This is such old news, that RSA changed the algorithm after the original proprietary algorithm had been broken. The demonstration you saw no longer works.
This statement is factually wrong. The Boston Tea Party was not a result of more taxes, it was a result of less taxes.
British tea was taxed. That allowed American contrabandists to sell their contraband tea cheaper. When the tax on British tea was rescinded, it was economically harmful to their American competitors.
Google supports innovation by giving one day a week to its employees to work on a project they come up with. A lot of new products were created this way. My favorite: Google News. I am sure Slashdotters can name quite a few of their own favorites. Not all of those projects become full fledged successful products, but this is natural when you try new things.
A mandatory Slashdot car analogy: calling Google non-innovative is like calling a Porsche a horse.
I agree. The significant thing is that in the absence of a patent, the NDA is usually the only real legal recourse the victim has. The United States, for example, has no federal law on trade secret protection, and it would be much more difficult to prove trade secret violations if there was no NDA.
While it was clearly her data that they used, I've never heard any source state that she had already solved the problem of the exact structure of DNA. She probably realized that the crystal indicated a helical structure, but I don't think she knew exactly what it looked like or how it worked. So yeah, she deserved more credit then she received at the time, but I think it's possible to swing too far in the other direction, taking credit away from the guys who worked out much of the annoying details of the problem.
There were other groups that were close to this discovery. Without Rosalind, one of those groups could be the first to figure it out and publish. Then nobody would have remembered Watson and Crick. They owe her their fame as first to the pole and for a long time they claimed she was totally irrelevant to their discovery.
And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)
Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.
Not necessarily. If you marry sisters, you may have just one mother-in-law. And if your wives are orphans, you may have zero mothers-in-law. It pays to learn about your fiancees' ancestry before getting married.
I don't know how you got moderated Informative; there are so many mistakes. Only RSA relies on the difficulty of factoring; ElGamal does not. It relies on discrete logarithm. Factoring is not NP-hard (neither is discrete log). Polynomial algorithm can still be sufficiently slow to be infeasible, e.g. n^100 is slow enough.
Yes, cryptography assumes that decryption is hard to do, but enough ciphers have been broken, so that we should take any unproven assumptions with a good helping of NaCl. Even if something is claimed to be provably secure, you should always check what was proven: resistance to what kind of attack is now guaranteed and under what assumptions. It's quite possible to break a provably secure cipher using a different kind of attack. For example, one-time pad is provably secure, if you never reuse it. If you reuse OTP, then your cipher can be broken (it actually happened). Also, without additional protection you may be able to change encrypted text even without being able to read it.
Please, check the statements that you post as facts.
The languages we know affect what thoughts we can think. While it is very zen to say that words hide meaning, empirical evidence seems to indicate that we cannot conceive of ideas that we do not have language to express..
I conceive of such ideas all the time. I would share them with you, but I do not have language to express them;-).
What is the problem? Protect your WiFi connection with WPA2 and this hack does not work. All around me almost any network is protected and these are regular folks, not some security gurus. Yes, their information may be stolen further down the wire, but this is not new. While I am all for SSL protection, this particular hack can be fought off by individual users. Even more, while HTTPS has to protect each individual site you go to, WPA2 creates a secure wireless tunnel that protects all your communications. Move along, nothing to see here:-).
The idea of Wikileaks (i.e. the ability to anonymously expose government secrets) is valid and needs to survive. Currently Wikileaks is the only working instance of that idea. We cannot kill it simply because it is a bad implementation. In the years to come, there may be others and one of them may work better.
No, it isn't. CRYPTOME is a much older and very respected instance.
Mendeleev, who came up with a periodic table (the story goes that he saw it in his sleep) was not an alchemist. He is a bona fide chemist. Besides periodic table, he has two more claims to fame. He invented vodka and he was able to pour liquids from a pail into a test-tube without losing a single drop.
Apparently, you don't have illegal aliens living in your nearby forests dumping pesticides, trashing the place, poaching and running around with AK's. Well, it exists here in Northern California and we don't like it.
I am confused. Apparently, there is a free giveaway of Kalashnikov's to everybody illegally crossing the border, but where do your illegal aliens get pesticides for dumping?
I use and recommend Adblock Plus, Better Privacy, CustomizeGoogle, Flashblock, NoScript and RequestPolicy. This combination allows for extraordinarily fine grained control over what sort of information is tracked from session to session. Now, if you log into a site using an account controlled by that site then they are going to track some clicks regardless of what addons are used, but if you are logging in with a named account then you probably already knew that.
I also use TACO. Why do we need government action, when all the tools are already here?
This is what you get when even educated men can't make sense of your technology.
Pretty obvious now we need to return to traditional cryptosystems such as rot13 etc.
Arguably not the most secure, but it is efficient. And for military use, where security
requirements are higher, triple-rot13 is an option.
Ask her as much as possible about her friends and family. You may be able to find people who remember her when she was little, or at least before you two met. Also, with time children may want to know more about her side of the family. Find out as much as you can now; later you and your children may be grateful you did it. I wish I asked my father more questions while he was still alive. Record those interviews; things get hazy and then people can't agree on what they heard.
