Your are making the assumption that there is a product to buy. Heaps of patent trolls don't bother with that, as it only opens them up for counter suits.
I don't know much about the American constitution, but I was sure that you had the right to bear arms, not robot arms. And good luck hooking your laptop up to a bear.
This is a different attack. The previous attacks meant that you could make two files with the same MD5 by making them completely identical, except for one small block which was any known collision.
This attack means that you get to choose the two files, and the attack generates two blocks to append to the original files which mean they hash to the same value.
So the exploits before have been:
File 1:
x = [A] if (x == [A]) { do one thing } else { do something else }
File 2:
x = [B] if (x == [A]) { do one thing; } else { do something else; }
Where [A] and [B] are blocks which collide (and they are aligned on block boundaries for calculating the hash).
The new attack is exploited like this::
File 1: do one thing; ignore the rest of the file; [C]
File 2: do something else; ignore the rest of the file; [D]
Where [C] and [D] are generated by this algorithm. This means that on a quick glance, the code doesn't look completely silly and there is no trace of what the hidden content says (just a bit of random stuff at the end of a file which might suggest that it is there)
The GPL only grants you rights that you wouldn't have had without it. It doesn't take any of your rights away.
If you download a project and it is GPL, then feel free to ignore the fact that it is GPL, and use it under whatever provisions your local copyright law gives you (perhaps "fair use" if you are in the US, in Australia you get some "fair dealing", etc). Now do you feel more or less restricted?
I don't believe the twirl effect is a convolution. Convolution effects are things like gaussian blurs, where each pixel in the image is modified the same way regardless of where it is in the image (e.g. each pixel takes on the average of the 8 surrounding pixels).
Deconvolution will do some unblurring of images, but obviously it can't synthesize information that has been removed.
...the two rival platforms have almost flatlined in terms of uptake in 2007. According to statistics provided by Market Share by Net Applications, starting in December 2006 and through September 2007, Linux doubled its market share....
That's quite a flatline if you tilt your head on the side.
eBay recently did an in-depth analysis of its threat situation, and while the company is not releasing the results of this analysis, it did uncover a huge number of hacked, botnet computers, said Dave Cullinane, eBay's chief information and security officer, speaking at a Microsoft-sponsored security symposium at Santa Clara University.
I'm not denying that Linux boxes can be (and are) hacked, but the circumstances for this particular quote seem a little shady. It seems a little irresponsible (on the part of the submitter) to not mention the money trail. And it seems a little strange not to release the results... what are they afraid of?
I certainly hope it isn't patented, since by just watching the video once (without sound) I was able to to make my own implementation in C in under two hours. I completely agree that it is a cool idea, but I think the reason it is so cool is that the parts they used to build it are all so simple/well known - it is just a really novel combination of ideas that people have already come up with. The idea of a patent (I believe) is so that an inventor won't keep their invention to themselves, so that people can see how it all works and it benefits the public. There aren't any hidden tricks here - the (image-processing) public can easily work out how it is working just by looking at it.
Just in case I haven't been clear - I think that the idea is awesome, novel and brilliant. And I believe that it is possible for something to be awesome, novel and brilliant but also 'obvious'. Just like in maths when they showed you complex numbers, and how they bring some sanity into the system. Once they give you the hint that the square root of a negative number can be defined, then you can go away and easily derive all the cool things like Euler's form and whatnot. Now replace 'the square root of a negative number can be defined' with 'you can crop a jagged column from an image' and you have a pretty good parallel.
I thought it was pretty cool, so I made my own version after seeing the video. It obviously won't be as awesome as their one, but if you want to play around with it, you can get my C source and have a play around. It is GPL3.
The formulas can tell that people who type "apples" are likely to be thinking about fruit, while those who type "Apple" are mulling computers or iPods.
Well the results for both "apple" and "Apple" are identical for me (apple computer dominated), with the exception of the text in the ads on the right hand side (which are both for apple computers). Maybe they are doing other stuff (Linux users prefer computers over fruit?).
Does anyone see anything different when they search for "apple" versus "Apple"?
The onion is wrong - they actually went to 6 blades. And no I'm not kidding. Yes, I am bending the truth a bit (the 6th blade is on the back of the razor, to try to slice your hand when you change the blades)
If you had two sniffing devices, one near Alice, one near Bob then I speculate that if the frequency of the devices is high enough then they will be able to tell who had which resistor active.
This reminds me of another crypto method where the receiver adds noise to the line. The theory is that they know what the noise is, so they can remove it, but Eve can't get it because she doesn't know what the noise was. It falls down under the same attack because the signal is only propagated at the speed of light, not instantaneously.
