I agree to an extent. However, it'd be extremely unlikely that this wireless power would be as efficient as a deluge of wires. Install this and watch your energy bill sky rocket...not to mention chance of a fire; I don't care if it is said to be completely safe.
Also, what kind of power would you get from one of these devices? I'd imagine it'd be pretty dirty, which isn't generally good for electronics, and I definitely wouldn't wanna run my computer on it.
Oh, another thing, wouldn't this cause interference with speakers and CRT monitors? Having my stereo next to my monitor already causes it to jitter and jive.
Then go and prove it. www.topcoder.com. Heck, you can even use VB if you want. I'll personally send you $100 if you can beat Petr or tomek in just one contest.
Had an idea after reading your comment. Lots of people commented about how the Digg front-page is just a result of what the majority vote on, and the majority isn't intelligent. So here's a way to make everyone happy:
When you digg a story, link your username to everyone else that has dugg the same story. After digging at least 30-40 stories, you've got a nice little cluster of users which you relate to pretty well. The front-page for each user could be different, giving more weight to the people who digg like you do, and less weight to those who don't.
Now hopefully the stupid majority will be in a different cluster of users than the more intelligent people.
Combine that with a comment system like slashdot's, and I think you've got a real improvement on the system as a whole.
Uh. We're saying "We don't give a shit what you want" because you're not paying us, nor providing us with any other benefit. We *are* paying those companies for their video cards, motherboards, win modems, etc. I find your powers of analogy severely lacking.
Sure, if you're working on a personal project, you can choose to use them or not. But if you're even on a two-person team, you have to know at least the set of features that the other person knows, in order to be able to read their code. If you're working on anything decently large, say, a 10-15 programmer team, then you basically have to know the whole language, or have guidelines that say which features will and won't be used. Hence, language bloat is a problem.
Sure, it is standardized. Just as how I arrange the socks in my drawer is standardized. I never said that C# wasn't standardized. However, that standardization means close to nothing. I said that I trust the C++ standards body to not mess things up, not that I trust *any* standards body. I never said that it never has to change (in fact, if you had paid attention to my post, I said I was excited about the change), I said I was glad that the C++ standards body was taking their time, and picking out the essential features from the cruft, instead of just throwing in everything, and having to yank the kitchen sink from Mozilla's hands to be able to throw it in as well.
Well, sure, it's a standards body. But I could grab a couple friends, goto mellow mushroom, and design a language over some booze, and call ourselves the standards body for that language. That doesn't mean anyone would trust us. The C++ standards body is taking time (perhaps a little too much, but still) to consider every aspect of the language, how the changes will impact existing programs, whether the changes are necessary, or even useful, and getting community feedback. If the ECMA is indeed the one advancing the language, and not just controlled by some group at MS, then I think I'd be hesitant to trust them to not screw up my projects in the future.
in about six months, they'll be able to rename C# "perl without the @, or the $"! "P-@$"? They can advertise it as "As powerful as a scripting language, like perl!", and all of the half-intelligent programmers will read that as "Gives you nightmares from trying to read code, just like perl!"
They keep adding more and more stuff to the language...is there anyone that can really read all of the code that is possible to be written in C#? It sounds like a readability nightmare to me.
Heck, it took me years to learn all of the components in C++, and I'd bet that the specification for the complete language is now much smaller than C#'s. And there's still stuff waiting to be discovered on the level of template meta-programming.
Is all of the stuff they keep adding actually useful? Or is it just being added so that they can give the impression of progress, and maybe convert more people to using it? Granted, I'm excited about C++0x, but unlike what I would be thinking if I used C#, I'm not worried because I trust the standards body to not put completely unnecessary stuff into the language. What do you C# programmers think?
My question for you is why would you ever need to rename things out of one namespace? C++'s typedefs should fulfill any sort of renaming need you may have. If you're getting name conflicts...well, Stroustrup says you shouldn't use the "using namespace" statement anyway, but should either completely specify the namespace (or a renamed namespace as it may be), or only import specific items from the namespace.
And if you fail to see how you can make a union of namespaces from my previous post, then you're simply not thinking at all: namespace unionwow { using namespace soandso; using soandsoandso::object; }
Whoa! I've got a union of the full soandso namespace and an object from soandsoandso.
I also fail to see how function-like namespaces would be desireable. Best I can think of is for things currently accomplished with templates, like parameterizing a vector module on an int datatype.
