Basically they're looking for weaknesses in the encryption or a way to break the encryption. The basic idea is that if you have a x-bit key for you encryption system then you should be able to generate 2^x different keys. So for instance if you had 4-bit encryption, then you would have 4 bits that you could assign a value to. That is you have something like _ _ _ _ where each _ can be either a 1 or a 0. When you work out the number of unique ways you can make this assignment you get 16, or 2^4.
To break the encryption, you need to find the key. In the 4-bit example above, it is easy you just try all 16 of the possibilities. Now, if you raise the encryption strength to say 256-bit, you have 2^256 theoretically possible keys. Now, if you assume that you can check 30,000 keys per second it would take you well over a million years to check all of the keys (actually somewhere on the order of 10^60 years). So doing that is obviously not a practical solution.
So what they're doing is trying to find a method that is more efficient. There are sometimes reasons why certain keys don't need to be tested and there are statistical methods that should theoretically be more efficient that simply randomly trying keys. So previous to this study they think the complexity is 2^119. Though it's not quite right, you can think of this as the average number of keys you would have to try before getting the right one. With the method they are suggesting they are claiming that the complexity could be lowered to 2^110.5. Practically speaking, this doesn't really make cracking the key any easier. But in the future, who knows...
As I understand it, it is because the undercover cops are legally sanctioned to conduct investigations (provided the follow all the proper laws/regulations). However, that doesn't mean I can buy drugs and then give said drugs to the court as evidence that whomever I bought them from is a dealer. There is most certainly a probability of some sort of conflict of interest. Perhaps I am a drug dealer, and simply don't like my neighbor.
In any case, the RIAA is not using (or so it seems on/.) legitimate means to go undercover (ie unlicensed investigators). They are in some effect being a vigilante (or trying to anyway).
That's a problem. Say you turn a corner or are on a steep incline, without more information the calculation will not be the correct speed. It will be the average velocity. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but in this case let's say the kid turned a corner and the distance between the two readings was 1300 feet. Well, then he could very well have actually traveled 1700 feet. If you just use the timestamps of these positions, you get the wrong speed and it could very well explain the discrepancy between the GPS and radar.
I don't know if there is a good way of doing it directly through firefox, but I know you can add an user style sheet through the web developer plugin (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60 )
In the case of./ you just have to make a css file with the following code in it...
Of course, this isn't a very good solution for browsing because it seems to remove the style sheet every time the page changes and you pretty much have to scan the css of sites to figure out what to call stuff. But if you intend to spend a lot of time reading something like a book or./ comments, it may be worthwhile. It should also be fairly simple to change the font type, size, etc. I'm sure there's a better way of doing it hidden somewhere in Firefox, but I'm not sure where
but we typically don't market p0rn or viagra to them (although there are viagra and cialis commercials, but they don't ever come straight out and say what it is like the spam).
Our society is still very Puritan though. Look at Europe, there are images displayed all over that would certainly be labeled as or near porn here. You don't see the problems, that everyone here expects if the children were exposed.
just like my stock prices did... then of course they fell. So, cutting my losses, I sold them. An what do you know, it turns out that they are even higher now.
Its not so much a question of quality, but can an average person use something different. When most people by a computer it comes with Windows on it and I'm willing to bet that most of them are not confident enough to change operating systems because there are some substantial risks involved (ie accidently wiping out all your data, installing the wrong drivers for certain components may fry them, etc.) whereas changing a search engine is as simple as going to a different site. Not that hard really, you can even go to google and search for other search engines if you want to find one. And if you don't like that one as much you can go back without any trouble/damage/difficulty or find another.
I got 25-30 , I wasn't really counting, but I did get more than 10% correct and I'm certain Ken can beat me, so I think that your guess is wrong.
A good deal of the questions (after I looked at teh answers) actually weren;t that hard to answer if the question had been straight forward. In my opinion most of the difficulty in those questions is not knowing what the answer is, because almost anyone can memorize answers, but having a broad enough knowledge of the topic in order to understand the question
I live in Texas, most of the malls in my area (DFW) have Dell Kiosk things in them that are actually quite nice where you can demo several products and make orders if you decide to purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically they're looking for weaknesses in the encryption or a way to break the encryption. The basic idea is that if you have a x-bit key for you encryption system then you should be able to generate 2^x different keys. So for instance if you had 4-bit encryption, then you would have 4 bits that you could assign a value to. That is you have something like _ _ _ _ where each _ can be either a 1 or a 0. When you work out the number of unique ways you can make this assignment you get 16, or 2^4.
