After downloading, import the Verification Key into your PGP software. Then, sign the key with your key and mark it as Trusted. Please see the documentation for your PGP software for specific instructions on trusting a key.
In other words: they expect you to trust them based on the X.509 certificate they present... I hope people realize that with the inclusion of dozens of CAs in common browsers etc. this totally subverts the idea of a web of trust.
-Hein
I find $30+ for a yearly subscription too much... you can get decent web hosting for gallery, your home page, web log, email, etc. for well under $100. While flickr and the other services mentioned are slick, they don't justify the expense IMHO.
If BIND decided to distribute a seperate set of root servers in a cache file and enough ISPs used it the Internet DNS system as we know it today could change overnight.;-)
The root servers do not serve.com &.net. What you'd want is that they delegate.com &.net to somebody != Versign, but that's decision that is up to IANA and Paul Vixie and others have made it clear on nanog that their root servers will not go against IANA.
Moreover, alternative root servers would have to delegate.com &.net to some other trusted(?) party...
Regarding speech recognition: Unfortunately, Gnome doesn't have anything that comes close to products such as Dragon Dictate and ViaVoice. The ViaVoice version for Linux was discontinued at some point... and free software such as Sphinx doesn't come close to the commercial products.
Maybe this one of the areas where free software really has a hard time catching up: small market, highly sophisticated software, small "coolness" factor, and very smooth desktop-integration a requirement...
In theory you can build quantum repeaters that cannot be compromised --- either Alice and Bob detect the eavesdropping or the repeater was not tampered with.
I thought you needed single photon sources for the well-known quantum-cryptography protocols... AFAIK, the "photon splitting attacks" are among the weakest points in current implementations and good single photon sources are a hot research area...
Can anybody comment on whether this new result applies to generating single photons?
News readers tend to be much more powerful than RSS agregators or email programs with RSS capability (e.g. evolution).
nntp//rss is a nice tool for reading RSS feeds with your favorite newsreader.
IMHO this is a good replacement for (mostly) read-only mailing lists: it is much easier for the average person to set up a web forum with RSS than a NNTP server or even a (self-hosted) mailing list.
For interactive mailing lists, Gmane is the tool of my choice.
Thanks for pointing out the weak points in my post.
I do not have data on how much CHECKCAST tends to cost.
Checking that the class that is compiled conforms to the class that was used during compilation for the generic parameter could be done at class load time, instead of doing it at each access. At least from a simplicity perspective this looks much more appealing to me.
So, yes, getting genericity right in Java is not trivial. But it doesn't make it any less useful.
And still no generic data structures (a.k.a. templates in the C++ world)... all those explicit downcasts from Object hurt and need to be optimized away by the JIT...
Quantum cryptography, even in it simplest form (scheme BB73, from Bennett and Brassard) is unbreakable, even using unlimited computational power, both classical and quantum.
Do you mean BB84? I haven't seen security proofs for other protocols yet.
see http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~crepeau/CRYPTO/Biblio-QC. html
But beware of any claims about quantum bit commitment:-)
The experiments you cite were proofs of concept. In particular, they could not guarantee that their light source would only emit one photon at a time and hence they had very bad security (if the light source emits two photons, you can capture one and let the other go; the two photons are correlated and you can essentially use the stolen photon to break the protocol.)
> What if I proved that P=NP, but I don't know of an algorithm to actually convert any known problem?
That cannot happen. If you guarantee me that P=NP, I can give you a polynomial-time algorithm for any NP-complete problem L: enumerate all Turing machines; simulate the first one for one step, then the first two for two steps, then the first three for three steps and so on. Whenever one machine produces an output, check in polynomial time whether it is a witness for the input being in L. Now, if P=NP, there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that always produces a correct witness, and you will simulate after having simulated a finite number of bogus Turing machines. This only gives you finite overhead and a polynomial time algorithm in total.
> First of all: This does not mean encryption of any sort is broken!
Yes, it does. FACTORING (or, to be more precise, its decision variant COMPOSITE) is in NP. Just nondeterministically guess a factor and verify it in polynomial time by dividing the input by the guessed factor.
