For all of the, "you're a dumbass" comments, you raise a very interesting point. Consumer endpoint routers with snooping capabilities would be a major security problem for a country too, and this action would most logically include Linksys and Cisco consumer products as well. Also, I can think of more than a few companies with secrets to keep using Cisco ("consumer") cable modems....
Their shit is entirely too expensive, with astronomical recurring charges. What do you even get for all of that money, some dismal routers, lame SIP phones, and some CCNA schmuck that you *have* to deal with?
OK, you win! A CRT is just a glorified X-ray tube!
As someone once said, "never argue with an idiot- they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Your experience has defeated me. Your kung-fu is the best! Well played!
My comment in the first place was tongue in cheek at best. Why do you need to come and say, "ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER"? Probably nobody will ever know besides you. Either way, I was just trying to help you understand a joke that went sailing--whoosh--right of your head. That way, you might have learned something useful and interesting while also being slightly amused.
I suspect that your primary amusement is being a dickhead on the internet, so at least you are having some fun that way.
They both are vacuum filled glass tubes. They both have filaments to boil off electrons and both use a high voltage electrical field to accelerate them towards a target. Electrons accelerate through the tube towards this target, which in the case of an x-ray tube is a metal plate, and in the TV tube is a metal mesh. The accelerated electrons interact with the atoms in the target and excite their electrons to higher quantum states. When the excited electrons return to their stable state, a photon is emitted. Lower energy transitions produce a photon in the visible spectrum, while higher energy transitions result in x-rays. Transition size is mostly dictated by the energy of the bombarding accelerated electron. Thus, the only real difference between a CRT and x-ray tube is plate voltage.
You shrewdly point out that they have a different external appearance. The x-ray tube is (obviously) also missing the beam steering plates and phosphor used to generate a picture. Still, at the core of each device, the physics are identical in many more respects than most people realize. If you want to know more about the physical world, you might consider reading a good physics text instead of searching google images.
I think we are pretty much on the same page, corruption and cronyism are the real problems. From the public treasury votes are purchased with public perks, and power is purchased with private perks. It is really just a symptom of corruption either way.
My intent in mentioning North Korea was to point out a situation where a dictatorship developed into a monarchy, which most certainly was the case in NK. History is ripe with examples of fiscally unstable democracies developing into dictatorships (usually under the guise of communism). By the transitive property, we find a pathway from democracy to monarchy.
Iran. When was the last election for a new Supreme Leader? Yes, there is a Supreme Leader of Iran.
I think it is fair to argue that a country like North Korea, with a totalitarian dictatorship, de facto hereditary successor-ship, and charismatic leader; is not so particularly different from an autocratic monarchy. See also Venezuela and Iran.
I'm American too, just completely disillusioned about my countrymen. We're not all blind, just most of us.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
You were the kid in kindergarten that got out the protractor and protested that NONE of the shapes were the same because their corners were off by just a bit, weren't you?
And don't even get him started about the sub-atomic particles being in different places....
And insecticide and iced tea both contain water, yet they aren't really very similar, are they?
It is more like comparing Pyrethroids to Neonicotinoids.
One is designed to produce short wavelength radiation, in abundant quantities, and the other is designed to produce meaningful, controllable patterns of light and just happens to produce a very minor amount of X-ray radiation.
But the ratio of visible/x-ray radiation is determined solely by electron voltage in either tube. You have very shrewdly deduced that CRT tubes are designed not to produce x-rays by careful plate voltage selection, but realize that is the only thing. With a different transformer and higher plate voltage, the CRT would shoot out x-rays just fine.
The differences between a CRT and an x-ray tube are not at all subtle.
Damn, there are differences between an x-ray machine and a TV? Maybe internet trolling is not your calling, perhaps you could become a detective!
OK, they both have filaments to boil off electrons and both use a high voltage to accelerate them, [towards a target]
The electrons accelerate through the tube towards a target, which in the case of an x-ray tube is a metal plate, and in the TV tube is a metal mesh. The accelerated electrons interact with the atoms in the target and excite their electrons to higher quantum states. When the excited electrons return to their stable state, a photon is emitted. Lower energy transitions produce a photon in the visible spectrum, while higher energy transitions result in x-rays. Transition size is mostly dictated by the energy of the bombarding accelerated electron. Thus, the only real difference between a CRT and x-ray tube is plate voltage.
If you do a quick web search you can easily find out just how different they are.
My suggestion for you would be to take a physics class.
Contemporary fluorescent ballasts were just high voltage transformers running at AC line frequency. All of this fancy high frequency PWM stuff is very very new.
So the code passes every audit in the book with a hacked together solution to each detected problem, do you really fee any safer? Auditing tools are fine, but certainly provide some false sense of security.
It's implemented using a question and answer that should be known only to the two participants.
