The only thing interesting seems to be that they printed the circuit, thus making it suitable for use on flexible electronics. Hard to imagine an application where you would need a good RNG on a flexible circuit, but maybe one exists.
As it happens generating random numbers that pass the NIST tests isn't particularly difficult. Here's some code I wrote that passes all their tests, as well as Diehard and a few others I found: https://github.com/kuro68k/xrn...
An important stat that is missing is how available and cheap high speed connections are. There are a lot of users on legacy ADSL tech, but it's important that they have access to gigabit speeds if they need them.
Japan is a lot like that. My fiancee got a new connection put in, cheapest one possible. It's a 2GB fibre connection, but because she only wanted the basic service the modem they gave her only has a single gigabit ethernet port on it. And she lives in a fairly rural area. So while the average is supposedly 15Mb, the reality is that if someone wants Netflix 4k streams or has children and needs more bandwidth, it's likely available to them.
Yes, but companies have realized that there is demand for healthy food and started producing fake healthy food. These days it's rare for a cereal box not to claim it's a healthy option, even if it's sugar coated crap. The manufacturers use all the usual tricks, like saying it's "low in fat" while omitting to mention that it's still high calorie or that it's only "low" relative to a stick of lard.
Some countries have tried to deal with this by requiring colour coding based on government defined limits, but the manufacturers are always looking for ways around it. For example, unrealistically small portions or putting "serves 2" on a product you know one person will have for themselves.
Obviously if someone has the time and inclination to study all this stuff, become an amateur nutritionist and evaluate every product carefully they can still eat healthily. But realistically people are not going to be able to do that, and while they could stick to just vegetables and raw meat and cooking themselves, again it's a question of time and inclination. When we also want them to work two jobs to be able to afford the rent, buying and cooking food is probably low on the list of things they have time for.
Heck, a recent poll showed only 25% of America trusted our president but 33% approved of him.
Not surprising for a post-truth politician. The whole point of post-truth politics is that you can't trust any of them, they all lie about everything all the time. The media also lies, experts lie, everything is a lie except for what you personally believe is true.
So stop worrying about the Trump's lies, and just look at what he does. Lying is not a bad thing any more, it's just normal.
I've long been interested in fighting back by poisoning these commercial databases with fake profiles and misinformation, but it's hard to know what is effective because it's all trade secrets.
If a company you target goes bust, it's very hard to know if it was because their database became worthless due to pollution or if they were just incompetent or had a worthless product.
Yes, like all laws you can get away with breaking them if your crime is not detected.
And no, the government has given itself specific exemptions, e.g. for the police and security services, so the law doesn't apply to it when investigating you.
Laws like this are usually designed so that people can whistleblow or interested parties (like journalists) who discover evidence of de-anonymization can present evidence to the police, who can investigate. It's similar to other data protection laws, which generally don't involve inspections but where infractions are still regularly detected and punished.
In this case they are targeting companies that abuse anonymized data for profit, which can be quite difficult to hide. If they buy some data and then start advertising to some of the supposedly anonymous members of that data set, well it looks pretty suspicious.
Fox reminds me of countries with the word "democratic" in the name, like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you have to repeatedly remind people that you are "fair and balanced", you probably aren't...
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it.
It depends how divergent... If you boss thinks that people of your race should be property, it's kind of difficult for them to continue managing you.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but clearly some opinions make doing certain jobs untenable. That's just a fact, there isn't much anyone can do to stop people being managed or reviewed by this person from complaining about unfair treatment now because they have this document.
This isn't about privacy really, it's to help facilitate business. The government sees big data as a growth area, but there are legal problems with sharing the data. By making de-anonymization illegal they can give their usual "don't worry, safeguards are in place" message and then let the orgy of personal data mining commence.
There have been several stories about Facebook cracking down on fake news, labelling links to sites like Brietbart as "disputed" or just outright fake.
In any case, I share you sentiment: fuck Facebook.
