I looked up the original study to find out more about the calculation of the pregnancy rate:
(from the abstract)
"There were 9 pregnancies in 1554.1 person-years of exposure in the 24-month efficacy phase for a cumulative contraceptive failure rate of 1.1 per 100 men."
I assume that the person-years of exposure do not include only time spent engaging in sexual intercourse.
Would someone with the ability to do so please point out the above link next to the story on the front page?
The story still leads with "A respected American think-tank, Nemertes Research"...
I disagree, it applies to some PCs:
It is not unusual for TCMs to contain some SRAM. It is precisely in that context that these sorts of techniques are the most useful.
I agree, a much larger scale study must be done.
I think the authors made some attempt to examine chips from the same wafer, and chips from different wafer.
In particular I would be interested to contrast the fingerprints from a large sample of chips from the same location on a number of different wafers.
Perhaps this was a troll, but yes, in cryptography we frequently worry about the quality of the randomness that goes into our keys.
It is especially difficult to get high quality randomness on something as small as a passively powered RFID transponder.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked up the original study to find out more about the calculation of the pregnancy rate: (from the abstract) "There were 9 pregnancies in 1554.1 person-years of exposure in the 24-month efficacy phase for a cumulative contraceptive failure rate of 1.1 per 100 men." I assume that the person-years of exposure do not include only time spent engaging in sexual intercourse.
Would someone with the ability to do so please point out the above link next to the story on the front page? The story still leads with "A respected American think-tank, Nemertes Research"...
I disagree, it applies to some PCs: It is not unusual for TCMs to contain some SRAM. It is precisely in that context that these sorts of techniques are the most useful.
I agree, a much larger scale study must be done. I think the authors made some attempt to examine chips from the same wafer, and chips from different wafer. In particular I would be interested to contrast the fingerprints from a large sample of chips from the same location on a number of different wafers.
Perhaps this was a troll, but yes, in cryptography we frequently worry about the quality of the randomness that goes into our keys. It is especially difficult to get high quality randomness on something as small as a passively powered RFID transponder.