From a cryptographic standpoint, this information forms the key, and is subject to all of the paranoia of any other secret key. From a practical/stenographic standpoint, this sort of information is much easier to conceal from surveillance than exactly four thousand ninety six uuencoded bits, and is probably much less likely to be intercepted auto-magically.
I don't know if that counts as secure to you.
When the secret knowledge is known by both parties, but not the NSA, it is a secure methodology. That sort of secret knowledge seems to be a precious commodity these days though.
The trouble here, which prevents this from being a universal solution to the wiretapping middleman elimination problem, is that you absolutely must have shared secret information with the other person at least once, and that would presumably have to be offline these days.
At first, I thought, is this guy talking crazy to himself?!? Slashdot needs a better font for usernames (maybe something with serifs), this whole problem is kinda circa 1995 AOL Instant Messenger.
The Socialist Millionaire problem as applied to cryptography still requires a pre-shared key to be known by both parties. This is somewhat less onerous than verifying PGP key signatures in person, but still requires some form of secure key exchange and management. Supposing the man in the middle were able to acquire the shared secret, it would be possible for him to authenticate with both clients separately, then merely pipe un-encrypted data between the two encrypted channels.
If the protocol featuring this technique makes it appear as if a secure pre-shared key is not vital to the authentication process, then its users are victims of security theater.
The problem is not so much the turn-key bit, as the fact that users have to effectively manage their own keys to provide any semblance of protection from eavesdropping from whichever three-letter agency. With your attacker in the middle of the communication channel, having the ability to modify/replace datagrams, there is no hope of securely exchanging keys over the internet....
Well, since you were a bit non-specific on what you're feeling butthurt about [...]
On the topic of who is being a whiny prick, I would say perhaps to think hard about it. Also, the linked console is not in even the same category as an XBOX... compare it to the gaming power of a tablet.
It just might work too, if we get entirely one side in there will be nobody to resist the changes the non-existent side would try to block. What kind of changes? Minor details.
We already have one side in there already, just maybe different branding. Sort of a Coke/Pepsi thing... it is all Cola.
Slashdot Mirror
This might drive customers away from US software industry products.
But where will they be driven to?
For all of the, "you're a dumbass" comments, you raise a very interesting point. Consumer endpoint routers with snooping capabilities would be a major security problem for a country too, and this action would most logically include Linksys and Cisco consumer products as well. Also, I can think of more than a few companies with secrets to keep using Cisco ("consumer") cable modems....
Their shit is entirely too expensive, with astronomical recurring charges. What do you even get for all of that money, some dismal routers, lame SIP phones, and some CCNA schmuck that you *have* to deal with?
We'll manage to do it long before we are able to make an intelligent machine.
Knowing that people like you are alive and well certainly lends credibility to your statement.
OK, you win! A CRT is just a glorified X-ray tube! As someone once said, "never argue with an idiot- they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Your experience has defeated me. Your kung-fu is the best! Well played!
My comment in the first place was tongue in cheek at best. Why do you need to come and say, "ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER"? Probably nobody will ever know besides you. Either way, I was just trying to help you understand a joke that went sailing--whoosh--right of your head. That way, you might have learned something useful and interesting while also being slightly amused.
I suspect that your primary amusement is being a dickhead on the internet, so at least you are having some fun that way.
They both are vacuum filled glass tubes. They both have filaments to boil off electrons and both use a high voltage electrical field to accelerate them towards a target. Electrons accelerate through the tube towards this target, which in the case of an x-ray tube is a metal plate, and in the TV tube is a metal mesh. The accelerated electrons interact with the atoms in the target and excite their electrons to higher quantum states. When the excited electrons return to their stable state, a photon is emitted. Lower energy transitions produce a photon in the visible spectrum, while higher energy transitions result in x-rays. Transition size is mostly dictated by the energy of the bombarding accelerated electron. Thus, the only real difference between a CRT and x-ray tube is plate voltage.
You shrewdly point out that they have a different external appearance. The x-ray tube is (obviously) also missing the beam steering plates and phosphor used to generate a picture. Still, at the core of each device, the physics are identical in many more respects than most people realize. If you want to know more about the physical world, you might consider reading a good physics text instead of searching google images.
I think we are pretty much on the same page, corruption and cronyism are the real problems. From the public treasury votes are purchased with public perks, and power is purchased with private perks. It is really just a symptom of corruption either way.
My intent in mentioning North Korea was to point out a situation where a dictatorship developed into a monarchy, which most certainly was the case in NK. History is ripe with examples of fiscally unstable democracies developing into dictatorships (usually under the guise of communism). By the transitive property, we find a pathway from democracy to monarchy.
Iran. When was the last election for a new Supreme Leader? Yes, there is a Supreme Leader of Iran.
Venezuela was a weak example.
I think it is fair to argue that a country like North Korea, with a totalitarian dictatorship, de facto hereditary successor-ship, and charismatic leader; is not so particularly different from an autocratic monarchy. See also Venezuela and Iran.