I think the site admins have been trying to deal with the trolls moderating certain users they don't down systematically. It's breaking the site and turning it into an echo chamber.
Because people think it means they personally are sexists, or that increased competition might hurt their prospects, or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.
I'd take open plan over small offices/cubicles with no windows or fresh air. The noise reducing material they make cubicles out of gets very dusty too, bad for allergies.
From a moral point of view, is there really much difference between saying "wear skirts long enough to prevent up-skirt photography" and "cover every part of your body"?
In both cases it seems overly restrictive, insulting to men and like victim blaming.
This story of thing is usually discouraged by punishing people who take such photos, and people who publish them. Banning the material also removes much of the incentive to do it because monetising it becomes much harder.
As you say, it's not perfect and won't completely stop it, but it would definitely improve privacy for most people.
How is saying "women are on average me neurotic" not perpetuating negative stereotypes? It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.
This is actually kind of annoying as, for example, I don't really want this post appearing above the default threshold and attracting the trolls who systematically mod me down when they see me.
I'll use the feedback link, see if I can get it fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Not really... This is just the latest problem. Paparrazi taking photos of celebrities on their private property through a zoom lens has been happening since zoom lenses were invented. It's getting worse with the availability of cheap drones.
We need to decide if we want private spaces and if privacy is to be enforced by high walls and anti-aircraft guns, or some other means.
Same old bullshit... There just isn't enough RF energy to run a phone. Even staying connected to the cellular network (so it knows when calls are incoming) required more power than can be harvested from RF in the space available in a typical phone.
I've played with this idea. Ran a small LCD clock off a TV antenna. Only worked next to the window. Unless they crank the wifi up to levels that will fry your organs, this isn't going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Got a reference other than your own blog?
The only thing interesting seems to be that they printed the circuit, thus making it suitable for use on flexible electronics. Hard to imagine an application where you would need a good RNG on a flexible circuit, but maybe one exists.
As it happens generating random numbers that pass the NIST tests isn't particularly difficult. Here's some code I wrote that passes all their tests, as well as Diehard and a few others I found: https://github.com/kuro68k/xrn...
An important stat that is missing is how available and cheap high speed connections are. There are a lot of users on legacy ADSL tech, but it's important that they have access to gigabit speeds if they need them.
Japan is a lot like that. My fiancee got a new connection put in, cheapest one possible. It's a 2GB fibre connection, but because she only wanted the basic service the modem they gave her only has a single gigabit ethernet port on it. And she lives in a fairly rural area. So while the average is supposedly 15Mb, the reality is that if someone wants Netflix 4k streams or has children and needs more bandwidth, it's likely available to them.
There are lots of healthy foods available
Yes, but companies have realized that there is demand for healthy food and started producing fake healthy food. These days it's rare for a cereal box not to claim it's a healthy option, even if it's sugar coated crap. The manufacturers use all the usual tricks, like saying it's "low in fat" while omitting to mention that it's still high calorie or that it's only "low" relative to a stick of lard.
Some countries have tried to deal with this by requiring colour coding based on government defined limits, but the manufacturers are always looking for ways around it. For example, unrealistically small portions or putting "serves 2" on a product you know one person will have for themselves.
Obviously if someone has the time and inclination to study all this stuff, become an amateur nutritionist and evaluate every product carefully they can still eat healthily. But realistically people are not going to be able to do that, and while they could stick to just vegetables and raw meat and cooking themselves, again it's a question of time and inclination. When we also want them to work two jobs to be able to afford the rent, buying and cooking food is probably low on the list of things they have time for.
Heck, a recent poll showed only 25% of America trusted our president but 33% approved of him.
Not surprising for a post-truth politician. The whole point of post-truth politics is that you can't trust any of them, they all lie about everything all the time. The media also lies, experts lie, everything is a lie except for what you personally believe is true.
So stop worrying about the Trump's lies, and just look at what he does. Lying is not a bad thing any more, it's just normal.
