I can raise these questions with my cryptology mates, they are certainly good points with no immediately obvious answers.
There might be a N spot (or N+1) version for N people. There's nothing inherently binary about the protocols Chaum's espousing, they simply need to be a group (perhaps abelian), from what I can tell. However, expanding 1 from N to any-number-up-to-N from N probably would require new maths, but I am fairly sure there's some analogue possible somehow. I've not delved into the tricky mathematical parts of the primitives yet - I shall bear your questions in mind as I continue to plough through it.
However, finding 'Z-4-triangle' amongst 136 spots in order to select one whom you approve might still be considered too tricky.
Your version of assault is rather different from the one we have here. Here's a famous piece of case history which all A-level law students (and their boyfriends, which is how I know) in the UK will be familiar with:
Car runs over, and mother hears crunching of, baby buggy, which did not contain sprog.
Mother assumes the worst, that her sprog was therein, and panics.
End result of that, and just that: Car driver convicted of assault of the mother.
As you can see, no contact direct or indirect was made between driver and mother.
Perhaps some Brits whose girlfriends less than 18 years ago were studying law might be able to provide more details. My memory ain't that good (and heck, they weren't even my A-levels).
I think The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, better known as the Declaration of Independence, is often confused for something constitutional. In the same way that Benjemin Franklin (one of the signers of the DoI) is confused for being a U.S. president. Those 'great things from the past' blur into an indistringuishable mass.
I was unaware of the use of the similar and related phrases, and also of this Samuel Johnson originating that final phrase, Johnson not being one of the DoI signatories.
Being an Englishman, the only Samuel Johnson I am familiar with is the lexicographer who said "I am willing to love all mankind except an American", and who famously refuted (thus - kick!) the philosophy of Berkeley; but not your Connecticutian namesame who was a staunch proponent of Berkeley.
What a marvelous opportunity for extreme confusion!
Yup, I agree that this scheme requires incomparably more effort to tally compared to the good old paper methods. However, there are millions of transistors just dying to help us out a billion times a second with the intricacies of these new cryptographically secure methods -- you just have to trust the reviewers (and that includes you and me, everything's in the open for everyone to review) of the papers that propose these schemes (and which prove them to have all known possible frauds detectable at some stage in the process).
I've done my bit in the review process, and found inconsistencies in one of the explanatory papers on the punchscan site. I've let (the world and) two friendly cryptographers know about this (Wagner and Lipmaa), and perhaps we'll find out what Chaum intended rather than what the two non-Chaums behind the paper actually wrote. See news:sci.crypt , subject line ``Chaum's punchscan'' yesterday. Wagner mentions 'Pret-a-voter' which is a simpler scheme than this, you might find that interesting too.
It would. Approval voting for up to X candidates is basically X independent binary votes, every one of which is private according to punchscan's scheme. Their sum is just as secret. Where do you think their sum would leak?
Do you remember how much *content* there was in that site? No, I don't mean wibbly-wobbly fading of shite on and off the screen anytime you twitched, I mean real hard content. Bits, to use the Harley measurement.
It would all fit in 3 screensful of plain text. You'd not need to click to see it all, you'll roll your scrollwheel, or hit page down a couple of times.
The site was 'easy' but painful to navigate. I crapped out on the feedback page, as there was apparently no way of activating the text entry field. I hovered, I swiped, I circled around, I pressed TAB, I did everything apart from click, and I remained unable to enter my name. Nothing happened. So I clicked - and it told me off with those flashing grey squares. Click? Click? I wanted to punch it in the fucking face, not just click. Oh, can you guess that my feedback would not have been positive?
WTF? I've known the word since I was a kid. It's a perfectly common word in English. Most of the rest of the words used in competitive scrabble are just plain bullshit. I believe that when challenged, a player should have to provide a definition, _and_ it should be present in a universally accepted dictionary (e.g. Oxford Shorter, not words marked archaic etc.) . Then it would be a challenge of English language, as in the language used to communicate, vocabulary rather than of just wanky lists of clique-assembled non-words, or historical misspellings.
