There's no comparison, ODF is a complete description of a document, OOXML has things like "use word 95 rules" or "important undocumented binary blob here". OOXML is a Trojan horse.
The point of the article is that DRM is impossible. Yes, you can improve the current ones, but it will never work. If you have the ciphertext and they key, you have the plaintext. Effective DRM requires that to be impossible, not just hard.
you are agreeing with the article when you say "not perfect". It's the "perfect" DRM that he refutes.
He's referring to the mechanism whereby two parties can derive a shared, secret value while communicating in the clear. Only after you've done that can you use that value to encrypt further messages.
Random or pseudo-random? If the latter, all the PRNG's I know of are far weaker than all the cipher algorithms I know of. There's probably a good reason why this idea isn't seen in commercially deployed secure solutions.
I would think they specify XML in order to have access to the vast array of XML-based parsers, validators, editors, etc. There's a lot of XML processing programs out there. Also, you can specify a DTD or XML Schema to fully document the standard which, again, can be validated and examined for errors, incompleteness, etc.
To reverse your whole notion, what advantage would a binary format have that outweighed all of the above? Higher processing efficiency? XML processing isn't as fast as document processing can be, but hardware always gets faster, who really cares?
Personal revelation is not proof. You don't know that God exists, you just believe it "100%". You can't point to a single effect that this belief has that exist outside of your head. If you believed you were Napolean you would be classed as delusional, even if it were a personal revelation and you believed it "100%".
From your comment it seems you're as atheist as Richard Dawkins et al (including myself). This a good thing, but perhaps you need convincing. Richard Dawkins readily admits he would believe in God as soon as he's presented with credible evidence. He's is, by some definitions, agnostic about God, but only as agnostic as he is about fairies, unicorns, ogres, etc. It's perfectly reasonable to be extremely skeptical about fairies but lunacy to disbelieve in them if someone could produce a real specimen. You can disbelieve in fairies very strongly, even though you can never prove they do not exist. Allowing for future evidence to change your view only makes you rational, you can still be actively disbelieve in such things.
I think it's pretty clear that we don't know everything and, perhaps, we may never know everything. However, *everything* we do know, we know through science. Religion or faith has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe and, in many notable cases, actively opposed our growing understanding of science until their hand was overwhelmingly forced.
Not knowing everything does not mean that every possibility is equally probable. Being agnostic about God means that you think it's equally likely as not that there is one. This doesn't appear to be your position; you could be convinced by a direct manifestation but are otherwise (rightly) skeptical. This makes you an atheist by most definitions even though fundamentalist Christians believe that atheists are as deluded as them by "believing" there is no God. Atheist do not believe in God but would change in a heartbeat in the face of evidence. The reverse is not true of fundamentalists.
In Europe, artists have legally enforceable "moral rights" (the right to be identified as the creator, for example), the term is probably being using in its legal form.
The distance could be definitely be reduced. I think that most of the quoted braking distances is due to driver reaction, I was only pointing out that there's still going to be pretty reasonable gaps in traffic.
I drive in Boston, so I'm keen for this automation. Other drivers seem intent on any task other than driving while behind the wheel. I've even seen one guy using a pipe (I noticed because he swerved towards me while pouring tobacco into the end)...
Maven doesn't bring library dependencies into your project tree.
Maven's 'repository', under Linux (and with the default properties), is under ~/.maven/repository/
Admittedly each user gets a copy of all the dependencies (rather than, say, having things under/usr/local/maven/), but it's certainly not put into each project.
Managing different versions of dependencies without duplicating them into each project is, for me, the entire *point* of Maven.
You can override this state of affairs to create a system-wide repository, if you really want...
In fact, we all do, I've personally had the genes in question for just over twenty-six years. My mother has (with 50% probability) got the same genes and has had them since before the genome project started.
Question is, do I get the patent crushed or take a back-hander from The Man?
T.
P.S If I discover a mountain, can I patent that too?
I find this whole subject moot. There's no need to use U.S encryption. Several of the candidates for A.E.S were invented outside of America anyway.
People outside of the U.S should use non-U.S strong cryptography, it's freely available (and generally free - PGP International and GNUPG are two examples) and at least as strong as the U.S variants.
The only people who should ever have been inconvenienced by the export regulations are U.S-based crypto sellers. U.S and non-U.S citizens have access to strong crypto anyway.
Does anyone really believe that a halfway intelligent criminal would not have downloaded PGP by now?
Slashdot Mirror
ODF is fully specified, OOXML is not.
There's no comparison, ODF is a complete description of a document, OOXML has things like "use word 95 rules" or "important undocumented binary blob here". OOXML is a Trojan horse.
Is the expansion of pi proven to contain every possible sequence? Just because the expansion is infinite, I don't think you can assume that it does.
The point of the article is that DRM is impossible. Yes, you can improve the current ones, but it will never work. If you have the ciphertext and they key, you have the plaintext. Effective DRM requires that to be impossible, not just hard.
you are agreeing with the article when you say "not perfect". It's the "perfect" DRM that he refutes.
