Ah, that makes sense.
And if you had even 10 passwords that hashed the same, you'd still be able to tell the real password from the gobbledygook of the others (unless they were randomly chosen).
And anyway, other systems that used the same hashing technique would still be vulnerable to each of the lot of colliding passwords.
I don't think that brute forcing to identify passwords is what's meant by "recoverable" here. Though, I suppose I'm with you in the idea that if it's easy enough it's virtually the same.
I'm not getting what (other) significance you're assigning to the idea of passwords being much lower entropy than their hashes. Is there something about the relative entropies that matters, or are you just again pointing to the ease of brute forcing something like passwords (which are going to be, in practice, only a small fraction of the hash entropy), which exists regardless of the potential hash entropy?
Not a lot of 200 ton bees out there...
I thought he was a mech pilot.
It's a kind of psychoacoustic compression, not just physioacoustic compression. It does not have the same "playback" in the range of human auditory sensation. It aims to have the same "playback" with human auditory perception. There's a difference.
... without significant losses in the (consciously) perceived quality of the sound
Physiology is a large of it, but it's not all of it. If you compare MP3 output versus original signal with each limited to the range of human hearing you will still see differences. The idea, man, is that those differences fall between the cracks in your mind... whoa. (Or maybe also brain, if there's a distinction to be made about it.)
If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum.
My barber was saying this exact thing to me the other day. So I says to him, "Frank, come on, can't you just correct for nonlinearities?" and he laughed at me and gave me a look like he couldn't believe me. I've decided to change barbers.
Maybe they measured power consumption with IE running and then not, or then with a different browser. The power difference is really the result of the browser, isn't it? If it's the only thing changing?
Even then not a reasonable comparison. The ability for the scanned proprietary softwares' teams to decide on inclusion feels to me like it would really influence the stats.
Would you expect there to exist any correlation between how shoddy software is and how likely the authors are to share information about how shoddy their software is? I would expect some correlation.
I used to see Internet Explorer as the devil, so full of holes it would result in your Windows box needing a reinstall every couple months.
I was aggressively advocating switching from IE around the apex of this curve, and overjoyed as it plummeted.
Are my prior impression about IE being buggy and dangerous still valid? Has IE cleaned up any? I get the impression it has.
And I was pushing folks to use Firefox as the alternative. How does Firefox compare to IE now? I get the impression IE is still a bad choice for a number of reasons, but also that Firefox is itself playing a game of clean-up after bloat issues.
Basically, at this point I'll push folks to use any browser that's not dominant. Get it? Fragmented influence in browser protocols means we get standards and standards compliance instead of the nightmare incompatibilities from intentional protocol "extending" and corrupting that MS and NS were pushing in their bids for complete control.
Makes me want to go back to the 2003 Slashdot posts to identify the IE advocates so I can publicly shame them now.
Yeah, that's the problem with a truly free market. Consumers are stupid and inattentive, corporations are clever and evasive.
If every consumer were Ralph Nader I'd be a free market zealot. As that's not the case we have to find a different way to assure corporations behave themselves.
I think maybe you have a naive or incomplete view.
You don't think big pharma do tons of their own drug discovery? They just get leads from academia?
If I ran a pharmaceutical company I wouldn't let you anywhere near executive management or the board. You don't get it. The idea of me-too drug development would totally blindside you.
An "office" computer and thin client is a different use scenario from a server. Yeah, he did make a bad comparison, but don't let that steer you off into the weeds. "Real work" and "PC replacement" as he termed it is meant to describe "office" activity. I use my desktop to do email and office document handling and to connect to servers. I don't run servers on my desktop (at work).
The point he's making is that the work he does is handled fine by smartphone-level computing power. You just need good Human Interface Devices and display.
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l=208344&a=208341&po=8,00.asp
I don't think it's hard to find examples of Theo being contemptuous outside of handling an indolent noob.
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.
Stallman isn't a noob. He has a different perspective from Theo, obviously. Any reason not to be a gentleman about it?
And, contempt for indolent noobs, as it turns out, is still counterproductive. Because contempt by itself is counterproductive.
I can appreciate trying to raise the floor with a dress code or basic code of conduct, but a culture of contempt is actually counterproductive. It results in a "blame culture", which is inherently less secure. And both these negative qualities reduce the viability of the community and stunt its growth and progress. There are other ways to raise the floor.
pfSense is a distribution whose whole purpose is simplifying the administration of pf? With another major goal of reliability? What would you expect, then?
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
