isn't the point about this blood that you can use it in situations where otherwise you would die so, even if it isn't as good as the real stuff, its better than dieing by a long way
this comment is typed on a 14.1 in laptop (dell insperon 640m), it has a full sized keyboard (14 in i think), with only a 2cm margin at the edges. It looks like it would be moderately difficult to engineer this any smaller w/o shrinking the keyboard.
having never used bitlocker, i was wondering what it would have to offer that truecrypt didn't?
with regards to 1) and 2) i would regard (once a few patches come out) those to be "practically equivalent" between vista and xp (directly playing hd dvd may be an exception though)
actually the default position is that every key can play, AACS is just a nifty way of removing a large number of keys from the "allowed to play" list w/o having to list every single allowed key separately.
it means that you can pull the energy out of the battery faster - "expected to deliver more usage between charges" would seem to indicate that actually the capacity is significantly increased.
The currently known keys can play all currently released disks. Any keys discovered in the future will be able to play all disks released up until that point.
unless it is graphically intensive (dx9, requiring 3d acceleration) everything can either be emulated (wine) or virtualized (xen or vmware). unfortunatally there is no such thing as a free lunch - there is the additional cost of maintaining the extra layer, and ever for highly optimized applications there is still a performance hit (5% or so)
this is a data conduit, not a separate computation unit doing parallel calculations - the question makes as much sense as asking 'what OS does an ethernet cable run' - the alternative is the os is 'you' as 'you' would directly control the calculations in any attached devices.
isn't that the ideal situation for people in control? - they get money, power and the ability to attempt to boss the rest of the world around, all while their population remains nice and passive.
sorry about the hard to read link concerning the number of atoms in the universe - wikipedia also mentions the number of atoms, but gives a figure 100x lower, so i chose the larger one.
the estimate of 100 billion years is also probably 10x to big (13 billion years, 4e17) is a better estimate for the age of the universe. - but even making these optimistic assumptions, we only get to 10^99, leading to the conclusion that anything with a chance less than 1 in 10^100 will never happen within this universe.
only when you use the same encryption scheme. In some cases you can prove that encrypting twice it is equivelent to encrypting once with a different key. In other cases, especially when encryption and decrytion are similar processes, it does weaken the encryption. However if you use different encryption methods the encryption/decryption of 1 method is practically orthogonal to the other method. This does not increase the security as much as you would think, as if you can break the encryption using twice as many "encryption layers" only doubles the amount of work to do, while doubling your overhead in encryption, leaving the ratio of your overhead to their effort of breaking it unchanged.
Ignoring mathematical breakthroughs which render a particular encryption method practically useless, it would be better to use a longer key where, in many situations, each _bit_ you add to the key doubles the hardness of breaking the problem, leading to each extension of the key length moving the overhead/effort to break ration further in your faviour (with an 8k key, assuming a resonable crack, where you only need to check the sqrt of the number of keys (2^4k keys) - this leads to a 10^1000 year breaking time (this assumes 10^200 calcuations/year - way more than theoretically possable).
using 8 1k keys leads to 2x2^512 keys to check (or about 8x10^150 computations)
i know which calculation i would rather have protecting my sensitive data.
an upper bound on the plausible calculation limit (within the scope of this universe) is about 10^100 calculations - the rough number of atoms in the universe ( 10^81 ) times the number of seconds the universe is expected to be in existence (10^18 seconds in 100 billion years)
baring a mathematical breakthrough there are certain encryption methods which are statistically secure for someone with access to the entire plausible computation power which could exist within this universe
"The government does not and cannot protect everyone from the rigors of competition." you obviously don't follow what the mpaa has been up to - i believe that should be: "The government does not and cannot protect everyone from the rigors of competition without a sufficiently large financial incentive"
well the way games are going you can get the first 2 easly, the 3rd if the programmers put in some effort to create a good engine and the 5th if you get lucky, but we now have 15 years of basically non-original game play that sais that the last 2 probably won't happen (except in the occasional game - one or 2 in the next few years)
It doesn't circumvent any copy protection - it just allows holders of the keys to decrypt theit encrypted content - this program assumes that the "explicit authorization" presented is in the holding of the key.
the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007. do you have a source for this comment?
i doubt the US would do something as drastic as invading iran w/o first securing enough oil for its own use - currently the US is importing over 60% of its oil, so knocking Irans production out (even for a short amount of time) while iraq's production is iffy (2 or 3 misplaced bombs and you could loose days of production) could result in severe economic damage if china decided not to play allong - a prospect which gets more likely every hear.
it is the most secure OS they have released to date, only time will tell if this is true, i would be quite happy to believe that now, as this isn't that large of a claim, and (practically) no security (xp) a good attempt (vista).
don't you know that by not buying those cd's indicates you must be a pirate, and as such the RIAA has lost at least $1,503 in income because of those actions?/sarcasam
Slashdot Mirror
"It makes it necessary to replace the CPA with something else" after all the bother you went through to put them there in the first place?
