You see, since "0" sits either between a "9" and a "1", or a "-1" and a "1" (or, technically, a "-9" and -1"), it is even because "1" and "9" are both odd. See, let's go the sequence of whole nubmers: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Now, lets move all the odd numbers up _1 3 5 7 9 0 2 4 6 8 (ignore the "_"; I need it to push that row over a bit)
As you can see, be using the "even second number, from 1, is odd" rule, the "0" is definitely even.
Continuing on: Odd____1___3___5___7___9__11__13 Even_0___2___4___6___8__10__12
Looking at the final digits at the last 6 numbers, we see again that "0" is even.
I am assuming that you think IDS (intrusion detection systems) are "physical" intrusion detection systems (meaning that they detect someone physically trespassing on the premise) instead of "network" intrusion detection systems (that they detect crackers "trepassing" on the premise's network). So, just to clarify, we are talking about "electronic" intrusions here, okay?
Just to toss out a couple half decent links on intrusion detection systems, for those who are interested:
I don't mean the academic quality of University is comparable to University, I mean the cliqueness of the dorm-culture. In this dorm, I have really noticed that socially, there is a lot of snobbery, many "cool cliques", etc. The big clique here watches WWF religiously, and just by second-(or even third)hand contact, I can pretty much recite The Rock's mantras, and I know most of the wrestlers by their catch phrases.
And relationships with members of the opposite sex here are two-edged sword at best; because you sleep in the same building, you can rationize sleeping in the same bed say, within the first week, or month at latest. But because you see each other so much, the little things drive you apart. And when she starts dating people you can't help but see on a daily basis...it gets tough. Everytime I start discussing my dorm-society related problems, someone tells me that it sounds like I am back in high school again.
It's not all bad; living in a dorm means you are never more than a building away from most of your friends. And, when you get into a group of good friends, those friends you will have for a very long time, probably the rest of your life.
Living in a dorm is something you'll only get to do for maybe a couple of years
Thank God!
Background: I have lived in a dorm since my Freshman year (1995) till present. But, my internet connection (10Mb/s) is really what keeps me here. Between University and cable modems, I have never used anything slower than a T1 (Canadian cable modems and companies just blow away their Yankee counterparts). And yes, the MP3 here flow like wine (but not warez, as much as I tell), and ICQ flourishes here.
I still regret not living in a dorm my first year or two of university
You didn't miss much...I have found that the social structure here is very similiar to high school. There are people here, because of whatever reason, I just won't talk to. But, I have made pretty good friends because from here. The biggest difference is that relationships with members of the opposite sex who live in a dorm. If you both live in a Canadian (where the floors of the build can be co-ed), the relationship "evolves" very rapidly. But, because you are in continual contact, it breaks apart even faster...
So I guess NBC should cancel The Tonight Show (they produce it and distribute it), and all newspapers should fire their delivery persons, right?
Nooo, what is meant by the "to own the content as well as the conduit" is that NBC would have to own the physical stations across the world, or the newspaper would have to own every distribution point in the area it represents. Last I checked, NBC does NOT own its total distribution network, and could not, if it wanted, demand that only NBC by broadcast throughout its distribution.
As for want I agree with Katz that Steve Case does not have the abilities to command the AOL Time Warner merger. I agree with Meeks about the "content/conduit" charge. You understand?
He cleaned out Regina's Leader Post pretty good, too. And now, since he can't buy the Globe and Mail, he put out a piece of crap national newspaper that undersells the G&M. Oh well, he still ain't got Slashdot, yet...
Would the moron moderator who marked the first post "redundant" please step forward so he can be beaten to death with AOL coasters? Thanks.
I, too, agree with Jon Katz (but I don't mind Jon Katz), but Brock Meeks notes scare me the most. AOL owes the content AND the medium. This is very bad; it smells like Conrad Black's near monopoly on newspapers in my Canada...
I'm just trying to say that US government has absolutely no way of controlling the crypto software used by other countries / individuals in other countries.
Of course. I agree with that completely. If you inferred that I said that the US was pushing its laws onto other countries, then let me say that I did not imply that.
The US government does not own encryption or the minds of its citizens. The US government has no rights of control over things which are not its property or part of its legitimate functions.