The only point of the cream is to help you stay wet. The more soaked the hairs are, the more easily they yield to the blade. So put the cream on (a wet face), and leave it for as long as you can - don't worry about the wetness making the cream runnier - that's good. Slimy spray cream is not as good as good old fashioned lather-it-yourself cream.
Others have already pointed out the ultimate solution - do it in the shower - totally sodden.
Actually, the _ultimate_ is to do it after about an hour of saunas, showers and swims. However, if the sauna's a good one, then you won't be bothered to shave afterwards!
Who is this Clifford who feels that he can be so positive about the worth of Penny Smith's now-retracted-as-it-was-fatally-flawed paper?
If he has credentials, he's keeping them hidden, and until he does demonstrate he has the skills necessary to evaluate the paper he has zero credibility. He represents everything which is bad about blogging - people who know nothing spouting bullshit about matters they are unqualified in.
I hate to say I told you so, scratch that - I love saying I told you so.
All the customers I am aware of define their master as a file system image, not simply a set of files to be added to some untrusted file system image. We'd laugh in the face of any customer who wanted to do anything else.
Regarding you last paragraph, the last one I actually witnessed first hand was MS shipping a virus with their MSDN CDs back in the late 90s, but I'm sure there have been others since. I've only taken deliverables from more reliable suppliers in the last half decade or so.
Which reminds me of this:
"I heard if you play the NT-4.0 CD backwards, you get a satanic message" "That's nothing - If you play it forwards, it installs NT-4.0"
""" the only ones that have any legal requirement for low defect rates are 'life-saving equipment', AFAIK. """
Automotive. Not just that, but automotive qualification requires the electronics to work between -40C and 105C - both extremes are very hard to achieve.
""" What do you base this assertion on? How do you know how 'sloppy' the Apple procedure is? """
Because I work in the semiconductor industry, and part of my role is to firefight production-related issues in particular regarding the manufacture of handheld devices that contain our technology. Ensuring that all devices ship with a version controlled, quality controlled, file system image is part of that process.
What Apple did was have a procedure where they were not in complete control of every bit that is shipped in the device. That's sloppy. So I called it sloppy. That anyone would question me calling it so is frankly bizarre.
You appear to think that every hard disk isn't already being hooked up and tested. I conclude that either - 1) you actually know nothing about the modern electronics production environment, or 2) Apple's procedure is even sloppier than it first appears
about 2/3rds of the people I know and hang around with are musicians (just back from a gig by one of them, in fact), and yet music sharing almost never bubbles up above the horizon, even if music is the prime topic of conversation.
That's not how manufacturing works at all in the real world. Most initialisation of such devices is done using Windows machines.
However, they shouldn't be writing files to a filesystem to initialise the devices, they should be writing a version-controlled quality-controlled filesystem itself. And there's no point blaming the Chinese contractor, I'm sure they were just following the Apple procedure, sloppy as it is.
WRONG! It's not a name chosen for any reason as no name has been chosen yet.
It's a _joke_. It's being thrown around parodically for purely rhetorical reasons. I guess that there are a lot of people who don't understand irony who are entirely oblivious to this, but really folks - it's not that hard to detect a joke.
I dunno, but given that we were looking at 50-60Mb/s VDSL over ordinary alarm wire in our labs back in 1997, for this specific purpose, it really is not that unreasonable to think that it might actually reach the streets eventually. It's good technology, it just needs a market that needs it.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, they're not just /weighing/ them - they're _summing_ and _averaging_ them.
This is mindblowing stuff. Shotgun stylee.
FatPhil
The Visigoths were merely a fading memory in Shakespeare's time.
I'll accept 'Grammar Mongol' or even closer, 'Grammar Ottoman' though.
FatPhil
Funny, the full OED lists /New Statesman/, a US publication if you didn't know, as the first citation for the use of 'sprog' back in 1941.
So who's irregular now?
And verily may thy chickens grow lips, pox-ridden scoundrel!
I can raise these questions with my cryptology mates, they are certainly good points with no immediately obvious answers.
