Weeeeell... a boring old XOR OTP is "unbreakable" because (k works) is not possible to evaluate - *every possible* plaintext will be generated in your search through S. Now can you pick the right one? Of course not, you'd have to know which one it was ahead of time.
An interesting area of crypto research is trying to extend the same idea to other cryptosystems - can you generate while you encrypt a message a second "private" key that will yield a perfectly innocuous (sp?) message? If ever questioned, reveal that key, not your real private key. Or use two different private keys simultaneously so that all messages use the same key for their innocuous halves.
First law of thermodynamics: one can neither create nor destroy energy. To the best of my knowledge this has held true, or is at least true with every technology we have or are investigating now for power production (yes, including fusion).
Moreover, one acre of plants requires 10 MW / day (I may be a little off on that statistic, but it is approximately right). Even a well-stocked fusion reactor would have trouble providing for more than a few hundred acres on its best day.
Yes, we can certainly try expanding, but that only buys us a little more time until, oops, we have to move again... at which point the vast distances will probably result in specitation and render communication useless.
Yeah, I get the idea. Keep the FBI off ostensbily "private" networks (cable, ISPs, backbones) or admit that they're public goods and give the gov't control over them.
Those should be the only two options. A private assault on a private network should not be investigated by the FBI. The owner of said network can sue the individual who did it.
Now, your example of vandalising a house is different - a house is owned by a person or a collection of people - individuals, where a network is (usually) owned by a corporation. In the cases of individual or not-for-profit group ownership, yes, the FBI is a valid resource. But for-profit corporations (especially like MS, Cisco, etc) that use sneaky holes in the tax laws to avoid paying taxes should NEVER be allowed to call in the FBI to police the network or property they own.
Now, that's a rough sketch but it should provide the general direction. --Knots
Has there ever been a documented case of the slashdot effect going out-of-band into the real world? Doing more damage than flooding a webserver or a handful for a few hours, I mean.
IDIOTS. IDIOTS. Yes, the interconnected world of the Internet is nice. No, it's not the uber-controller, and it never should be made such, no matter how much a fad Thin-Clients and ASPs and so on are these days. (Got that, Microsoft?)
Pacemakers!? My word... what does a Pacemaker need an IP address for!? The powergrid? Uh... you can have a seperate network with firewalls to the internet for controlling the powergrid, if you must have internet control.. or better yet, *don't* have internet control of the power grid.
People jump on things because it's "The Cool Thing" to do, nevermind if it's right or even useful. I miss the days where people designed code to be modular, seprable, robust, etc... now we've got "IT NEEDS MORE FEATURES!" (INMF) craze persisting from the.BOMB 'economy' (which didn't have to bomb if sheeple hadn't gone spaztic and crazy when it was "the thing," and doesn't have to make the current tech sector a mine-field: some companies are doing quite well (given the economy) and being punished because they're IT-related, it seems). Anyway, the INMF craze has dictated that everything must be internet-capable, reguardless of necessity (What are my kitchen appliances going to tell each other? "Nice chrome"?!).
And, as a result, we get shit like this. Where poor security (largely on Microsoft's part - hello 95+% of desktop computers, all running one OS with poor security. Though don't get me wrong, everybody plays a part in security, so it's not *all* Microsoft's fault) has led people to believe and therefore repeat from very high places that the world is coming to an end. It isn't, and if people had much sense, there'd be no real problem. Systems that require computers to control them should either be isolated or have failsafe computers that are isolated from the network (failsafe should be trivial - touch the switch and it's there. And it's not like shutting down and rebooting, it should be a near-instantaneous changeover with no side-effects since the failsafe should be running [surprise] a safe, uncompromised program). And if devices don't need net access, DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. Or do, but make sure they can't be abused. There's not exactly a lot of CPU power in my oven, and I like it that way - if you want it to have an NTP-synchronized clock, cool, just make sure it's *only* capable of NTP, and at that, only with an NTP-server I have to set up on my LAN (make it point-and-drool or a standalone box if you must, but I think ntpd's easy enough).
"The problem with non-elected governments is human nature. That is, and always has been, the problem with any theory that promises utopia."
