|
|
|
So they have a solution in search of a problem. They'll probably figure out a way to get it involved with AI since that's all the rage these days.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
From what I remember, the well known RSA algorithm in cryptography, first devised in the late 70's, was for a number of years, a solution in search of a problem.
modified 6-Mar-24 21:46pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure that after 50 years we found the proper problem for RSA to solve...
What we found that RSA is breakable - very depending on key size, and extremely slow on large keys...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
The way it is used these days, speed isn't really an issue. RSA and other asymmetric ciphers are often used just to establish a secure symmetric-key session, Then the grunt work is often handed off, at least in part, to hardware.
So what if you and I burn even a few seconds of CPU to set up a session where we can securely exchange megabytes or gigabytes.
The same goes for, say, establishing an ssh terminal session.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't really meant it as a bad or good thing, more like a fact...
I always joke about RSA to be being as slow as the mediaeval implementation of it...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
I've wondered about this off and on for years. At first it appeared quantum computing would open up new areas of research and capabilities but as quantum computers kept getting delayed more and more people figured out how to take quantum algorithms and convert them for classic Von Neuman architectures where they have outperformed, and in some cases by orders of magnitude, the previous algorithms that were being used. The upshot of this is that the realm of quantum computing algorithms has been greatly reduced with Shore's (sp) algorithm for encryption/decryption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I broke through.
Yesterday I was up against a huge number of unknowns in terms of developing against this new hardware I'm using - a 1GHz Cortex M monster by NXP.
- I didn't know how to use any SPI buses aside from the first one (there are 6).
- I didn't know their build system.
- I didn't know their HAL packages.
- Their IDE was failing on me
- I didn't know how to develop raw against the chip on my board instead of developing against the board itself.
(All that and I wasn't 100% sure my board even functioned well enough for the tests since it arrived with components visibly missing and the stock firmware unable to run due to a faulty or missing component)
I had to tell my client that I likely wouldn't be ready with benchmark figures by next Tuesday's meeting. Today, I solved it all, and I got my figures (and they're reasonable, which means we can actually use this hardware)
I'm stunned that I got through it all. I'm not really that clever, just persistent, so I figured it would take awhile.
I should probably code something before this superpower wears off. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats! What will you do for your next trick? 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: What will you do for your next trick?
I think not even the witch knows it in advance 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I should probably code something before this superpower wears off.
No!!
Step back from the keyboard. Never code while you have a superpower. Been there, done that. When you come back to it a few arbitrary-time-periods later, you won't understand it. You'll spend ages trying to figure out why it works perfectly and then more time rewriting it so that you'll understand it next time (which you probably won't).
Phil
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really sure about this, so I thought I would ask here, since it's global exposure.
It's my belief that if I bought a modern computer with a Intel or AMD CPU, that I can't load and run Windows 7 32 bit. Sort of like the notion that AMD and Intel put fuses in the CPU, so upon firing up the CPU, it locks that CPU to the motherboard, and you can't remove the CPU and sell it, and put another CPU in.
So I've been led to believe that a modern computer bought in the USA, has a CPU with a lock that won't load Windows 7, or go backwards with an OS. But then I think of the UK, and how do they buy new computers that can run Windows XP, or Windows 7? Or like in Thailand, a friend bought a new laptop with an Intel CPU that runs Windows XP. Is it just the USA? or certain countries, and other countries don't have that restriction?
I'm trying to gather information on this, so I can upgrade some computers at the office, and run Windows 7 32 bit until we can find some accounting software that is 64 bit that we like. Still running DOS apps from the 90s here, because we are old and like them. Well we own them and they work fast and efficient.
If it ain't broke don't fix it
Discover my world at jkirkerx.com
|
|
|
|
|
"So I've been led to believe that a modern computer bought in the USA, has a CPU with a lock that won't load Windows 7, or go backwards with an OS."
I have never heard of this lock thing. It might be that the modern CPU doesn't have a feature the older OS needs, but Intel and AMD have always been diligent in maintaining compatibility. There is just way too much code out there.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
There are no "fuses" or "locks" in CPUs for anything like that. It is highly likely that a modern computer can run Windows 7. A better option would be to install a more recent OS, like Win 10 or 11, and run your software in a compatibility mode. I have software from 1999 that I run in Win10 and it still runs OK once the compatibility settings are correct and it has a wizard to help with that. Modern OSs are much more secure so I recommend using one.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading that there is a sort of "fuse" in some CPUs that detects if it's been severely overclocked, but that's to do with warranty. It doesn't actually disable anything, just records that you pushed it hard!
|
|
|
|
|
Your biggest hurdle will be drivers. The chipset drivers from intel or AMD may not wish to execute on your installation, instead will give you the "Your PC isn't correct for this installation" or something ambiguous as that. It has been my finding that Lenovo for whatever reason will have the most flexible driver installers but it's been 10 years since I put windows 7 32 bit ( which I'm typing this on ) on an ASUS i5 laptop. Which isn't a brand spankin new one but it took a good week to get it all working.
The largest hurdle will be the wifi as todays pcs has no ethernet port so you will have to use another pc and a thumb drive to download and hope as windows 7 is almost sure to not have default drivers for the wifi.
You may get by with a usb wifi but again, no CD either today.
I really dislike 10 & 11. - We don't even acknowledge 8/8.1
Once you get connectivity you can worry about the display the will likely be 800 x 600 at best without drivers, and sound cards. You may have to pop the back off the see what wifi card-ette it has in it, then pray there is a driver out there somewhere for it.
I would suggest you use 64bit windows 7 if you must use 7 because no matter how much ram you put in the sucker you're never going to see more than 2gb on 32 bit anything.
|
|
|
|
|
jkirkerx wrote: how do they buy new computers that can run Windows XP, or Windows 7?
My guess would be one of the following.
First possibility is that it is not new. It was put together using old computers.
Second possibility is that the components are new - in that they are newly manufactured. However the hardware used was actually created/designed long ago. This is somewhat demonstrated in that the Z80 chip (CPU) which I messed with in 70s is still being manufactured. Costs a lot less now though. Not even accounting for inflation.
|
|
|
|
|
The only OS lock I can think of would be DRM and I don't remember what Windows has what when it comes to that.
It was the case at one point that an official licensed Windows copy would somehow come up with something like a hash value using hardware data like SSD + mobo + cpu serial numbers, and if one of the three changed it would count it as a new machine and invalidate the license. People were not happy about that and I think it got changed.
I'm not sure about a bunch of the most recent processors but over the years Intel in particular has sold various "unlocked" versions of its upper tiers.
This lock though, it's not about OS. It's about overclocking the chip to run faster.
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot about that - the license key tied to hardware. I think in the last few years, MS came up with a better process (or just turned it off). I haven't seen it in a while. I would occasionally have an issue with a cloned drive.
What I read a while back is that when a set of chips come out of production, AMD/Intel try to run that at max performance - only some will pass. They reduce the clock speed and get a few more to pass, and so on binning the processors and pricing them accordingly.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a while since I saw @BillWoodruff around. Does anybody know if he's okay or not?
|
|
|
|
|
October 2023 is the last message I can find Pete
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I found that. I miss his musings.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes he's an interesting chap
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