I've long been interested in fighting back by poisoning these commercial databases with fake profiles and misinformation, but it's hard to know what is effective because it's all trade secrets.
If a company you target goes bust, it's very hard to know if it was because their database became worthless due to pollution or if they were just incompetent or had a worthless product.
Yes, like all laws you can get away with breaking them if your crime is not detected.
And no, the government has given itself specific exemptions, e.g. for the police and security services, so the law doesn't apply to it when investigating you.
Why would it be impossible to enforce?
Laws like this are usually designed so that people can whistleblow or interested parties (like journalists) who discover evidence of de-anonymization can present evidence to the police, who can investigate. It's similar to other data protection laws, which generally don't involve inspections but where infractions are still regularly detected and punished.
In this case they are targeting companies that abuse anonymized data for profit, which can be quite difficult to hide. If they buy some data and then start advertising to some of the supposedly anonymous members of that data set, well it looks pretty suspicious.
From marchongoogle.com:
"protesting in front of the homes of Googleâ(TM)s executive team."
Way to go guys, that definitely won't end badly.
Fox reminds me of countries with the word "democratic" in the name, like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you have to repeatedly remind people that you are "fair and balanced", you probably aren't...
Disney has always been mediocre, just the best that was available in English. At least until Pixar came along.
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it.
It depends how divergent... If you boss thinks that people of your race should be property, it's kind of difficult for them to continue managing you.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but clearly some opinions make doing certain jobs untenable. That's just a fact, there isn't much anyone can do to stop people being managed or reviewed by this person from complaining about unfair treatment now because they have this document.
This isn't about privacy really, it's to help facilitate business. The government sees big data as a growth area, but there are legal problems with sharing the data. By making de-anonymization illegal they can give their usual "don't worry, safeguards are in place" message and then let the orgy of personal data mining commence.
In other words, it's actually anti-privacy.
There have been several stories about Facebook cracking down on fake news, labelling links to sites like Brietbart as "disputed" or just outright fake.
In any case, I share you sentiment: fuck Facebook.
I think the site admins have been trying to deal with the trolls moderating certain users they don't down systematically. It's breaking the site and turning it into an echo chamber.
And this has just made it worse.
What makes you think the reason is biological?
Because people think it means they personally are sexists, or that increased competition might hurt their prospects, or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.
I'd take open plan over small offices/cubicles with no windows or fresh air. The noise reducing material they make cubicles out of gets very dusty too, bad for allergies.
From a moral point of view, is there really much difference between saying "wear skirts long enough to prevent up-skirt photography" and "cover every part of your body"?
In both cases it seems overly restrictive, insulting to men and like victim blaming.
This story of thing is usually discouraged by punishing people who take such photos, and people who publish them. Banning the material also removes much of the incentive to do it because monetising it becomes much harder.
As you say, it's not perfect and won't completely stop it, but it would definitely improve privacy for most people.
How is saying "women are on average me neurotic" not perpetuating negative stereotypes? It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.
Some people think there is empirical evidence. Skull sizes, theories about evolution and moving out of Africa, IQ test results...
You are right. Sorry, I didn't notice...
This is actually kind of annoying as, for example, I don't really want this post appearing above the default threshold and attracting the trolls who systematically mod me down when they see me.
I'll use the feedback link, see if I can get it fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Not really... This is just the latest problem. Paparrazi taking photos of celebrities on their private property through a zoom lens has been happening since zoom lenses were invented. It's getting worse with the availability of cheap drones.
We need to decide if we want private spaces and if privacy is to be enforced by high walls and anti-aircraft guns, or some other means.
Same old bullshit... There just isn't enough RF energy to run a phone. Even staying connected to the cellular network (so it knows when calls are incoming) required more power than can be harvested from RF in the space available in a typical phone.
I've played with this idea. Ran a small LCD clock off a TV antenna. Only worked next to the window. Unless they crank the wifi up to levels that will fry your organs, this isn't going to work.