There might be a N spot (or N+1) version for N people. There's nothing inherently binary about the protocols Chaum's espousing, they simply need to be a group (perhaps abelian), from what I can tell. However, expanding 1 from N to any-number-up-to-N from N probably would require new maths, but I am fairly sure there's some analogue possible somehow. I've not delved into the tricky mathematical parts of the primitives yet - I shall bear your questions in mind as I continue to plough through it.
However, finding 'Z-4-triangle' amongst 136 spots in order to select one whom you approve might still be considered too tricky.
Shakespeare would have used "thou dost" not "you doth", methinks.
Your version of assault is rather different from the one we have here. Here's a famous piece of case history which all A-level law students (and their boyfriends, which is how I know) in the UK will be familiar with:
Car runs over, and mother hears crunching of, baby buggy, which did not contain sprog.
Mother assumes the worst, that her sprog was therein, and panics.
End result of that, and just that: Car driver convicted of assault of the mother.
As you can see, no contact direct or indirect was made between driver and mother.
Perhaps some Brits whose girlfriends less than 18 years ago were studying law might be able to provide more details. My memory ain't that good (and heck, they weren't even my A-levels).
FatPhil
I think The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, better known as the Declaration of Independence, is often confused for something constitutional. In the same way that Benjemin Franklin (one of the signers of the DoI) is confused for being a U.S. president. Those 'great things from the past' blur into an indistringuishable mass.
I was unaware of the use of the similar and related phrases, and also of this Samuel Johnson originating that final phrase, Johnson not being one of the DoI signatories.
Being an Englishman, the only Samuel Johnson I am familiar with is the lexicographer who said "I am willing to love all mankind except an American", and who famously refuted (thus - kick!) the philosophy of Berkeley; but not your Connecticutian namesame who was a staunch proponent of Berkeley.
What a marvelous opportunity for extreme confusion!
FatPhil
Yup, I agree that this scheme requires incomparably more effort to tally compared to the good old paper methods. However, there are millions of transistors just dying to help us out a billion times a second with the intricacies of these new cryptographically secure methods -- you just have to trust the reviewers (and that includes you and me, everything's in the open for everyone to review) of the papers that propose these schemes (and which prove them to have all known possible frauds detectable at some stage in the process).
I've done my bit in the review process, and found inconsistencies in one of the explanatory papers on the punchscan site. I've let (the world and) two friendly cryptographers know about this (Wagner and Lipmaa), and perhaps we'll find out what Chaum intended rather than what the two non-Chaums behind the paper actually wrote. See news:sci.crypt , subject line ``Chaum's punchscan'' yesterday. Wagner mentions 'Pret-a-voter' which is a simpler scheme than this, you might find that interesting too.
FatPhil
It would. Approval voting for up to X candidates is basically X independent binary votes, every one of which is private according to punchscan's scheme. Their sum is just as secret. Where do you think their sum would leak?
The website clearly demonstrates that the situation you describe has been protected against. Please desist from posting unsubstantiated nonsense.
FatPhil
I just rated that About.com article at 5/5.
Was that a helpful thing to do in this situation?
( ) 1. No ( ) 2. Not very ( ) 3. Maybe ( ) 4. Yes ( ) 5. Very
FatPhil
Do you remember how much *content* there was in that site?
No, I don't mean wibbly-wobbly fading of shite on and off the screen anytime you twitched, I mean real hard content. Bits, to use the Harley measurement.
It would all fit in 3 screensful of plain text. You'd not need to click to see it all, you'll roll your scrollwheel, or hit page down a couple of times.
The site was 'easy' but painful to navigate. I crapped out on the feedback page, as there was apparently no way of activating the text entry field. I hovered, I swiped, I circled around, I pressed TAB, I did everything apart from click, and I remained unable to enter my name. Nothing happened. So I clicked - and it told me off with those flashing grey squares. Click? Click? I wanted to punch it in the fucking face, not just click. Oh, can you guess that my feedback would not have been positive?
FatPhil
"... isn't a common word."
WTF? I've known the word since I was a kid. It's a perfectly common word in English.
