But a reasonable assumption is that the encrypted data has some known format. Or lets say, you have some hash of the data, that's used for some integrity check.
Out of 2^4096 possiblities, how much legible text would be decrypted that is relevent to the context?
Actually, No matter what cipher you'll be using or how large the keys you're using are: One can always use brute force to find a solution.
It may indeed not be practical: i.e. it would take trillions and trillions of years, yet that is merely a computation problem. Perhaps, one day, a technology would be invented that simultaneously checks all possible keys in a matter of seconds? That would render brute forcing the best, fastest way to go.
Saying that it is impossible is being either self delusional or plain stupid.
Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?
Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...
An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one, It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
I thought you can get negative refraction, when an electromagnetic wave passes through a "Metamaterial" i.e. One with Negative Permittivity and Permeability.
I thought that using CMOS tech. the larger the gate capacitance is, the lower the speed, since you have to "charge" that "capacitor" in order to deliver a signal.
Increasing the gate insulator would in turn, perhaps affect the electric field strength required to create or deplete the SourceDrain Tunnel - which in turn, requires more current -> higher power consumption.
So these guys found a way to reduce leakage current without increasing the insulator size...?
If You think those are good, I recommend you try: Visual Slickedit
Perhaps the best editor I've ever come across. It has features like, Contexts - where you get to see declarations and implementations of function and types you're using in a "preview window", like the lower pane of many popular mail readers (where they show you an email preview. You can also easily jump to declarations, AND it automatically keeps tracks of your jumps, so that you can always "jump back". It's completely scriptable and extremely customizable. It's like coding reinvented, I highly recommend.
Oh, and btw, it's cross platform. (There's a windows version and a linux version, perhaps even other OS's which i didn't bother checking)
This is yet another milestone in Google's quest to achieve access to all of our personal information.
I bet they'll be crawling all the documents you type, all the data you input, cross refer that with all your mail from your GMail account/Online searches/Google-Maps activity/Google Talk conversations/ISP traffic where Google-Wifi is available, etc.
It seems we're all waiting for it to become "too late" before we realize what's been going on. Google can do far greater damage then Microsoft ever could. Soon enough, Google would turn out to be our worst privacy intrusion nightmare. Wake up people!
The binding with GMail and other services (even some future ones) is critical for the plot.
i.e. They know your email contents, they know what you search for, they know which places you visit (by cross-referring your email contacts and your activities on google-maps).
Now consider their future plans to bind you even tighter to their services which will have you expose even more information.
I wasn't really worried about Google's intentions until I've seen the latest "features" they added to their homepage.
You might have noticed the: "Personalized Home" thing at the top left of your browser. In order to implement this feature, Google, obviously needs to know who is actually looking at the page, so that it could then personalize it - therefore, you need to "Sign In" to use the page. To me, this seems like a way to masquerade their true intentions. By "Signing in" you're actually letting Google know more information then it requires... You're not only "Personalizing" their homepage, but you're actually creating a mapping between a "user" and a "search". In other words, Google would now have the ability to know (same account as GMail) which user looked for what - beyond GMail (where they know what each user read). If you combine all this data, you get a HUGE database containing personal information. You'd be surprised how much one could learn just by looking at another person's search queries. I'm sure that in the following years Google would unveil many more features that would practically lead to them having access to ALL of our personal information. They're just taking it slowly, one step at a time.
This seems to me like a privacy nightmare. Are we to let Google have all this information, while we sit aside, hoping they'll protect our data based solely on our good faith?
Remember, that by not using their services, you're private information is not protected. It's enough that 1 person would have your contact information on his GMail account, another would have your e-Mail and some questions you asked. Google would just have to cross-refer and find whatever they like.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet, that requires the two parties to know the pad in advance, rendering the method useless in a lot of circumstances.
errr,
Slashdot removes the "Smaller Than" signs.
not my fault.
yeah, sorry, noticed the "=" instead of the "=" after i posted.
I'd give you my mod points if i had any.
Very good Idea. Is it yours?
Agreed.
But a reasonable assumption is that the encrypted data has some known format.
Or lets say, you have some hash of the data, that's used for some integrity check.
Out of 2^4096 possiblities, how much legible text would be decrypted that is relevent to the context?
how about:
unsigned_integer_4097_bit_type key;
for (key = 0; key = (2^4096-1); key++) {
if (Test_key(SomethingEncrypted, key ) == SUCCESS) {
print(key);
break;
}
}
See, it's only a matter of finishing the loop.
A computational problem.
Actually, No matter what cipher you'll be using or how large the keys you're using are:
One can always use brute force to find a solution.