To break the encryption, you need to find the key. In the 4-bit example above, it is easy you just try all 16 of the possibilities. Now, if you raise the encryption strength to say 256-bit, you have 2^256 theoretically possible keys. Now, if you assume that you can check 30,000 keys per second it would take you well over a million years to check all of the keys (actually somewhere on the order of 10^60 years). So doing that is obviously not a practical solution.
So what they're doing is trying to find a method that is more efficient. There are sometimes reasons why certain keys don't need to be tested and there are statistical methods that should theoretically be more efficient that simply randomly trying keys. So previous to this study they think the complexity is 2^119. Though it's not quite right, you can think of this as the average number of keys you would have to try before getting the right one. With the method they are suggesting they are claiming that the complexity could be lowered to 2^110.5. Practically speaking, this doesn't really make cracking the key any easier. But in the future, who knows ...
As I understand it, it is because the undercover cops are legally sanctioned to conduct investigations (provided the follow all the proper laws/regulations). However, that doesn't mean I can buy drugs and then give said drugs to the court as evidence that whomever I bought them from is a dealer. There is most certainly a probability of some sort of conflict of interest. Perhaps I am a drug dealer, and simply don't like my neighbor.
In any case, the RIAA is not using (or so it seems on /.) legitimate means to go undercover (ie unlicensed investigators). They are in some effect being a vigilante (or trying to anyway).
That's a problem. Say you turn a corner or are on a steep incline, without more information the calculation will not be the correct speed. It will be the average velocity. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but in this case let's say the kid turned a corner and the distance between the two readings was 1300 feet. Well, then he could very well have actually traveled 1700 feet. If you just use the timestamps of these positions, you get the wrong speed and it could very well explain the discrepancy between the GPS and radar.
why would you want to sleep with her boyfriend? wasn't the idea to sleep with her?
In the case of
You could just download the stad-alone sp2 installer and put it on a cd and use that every time.
but games cost more.
First of, where might one find this free porn?
Second, why do you have to steal the said free porn?
I think you have too much information. Let's add another category:
News/Reports - looks like information, but it really isn't.
That should bring information to a more logical 45 kilos.
I never would have thought. Now, how much did this cost and how much did the "researchers" make?
but we typically don't market p0rn or viagra to them (although there are viagra and cialis commercials, but they don't ever come straight out and say what it is like the spam).
Our society is still very Puritan though. Look at Europe, there are images displayed all over that would certainly be labeled as or near porn here. You don't see the problems, that everyone here expects if the children were exposed.
Wild rice isn't actually rice, its more akin to wheat.
Come on, you could atleast make sure the title is spelled correctly
just like my stock prices did ... then of course they fell. So, cutting my losses, I sold them. An what do you know, it turns out that they are even higher now.
Its not so much a question of quality, but can an average person use something different. When most people by a computer it comes with Windows on it and I'm willing to bet that most of them are not confident enough to change operating systems because there are some substantial risks involved (ie accidently wiping out all your data, installing the wrong drivers for certain components may fry them, etc.) whereas changing a search engine is as simple as going to a different site. Not that hard really, you can even go to google and search for other search engines if you want to find one. And if you don't like that one as much you can go back without any trouble/damage/difficulty or find another.
I got 25-30 , I wasn't really counting, but I did get more than 10% correct and I'm certain Ken can beat me, so I think that your guess is wrong.
A good deal of the questions (after I looked at teh answers) actually weren;t that hard to answer if the question had been straight forward. In my opinion most of the difficulty in those questions is not knowing what the answer is, because almost anyone can memorize answers, but having a broad enough knowledge of the topic in order to understand the question
so now I can crash at least five systems at the same time?
that's great, but you'd still have to look out for the grammar weenies because they make up their own rules so there's no way around them ...
i think the idea is to consolodate those down into one so you can use one site as apposed to three or how ever many you happen to use
I live in Texas, most of the malls in my area (DFW) have Dell Kiosk things in them that are actually quite nice where you can demo several products and make orders if you decide to purchase.
Ok ... who developed a recent addiction to sci-fi only to discover that it is not the future and is now disapointed ....
... the 5th one this week
what is this
Does anyone else see the striking similarities to the Hitchikers Guide?
Simulating the Universe to find answers and the number 4.2 can't be a coincidence, can it?
Wouldn't something like Mandrake or SuSe be better for beginners?
That's great ... I already installed it, how do you think I feel. Atleast you can (or could have) stop it.
List of sites infected (spoof ... they probably weren't but i don't know)
........
... Ok, how many of the above did you click. None, ok, I believe you, but how many is Grandma going to click?
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.msn.com/
http://www.slashdot.org/
http://www.ilovebacon.com/