WiMAX can operate at several miles in point to multipoint configuration, rather than just point to point. It also has better mechanisms for handling the scalability issues associated with using it as a last-mile technology in conjunction with a WLAN technology. That's the point- it is designed for WISP rollout, not consumer deployment.
I suppose I'd need to see that to believe it. WiMAX hits 4-5 miles with obstructions and 10 in a NLOS configuration. I've yet to see 802.11A hit 1000 yards. Do you have anything indicating the means by which that might be accomplished?
So, I suppose the question of the day is- do you happen to know of a technology that operates in unlicensed spectra that provides nearly the same range, throughput, or scalability that WiMAX does?
The prime factorization problem is the name for finding the factor of the product of two large primes near the same size. It is widely assumed to scale in nonpolynomial time, and in practice no product of such a structure over 300 digits has ever been factored.
If you can't abstract in engineering, you're dead. Its the only way to deal with complex systems- to reduce otherwise complex behavior into simple, predictable building blocks, from which you can abstract still further. In the ideal scenario, your business layer describes in near natural language exactly what's going on at the top level of abstraction of your program, and everything else is only for the curious.
Ah, too bad, I was hoping for a review of the PT-92. I mostly carry my CZ-75, but I'd like a.40 and it's coming down to the PT-92 or the CZ in.40, and the price on the Taurus is pretty compelling.
Obviously, the traffic we're in is different, and when you add in the fact that everybody and their dog carries around here, I guess the crazies just kind of stay quiet, but it still seems like a lot of road rage problems for one guy. You think a.40 would punch through a car door?
You seem to have a lot of road rage incidents. My thinking, as a guy with a "This vehicle insured by Smith and Wesson" bumper sticker, is that maybe you're doing it wrong.
Also, you wouldn't happen to be carrying the Taurus PT-92 in.40, would you?
There's only so much that can be done this way - if you really want to feel like a criminal, you could use code words and other such nonsense in order to get your normal 'Hello.' message out. I'm not sure where this enters into the discussion, but there are better tools than that available, particularly steganographic systems. There was an article recently, I might have read it here, talking about using steg tools to hide data in a stream of UDP packets, which seems to me like an interesting possible mechanism for bypassing this.
You're right that you could encrypt email, but most of the rest of your traffic will be difficult to impossible to encrypt. IPsec?
You mention obscuring the source and destination, since those are in the packet headers regardless of the state of the data itself, the only way to do so is with a string of easily-tracable proxies. Point being, this is a little much to expect from your average Joe. The packet headers do have to be available in plaintext at some point, but there is no reason they have to be available to the system we're talking about. Even a single proxy outside of Sweden would be sufficient, and, as previously noted, there are ways to make it prohibitively difficult to distinguish between innocuous traffic and the encrypted message. That would bypass both the concern about your message being read and the concern about the detection of circumvention tools. I'm not going to go out and write it (except maybe on a dare) but it would probably be comparatively easy to write an iptables extension to do so, and you'd just use pcap to monitor incoming traffic for the return.
As far as being a bit much for the average joe, yeah, it is- but with enough time and development the technology could come pretty close to transparency, or, at the worst, be one more magic number that you have to get your IT guy to type in periodically. But that's my two bits.
Modern cryptosystems do not rely on security by obscurity. They rely on the intractability of certain classes of math problems, in particular prime factorization and discovering discrete logarithms, or on the presumed impossibility of reversing certain keyed permutations without knowledge of the key, such as feistel networks. If you're interested, Wikipedia has very extensive articles on all of these concepts, and there are a number of good books that can be had for the price of half an hour's work.
Genius is not always scrupulous, even when the right path is obnoxiously clear. The high road is not so obvious here, given the obvious conflict between the ideals of the Free Software movement and the intentions of the code's author, not to mention that such schemes are usually trivial to break given access to source.
Let me go ahead and say that I do think that under most self-defense conditions there is a clear good guy and a clear bad guy. If somebody is breaking into your house, they are the bad guy. If somebody is raping your wife, they are the bad guy. If somebody is robbing your store, they are the bad guy. The statistics bolster the fact that it is pretty easy for most good guys to distinguish between the person doing any of those things from john q public. The circumstances where a shoot is justifiable are so limited, so constraining, that I don't see the moral ambiguity you seem to be finding. Do you have an example of such a situation?