You're right, I don't have too much experience with any language that has function-like namespaces, and hence I fail to see their use. Care to explain?
Actually, I was reading the standards page a while back about the developments of C++0x. Ends up that the x part of it might end up being a hexadecimal digit. =/ They were saying the standard would probably be published in 2009, barring any major hold-ups. And it's a standards committe, you know there's going to be hold-ups.
You can really accomplish this with namespaces as they are currently.
The using keyword isn't only used in using namespace std;. You can also say things like: using std::vector;. You can also make aliases to namespaces: namespace sp=boost::spirit; Separate things correctly with namespaces, and know how to use using and you'll already have this functionality.
C++ is capable of much much more than just object-orientated programming. Look at all of the template craziness going on by Alexandrescu for generic programming. See the Boost Lambda library for some functional programming examples. Heck, even wikipedia says "C++ is designed to directly and comprehensively support multiple programming styles (procedural programming, data abstraction, object-oriented programming, and generic programming)" [Ref. And it does *all* of this without any sort of major performance detriment.
First of all, look at the reason this was created. There are hundreds of livejournal clones out there, and a lot of them run the livejournal software (deadjournal, blurty, etc.). I'm not going to create a new journal on each one of those sites just so I can view the friends-only posts of my friends on those sites, and especially not just so I can comment. This provides a way to link all of those sites together, and it does it openly, in a way that sites that don't use LJ's software can use.
Secondly, addressing your remember passwords comment, it's a complete waste of resources for the system for these users, who just may want to leave a comment, to force them to sign up for an account. Why not just let them provide a reference URL which represents them, and let that server verify that the provided URL is the user's?
Many of your points were simply "This is complex", or "This requires relying on more systems", and conclude that it's bad. Firstly, I think 'rely' is the wrong word for this. You're using these other systems, yes, but if these other systems go down, it doesn't stop you from doing anything. It's similar, though not a perfect analogy, to saying that having more IRC servers in a given network is bad because you're relying on more servers.
Also, imagine the advantages this gives when designing around this system. Forums which are really only for one topic, such as an official forum for a specific piece of software, don't even need to store any user or password information (and therefore don't have any sensitive data). The forum can simply store the OpenID URL for the admins and allow anyone who can verify with that URL do all of the admin work.
It's the first step to providing a true roaming profile, and single sign-on for the web, and it's done in an open manner. I think it's a step in the right direction.
OMG! Slashdot is freaking amazing! *All* of the users have the uncanny ability to realize when someone's being sarcastic! It's incredibly edibly amazing!
A lot of people have suggested going to buy one of the cross-cut shredders. Another option is to simply take your bank statements to a bank (preferably a branch of your own), and ask them to shred it for ya. I'd think, if someone managed to piece together the discards of a bank, my bank statements would be the last thing they'd care to look at (unless, of course, your bank account is about 3 figures longer than mine).
I've done this with smaller stacks of paper beforem, usually just a few pages, and most of them don't mind to do it. I'd be pretty annoyed if my bank refused to shred them for me....
Pull up a chair, and let me tell ya a story. Let's say there's this lady named Alice. Now, Alice decides on her own one day that she wants to start eating bagles. So, she meets this man (we'll call him Bob). Now, Bob convinces her that he's a bagle-connoisseur. So, she decides to follow his lead. For the next few days, he leads her through eating bagles with rat-droppings on them, old disgusting bagles, soggy bagles from having been dipped in Dr. Pepper rip-offs. After a while, Alice manages to take some of the bagles that Bob gives her, scrapping off the disgusting parts, and salvaging the parts of the bagle that she likes.
Now, during all this time, Bob is also way overcharging her for these bagles. So, let's say a few years pass. We take another look at Alice, and she's no longer buying bagles from Bob, but she's either creating her own bagles, or eating other bagles. Keeping in mind that she decided to start eating bagles on her own, should she thank Bob for getting her into bagles, or should she smack him for causing her to eat disgusting bagles, and probably slowing down her adoption of bagle-eating habits that much longer?
Long story short: The stuff that Microsoft did to help the industry would have happened with or without Microsoft. The pain, set-backs, and such that Microsoft caused probably wouldn't have. Microsoft does not deserve my thanks, and while I respect Bill Gates, and Microsoft as a company (mostly for their skills at manipulating the market, but also because *now* there are some very decent idealists working there), I think the market would have moved along at a much increased rate without Microsoft. We would be better off today if Microsoft had never existed.
