He seems to have a stranglehold over the Turkish courts, and is gradually silencing any and all outlets of dissent under flawed defamation and libel law.
Just when I thought the Optimus Maximus was it...
on
Review of Das Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
The ramifications of this ostensibly laudable initiative are twofold. On the one hand, many features of the laptop encourage enquiry, learning and debate, such as the one enabling kids to decompile, understand and edit the programs they use every day. This encourages children to find out how a computer really works.
However, access to computers, and therefore to the internet, raises another, decidedly more sinister, possibility. Burgeoning access to the internet in South Africa is having at least one disastrous effect: the ill-educated are being mercilessly exposed to horrifically pernicious AIDS denialism. Many believe that there's no such thing as too much information, and that widening access to the web can only be a good thing. Yet the spread of the internet in South Africa is fuelling the spread of lies and misinformation about the fatal disease, its aetiology and possible treatments. Wouldn't our money be better spent on schools? Hospitals? Medicine?
Whether this is a step forward, or one back, who's to say?
SPYING is big business, and avoiding being spied on an even bigger one. So imagine if someone came up with a simple, cheap way of encrypting messages that is almost impossible to hack into?
American computer engineer Laszlo Kish at Texas A&M University in College Station claims to have done just that. He says the thermal properties of a simple wire can be exploited to create a secure communications channel, one that outperforms quantum cryptography keys.
His cipher device, which he first proposed in 2005, exploits a property called thermal noise. Thermal noise is generated by the natural agitation of electrons within a conductor, which happens regardless of any voltage passed through it. But it does change depending on the conductor's resistance.
Kish and his collaborators at the University of Szeged in Hungary say this can be used to securely pass information, or an encryption key, down any wire, including a telephone line or network cable. In their device, both the sender Alice and the receiver Bob have an identical pair of resistors, one producing high resistance, the other low resistance. The higher the total resistance on the line, the greater the thermal noise.
Both Alice and Bob randomly choose which resistor to use. A quarter of the time they will both choose the high resistor, producing a lot of noise on the line, while a quarter of the time they will both choose the low resistor, producing little noise. If either detect a high or a low amount of noise in the line, they ignore any communication.
Half the time, however, they will choose differently, producing an intermediate level of thermal noise, and it is now that a message can be sent. If Bob turns on his high resistor, and records an intermediate level of noise, he instantly knows that Alice has chosen her low resistor, in essence sending a bit of information such as 1 or 0. Kish's cipher does this many times, sending a random series of 1s and 0s that can form the basis of an encryption key, the researchers say (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612153).
That message is also secure. For a start, as Kish notes, it takes an "educated eavesdropper" to even realise information is being sent when there seems to be just low-level noise on the line. If they do try to eavesdrop, they can only tell a message is being sent, not what it is, because it's impossible to tell whether Alice has a high or low resistor turned on, and whether the bit of information is a 1 or a 0. What's more, eavesdropping on the line will naturally alter the level of thermal noise, so Alice and Bob will know that someone is listening in.
Kish and his team have now successfully built a device that can send a secure message down a wire 2000 kilometres long, much further than the best quantum key distribution (QKD) devices tried so far. Tests show a signal sent via Kish's device is received with 99.98 per cent accuracy, and that a maximum of just 0.19 per cent of the bits sent are vulnerable to eavesdropping. The error rate is down to the inherent resistance of the wire, and choosing a larger wire in future models should help reduce it further.
However, this level of security already beats QKD. What's more, the system works with fixed lines, rather than the optical fibres used to carry photons of light at the heart of quantum encryption devices. It is also more robust, as QKD devices are vulnerable to corruption by dust, heat and vibration. It is also much cheaper. "I guess it's around a hundred dollars, at most," Kish says.
"This is a system that should be taken seriously," says security specialist Bruce Schneier, who founded network security firm BT Counterpane. He says he was seduced by the simplicity of the idea when it was first proposed by Kish, and now wants to see independent tests of the working model. "I desperately want someone to analyse it," he says. "Assuming it works, it's way better than quantum."
This is just getting dull, dull, dull. I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this. *Please*, no more, "Oh my god! OS X isn't bulletproof! Teh shock!" 'news' items.
From the comments under TF'A', it seems as though this has had a massive impact. With the filing of a Federal lawsuit, perhaps we'll be sending another, louder message that these nuisances are no more acceptable in virtual universes than they are in ours.
One day a week, I teach music to children in underprivileged areas. This week I met one of my students with their parents in the town centre, and when we walked past Anne Summers, the child's parent remarked, 'See, now they're selling iPods in Anne Summers that vibrate. Filthy [...] things.'
This woman isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but my conclusion is that the ads are too similar because average Joes (or Janes) can't tell the difference on first inspection and jump to conclusions about Apple .
For me, the most interesting thing about all this is Microsoft's strangely stipulative definition of "genuine."
This is all put better than I could do it here. I think this has been discussed before, but it's worth revisiting.