> Furthermore, the security of public key
> cryptography does not rely on NP!=P.
It does. The proof goes roughly like this: if I can (nondeterministically) guess the secret key, I can in polynomial time check whether I guessed the correct secret key (by using it to decrypt your message.)
The point is that Factoring and the Discrete Log *are* known to be in NP, but not known to be NP complete (most people conjecture that they are not NP complete.) NP=P is a *much* stronger statement than Factoring in P.
Slashdot Mirror
I find $30+ for a yearly subscription too much... you can get decent web hosting for gallery, your home page, web log, email, etc. for well under $100. While flickr and the other services mentioned are slick, they don't justify the expense IMHO.
They should put that in big letters on the front page, that would save many people a lot of time.
Maybe this is old news, but funny nonetheless in this context: Resources for competing with Linux
The root servers do not serve
Moreover, alternative root servers would have to delegate .com & .net to some other trusted(?) party...
Maybe this one of the areas where free software really has a hard time catching up: small market, highly sophisticated software, small "coolness" factor, and very smooth desktop-integration a requirement...
In theory you can build quantum repeaters that cannot be compromised --- either Alice and Bob detect the eavesdropping or the repeater was not tampered with.
Can anybody comment on whether this new result applies to generating single photons?
nntp//rss is a nice tool for reading RSS feeds with your favorite newsreader.
IMHO this is a good replacement for (mostly) read-only mailing lists: it is much easier for the average person to set up a web forum with RSS than a NNTP server or even a (self-hosted) mailing list.
For interactive mailing lists, Gmane is the tool of my choice.
FYI, HyperSCSI does roughly the same as iSCSI and claims to address some of its shortcomings.
Thanks for pointing out the weak points in my post.
I do not have data on how much CHECKCAST tends to cost.
Checking that the class that is compiled conforms to the class that was used during compilation for the generic parameter could be done at class load time, instead of doing it at each access. At least from a simplicity perspective this looks much more appealing to me.
So, yes, getting genericity right in Java is not trivial. But it doesn't make it any less useful.
-Hein
And still no generic data structures (a.k.a. templates in the C++ world)... all those explicit downcasts from Object hurt and need to be optimized away by the JIT...
-Hein
Do you mean BB84? I haven't seen security proofs for other protocols yet.
But beware of any claims about quantum bit commitment
-Hein
The experiments you cite were proofs of concept. In particular, they could not guarantee that their light source would only emit one photon at a time and hence they had very bad security (if the light source emits two photons, you can capture one and let the other go; the two photons are correlated and you can essentially use the stolen photon to break the protocol.)
-Hein
> What if I proved that P=NP, but I don't know of an algorithm to actually convert any known problem?
That cannot happen. If you guarantee me that P=NP, I can give you a polynomial-time algorithm for any NP-complete problem L: enumerate all Turing machines; simulate the first one for one step, then the first two for two steps, then the first three for three steps and so on. Whenever one machine produces an output, check in polynomial time whether it is a witness for the input being in L. Now, if P=NP, there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that always produces a correct witness, and you will simulate after having simulated a finite number of bogus Turing machines. This only gives you finite overhead and a polynomial time algorithm in total.
Not very efficient, but polynomial time.
-Hein
> First of all: This does not mean encryption of any sort is broken!
Yes, it does. FACTORING (or, to be more precise, its decision variant COMPOSITE) is in NP. Just nondeterministically guess a factor and verify it in polynomial time by dividing the input by the guessed factor.
-Hein
> Furthermore, the security of public key
> cryptography does not rely on NP!=P.
It does. The proof goes roughly like this: if I can (nondeterministically) guess the secret key, I can in polynomial time check whether I guessed the correct secret key (by using it to decrypt your message.)
The point is that Factoring and the Discrete Log *are* known to be in NP, but not known to be NP complete (most people conjecture that they are not NP complete.) NP=P is a *much* stronger statement than Factoring in P.
-Hein