MitM is exactly what QC is designed to withstand; in a nutshell the attacker can't gain information about the message without also destroying it, because of fundamental properties of quantum measurement. And no, he can't learn the message and then retransmit it.
What I call evidence is information-theoretical evidence. For example, if there's a quantum algorithm for breaking McEliese then P = NP. That's not true, because McEliese is not NP-Complete. But if it were, it would be a very strong evidence indeed.
Currently, we can not prove any classical cryptosystem secure, because we haven't proved that P != NP; that's way everybody accepts just good evidence.
This is so wrong that I can't believe you're not malicious.
As your own article admits, there's nothing that stops a quantum algorithm that breaks McEliese being invented tomorrow. There's not even evidence that such an algorithm is unlikely to exist. That's why McEliese is worthless and nobody pays attention to it.
When you say QC has been broken, you're probably referring to the implementation of BB84 by IdQuantique that was broken by the norwegian quantum hackers. They themselves say that QC is not broken: http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/
It was only a particular implementation that was broken, not even a particular protocol. That's because it can't be broken. Of course there is not such a thing as perfect security, but BB84 (and other protocols) is based on sound principles, and we have numerous proofs (yes, mathematical proofs) of security for various scenarios.
When Reiser went to prison an entire file system essentially died on the vine (yes I still use it on some machines). So apparently it happens more often than we expect.
Perhaps that can be used as a measure of importance: Important projects can survive the death of their founder.
Actually, no... Only the foreign media would make this misunderstanding. The blog is quite obviously humoristic, no one here in Brasil would believe them.
None. The cult does not exist. The entire story is a hoax; their only source is the brasilian blog "bobolhando" (rough translation: stupid staring), which is a literary blog who posts only fictional stories.
AFAIK the US use some bizarre system of optical counting; never hand counts. Actually you tried to hand count it in Florida 2000, but the Supreme Court stopped it.
Again, how is that more secure?
Observers may not understand the tech
They already don't understand the tech to do optical counting. Electronic voting is simpler. And if you never use, of course no one is going to understand it.
Programs aren't open source and are not available to scrutinize
That is unacceptable, but evidently not a required part of electronic voting. Brasil uses open-source software in the voting machines.
If they're connected to the internet
Even the government knows how stupid and dangerous that would be. Fortunately no one has ever done this.
It was plain old fraud, not a bloody military coup. Of course they tried to hide it. But the candidate that had actually won in the popular vote noticed that there was something wrong, and dug up the truth.
There seems to be a widespread belief amongst yankees that paper ballots are somehow more secure than electronic voting. May I remind you of the fiasco of your presidential election in 2000? Al Gore won by popular vote, and probably in the electoral college as well, but your courts forbade the recounting. Now tell me what use are the paper ballots if you can't use the paper trail to actually audit an election?
And need I remind you that all problems began exactly because the system was so slow and unreliable?
The fact is, paper ballots are way less secure than electronic voting. The attack surface area is much greater, and is easier to tamper them without leaving evidence. Of course electronic voting is not perfect, we still have a lot to improve in its security. But the solution is not to move backwards in time.
Also, it is obvious that democracy needs active defence. Look what happened in Venezuela. No, really, look. Did they use electoral fraud to become a one man's tiranny?
The defence of democracy is way deeper than screaming "paper ballots". But hey, it is much easier to press on a single issue than to actually understand what is happening. A real enemy of democracy in the US is your bizarre two-party system, paid for the large corporations. It exists right now and does not depend on electronic voting. What are you doing about it?
And finally, "STFU"? Are you twelve? You look like my cousin, "la la la I can't hear you!".
Mind you, it is very hard to rig an election without raising any suspicion whatsoever. Actually, plenty of time there's suspicion even when no one is trying to rig the election.
If you grant that the bralisians aren't dumber than USians, no report of fraud indicates less fraud than actual reports of fraud. Which you have.
Has anybody the comments section in the Washington Post website? It is disgusting to see how much hatred and ignorance is going on there. I hope they're not a representative sample of the USian population.
Meanwhile, in Brasil, we just had a presidential and local election. About 100 million people voting, in an all-electronic process. There were no reports of fraud whatsoever, and the election results were available just 2 hours after the polling stations closed.
Can't the US do better? Your voting system is just laughable.
