Small correction, NP does not stand for Non-polynomial, it stands for Non-deterministic Polynomial time. The difference between NP and P is that P-problems can be solved in polyniomial time on a deterministic turing machine, and NP can be solved in polynomial time on a non-deterministic turing machine. It is completely wrong to say that NP problems are those that can't be solved in polynomial time, there are plenty of of problems that are non-polynomial and way harder than NP problems (playing chess is a good example, that belongs to complexity class EXPTIME).
Iäm pretty sure that a cellphone occasionaly sends a quick message home just to check up. On the other hand, if you do want to find it, why not just call it and there's your signal:D
That would not be anywhere near as effective as a gps. Cellphones work using a network of basestations, so the best any phone company could do would be to track it to the correct basestation (well, technically, you could triangulate the position if you picked up the correct radio-frequency, but that's way harder). With a gps, you can track it to the correct centimeter if you'd like.
It's even less than that since you include the algorithm in the mix. Assuming the algorithm is not part of the storage, one could easily construct a compression algorithm capable of storing 2 gb in one bit.
if bit=0, then the data is the entire World of Warcraft version 1.10
else if bit=1 then the data is Hitchcocks Vertigo, Xvid format
else it's simply the data as it is.
What the hell is that brown stain at the bottom? Did James Madison spill coffee on the Bill of Rights? I can just see Ben Franklin tearing him a new one for that...
(I have no idea who wrote the bill of rights, so I apologise if I got the characters wrong. Hey, can any of you name a founding father of sweden? Didn't think so....)
Yeah, but I've got an excuse, I'm swedish. However I couldn't make that excuse were I to make a feature film in english, just as they can't make the excuse for their lousy math:D
Damnit can people quoting that damn movie! Anyone who has had even the slightest bit of mathematical training knows that it is completely full of crap! They can't even get the right greek characted for the golden ratio! High school kids knows that one!
While it's true that it doesn't mean you can create antigravity, you could certainly create a free-fall enviroment. Assuming we could create 9.8 M/s^2 sort of gravitational pull (USS Enterprise gravity;), just put the gravity thing above you, and you'll be able to fly:D
It's not enough to be market-leader, you have to be a monopoly (or have a position very close to a monopoly, ala MS) to be subject to those kind of anti-trust laws.
Well yes, obiously that is better, but the principle is that it shouldn't matter. Take the Enigma for instance. The Germans obviously kept it's machine as secret as possible from the brits, and had the brits not got their hands on it, it would have been ALOT harder to crack. However, the germans knew that that was unreasonable, the brits would get ahold of one sooner or later. That's why the security of the enigma lies in having a very strong key that the germans deemed uncrackable (turns out it wasn't, but oh well). That is, you need the codebooks (containing the keys) to decrypt a message, not just the machine.
Also, in modern times the by far most used place for encryption is the internet, and in order for both the sender and the recipient to know how to decrypt something, they need to share an algorithm.
So to sum up: no it isn't wrong to add another layer of secrecy, but it is unreasonable to assume that the "enemy" wont find out what cipher you are using.
You don't use 256 or 1024 bit DES, you either use 3-DES or some other cipher (like AES,which is COMPLETLY different from DES, and it is exactly your article that's the reason no one uses DES anymore). You also use dozens of completely ureasonable assumptions. Even so, at the end, you get that it would take approximatly 4 * 10^53 years!!! The universe have been around for what 1.3 * 10^10!!! So no, noone can crack modern ciphers EVER. EVER EVER EVER.
Yeah, it's pretty apparent that you don't know much about modern encryption. The thing is, modern ciphers are UNBREAKABLE. Not theoretically unbreakable like the Vernam cipher, but breakable in the "it would take 1000000 years if all the atoms in the universe were used to make one giant computer". Even when using very simply stuff, like logging in using SSL to your email account, the cipher is completely safe (note: one can use stuff like man-in-the-middle to get such passwords, but then you arn't cracking the code). Google could NEVER EVER crack your encrypted files. EVER!
It doesn't matter if people know what encryption you use. A fundamental principle in cryptology (called Kerckhoffs' law) that ALL the security should lie in the key, and not in the algorithm. For instance, everyone knows that WPA2 uses AES, but that doesn't mean that the protocol is insecure.
My point was that yes, google can provide a convenient encryption-system ASWELL as not knowing the unencrypted data, or the key.
Well, assuming that they create a separate app instead of just web-integration, that app could encrypt the files using a supplied password, and transmit just the file, not the password. Smart people would be able to easily use a sniffer to make sure the program behaves and doesn't send the password, and what is sent is encrypted correctly.
(one could argue that the app could encrypt the pass with a secret password only known to google, and then transmit it without anybody realising what that blob of seemingly-random data is. However, then the smart people would recognize that something fishy is going on and, presumably, they would not recommend it).
How the hell would they find those letters in an encrypted file? You realise that modern encryption is (practically, if not theoretically) unbreakable, right?
