The problem is that most of the game concepts have been done already..
Now, I'm not trying to get myself a Bill Gates style quote ("640k is..."), but seriously - there isn't much more to do, and what there is to do - is very very hard to think of or implement.
It's just like cinema. What new genre has the cinema introduced in the last decade or more? There are some ground breaking technical movies who have interesting stories that combine thanks to technology - Pulp Fiction, Memento are two examples I can think of. Fight Club was amazing. LOTR improved on the fantasy genre. But in the end, I can't think of anything totally new.
Games will eventually start being more and more similar to movies or to real-life. Better AI, better graphics, interesting ways of presentation and good stories. But the genres will remain the same, with rarely any innovation - if any at all.
Microsoft Outlook 2003 has time-dependant translucent windows which notify you of new incoming mail messages. You can move your mouse over the window, causing it to be opaque - or you can move the window out and allow it to slowly become more and more transparent, eventually disappearing. This window also contains delete, open and flag message (IIRC) option buttons.
Not sure if this completely corresponds with the "Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window." part of the patent request. More over, I am not even sure if this is prior-art - whether Apple had this before Microsoft or not.
I totally agree. Wanted to write my own reply to the parent post, but you beat me to the punch:)
Yoshi ruled, Goombas were great, the princess was really beautiful, and the entire movie doesn't take itself too serious - it's real fun to watch. Cute movie, I really like it.
When Jay Maynard decided to post these pictures, he obviously decided that he doesn't give a damn about what all of you kids think - he only wanted to share his passion with other TRON fans and geeks. You are irrelevant.
By my book, for not giving a damn about what all of you mockers think, he's way more of a man than any of you will ever be.
...but how do they generate random numbers in the Navajo Gateway (QPN or whatever)? I am not sure, but it says in the datasheet "True Random Number Generator", and I assume it might be a Quantum Random Number Generator, like that others company is selling.
The random number can be generated in many ways. Computers have PRNGs, Pseudo-Random Number Generators which can rely on several different sort-of random data: system time, memory contents, disk contents, mouse movements, etc. The problem with such PRNGs is that they usually use reproducable data to generate the random number - mouse activity can be guessed (activity patterns), system time can be guessed (the range of possible values for the system timer, time is global after all), memory contents can be guessed (operating system and programs running, etc) - it is at the very least easier to guess these and try all possible combinations than guessing cosmic radiation patterns, for example, which are truely random. This "guessing" is what cuts down possibilities and makes brute-forcing in a smaller field of possibilities an option. To beat this, real RNGs (i.e. non-pseudo) rely on truely (theoretically) random occurences, such as atmospheric noise (http://www.random.org).
Thermal noise can not be easily detected from afar (afaik), and if you're close physically - you might as well just take the data by physical force. But guessing the possible thermal noise based on know patterns makes guessing the pseudo-random number that much easier.
Oops. Let's try again, as Plain Old Text. Mods, delete the other post.
RSA and 3DES are completely different. The first is an asymmetrical encryption algorith, the second is symmetrical.
The point of asymmetrical encryption algorithms (or at least this one and all others I know of) is to solve the problem of key transportation - you need to send secure data to someone, so you want to encrypt it. But how do you give him the key, as you have no secure channels? RSA solves that by having a public and a private key, a public key which anyone can get to encrypt data, and a private key which only you have that can decrypt the data encrypted using the public key. Problem solved. The private key cannot be easily deduced by examining the public key or the encrypted data, and that has been proven mathematically. The amount of calculations needed to find the key depend on the key length, but it takes a very large amount of time for even the shortest length keys (we're talking decades). This process is called factoring and relies on a certain meaning being in the key, a certain logic.
Quantum Computing (which I am not even going to try and explain) has way more computing power than today's computers for certain algorithms, and factoring algorithms are some of these. So, using quantum computers, factoring the private key of an RSA key-pair is a lot faster.
Now, this is irrelevant when we're talking of Quantum Encryption, which has no connection at all to quantum computing, in this context. So don't mix the two terms. Quantum encrytion is a method of transferring data securely relying on certain physical laws to make sure that no one can read the data without the receiving side knowing of the leak. This has nothing at all to do with either symmetric or asymmetric encryption algorithms - it is a secure channel, and so - a solution to both the key transfer problem and better yet - to simple data transfer.
