I've only been on two quantas flights in my life, but on both of them (20+ hours) I too had at least 2 hours of entertainment system troubles. Can anyone verify if these are really run on 3.1... I have some doubts.
Why would you expect a small child's terminal velocity to be less than 161km/h? The terminal velocity of a typical man is 192km/h when they are outstreched (i.e. slowest method). Terminal velocity has nothing to do with mass, but rather with density and the amount of surface area for the air to push back on. A 40lb kid may have a little more fat than an adult and thus be less dense. But since a child is smaller, it has much less surface area for air to push back against, if I had to bet I think an outstretched child would fall faster than a grown man. (plus I would question if a 40lb child has presence of mind to try to outstretch themselves rather than completely panic after being tossed out a plane.. or space station)
Completely incorrect. Fruit of the poisoness tree ONLY applies to searches done by police. As is the same with most other evidence law precedents. There may be another reason why it isn't admissable, but that is not it.
That is because no one in their right minds would spend the time to port a lot of that crap to another system. Dewy's Adventure? Cooking Mom, Cook Off? Escape from Bug Island?
Why are you so surprised? Have scientists previously shown an ability to accurately predict how much ice will break off? Do we have a long record of ice breaking off the the factors that contributed?
My guess is, any scientist who tries to predict the outcome of a small event that is influenced by many, many, many large factors will more than likely miss something and be off.
This is a knock at climate scientists or scientists in general, I'm sure they tried to look at every factor they could think of. But after you look at all those factors (spent all that time and money) you are required to make a prediction whether you think it'll be close or not. You can't just walk away and say I'm really not sure. You make a prediction and if its wrong you say what you said.. well we must have missed something, get more funding and do it again.
As others have mentioned, this is not an attack on the key space, so the size of your key won't matter. Rather it is an attack on the algorithm itself, which is more like saying, this analysis will make the algorithm not so 'random'.
From my small understanding of cryptography and the vague article is that some ciphers can be represented in a polynomial form. I remember in my crypto class we were shown how to figure out the polynomial of one of the algorithms but i've long forgotten it. But anyways, cryptographers have always been somewhat weary of ciphers that can be represented as a polynomial because perhaps someday someone would figure out a way to solve the polynomial. And I believe this new attack must have something to do with that. Although I could be wrong because to the best of my recollection I thought the Rijndael (AES) cipher could not be represented as a polynomial.. Yet it is mentioned in the article.. perhaps it has to do with one of the modes or something...
Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
First you are combining two separate ideas, the common argument that the word 'privacy' is not in the constitution is true. HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong. There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.
Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.
However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?
And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.
This case could be interesting. I know there is a radio station in chicago that reads responses to their fake sex craiglist ads as part of their morning show.
The other issue I imagine would be that a decent PSP emulator doesn't even exist for the PC. The only ones that exist can only play PSP homebrew. I don't believe this story.
any chance and editor will update the summary and include this link? I'm tired of skimming through half the discussion of whether this is real or fake or not.
I don't mean to nit-pick but Win95 was followed by Win98 not WinME. I agree with your points though, although Win98 SE has probably been my favorite Windows OS (so stable compared to 95 or ME)
There is a difference. Funding for education is acceptable because an educated populous is necessary to have a decently working democracy. Democracy requires educated citizens to have the ability to understand how the system works and ability to understand the issues (whether they actually understand them is a different thing, but at least we try to equip them with the ability). Education is great. But to fund a video game to understand how to resolve conflicts? This in a different realm.
Funding for education is broad, educators can choose (somewhat, minus the failing No Child Left Behind) what to teach and how to teach. The government doesn't fund the writing of text books which describe the government accepted way to do things. Which I see as the equivalent to funding the production of a video game that describes specific ways to handle a situation. If this video game was over a different topic like, how to be a good conservative, democratic citizen, people would scream Propaganda! What if one of the prescribed ways in the game to handle conflict was preemptive strike? Would you support it then? I don't support this kind of funding because it is easy to abuse. Not because I have anything against educating the populous.
maybe the question that should be asked is, why should congress fund any sort of game development? leave education to the educators, and the moral development to families and communities. the only governmental role in morality should be to protect us, not propagate their morals. Even if in this case it is something we all probably could agree on is good, government still shouldn't do it.
You are very mistaken, this is an extremely complicated question, moreso than TFA states. In 1798, Thomas Malthus started worrying about population growth saying because we were growing at an exponential pace. This thought continued and Hardin used at as one of his main points in his famous paper the Tragedy of the Commons. But, as this became a more important question, we have gathered more data and it turns out our assumption that population growth would stay exponential was wrong.