It may indeed not be practical: i.e. it would take trillions and trillions of years, yet that is merely a computation problem.
Perhaps, one day, a technology would be invented that simultaneously checks all possible keys in a matter of seconds?
That would render brute forcing the best, fastest way to go.
Saying that it is impossible is being either self delusional or plain stupid.
How about 20 Years?
You, literally, wouldn't believe, how far the American dollar goes in India.
Picture it: A camera that could Auto-focus without any moving, mechanical parts.... faster and more energy efficient!
I wonder what's the percentage of power drained by a typical digital camera just for auto focusing under normal usage.
It's amusing how you thought that expanding the BSOD abbreviation is nessecery, and keeping the NLM abbreviated is fine.
I for one, have no idea what "NLM" is.
Replicators, anyone?
Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?
Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...
An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
I thought you can get negative refraction, when an electromagnetic wave passes through a "Metamaterial" i.e. One with Negative Permittivity and Permeability.
(for instnace, in a dispersive plasma cloud)
with a bootable CD-RW of course...
Actually, It's a Hebrew word.
Yonah means Pigeon.
It's also a name of some biblical figure (the guy that got swallowed by the whale)...
Makes sense, considering the fact that it was developed at intel's Israeli branch.
(Just like Dothan, is a hebrew name too)
I thought that using CMOS tech. the larger the gate capacitance is, the lower the speed, since you have to "charge" that "capacitor" in order to deliver a signal.
Increasing the gate insulator would in turn, perhaps affect the electric field strength required to create or deplete the SourceDrain Tunnel - which in turn, requires more current -> higher power consumption.
So these guys found a way to reduce leakage current without increasing the insulator size...?
Or Am I getting this wrong?
See Internet Explorer/HTML...
If You think those are good, I recommend you try: Visual Slickedit
Perhaps the best editor I've ever come across.
It has features like, Contexts - where you get to see declarations and implementations of function and types you're using in a "preview window", like the lower pane of many popular mail readers (where they show you an email preview.
You can also easily jump to declarations, AND it automatically keeps tracks of your jumps, so that you can always "jump back".
It's completely scriptable and extremely customizable.
It's like coding reinvented, I highly recommend.
Oh, and btw, it's cross platform. (There's a windows version and a linux version, perhaps even other OS's which i didn't bother checking)
Available: here and here
Why build a nuke bomb to take care of a few cockroaches?
I guess you didn't get the memo...
This is yet another milestone in Google's quest to achieve access to all of our personal information.
I bet they'll be crawling all the documents you type, all the data you input, cross refer that with all your mail from your GMail account/Online searches/Google-Maps activity/Google Talk conversations/ISP traffic where Google-Wifi is available, etc.
It seems we're all waiting for it to become "too late" before we realize what's been going on.
Google can do far greater damage then Microsoft ever could.
Soon enough, Google would turn out to be our worst privacy intrusion nightmare.
Wake up people!
heh, didn't even have to wait long and here we have another story about a new google service...
Are you starting to see it now?
Will it ever work?
The binding with GMail and other services (even some future ones) is critical for the plot.
i.e. They know your email contents, they know what you search for, they know which places you visit (by cross-referring your email contacts and your activities on google-maps).
Now consider their future plans to bind you even tighter to their services which will have you expose even more information.
The centralization is what creeps me.
I wasn't really worried about Google's intentions until I've seen the latest "features" they added to their homepage.
You might have noticed the: "Personalized Home" thing at the top left of your browser.
In order to implement this feature, Google, obviously needs to know who is actually looking at the page, so that it could then personalize it - therefore, you need to "Sign In" to use the page.
To me, this seems like a way to masquerade their true intentions.
By "Signing in" you're actually letting Google know more information then it requires...
You're not only "Personalizing" their homepage, but you're actually creating a mapping between a "user" and a "search".
In other words, Google would now have the ability to know (same account as GMail) which user looked for what - beyond GMail (where they know what each user read).
If you combine all this data, you get a HUGE database containing personal information.
You'd be surprised how much one could learn just by looking at another person's search queries.
I'm sure that in the following years Google would unveil many more features that would practically lead to them having access to ALL of our personal information.
They're just taking it slowly, one step at a time.
This seems to me like a privacy nightmare.
Are we to let Google have all this information, while we sit aside, hoping they'll protect our data based solely on our good faith?
Remember, that by not using their services, you're private information is not protected.
It's enough that 1 person would have your contact information on his GMail account, another would have your e-Mail and some questions you asked. Google would just have to cross-refer and find whatever they like.