By making pirate copies of Vista run in reduced-functionality mode, it seems as though Microsoft is moving back toward the generally accepted definition.
Anything 'not using wires' to connect the devices/power sources/network/whatever is 'wireless'. You're using a stipulative definition of wireless, I think. Not sure.
What do others think?
Wiki: The term wireless is normally used to refer to any type of electrical or electronic operation which is accomplished without the use of a "hard wired" connection.
Can't wait for this stuff. Imagine it - slap your mobile down on your desk and it's charged. Your MacBook - chargind while you use it with no wires. Awesome.
A pad that can charge multiple devices (as in the article) would also be great.
But how realistic is this, by which I mean, how far away is this tech from being 'in the shops'? I suspect it'll be some time. Wingrove says their first device will be available this Summer, but I'm sceptical. And I *don't* want my phone/laptop etc. to have a wireless dongle sticking out of it; almost as unsightly as the power cord.
Fine, fine, I guess. But with all those flicks and ticks and whooshes, isn't this the most annoyingly designed page *ever*? I can barely see anything. I think I'm about to have an epileptic fit, and I'm not epileptic.
I agree completely. Regardless of the amounts involved, anyone retarded enough to be taken in by a phishing scam, despite the massive efforts of all the major banks to raise awareness of the issue, deserves to suffer more than simply financially. I refuse to believe that any user of internet banking is stupid enough to have ignored the warnings on their bank's website, the news reports and the constant bombardment of precautionary advice from all quarters on the subject. I do not believe in pandering to imbeciles, particularly if it gives rise to a justification for higher bank charges/smaller returns levied against intelligent and competent account holders.
Sounds terrifying. I'm not sure this kind of 'immersive' experience will be a reality for a long time yet, anyhow. And talk about prohibitive expense! Even Star Trek didn't have holodecks (or similar) in living quarters!
The focus of this article seems to be on the domestic/consumer future for this technology. I don't doubt that U-HDTV is an impressive and immersing experience, but is there really a place for this in our homes? There is a limit to the level of detail we can see on a average-sized (say, 28") television across the room. The size of potential television screen we could purchase is somewhat limited by the size of living room we can afford, after all - and HDTV sets large enough for the viewer to appreciate the quality of picture they display tend to dwarf all but the largest of rooms. The article suggests that U-HDTV might be available to consumers in around 25 years, but, even then, will we want or need it?
Slashdot Mirror
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=223
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=157
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=72
He seems to have a stranglehold over the Turkish courts, and is gradually silencing any and all outlets of dissent under flawed defamation and libel law.
I saw this: http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactus/
All your branches are belong to us!
The ramifications of this ostensibly laudable initiative are twofold. On the one hand, many features of the laptop encourage enquiry, learning and debate, such as the one enabling kids to decompile, understand and edit the programs they use every day. This encourages children to find out how a computer really works.
However, access to computers, and therefore to the internet, raises another, decidedly more sinister, possibility. Burgeoning access to the internet in South Africa is having at least one disastrous effect: the ill-educated are being mercilessly exposed to horrifically pernicious AIDS denialism. Many believe that there's no such thing as too much information, and that widening access to the web can only be a good thing. Yet the spread of the internet in South Africa is fuelling the spread of lies and misinformation about the fatal disease, its aetiology and possible treatments. Wouldn't our money be better spent on schools? Hospitals? Medicine?
Whether this is a step forward, or one back, who's to say?
My apologies, I forgot to preview.
SPYING is big business, and avoiding being spied on an even bigger one. So imagine if someone came up with a simple, cheap way of encrypting messages that is almost impossible to hack into? American computer engineer Laszlo Kish at Texas A&M University in College Station claims to have done just that. He says the thermal properties of a simple wire can be exploited to create a secure communications channel, one that outperforms quantum cryptography keys. His cipher device, which he first proposed in 2005, exploits a property called thermal noise. Thermal noise is generated by the natural agitation of electrons within a conductor, which happens regardless of any voltage passed through it. But it does change depending on the conductor's resistance. Kish and his collaborators at the University of Szeged in Hungary say this can be used to securely pass information, or an encryption key, down any wire, including a telephone line or network cable. In their device, both the sender Alice and the receiver Bob have an identical pair of resistors, one producing high resistance, the other low resistance. The higher the total resistance on the line, the greater the thermal noise. Both Alice and Bob randomly choose which resistor to use. A quarter of the time they will both choose the high resistor, producing a lot of noise on the line, while a quarter of the time they will both choose the low resistor, producing little noise. If either detect a high or a low amount of noise in the line, they ignore any communication. Half the time, however, they will choose differently, producing an intermediate level of thermal noise, and it is now that a message can be sent. If Bob turns on his high resistor, and records an intermediate level of noise, he instantly knows that Alice has chosen her low resistor, in essence sending a bit of information such as 1 or 0. Kish's cipher does this