Re:Feeling the acceleration
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
You "feel the acceleration" only relative to the rest of the universe. The rest of the universe "feels the acceleration" relative to you.
No. An astronaut feels the acceleration of his rocket much more than the rest of the universe. That is because the universe has a "little bit" more mass than his rocket, while the total energy that both experience stays the same.
Simple movement without acceleration is a different thing, because in this case there is no change in energy levels.
If the universe consisted only of the twins, then you would be right, of course...
to check the signature, the software needs to have the public key.
It is possible to extract the public key, and then check every binary data on disk for signatures with that key. If you found souch signed data, you probably have also discovered the FBI-Spyware.
Therefore it would be trivial to detect such signed Viruses.
Guns are used in a variety of SPORTS (target shooting being a classic example). The purpose of a gun is determined by the shooter. Just like the purpose of crypto.
Yes, but weapons can be used to attack someone. Crypto may only be used in a defensive way. To actually kill someone, people still need a weapon (e.g. a gun, a plane, a car or whatever).
On the other hand, nobody even thinks of restricting the free use of, for example, cars.
That is because people are accustomed to cars, they use them daily and they understand why they are useful. They don't see them as possible deadly weapons but as part of their daily life.
That's why it is essential to propagate encryption as the natural way for everyone to send emails. It would also help to use some less technical word instead of crypto. I would rather refer to it as a kind of "envelope". That's an image that even Joe Average can easily understand.
The terrorists just have to encrypt their mails with a secure algorithm first and afterwards with the key escrow system.
All the government can see now is some legally encrypted mail. If they want to decrypt it, they need some kind of search warrant. If they have a terrorists under suspicion, they'll of course get such a warrant. But they will still not be able to decipher his message, because he also used a secure encryption scheme.
So what? Are they going to sue him because of the use of illegal encryption technologie? Nothing could be more stupid than that. He would instantly know that he is under suspicion.
Of course his terror group would be warned too, and they could safely work out some alternative plan.
But for spying on average joe, such a legislative is good enough. And it looks like that's the real intention of some politicians.
...use double encryption? You could first encrypt with an illegal, secure algorithm and then encrypt the result with the governmental allowed algorithm. If you get visited by the feds because of the use of illegal cryptography, you know that they are behind you as they bothered cracking the insecure part.
The best warning a terrorist organisation can think of - and the government gathered no information...
Do you really believe that the Americans are the only people who deserve a right for privacy? Everytime Americans are affected by ECHELON there is a large uproar. But none of you really cares if your country pisses on the rights of non-Americans. At least they are only babarians, arent they? Personally, I feel great running around with a spear and crying mystical native words...
I know this thread had already been null-moderated, but I'm curious about what effect this solution may have on cryptography that uses elliptic curve algorithms.
I'm no expert in this, but I don't believe that this proof has too much impact on the mathematics of today. STW has been known to mathematicians for some years, and they believed that it is true, but they didn't prove it. They even built new theories using the asumption that STW is true. These theories were (if they are useful in that particular case) certainly applied to elliptic cryptography.
But it is important that STW is proven, and that we know now that theses new theories are really true. Just imagine a cryptosystem based on the assumption that STW is true and in reality it wasn't...
The problem with your idea is, that you moust be very careful not to get any inconsistencies in your dictionary.
Goedel has proven, that if the world is enough complicated, there must be contradictions in such a dictionary or there must be questions you may ask using the words in the dictionary which the dictionary cannot answer.
Obviously, that is true for all real dictionary (they are not complete as they do not describe everything in the world).
But even if you try to make a more sophisticated dictionary, you may not be sure if youll succeed. That depends on how complex our world really is.
You can imagine that the physicians arent very happy with that, as it may mean that there is no such thing as the "World Formula".
SuSE 6.1 uses the glibc 6.0. You need to upgrade to glibc 6.1.
But this may be a rather dangerous thing, as the libc is one of the most central parts of the system. It would be easier to upgrade to Suse 6.2 which already uses the glibc 6.1
Although most companies didnt realize it, it may be a matter of survival for them to have a secure communication system without any backdoors. There are two reasons for that: Espionage: Companies might do active development, in which other companies might be interested. There are also cases reported when the NSA/CIA helped American companies to retrieve industrial secrets from foreign countries. CrackersIf there is a backdoor, and the NSA (or whoever else) can use it, a cracker might use it, too. This wouldnt be good at all for banks, credit card companies, eCommerce,... There is a real need for secure cryptography, but it must be open sourced and widely checked and accepted by leading cryptographers.
This could be good news, if Intel werent an US company. But since it is forbidden in the US to export strong cryptography, this system will either not be exported (which I cant believe) or it wont be really secure. I hope that the US government will someday realize that their strict crypto policy helps European and Asian companies to get advantages in the fast growing security market.
I haven't tried to compile with gcc 2.95, so I can't tell you where exactly these statements are. But since you don't have gcc 2.95 you shouldn't experience any problems with the assembler statements. I compiled KDE with egcs 2.91 and everything works fine. I will wait two or three months before I upgrade to gcc/egcs 2.95. I hope that until then these problems will be fixed.