They think otherwise, I believe encryption falls under "munitions", which any government arguably can regulate (arguably, the government can regulate anything they want, but for clarity, we will just assume that they regulate only things they *should*).
My personal opinion on the matter is that the government should control encryption; that they have the right to because encryption, to me, falls under the same category as guns. Both can/should be used for self defense and protection(one physically, the other intellectually). Both can be misused. Both are very powerful tools and should be carefully regulated. And neither should be taken out of the hands of the people.
It is a legit function to provide for the common defense, but this is arguably not served by "controlling" encryption which really amounts to forbidding its citizens to use and/or sell encrpytion and encrypted communication and products worldwide. This does nothing to help defense.
That point is up for contention. The US military uses encryption for defense, and if said encryption is exported, that it could be exploited for a hole (we have all seen Star Wars, and know Grand Moff Tarkin's line "there is a possibility, however unlikely..."). At least, that was the arguement used to impose the restrictions on export (I believe...).
I think this is all a big smoke screen because the government snoops have the bucks and equipment to break any encryption scheme on the market with far less trouble than they wish to advertise.
Don't agree. I believe that no-one has the resources or time to read every packet on the Internet, much less crack the encryption on every packet on the Internet. That is a lost of information.
Generally, samantha, I don't agree with your arguements, but we seem to agree on the major point, and that's good enough for me:)
That doesn't seem likely. Very few voters are even aware of cryptography, let alone the concept of export restrictions. Those who are, generally are technically savvy individuals like ourselves, who tend to oppose such regulation. Since nearly the entirety of the popular reaction to encryption limits has been from this fairly elite group, the scenario you illustrate is basically just as unlikely as the entire population of slashdot waking up tomorrow and deciding that online export freedoms are a bad thing. That is to say, very very unlikely.
Of course. I should have said, instead of "popular support", "any support". To me, there has been *no* support of encryption export restrictions. I agree with what you are saying, and thank you for pointing out my error.
But if we view the reality of the situation, we see that this has very little to do with voters. It is propelled by two forces. One apparently (and gratifyingly) is the "GnuPGP" project that essentially rendered strong crypto limits moot.
Not sure I agree with that point, but I am not armed with information to dispute your point. Can you back this (links to relevant documents)?
The second, more important influence is from United States tech companies and their constituent option-paid workers. Many of these companies are horribly wealthy, and many of them feel annually the testing, development, and marketing pinch of producing both a high and a low version of their crypto-enabled products. These companies want restrictions dead.
Of course, without the ability to export their products onto the international market, they are losing millions of dollars.
If you want to pitch in your efforts by writing your congressman
Can't, I am Canadian; for some dumb reason, I don't have a congressman, and none of the others with listen to me.:)
What? Do you really think that the countries USA is at war with care the least bit about USA's laws? There are still hundreds of other countries they can get their crypto stuff from. USA != world.
First off, I completely understand that USA != world; I am Canadian, and none of my posts call USA *my* country (I use the term "the US" not "my US").
As for the countries "at war" with the USA; no, I don't think that they care about US laws. However, American citizens *should* care about US laws. My point was that whether American citizens will be able to export encryption software to countries (whether the destination is a private citizen, a private corporation, but not a foreign government, as Fruan pointed out).
D'oh, I just saw that I have the +1 for being a good poster on/. after I posted this comment! I didn't mean to post the above comment with a +1 (no offense to Fruan, his point is very good).
Perhaps, by default, that +1 bonus should NOT be turned on....
I agree with you when you say that it probably doesn't mean much; what's to stop a foreign government from buying encryption downloaded from the USA by a foreign corporation?
I, for one, am very skeptical about the documents continual use of the phrases "to all destinations" and "without additional review and classification". I mean, yes, open the flood gates, yada, yada, allow encryption for export, yada, yada. But what about countries the USA is at war with? And bluntly, by the sounds of it, this law takes away pretty much ALL of the US government's control on encryption; and traditionally, the US gov't doesn't like releasing control.
I like the law is a little to lax, and I wonder if this isn't some sort of a ploy by the US gov't. I mean, for years, they have had very little popular support about their encryption laws, and now they draft a law that is so sweeping and reforming that even the US gov't staunchest critics go "Whoa, wait a minute, let's not get *too* crazy here". Then, with perfect honesty, the US gov't can yank the law away, and say, "Hey, we *wanted* to open the export laws up, but popular support was against us, so we dropped it because *we* *love* *our* *voters*".