There are different laws in different countries, just because they set a precedent in the US doesn't mean that other countries can harvest the information.
Have you read Ulysses? 'Cause it doesn't seem like it. It was banned all over the world for obscenity (in the US for instance), simply because it's very obscene in places. There's no grander scheme at work.
Slashdot Mirror
Small correction, NP does not stand for Non-polynomial, it stands for Non-deterministic Polynomial time. The difference between NP and P is that P-problems can be solved in polyniomial time on a deterministic turing machine, and NP can be solved in polynomial time on a non-deterministic turing machine. It is completely wrong to say that NP problems are those that can't be solved in polynomial time, there are plenty of of problems that are non-polynomial and way harder than NP problems (playing chess is a good example, that belongs to complexity class EXPTIME).
Ohh great, I've been looking for that page. Wait...hey, you tricked me! And I was getting my hopes up.....
Acually Uranus was supposed to be called George's Star (only in latin) for King George III, if the discoverer (William Herschel) had had his way.
Thank you for the clarification, it was nice to hear from someone who actually knows what he's talking about :P
Iäm pretty sure that a cellphone occasionaly sends a quick message home just to check up. On the other hand, if you do want to find it, why not just call it and there's your signal :D
That would not be anywhere near as effective as a gps. Cellphones work using a network of basestations, so the best any phone company could do would be to track it to the correct basestation (well, technically, you could triangulate the position if you picked up the correct radio-frequency, but that's way harder). With a gps, you can track it to the correct centimeter if you'd like.
It's even less than that since you include the algorithm in the mix. Assuming the algorithm is not part of the storage, one could easily construct a compression algorithm capable of storing 2 gb in one bit.
if bit=0, then the data is the entire World of Warcraft version 1.10
else if bit=1 then the data is Hitchcocks Vertigo, Xvid format
else it's simply the data as it is.
What the hell is that brown stain at the bottom? Did James Madison spill coffee on the Bill of Rights? I can just see Ben Franklin tearing him a new one for that... (I have no idea who wrote the bill of rights, so I apologise if I got the characters wrong. Hey, can any of you name a founding father of sweden? Didn't think so....)
Yeah, but I've got an excuse, I'm swedish. However I couldn't make that excuse were I to make a feature film in english, just as they can't make the excuse for their lousy math :D
Damnit can people quoting that damn movie! Anyone who has had even the slightest bit of mathematical training knows that it is completely full of crap! They can't even get the right greek characted for the golden ratio! High school kids knows that one!
While it's true that it doesn't mean you can create antigravity, you could certainly create a free-fall enviroment. Assuming we could create 9.8 M/s^2 sort of gravitational pull (USS Enterprise gravity ;), just put the gravity thing above you, and you'll be able to fly :D
Hey, I'm just wondering if Mr Congressman knows what the hell an oligopoly is :P
I love that RFC :D
It's not enough to be market-leader, you have to be a monopoly (or have a position very close to a monopoly, ala MS) to be subject to those kind of anti-trust laws.
I just wanted to be on the other side of the conversation. Sorry!
tag. Use it wisely. Also, Preview button is a good thing to consider sometimes.
Also, in modern times the by far most used place for encryption is the internet, and in order for both the sender and the recipient to know how to decrypt something, they need to share an algorithm.
So to sum up: no it isn't wrong to add another layer of secrecy, but it is unreasonable to assume that the "enemy" wont find out what cipher you are using.
BTW, yes, you are completely clueless.
Yeah, it's pretty apparent that you don't know much about modern encryption. The thing is, modern ciphers are UNBREAKABLE. Not theoretically unbreakable like the Vernam cipher, but breakable in the "it would take 1000000 years if all the atoms in the universe were used to make one giant computer". Even when using very simply stuff, like logging in using SSL to your email account, the cipher is completely safe (note: one can use stuff like man-in-the-middle to get such passwords, but then you arn't cracking the code). Google could NEVER EVER crack your encrypted files. EVER!
My point was that yes, google can provide a convenient encryption-system ASWELL as not knowing the unencrypted data, or the key.
Well, assuming that they create a separate app instead of just web-integration, that app could encrypt the files using a supplied password, and transmit just the file, not the password. Smart people would be able to easily use a sniffer to make sure the program behaves and doesn't send the password, and what is sent is encrypted correctly. (one could argue that the app could encrypt the pass with a secret password only known to google, and then transmit it without anybody realising what that blob of seemingly-random data is. However, then the smart people would recognize that something fishy is going on and, presumably, they would not recommend it).
How the hell would they find those letters in an encrypted file? You realise that modern encryption is (practically, if not theoretically) unbreakable, right?
There are different laws in different countries, just because they set a precedent in the US doesn't mean that other countries can harvest the information.
This is not really the same thing. This is for feed-distribution, not cooperative downloading of large files. The files are rather small in this case
Have you read Ulysses? 'Cause it doesn't seem like it. It was banned all over the world for obscenity (in the US for instance), simply because it's very obscene in places. There's no grander scheme at work.