Isn't something like y=x^2 a one-way function? Given the input x you can always arrive at the same y, but given y you cannot always arrive at the same x.
No, it is not. You can compute each of the roots of y in polynomial time. One of the uses of one-way functions is a cryptographic hash. Let's say you have a table of passwords for every user in the system. You don't want to keep passwords in the clear or even encrypted; nobody should have access to your password who is not the owner. Then you can keep hashes of passwords. If you provide correct password, its hash should coincide with the hash in the table. However, for a good hash, nobody should be able to come up with any preimage, i.e. a password that the system will consider legitimate, because it has the same hash as your password. Of course, this is about average case complexity; if I know that your favorite passwords are "slashdot" and "CmdrTaco", I can just try them and see if the system lets me in.
Re:What would the impacts of this be for cryptogra
on
Claimed Proof That P != NP
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Even if P=NP, polynomial solutions requiring time n^99 consume enough time to be practically infeasible. Thus, even P=NP would not harm cryptography much, if it did not provide very efficient solutions for every NP-hard problem. On the other hand, favorite cryptographic hard problems, such as factoring, are not known to be NP-hard and may well turn out to be solvable in polynomial time, even if P!=NP. Therefore, proof that P!=NP won't have any interesting implications for cryptography unless it contains new ideas that can help in other ways. Neither will proof P=NP unless it includes ideas for fast solutions of interesting problems, such as fast factoring or fast discrete logarithm.
Proof of P!=NP may help to solve another interesting problem in cryptography: one-way functions. Right now many results are built on the assumption that such functions exist, but nobody have found a single provable one-way function (easy to compute, infeasible to reverse). A bunch of functions are believed to have this property, but not a single one has been proved difficult to reverse. I would be interested to see if this proof will produce such an animal - a provably one-way function.
To be fair, the LASER was a relatively small modification to the MASER. Both work on the same principle, the LASER just produces a slightly different range of EM. The original paper describing a LASER called it an Optical MASER. The really clever part was inventing the MASER, the LASER was an incremental improvement. The basic premise has been used with a lot of non-microwave, non-visible, EM too. At the time, a MASER that produced optical light was not seen as especially useful, while ones that produce microwaves were (and still are) useful for line-of-sight communication over long distances.
Don't forget Einstein, Fabrikant, Prokhorov and Basov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#History. Every invention has many parents, even if the person who took the last step gets all the credit.
Slashdot Mirror
This is such old news, that RSA changed the algorithm after the original proprietary algorithm had been broken. The demonstration you saw no longer works.
This statement is factually wrong. The Boston Tea Party was not a result of more taxes, it was a result of less taxes.
British tea was taxed. That allowed American contrabandists to sell their contraband tea cheaper. When the tax on British tea was rescinded, it was economically harmful to their American competitors.
Hence, Tea Party.
Google supports innovation by giving one day a week to its employees to work on a project they come up with. A lot of new products were created this way. My favorite: Google News. I am sure Slashdotters can name quite a few of their own favorites. Not all of those projects become full fledged successful products, but this is natural when you try new things.
A mandatory Slashdot car analogy: calling Google non-innovative is like calling a Porsche a horse.
I agree. The significant thing is that in the absence of a patent, the NDA is usually the only real legal recourse the victim has. The United States, for example, has no federal law on trade secret protection, and it would be much more difficult to prove trade secret violations if there was no NDA.
Economic Espionage Act of 1996 says otherwise.
While it was clearly her data that they used, I've never heard any source state that she had already solved the problem of the exact structure of DNA. She probably realized that the crystal indicated a helical structure, but I don't think she knew exactly what it looked like or how it worked. So yeah, she deserved more credit then she received at the time, but I think it's possible to swing too far in the other direction, taking credit away from the guys who worked out much of the annoying details of the problem.
There were other groups that were close to this discovery. Without Rosalind, one of those groups could be the first to figure it out and publish. Then nobody would have remembered Watson and Crick. They owe her their fame as first to the pole and for a long time they claimed she was totally irrelevant to their discovery.
And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)
Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.
No it is not. Two words: Leah and Rachel.
No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.
Not necessarily. If you marry sisters, you may have just one mother-in-law. And if your wives are orphans, you may have zero mothers-in-law. It pays to learn about your fiancees' ancestry before getting married.
According to my Facebook information, I am 97 years old. Luckily, my employer did not check it out when making me an offer.
Yes, cryptography assumes that decryption is hard to do, but enough ciphers have been broken, so that we should take any unproven assumptions with a good helping of NaCl. Even if something is claimed to be provably secure, you should always check what was proven: resistance to what kind of attack is now guaranteed and under what assumptions. It's quite possible to break a provably secure cipher using a different kind of attack. For example, one-time pad is provably secure, if you never reuse it. If you reuse OTP, then your cipher can be broken (it actually happened). Also, without additional protection you may be able to change encrypted text even without being able to read it.