With all due respect, nobody here, including you and me, knows the first damn thing about this mythical "human nature." We can *guess* at it, but PLEASE don't spout off like you have The Definitive Truth.
There are things that don't vary much between cultures (like, surprise, that they're social constructions), while on the other hand, the degrees of specialization and centralization have varied much more (though not to every combination imaginable, I admit) which should lead us to question what is the 'natural' social structure, if it exists, for humans to take. May I sugguest "A Darwinian Left" (ISBN 0300083238) for a much more verbose explanation and take on things.
Yes, async chips are designed like you make them sound. It's kinda... standard with async logic to have a "latchable" / "ready" / pseudo-clock line going from one component via fanout to any that are listening to its output.
You *can* of course design async systems without that, but for reasons you stated, it's almost never done for anything not very simple. A traffic light controller, as you point out, is probably near the borderline in terms of complexity (also, I'm betting you did have a clock to drive delays and such. Or made an async unit that clocked).
If the async modules get complex enough they themselves may be clocked units, or they may be made up of simpler unclocked ready-ASAP units. The words "asynchronus computing" really leaves a lot open to the designers, since each module just has to take/pass data and zero or more "ready" signals.
And as for "not possible with a CPU" - well, that depends. Given the black-box nature of the async modules, it would seem that a perfect fusion of async computing and FPGAs could be made. If not the entire CPU, well, then perhaps just parts of it. It'd be really really sweet to have a rewirable async coprocessor (even better on the CPU itself).
Depends on the starting stage. Stage 1 is literally a minimum system that builds absolutely everything. Stage 2 has GCC and some other things (IIRC) built, and stage 3 has a prebuilt base system of the more common packages.
Only sure about stage 1 (it's what I did on my gentoo box) and yes, it builds GCC and Glibc. And yes, it takes a long while.
We're not really searching for the solution to the halting problem. We're searching for a way to guarantee that code that is supposed to do A cannot do X, Y, and Z (of course, if it does B, but B doesn't compromise security or pose any annoyance, then it doesn't really matter).
While this certainly is not compile-time possible (because we're trying to see if the code gets into one of a number of given states, which IIRC is analogous to the halting problem, so you're right), it is possible (in theory) with a VM, ala the JVM. If you can't do it ahead of time, do it AS the program is running. Unfortunately, since OSes and hardware can't do this natively, we have overhead introduced (again ala JVM).
It's possible that CS will progress allowing hardware or implementing kernel controls over permissions. Of course, hardware could *NOT* be something like Microsoft's latest-and-greatest Palladium, it would have to allow the user ultimate control. Time will tell if we can do this in an exploit-free way, eh?
--Knots
Re:Real speed improvement?
on
Gentoo Linux 1.2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes, Gentoo has really sped up my system. I just switched yesterday (I kid you not) from Debian. For example, lbreakout2, a SDL game, would lag considerably on my debian box even with all "features" turned off. It screams with all the eyecandy *on* in Gentoo.
It's possible it was a misconfiguration, but I really doubt it since I looked long and hard for one and the lagging would scale roughly with load from "just barely acceptable" to "unbelievably bad for a 900Mhz box."
And even if it *was* a misconfiguration, I'm glad I switched. Emerge is my new favorite application.
Imagine a very dense area of repeaters and a tower. Phone A can't talk with the tower but a lot of phones can and moreover there are a lot of phones that both A and the tower-able phones can route over. Is there some form of "Yes, I will route for you" that cascades up the tree and first-come-only-served? So if A can hit B can hit C can hit the tower, then A sends a request, B gets it, broadcasts it *again*, C gets it, knows it can hit the tower, responds to B, which then responds to A?
Anybody know how this really works so I don't have to pull ideas out of my ass? ^_~
What real companies are succeeding in this situation due to closed source licenses? Who are these "plutocrat" contract developers with 50 acre mansions?
Gee, I would have thought one obvious example would LEAP to your mind... Microsoft and it's BILLIONS in cash reserves, its ability to marvelously avoid the law with a near-perfect track record, etc. Or howzabout Oracle? Conviced CA to buy ~200K licences and didn't suffer any negative results from that, as far as I know. Usually that would be called "fraud," telling the state they needed that many licences.
