Nor, for that matter, that P!=NP, which is a more or less essential assumption in public-key cryptography. If it isn't, then as the key size grows, time to brute-force increases linearly, not exponentially as we think it does.
Not necessarily. Even assuming P = NP, the conversion from the NP problem to the equivalent P problem doesn't necessarily take linear time. And it doesn't mean that the P solution itself can run in linear time. If it turns out that both the conversion and the P solution are O(n^10^10^10^10^10), they would be practically worthless for anything.
You don't have to go to such ridiculously large numbers. Even O(n^100) is basically unmanageable. It would mean that if the 64-bit case can be solved in a nanosecond (i.e. about 3 clock cycles on a current processor), the 128 bit case will need about 4*10^13 years, or close to 3000 times the age of the universe. I'd say that's pretty secure.
Since publishing its first edition back in 1911, the COED shows how the effects of social media and instant-access technology on language has created a variety of new words while modifying existing definitions such as “follower”.
Wow, I didn't know that there already were social media and instant-access technology in 1911.
Huh? If you don't want a big party to get the $2, it's obviously because you don't like those parties. So either you don't like any party, then that by itself is is reason not to vote, so no reason to invoke the $2 rule, or you prefer one of the other parties, in which case there's no reason not to vote for it, again no reason to invoke the $2 rule.
In short, not voting due to the $2 rule is IMHO a bad decision.
Not strictly true. First of all, you can use Mono instead.
Does Mono come with a C++/CLI compiler now? Not that C++/CLI were C++, anyway (although Microsoft will tell you differently). It's a language based on C++, just like C++ is based on C.
Secondly, if managed code is exposed as a COM object, you can interact with them from native code compiled with some other compiler (such as Borland or Intel or g++).
Of course. But that's not using.NET from C++, that's interfacing with.NET code from C++. That's a very different thing. Also, does COM work on any non-Windows platform?
Finally, if you're feeling really adventurous, you could try dynamically loading mscoree.dll and invoking CLRCreateInstance, similar to creating a Java runtime for JNI or an embedded perl instance.
Yeah, and I could also "simply" implement C++/CLI based on g++, or something like that... at some point, the options become more of theoretical nature, unless you have tons of free time to spend.
The other nine will instead suggest to get off your fetish of ultrathin devices and just make the device thick enough for a normal plug. It's not as if that would be very thick anyway.
Nowhere did I say that you couldn't write native code with it. What I said is that only with MSVC++ (and not with other C++ compilers) you can use.NET.
If the emulation is successful, one can do to it what you can't easily do with the real thing: Manipulate it in any conceivable way to examine its inner workings, save its state and do different tests on exactly the same "brain" without the effects of earlier experiments disturbing (e.g. if some stimulus is new to it, then it will be new to it even the 100th time), and basically do arbitrary experiments with it without PETA complaining.
Even if it worked and their success was not just random chance, it will now no longer work for the simple fact that now it's widely known. After all, Twitter isn't exactly a secret resource. People will start gaming the system, for sure.
Mandatory voting could only produce reasonable results if accompanied with mandatory learning about the parties you vote for. You don't want people who are too clueless to vote voluntarily to vote some random bad party because they are too clueless to understand what the party actually wants.
Of course this raises the question who should do that education, so that it isn't biased. Maybe have each party teach you about their own goals?
You missed the main problem with your scheme: The decrypters need to be able to relate the hashes to individual people (otherwise they could not apply the individual key), and they have access to the unencrypted votes (after all, they are the ones decrypting them). In other words, the secrecy of the votes is compromised.
Basically you need to make sure that at the time the vote is decrypted and counted, the ballot cannot any more be linked to the voter, at least not easily (in paper votes, that's what the ballot box is for).
Of course this only solves part of the problem: verifying that your vote was actually counted. It doesn't solve the other parts: Verifying that no extra votes were counted, and most importantly, making sure that you were not monitored while voting, so you could choose without fear of being punished for voting "wrong".
Well, I could imagine some add-on services (I don't own a cable box, so if one of them already exists, just ignore it):
Imagine for example the box being connected with a sufficiently advanced movie search engine. For example, you remember seeing a science fiction movie you don't remember the name of, but you do remember that it featured a monolith and a computer saying "Sorry dave, I cannot let you do that" (yes, I know, it's unlikely not to remember the name of that movie:-)). Then you'd fire up a movie search, enter e.g. monolith "Sorry dave, I cannot let you do that" and it would instantly identify the movie and offer to play it.
