And before anyone freaks out and thinks that the NSA is reading their e-mail, keep in mind that they have to be very selective about how and when they use results from their quantum computer. This is similar to breaking ENIGMA--you want the enemy to think that their codes are secure, so you don't suddenly counter all of their plans perfectly. You certainly don't turn this on e.g. classical organized crime, as that could give away your capabilities on a considerably less valuable target.
Nah, as others have pointed out, what you do is run the Shor's algorithm, then verify it. If it's wrong, run Shor's again. If it's right, you know you have the factorization. In this way, you can be 100% sure that you've correctly solved the problem, even if Shor's only provides the correct answer some percentage of the time.
What I don't fully understand is why 48% makes this impractical. Having not read TFA, the only way I can imagine that would be the case is if somehow not having exactly a 50% chance of getting the correct answer means that the algorithm doesn't scale correctly. Even only being correct 10% of the time would mean that you could break RSA much faster than you can without quantum computers. I suspect that was some bad editorializing.
What wouldn't be practical under these conditions is factoring larger numbers. You need more qubits for that. Nevertheless, this is a nice stepping stone towards high-qubit computing.
Actually, grade-school children can factor really large prime numbers in their heads. The trick is factoring the product of two really large prime numbers in your head without knowing either of the primes. You can get two of the factors (one and the product) but neither of those is particularly useful to the problem at hand.
Jururs still need to support and act within the law. The exception, of course, is when the law itself is bad.
But the jurors are the ones who would have to decide that. So again, it's all up to the jury. And they don't come back with a verdict of "nullification"--they need only come back with the verdict that nullification would imply.
I'm not sure what "harmless" means here--IANAL--but the harm from failure to disclose could have to do with the other party not knowing about the evidence. Since Apple introduced the evidence in open court, it's hard to imagine that they don't know about said evidence.
You must also believe that everything broken and everything working great is a direct result of a politiican, or do you only blame the things that are broken on a politician and things that are not broken are the result of some other mythical force?
Politicians criminalized drug use and sales. They are clearly the reason that the market for drugs has to go underground.
quit blaming their and other peoples problems on the government
When the government is creating the problem, it's perfectly reasonable to rest the blame there.
This is really odd, because usually this kind of response comes up when someone wants the government to help them in some way (providing food, shelter, health care) instead of when the government is restricting what people do (selling drugs, leasing their bodies.)
So do you actually install it as a different user, or do you just feel warm and fuzzy that they can't modify your system, even though most of what you probably care about exists within your user account?
Even if you install it as a different user, you would need to log out of your main account every time (or, I suppose, run a secondary X server) as the rights required to display to your X server pretty much give full access to your account.
The PCB swap works if the PCB is what's damaged. I've seen it happen several times in my 16 years of IT. I've also recommended the trick to non-techie friends, and had a nonzero success rate. So it can be done, if the failure scenario is just right and the person can follow directions.
We pirate digital goods because we're pretty sure can get away with it.
There's also a pretty high convenience factor. I have an old friend from college who used to pirate mp3s. Once Amazon started making available mp3s of nearly every album, he started buying them. It was easier to do that than to find them on various file-sharing networks, especially considering the fake files that are out there, slow uploaders, etc.
Same kind of thing with movies and TV shows, only this time with iTunes. One click and he has the media. No mussing with torrents, no gnutella, no corrupted rar files, and no going to the store.
This doesn't mean that the piracy was okay. However, piracy is a fact of life. Some content makers have figured this out and adapted, and they're probably doing better than they would have had they failed to adapt. Right versus pragmatic is a pretty good explanation of it.
True, but then Google doesn't make the majority of Android phones. Some Android phones have come without the ability to sideload.
Android is a platform to build a phone on--it's well out of Google's hands now, and while they've been trying to rein it in, I don't think it's clear yet whether or not they will be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's stealing by the second definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
If we're talking about Dropbox's general security IQ, how about the bug that allowed anyone to access any account with any password?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/20/dropbox-security-bug-made-passwords-optional-for-four-hours/
And before anyone freaks out and thinks that the NSA is reading their e-mail, keep in mind that they have to be very selective about how and when they use results from their quantum computer. This is similar to breaking ENIGMA--you want the enemy to think that their codes are secure, so you don't suddenly counter all of their plans perfectly. You certainly don't turn this on e.g. classical organized crime, as that could give away your capabilities on a considerably less valuable target.
Then the summary was worded terribly.