Ah, thermodynamics. Unique in physics, to my knowledge (what I am about to say is not original thinking, however I forget the source). They are statistical trends held up as laws, though we have no really good mathematical reason for them to be true - contrast with things like gravitation where we have superstring theory or einsteinian space-time curvature.
So who knows? I'd love to violate the first (and threreby the second and third) law of thermo. ^_~
What about using Cyc as a bootstrapping process for a gneral purpose NN? Or running the two side by side, if that'd be possible (messages routed back-and-forth between the two... Cyc'd be the nn's memory and a bit more). Potentially, when Cyc's able, we unleash a NN to train on cyc's data set. Then we could possibly abandon the expert system and just keep training the NN - so we get our umpteen million initial training sets from the expert system.
A while ago somebody ran (several) variable-trackers on the linux kernel source code and revealed many potential issues (Stanford checker. Search lkml for [CHECKER]). This was a very easy (comparatively) way of finding exploits without prodding the binary kernel.
Just a single datapoint to the contrary, I'm sure others have others.
My System Folder is no more than 10 directories deep (just a cursory inspection, but I don't think I missed anything), with Extensions and Preferences having HUGE breadth. So why, again, would HFS be designed for depth based on the System Folder?
Not that it isn't, just why did they do it that way, since the System Folder explanation doesn't make sense to me.
What they want and what information theory (and people's skill at ee) says is possible are two completely different things.
They want macrovision that works. Well, then it has to be something our eyes don't see (much). Then it's such a weak signal and must have very very specific properties... which gives us a reliable filter design to nuke it out of a signal (causing minimal further degredation).
They want encryption that prevents redistribution. Not possible - once something is published, it cannot AT ALL be controlled (from a mathematical standpoint). Technology can make it difficult and laws can make it illegal, but never impossible.
What is very very difficult in general is setting up the massive, free (as in speech, and maybe in beer), dynamic efficient network necessary for world-wide distribution (the internet is the closest thing we have, but it's a far cry from an idealistic world-wide W{W|L}AN). However, if you and I meet in person, we are [mathematically/scientifically] always able to trade materials, etc, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but fundamentally, the cost polynomial for the cable company has a large constant (buying equipment, getting upstream, etc) and smaller per-month fees (price on a OC-3, salaries, etc). There is no per-bit cost here, so why should they be passing on a second-order polynomial to the next guy?
A streamlined company (efficiency keeps the costs down) could cover most, if not all, of its setup costs by passing those directly on to the customer (like they do now, via a "setup fee") and then divvying up their monthly costs between their customers, add $1 and make $customers profit. No per-bit stuff involved.
"One degree" of isolation from the worm that just emailed that kiddieporn you have to your boss. One degree of no-isolation... tsk. For 3x10^10, I'm *sure* people could do better than Microsoft has.
Karl Marx predicted that at times the means of production would be incompatible with the social structure evolved around a prior incarnation of them.
While I don't think this is cause for revolution, I do think it's the leading-edge of such a period. Let the fun begin! Even Marx refused to predict what happens on the other side of such times.
You're very confused. QE does *not* allow for information transfer - it's a way of doing fair coin tosses (OTP *generation* not *distribution*).
Every particle is subject to QE, it's just a trick to get it superimposed and maintain its state as such. It's fundamental to QM.
Once again, once you collapse a quantum wave function (by observing the entangled particles), re-entangling them would require information to be sent among them - so no FTL that way either.
If you care about QE at all, you care about key generation. Otherwise you shouldn't care about QE - it's useless for information *transfer*. No, push one particle the other *doesn't* move - they just collapse to the same (or opposite, depending on *what* you have entangled - photons, protons, etc) state *no matter how you measure them*. Once again, this aspect of matter cannot be exploited for FTL information transfer. It can't be exploited for information transfer at all without in some way transfering the information through another channel.
Wow that seemed a little harsh. Forgive me if I respond in kind.
No, QE is not going to allow for FTL information transport, since the particles themselves can never be moved faster than light. The wave function collapses to give either corresponding or anti-corresponding values at each of the detectors (subject to the carrier media of the quantum wave function - photons are anti-corresponding, IIRC, others are corresponding). The value cannot be determined ahead of time without collapsing the wave function and making it classical information transport.
