Just about anyone with any background in classical music would know that that was Moonlight Sonata. I took a few years of piano and can even play a few bars. It's not "incredibly difficult" to place, as the review stated. On the contrary, it's a very recognizable piece of work.
Yes, someone may break quantum cryptography, but to say that it will happen because is has happened before is silly.
I'm not really talking about the OTP; I'm only talking about the QC part of sending the OTP.
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. (Not that you did, but a lot of people have jumped on that bandwagon.) Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
For quantum crypto to be "cracked", a few of our fundamentals in understanding the universe must be disproven.
We don't know that much about quantum physics today, so that's not entirely impossible. That's not even difficult. It only took several hundred years to disprove the "fundamental" fact that the earth was flat. Current beliefs could and will fall to future scientific discoveries.
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
With the previous ciphers you mention, it was mathematically provable that the scheme could be broken.
It's mathematically provable today, but was it provable then? In 1854 Sir Charles Wheatstone--and probably all mathematicians of his day--had no idea that his Playfair cipher was susceptible to genetic algorithms and "stepping" algorithms running on computers today. The authors of the Vigenere cipher and various double transposition ciphers couldn't have mathematically proven that their ciphers could be attacked by advanced methods that wouldn't be discovered until future decades.
In general, I think it's not presumptious to say that future science could prove the quantum cipher as childish as the Caesar cipher is to us today. And I think that it is presumptious to say that breaking it would require changing the laws of physics. There are many cases where a greater understanding of physics enhanced previous "laws" of physics without breaking them--e.g., relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics.
At this point in history our understanding of quantum physics--the entire premise of the quantum cipher--is tentative. In 50 or 100 years it might even be wrong. If someone does discover a way around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, snooping on a quantum cipher would be child's play. I'm not trying to make light of this: that's a Nobel prize-winning "if."
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
Also, you conveniently omitted one crucial class of ciphers -- the One Time Pad.
I was intentionally trying to keep the scope narrow, which is why I was only talking about the quantum cipher part of the solution. I'm not really talking about the one time pad here, and I'll agree with you that it's probably unbreakable. However, keep in mind that the Soviets had some success cracking the CIA's one time pads, although that may had had something to do with the key distribution scheme. And early attacks on one time pads showed that they were susceptible to the "randomness" chosen for them, because the typewriter monkeys who banged them out tended to hit the middle of the keyboard more often than not. So the phrase "truly random" is debatable.
I think that's a little too simple. The quantim crypto part is used to transmit a one-time pad, which is probably unbreakable. However, one-time pads suffer from key-distributions problems, which is where the quantum bit--no pun intended*--comes in. So it makes for a nice marriage between the two.
* A desparate punster submitted ten puns to a local newspaper to try to win the grand punster prize. His hopes were dashed, however, to find out that not only did he not win the prize, but no pun in ten did.
Every cipher scheme, from the Greeks' steganography to the Romans' alphabet substitution to today's 3DES and other schemes, has eventually been broken. It's unreasonable to believe that quantum cryptography will be invulnerable to attacks forever. It's not a question of if it can be broken, but rather when it will be broken.
Perhaps someone will discover a work-around to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or perhaps researchers will find flaws in the implementation of the algorithm. But if history is any indication of the future, quantum cryptography will eventually be cracked.
So far, no one has found a road-and wheel combination in which the road has the same shape as the wheel. That's an intriguing challenge for mathematicians.
Actually, I think the intriguing challenge would be to prove that the road should have the opposite shape as the wheel. That's why flat roads (lines) and curved wheels (circles) work so well today.
Although I'm a programmer, I was once selected to be the "weekly meeting note typer" because I was the fastest typist in the company. (Since it's better to say nothing at all if you only have bad things to say about someone, let me pause here for a moment. Okay.) It was terrible. Three hours of a boring meeting that moved like molasses was enough to drive anyone up a wall.
After a few weeks of this silliness, and to keep my own sanity, I started typing out the notes verbatim--especially the jokes and nuances--like a script.
Russ: We haven't put the LVH in yet. They've been having problems detecting cellophone with the KT-5/6. Greg: There's a project on this. We recommended the LVH's to them but they still bought the KT-5's. Russ: Kevin got involved and wanted to take care of this. Ron: When we're making recommendations to customers [...] Greg: In hindsight, we shouldn't have given them an option. The cheap price of the KT-5 probably drove them to buy them. Ron: Should we take a proactive position and follow up with them? So we need to get Chris L to call and follow up on focus. [Chris L saunters in] Chris L: I called them last week and he was out of the plant for a few days. I'll call them. [Chris L saunters out] Ron: How many are there out there? Russ: Probably ten. Greg: The KT-5 is finicky. It's finicky.
