So-called "modern crypto" is too complicated to trust. No provably-correct implementations. Long-lived flaws. Questions about reversibility. People who say I should trust it based on their expert opinion when I can't prove it myself. People who might pay the experts. Obviously better ways to do it that are brain-dead simple and experts discouraging that we use them.
Nope, sorry, I am going to have to reject your opinion this time.
Yes. It's easy to come up with simple methods to hash the input text that can't be reversed for a statistical attack and that make a brute-force attack too large to be practical.
But I like putting quantum noise on a USB stick. You can wrap that in another encryption to make it difficult for someone to break even if they get the stick. You can erase the key as you use it.
If you just XORed two English texts together, there would be statistical methods of attack. In general, we use random bits from an unpredictable source. Noise from a diode is based on quantum mechanical phenomena.
If you have to use an English text, there are simple algorithms to hash the input in order to defeat statistical methods.
Not only is that technically incorrect, you should know better than to advocate security through obscurity, Mr. Perens.
I think you missed something. Security by obscurity refers to the implementation of the algorithm used to provide security being hidden. In the case of the one-time-pad, the algorithm is exclusive-OR. Very un-obscure, and of course I can let you see the exact code I'm using without security being compromised.
On the other hand, cryptographic keys must always rely on a secret, whatever kind you are using, because by definition someone can break your cyphertext to plaintext if they have the secret. So, when you use the public-key encryption system, your private key is just as secret as the key in the one-time-pad system would be.
Also, public-key encryption relies on the fact that some forms of math are easy to calculate in one direction, but difficult to reverse. There is a small but finite chance that we may someday find a fast way to reverse them. But without godlike powers, we will never find a way to tell whether a coin-flip that happened out of our sight was heads or tails.
128G USB sticks are common and cheap. All you need to do is physically convey one to the person at your destination, and you can send 128G of data before you have to give them another.
Both of you need to keep the key secure (and there are various technical improvements to help you do this). If someone gets a copy of your key, they can break a transmission. If they don't, they never can.
There is a lot of documentation that governments use it. If you want cryptography that you really can trust, there isn't really any other choice. It's the only one that is simple enough to validate from first principles.
The encryption that criminals are using now is the kind that we can break. If we insist on putting back-doors in it, they will move to the one-time-pad, which we can't ever break if it is used properly. To explain why, have your friend make a coin flip and keep whether it's heads or tails secret from you. Now, write a computer program to tell you what the coin flip was:-)
The one-time pad is 1000 times simpler than public-key encryption and trivial to put in an app.
This is mostly an aerodynamic issue. Pick that big an airfoil up on a crane, and it's going to swing around with great force. You have to split it up into pieces that you can manage while in the air.
It looks like they're going for assembly from pieces, even offshore. There are a lot of practical problems with handling really big airfoils. Pick it up on a crane and it's going to have a life of it's own.
Current blades are trucked in one piece (per blade) which is impressive to see. Three of them were parked on I-5 outside of Patterson, California a few months ago. There are a lot of net videos and photos which convey the scale.
Even at the current size they can't get through many highway interchanges and local intersections. The larger ones won't be able to ship in one piece at all.
NASA Wind Turbines approached this scale in the '80's. Unfortunately, this was a previously-unexplored area of aerodynamics for NASA, and they had mechanical stress and noise problems (including subsonics) and were all demolished. I think there was one near Vallejo, CA being taken down when I got to Pixar in '87, and one in Boone, NC, which famously rattled windows and doors.
The art has since improved. I took a ride to the top of the turbine at Grouse Mountain, that was fun! That's the only one I have heard of where you can actually get to see it from the top.
Design a brick system that can be produced with 3-D printers, and will hold together when fabricated within the tolerances of an SLA printer. Forget FDM, it's too low precision and SLA is already achieving an equal or lower cost of manufacture compared with FDM.
LEGO is manufactured to astonishingly high precision, but I am not convinced that this is the only way to make a brick system.
These guys were not licensed hams, and in any case their communications weren't legal for Amateur Radio. You can program the Baofeng for both ham and non-ham frequencies.
Blue Origin will eventually have a two-stage rocket that can reach orbit (although they are planning on a much smaller payload than SpaceX for their first iteration). When the booster of that rocket lands without damage, they will duplicate what SpaceX has recently done, although in smaller scale.
Blue Origin to SpaceX at present is a sort of bicycle-to-automobile comparison if you account for the tremendous difference in energy and the application. So, I think there really is an intrinsic difference between the two of them.