A valid point, of course. But how much development, from the military, went into ARPANET when this happened? Personally, I don't know, but ARPA was Advanced Research Projects Agency (changed to DARPA) and it was a military venture, and depending on your view, it was the backbone of the original "internet".
My understanding was it was mainly a way to see who was better (*our* space program made it to the moon before yours did, wee wee wee wee). Of course, I could be just misguided by the propaganda. Either way, whether you use my point or your perfectly valid point, the space program was a byproduct of the military.
Yes, I think that's true. The main reason the Great Depression ended was because WWII. The main reason for your American space program having the funding to put men on the moon was because the Russians were going to beat you to it. Arguably, the reason that Medieval Western Europe was as technologically advanced as it was was because continual wars demanded new technologies (from siege weapons to the perfection of firearms to Dreadnaught class destroyers). Most of the great technological advances were war based (wasn't even the ENIAC and the original ARPANET created by scientists/engineers working for the military extend the offensive and defensive abilities of the USA?). I can name two major ones that weren't; the airplane and the steam engine. But both were perfected in military applications, or by companies that received major financial backing from the military.
Incrementing each letter of ``HAL'' gives you ''IBM''. 'Arthur C Clarke' (qv) (co-screenwriter) claimed this was unintentional, and if he had noticed it before it was too late, he would have changed it.
Thirded - I am 6'1", and the natural body weight for someone my height is 175lbs. I know, because I am 80lbs overweight. But, in my defense, I grew up on a farm, and came from a broad-shouldered family. But still, at least 50lbs of my weight is cruft, IMHO.
Re:It would be interesting to say the least
on
Sex in Space
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. But, how many l33t d00dz can spell "discrete mathematics", much less understand its basic proofs. :)
since when is 0 an even number
Um, since the Arabs used it.
You see, since "0" sits either between a "9" and a "1", or a "-1" and a "1" (or, technically, a "-9" and -1"), it is even because "1" and "9" are both odd. See, let's go the sequence of whole nubmers:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Now, lets move all the odd numbers up
_1 3 5 7 9
0 2 4 6 8
(ignore the "_"; I need it to push that row over a bit)
As you can see, be using the "even second number, from 1, is odd" rule, the "0" is definitely even.
Continuing on:
Odd____1___3___5___7___9__11__13
Even_0___2___4___6___8__10__12
Looking at the final digits at the last 6 numbers, we see again that "0" is even.
I am assuming that you think IDS (intrusion detection systems) are "physical" intrusion detection systems (meaning that they detect someone physically trespassing on the premise) instead of "network" intrusion detection systems (that they detect crackers "trepassing" on the premise's network). So, just to clarify, we are talking about "electronic" intrusions here, okay?
Just to toss out a couple half decent links on intrusion detection systems, for those who are interested:
This is a good link that compares a few commerical network IDSs
This is a shitty test suite for network IDSs
Damn, I thought I had more. Oh well, enjoy!
I guess I was a little hard about my dorm. My apologies to everyone, maybe I just overreacted.
I don't mean the academic quality of University is comparable to University
Should read:
I don't mean the academic quality of University is comparable to high school.
English is my first language. Honestly!
I don't mean the academic quality of University is comparable to University, I mean the cliqueness of the dorm-culture. In this dorm, I have really noticed that socially, there is a lot of snobbery, many "cool cliques", etc. The big clique here watches WWF religiously, and just by second-(or even third)hand contact, I can pretty much recite The Rock's mantras, and I know most of the wrestlers by their catch phrases.
And relationships with members of the opposite sex here are two-edged sword at best; because you sleep in the same building, you can rationize sleeping in the same bed say, within the first week, or month at latest. But because you see each other so much, the little things drive you apart. And when she starts dating people you can't help but see on a daily basis...it gets tough. Everytime I start discussing my dorm-society related problems, someone tells me that it sounds like I am back in high school again.
It's not all bad; living in a dorm means you are never more than a building away from most of your friends. And, when you get into a group of good friends, those friends you will have for a very long time, probably the rest of your life.
Living in a dorm is something you'll only get to do for maybe a couple of years
Thank God!