FTL isn't moot - it's what the original poster said he wanted!
QE *will* allow for near perfect encryption - using the now-standard key generation algorithms to generate a OTP will be slow but, surprise, perfect. And if you think for a minute that the government can clone the qubits used in key exchange - you're wrong, the very act of trying collapses the wave function! And by collapsing the function, it will, of course, be detectable by the checking phases of the key generation algorithms.
And *what* are you talking about, wireless networking without distance or interference limitations!? It's a nice idea, but no, QE as key exchange (QE cannot really be used for information transfer, though the classical photonic methods work) has been demonstrated as viable over several kilometers with highly directed transceiver pairs, but it's certainly not a replacement for 802.11.
Please, please, I implore you, read up on QM and information theory. If you can point a single counterexample experiment that demonstrates FTL information trasfer, QE as a way of information transport, etc. please let me know. But until I see one, I will trust my textbooks.
Eeerk... well, not quite. QE works very well for what it *is* good for, but it is *not* good for transmitting information faster than the speed of light. So a QE network would still be *just as fast* but no faster than the state of the art optical networks we have now (in terms of the optical part of the ping time. The electronics, though, can be sped up quite a bit over what we have, IIRC).
QE will, however, as another poster points out, allow (in principle) (near-)perfect encryption since it solves the problem of OTP distribution - anybody viewing the OTP changes it in a way that is very detectable (they collapse the quantum wave function and cannot recover it). So.
Other uses are anonymity, but here it'd only be classical-protocol anonymity protected by the (near-)perfect encryption offered by QE.
Depending on your interest and math levels, you might want to pick up a QM textbook (warning: QM is *lots and lots* of linear algebra and tensor math) or an introductory text (though no titles jump to mind, sorry).
"So, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?" "Well, I *would* say the same thing we do every night, but it turns out the RIAA and MPAA just beat us to it. So now we'll have to take over them instead."
Slashdot Mirror
Weeeeell... a boring old XOR OTP is "unbreakable" because (k works) is not possible to evaluate - *every possible* plaintext will be generated in your search through S. Now can you pick the right one? Of course not, you'd have to know which one it was ahead of time.
An interesting area of crypto research is trying to extend the same idea to other cryptosystems - can you generate while you encrypt a message a second "private" key that will yield a perfectly innocuous (sp?) message? If ever questioned, reveal that key, not your real private key. Or use two different private keys simultaneously so that all messages use the same key for their innocuous halves.
--Knots
BZZZZZT!
First law of thermodynamics: one can neither create nor destroy energy. To the best of my knowledge this has held true, or is at least true with every technology we have or are investigating now for power production (yes, including fusion).
Moreover, one acre of plants requires 10 MW / day (I may be a little off on that statistic, but it is approximately right). Even a well-stocked fusion reactor would have trouble providing for more than a few hundred acres on its best day.
Yes, we can certainly try expanding, but that only buys us a little more time until, oops, we have to move again... at which point the vast distances will probably result in specitation and render communication useless.
--Knots
Yeah, I get the idea. Keep the FBI off ostensbily "private" networks (cable, ISPs, backbones) or admit that they're public goods and give the gov't control over them.
Those should be the only two options. A private assault on a private network should not be investigated by the FBI. The owner of said network can sue the individual who did it.
Now, your example of vandalising a house is different - a house is owned by a person or a collection of people - individuals, where a network is (usually) owned by a corporation. In the cases of individual or not-for-profit group ownership, yes, the FBI is a valid resource. But for-profit corporations (especially like MS, Cisco, etc) that use sneaky holes in the tax laws to avoid paying taxes should NEVER be allowed to call in the FBI to police the network or property they own.
Now, that's a rough sketch but it should provide the general direction.
--Knots
Has there ever been a documented case of the slashdot effect going out-of-band into the real world? Doing more damage than flooding a webserver or a handful for a few hours, I mean.
IDIOTS. IDIOTS. Yes, the interconnected world of the Internet is nice. No, it's not the uber-controller, and it never should be made such, no matter how much a fad Thin-Clients and ASPs and so on are these days. (Got that, Microsoft?)