Please, check the statements that you post as facts.
The languages we know affect what thoughts we can think. While it is very zen to say that words hide meaning, empirical evidence seems to indicate that we cannot conceive of ideas that we do not have language to express. .
I conceive of such ideas all the time. I would share them with you, but I do not have language to express them ;-).
What is the problem? Protect your WiFi connection with WPA2 and this hack does not work. All around me almost any network is protected and these are regular folks, not some security gurus. Yes, their information may be stolen further down the wire, but this is not new. While I am all for SSL protection, this particular hack can be fought off by individual users. Even more, while HTTPS has to protect each individual site you go to, WPA2 creates a secure wireless tunnel that protects all your communications. Move along, nothing to see here :-).
The idea of Wikileaks (i.e. the ability to anonymously expose government secrets) is valid and needs to survive. Currently Wikileaks is the only working instance of that idea. We cannot kill it simply because it is a bad implementation. In the years to come, there may be others and one of them may work better.
No, it isn't. CRYPTOME is a much older and very respected instance.
Mendeleev, who came up with a periodic table (the story goes that he saw it in his sleep) was not an alchemist. He is a bona fide chemist. Besides periodic table, he has two more claims to fame. He invented vodka and he was able to pour liquids from a pail into a test-tube without losing a single drop.
Apparently, you don't have illegal aliens living in your nearby forests dumping pesticides, trashing the place, poaching and running around with AK's. Well, it exists here in Northern California and we don't like it.
I am confused. Apparently, there is a free giveaway of Kalashnikov's to everybody illegally crossing the border, but where do your illegal aliens get pesticides for dumping?
I use and recommend Adblock Plus, Better Privacy, CustomizeGoogle, Flashblock, NoScript and RequestPolicy. This combination allows for extraordinarily fine grained control over what sort of information is tracked from session to session. Now, if you log into a site using an account controlled by that site then they are going to track some clicks regardless of what addons are used, but if you are logging in with a named account then you probably already knew that.
I also use TACO. Why do we need government action, when all the tools are already here?
This is what you get when even educated men can't make sense of your technology.
Pretty obvious now we need to return to traditional cryptosystems such as rot13 etc. Arguably not the most secure, but it is efficient. And for military use, where security requirements are higher, triple-rot13 is an option.
No, quadruple ROT-13 is the best.
Ask her as much as possible about her friends and family. You may be able to find people who remember her when she was little, or at least before you two met. Also, with time children may want to know more about her side of the family. Find out as much as you can now; later you and your children may be grateful you did it. I wish I asked my father more questions while he was still alive. Record those interviews; things get hazy and then people can't agree on what they heard.
Isn't something like y=x^2 a one-way function? Given the input x you can always arrive at the same y, but given y you cannot always arrive at the same x.
No, it is not. You can compute each of the roots of y in polynomial time. One of the uses of one-way functions is a cryptographic hash. Let's say you have a table of passwords for every user in the system. You don't want to keep passwords in the clear or even encrypted; nobody should have access to your password who is not the owner. Then you can keep hashes of passwords. If you provide correct password, its hash should coincide with the hash in the table. However, for a good hash, nobody should be able to come up with any preimage, i.e. a password that the system will consider legitimate, because it has the same hash as your password. Of course, this is about average case complexity; if I know that your favorite passwords are "slashdot" and "CmdrTaco", I can just try them and see if the system lets me in.
Even if P=NP, polynomial solutions requiring time n^99 consume enough time to be practically infeasible. Thus, even P=NP would not harm cryptography much, if it did not provide very efficient solutions for every NP-hard problem. On the other hand, favorite cryptographic hard problems, such as factoring, are not known to be NP-hard and may well turn out to be solvable in polynomial time, even if P!=NP. Therefore, proof that P!=NP won't have any interesting implications for cryptography unless it contains new ideas that can help in other ways. Neither will proof P=NP unless it includes ideas for fast solutions of interesting problems, such as fast factoring or fast discrete logarithm. Proof of P!=NP may help to solve another interesting problem in cryptography: one-way functions. Right now many results are built on the assumption that such functions exist, but nobody have found a single provable one-way function (easy to compute, infeasible to reverse). A bunch of functions are believed to have this property, but not a single one has been proved difficult to reverse. I would be interested to see if this proof will produce such an animal - a provably one-way function.
Why was this voted Insightful? It should be troll or off-topic.
To be fair, the LASER was a relatively small modification to the MASER. Both work on the same principle, the LASER just produces a slightly different range of EM. The original paper describing a LASER called it an Optical MASER. The really clever part was inventing the MASER, the LASER was an incremental improvement. The basic premise has been used with a lot of non-microwave, non-visible, EM too. At the time, a MASER that produced optical light was not seen as especially useful, while ones that produce microwaves were (and still are) useful for line-of-sight communication over long distances.
Don't forget Einstein, Fabrikant, Prokhorov and Basov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#History. Every invention has many parents, even if the person who took the last step gets all the credit.