If you want to say there's no intrinsic difference, then we need to look at Orbital's Stargazer and Pegasus, which have been carrying small payloads to orbit for years, and there's only been one Stargazer all of that time so there is no question that it's reusable. The only difference is that Stargazer lands horizontally.
We can then look at the B-52 and X-15 combination, in which both stages were reusable, a human was the payload, and we're going back to the late 1950's.
If it only carries its payload up and down without reaching orbit, it's sounding rocket. and It should be compared with Strypi in that case rather than Falcon 9.
He was let in because he was a white man from your town. There is actually a guy in your town who has flown on an air-o-plane, and he went to Bra-zil! But only one.
We had a special liberal vote to allow people from your town to fly on airplanes. But we're reconsidering it.
If you can find a conference that wants me as a keynote and will pay air and lodging, I'll come and talk. For about 2 years I was on vacation from Open Source talks. Having done them since 1996, I just burned out.
In 1987 a guy named Brian Wilson did a hunger strike on train tracks at the Concord naval weapons station, and was run over by a diesel locomotive at high speed. He lost both legs and ended up with a plate in his skull, but survived. I don't know much about the situation or how it was that the train wasn't stopped. What I do know is that the train operator went through many years of psychotherapy and wasn't ever really OK after that.
The problem with putting yourself in front of something like that is that the little person who is operating it isn't your political enemy, isn't there to make a point. They are only there because their job is their only, tenuous, connection to making a living and not being out on the street, and they must keep it at all costs.
Actually, I was referring to my own decision to take an opportunity to start a 19-year career in film computer graphics rather than continue my classes. You only get one opportunity like that, and I have indeed heard from people who were in the same situation and finished school, and their careers never took off. You can always go back to school.
It's an unfortunate truth that for everyone in communication arts who actually has a job doing what they desired to do, there are 20 people just as qualified standing behind them who never get a job in the field at all.
Once in a while, I hear from someone in the field who did something sensible like finishing college rather than taking an opportunity that was presented to them. It never comes again.
Check out a sermon on Qatar TV. The US Government will, if requested, allow you to hold two separate US passports so that you can visit relatives in Israel with one, and go to some of the middle-eastern nations with the other. I think a number of middle-eastern nations will ban you if your passport shows any entry to Israel. Also, a number of middle-eastern nations deny visas to Jews, and you can neither enter the country nor board an aircraft on the way there without the visa.
Slashdot Mirror
So-called "modern crypto" is too complicated to trust. No provably-correct implementations. Long-lived flaws. Questions about reversibility. People who say I should trust it based on their expert opinion when I can't prove it myself. People who might pay the experts. Obviously better ways to do it that are brain-dead simple and experts discouraging that we use them. Nope, sorry, I am going to have to reject your opinion this time.
There are endless elaborations. You can combine a random key with a book, you can exclusive-OR together multiple keys, etc.
Yes. It's easy to come up with simple methods to hash the input text that can't be reversed for a statistical attack and that make a brute-force attack too large to be practical.
But I like putting quantum noise on a USB stick. You can wrap that in another encryption to make it difficult for someone to break even if they get the stick. You can erase the key as you use it.
If you just XORed two English texts together, there would be statistical methods of attack. In general, we use random bits from an unpredictable source. Noise from a diode is based on quantum mechanical phenomena.
If you have to use an English text, there are simple algorithms to hash the input in order to defeat statistical methods.
I think you missed something. Security by obscurity refers to the implementation of the algorithm used to provide security being hidden. In the case of the one-time-pad, the algorithm is exclusive-OR. Very un-obscure, and of course I can let you see the exact code I'm using without security being compromised.
On the other hand, cryptographic keys must always rely on a secret, whatever kind you are using, because by definition someone can break your cyphertext to plaintext if they have the secret. So, when you use the public-key encryption system, your private key is just as secret as the key in the one-time-pad system would be.
Also, public-key encryption relies on the fact that some forms of math are easy to calculate in one direction, but difficult to reverse. There is a small but finite chance that we may someday find a fast way to reverse them. But without godlike powers, we will never find a way to tell whether a coin-flip that happened out of our sight was heads or tails.
128G USB sticks are common and cheap. All you need to do is physically convey one to the person at your destination, and you can send 128G of data before you have to give them another.
Both of you need to keep the key secure (and there are various technical improvements to help you do this). If someone gets a copy of your key, they can break a transmission. If they don't, they never can.
There is a lot of documentation that governments use it. If you want cryptography that you really can trust, there isn't really any other choice. It's the only one that is simple enough to validate from first principles.
The one-time pad is 1000 times simpler than public-key encryption and trivial to put in an app.