Background:
I have lived in a dorm since my Freshman year (1995) till present. But, my internet connection (10Mb/s) is really what keeps me here. Between University and cable modems, I have never used anything slower than a T1 (Canadian cable modems and companies just blow away their Yankee counterparts). And yes, the MP3 here flow like wine (but not warez, as much as I tell), and ICQ flourishes here.
I still regret not living in a dorm my first year or two of university
You didn't miss much...I have found that the social structure here is very similiar to high school. There are people here, because of whatever reason, I just won't talk to. But, I have made pretty good friends because from here. The biggest difference is that relationships with members of the opposite sex who live in a dorm. If you both live in a Canadian (where the floors of the build can be co-ed), the relationship "evolves" very rapidly. But, because you are in continual contact, it breaks apart even faster...
So I guess NBC should cancel The Tonight Show (they produce it and distribute it), and all newspapers should fire their delivery persons, right?
Nooo, what is meant by the "to own the content as well as the conduit" is that NBC would have to own the physical stations across the world, or the newspaper would have to own every distribution point in the area it represents. Last I checked, NBC does NOT own its total distribution network, and could not, if it wanted, demand that only NBC by broadcast throughout its distribution.
As for want I agree with Katz that Steve Case does not have the abilities to command the AOL Time Warner merger. I agree with Meeks about the "content/conduit" charge. You understand?
He cleaned out Regina's Leader Post pretty good, too. And now, since he can't buy the Globe and Mail, he put out a piece of crap national newspaper that undersells the G&M. Oh well, he still ain't got Slashdot, yet...
No prob, I missed it in the summary. Got to quit reading /. at 5:00am, I guess :)
Thanks!
Would the moron moderator who marked the first post "redundant" please step forward so he can be beaten to death with AOL coasters? Thanks.
I, too, agree with Jon Katz (but I don't mind Jon Katz), but Brock Meeks notes scare me the most. AOL owes the content AND the medium. This is very bad; it smells like Conrad Black's near monopoly on newspapers in my Canada...
7. Apple loses
I have used windowblinds, and really thought the Apple skin was ugly. But, they had no "command line prompt" skin, so...
I'm just trying to say that US government has absolutely no way of controlling the crypto software used by other countries / individuals in other countries.
Of course. I agree with that completely. If you inferred that I said that the US was pushing its laws onto other countries, then let me say that I did not imply that.
The US government does not own encryption or the minds of its citizens. The US government has no rights of control over things which are not its property or part of its legitimate functions.
:)
They think otherwise, I believe encryption falls under "munitions", which any government arguably can regulate (arguably, the government can regulate anything they want, but for clarity, we will just assume that they regulate only things they *should*).
My personal opinion on the matter is that the government should control encryption; that they have the right to because encryption, to me, falls under the same category as guns. Both can/should be used for self defense and protection(one physically, the other intellectually). Both can be misused. Both are very powerful tools and should be carefully regulated. And neither should be taken out of the hands of the people.
It is a legit function to provide for the common defense, but this is arguably not served by "controlling" encryption which really amounts to forbidding its citizens to use and/or sell encrpytion and encrypted communication and products worldwide. This does nothing to help defense.
That point is up for contention. The US military uses encryption for defense, and if said encryption is exported, that it could be exploited for a hole (we have all seen Star Wars, and know Grand Moff Tarkin's line "there is a possibility, however unlikely..."). At least, that was the arguement used to impose the restrictions on export (I believe...).
I think this is all a big smoke screen because the government snoops have the bucks and equipment to break any encryption scheme on the market with far less trouble than they wish to advertise.
Don't agree. I believe that no-one has the resources or time to read every packet on the Internet, much less crack the encryption on every packet on the Internet. That is a lost of information.
Generally, samantha, I don't agree with your arguements, but we seem to agree on the major point, and that's good enough for me
That doesn't seem likely. Very few voters are even aware of cryptography, let alone the concept of export restrictions. Those who are, generally are technically savvy individuals like ourselves, who tend to oppose such regulation. Since nearly the entirety of the popular reaction to encryption limits has been from this fairly elite group, the scenario you illustrate is basically just as unlikely as the entire population of slashdot waking up tomorrow and deciding that online export freedoms are a bad thing. That is to say, very very unlikely.
:)
Of course. I should have said, instead of "popular support", "any support". To me, there has been *no* support of encryption export restrictions. I agree with what you are saying, and thank you for pointing out my error.