I'm American too, just completely disillusioned about my countrymen. We're not all blind, just most of us.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
You were the kid in kindergarten that got out the protractor and protested that NONE of the shapes were the same because their corners were off by just a bit, weren't you?
And don't even get him started about the sub-atomic particles being in different places....
And insecticide and iced tea both contain water, yet they aren't really very similar, are they?
It is more like comparing Pyrethroids to Neonicotinoids.
One is designed to produce short wavelength radiation, in abundant quantities, and the other is designed to produce meaningful, controllable patterns of light and just happens to produce a very minor amount of X-ray radiation.
But the ratio of visible/x-ray radiation is determined solely by electron voltage in either tube. You have very shrewdly deduced that CRT tubes are designed not to produce x-rays by careful plate voltage selection, but realize that is the only thing. With a different transformer and higher plate voltage, the CRT would shoot out x-rays just fine.
The differences between a CRT and an x-ray tube are not at all subtle.
Damn, there are differences between an x-ray machine and a TV? Maybe internet trolling is not your calling, perhaps you could become a detective!
OK, they both have filaments to boil off electrons and both use a high voltage to accelerate them, [towards a target]
The electrons accelerate through the tube towards a target, which in the case of an x-ray tube is a metal plate, and in the TV tube is a metal mesh. The accelerated electrons interact with the atoms in the target and excite their electrons to higher quantum states. When the excited electrons return to their stable state, a photon is emitted. Lower energy transitions produce a photon in the visible spectrum, while higher energy transitions result in x-rays. Transition size is mostly dictated by the energy of the bombarding accelerated electron. Thus, the only real difference between a CRT and x-ray tube is plate voltage.
If you do a quick web search you can easily find out just how different they are.
My suggestion for you would be to take a physics class.
People can see 40,000Hz on a properly working tube bulb?
This is about the frequency range that LED PWM drivers operate at.
No fluorescent bulbs refresh at 60Hz.
Contemporary fluorescent ballasts were just high voltage transformers running at AC line frequency. All of this fancy high frequency PWM stuff is very very new.
I think you literally do not understand what the word "literally" means.
The difference between an xray tube and CRT tube is disturbingly subtle.
The world needs the next programming language like I need to have 12 more anuses on my body.
So the code passes every audit in the book with a hacked together solution to each detected problem, do you really fee any safer? Auditing tools are fine, but certainly provide some false sense of security.
It was written by an American too, we aren't all blind.
It's implemented using a question and answer that should be known only to the two participants.
From a cryptographic standpoint, this information forms the key, and is subject to all of the paranoia of any other secret key. From a practical/stenographic standpoint, this sort of information is much easier to conceal from surveillance than exactly four thousand ninety six uuencoded bits, and is probably much less likely to be intercepted auto-magically.
I don't know if that counts as secure to you.
When the secret knowledge is known by both parties, but not the NSA, it is a secure methodology. That sort of secret knowledge seems to be a precious commodity these days though.
The trouble here, which prevents this from being a universal solution to the wiretapping middleman elimination problem, is that you absolutely must have shared secret information with the other person at least once, and that would presumably have to be offline these days.
Democrats and Republicans are like Coke and Pepsi... plenty of choice, unless you don't want to drink a fucking cola.
At first, I thought, is this guy talking crazy to himself?!? Slashdot needs a better font for usernames (maybe something with serifs), this whole problem is kinda circa 1995 AOL Instant Messenger.
The Socialist Millionaire problem as applied to cryptography still requires a pre-shared key to be known by both parties. This is somewhat less onerous than verifying PGP key signatures in person, but still requires some form of secure key exchange and management. Supposing the man in the middle were able to acquire the shared secret, it would be possible for him to authenticate with both clients separately, then merely pipe un-encrypted data between the two encrypted channels.
If the protocol featuring this technique makes it appear as if a secure pre-shared key is not vital to the authentication process, then its users are victims of security theater.
The problem is not so much the turn-key bit, as the fact that users have to effectively manage their own keys to provide any semblance of protection from eavesdropping from whichever three-letter agency. With your attacker in the middle of the communication channel, having the ability to modify/replace datagrams, there is no hope of securely exchanging keys over the internet....
There are Kickstarter consoles still on the drawing board, I mean, not even prototypes available yet, that have more pre-orders than the XBone.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Citation badly needed.
Well, since you were a bit non-specific on what you're feeling butthurt about [...]
On the topic of who is being a whiny prick, I would say perhaps to think hard about it. Also, the linked console is not in even the same category as an XBOX... compare it to the gaming power of a tablet.
It just might work too, if we get entirely one side in there will be nobody to resist the changes the non-existent side would try to block. What kind of changes? Minor details.
We already have one side in there already, just maybe different branding. Sort of a Coke/Pepsi thing... it is all Cola.