All it means for an encryption to be fully-homorphic is that there exists some efficient operation o such that E(a) o E(b) = E(a+b) and another operation u such that E(a) u E(b) = E(a*b). The benefit of this is that you can arithmetize any program into a circuit containing only addition and multiplication gates, meaning you can run any program you want over the encrypted data. I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. Blocks are already very very small in existing ciphers so you are never required to download a whole thing and reencrypt it (if you are using an appropriate mode of operation, CBC obviously would not work for this).
Any program you can write can be translated into an arithmetic circuit containing only addition and multiplication gates. Using that fact, you can apply any program you want on encrypted data using fully homomorphic encryption.
I think you are misunderstanding. What homomorphic encryption allows is for you to obtain the encrypted sum or product of two ciphertexts. That is, there exists some efficient operation o such that E(a) o E(b) = E(a+b) and another operation u such that E(a) u E(b) = E(a*b). What you are describing is closer to functional encryption, in which case the function which you are allowed to evaluate over the ciphertexts is severely limited and must be explicitly granted by the owner of private key.
The easy answer to this is because private schools can admit/reject anyone they want for any reason. If your kid is obnoxious and disruptive to the class room, they are out. If they are too stupid and would drag the rest of the class down, they are either put in intensive tutoring or they are out. In public school, you have to take everyone no matter what; school becomes less about teaching and more about keeping the kids under control. When your choice is between trying to convey a subtle bit of math or stopping your student from getting stabbed, education loses every time.
Okay but once you finish a grade you already know the information so for someone to go back and teach grade 8 level math they need only to have finished grade 8, then they know ( or should know ) the information.
There is a significant gap between knowing the information, and knowing it well enough to teach it. As you have pointed out yourself, if you know the specific content of the class you can spit it back out by rote; but if a student has an interesting or advanced question, you will not be able to answer it. That is supposed to be the point of specializing, you should have a graduate level knowledge of your area so that you will be passionate about your subject and be able to answer any question that at student might have.
Well you might be the exception to the rule then, my teachers were dumb as dog shit.
That is made quite apparent by your mastery of of the English language.
If I have to work 12+ hours a day when I factor in office time and certifications then I can 100% expect teachers to put the same effort in.
Can you expect that if they are making half or one third of the salary you make, with equivalent levels of education?
I'm not joking when I say that my grade school teachers maybe put in a 8 - 3:30 day, class started at 9 so most of them put in a 8:45 ; 3:15 day including a hour lunch and two 15 minute recess brakes so take another hour and 1/2 off.
Either your teachers were uniformly horrible or your estimation of their work was significantly skewed. In my county, teachers are required to complete a master's degree while they are teaching, in addition to continuing education credits throughout their career. Those things are mandated and if they don't meet the requirements they are fired. What about student meetings, grading, faculty meetings, classroom preparation, etc? Besides that, they lead clubs and coach sports teams after school and on weekends at less than minimum wage.
Nooooo. The biggest problem we have now is that teachers care about teaching but don't have strong subject proficiency. If you know your subject in an out, and love thinking about, reading, and discussing it, then the teaching will come easily. That has been the philosophy in upper education for... well, always, and it has worked out pretty well.
Not to ruin the party with, you know, actual text from the bill, but what it really says is:
(a) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science
(b) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.
Now, we can argue whether that is good or not, but I am so tired of summaries which are blatantly trying to mislead us, like we are children who can't understand the actual words in the bill.
Seems sensible to remain inside when there is a desperate, armed, potentially literally explosive crazy person running around. It's not like they would arrest you if you went outside, it was just strongly recommended that you don't leave your house. I was outside lots because I live downtown and he was like guaranteed at least 10 miles away from me. They did shut down public transit, but that seems sensible as well since a desperate person looking to go out with a bang would definitely target a highly crowded subway station.
Yeah, because Europe is so freaking great... in my experience, every western country is more or less the same plus or minus some particular group of assholes. You gain some things and lose some things depending on where you go, but there is no country that is really doing that awesome right now.
Also maybe you are overestimating the cell phone network in Boston. I get 0 bars in my apartment in the South End and can only get edge for some reason in the two blocks around me, if I am outside. I have never been in a city with a worse cell phone network.
I think you are underestimating how many people were at the marathon, and what percentage of them were using their cellphones immediately after the explosion (near 100).
Makes sense, although I imagine if it actually happens it is going to be a lot more complicated than they think. Just look at the recent mixup with the two client versions that supported different block sizes.
The other thing is that bitcoins have a finite shelf life, as opposed to precious metals which we know last almost indefinitely. Once a break is found for SHA-256 or Elliptic Curve DSA (the two cryptography primitives used by the bitcoin protocol), bitcoins will be worthless. It's not likely that this will happen any time soon, but 20 or 30 years from now? Definitely plausible. At that point, all the money spend on mining will essentially evaporate.