He's referring to the mechanism whereby two parties can derive a shared, secret value while communicating in the clear. Only after you've done that can you use that value to encrypt further messages.
Random or pseudo-random? If the latter, all the PRNG's I know of are far weaker than all the cipher algorithms I know of. There's probably a good reason why this idea isn't seen in commercially deployed secure solutions.
"What we really need to do electronic voting"...
let me stop you right there.
I would think they specify XML in order to have access to the vast array of XML-based parsers, validators, editors, etc. There's a lot of XML processing programs out there. Also, you can specify a DTD or XML Schema to fully document the standard which, again, can be validated and examined for errors, incompleteness, etc.
To reverse your whole notion, what advantage would a binary format have that outweighed all of the above? Higher processing efficiency? XML processing isn't as fast as document processing can be, but hardware always gets faster, who really cares?
Personal revelation is not proof. You don't know that God exists, you just believe it "100%". You can't point to a single effect that this belief has that exist outside of your head. If you believed you were Napolean you would be classed as delusional, even if it were a personal revelation and you believed it "100%".
From your comment it seems you're as atheist as Richard Dawkins et al (including myself). This a good thing, but perhaps you need convincing. Richard Dawkins readily admits he would believe in God as soon as he's presented with credible evidence. He's is, by some definitions, agnostic about God, but only as agnostic as he is about fairies, unicorns, ogres, etc. It's perfectly reasonable to be extremely skeptical about fairies but lunacy to disbelieve in them if someone could produce a real specimen. You can disbelieve in fairies very strongly, even though you can never prove they do not exist. Allowing for future evidence to change your view only makes you rational, you can still be actively disbelieve in such things.
I think it's pretty clear that we don't know everything and, perhaps, we may never know everything. However, *everything* we do know, we know through science. Religion or faith has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe and, in many notable cases, actively opposed our growing understanding of science until their hand was overwhelmingly forced.
Not knowing everything does not mean that every possibility is equally probable. Being agnostic about God means that you think it's equally likely as not that there is one. This doesn't appear to be your position; you could be convinced by a direct manifestation but are otherwise (rightly) skeptical. This makes you an atheist by most definitions even though fundamentalist Christians believe that atheists are as deluded as them by "believing" there is no God. Atheist do not believe in God but would change in a heartbeat in the face of evidence. The reverse is not true of fundamentalists.
Prove it.
What's Javascript got to do with Java?
6.06, by default, isn't listening on any ports so you're not vulnerable until you install or enable something that does.
In Europe, artists have legally enforceable "moral rights" (the right to be identified as the creator, for example), the term is probably being using in its legal form.
Take your color depth down to 16-bit instead of 24-bit and you should get 3d accel back, verify with;
glxinfo | grep direct
There's a known quantum algorithm for factoring, which will break RSA (and equivalents), once we have the hardware to execute it.
A quantum computer will not be any faster at brute-forcing a symmetric algorithm.
In short, there is no magic.
Only the asymmetric ones. Blowfish, AES, etc will still be fine.
A quantum computer will be much faster at factoring than a normal computer, so RSA, etc are doomed.
I'm not sure if a quantum computer will be better at elliptical curve stuff, so maybe ElGamal is ok?
I keep my ThinkPad in a Dell bag for this very reason :)
The distance could be definitely be reduced. I think that most of the quoted braking distances is due to driver reaction, I was only pointing out that there's still going to be pretty reasonable gaps in traffic.
I drive in Boston, so I'm keen for this automation. Other drivers seem intent on any task other than driving while behind the wheel. I've even seen one guy using a pipe (I noticed because he swerved towards me while pouring tobacco into the end)...
*partly* based on reaction time. Surely the braking and accelerating characteristics of the vehicles are also a factor?
Braking distances will be reduced, but there will always have to be some padding 'for safety'.
Maven doesn't bring library dependencies into your project tree.
/usr/local/maven/), but it's certainly not put into each project.
Maven's 'repository', under Linux (and with the default properties), is under ~/.maven/repository/
Admittedly each user gets a copy of all the dependencies (rather than, say, having things under
Managing different versions of dependencies without duplicating them into each project is, for me, the entire *point* of Maven.
You can override this state of affairs to create a system-wide repository, if you really want...
In fact, we all do, I've personally had the genes in question for just over twenty-six years. My mother has (with 50% probability) got the same genes and has had them since before the genome project started.
Question is, do I get the patent crushed or take a back-hander from The Man?
T.
P.S If I discover a mountain, can I patent that too?
I find this whole subject moot. There's no need to use U.S encryption. Several of the candidates for A.E.S were invented outside of America anyway.
People outside of the U.S should use non-U.S strong cryptography, it's freely available (and generally free - PGP International and GNUPG are two examples) and at least as strong as the U.S variants.
The only people who should ever have been inconvenienced by the export regulations are U.S-based crypto sellers. U.S and non-U.S citizens have access to strong crypto anyway.
Does anyone really believe that a halfway intelligent criminal would not have downloaded PGP by now?