Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 231

by flargleblarg (#47950985) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

Encryption is ALWAYS breakable by brute force. Question is how long does it take? Seconds? Hours? Months? Years? Decades? This is usually determined by key sizes. The longer the key, the longer it takes to brute force. (generally)

Chuck Norris can brute force a 256-bit key in the time it takes to blink his eyes.

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 231

by flargleblarg (#47950971) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

I have no clue what all the above really means.... If you are saying that 256 bit keys are hard to break, I would concur. If you are saying that it would take a long time, I would again agree. However, if you look at "possible" it is totally possible to brute force a 256 bit key, it just takes TIME to do, LOTS of time OR lots of computers. Either way, it is perfectly possible... Now it may take a LOT of computers (more than are physically possible) or it may take a LONG time (more than we likely have before the sun destroys the earth) but that is all about being practical and not about being possible.

It's mathematically possible. It's humanly impossible. No human will ever build a machine using normal matter that is capable of it.

Comment: Re:Does HFCS count? (Score 1) 292

by flargleblarg (#47940257) Attached to: Study Finds Link Between Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance

sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.

It's not that simple.
Do a little reading about it. Your body has to expend energy/effort to break sugar into fructose + glucose, whereas with HFCS, the fructose and glucose are already separated and your body has immediate use of them. This is the kicker, and why HFCS is worse than sugar. Of course, even worse than HFCS is fruit juice that's high in fructose.

Comment: Re:Not answered in review (Score 1) 212

by flargleblarg (#47934105) Attached to: iOS 8 Review

It'd only be nice if you have a filing fetish. It's not useful. Any minor pleasure it might bring filing fetishists would be vastly outweighed by those ordinary phone users who lose applications.

That's a rather naive thing of you to say. Some of us have a hundred apps installed, and it's very useful to have them organized and be able to select them quickly with just a couple or three taps, rather than scrolling through dozens of pages of grids.

Comment: Re:Well, if you're going to push... (Score 1) 158

by flargleblarg (#47913855) Attached to: Court Rules the "Google" Trademark Isn't Generic

More to the point, when people use, "Google," as a verb, they mean to actually use Google, as opposed to using any brand of facial tissue available when saying, "Kleenex."

Exactly! You can't google something using Bing, for example. Not that you'd want to anyway. You can only google something using Google.

(Now I feel like I need to go wash my hands after mentioning Bing. Eww.)

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

Don't feel bad. It's tricky wording. I wasn't sure how to word it to be clear (and to be fair, I don't think it was really clear). "Opposites" to me would imply 180 opposing... so I wrote "mirror-opposites" to imply a vertical mirror, but of course that's pretty subtle and not very unambiguous.

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr