It doesn't have white noise, but a program has enough places where you can replace code by a functional equivalent that you can pass messages in modified executables: http://www.crazyboy.com/hydan/.
This may have been pure coincidence, with two teams of engineers finding the same solution to the same problem, but the design of the Prius virtua "transmission" is similar to that of the 1911 Woods Dual Power Couple, an early hybrid.
Backbone fiber uses wavelength division multiplexing, which means that more than one color of light carries data over the fiber. So it's common to talk about lighting up a wavelength ("lighting a lambda"), and in general to use "wavelength" to mean one of the several carrier frequencies on the fiber.
So a "100 Gbps wavelength" means a single laser-receiver pair modulated to carry 100 Gbps.
Demo of bonding 10 wavelengths together, each carrying 10 Gbps: http://gigaom.com/2006/11/14/100gbe/ The comments after that post include one about NTT testing 111 Gbps over a single wavelength for 160 km. That's more like the article, which sounds like it's describing a single wavelength.
>It appears to me that those who said that the SUN was causing global warming due to increased sunspot activity, that has recently subsided, were correct.
Copyright infringement is more like trespass than like theft.
In trespass, you're violating the property owner's legally conferred right to control use of his/her property.
Trespass law balances social good against property rights. For example, in the UK (if I understand right) you can't stop hikers from crossing your meadow. The analogy to hiking would be the activities that constitute fair use.
Trespass, like copyright violation, can be commercial or non-commercial. Commercial copyright infringement is like subletting your apartment without ever leasing it in the first place.
Where the analogy breaks down is that even just walking across someone's land is more intrusive than sharing a file. Another breakdown is that there's no common meatspace equivalent to inviting thousands of people to bypass a toll booth.
True, Skype has never released the kind of documentation that would give a cryptographer or security professional any confidence. But some things have been made public by reverse engineers: www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf
Re:Who will advocate change?
on
Geekonomics
·
· Score: 1
>But realistically, what industry will lobby their respective governments for this change?
An industry full of big incumbents who can afford the overhead of a regulatory compliance department, an industry afraid of small fast-moving competitors, competitors who could be mired in tar and crushed by the burden of regulation.
>I haven't heard a hurray for punchcards post recently.
Newer technologies just don't give programs the same nuanced performance and octagonal algorithms as punched cards. The clean edges of a punched bit totally rule over the bits on magnetic media that require a dedicated computer just to recover them from the noise. All that extra work to reconstruct a bit makes them tired, and fatiguing to debug.
Face it: programs run off hard disks just have grainy memory usage and an indistinct sound stage.
But punched cards are a distraction from the real issue, which is that only a vacuum tube computer can do justice to the best algorithms.
Polity and Custom of the Camiroi, by R. A. Lafferty. Laws were wikis, bad ones got reverted quickly, and one visitor who entered a law restricting the system to qualified people got reverted immediately. The visitor was informed that yes, the law could be re-entered, but that the guy who reverted it was "very good with the ritual sword".
Assuming you've taken logical precautions about the content of your searches, for example not ego-surfing in the middle of the searches you wanted to keep private.
I went to a security get-together with Dan Kaminsky, Damon Cortesi, and Jason Larsen, and during the panel discussion asked what they were doing to protect their own systems. I forget which one said it, but one of the replies was that the person reformatted often.
Which strikes me as the counsel of despair, but in a world of stealthy malware where you can get infected by simply viewing a video, I can't bring myself to say it's absurd.
These advantages are shared by computer-generated modulation schemes such as PSK31, which theoretically fits into 31 Hz (though in practice many signals are distorted and splatter over more spectrum than that) and which can be decoded when it's too faint to be heard through the noise.
The Supreme Court agrees. Some cases where they've blocked legal interference with anonymous speech are McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) and Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
>It's a discrete network. Bandwidth sharing isn't possible.
My understanding had been that the OLT, after measuring and equalizing delays to/from the ONTs via PLOAM, issues a "grant" to each ONT of a time interval to transmit, the system being TDMA on both the upstream and downstream link, though upstream is separated from downstream via WDMA, with downstream at 1490 nm and upstream at 1301 nm.
Is my understanding incorrect, and if so in what way? Because if that's correct, then the grant map is allocating bandwidth among the ONTs.
Are you saying that DBA (Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation) simply isn't being used because Verizon hasn't oversubscribed FIOS yet, or are you saying that it's impossible?
Incidentally, "discrete network" is not a well-known term and deserves a definition.
As the old saying goes, if you count on crypto to solve all your problems you don't understand crypto and you don't understand your problems.