And it would also help the readers understand the article, a good referee report is quite illuminating. However, this has already been tried out by Nature in 2006
and didn't work so well. Apparently, scientists are somewhat reluctant to openly criticise each other's work. But there's PLoS ONE that is alive and well, giving us some hope.
Michael Nielsen has a fine essay about this in his blog:
Oh for fuck's sake. I didn't mean literal pictures; I mean peer-reviewed papers. The ones that they have in their website pale before the miracle that would be a 128-qubit quantum computer.
I don't think I can blame your for not reading the paper. They just lied and lied and lied in the press release: "Researchers describe how to carry out the first experimental test of string theory"
Come on! I know that press releases are about PR not science but they should at least bear any relation to the paper.
Look in the paper. The word experiment only appears once, and they don't claim to describe an experiment; not even that it is possible or conclusive.
That said, the question is: who is the lier? The scientists or the marketers? If I can take as true the quotes at TFA, Mike Duff.
Well, at least you showed us whose research we should ignore.
That "the West" is a subjective concept is quite clear to me. That it is equal to "developed countries"; well, this seems to have came straight out of your arse.
You rank "North America" within "the West". That includes Mexico? It is a country very similar to Brasil (although the corruption there is way worse).
Also, where the hell from came the notion that "racial discrimination heavy"?! There's no such thing in Brasil. You'd be hard pressed to find a single hate speech made by a brasilian; or a violent act. Between the countries you quoted, the worst in the racial discrimination criterion are Israel and the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you please expand on that?
MitM is exactly what QC is designed to withstand; in a nutshell the attacker can't gain information about the message without also destroying it, because of fundamental properties of quantum measurement. And no, he can't learn the message and then retransmit it.
What I call evidence is information-theoretical evidence. For example, if there's a quantum algorithm for breaking McEliese then P = NP. That's not true, because McEliese is not NP-Complete. But if it were, it would be a very strong evidence indeed.
Currently, we can not prove any classical cryptosystem secure, because we haven't proved that P != NP; that's way everybody accepts just good evidence.
Oh come on!
This is so wrong that I can't believe you're not malicious.
As your own article admits, there's nothing that stops a quantum algorithm that breaks McEliese being invented tomorrow. There's not even evidence that such an algorithm is unlikely to exist. That's why McEliese is worthless and nobody pays attention to it.
When you say QC has been broken, you're probably referring to the implementation of BB84 by IdQuantique that was broken by the norwegian quantum hackers. They themselves say that QC is not broken: http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/
It was only a particular implementation that was broken, not even a particular protocol. That's because it can't be broken. Of course there is not such a thing as perfect security, but BB84 (and other protocols) is based on sound principles, and we have numerous proofs (yes, mathematical proofs) of security for various scenarios.
When Reiser went to prison an entire file system essentially died on the vine (yes I still use it on some machines). So apparently it happens more often than we expect.
Perhaps that can be used as a measure of importance: Important projects can survive the death of their founder.
Actually, no... Only the foreign media would make this misunderstanding. The blog is quite obviously humoristic, no one here in Brasil would believe them.
None. The cult does not exist. The entire story is a hoax; their only source is the brasilian blog "bobolhando" (rough translation: stupid staring), which is a literary blog who posts only fictional stories.
Neither do you.
With paper, you have to hand count it
AFAIK the US use some bizarre system of optical counting; never hand counts. Actually you tried to hand count it in Florida 2000, but the Supreme Court stopped it.
Again, how is that more secure?
Observers may not understand the tech
They already don't understand the tech to do optical counting. Electronic voting is simpler. And if you never use, of course no one is going to understand it.
Programs aren't open source and are not available to scrutinize
That is unacceptable, but evidently not a required part of electronic voting. Brasil uses open-source software in the voting machines.
If they're connected to the internet
Even the government knows how stupid and dangerous that would be. Fortunately no one has ever done this.
Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Sadly, I think that this is the case.
Obviously it's easier to rig elections with electronic systems
[citation needed]
Actually there's quite a long history of election rigging in the US with paper ballots.
[citation needed]
Also, wouldn't the publishing house just remove your *TeX markup and typeset it their way?
It was plain old fraud, not a bloody military coup. Of course they tried to hide it. But the candidate that had actually won in the popular vote noticed that there was something wrong, and dug up the truth.