There was an interesting paper last week at Financial Cryptography by Adi Shamir that examined the entire bitcoin transaction graph and what exactly is going on with the big piles of coins that early-adopters have. It's an interesting read if you have half an hour: http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-1.pdf
It only says that congress can't pay for the army more than two years in advance. There is nothing about not having a standing army. Currently they approve the defense budget every year.
Yes, the average person totally wants to do all that bullshit all the time. The whole reason this privacy thing has gotten out of hand is because most people just do not care. They would rather have all their information known just so they don't have to type it in again.
I don't mean to discourage you from trying cool things, but this is exactly what NOT to do when considering cryptography. Creating a secure cipher is HIGHLY non-trivial and should not be attempted (or rather, your attempt should not be used to secure things) unless you understand the processes involved very well and are an expert. Just because the output "looks" random, does not mean it is secure. There are many random number generator algorithms that pass all statistical tests, but are trivial to predict because they are not built to be secure. The fact that you used such a large key is not a good sign because you are either (1) wasting space/computation or (2) relying on the entropy in your ridiculously large key to mask relations between your plaintext and cipher text, meaning you are not secure for larger files. A secure cipher, against which brute force is the best attack, requires a key of only 256 bits for the foreseeable future.
With proven differences in brain chemestry and development is it unbelivable that females would respond to the stimuli of gaining power in a way that makes them less likeable, or that the females who were driven and/or wanted to gain power would have personalitys making them less likeable once they gained power?
Yes. When you speak of "females" as a collective group, yes it is and you are being crazy sexist.
Almost everyone elected to donate by Paypal, even though in the UK you can send money between personal bank accounts at no charge, and it arrives usually within a couple of minutes. I'm not sure what kind of unhealthy thought pattern causes that sort of self-destructive behaviour.
Probably the ability to not give you bank account number to the person you are sending money. That is the whole point of Paypal.
In my field (cryptography) and, as far I know, CS in general there is no problem with open-access. All the major conferences and journals allow you to put copies of your articles on your own personal page (or something like eprint.iacr.org) and literally 100% of people opt to do this. I have never wanted to read an article and not been able to find it on one of the authors sites or on a preprint server. Google Scholar will even do all the work for you and find copies of articles wherever they are posted if you are too lazy to look yourself. That way we get the benefits of the traditional conference/journal organization but none of the drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
All it means for an encryption to be fully-homorphic is that there exists some efficient operation o such that E(a) o E(b) = E(a+b) and another operation u such that E(a) u E(b) = E(a*b). The benefit of this is that you can arithmetize any program into a circuit containing only addition and multiplication gates, meaning you can run any program you want over the encrypted data. I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. Blocks are already very very small in existing ciphers so you are never required to download a whole thing and reencrypt it (if you are using an appropriate mode of operation, CBC obviously would not work for this).
Any program you can write can be translated into an arithmetic circuit containing only addition and multiplication gates. Using that fact, you can apply any program you want on encrypted data using fully homomorphic encryption.
I think you are misunderstanding. What homomorphic encryption allows is for you to obtain the encrypted sum or product of two ciphertexts. That is, there exists some efficient operation o such that E(a) o E(b) = E(a+b) and another operation u such that E(a) u E(b) = E(a*b). What you are describing is closer to functional encryption, in which case the function which you are allowed to evaluate over the ciphertexts is severely limited and must be explicitly granted by the owner of private key.
Okay but once you finish a grade you already know the information so for someone to go back and teach grade 8 level math they need only to have finished grade 8, then they know ( or should know ) the information.
There is a significant gap between knowing the information, and knowing it well enough to teach it. As you have pointed out yourself, if you know the specific content of the class you can spit it back out by rote; but if a student has an interesting or advanced question, you will not be able to answer it. That is supposed to be the point of specializing, you should have a graduate level knowledge of your area so that you will be passionate about your subject and be able to answer any question that at student might have.
Well you might be the exception to the rule then, my teachers were dumb as dog shit.
That is made quite apparent by your mastery of of the English language.
If I have to work 12+ hours a day when I factor in office time and certifications then I can 100% expect teachers to put the same effort in.
Can you expect that if they are making half or one third of the salary you make, with equivalent levels of education?
I'm not joking when I say that my grade school teachers maybe put in a 8 - 3:30 day, class started at 9 so most of them put in a 8:45 ; 3:15 day including a hour lunch and two 15 minute recess brakes so take another hour and 1/2 off.
Either your teachers were uniformly horrible or your estimation of their work was significantly skewed. In my county, teachers are required to complete a master's degree while they are teaching, in addition to continuing education credits throughout their career. Those things are mandated and if they don't meet the requirements they are fired. What about student meetings, grading, faculty meetings, classroom preparation, etc? Besides that, they lead clubs and coach sports teams after school and on weekends at less than minimum wage.