But if we view the reality of the situation, we see that this has very little to do with voters. It is propelled by two forces. One apparently (and gratifyingly) is the "GnuPGP" project that essentially rendered strong crypto limits moot.
Not sure I agree with that point, but I am not armed with information to dispute your point. Can you back this (links to relevant documents)?
The second, more important influence is from United States tech companies and their constituent option-paid workers. Many of these companies are horribly wealthy, and many of them feel annually the testing, development, and marketing pinch of producing both a high and a low version of their crypto-enabled products. These companies want restrictions dead.
Of course, without the ability to export their products onto the international market, they are losing millions of dollars.
If you want to pitch in your efforts by writing your congressman
Can't, I am Canadian; for some dumb reason, I don't have a congressman, and none of the others with listen to me.
What? Do you really think that the countries USA is at war with care the least bit about USA's laws? There are still hundreds of other countries they can get their crypto stuff from. USA != world.
First off, I completely understand that USA != world; I am Canadian, and none of my posts call USA *my* country (I use the term "the US" not "my US").
As for the countries "at war" with the USA; no, I don't think that they care about US laws. However, American citizens *should* care about US laws. My point was that whether American citizens will be able to export encryption software to countries (whether the destination is a private citizen, a private corporation, but not a foreign government, as Fruan pointed out).
You clear here, ViGe?
D'oh, I just saw that I have the +1 for being a good poster on /. after I posted this comment! I didn't mean to post the above comment with a +1 (no offense to Fruan, his point is very good).
Perhaps, by default, that +1 bonus should NOT be turned on....
What section was that, I must have missed it?
I agree with you when you say that it probably doesn't mean much; what's to stop a foreign government from buying encryption downloaded from the USA by a foreign corporation?
I, for one, am very skeptical about the documents continual use of the phrases "to all destinations" and "without additional review and classification". I mean, yes, open the flood gates, yada, yada, allow encryption for export, yada, yada. But what about countries the USA is at war with? And bluntly, by the sounds of it, this law takes away pretty much ALL of the US government's control on encryption; and traditionally, the US gov't doesn't like releasing control.
I like the law is a little to lax, and I wonder if this isn't some sort of a ploy by the US gov't. I mean, for years, they have had very little popular support about their encryption laws, and now they draft a law that is so sweeping and reforming that even the US gov't staunchest critics go "Whoa, wait a minute, let's not get *too* crazy here". Then, with perfect honesty, the US gov't can yank the law away, and say, "Hey, we *wanted* to open the export laws up, but popular support was against us, so we dropped it because *we* *love* *our* *voters*".
A valid point, of course. But how much development, from the military, went into ARPANET when this happened? Personally, I don't know, but ARPA was Advanced Research Projects Agency (changed to DARPA) and it was a military venture, and depending on your view, it was the backbone of the original "internet".
My understanding was it was mainly a way to see who was better (*our* space program made it to the moon before yours did, wee wee wee wee). Of course, I could be just misguided by the propaganda. Either way, whether you use my point or your perfectly valid point, the space program was a byproduct of the military.
>it's the wars that make the economy so strong
Yes, I think that's true. The main reason the Great Depression ended was because WWII. The main reason for your American space program having the funding to put men on the moon was because the Russians were going to beat you to it. Arguably, the reason that Medieval Western Europe was as technologically advanced as it was was because continual wars demanded new technologies (from siege weapons to the perfection of firearms to Dreadnaught class destroyers). Most of the great technological advances were war based (wasn't even the ENIAC and the original ARPANET created by scientists/engineers working for the military extend the offensive and defensive abilities of the USA?). I can name two major ones that weren't; the airplane and the steam engine. But both were perfected in military applications, or by companies that received major financial backing from the military.
From here (search for IBM)
# 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Incrementing each letter of ``HAL'' gives you ''IBM''.
'Arthur C Clarke' (qv) (co-screenwriter) claimed this was unintentional, and if he had noticed it before it was too late, he would have changed it.
Thirded - I am 6'1", and the natural body weight for someone my height is 175lbs. I know, because I am 80lbs overweight. But, in my defense, I grew up on a farm, and came from a broad-shouldered family. But still, at least 50lbs of my weight is cruft, IMHO.
In space, everyone can see them jiggle...