times, the bottlenecks aren't where you think or might predict they are. Why spend weeks guessing incorrectly and optimizing code that won't help you go faster when the profiler will tell you exactly what magic bits to re-examine.
It can also find O(n^2) artifacts and all the rest.
If your code is currently running, run it through gprof and see where the CPU time is really going.
I think I remember of once hearing about a study that found HIV antibodies in samples taken from people who died in the very early part of this century.
Furthermore, there is such a thing as chance and coincidence and unexpected correlations. For example, the influenza epidemic of 1918 might have been very little, had there not been the transport architecture we have now in place. It also was probably a chance mutation that just happened to get a whole lot nastier all of the sudden.
Similarily, smallpox presumabely started off as a case of the more mild cow-pox that mutated into the scourge that killed tens (hundreds?) of millions (billions?) of people. This also happens to predate modern medicine by a long shot.
I'll agree that evolution seems about as safe a bet as newtonian mechanics.
I'll even consent that there *may* be a small trend of the planet getting warmer since the 'little ice age' 300 years ago.
But, I won't agree that that trend is long term (See the 'medieval warming' period just before the little ice age; apparently it was somewhat warmer then than it is now.)
But, I won't agree that humanity has affected any such warming trend, if it exists, more than an unmeasurable epsilon.
At least without proof from non-cranks. (I note that most climate models have huge fudge factors, and don't take into account such things as clouds. I do not consider them anything more than mental masturbation.) Note, I am asking proof for anthropogenic caused global warming of more than a trivial amount.
Fascinating redux on nuclear power; its nice to hear from non-ignorant people.
.50 cents, including refining the uranium, using it, and disposing of it. The majority of the total (a few cents) was amortized cost of the construction of the plant.
I have one question though; I've heard that much of the operating costs and construction costs of a plant are unrelated to actual expenses, but rather related to regulation and innumerable scientific studies, Not related to the safety systems, but paperwork defending the safety systems.
I'd read an article that clocked up the cost per kilowatt hour as being about
True, false, or you don't know?
Eh well, Nuclear sucks. The question is, does it suck more or less than the alternatives? (really, coal)
``Mickey Mouse is more important than national security; Mickey Mouse has gotten a federal appeals court to agree that they can have scientific research and/or software censored, while the DoJ, representing national security interests, was unable to get an appeals court to censor encryption reserach, publication, or software.'' -- Scott A Crosby
Hello, it doesn't belong here, but, as the slashdot authors *rejected* the story:
2001-11-28 23:52:31 2600 lost the appeal (articles,censorship) (rejected)
The news is just in, 2600 lost the appeal. Nothing more is known. Furthermore, the felton countersuit was thrown out. http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=852
It is a dark day.
The first amendment gives freedom of speech. Thus, it trumps the vaguely worded copyright clause.
So, this would make copyright nominally unconstitutional. Oops!
How the courts repair this problem is by stating that copyright law must be as *weak* as possible, as least-restrictive as possible, for if it becomes one whit more restrictive than necessary, it immediately becomes unconstitutional because of the conflict with the first amendment.
`Fair use' is just a codification of SOME of the things that copyright cannot control. A guide enumerating some restrictions that cannot be claimed by any copyright holder. That does not preculde the many OTHER rights granted by the first amendment.
IE, 'fair use' is not a case of 'all thats not fair use is infringement', but rather, 'at least the things listed as fair use are legal'. The digital control industries want us to think of fair use as being the first definition, when its actually the second definition.
As I ran the math earlier on a post a couple of weeks ago, you'd need thousands of square miles of ocean for creating enough electricity to satisfy, for example, the US yearly demand.
I don't know about you, but covering thousands of square miles of ocean surface seems... unwise.
Go with nuclear, cause everything else just sucks more.
Hey, I remember you.. You have my email address from the past, or its easy to find out.
And finding me online is trivial:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Scott+Crosby
Note the first two links.
Lets, get together, and, all 10,000 of us start to sell crack cocain in our local neighborhoods. They can't arrest us all, right?
*STUPID*
Just because its an algorithm that could be built by a blind monkey given a typewriter doesn't mean that the crack isn't an analysis.
:)
:)
I'm not disagreeing about its lameness, just claiming that I didn't do a cryptoanalysis.
Also, the slides do elide out a few things, the operations occur in the ring of the integers modulo 2^56, This is a ring, not a field because even numbers to not have multiplicative inverses. You also have to worry about mistakenly assuming that you can construct stronger attacks than are actually provable based on the specification.
Second semester algebra might be pushing it, but I'd agree that just about any junior in math could crack it in about 10 minutes after pointing out the relevant section of the specification.
BTW, the designer is Intel.
to make a practically unhackable system.
I've thought over possible designs very carefully, but, given the DMCA, and my lack of a desire to aid, abet, or otherwise supply any support to any of these digital control technology schemes in any way.. But, with high confidence, I'd say that you could make something essentially hackproof.
I'll be mum, at least, but I can at least reference two proposed standards for you to read. See www.trustedpc.org (with CPRM hard drives, signed drivers, signed bioses, 'trusted windows'), or microsofts slides on the topic. Also, see DTCP, there they *did* use real public key crypto.
Read them, but don't try to break them; I don't want you to aid abet, or otherwise support the digital control freaks any way.
Scott