The product reviewed here solves the key transfer problem by using quantum key transfer - this is a secure link based on quantum encryption (afaics), though apparently not very fast, as they could simply transfer the data but chose not to. This transfered key is used as a symmetric key in a symmetric encryption algorithm (which uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt data), which can be DES or 3DES in the QPN (from what I could see). Factoring isn't something related at all to symmetric algorithms. That's like talking of a clutch pedal for a car with an automatic gear: not relevant at all. The key in a symmetric encryption algorithm is simply a random number, which cannot be logically deduced looking at plain encrypted data, nor is there a public key (well, not exactly, but for this simplistic discussion - this will do). This is in contrast to the keys in an asymmetric encryption algorithms. And so, quantum computing will not help with this. (Even though I assume brute-forcing might be faster using quantum computing).
I hope that clears it up a bit.
The one thing I don't really get is that they do oddly talk of Diffie-Hellman in the QPN data sheet - if anyone can clarify this, I'd be interested to hear the explanation, as it makes no sense: Diffie-Hellman is an algorithm used for secure key transfer (generation actually), though it has its own vulnerabilities and downsides. I am not sure how this is related to quantum key transfer, though I assume it is just a method to transfer keys securely internally in a deeper layer of the system, beneath under the quantum key transfer layer - to prevent decryption, even if someone hacks into the system circulating the quantum encryption protection.
RSA and 3DES are completely different. The first is an asymmetrical encryption algorith, the second is symmetrical.
The point of asymmetrical encryption algorithms (or at least this one and all others I know of) is to solve the problem of key transportation - you need to send secure data to someone, so you want to encrypt it. But how do you give him the key, as you have no secure channels? RSA solves that by having a public and a private key, a public key which anyone can get to encrypt data, and a private key which only you have that can decrypt the data encrypted using the public key. Problem solved. The private key cannot be easily deduced by examining the public key or the encrypted data, and that has been proven mathematically. The amount of calculations needed to find the key depend on the key length, but it takes a very large amount of time for even the shortest length keys (we're talking decades). This process is called factoring and relies on a certain meaning being in the key, a certain logic.
Quantum Computing (which I am not even going to try and explain) has way more computing power than today's computers for certain algorithms, and factoring algorithms are some of these. So, using quantum computers, factoring the private key of an RSA key-pair is a lot faster.
Now, this is irrelevant when we're talking of Quantum Encryption, which has no connection at all to quantum computing, in this context. So don't mix the two terms. Quantum encrytion is a method of transferring data securely relying on certain physical laws to make sure that no one can read the data without the receiving side knowing of the leak. This has nothing at all to do with either symmetric or asymmetric encryption algorithms - it is a secure channel, and so - a solution to both the key transfer problem and better yet - to simple data transfer.
The product reviewed here solves the key transfer problem by using quantum key transfer - this is a secure link based on quantum encryption (afaics), though apparently not very fast, as they could simply transfer the data but chose not to. This transfered key is used as a symmetric key in a symmetric encryption algorithm (which uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt data), which can be DES or 3DES in the QPN (from what I could see). Factoring isn't something related at all to symmetric algorithms. That's like talking of a clutch pedal for a car with an automatic gear: not relevant at all. The key in a symmetric encryption algorithm is simply a random number, which cannot be logically deduced looking at plain encrypted data, nor is there a public key (well, not exactly, but for this simplistic discussion - this will do). This is in contrast to the keys in an asymmetric encryption algorithms. And so, quantum computing will not help with this. (Even though I assume brute-forcing might be faster using quantum computing).
I hope that clears it up a bit.
The one thing I don't really get is that they do oddly talk of Diffie-Hellman in the QPN data sheet - if anyone can clarify this, I'd be interested to hear the explanation, as it makes no sense: Diffie-Hellman is an algorithm used for secure key transfer (generation actually), though it has its own vulnerabilities and downsides. I am not sure how this is related to quantum key transfer, though I assume it is just a method to transfer keys securely internally in a deeper layer of the system, beneath under the quantum key transfer layer - to prevent decryption, even if someone hacks into the system circulating the quantum encryption protection.
Sorry for any typos, too tired to proofread this.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that most of the game concepts have been done already..
Now, I'm not trying to get myself a Bill Gates style quote ("640k is..."), but seriously - there isn't much more to do, and what there is to do - is very very hard to think of or implement.