Disclaimer: I do use Linux and Mac OS X. However, I do not think that everyone should be running Linux today. It's not ready for that, plus, people have different tastes.
...but the "create a good environment" part is definitly weird...
Dude, you don't know much about China, do you? Go read a bit, heck, even the other slashdot comments would help. Given China's history, this is *nothing* out of the ordinary.
*Copyright* has absolutely nothing to do with this. Well, maybe a little in that copyright is necessary to enforce software licenses.
Sun announced (but have not provided a legally binding contract saying so) that they would allow you to use their patents if your code is licensed under the CDDA. However, they left out from the CDDA the part about one piece of code able to be licensed under multiple different licenses. Which means that if your code is licensed under the CDDA, then it's *only* licensed under the CDDA. The GPL does not allow you to just change the license like that, plus, why should we change our license for some random company?
You're not wrong, just concentrating on the wrong issue. It's not what they're doing (only able to use hte patents under the CDDL), it's the fact that they've not issued a *legal* statement about doing it. A press release will not hold up in a court of law. Here:
Let's say you develop software under the CDDL, intending to use one of sun's patents. You get on Sun's bad side, so they can sue you for using one of their patents, no matter if it's under the CDDL, because they *did not* release a legally binding contract about it. You'd be going on their good faith, and as we've been burnt many times in the past by company's 'good faith', you shouldn't trust them, until you do have a contract like what IBM published.
Just use good passwords. Anyone using all lowercase letters for their passwords probably isn't too worried about it. I mean, if it's easier for you to add another character to your password than to use uppercase, then by all means do so. But lowercase + uppercase + numbers factors out to: ((26 + 26 + 10)^15) / (70.72 terahertz) = 344 539.008 years Add symbols to that and it will practically never be broken. You'd need a 19-character all lowercase password to almost match the possibilities of a 15 character alphanumeric case-sensitive password.
Keep in mind that these are pretty optimistic guesses. The only thing I forgot to add in that would cause lesser time is the statistic factor that your password will not be the last one they check, so that'll average out to half the amount of years. But I'd be extremely amazed if they could generate the next password, and check it in one floating point operation. Plus, most people worried about it use a combo upper/lower, plus symbols, plus numbers.
Also, you're saying they could store all the possibilities, that's really not mathematically possible either, assuming you're using a good crypto algorithm/good hashing algorithm(*NOT* MD5). The goal would be basically to find a password that hashed to the same value as your password, so for every possibility of the hash function, they'd have to store a password that would match it. Simply storing one byte for every possibility of that hash would be near impossible with today's storage: 2^64 * 1 byte = 16 exabytes (And that's for a 64-bit hash, even MD5 is 128-bit (though MD5 is insecure for other reasons)) I don't think there's that much storage in the world, and even if there is, there's certainly not enough to store even 8 character passwords, using a 256-bit hash, and especially not at one institution.
BTW, an exabyte = 1024 petabytes = 1024^2 terabytes
You also mentioned that the computer was "working alone". Looking through the top 500 list of supercomputers, there's 398 computers in the world above 1 teraflops. Let's be completely over-optimistic on the computing power, and say there's 400 computers operating at 70.72 teraflops working on your password alone. That'd still only reduce the amount of time it would take by a factor of 400. So you're looking at 861 years
It's just not going to happen that your password is brute forced if you follow password guidelines, and make it decently lengthy. I'd highly doubt that your data is worth the world working on your password for 100+ years.
Don't get me wrong, the first-world governments have a lot of computing power. But you're underestimating the time it takes to brute force. You'll be much better off securing your system in other ways than worrying about lengthening your password.
Let's say we're talking alphanumeric, case-insensitive passwords. 26 letters + 10 numbers = 36 choices for each character. Fastest computer in the world in 70.72 teraflops. Let's say it only took one floating point operation to compute a password, that'll be equivalent to 70.72 'terapasswords' per second, or 70.72 terahertz. So, here's the formula: (36^15) / (7.72 terahertz) = 907.455882 years
I think you're a little overoptimistic about the world's computing power.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree to an extent. However, it'd be extremely unlikely that this wireless power would be as efficient as a deluge of wires. Install this and watch your energy bill sky rocket...not to mention chance of a fire; I don't care if it is said to be completely safe.