I'm sorry, I can't seem to find a link in english. http://www.pdt.org.br/diversos/prconsut.html
There seems to be a widespread belief amongst yankees that paper ballots are somehow more secure than electronic voting. May I remind you of the fiasco of your presidential election in 2000? Al Gore won by popular vote, and probably in the electoral college as well, but your courts forbade the recounting. Now tell me what use are the paper ballots if you can't use the paper trail to actually audit an election?
And need I remind you that all problems began exactly because the system was so slow and unreliable?
The fact is, paper ballots are way less secure than electronic voting. The attack surface area is much greater, and is easier to tamper them without leaving evidence. Of course electronic voting is not perfect, we still have a lot to improve in its security. But the solution is not to move backwards in time.
Also, it is obvious that democracy needs active defence. Look what happened in Venezuela. No, really, look. Did they use electoral fraud to become a one man's tiranny?
The defence of democracy is way deeper than screaming "paper ballots". But hey, it is much easier to press on a single issue than to actually understand what is happening. A real enemy of democracy in the US is your bizarre two-party system, paid for the large corporations. It exists right now and does not depend on electronic voting. What are you doing about it?
And finally, "STFU"? Are you twelve? You look like my cousin, "la la la I can't hear you!".
Actually, I do know of an example in the 60's where the military tried to rig a regional election. They failed miserably.
Mind you, it is very hard to rig an election without raising any suspicion whatsoever. Actually, plenty of time there's suspicion even when no one is trying to rig the election.
If you grant that the bralisians aren't dumber than USians, no report of fraud indicates less fraud than actual reports of fraud. Which you have.
I'm aware of that, I RTFS. A good test, btw, I find it surprising that the government would want to make it.
I'm talking about the existing voting system of the US; it is inconsistent, archaic, slow, and every now and then there's a report of fraud.
Has anybody the comments section in the Washington Post website? It is disgusting to see how much hatred and ignorance is going on there. I hope they're not a representative sample of the USian population.
Meanwhile, in Brasil, we just had a presidential and local election. About 100 million people voting, in an all-electronic process. There were no reports of fraud whatsoever, and the election results were available just 2 hours after the polling stations closed.
Can't the US do better? Your voting system is just laughable.
The other big problem is that many of these scientific papers are paywalled
Not if it is a physics paper; I don't remember the last time I saw a physics paper that wasn't posted at arXiv.
Oh that's amazing!
I hope they don't ever fix it; and Thunderbird dies a slow and painful death.
Another example is this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299346
Thunderbird would randomly corrupt and then delete your address book. It's five years old.
And it would also help the readers understand the article, a good referee report is quite illuminating. However, this has already been tried out by Nature in 2006
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/
and didn't work so well. Apparently, scientists are somewhat reluctant to openly criticise each other's work. But there's PLoS ONE that is alive and well, giving us some hope.
Michael Nielsen has a fine essay about this in his blog:
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-future-of-science-2/
Social Text is emphatically not prominent nor was peer-reviewed at the time of the affair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
While the Sokal affair is interesting, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Oh for fuck's sake. I didn't mean literal pictures; I mean peer-reviewed papers. The ones that they have in their website pale before the miracle that would be a 128-qubit quantum computer.
These crooks from D-Wave just won't give up. 128 qubits quantum computer!? pics or it didn't happen.
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
I don't think I can blame your for not reading the paper. They just lied and lied and lied in the press release: "Researchers describe how to carry out the first experimental test of string theory"
Come on! I know that press releases are about PR not science but they should at least bear any relation to the paper.
Look in the paper. The word experiment only appears once, and they don't claim to describe an experiment; not even that it is possible or conclusive.
That said, the question is: who is the lier? The scientists or the marketers? If I can take as true the quotes at TFA, Mike Duff.
Well, at least you showed us whose research we should ignore.
That "the West" is a subjective concept is quite clear to me. That it is equal to "developed countries"; well, this seems to have came straight out of your arse.
You rank "North America" within "the West". That includes Mexico? It is a country very similar to Brasil (although the corruption there is way worse).
Also, where the hell from came the notion that "racial discrimination heavy"?! There's no such thing in Brasil. You'd be hard pressed to find a single hate speech made by a brasilian; or a violent act. Between the countries you quoted, the worst in the racial discrimination criterion are Israel and the US.