It's just like cinema. What new genre has the cinema introduced in the last decade or more? There are some ground breaking technical movies who have interesting stories that combine thanks to technology - Pulp Fiction, Memento are two examples I can think of. Fight Club was amazing. LOTR improved on the fantasy genre. But in the end, I can't think of anything totally new.
Games will eventually start being more and more similar to movies or to real-life. Better AI, better graphics, interesting ways of presentation and good stories. But the genres will remain the same, with rarely any innovation - if any at all.
...the holy grail is the bloodline of Jesus Christ?
Didn't the writer of this article read the Da Vinci Code?!
Ignorance is everywhere!
Microsoft Outlook 2003 has time-dependant translucent windows which notify you of new incoming mail messages. You can move your mouse over the window, causing it to be opaque - or you can move the window out and allow it to slowly become more and more transparent, eventually disappearing. This window also contains delete, open and flag message (IIRC) option buttons.
Not sure if this completely corresponds with the "Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window." part of the patent request. More over, I am not even sure if this is prior-art - whether Apple had this before Microsoft or not.
...and of course, there's the Subaru B4, which is designed for a wider audience (who don't have the money to buy German cars).
Ain't it the darnest thang!
Or do they have teleportation pads that send PacMan from the west side of Washington street to the east side of it?
If so, I wanna play it!
(it is called Mario Twins)
I totally agree. Wanted to write my own reply to the parent post, but you beat me to the punch :)
Yoshi ruled, Goombas were great, the princess was really beautiful, and the entire movie doesn't take itself too serious - it's real fun to watch. Cute movie, I really like it.
When Jay Maynard decided to post these pictures, he obviously decided that he doesn't give a damn about what all of you kids think - he only wanted to share his passion with other TRON fans and geeks. You are irrelevant.
By my book, for not giving a damn about what all of you mockers think, he's way more of a man than any of you will ever be.
I do advocate it, though ;)
...but how do they generate random numbers in the Navajo Gateway (QPN or whatever)? I am not sure, but it says in the datasheet "True Random Number Generator", and I assume it might be a Quantum Random Number Generator, like that others company is selling.
The random number can be generated in many ways. Computers have PRNGs, Pseudo-Random Number Generators which can rely on several different sort-of random data: system time, memory contents, disk contents, mouse movements, etc. The problem with such PRNGs is that they usually use reproducable data to generate the random number - mouse activity can be guessed (activity patterns), system time can be guessed (the range of possible values for the system timer, time is global after all), memory contents can be guessed (operating system and programs running, etc) - it is at the very least easier to guess these and try all possible combinations than guessing cosmic radiation patterns, for example, which are truely random. This "guessing" is what cuts down possibilities and makes brute-forcing in a smaller field of possibilities an option. To beat this, real RNGs (i.e. non-pseudo) rely on truely (theoretically) random occurences, such as atmospheric noise (http://www.random.org).
Thermal noise can not be easily detected from afar (afaik), and if you're close physically - you might as well just take the data by physical force. But guessing the possible thermal noise based on know patterns makes guessing the pseudo-random number that much easier.
Oops. Let's try again, as Plain Old Text. Mods, delete the other post.
RSA and 3DES are completely different. The first is an asymmetrical encryption algorith, the second is symmetrical.
The point of asymmetrical encryption algorithms (or at least this one and all others I know of) is to solve the problem of key transportation - you need to send secure data to someone, so you want to encrypt it. But how do you give him the key, as you have no secure channels? RSA solves that by having a public and a private key, a public key which anyone can get to encrypt data, and a private key which only you have that can decrypt the data encrypted using the public key. Problem solved. The private key cannot be easily deduced by examining the public key or the encrypted data, and that has been proven mathematically. The amount of calculations needed to find the key depend on the key length, but it takes a very large amount of time for even the shortest length keys (we're talking decades). This process is called factoring and relies on a certain meaning being in the key, a certain logic.
Quantum Computing (which I am not even going to try and explain) has way more computing power than today's computers for certain algorithms, and factoring algorithms are some of these. So, using quantum computers, factoring the private key of an RSA key-pair is a lot faster.
Now, this is irrelevant when we're talking of Quantum Encryption, which has no connection at all to quantum computing, in this context. So don't mix the two terms. Quantum encrytion is a method of transferring data securely relying on certain physical laws to make sure that no one can read the data without the receiving side knowing of the leak. This has nothing at all to do with either symmetric or asymmetric encryption algorithms - it is a secure channel, and so - a solution to both the key transfer problem and better yet - to simple data transfer.