.BOMB 'economy' (which didn't have to bomb if sheeple hadn't gone spaztic and crazy when it was "the thing," and doesn't have to make the current tech sector a mine-field: some companies are doing quite well (given the economy) and being punished because they're IT-related, it seems). Anyway, the INMF craze has dictated that everything must be internet-capable, reguardless of necessity (What are my kitchen appliances going to tell each other? "Nice chrome"?!).
Pacemakers!? My word... what does a Pacemaker need an IP address for!? The powergrid? Uh... you can have a seperate network with firewalls to the internet for controlling the powergrid, if you must have internet control.. or better yet, *don't* have internet control of the power grid.
People jump on things because it's "The Cool Thing" to do, nevermind if it's right or even useful. I miss the days where people designed code to be modular, seprable, robust, etc... now we've got "IT NEEDS MORE FEATURES!" (INMF) craze persisting from the
And, as a result, we get shit like this. Where poor security (largely on Microsoft's part - hello 95+% of desktop computers, all running one OS with poor security. Though don't get me wrong, everybody plays a part in security, so it's not *all* Microsoft's fault) has led people to believe and therefore repeat from very high places that the world is coming to an end. It isn't, and if people had much sense, there'd be no real problem. Systems that require computers to control them should either be isolated or have failsafe computers that are isolated from the network (failsafe should be trivial - touch the switch and it's there. And it's not like shutting down and rebooting, it should be a near-instantaneous changeover with no side-effects since the failsafe should be running [surprise] a safe, uncompromised program). And if devices don't need net access, DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. Or do, but make sure they can't be abused. There's not exactly a lot of CPU power in my oven, and I like it that way - if you want it to have an NTP-synchronized clock, cool, just make sure it's *only* capable of NTP, and at that, only with an NTP-server I have to set up on my LAN (make it point-and-drool or a standalone box if you must, but I think ntpd's easy enough).
Anyway, sorry, I should be working.
--Knots
You mean like on SGI's mainframes... they show processor load in neat little bar-graphs (x is processor #, y is load).
"The problem with non-elected governments is human nature. That is, and always has been, the problem with any theory that promises utopia."
With all due respect, nobody here, including you and me, knows the first damn thing about this mythical "human nature." We can *guess* at it, but PLEASE don't spout off like you have The Definitive Truth.
There are things that don't vary much between cultures (like, surprise, that they're social constructions), while on the other hand, the degrees of specialization and centralization have varied much more (though not to every combination imaginable, I admit) which should lead us to question what is the 'natural' social structure, if it exists, for humans to take. May I sugguest "A Darwinian Left" (ISBN 0300083238) for a much more verbose explanation and take on things.
--Knots
Yes, async chips are designed like you make them sound. It's kinda... standard with async logic to have a "latchable" / "ready" / pseudo-clock line going from one component via fanout to any that are listening to its output.
You *can* of course design async systems without that, but for reasons you stated, it's almost never done for anything not very simple. A traffic light controller, as you point out, is probably near the borderline in terms of complexity (also, I'm betting you did have a clock to drive delays and such. Or made an async unit that clocked).
If the async modules get complex enough they themselves may be clocked units, or they may be made up of simpler unclocked ready-ASAP units. The words "asynchronus computing" really leaves a lot open to the designers, since each module just has to take/pass data and zero or more "ready" signals.
And as for "not possible with a CPU" - well, that depends. Given the black-box nature of the async modules, it would seem that a perfect fusion of async computing and FPGAs could be made. If not the entire CPU, well, then perhaps just parts of it. It'd be really really sweet to have a rewirable async coprocessor (even better on the CPU itself).
But I digress.
--Knots
Depends on the starting stage. Stage 1 is literally a minimum system that builds absolutely everything. Stage 2 has GCC and some other things (IIRC) built, and stage 3 has a prebuilt base system of the more common packages.
Only sure about stage 1 (it's what I did on my gentoo box) and yes, it builds GCC and Glibc. And yes, it takes a long while.
--Knots
We're not really searching for the solution to the halting problem. We're searching for a way to guarantee that code that is supposed to do A cannot do X, Y, and Z (of course, if it does B, but B doesn't compromise security or pose any annoyance, then it doesn't really matter).