It didn't take long before someone else was brought in as the weekly meeting note typer.
I think SCO's tactics are as despicable as they come, but let's keep it fair. Somehow I doubt that this story belongs in the "News and Trends" section of Newsforge. Try the "Conjecture and Hypothesis" section instead.
What news are they reporting? It's not news when you whine about why phone numbers didn't work and why you could get in touch with attributions (Anderer, Sontag, etc.). It's not news when you start a paragraph with "That leaves us, for now, with a couple of major unanswered questions." News reporters answer questions; they don't ask them. And it's not news when your story is speckled with "imagine all the partnering," "Anderer appears to be" and "what you smell cooking in the kitchen is usually what is served."
Give me a break. I'm all for Linux advocacy, but let me know when you have some real news.
You can't go wrong with allrecipes.com. I have no affiliation with them other than that I use it whenever I need a recipe. Another good feature, a la amazon.com style, is the peer reviews that accompany each recipe. The site is so good I haven't even tried looking anywhere else.
In conclusion I still don't know if the original number was real or not.It could have been the card thieves trying to trick me.
Yes, after stealing your credit card number and account information they needed to trick you into calling them and giving them your credit card number. Huh?
PTT (push to talk) [...] for about $10 more than Nextel
Not true:
Verizon: $59,99, 400 minutes (unlimited Push to Talk)
Nextel: $59,99, 400 minutes (unlimited Direct Connect)*
After that the plans leapfrog each other, Verizon going with the sleek $79, $99 options and Nextel picking the oh-so-stylish $69, $89 price points.
Pricing doesn't mention how 'high-speed' data will roll into this (which you can't get on Nextel)
Not true. Nextel offers Packetstream Gold, which give about 56k download speeds (but at a $54.99/month charge, it's expensive, too).
*Keep in mind that for Nextel nationwide Direct Connect there is a $10/month extra charge. Not sure about Verizon.
SCO's bizarre actions can only be explained by one thing: they've been taken over by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Information Minister! Next they'll be declaring that THERE ARE NO LINUX INFIDELS IN SCO. NEVER! OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS THAT THEY WILL ALL DIE!
I hope that meant that the review was a good one, and not Mossberg's reaction to the watch. To sum up Mossberg's review, the device is clumsy as a PDA but its only redemming feature is that you can change the face! Not much of a thumbs-up for the Fossil.
Among Mossberg's comments about the watch:
"The Wrist PDA is a big, bulky watch with an electronic screen for a face."
"[The stylus] is easy to lose, so Fossil supplies a free spare."
"The Wrist PDA is much harder to use than other Palms or Palm-compatible devices."
"I found entering text, and even accurately tapping on items on the screen, to be awkward and frustrating"
"I found the rocker switch that you use to navigate around the screen to be stiff and its surface to be slippery"
Now in all fairness, keep in mind that Mossberg is in his 50's, and that's not Fossil's target audience of 20-something, eagle-eyed early adopters. So his first experience should be taken with a 30-year-old grain of salt. But I think I'll let some other people "early adopt" this one.
I swear it's true! Microsoft (Bill Gates, actually) has already paid me just to send email! And last year I won a free trip to Disney just by looking at their website!
Slashdot Mirror
Just about anyone with any background in classical music would know that that was Moonlight Sonata. I took a few years of piano and can even play a few bars. It's not "incredibly difficult" to place, as the review stated. On the contrary, it's a very recognizable piece of work.
I'm not really talking about the OTP; I'm only talking about the QC part of sending the OTP.
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. (Not that you did, but a lot of people have jumped on that bandwagon.) Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
We don't know that much about quantum physics today, so that's not entirely impossible. That's not even difficult. It only took several hundred years to disprove the "fundamental" fact that the earth was flat. Current beliefs could and will fall to future scientific discoveries.
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
It's mathematically provable today, but was it provable then? In 1854 Sir Charles Wheatstone--and probably all mathematicians of his day--had no idea that his Playfair cipher was susceptible to genetic algorithms and "stepping" algorithms running on computers today. The authors of the Vigenere cipher and various double transposition ciphers couldn't have mathematically proven that their ciphers could be attacked by advanced methods that wouldn't be discovered until future decades.
In general, I think it's not presumptious to say that future science could prove the quantum cipher as childish as the Caesar cipher is to us today. And I think that it is presumptious to say that breaking it would require changing the laws of physics. There are many cases where a greater understanding of physics enhanced previous "laws" of physics without breaking them--e.g., relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics.
At this point in history our understanding of quantum physics--the entire premise of the quantum cipher--is tentative. In 50 or 100 years it might even be wrong. If someone does discover a way around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, snooping on a quantum cipher would be child's play. I'm not trying to make light of this: that's a Nobel prize-winning "if."