The product reviewed here solves the key transfer problem by using quantum key transfer - this is a secure link based on quantum encryption (afaics), though apparently not very fast, as they could simply transfer the data but chose not to. This transfered key is used as a symmetric key in a symmetric encryption algorithm (which uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt data), which can be DES or 3DES in the QPN (from what I could see). Factoring isn't something related at all to symmetric algorithms. That's like talking of a clutch pedal for a car with an automatic gear: not relevant at all. The key in a symmetric encryption algorithm is simply a random number, which cannot be logically deduced looking at plain encrypted data, nor is there a public key (well, not exactly, but for this simplistic discussion - this will do). This is in contrast to the keys in an asymmetric encryption algorithms. And so, quantum computing will not help with this. (Even though I assume brute-forcing might be faster using quantum computing).
I hope that clears it up a bit.
The one thing I don't really get is that they do oddly talk of Diffie-Hellman in the QPN data sheet - if anyone can clarify this, I'd be interested to hear the explanation, as it makes no sense: Diffie-Hellman is an algorithm used for secure key transfer (generation actually), though it has its own vulnerabilities and downsides. I am not sure how this is related to quantum key transfer, though I assume it is just a method to transfer keys securely internally in a deeper layer of the system, beneath under the quantum key transfer layer - to prevent decryption, even if someone hacks into the system circulating the quantum encryption protection.
Sorry for any typos, too tired to proofread this.
RSA and 3DES are completely different. The first is an asymmetrical encryption algorith, the second is symmetrical. The point of asymmetrical encryption algorithms (or at least this one and all others I know of) is to solve the problem of key transportation - you need to send secure data to someone, so you want to encrypt it. But how do you give him the key, as you have no secure channels? RSA solves that by having a public and a private key, a public key which anyone can get to encrypt data, and a private key which only you have that can decrypt the data encrypted using the public key. Problem solved. The private key cannot be easily deduced by examining the public key or the encrypted data, and that has been proven mathematically. The amount of calculations needed to find the key depend on the key length, but it takes a very large amount of time for even the shortest length keys (we're talking decades). This process is called factoring and relies on a certain meaning being in the key, a certain logic. Quantum Computing (which I am not even going to try and explain) has way more computing power than today's computers for certain algorithms, and factoring algorithms are some of these. So, using quantum computers, factoring the private key of an RSA key-pair is a lot faster. Now, this is irrelevant when we're talking of Quantum Encryption, which has no connection at all to quantum computing, in this context. So don't mix the two terms. Quantum encrytion is a method of transferring data securely relying on certain physical laws to make sure that no one can read the data without the receiving side knowing of the leak. This has nothing at all to do with either symmetric or asymmetric encryption algorithms - it is a secure channel, and so - a solution to both the key transfer problem and better yet - to simple data transfer. The product reviewed here solves the key transfer problem by using quantum key transfer - this is a secure link based on quantum encryption (afaics), though apparently not very fast, as they could simply transfer the data but chose not to. This transfered key is used as a symmetric key in a symmetric encryption algorithm (which uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt data), which can be DES or 3DES in the QPN (from what I could see). Factoring isn't something related at all to symmetric algorithms. That's like talking of a clutch pedal for a car with an automatic gear: not relevant at all. The key in a symmetric encryption algorithm is simply a random number, which cannot be logically deduced looking at plain encrypted data, nor is there a public key (well, not exactly, but for this simplistic discussion - this will do). This is in contrast to the keys in an asymmetric encryption algorithms. And so, quantum computing will not help with this. (Even though I assume brute-forcing might be faster using quantum computing). I hope that clears it up a bit. The one thing I don't really get is that they do oddly talk of Diffie-Hellman in the QPN data sheet - if anyone can clarify this, I'd be interested to hear the explanation, as it makes no sense: Diffie-Hellman is an algorithm used for secure key transfer (generation actually), though it has its own vulnerabilities and downsides. I am not sure how this is related to quantum key transfer, though I assume it is just a method to transfer keys securely internally in a deeper layer of the system, beneath under the quantum key transfer layer - to prevent decryption, even if someone hacks into the system circulating the quantum encryption protection. Sorry for any typos, too tired to proofread this.