Also, what kind of power would you get from one of these devices? I'd imagine it'd be pretty dirty, which isn't generally good for electronics, and I definitely wouldn't wanna run my computer on it.
Oh, another thing, wouldn't this cause interference with speakers and CRT monitors? Having my stereo next to my monitor already causes it to jitter and jive.
Then go and prove it. www.topcoder.com. Heck, you can even use VB if you want. I'll personally send you $100 if you can beat Petr or tomek in just one contest.
Had an idea after reading your comment. Lots of people commented about how the Digg front-page is just a result of what the majority vote on, and the majority isn't intelligent. So here's a way to make everyone happy:
When you digg a story, link your username to everyone else that has dugg the same story. After digging at least 30-40 stories, you've got a nice little cluster of users which you relate to pretty well. The front-page for each user could be different, giving more weight to the people who digg like you do, and less weight to those who don't.
Now hopefully the stupid majority will be in a different cluster of users than the more intelligent people.
Combine that with a comment system like slashdot's, and I think you've got a real improvement on the system as a whole.
Uh. We're saying "We don't give a shit what you want" because you're not paying us, nor providing us with any other benefit. We *are* paying those companies for their video cards, motherboards, win modems, etc. I find your powers of analogy severely lacking.
Sure, if you're working on a personal project, you can choose to use them or not. But if you're even on a two-person team, you have to know at least the set of features that the other person knows, in order to be able to read their code. If you're working on anything decently large, say, a 10-15 programmer team, then you basically have to know the whole language, or have guidelines that say which features will and won't be used. Hence, language bloat is a problem.
Sure, it is standardized. Just as how I arrange the socks in my drawer is standardized. I never said that C# wasn't standardized. However, that standardization means close to nothing. I said that I trust the C++ standards body to not mess things up, not that I trust *any* standards body. I never said that it never has to change (in fact, if you had paid attention to my post, I said I was excited about the change), I said I was glad that the C++ standards body was taking their time, and picking out the essential features from the cruft, instead of just throwing in everything, and having to yank the kitchen sink from Mozilla's hands to be able to throw it in as well.
Well, sure, it's a standards body. But I could grab a couple friends, goto mellow mushroom, and design a language over some booze, and call ourselves the standards body for that language. That doesn't mean anyone would trust us. The C++ standards body is taking time (perhaps a little too much, but still) to consider every aspect of the language, how the changes will impact existing programs, whether the changes are necessary, or even useful, and getting community feedback. If the ECMA is indeed the one advancing the language, and not just controlled by some group at MS, then I think I'd be hesitant to trust them to not screw up my projects in the future.
in about six months, they'll be able to rename C# "perl without the @, or the $"! "P-@$"? They can advertise it as "As powerful as a scripting language, like perl!", and all of the half-intelligent programmers will read that as "Gives you nightmares from trying to read code, just like perl!"
They keep adding more and more stuff to the language...is there anyone that can really read all of the code that is possible to be written in C#? It sounds like a readability nightmare to me.
Heck, it took me years to learn all of the components in C++, and I'd bet that the specification for the complete language is now much smaller than C#'s. And there's still stuff waiting to be discovered on the level of template meta-programming.
Is all of the stuff they keep adding actually useful? Or is it just being added so that they can give the impression of progress, and maybe convert more people to using it? Granted, I'm excited about C++0x, but unlike what I would be thinking if I used C#, I'm not worried because I trust the standards body to not put completely unnecessary stuff into the language. What do you C# programmers think?
This would be a boon to boost::spirit in C++. In fact, they're thinking of reusing the auto keyword to add this functionality to C++0x.
Check out this page to see why it'd be so useful.
My bad, it was here that I saw it: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/coding-stand ards.html#faq-27.5
My question for you is why would you ever need to rename things out of one namespace? C++'s typedefs should fulfill any sort of renaming need you may have. If you're getting name conflicts...well, Stroustrup says you shouldn't use the "using namespace" statement anyway, but should either completely specify the namespace (or a renamed namespace as it may be), or only import specific items from the namespace.
And if you fail to see how you can make a union of namespaces from my previous post, then you're simply not thinking at all:
namespace unionwow {
using namespace soandso;
using soandsoandso::object;
}
Whoa! I've got a union of the full soandso namespace and an object from soandsoandso.
I also fail to see how function-like namespaces would be desireable. Best I can think of is for things currently accomplished with templates, like parameterizing a vector module on an int datatype.