The point that your data can and will be attacked while it's in plaintext is well taken. A networked machine running a web browser (the Sendmail of the 21st century) is a low security device, even with a good operating system. Google for "Scarfo", the mobster who was using PGP but also had an FBI keylogger on his computer.
As regards AES, though, we've got good reason to think it's resistant to cryptanalysis. The NSA is also in charge of protecting government secrets from foreign snoops and has approved AES for protecting classified data.
The low security of a workstation cuts both ways in an argument about gDrive: because your data is already at risk sitting on your hard drive, storing it encrypted on gDrive might not be any worse.
Security without threat modeling is like bricks without straw. What are we protecting data against? Loss, primarily. I trust Google's backups more than I trust mine (but I'd tell a client to look for a provider willing to sign an SLA). Unauthorized copying by crackers? AES should be an adequate control to cover that risk. Subpoenas? An attorney with two brain cells to rub together will subpoena the decryption keys, so no help from AES there. Vacuum-cleaner style mass government surveillance, looking for keywords like "Tibet" or "Falun Gong"? AES should prevent that. Government criminal investigation? You could (in the US) argue that surrendering the keys would be self-incrimination and end up paying a lawyer lots of money to argue the point for years. Expensive and undependable security, but then in a criminal investigation there's not much security difference between gDrive and your local machine anyway.
If you have security needs you should do an analysis like that last paragraph, only longer. For lots of people encrypted files on gDrive might be just fine.
The scientists made their decisions on objective data but weren't convinced by anecdotal evidence. In other words science worked just as it's supposed to work.
Wikipedia should be output, not input, for students past a certain age. It gets them used to writing for real people as opposed to just for getting graded, it gives them the experience of having their writing edited by people of varying abilities, and it gives them motivation for doing research. Another, easier, option would be to assign students to correct Wikipedia articles.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't have white noise, but a program has enough places where you can replace code by a functional equivalent that you can pass messages in modified executables: http://www.crazyboy.com/hydan/.
This may have been pure coincidence, with two teams of engineers finding the same solution to the same problem, but the design of the Prius virtua "transmission" is similar to that of the 1911 Woods Dual Power Couple, an early hybrid.
Though the article is ambiguous. When it says "100 Gbps wavelengths" it could mean multiple wavelengths each carrying part of the data stream.
Backbone fiber uses wavelength division multiplexing, which means that more than one color of light carries data over the fiber. So it's common to talk about lighting up a wavelength ("lighting a lambda"), and in general to use "wavelength" to mean one of the several carrier frequencies on the fiber.
So a "100 Gbps wavelength" means a single laser-receiver pair modulated to carry 100 Gbps.
Demo of bonding 10 wavelengths together, each carrying 10 Gbps:
http://gigaom.com/2006/11/14/100gbe/
The comments after that post include one about NTT testing 111 Gbps over a single wavelength for 160 km. That's more like the article, which sounds like it's describing a single wavelength.
>It appears to me that those who said that the SUN was causing global warming due to increased sunspot activity, that has recently subsided, were correct.
Judge for yourself: the last almost-30 years of direct satellite measurement of solar output. Besides, increased solar output wouldn't make nights warm up faster than days.
Copyright infringement is more like trespass than like theft.
In trespass, you're violating the property owner's legally conferred right to control use of his/her property.
Trespass law balances social good against property rights. For example, in the UK (if I understand right) you can't stop hikers from crossing your meadow. The analogy to hiking would be the activities that constitute fair use.
Trespass, like copyright violation, can be commercial or non-commercial. Commercial copyright infringement is like subletting your apartment without ever leasing it in the first place.
Where the analogy breaks down is that even just walking across someone's land is more intrusive than sharing a file. Another breakdown is that there's no common meatspace equivalent to inviting thousands of people to bypass a toll booth.
>Visiting only sites you trust will keep you away from people who want to compromise your computer 99.99999999% of the time
Assuming that the sites you trust haven't been compromised, this still leaves out the serious problem of attack code inserted into advertising.
For people who want background or just enjoy math, Brands's book is Rethinking Public Key Infrastructure.
True, Skype has never released the kind of documentation that would give a cryptographer or security professional any confidence. But some things have been made public by reverse engineers: www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf
>But realistically, what industry will lobby their respective governments for this change?
An industry full of big incumbents who can afford the overhead of a regulatory compliance department, an industry afraid of small fast-moving competitors, competitors who could be mired in tar and crushed by the burden of regulation.
>I haven't heard a hurray for punchcards post recently.
Newer technologies just don't give programs the same nuanced performance and octagonal algorithms as punched cards. The clean edges of a punched bit totally rule over the bits on magnetic media that require a dedicated computer just to recover them from the noise. All that extra work to reconstruct a bit makes them tired, and fatiguing to debug.