While this certainly is not compile-time possible (because we're trying to see if the code gets into one of a number of given states, which IIRC is analogous to the halting problem, so you're right), it is possible (in theory) with a VM, ala the JVM. If you can't do it ahead of time, do it AS the program is running. Unfortunately, since OSes and hardware can't do this natively, we have overhead introduced (again ala JVM).
It's possible that CS will progress allowing hardware or implementing kernel controls over permissions. Of course, hardware could *NOT* be something like Microsoft's latest-and-greatest Palladium, it would have to allow the user ultimate control. Time will tell if we can do this in an exploit-free way, eh?
--Knots
Yes, Gentoo has really sped up my system. I just switched yesterday (I kid you not) from Debian. For example, lbreakout2, a SDL game, would lag considerably on my debian box even with all "features" turned off. It screams with all the eyecandy *on* in Gentoo.
It's possible it was a misconfiguration, but I really doubt it since I looked long and hard for one and the lagging would scale roughly with load from "just barely acceptable" to "unbelievably bad for a 900Mhz box."
And even if it *was* a misconfiguration, I'm glad I switched. Emerge is my new favorite application.
--Knots
How do they do packet routing?
Imagine a very dense area of repeaters and a tower. Phone A can't talk with the tower but a lot of phones can and moreover there are a lot of phones that both A and the tower-able phones can route over. Is there some form of "Yes, I will route for you" that cascades up the tree and first-come-only-served? So if A can hit B can hit C can hit the tower, then A sends a request, B gets it, broadcasts it *again*, C gets it, knows it can hit the tower, responds to B, which then responds to A?
Anybody know how this really works so I don't have to pull ideas out of my ass? ^_~
What real companies are succeeding in this situation due to closed source licenses? Who are these "plutocrat" contract developers with 50 acre mansions?
Gee, I would have thought one obvious example would LEAP to your mind... Microsoft and it's BILLIONS in cash reserves, its ability to marvelously avoid the law with a near-perfect track record, etc. Or howzabout Oracle? Conviced CA to buy ~200K licences and didn't suffer any negative results from that, as far as I know. Usually that would be called "fraud," telling the state they needed that many licences.
-Knots
Ah, thermodynamics. Unique in physics, to my knowledge (what I am about to say is not original thinking, however I forget the source). They are statistical trends held up as laws, though we have no really good mathematical reason for them to be true - contrast with things like gravitation where we have superstring theory or einsteinian space-time curvature.
So who knows? I'd love to violate the first (and threreby the second and third) law of thermo. ^_~
-Knots
What about using Cyc as a bootstrapping process for a gneral purpose NN? Or running the two side by side, if that'd be possible (messages routed back-and-forth between the two... Cyc'd be the nn's memory and a bit more). Potentially, when Cyc's able, we unleash a NN to train on cyc's data set. Then we could possibly abandon the expert system and just keep training the NN - so we get our umpteen million initial training sets from the expert system.
Possible?
--Knots
A while ago somebody ran (several) variable-trackers on the linux kernel source code and revealed many potential issues (Stanford checker. Search lkml for [CHECKER]). This was a very easy (comparatively) way of finding exploits without prodding the binary kernel.
Just a single datapoint to the contrary, I'm sure others have others.
Eeeeh?
My System Folder is no more than 10 directories deep (just a cursory inspection, but I don't think I missed anything), with Extensions and Preferences having HUGE breadth. So why, again, would HFS be designed for depth based on the System Folder?
Not that it isn't, just why did they do it that way, since the System Folder explanation doesn't make sense to me.
-knots
What they want and what information theory (and people's skill at ee) says is possible are two completely different things.
They want macrovision that works. Well, then it has to be something our eyes don't see (much). Then it's such a weak signal and must have very very specific properties... which gives us a reliable filter design to nuke it out of a signal (causing minimal further degredation).
They want encryption that prevents redistribution. Not possible - once something is published, it cannot AT ALL be controlled (from a mathematical standpoint). Technology can make it difficult and laws can make it illegal, but never impossible.
What is very very difficult in general is setting up the massive, free (as in speech, and maybe in beer), dynamic efficient network necessary for world-wide distribution (the internet is the closest thing we have, but it's a far cry from an idealistic world-wide W{W|L}AN). However, if you and I meet in person, we are [mathematically/scientifically] always able to trade materials, etc, etc.