Most of the rest of the words used in competitive scrabble are just plain bullshit. I believe that when challenged, a player should have to provide a definition, _and_ it should be present in a universally accepted dictionary (e.g. Oxford Shorter, not words marked archaic etc.) . Then it would be a challenge of English language, as in the language used to communicate, vocabulary rather than of just wanky lists of clique-assembled non-words, or historical misspellings.
FatPhil
I'dn't've used a double contraction myself.
FatPhil
The only point of the cream is to help you stay wet. The more soaked the hairs are, the more easily they yield to the blade. So put the cream on (a wet face), and leave it for as long as you can - don't worry about the wetness making the cream runnier - that's good. Slimy spray cream is not as good as good old fashioned lather-it-yourself cream.
Others have already pointed out the ultimate solution - do it in the shower - totally sodden.
Actually, the _ultimate_ is to do it after about an hour of saunas, showers and swims. However, if the sauna's a good one, then you won't be bothered to shave afterwards!
FatPhil
Who is this Clifford who feels that he can be so positive about the worth of Penny Smith's now-retracted-as-it-was-fatally-flawed paper?
If he has credentials, he's keeping them hidden, and until he does demonstrate he has the skills necessary to evaluate the paper he has zero credibility. He represents everything which is bad about blogging - people who know nothing spouting bullshit about matters they are unqualified in.
I hate to say I told you so, scratch that - I love saying I told you so.
All the customers I am aware of define their master as a file system image, not simply a set of files to be added to some untrusted file system image. We'd laugh in the face of any customer who wanted to do anything else.
Regarding you last paragraph, the last one I actually witnessed first hand was MS shipping a virus with their MSDN CDs back in the late 90s, but I'm sure there have been others since. I've only taken deliverables from more reliable suppliers in the last half decade or so.
Which reminds me of this:
"I heard if you play the NT-4.0 CD backwards, you get a satanic message"
"That's nothing - If you play it forwards, it installs NT-4.0"
FatPhil
"""
the only ones that have any legal requirement for low defect rates are 'life-saving equipment', AFAIK.
"""
Automotive. Not just that, but automotive qualification requires
the electronics to work between -40C and 105C - both extremes
are very hard to achieve.
FatPhil
"""
What do you base this assertion on? How do you know how 'sloppy' the Apple procedure is?
"""
Because I work in the semiconductor industry, and part of my role is to firefight production-related issues in particular regarding the manufacture of handheld devices that contain our technology. Ensuring that all devices ship with a version controlled, quality controlled, file system image is part of that process.
What Apple did was have a procedure where they were not in complete control of every bit that is shipped in the device. That's sloppy. So I called it sloppy. That anyone would question me calling it so is frankly bizarre.
You appear to think that every hard disk isn't already being hooked up and tested. I conclude that either -
1) you actually know nothing about the modern electronics production environment, or
2) Apple's procedure is even sloppier than it first appears
FatPhil
But music is different from music trading.
about 2/3rds of the people I know and hang around with are musicians (just back from a gig by one of them, in fact), and yet music sharing almost never bubbles up above the horizon, even if music is the prime topic of conversation.
FatPhil
"Doesn't every victim of a virus "help spread it"?"
Nope, only those that spread it. Apple are spreading it - that *does* make them part of the problem.
FatPhil
That's not how manufacturing works at all in the real world. Most initialisation of such devices is done using Windows machines.
However, they shouldn't be writing files to a filesystem to initialise the devices, they should be writing a version-controlled quality-controlled filesystem itself. And there's no point blaming the Chinese contractor, I'm sure they were just following the Apple procedure, sloppy as it is.
WRONG! It's not a name chosen for any reason as no name has been chosen yet.
It's a _joke_. It's being thrown around parodically for purely rhetorical reasons.
I guess that there are a lot of people who don't understand irony who are entirely oblivious to this, but really folks - it's not that hard to detect a joke.
FatPhil
I dunno, but given that we were looking at 50-60Mb/s VDSL over ordinary alarm wire in our labs back in 1997, for this specific purpose, it really is not that unreasonable to think that it might actually reach the streets eventually. It's good technology, it just needs a market that needs it.
FatPhil