I just think it's a little early in the ball game to declare QC as the cipher to end all ciphers. Especially when people said the same thing about every other "unbreakable" cipher of its day.
Also, you conveniently omitted one crucial class of ciphers -- the One Time Pad.
I was intentionally trying to keep the scope narrow, which is why I was only talking about the quantum cipher part of the solution. I'm not really talking about the one time pad here, and I'll agree with you that it's probably unbreakable. However, keep in mind that the Soviets had some success cracking the CIA's one time pads, although that may had had something to do with the key distribution scheme. And early attacks on one time pads showed that they were susceptible to the "randomness" chosen for them, because the typewriter monkeys who banged them out tended to hit the middle of the keyboard more often than not. So the phrase "truly random" is debatable.
I think that's a little too simple. The quantim crypto part is used to transmit a one-time pad, which is probably unbreakable. However, one-time pads suffer from key-distributions problems, which is where the quantum bit--no pun intended*--comes in. So it makes for a nice marriage between the two.
* A desparate punster submitted ten puns to a local newspaper to try to win the grand punster prize. His hopes were dashed, however, to find out that not only did he not win the prize, but no pun in ten did.
Perhaps someone will discover a work-around to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or perhaps researchers will find flaws in the implementation of the algorithm. But if history is any indication of the future, quantum cryptography will eventually be cracked.
Actually, I think the intriguing challenge would be to prove that the road should have the opposite shape as the wheel. That's why flat roads (lines) and curved wheels (circles) work so well today.
After a few weeks of this silliness, and to keep my own sanity, I started typing out the notes verbatim--especially the jokes and nuances--like a script.
It didn't take long before someone else was brought in as the weekly meeting note typer.If your life was never in danger at any point why did you let them mug you?
Is that, like, 11 Linux-based servers?
Another fine nugget of wisdom about relationships with women. I can't wait to share this with women I meet. Thanks, Slashdot!
You're desparately single, aren't you.
What news are they reporting? It's not news when you whine about why phone numbers didn't work and why you could get in touch with attributions (Anderer, Sontag, etc.). It's not news when you start a paragraph with "That leaves us, for now, with a couple of major unanswered questions." News reporters answer questions; they don't ask them. And it's not news when your story is speckled with "imagine all the partnering," "Anderer appears to be" and "what you smell cooking in the kitchen is usually what is served."
Give me a break. I'm all for Linux advocacy, but let me know when you have some real news.
Or just use this "universal card manager."
You can't go wrong with allrecipes.com. I have no affiliation with them other than that I use it whenever I need a recipe. Another good feature, a la amazon.com style, is the peer reviews that accompany each recipe. The site is so good I haven't even tried looking anywhere else.
Yes, after stealing your credit card number and account information they needed to trick you into calling them and giving them your credit card number. Huh?
Wow, these guys are really insightful. These stories won't even be censored till next year!
Not true:
Verizon: $59,99, 400 minutes (unlimited Push to Talk)
Nextel: $59,99, 400 minutes (unlimited Direct Connect)*
After that the plans leapfrog each other, Verizon going with the sleek $79, $99 options and Nextel picking the oh-so-stylish $69, $89 price points.
Pricing doesn't mention how 'high-speed' data will roll into this (which you can't get on Nextel)
Not true. Nextel offers Packetstream Gold, which give about 56k download speeds (but at a $54.99/month charge, it's expensive, too).
*Keep in mind that for Nextel nationwide Direct Connect there is a $10/month extra charge. Not sure about Verizon.
SCO's bizarre actions can only be explained by one thing: they've been taken over by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Information Minister! Next they'll be declaring that THERE ARE NO LINUX INFIDELS IN SCO. NEVER! OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS THAT THEY WILL ALL DIE!
Here's an interesting question: has Microsoft ever produced an input stream that hasn't been compromised by a buffer overrun attack?
While a lawsuit from Metrowerks might be interesting, I wouldn't call it a "highlight," my gramatically-challenged Slashdot editors.
Come on, this is just a bunch of anti-American FUD by the Swiss. It's widely known that the .pwl encryption method is the safest in the world!
Among Mossberg's comments about the watch:
Now in all fairness, keep in mind that Mossberg is in his 50's, and that's not Fossil's target audience of 20-something, eagle-eyed early adopters. So his first experience should be taken with a 30-year-old grain of salt. But I think I'll let some other people "early adopt" this one.
This should be modded +5 insightful, not the idiotic post above it.
I swear it's true! Microsoft (Bill Gates, actually) has already paid me just to send email! And last year I won a free trip to Disney just by looking at their website!