-knots
Correct me if I'm wrong, but fundamentally, the cost polynomial for the cable company has a large constant (buying equipment, getting upstream, etc) and smaller per-month fees (price on a OC-3, salaries, etc). There is no per-bit cost here, so why should they be passing on a second-order polynomial to the next guy?
A streamlined company (efficiency keeps the costs down) could cover most, if not all, of its setup costs by passing those directly on to the customer (like they do now, via a "setup fee") and then divvying up their monthly costs between their customers, add $1 and make $customers profit. No per-bit stuff involved.
-knots
"One degree" of isolation from the worm that just emailed that kiddieporn you have to your boss. One degree of no-isolation... tsk. For 3x10^10, I'm *sure* people could do better than Microsoft has.
--knots
Karl Marx predicted that at times the means of production would be incompatible with the social structure evolved around a prior incarnation of them.
While I don't think this is cause for revolution, I do think it's the leading-edge of such a period. Let the fun begin! Even Marx refused to predict what happens on the other side of such times.
-Knots
You're very confused. QE does *not* allow for information transfer - it's a way of doing fair coin tosses (OTP *generation* not *distribution*).
Every particle is subject to QE, it's just a trick to get it superimposed and maintain its state as such. It's fundamental to QM.
Once again, once you collapse a quantum wave function (by observing the entangled particles), re-entangling them would require information to be sent among them - so no FTL that way either.
If you care about QE at all, you care about key generation. Otherwise you shouldn't care about QE - it's useless for information *transfer*. No, push one particle the other *doesn't* move - they just collapse to the same (or opposite, depending on *what* you have entangled - photons, protons, etc) state *no matter how you measure them*. Once again, this aspect of matter cannot be exploited for FTL information transfer. It can't be exploited for information transfer at all without in some way transfering the information through another channel.
-Knots
Wow that seemed a little harsh. Forgive me if I respond in kind.
No, QE is not going to allow for FTL information transport, since the particles themselves can never be moved faster than light. The wave function collapses to give either corresponding or anti-corresponding values at each of the detectors (subject to the carrier media of the quantum wave function - photons are anti-corresponding, IIRC, others are corresponding). The value cannot be determined ahead of time without collapsing the wave function and making it classical information transport.
FTL isn't moot - it's what the original poster said he wanted!
QE *will* allow for near perfect encryption - using the now-standard key generation algorithms to generate a OTP will be slow but, surprise, perfect. And if you think for a minute that the government can clone the qubits used in key exchange - you're wrong, the very act of trying collapses the wave function! And by collapsing the function, it will, of course, be detectable by the checking phases of the key generation algorithms.
And *what* are you talking about, wireless networking without distance or interference limitations!? It's a nice idea, but no, QE as key exchange (QE cannot really be used for information transfer, though the classical photonic methods work) has been demonstrated as viable over several kilometers with highly directed transceiver pairs, but it's certainly not a replacement for 802.11.
Please, please, I implore you, read up on QM and information theory. If you can point a single counterexample experiment that demonstrates FTL information trasfer, QE as a way of information transport, etc. please let me know. But until I see one, I will trust my textbooks.
-knots
Eeerk... well, not quite. QE works very well for what it *is* good for, but it is *not* good for transmitting information faster than the speed of light. So a QE network would still be *just as fast* but no faster than the state of the art optical networks we have now (in terms of the optical part of the ping time. The electronics, though, can be sped up quite a bit over what we have, IIRC).
QE will, however, as another poster points out, allow (in principle) (near-)perfect encryption since it solves the problem of OTP distribution - anybody viewing the OTP changes it in a way that is very detectable (they collapse the quantum wave function and cannot recover it). So.
Other uses are anonymity, but here it'd only be classical-protocol anonymity protected by the (near-)perfect encryption offered by QE.
Depending on your interest and math levels, you might want to pick up a QM textbook (warning: QM is *lots and lots* of linear algebra and tensor math) or an introductory text (though no titles jump to mind, sorry).
-Knots
"So, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?"
"Well, I *would* say the same thing we do every night, but it turns out the RIAA and MPAA just beat us to it. So now we'll have to take over them instead."
Sorry.
-knots