As far as the 11%, yes- according to DOJ statistics, 11% of police shootings are cases of mistaken identity or intent. Scares the hell out of me.
I think you misunderstood the DOJ statistics I quoted. The mistaken intention stats are only of justified shoots, which means that we pretty much start out with the presumption of good guy on good guy violence. It doesn't say anything about bad guy on good guy violence, which is a separate, very much more complex issue.
As far as trusting people with your life, you'll pardon me if I prefer a society that trusts others with their lives and mine to myself. I work every day with a thousand items that I could use to perpetrate awful crimes- I shudder to think what Hannibal Lecter would make of my machine shop- and yet you wouldn't protest the ready availability of lathes, hacksaws, or, for that matter, an oxy rig. For that matter, 49% of the population has the ability to rape the other 51%- what to do about that?
I was indeed speaking of the federal background check, as an uninformed American, though, it's much easier to find information on it now that I know the name though. Thank you.
See my post below. According to DOJ statistics, only 2% of civilian-on-civilian shootings are mistaken intent or identity, compared to 11% for police. That augers strongly for the idea that it is relatively easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys.
Its interesting what you say about full autos, I was told by one of the local SLED officers that a full auto permit was on the order of several thousand dollars. I'll have to check into it- he's the source for a lot of my understanding of the laws surrounding gun ownership in South Carolina.
The question is verbal slight of hand- rather than saying "does the gun owner have less of a chance to shoot his wife", the question should be "does the gun owner have less of a chance to injure/maim/kill his wife". The answer, as provided by the department of justice in the below statistics, is no- but the wife's odds of ending the encounter without being hurt go from 80% to 50% when you remove the gun.
I also wonder about the phrasing of "guns cause far more violence"- it seems to me that the old NRA saw about "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be the one thing that old charleton heston was right about. If you're right, and the possession of a firearm inevitably leads to violence, why is it that violent crime among CCP/CWP holders is so low? For that matter, why do we let the police have firearms, when the police mistaken intent rate is more than five times the civilian mistaken intent/identity combined rate?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no cryptographic solution to a problem in which the attacker and the intended recipient are the same person.
WiMAX can operate at several miles in point to multipoint configuration, rather than just point to point. It also has better mechanisms for handling the scalability issues associated with using it as a last-mile technology in conjunction with a WLAN technology. That's the point- it is designed for WISP rollout, not consumer deployment.
30 miles... I trust you'll forgive me if I say that that's hard to believe. Source, pictures, anything?
I suppose I'd need to see that to believe it. WiMAX hits 4-5 miles with obstructions and 10 in a NLOS configuration. I've yet to see 802.11A hit 1000 yards. Do you have anything indicating the means by which that might be accomplished?
Shhhh... WiMAX can operate in the unlicensed 5.8 Ghz band.
So, I suppose the question of the day is- do you happen to know of a technology that operates in unlicensed spectra that provides nearly the same range, throughput, or scalability that WiMAX does?
Who was it, if you don't mind my asking?
Pretty amazing coincidence, I'll actually be traveling through your area in a few weeks. Small world.
The prime factorization problem is the name for finding the factor of the product of two large primes near the same size. It is widely assumed to scale in nonpolynomial time, and in practice no product of such a structure over 300 digits has ever been factored.
If you can't abstract in engineering, you're dead. Its the only way to deal with complex systems- to reduce otherwise complex behavior into simple, predictable building blocks, from which you can abstract still further. In the ideal scenario, your business layer describes in near natural language exactly what's going on at the top level of abstraction of your program, and everything else is only for the curious.
Ah, too bad, I was hoping for a review of the PT-92. I mostly carry my CZ-75, but I'd like a .40 and it's coming down to the PT-92 or the CZ in .40, and the price on the Taurus is pretty compelling.
.40 would punch through a car door?