Nooooo. The biggest problem we have now is that teachers care about teaching but don't have strong subject proficiency. If you know your subject in an out, and love thinking about, reading, and discussing it, then the teaching will come easily. That has been the philosophy in upper education for... well, always, and it has worked out pretty well.
Yes, that story sounds real and totally not made up at all...
Exactly, that's why it has no meaning. It is just to make everything sound important.
How is that the problem? That one says almost nothing, it is just fluff.
Not to ruin the party with, you know, actual text from the bill, but what it really says is:
(a) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science
(b) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.
Now, we can argue whether that is good or not, but I am so tired of summaries which are blatantly trying to mislead us, like we are children who can't understand the actual words in the bill.
Seems sensible to remain inside when there is a desperate, armed, potentially literally explosive crazy person running around. It's not like they would arrest you if you went outside, it was just strongly recommended that you don't leave your house. I was outside lots because I live downtown and he was like guaranteed at least 10 miles away from me. They did shut down public transit, but that seems sensible as well since a desperate person looking to go out with a bang would definitely target a highly crowded subway station.
Yeah, because Europe is so freaking great... in my experience, every western country is more or less the same plus or minus some particular group of assholes. You gain some things and lose some things depending on where you go, but there is no country that is really doing that awesome right now.
Also maybe you are overestimating the cell phone network in Boston. I get 0 bars in my apartment in the South End and can only get edge for some reason in the two blocks around me, if I am outside. I have never been in a city with a worse cell phone network.
I think you are underestimating how many people were at the marathon, and what percentage of them were using their cellphones immediately after the explosion (near 100).
Makes sense, although I imagine if it actually happens it is going to be a lot more complicated than they think. Just look at the recent mixup with the two client versions that supported different block sizes.
The other thing is that bitcoins have a finite shelf life, as opposed to precious metals which we know last almost indefinitely. Once a break is found for SHA-256 or Elliptic Curve DSA (the two cryptography primitives used by the bitcoin protocol), bitcoins will be worthless. It's not likely that this will happen any time soon, but 20 or 30 years from now? Definitely plausible. At that point, all the money spend on mining will essentially evaporate.
There was an interesting paper last week at Financial Cryptography by Adi Shamir that examined the entire bitcoin transaction graph and what exactly is going on with the big piles of coins that early-adopters have. It's an interesting read if you have half an hour: http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-1.pdf
It only says that congress can't pay for the army more than two years in advance. There is nothing about not having a standing army. Currently they approve the defense budget every year.
Yes, the average person totally wants to do all that bullshit all the time. The whole reason this privacy thing has gotten out of hand is because most people just do not care. They would rather have all their information known just so they don't have to type it in again.
I don't mean to discourage you from trying cool things, but this is exactly what NOT to do when considering cryptography. Creating a secure cipher is HIGHLY non-trivial and should not be attempted (or rather, your attempt should not be used to secure things) unless you understand the processes involved very well and are an expert. Just because the output "looks" random, does not mean it is secure. There are many random number generator algorithms that pass all statistical tests, but are trivial to predict because they are not built to be secure. The fact that you used such a large key is not a good sign because you are either (1) wasting space/computation or (2) relying on the entropy in your ridiculously large key to mask relations between your plaintext and cipher text, meaning you are not secure for larger files. A secure cipher, against which brute force is the best attack, requires a key of only 256 bits for the foreseeable future.
What are you talking about?
With proven differences in brain chemestry and development is it unbelivable that females would respond to the stimuli of gaining power in a way that makes them less likeable, or that the females who were driven and/or wanted to gain power would have personalitys making them less likeable once they gained power?
Yes. When you speak of "females" as a collective group, yes it is and you are being crazy sexist.
You have to (in that case) address the social issues.
What if the social issue is that there aren't enough female role models in tech jobs? Then hiring more woman would fix the problem.
Almost everyone elected to donate by Paypal, even though in the UK you can send money between personal bank accounts at no charge, and it arrives usually within a couple of minutes. I'm not sure what kind of unhealthy thought pattern causes that sort of self-destructive behaviour.
Probably the ability to not give you bank account number to the person you are sending money. That is the whole point of Paypal.
In my field (cryptography) and, as far I know, CS in general there is no problem with open-access. All the major conferences and journals allow you to put copies of your articles on your own personal page (or something like eprint.iacr.org) and literally 100% of people opt to do this. I have never wanted to read an article and not been able to find it on one of the authors sites or on a preprint server. Google Scholar will even do all the work for you and find copies of articles wherever they are posted if you are too lazy to look yourself. That way we get the benefits of the traditional conference/journal organization but none of the drawbacks.