many times, sending a random series of 1s and 0s that can form the basis of an encryption key, the researchers say (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612153). That message is also secure. For a start, as Kish notes, it takes an "educated eavesdropper" to even realise information is being sent when there seems to be just low-level noise on the line. If they do try to eavesdrop, they can only tell a message is being sent, not what it is, because it's impossible to tell whether Alice has a high or low resistor turned on, and whether the bit of information is a 1 or a 0. What's more, eavesdropping on the line will naturally alter the level of thermal noise, so Alice and Bob will know that someone is listening in. Kish and his team have now successfully built a device that can send a secure message down a wire 2000 kilometres long, much further than the best quantum key distribution (QKD) devices tried so far. Tests show a signal sent via Kish's device is received with 99.98 per cent accuracy, and that a maximum of just 0.19 per cent of the bits sent are vulnerable to eavesdropping. The error rate is down to the inherent resistance of the wire, and choosing a larger wire in future models should help reduce it further. However, this level of security already beats QKD. What's more, the system works with fixed lines, rather than the optical fibres used to carry photons of light at the heart of quantum encryption devices. It is also more robust, as QKD devices are vulnerable to corruption by dust, heat and vibration. It is also much cheaper. "I guess it's around a hundred dollars, at most," Kish says. "This is a system that should be taken seriously," says security specialist Bruce Schneier, who founded network security firm BT Counterpane. He says he was seduced by the simplicity of the idea when it was first proposed by Kish, and now wants to see independent tests of the working model. "I desperately want someone to analyse it," he says. "Assuming it works, it's way better than quantum."
This is just getting dull, dull, dull. I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this. *Please*, no more, "Oh my god! OS X isn't bulletproof! Teh shock!" 'news' items.
From the comments under TF'A', it seems as though this has had a massive impact. With the filing of a Federal lawsuit, perhaps we'll be sending another, louder message that these nuisances are no more acceptable in virtual universes than they are in ours.
One day a week, I teach music to children in underprivileged areas. This week I met one of my students with their parents in the town centre, and when we walked past Anne Summers, the child's parent remarked, 'See, now they're selling iPods in Anne Summers that vibrate. Filthy [...] things.' This woman isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but my conclusion is that the ads are too similar because average Joes (or Janes) can't tell the difference on first inspection and jump to conclusions about Apple .
Camino?
This is all put better than I could do it here. I think this has been discussed before, but it's worth revisiting.
By making pirate copies of Vista run in reduced-functionality mode, it seems as though Microsoft is moving back toward the generally accepted definition.
Inability to squirt is the least of your problems if you're MS. It's all the STD's you'd be carrying...
Surely there's a box like Apple TV that would do it, and, if not, there will be?
The term "wireless" should not be confused with the term "cordless"
What do others think?
Wiki: The term wireless is normally used to refer to any type of electrical or electronic operation which is accomplished without the use of a "hard wired" connection.
Can't wait for this stuff. Imagine it - slap your mobile down on your desk and it's charged. Your MacBook - chargind while you use it with no wires. Awesome. A pad that can charge multiple devices (as in the article) would also be great. But how realistic is this, by which I mean, how far away is this tech from being 'in the shops'? I suspect it'll be some time. Wingrove says their first device will be available this Summer, but I'm sceptical. And I *don't* want my phone/laptop etc. to have a wireless dongle sticking out of it; almost as unsightly as the power cord.
Fine, fine, I guess. But with all those flicks and ticks and whooshes, isn't this the most annoyingly designed page *ever*? I can barely see anything. I think I'm about to have an epileptic fit, and I'm not epileptic.
I'm no MS fan, but I have to admit, a quick bit of maths show that Outlook gets over 95% of my spam. Gotta hand it to them.
The RIAA cannot dismiss a case, with or without prejudice. The court does that.
I agree completely. Regardless of the amounts involved, anyone retarded enough to be taken in by a phishing scam, despite the massive efforts of all the major banks to raise awareness of the issue, deserves to suffer more than simply financially. I refuse to believe that any user of internet banking is stupid enough to have ignored the warnings on their bank's website, the news reports and the constant bombardment of precautionary advice from all quarters on the subject. I do not believe in pandering to imbeciles, particularly if it gives rise to a justification for higher bank charges/smaller returns levied against intelligent and competent account holders.
Sounds terrifying. I'm not sure this kind of 'immersive' experience will be a reality for a long time yet, anyhow. And talk about prohibitive expense! Even Star Trek didn't have holodecks (or similar) in living quarters!
The focus of this article seems to be on the domestic/consumer future for this technology. I don't doubt that U-HDTV is an impressive and immersing experience, but is there really a place for this in our homes? There is a limit to the level of detail we can see on a average-sized (say, 28") television across the room. The size of potential television screen we could purchase is somewhat limited by the size of living room we can afford, after all - and HDTV sets large enough for the viewer to appreciate the quality of picture they display tend to dwarf all but the largest of rooms. The article suggests that U-HDTV might be available to consumers in around 25 years, but, even then, will we want or need it?