Obviously, the traffic we're in is different, and when you add in the fact that everybody and their dog carries around here, I guess the crazies just kind of stay quiet, but it still seems like a lot of road rage problems for one guy. You think a
You seem to have a lot of road rage incidents. My thinking, as a guy with a "This vehicle insured by Smith and Wesson" bumper sticker, is that maybe you're doing it wrong.
.40, would you?
Also, you wouldn't happen to be carrying the Taurus PT-92 in
As far as being a bit much for the average joe, yeah, it is- but with enough time and development the technology could come pretty close to transparency, or, at the worst, be one more magic number that you have to get your IT guy to type in periodically. But that's my two bits.
You don't know anybody that's gotten so much as *robbed*? I'll trade you neighborhoods.
My point was that if you're worried about eavesdroppers, obfuscate the destination.
If the technology exists to eavesdrop on a properly encrypted conversation we have bigger problems than some silly Swedes.
Also presuming that they could tell where and to whom a packet was directed...
Modern cryptosystems do not rely on security by obscurity. They rely on the intractability of certain classes of math problems, in particular prime factorization and discovering discrete logarithms, or on the presumed impossibility of reversing certain keyed permutations without knowledge of the key, such as feistel networks. If you're interested, Wikipedia has very extensive articles on all of these concepts, and there are a number of good books that can be had for the price of half an hour's work.
Genius is not always scrupulous, even when the right path is obnoxiously clear. The high road is not so obvious here, given the obvious conflict between the ideals of the Free Software movement and the intentions of the code's author, not to mention that such schemes are usually trivial to break given access to source.
Let me go ahead and say that I do think that under most self-defense conditions there is a clear good guy and a clear bad guy. If somebody is breaking into your house, they are the bad guy. If somebody is raping your wife, they are the bad guy. If somebody is robbing your store, they are the bad guy. The statistics bolster the fact that it is pretty easy for most good guys to distinguish between the person doing any of those things from john q public. The circumstances where a shoot is justifiable are so limited, so constraining, that I don't see the moral ambiguity you seem to be finding. Do you have an example of such a situation?
As far as the 11%, yes- according to DOJ statistics, 11% of police shootings are cases of mistaken identity or intent. Scares the hell out of me.
I think you misunderstood the DOJ statistics I quoted. The mistaken intention stats are only of justified shoots, which means that we pretty much start out with the presumption of good guy on good guy violence. It doesn't say anything about bad guy on good guy violence, which is a separate, very much more complex issue.
As far as trusting people with your life, you'll pardon me if I prefer a society that trusts others with their lives and mine to myself. I work every day with a thousand items that I could use to perpetrate awful crimes- I shudder to think what Hannibal Lecter would make of my machine shop- and yet you wouldn't protest the ready availability of lathes, hacksaws, or, for that matter, an oxy rig. For that matter, 49% of the population has the ability to rape the other 51%- what to do about that?
Great quote. A favorite of mine is "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop".
I was indeed speaking of the federal background check, as an uninformed American, though, it's much easier to find information on it now that I know the name though. Thank you.
See my post below. According to DOJ statistics, only 2% of civilian-on-civilian shootings are mistaken intent or identity, compared to 11% for police. That augers strongly for the idea that it is relatively easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys.
Its interesting what you say about full autos, I was told by one of the local SLED officers that a full auto permit was on the order of several thousand dollars. I'll have to check into it- he's the source for a lot of my understanding of the laws surrounding gun ownership in South Carolina.
The question is verbal slight of hand- rather than saying "does the gun owner have less of a chance to shoot his wife", the question should be "does the gun owner have less of a chance to injure/maim/kill his wife". The answer, as provided by the department of justice in the below statistics, is no- but the wife's odds of ending the encounter without being hurt go from 80% to 50% when you remove the gun.
I also wonder about the phrasing of "guns cause far more violence"- it seems to me that the old NRA saw about "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be the one thing that old charleton heston was right about. If you're right, and the possession of a firearm inevitably leads to violence, why is it that violent crime among CCP/CWP holders is so low? For that matter, why do we let the police have firearms, when the police mistaken intent rate is more than five times the civilian mistaken intent/identity combined rate?