You're right, I don't have too much experience with any language that has function-like namespaces, and hence I fail to see their use. Care to explain?
Actually, I was reading the standards page a while back about the developments of C++0x. Ends up that the x part of it might end up being a hexadecimal digit. =/ They were saying the standard would probably be published in 2009, barring any major hold-ups. And it's a standards committe, you know there's going to be hold-ups.
You can really accomplish this with namespaces as they are currently.
The using keyword isn't only used in using namespace std;. You can also say things like: using std::vector;. You can also make aliases to namespaces: namespace sp=boost::spirit; Separate things correctly with namespaces, and know how to use using and you'll already have this functionality.
C++ is capable of much much more than just object-orientated programming. Look at all of the template craziness going on by Alexandrescu for generic programming. See the Boost Lambda library for some functional programming examples. Heck, even wikipedia says "C++ is designed to directly and comprehensively support multiple programming styles (procedural programming, data abstraction, object-oriented programming, and generic programming)" [Ref. And it does *all* of this without any sort of major performance detriment.
First of all, look at the reason this was created. There are hundreds of livejournal clones out there, and a lot of them run the livejournal software (deadjournal, blurty, etc.). I'm not going to create a new journal on each one of those sites just so I can view the friends-only posts of my friends on those sites, and especially not just so I can comment. This provides a way to link all of those sites together, and it does it openly, in a way that sites that don't use LJ's software can use.
Secondly, addressing your remember passwords comment, it's a complete waste of resources for the system for these users, who just may want to leave a comment, to force them to sign up for an account. Why not just let them provide a reference URL which represents them, and let that server verify that the provided URL is the user's?
Many of your points were simply "This is complex", or "This requires relying on more systems", and conclude that it's bad. Firstly, I think 'rely' is the wrong word for this. You're using these other systems, yes, but if these other systems go down, it doesn't stop you from doing anything. It's similar, though not a perfect analogy, to saying that having more IRC servers in a given network is bad because you're relying on more servers.
Also, imagine the advantages this gives when designing around this system. Forums which are really only for one topic, such as an official forum for a specific piece of software, don't even need to store any user or password information (and therefore don't have any sensitive data). The forum can simply store the OpenID URL for the admins and allow anyone who can verify with that URL do all of the admin work.
It's the first step to providing a true roaming profile, and single sign-on for the web, and it's done in an open manner. I think it's a step in the right direction.
OMG! Slashdot is freaking amazing! *All* of the users have the uncanny ability to realize when someone's being sarcastic! It's incredibly edibly amazing!
A lot of people have suggested going to buy one of the cross-cut shredders. Another option is to simply take your bank statements to a bank (preferably a branch of your own), and ask them to shred it for ya. I'd think, if someone managed to piece together the discards of a bank, my bank statements would be the last thing they'd care to look at (unless, of course, your bank account is about 3 figures longer than mine).
I've done this with smaller stacks of paper beforem, usually just a few pages, and most of them don't mind to do it. I'd be pretty annoyed if my bank refused to shred them for me....
Pull up a chair, and let me tell ya a story. Let's say there's this lady named Alice. Now, Alice decides on her own one day that she wants to start eating bagles. So, she meets this man (we'll call him Bob). Now, Bob convinces her that he's a bagle-connoisseur. So, she decides to follow his lead. For the next few days, he leads her through eating bagles with rat-droppings on them, old disgusting bagles, soggy bagles from having been dipped in Dr. Pepper rip-offs. After a while, Alice manages to take some of the bagles that Bob gives her, scrapping off the disgusting parts, and salvaging the parts of the bagle that she likes.
Now, during all this time, Bob is also way overcharging her for these bagles. So, let's say a few years pass. We take another look at Alice, and she's no longer buying bagles from Bob, but she's either creating her own bagles, or eating other bagles. Keeping in mind that she decided to start eating bagles on her own, should she thank Bob for getting her into bagles, or should she smack him for causing her to eat disgusting bagles, and probably slowing down her adoption of bagle-eating habits that much longer?
Long story short: The stuff that Microsoft did to help the industry would have happened with or without Microsoft. The pain, set-backs, and such that Microsoft caused probably wouldn't have. Microsoft does not deserve my thanks, and while I respect Bill Gates, and Microsoft as a company (mostly for their skills at manipulating the market, but also because *now* there are some very decent idealists working there), I think the market would have moved along at a much increased rate without Microsoft. We would be better off today if Microsoft had never existed.