Nah, as others have pointed out, what you do is run the Shor's algorithm, then verify it. If it's wrong, run Shor's again. If it's right, you know you have the factorization. In this way, you can be 100% sure that you've correctly solved the problem, even if Shor's only provides the correct answer some percentage of the time.
What I don't fully understand is why 48% makes this impractical. Having not read TFA, the only way I can imagine that would be the case is if somehow not having exactly a 50% chance of getting the correct answer means that the algorithm doesn't scale correctly. Even only being correct 10% of the time would mean that you could break RSA much faster than you can without quantum computers. I suspect that was some bad editorializing.
What wouldn't be practical under these conditions is factoring larger numbers. You need more qubits for that. Nevertheless, this is a nice stepping stone towards high-qubit computing.
Actually, grade-school children can factor really large prime numbers in their heads. The trick is factoring the product of two really large prime numbers in your head without knowing either of the primes. You can get two of the factors (one and the product) but neither of those is particularly useful to the problem at hand.
RSA public key includes a number n, which is the sum of two secret primes p and q
Just FYI, it's the product of two secret primes. Product is for multiplication, while sum is for addition.
Jururs still need to support and act within the law. The exception, of course, is when the law itself is bad.
But the jurors are the ones who would have to decide that. So again, it's all up to the jury. And they don't come back with a verdict of "nullification"--they need only come back with the verdict that nullification would imply.
no programmer can possibly guarantee a complete absence of bugs
Programmers from the 70s would laugh at that statement.
That means Windows is a better product than Linux, right? Same for OS X?
I'm not sure what "harmless" means here--IANAL--but the harm from failure to disclose could have to do with the other party not knowing about the evidence. Since Apple introduced the evidence in open court, it's hard to imagine that they don't know about said evidence.
Yup. This is why competition is good for consumers.
This is truly the year of the Android tablet.
You must also believe that everything broken and everything working great is a direct result of a politiican, or do you only blame the things that are broken on a politician and things that are not broken are the result of some other mythical force?
Politicians criminalized drug use and sales. They are clearly the reason that the market for drugs has to go underground.
quit blaming their and other peoples problems on the government
When the government is creating the problem, it's perfectly reasonable to rest the blame there.
This is really odd, because usually this kind of response comes up when someone wants the government to help them in some way (providing food, shelter, health care) instead of when the government is restricting what people do (selling drugs, leasing their bodies.)
I doubt it, but I'm not sure what the relevancy of that question is.
It might be feasible to do something like that with AppArmor. To be honest, I'm really not sure.
So do you actually install it as a different user, or do you just feel warm and fuzzy that they can't modify your system, even though most of what you probably care about exists within your user account?
Even if you install it as a different user, you would need to log out of your main account every time (or, I suppose, run a secondary X server) as the rights required to display to your X server pretty much give full access to your account.
But sometimes actions are illegal only if they are non-consensual. Agreeing to a EULA might be considered consent.
Obviously.
I was just answering the question. "Sometimes" a regular person can do it. Of course it should be a last resort.
Real data recovery places are too expensive for the average person to use. I think there's a middle-ground between your two extremes.
Only the real answer is "sometimes."
The PCB swap works if the PCB is what's damaged. I've seen it happen several times in my 16 years of IT. I've also recommended the trick to non-techie friends, and had a nonzero success rate. So it can be done, if the failure scenario is just right and the person can follow directions.
Indeed. I've often wondered where that started.
The whole "DoD Wipe" thing is overkill.
The whole "DoD Wipe" thing is also a myth.
We pirate digital goods because we're pretty sure can get away with it.
There's also a pretty high convenience factor. I have an old friend from college who used to pirate mp3s. Once Amazon started making available mp3s of nearly every album, he started buying them. It was easier to do that than to find them on various file-sharing networks, especially considering the fake files that are out there, slow uploaders, etc.
Same kind of thing with movies and TV shows, only this time with iTunes. One click and he has the media. No mussing with torrents, no gnutella, no corrupted rar files, and no going to the store.
This doesn't mean that the piracy was okay. However, piracy is a fact of life. Some content makers have figured this out and adapted, and they're probably doing better than they would have had they failed to adapt. Right versus pragmatic is a pretty good explanation of it.
True, but then Google doesn't make the majority of Android phones. Some Android phones have come without the ability to sideload.
Android is a platform to build a phone on--it's well out of Google's hands now, and while they've been trying to rein it in, I don't think it's clear yet whether or not they will be successful.