Here midway on the page are some graphs of current population estimates and global growth rates. You can see that global birth rates have already declined. And even the high end estimates for global population start to taper off. Some even predict global population will decline.
The reasons for this decline are also complicated, but the two most prevalent explanations are first, the advent of birth control finally allows women to control when they have children. And second, and more importantly, look at this picture a growth rate of 0 means the population of that country is staying at a constant level (for every birth there is a death), negative means population decline, >0 means population growth. Notice that most of what we call "industrialized" nations are at a maintenance level or are in population decrease. That includes China and India, the two most populated countries in the world. While most the population growth is just in Africa and parts of the Middle East and South America(and note the south africa and egypt don't have growth). The reason for all this is explained as, as a society gets more 'industrialized' the need for families to be larger decreases. While in places where farming is necessary for survival, the incentive to have more children (free labor) is high. Its not that Africans don't have access to birth control, its that its more beneficial for them to not use it.
So the prevailing theory today is that as Africa gets more industrialized, their population growth will go down and global population will stabilize. We could argue about whether or not Africa will get industrialized, but I think in absence of very strong evidence, we have to believe the more industrialized a nation gets, its population growth approaches 0 or even negative.
This is why it is frustrating, in essence you need three pieces of software. Anti-virus, anti-adware AND anti-spyware. In my experience AdAware is great if a user has adware but misses a lot of rootkits and spyware out there. As such I need to run Spybot as well. BUT then the user still can have problems and you might have to run Hijack This to see if anything else is installed. It really is ridiculous.
I don't believe it is safe to assume we will continue to consume bandwidth and a constant growth rate. Back in the day, we were just sending text back and forth over the internet. But even then, we had potential other applications of the internet, like images, sound and video, but the bandwidth did not allow for it.
Now fast forward to today, we can manage to transfer video and audio feeds, sure they could still stand to be of higher quality, but there aren't many other things that we can think of right now that we would need more bandwidth for. What more could you send? Scent data? Feeling data? Holographic data?
My prediction: Once everyone has access to high quality video and audio streams bandwidth needs will taper off. Until a new technology comes along that requires vastly more bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only been on two quantas flights in my life, but on both of them (20+ hours) I too had at least 2 hours of entertainment system troubles. Can anyone verify if these are really run on 3.1... I have some doubts.
Why would you expect a small child's terminal velocity to be less than 161km/h? The terminal velocity of a typical man is 192km/h when they are outstreched (i.e. slowest method). Terminal velocity has nothing to do with mass, but rather with density and the amount of surface area for the air to push back on. A 40lb kid may have a little more fat than an adult and thus be less dense. But since a child is smaller, it has much less surface area for air to push back against, if I had to bet I think an outstretched child would fall faster than a grown man. (plus I would question if a 40lb child has presence of mind to try to outstretch themselves rather than completely panic after being tossed out a plane.. or space station)
Completely incorrect. Fruit of the poisoness tree ONLY applies to searches done by police. As is the same with most other evidence law precedents. There may be another reason why it isn't admissable, but that is not it.
That is because no one in their right minds would spend the time to port a lot of that crap to another system. Dewy's Adventure? Cooking Mom, Cook Off? Escape from Bug Island?
I could go on and on
I hope you never wondered why they didn't hire you for that marketing job.
My guess is, any scientist who tries to predict the outcome of a small event that is influenced by many, many, many large factors will more than likely miss something and be off.
This is a knock at climate scientists or scientists in general, I'm sure they tried to look at every factor they could think of. But after you look at all those factors (spent all that time and money) you are required to make a prediction whether you think it'll be close or not. You can't just walk away and say I'm really not sure. You make a prediction and if its wrong you say what you said.. well we must have missed something, get more funding and do it again.
I was thinking more along the lines of
"CC Companies Whiskey Mythbusters Show on Security"
I get your point, but I wouldn't let Bruce Schneier into my building even if he shaved his beard. I don't need my security flaws made public!
As others have mentioned, this is not an attack on the key space, so the size of your key won't matter. Rather it is an attack on the algorithm itself, which is more like saying, this analysis will make the algorithm not so 'random'.
From my small understanding of cryptography and the vague article is that some ciphers can be represented in a polynomial form. I remember in my crypto class we were shown how to figure out the polynomial of one of the algorithms but i've long forgotten it. But anyways, cryptographers have always been somewhat weary of ciphers that can be represented as a polynomial because perhaps someday someone would figure out a way to solve the polynomial. And I believe this new attack must have something to do with that. Although I could be wrong because to the best of my recollection I thought the Rijndael (AES) cipher could not be represented as a polynomial.. Yet it is mentioned in the article.. perhaps it has to do with one of the modes or something...
Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
First you are combining two separate ideas, the common argument that the word 'privacy' is not in the constitution is true. HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong. There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.
Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.
However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?
And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.
I supposed it could work because the cost of getting titanium is a one time cost, but the effects of the concrete will continue working over time.
oh string theory would find a way to survive.. those people never go away.
This case could be interesting. I know there is a radio station in chicago that reads responses to their fake sex craiglist ads as part of their morning show.
The other issue I imagine would be that a decent PSP emulator doesn't even exist for the PC. The only ones that exist can only play PSP homebrew. I don't believe this story.
any chance and editor will update the summary and include this link? I'm tired of skimming through half the discussion of whether this is real or fake or not.
perhaps you are correct in the case of other apps. But for the example given, podcasts. I believe most people already associate that with iTunes.
any chance MediaDefender is being framed?
I don't mean to nit-pick but Win95 was followed by Win98 not WinME. I agree with your points though, although Win98 SE has probably been my favorite Windows OS (so stable compared to 95 or ME)
There is a difference. Funding for education is acceptable because an educated populous is necessary to have a decently working democracy. Democracy requires educated citizens to have the ability to understand how the system works and ability to understand the issues (whether they actually understand them is a different thing, but at least we try to equip them with the ability). Education is great. But to fund a video game to understand how to resolve conflicts? This in a different realm.
Funding for education is broad, educators can choose (somewhat, minus the failing No Child Left Behind) what to teach and how to teach. The government doesn't fund the writing of text books which describe the government accepted way to do things. Which I see as the equivalent to funding the production of a video game that describes specific ways to handle a situation. If this video game was over a different topic like, how to be a good conservative, democratic citizen, people would scream Propaganda! What if one of the prescribed ways in the game to handle conflict was preemptive strike? Would you support it then? I don't support this kind of funding because it is easy to abuse. Not because I have anything against educating the populous.
maybe the question that should be asked is, why should congress fund any sort of game development? leave education to the educators, and the moral development to families and communities. the only governmental role in morality should be to protect us, not propagate their morals. Even if in this case it is something we all probably could agree on is good, government still shouldn't do it.
You are very mistaken, this is an extremely complicated question, moreso than TFA states. In 1798, Thomas Malthus started worrying about population growth saying because we were growing at an exponential pace. This thought continued and Hardin used at as one of his main points in his famous paper the Tragedy of the Commons. But, as this became a more important question, we have gathered more data and it turns out our assumption that population growth would stay exponential was wrong.
Here midway on the page are some graphs of current population estimates and global growth rates. You can see that global birth rates have already declined. And even the high end estimates for global population start to taper off. Some even predict global population will decline.
The reasons for this decline are also complicated, but the two most prevalent explanations are first, the advent of birth control finally allows women to control when they have children. And second, and more importantly, look at this picture a growth rate of 0 means the population of that country is staying at a constant level (for every birth there is a death), negative means population decline, >0 means population growth. Notice that most of what we call "industrialized" nations are at a maintenance level or are in population decrease. That includes China and India, the two most populated countries in the world. While most the population growth is just in Africa and parts of the Middle East and South America(and note the south africa and egypt don't have growth). The reason for all this is explained as, as a society gets more 'industrialized' the need for families to be larger decreases. While in places where farming is necessary for survival, the incentive to have more children (free labor) is high. Its not that Africans don't have access to birth control, its that its more beneficial for them to not use it.
So the prevailing theory today is that as Africa gets more industrialized, their population growth will go down and global population will stabilize. We could argue about whether or not Africa will get industrialized, but I think in absence of very strong evidence, we have to believe the more industrialized a nation gets, its population growth approaches 0 or even negative.
So you are saying given a string and your 4 year old you have no idea when he will halt? This is an interesting problem...
This is why it is frustrating, in essence you need three pieces of software. Anti-virus, anti-adware AND anti-spyware. In my experience AdAware is great if a user has adware but misses a lot of rootkits and spyware out there. As such I need to run Spybot as well. BUT then the user still can have problems and you might have to run Hijack This to see if anything else is installed. It really is ridiculous.
I don't believe it is safe to assume we will continue to consume bandwidth and a constant growth rate. Back in the day, we were just sending text back and forth over the internet. But even then, we had potential other applications of the internet, like images, sound and video, but the bandwidth did not allow for it.
Now fast forward to today, we can manage to transfer video and audio feeds, sure they could still stand to be of higher quality, but there aren't many other things that we can think of right now that we would need more bandwidth for. What more could you send? Scent data? Feeling data? Holographic data?
My prediction: Once everyone has access to high quality video and audio streams bandwidth needs will taper off. Until a new technology comes along that requires vastly more bandwidth.
But even an average programmer will remember to use sentence.equals instead of ==