My brother was one of the engineers who worked on it. He was always very secretive about it, but they aren't some dodgy company that makes fake videos and stuff. They are a real company that has lots of cool equipment and smart people working for them. So, since I've seen a person who has seen one of these prototypes in real life, and now you have read it on slashdot, it is basically confirmed:-)
This is one of those things that won't be possible with trusted computing. With encrypted audio+video streams for everything, all these cool technologies won't be able to be made. Hopefully, someone makes a program like this which goes mainstream - that ought to educate people about trusted computing as soon as they try to sneak it in.
The winner of the Doodle 4 Google contest is Lisa Waiwaina, age 11. For her doodle, titled "Day of the Child," her prize was an upper case "G" of frosted glass, and her school won an interactive whiteboard.
Obvious jokes:
1) Much better than those non-interactive whiteboards which ignored your marker completely.
2) Does the whiteboard display advertising relevant to whatever you draw on it.
3) "her prize was an upper case "G" of frosted glass" - when you put it in those terms, yes that prize does sound like a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Your are making the assumption that there is a product to buy. Heaps of patent trolls don't bother with that, as it only opens them up for counter suits.
I don't know much about the American constitution, but I was sure that you had the right to bear arms, not robot arms. And good luck hooking your laptop up to a bear.
This attack means that you get to choose the two files, and the attack generates two blocks to append to the original files which mean they hash to the same value.
So the exploits before have been:
Where [A] and [B] are blocks which collide (and they are aligned on block boundaries for calculating the hash).The new attack is exploited like this::
Where [C] and [D] are generated by this algorithm. This means that on a quick glance, the code doesn't look completely silly and there is no trace of what the hidden content says (just a bit of random stuff at the end of a file which might suggest that it is there)If you download a project and it is GPL, then feel free to ignore the fact that it is GPL, and use it under whatever provisions your local copyright law gives you (perhaps "fair use" if you are in the US, in Australia you get some "fair dealing", etc). Now do you feel more or less restricted?
Too slow
They also provide the minutes as a word document.
Deconvolution will do some unblurring of images, but obviously it can't synthesize information that has been removed.
The relevant code from an ODF spreadsheet:
<table:table-row table:style-name="ro1">
<table:table-cell/>
−
<table:table-cell office:value-type="float" office:value="123456.123456789">
<text:p>123456.12</text:p>
</table:table-cell>
</table:table-row>
Just in case I haven't been clear - I think that the idea is awesome, novel and brilliant. And I believe that it is possible for something to be awesome, novel and brilliant but also 'obvious'. Just like in maths when they showed you complex numbers, and how they bring some sanity into the system. Once they give you the hint that the square root of a negative number can be defined, then you can go away and easily derive all the cool things like Euler's form and whatnot. Now replace 'the square root of a negative number can be defined' with 'you can crop a jagged column from an image' and you have a pretty good parallel.
I thought it was pretty cool, so I made my own version after seeing the video. It obviously won't be as awesome as their one, but if you want to play around with it, you can get my C source and have a play around. It is GPL3.
(but sometimes I wonder why anyone would marry a vi person anyway)
Oh yeah. Woops. That isn't as interesting :-)
Well the results for both "apple" and "Apple" are identical for me (apple computer dominated), with the exception of the text in the ads on the right hand side (which are both for apple computers). Maybe they are doing other stuff (Linux users prefer computers over fruit?).
Does anyone see anything different when they search for "apple" versus "Apple"?
The onion is wrong - they actually went to 6 blades. And no I'm not kidding. Yes, I am bending the truth a bit (the 6th blade is on the back of the razor, to try to slice your hand when you change the blades)
This reminds me of another crypto method where the receiver adds noise to the line. The theory is that they know what the noise is, so they can remove it, but Eve can't get it because she doesn't know what the noise was. It falls down under the same attack because the signal is only propagated at the speed of light, not instantaneously.
This idea will never take off.
My brother was one of the engineers who worked on it. He was always very secretive about it, but they aren't some dodgy company that makes fake videos and stuff. They are a real company that has lots of cool equipment and smart people working for them. So, since I've seen a person who has seen one of these prototypes in real life, and now you have read it on slashdot, it is basically confirmed :-)
Why not subscribe and get the old news quicker than everyone else?
This is one of those things that won't be possible with trusted computing. With encrypted audio+video streams for everything, all these cool technologies won't be able to be made. Hopefully, someone makes a program like this which goes mainstream - that ought to educate people about trusted computing as soon as they try to sneak it in.
You had me until there.
(lameness neutraliser operate, nothing to see here. writing this padding stuff is much harder than it looks, but you shouldn't be looking here anyway)
Speaking of redundant and useless actions...
Obvious jokes:
1) Much better than those non-interactive whiteboards which ignored your marker completely.
2) Does the whiteboard display advertising relevant to whatever you draw on it.
3) "her prize was an upper case "G" of frosted glass" - when you put it in those terms, yes that prize does sound like a joke.