This is mostly an aerodynamic issue. Pick that big an airfoil up on a crane, and it's going to swing around with great force. You have to split it up into pieces that you can manage while in the air.
It looks like they're going for assembly from pieces, even offshore. There are a lot of practical problems with handling really big airfoils. Pick it up on a crane and it's going to have a life of it's own.
Current blades are trucked in one piece (per blade) which is impressive to see. Three of them were parked on I-5 outside of Patterson, California a few months ago. There are a lot of net videos and photos which convey the scale.
Even at the current size they can't get through many highway interchanges and local intersections. The larger ones won't be able to ship in one piece at all.
Power produced varies approximately with the square of the diameter.
NASA Wind Turbines approached this scale in the '80's. Unfortunately, this was a previously-unexplored area of aerodynamics for NASA, and they had mechanical stress and noise problems (including subsonics) and were all demolished. I think there was one near Vallejo, CA being taken down when I got to Pixar in '87, and one in Boone, NC, which famously rattled windows and doors.
The art has since improved. I took a ride to the top of the turbine at Grouse Mountain, that was fun! That's the only one I have heard of where you can actually get to see it from the top.
This is starting out with the wrong assumptions.
Design a brick system that can be produced with 3-D printers, and will hold together when fabricated within the tolerances of an SLA printer. Forget FDM, it's too low precision and SLA is already achieving an equal or lower cost of manufacture compared with FDM.
LEGO is manufactured to astonishingly high precision, but I am not convinced that this is the only way to make a brick system.
These guys were not licensed hams, and in any case their communications weren't legal for Amateur Radio. You can program the Baofeng for both ham and non-ham frequencies.
Blue Origin will eventually have a two-stage rocket that can reach orbit (although they are planning on a much smaller payload than SpaceX for their first iteration). When the booster of that rocket lands without damage, they will duplicate what SpaceX has recently done, although in smaller scale.
Blue Origin to SpaceX at present is a sort of bicycle-to-automobile comparison if you account for the tremendous difference in energy and the application. So, I think there really is an intrinsic difference between the two of them.
If you want to say there's no intrinsic difference, then we need to look at Orbital's Stargazer and Pegasus, which have been carrying small payloads to orbit for years, and there's only been one Stargazer all of that time so there is no question that it's reusable. The only difference is that Stargazer lands horizontally.
We can then look at the B-52 and X-15 combination, in which both stages were reusable, a human was the payload, and we're going back to the late 1950's.
If it only carries its payload up and down without reaching orbit, it's sounding rocket. and It should be compared with Strypi in that case rather than Falcon 9.
Editors, fix that.
He was let in because he was a white man from your town. There is actually a guy in your town who has flown on an air-o-plane, and he went to Bra-zil! But only one.
We had a special liberal vote to allow people from your town to fly on airplanes. But we're reconsidering it.
If you can find a conference that wants me as a keynote and will pay air and lodging, I'll come and talk. For about 2 years I was on vacation from Open Source talks. Having done them since 1996, I just burned out.
Lots of people who believe themselves to be of Persian descent identify as Aryans rather than Semites.
In 1987 a guy named Brian Wilson did a hunger strike on train tracks at the Concord naval weapons station, and was run over by a diesel locomotive at high speed. He lost both legs and ended up with a plate in his skull, but survived. I don't know much about the situation or how it was that the train wasn't stopped. What I do know is that the train operator went through many years of psychotherapy and wasn't ever really OK after that.
The problem with putting yourself in front of something like that is that the little person who is operating it isn't your political enemy, isn't there to make a point. They are only there because their job is their only, tenuous, connection to making a living and not being out on the street, and they must keep it at all costs.
Brian Wilson wasn't the only victim that day.
Actually, I was referring to my own decision to take an opportunity to start a 19-year career in film computer graphics rather than continue my classes. You only get one opportunity like that, and I have indeed heard from people who were in the same situation and finished school, and their careers never took off. You can always go back to school.
It's an unfortunate truth that for everyone in communication arts who actually has a job doing what they desired to do, there are 20 people just as qualified standing behind them who never get a job in the field at all.
Once in a while, I hear from someone in the field who did something sensible like finishing college rather than taking an opportunity that was presented to them. It never comes again.
Check out a sermon on Qatar TV. The US Government will, if requested, allow you to hold two separate US passports so that you can visit relatives in Israel with one, and go to some of the middle-eastern nations with the other. I think a number of middle-eastern nations will ban you if your passport shows any entry to Israel. Also, a number of middle-eastern nations deny visas to Jews, and you can neither enter the country nor board an aircraft on the way there without the visa.