Face it: programs run off hard disks just have grainy memory usage and an indistinct sound stage.
But punched cards are a distraction from the real issue, which is that only a vacuum tube computer can do justice to the best algorithms.
Any building in Redmond. Microsoft puts programmers in offices so they have a chance at concentrating.
Polity and Custom of the Camiroi, by R. A. Lafferty. Laws were wikis, bad ones got reverted quickly, and one visitor who entered a law restricting the system to qualified people got reverted immediately. The visitor was informed that yes, the law could be re-entered, but that the guy who reverted it was "very good with the ritual sword".
What about the Google cookie?
Assuming you've taken logical precautions about the content of your searches, for example not ego-surfing in the middle of the searches you wanted to keep private.
I went to a security get-together with Dan Kaminsky, Damon Cortesi, and Jason Larsen, and during the panel discussion asked what they were doing to protect their own systems. I forget which one said it, but one of the replies was that the person reformatted often.
Which strikes me as the counsel of despair, but in a world of stealthy malware where you can get infected by simply viewing a video, I can't bring myself to say it's absurd.
These advantages are shared by computer-generated modulation schemes such as PSK31, which theoretically fits into 31 Hz (though in practice many signals are distorted and splatter over more spectrum than that) and which can be decoded when it's too faint to be heard through the noise.
Same point as Bruce, but put in terms of a threat analysis translated into everyday terms:
Why you should write down your password
The Supreme Court agrees. Some cases where they've blocked legal interference with anonymous speech are McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) and Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
>It's a discrete network. Bandwidth sharing isn't possible.
My understanding had been that the OLT, after measuring and equalizing delays to/from the ONTs via PLOAM, issues a "grant" to each ONT of a time interval to transmit, the system being TDMA on both the upstream and downstream link, though upstream is separated from downstream via WDMA, with downstream at 1490 nm and upstream at 1301 nm.
Is my understanding incorrect, and if so in what way? Because if that's correct, then the grant map is allocating bandwidth among the ONTs.
Are you saying that DBA (Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation) simply isn't being used because Verizon hasn't oversubscribed FIOS yet, or are you saying that it's impossible?
Incidentally, "discrete network" is not a well-known term and deserves a definition.
>All it will do is hassle assorted people, many of them innocent, and do nothing to prevent terrorism.
"...they were detained, questioned and denied entry...The women were questioned at Canadian customs about their participation in anti-war efforts and informed that they had an FBI file indicating they had been arrested in acts of non-violent civil disobedience."
As the old saying goes, if you count on crypto to solve all your problems you don't understand crypto and you don't understand your problems.
The point that your data can and will be attacked while it's in plaintext is well taken. A networked machine running a web browser (the Sendmail of the 21st century) is a low security device, even with a good operating system. Google for "Scarfo", the mobster who was using PGP but also had an FBI keylogger on his computer.
As regards AES, though, we've got good reason to think it's resistant to cryptanalysis. The NSA is also in charge of protecting government secrets from foreign snoops and has approved AES for protecting classified data.
The low security of a workstation cuts both ways in an argument about gDrive: because your data is already at risk sitting on your hard drive, storing it encrypted on gDrive might not be any worse.
Security without threat modeling is like bricks without straw. What are we protecting data against? Loss, primarily. I trust Google's backups more than I trust mine (but I'd tell a client to look for a provider willing to sign an SLA). Unauthorized copying by crackers? AES should be an adequate control to cover that risk. Subpoenas? An attorney with two brain cells to rub together will subpoena the decryption keys, so no help from AES there. Vacuum-cleaner style mass government surveillance, looking for keywords like "Tibet" or "Falun Gong"? AES should prevent that. Government criminal investigation? You could (in the US) argue that surrendering the keys would be self-incrimination and end up paying a lawyer lots of money to argue the point for years. Expensive and undependable security, but then in a criminal investigation there's not much security difference between gDrive and your local machine anyway.
If you have security needs you should do an analysis like that last paragraph, only longer. For lots of people encrypted files on gDrive might be just fine.
The scientists made their decisions on objective data but weren't convinced by anecdotal evidence. In other words science worked just as it's supposed to work.
>Here, the FCC has said that if there is no attempt to lock it down, it's free game.
I hadn't heard about this: do you have a reference I can point to if anyone asks?
Wikipedia should be output, not input, for students past a certain age. It gets them used to writing for real people as opposed to just for getting graded, it gives them the experience of having their writing edited by people of varying abilities, and it gives them motivation for doing research. Another, easier, option would be to assign students to correct Wikipedia articles.