Re:How to compile with egcs-2.95
on
KDE 1.1.2 is out
·
· Score: 1
the problem seems to be an incompatibility in the new egcs with old assembler constructs. See http://egcs.cygnus.com/faq.html#asmclobber for more about that. I would suggest that you try the old egcs 1.1.2, or perhaps you might volunteer to rewrite those assembler statements...
Slashdot Mirror
No. An astronaut feels the acceleration of his rocket much more than the rest of the universe. That is because the universe has a "little bit" more mass than his rocket, while the total energy that both experience stays the same.
Simple movement without acceleration is a different thing, because in this case there is no change in energy levels.
If the universe consisted only of the twins, then you would be right, of course...
to check the signature, the software needs to have the public key.
It is possible to extract the public key, and then check every binary data on disk for signatures with that key. If you found souch signed data, you probably have also discovered the FBI-Spyware.
Therefore it would be trivial to detect such signed Viruses.
Yes, but weapons can be used to attack someone. Crypto may only be used in a defensive way. To actually kill someone, people still need a weapon (e.g. a gun, a plane, a car or whatever).
On the other hand, nobody even thinks of restricting the free use of, for example, cars.
That is because people are accustomed to cars, they use them daily and they understand why they are useful. They don't see them as possible deadly weapons but as part of their daily life.
That's why it is essential to propagate encryption as the natural way for everyone to send emails. It would also help to use some less technical word instead of crypto. I would rather refer to it as a kind of "envelope". That's an image that even Joe Average can easily understand.
The terrorists just have to encrypt their mails with a secure algorithm first and afterwards with the key escrow system.
All the government can see now is some legally encrypted mail. If they want to decrypt it, they need some kind of search warrant. If they have a terrorists under suspicion, they'll of course get such a warrant. But they will still not be able to decipher his message, because he also used a secure encryption scheme.
So what? Are they going to sue him because of the use of illegal encryption technologie? Nothing could be more stupid than that. He would instantly know that he is under suspicion. Of course his terror group would be warned too, and they could safely work out some alternative plan.
But for spying on average joe, such a legislative is good enough. And it looks like that's the real intention of some politicians.
The best warning a terrorist organisation can think of - and the government gathered no
information...
Everytime Americans are affected by ECHELON there is a large uproar. But none of you really cares if your country pisses on the rights of non-Americans. At least they are only babarians, arent they?
Personally, I feel great running around with a spear and crying mystical native words...
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses
I'm no expert in this, but I don't believe that this proof has too much impact on the mathematics of today. STW has been known to mathematicians for some years, and they believed that it is true, but they didn't prove it. They even built new theories using the asumption that STW is true. These theories were (if they are useful in that particular case) certainly applied to elliptic cryptography.
But it is important that STW is proven, and that we know now that theses new theories are really true. Just imagine a cryptosystem based on the assumption that STW is true and in reality it wasn't...
Goedel has proven, that if the world is enough complicated, there must be contradictions in such a dictionary or there must be questions you may ask using the words in the dictionary which the dictionary cannot answer.
Obviously, that is true for all real dictionary (they are not complete as they do not describe everything in the world).
But even if you try to make a more sophisticated dictionary, you may not be sure if youll succeed. That depends on how complex our world really is.
You can imagine that the physicians arent very happy with that, as it may mean that there is no such thing as the "World Formula".
But this may be a rather dangerous thing, as the libc is one of the most central parts of the system. It would be easier to upgrade to Suse 6.2 which already uses the glibc 6.1
Although most companies didnt realize it, it may be a matter of survival for them to have a secure communication system without any backdoors. There are two reasons for that: Espionage: Companies might do active development, in which other companies might be interested. There are also cases reported when the NSA/CIA helped American companies to retrieve industrial secrets from foreign countries. CrackersIf there is a backdoor, and the NSA (or whoever else) can use it, a cracker might use it, too. This wouldnt be good at all for banks, credit card companies, eCommerce,... There is a real need for secure cryptography, but it must be open sourced and widely checked and accepted by leading cryptographers.
This could be good news, if Intel werent an US company. But since it is forbidden in the US to export strong cryptography, this system will either not be exported (which I cant believe) or it wont be really secure. I hope that the US government will someday realize that their strict crypto policy helps European and Asian companies to get advantages in the fast growing security market.
I haven't tried to compile with gcc 2.95, so I can't tell you where exactly these statements are. But since you don't have gcc 2.95 you shouldn't experience any problems with the assembler statements. I compiled KDE with egcs 2.91 and everything works fine. I will wait two or three months before I upgrade to gcc/egcs 2.95. I hope that until then these problems will be fixed.
the problem seems to be an incompatibility in the new egcs with old assembler constructs.
See http://egcs.cygnus.com/faq.html#asmclobber for more about that.
I would suggest that you try the old egcs 1.1.2, or perhaps you might volunteer to rewrite those assembler statements...