I actually read only part of the interview. But that part was enough to show me that I'll go away from GNOME. Their vision simply doesn't match my expectations. I don't want a tablet-cloud interface on my desktop. I want a desktop interface. Also, I want unification of handing of different file types, not specialized organisation for different file types.
But they could have helped seeing the similarity even further by simply using two iPad images. Nobody would have missed the stunning similarity between the devices.
If we create a fully virtual human, is it ethical to subject it to inhumane treatment? We might be able to get away with rats, but how would this work with virtual people?
Not quite the issue here since this is physiological instead of psychological, but it seems to be the next step.
Maybe you can make that virtual human a masochist, so he enjoys those inhumane treatments.:-)
But with homogeneous populations, isn't there the danger that a drug developed with them only works on those populations? Or that a working drug isn't detected as working because it just happens to not work on that particular population? Shouldn't there be testing on heterogeneous population specifically to avoid developing population-specific drugs?
"Well, we have found a cure for cancer, but it only works on blond males between 20 and 30 who have green eyes, blood type AB, an inherited disposition for Diabetes, and about 50 other conditions. We expect there to be about 5 humans in the world fulfilling all those conditions. If any of them has cancer, we don't know yet."
Of course an energy generating LCD screen would already violate the first law of thermodynamics.
However that display violates neither. It just converts some of the light which would be lost by design in the LCD and turns it back into electric energy. In addition, if sun light falls on it, it converts solar energy into electric energy as well, lust like any solar cell out there, just less efficiently. The trick in this device is that the energy it converts is (part of) the energy which otherwise would have been absorbed anyway and just heated up the device.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? For fear of radiation?
There is no evidence that 3 rounds of AES is any more secure than plain AES.
What? Next you'll claim that my use of triple-ROT13 is not any more secure than single ROT13! :-)
None of the millions of geeks in the world ever made a device big enough to fit a normal plug? I strongly doubt it.
A slashdotter never has a 100% chance of getting lucky.
That's wrong. All you have to do is to start up nethack at full moon.
Nor, for that matter, that P!=NP, which is a more or less essential assumption in public-key cryptography. If it isn't, then as the key size grows, time to brute-force increases linearly, not exponentially as we think it does.
Not necessarily. Even assuming P = NP, the conversion from the NP problem to the equivalent P problem doesn't necessarily take linear time. And it doesn't mean that the P solution itself can run in linear time. If it turns out that both the conversion and the P solution are O(n^10^10^10^10^10), they would be practically worthless for anything.
You don't have to go to such ridiculously large numbers. Even O(n^100) is basically unmanageable. It would mean that if the 64-bit case can be solved in a nanosecond (i.e. about 3 clock cycles on a current processor), the 128 bit case will need about 4*10^13 years, or close to 3000 times the age of the universe. I'd say that's pretty secure.
From the article:
Since publishing its first edition back in 1911, the COED shows how the effects of social media and instant-access technology on language has created a variety of new words while modifying existing definitions such as “follower”.
Wow, I didn't know that there already were social media and instant-access technology in 1911.
Huh? If you don't want a big party to get the $2, it's obviously because you don't like those parties. So either you don't like any party, then that by itself is is reason not to vote, so no reason to invoke the $2 rule, or you prefer one of the other parties, in which case there's no reason not to vote for it, again no reason to invoke the $2 rule.
In short, not voting due to the $2 rule is IMHO a bad decision.
OK, that is new to me. I haven't looked much into LLVM. So all they are lacking is a C++/CLI front end.
Not strictly true. First of all, you can use Mono instead.
Does Mono come with a C++/CLI compiler now?
Not that C++/CLI were C++, anyway (although Microsoft will tell you differently). It's a language based on C++, just like C++ is based on C.
Secondly, if managed code is exposed as a COM object, you can interact with them from native code compiled with some other compiler (such as Borland or Intel or g++).
Of course. But that's not using .NET from C++, that's interfacing with .NET code from C++. That's a very different thing. Also, does COM work on any non-Windows platform?