thats just the inability to easly progress to the next state, due to insufficient energy flow
isn't the point about this blood that you can use it in situations where otherwise you would die so, even if it isn't as good as the real stuff, its better than dieing by a long way
well, i would of thought there is prior art, but perhaps you could patent "a working patent system".
i for one regularly run linux in vmware, and am interested to see how the paravirtualization works out.
this comment is typed on a 14.1 in laptop (dell insperon 640m), it has a full sized keyboard (14 in i think), with only a 2cm margin at the edges. It looks like it would be moderately difficult to engineer this any smaller w/o shrinking the keyboard.
well said. (sorry, i'm out of mod points)
having never used bitlocker, i was wondering what it would have to offer that truecrypt didn't?
with regards to 1) and 2) i would regard (once a few patches come out) those to be "practically equivalent" between vista and xp (directly playing hd dvd may be an exception though)
actually the default position is that every key can play, AACS is just a nifty way of removing a large number of keys from the "allowed to play" list w/o having to list every single allowed key separately.
it means that you can pull the energy out of the battery faster - "expected to deliver more usage between charges" would seem to indicate that actually the capacity is significantly increased.
The currently known keys can play all currently released disks. Any keys discovered in the future will be able to play all disks released up until that point.
i've a dell laptop with xp pro on it (about 6 months old). last month i re-installed xp pro and did not have a problem with activation.
unless it is graphically intensive (dx9, requiring 3d acceleration) everything can either be emulated (wine) or virtualized (xen or vmware). unfortunatally there is no such thing as a free lunch - there is the additional cost of maintaining the extra layer, and ever for highly optimized applications there is still a performance hit (5% or so)
this is a data conduit, not a separate computation unit doing parallel calculations - the question makes as much sense as asking 'what OS does an ethernet cable run' - the alternative is the os is 'you' as 'you' would directly control the calculations in any attached devices.
its a kill-a-watt.
isn't that the ideal situation for people in control? - they get money, power and the ability to attempt to boss the rest of the world around, all while their population remains nice and passive.
sorry about the hard to read link concerning the number of atoms in the universe - wikipedia also mentions the number of atoms, but gives a figure 100x lower, so i chose the larger one.
the estimate of 100 billion years is also probably 10x to big (13 billion years, 4e17) is a better estimate for the age of the universe. - but even making these optimistic assumptions, we only get to 10^99, leading to the conclusion that anything with a chance less than 1 in 10^100 will never happen within this universe.
only when you use the same encryption scheme. In some cases you can prove that encrypting twice it is equivelent to encrypting once with a different key. In other cases, especially when encryption and decrytion are similar processes, it does weaken the encryption. However if you use different encryption methods the encryption/decryption of 1 method is practically orthogonal to the other method. This does not increase the security as much as you would think, as if you can break the encryption using twice as many "encryption layers" only doubles the amount of work to do, while doubling your overhead in encryption, leaving the ratio of your overhead to their effort of breaking it unchanged.
Ignoring mathematical breakthroughs which render a particular encryption method practically useless, it would be better to use a longer key where, in many situations, each _bit_ you add to the key doubles the hardness of breaking the problem, leading to each extension of the key length moving the overhead/effort to break ration further in your faviour (with an 8k key, assuming a resonable crack, where you only need to check the sqrt of the number of keys (2^4k keys) - this leads to a 10^1000 year breaking time (this assumes 10^200 calcuations/year - way more than theoretically possable).
using 8 1k keys leads to 2x2^512 keys to check (or about 8x10^150 computations)
i know which calculation i would rather have protecting my sensitive data.
an upper bound on the plausible calculation limit (within the scope of this universe) is about 10^100 calculations - the rough number of atoms in the universe ( 10^81 ) times the number of seconds the universe is expected to be in existence (10^18 seconds in 100 billion years)
baring a mathematical breakthrough there are certain encryption methods which are statistically secure for someone with access to the entire plausible computation power which could exist within this universe
"The government does not and cannot protect everyone from the rigors of competition."
you obviously don't follow what the mpaa has been up to - i believe that should be:
"The government does not and cannot protect everyone from the rigors of competition without a sufficiently large financial incentive"
well the way games are going you can get the first 2 easly, the 3rd if the programmers put in some effort to create a good engine and the 5th if you get lucky, but we now have 15 years of basically non-original game play that sais that the last 2 probably won't happen (except in the occasional game - one or 2 in the next few years)
how hard (and expensive) would it be to sue a hardware manufacturer over this and lose, to set a precedent? Andrew (in Australia, not a Lawyer)
It doesn't circumvent any copy protection - it just allows holders of the keys to decrypt theit encrypted content - this program assumes that the "explicit authorization" presented is in the holding of the key.
don't you know that by not buying those cd's indicates you must be a pirate, and as such the RIAA has lost at least $1,503 in income because of those actions? /sarcasam