Disclaimer: I do use Linux and Mac OS X. However, I do not think that everyone should be running Linux today. It's not ready for that, plus, people have different tastes.
that's interesting. So, do you think any competent judge would find in favor of the open source developer, then?
/.er who actually knows some law, go you. =P
BTW, a
...but the "create a good environment" part is definitly weird...
Dude, you don't know much about China, do you? Go read a bit, heck, even the other slashdot comments would help. Given China's history, this is *nothing* out of the ordinary.
*Copyright* has absolutely nothing to do with this. Well, maybe a little in that copyright is necessary to enforce software licenses.
Sun announced (but have not provided a legally binding contract saying so) that they would allow you to use their patents if your code is licensed under the CDDA. However, they left out from the CDDA the part about one piece of code able to be licensed under multiple different licenses. Which means that if your code is licensed under the CDDA, then it's *only* licensed under the CDDA. The GPL does not allow you to just change the license like that, plus, why should we change our license for some random company?
You're not wrong, just concentrating on the wrong issue. It's not what they're doing (only able to use hte patents under the CDDL), it's the fact that they've not issued a *legal* statement about doing it. A press release will not hold up in a court of law. Here:
Let's say you develop software under the CDDL, intending to use one of sun's patents. You get on Sun's bad side, so they can sue you for using one of their patents, no matter if it's under the CDDL, because they *did not* release a legally binding contract about it. You'd be going on their good faith, and as we've been burnt many times in the past by company's 'good faith', you shouldn't trust them, until you do have a contract like what IBM published.
Just use good passwords. Anyone using all lowercase letters for their passwords probably isn't too worried about it. I mean, if it's easier for you to add another character to your password than to use uppercase, then by all means do so. But lowercase + uppercase + numbers factors out to:
((26 + 26 + 10)^15) / (70.72 terahertz) = 344 539.008 years Add symbols to that and it will practically never be broken. You'd need a 19-character all lowercase password to almost match the possibilities of a 15 character alphanumeric case-sensitive password.
Keep in mind that these are pretty optimistic guesses. The only thing I forgot to add in that would cause lesser time is the statistic factor that your password will not be the last one they check, so that'll average out to half the amount of years. But I'd be extremely amazed if they could generate the next password, and check it in one floating point operation. Plus, most people worried about it use a combo upper/lower, plus symbols, plus numbers.
Also, you're saying they could store all the possibilities, that's really not mathematically possible either, assuming you're using a good crypto algorithm/good hashing algorithm(*NOT* MD5). The goal would be basically to find a password that hashed to the same value as your password, so for every possibility of the hash function, they'd have to store a password that would match it. Simply storing one byte for every possibility of that hash would be near impossible with today's storage: 2^64 * 1 byte = 16 exabytes (And that's for a 64-bit hash, even MD5 is 128-bit (though MD5 is insecure for other reasons)) I don't think there's that much storage in the world, and even if there is, there's certainly not enough to store even 8 character passwords, using a 256-bit hash, and especially not at one institution.
BTW, an exabyte = 1024 petabytes = 1024^2 terabytes
You also mentioned that the computer was "working alone". Looking through the top 500 list of supercomputers, there's 398 computers in the world above 1 teraflops. Let's be completely over-optimistic on the computing power, and say there's 400 computers operating at 70.72 teraflops working on your password alone. That'd still only reduce the amount of time it would take by a factor of 400. So you're looking at 861 years
It's just not going to happen that your password is brute forced if you follow password guidelines, and make it decently lengthy. I'd highly doubt that your data is worth the world working on your password for 100+ years.
Don't get me wrong, the first-world governments have a lot of computing power. But you're underestimating the time it takes to brute force. You'll be much better off securing your system in other ways than worrying about lengthening your password.
You're right, lol. I even previewed and checked over it, and didn't notice that.
Let's say we're talking alphanumeric, case-insensitive passwords. 26 letters + 10 numbers = 36 choices for each character. Fastest computer in the world in 70.72 teraflops. Let's say it only took one floating point operation to compute a password, that'll be equivalent to 70.72 'terapasswords' per second, or 70.72 terahertz.
So, here's the formula: (36^15) / (7.72 terahertz) = 907.455882 years
I think you're a little overoptimistic about the world's computing power.