Finally, if you're feeling really adventurous, you could try dynamically loading mscoree.dll and invoking CLRCreateInstance, similar to creating a Java runtime for JNI or an embedded perl instance.
Yeah, and I could also "simply" implement C++/CLI based on g++, or something like that ... at some point, the options become more of theoretical nature, unless you have tons of free time to spend.
The other nine will instead suggest to get off your fetish of ultrathin devices and just make the device thick enough for a normal plug. It's not as if that would be very thick anyway.
Nowhere did I say that you couldn't write native code with it. What I said is that only with MSVC++ (and not with other C++ compilers) you can use .NET.
No. You can use .NET only in MSVC++.
If the emulation is successful, one can do to it what you can't easily do with the real thing: Manipulate it in any conceivable way to examine its inner workings, save its state and do different tests on exactly the same "brain" without the effects of earlier experiments disturbing (e.g. if some stimulus is new to it, then it will be new to it even the 100th time), and basically do arbitrary experiments with it without PETA complaining.
Even if it worked and their success was not just random chance, it will now no longer work for the simple fact that now it's widely known. After all, Twitter isn't exactly a secret resource. People will start gaming the system, for sure.
Mandatory voting could only produce reasonable results if accompanied with mandatory learning about the parties you vote for. You don't want people who are too clueless to vote voluntarily to vote some random bad party because they are too clueless to understand what the party actually wants.
Of course this raises the question who should do that education, so that it isn't biased. Maybe have each party teach you about their own goals?
So if you vote for an independent small party, which major party gets the $2 for your vote?
You missed the main problem with your scheme: The decrypters need to be able to relate the hashes to individual people (otherwise they could not apply the individual key), and they have access to the unencrypted votes (after all, they are the ones decrypting them). In other words, the secrecy of the votes is compromised.
Basically you need to make sure that at the time the vote is decrypted and counted, the ballot cannot any more be linked to the voter, at least not easily (in paper votes, that's what the ballot box is for).
Of course this only solves part of the problem: verifying that your vote was actually counted. It doesn't solve the other parts: Verifying that no extra votes were counted, and most importantly, making sure that you were not monitored while voting, so you could choose without fear of being punished for voting "wrong".
DNSSEC?
Well, I could imagine some add-on services (I don't own a cable box, so if one of them already exists, just ignore it):
Imagine for example the box being connected with a sufficiently advanced movie search engine. For example, you remember seeing a science fiction movie you don't remember the name of, but you do remember that it featured a monolith and a computer saying "Sorry dave, I cannot let you do that" (yes, I know, it's unlikely not to remember the name of that movie :-)). Then you'd fire up a movie search, enter e.g. monolith "Sorry dave, I cannot let you do that" and it would instantly identify the movie and offer to play it.
I actually read only part of the interview. But that part was enough to show me that I'll go away from GNOME. Their vision simply doesn't match my expectations. I don't want a tablet-cloud interface on my desktop. I want a desktop interface. Also, I want unification of handing of different file types, not specialized organisation for different file types.
But they could have helped seeing the similarity even further by simply using two iPad images. Nobody would have missed the stunning similarity between the devices.
If we create a fully virtual human, is it ethical to subject it to inhumane treatment? We might be able to get away with rats, but how would this work with virtual people?
Not quite the issue here since this is physiological instead of psychological, but it seems to be the next step.
Maybe you can make that virtual human a masochist, so he enjoys those inhumane treatments. :-)
But with homogeneous populations, isn't there the danger that a drug developed with them only works on those populations? Or that a working drug isn't detected as working because it just happens to not work on that particular population? Shouldn't there be testing on heterogeneous population specifically to avoid developing population-specific drugs?
"Well, we have found a cure for cancer, but it only works on blond males between 20 and 30 who have green eyes, blood type AB, an inherited disposition for Diabetes, and about 50 other conditions. We expect there to be about 5 humans in the world fulfilling all those conditions. If any of them has cancer, we don't know yet."
Of course an energy generating LCD screen would already violate the first law of thermodynamics.
However that display violates neither. It just converts some of the light which would be lost by design in the LCD and turns it back into electric energy. In addition, if sun light falls on it, it converts solar energy into electric energy as well, lust like any solar cell out there, just less efficiently. The trick in this device is that the energy it converts is (part of) the energy which otherwise would have been absorbed anyway and just heated up the device.