Worst case it can be done as a series of recordings from the original chip.
No, worst case would be having Majel Barret record the voice. Or would it be worst? Imagine, one of the most famous scientists of all time speaking in the voice of one of the most famous computer systems of all time?
Or maybe as Hal? "What's the equation for the sixth string dimension, Stephen?" "I can't do that, Dave".
I'd offer my FSW Votrax unit, if I knew which box I had it stored in and it still works.
This is for a graduate assistant to STEPHEN HAWKING.
No, not really. It is for a personal assistant who has some technical skills to maintain the assistive devices he uses.
A graduate assistant position is a part-time position that is used to fund PhD or MS students while they are studying, and the webpage is quite explicit in saying that this is NOT a position for someone who wants to study physics. This position has nothing to do with a graduate student.
One thing universities are quite clear on, at least those I've attended and worked at, is that if you aren't a graduate student you aren't eligible for graduate assistantships. In fact, we just had a student graduate who needed a short-term position until her real job started, and she was not allowed to be a GRA, she had to get an appointment as a faculty assistant.
Not that this job wouldn't be interesting, but it would be more of a caretaker than an academic relationship.
I would start by focusing on what the problems are. Outages from IT problems? Viruses? Downtime? Trouble with TV transmissions? Put a dollar value on the problems and you'll be 80% done with your sales pitch.
I would first start with a good description of what this IT department is supposed to DO, and only then can you see what isn't being done (the "problems").
From the simple description in this article, I don't see where an IT department would be helpful, at least not on the engineering side. Broadcast computing requirements are very very different than what a typical office or company needs. The production switcher, the content delivery systems, and all the other control systems are not just "peecees with windows and powerpoint", they are realtime control systems that need to interact with each other and stay functional.
An IT department that comes around to do a "windows update" on a regular basis may very well cripple the master control room if the updated system changes a critical driver or does something else that would only be annoying in an office.
No, in such an environment, creating an IT department to offload the "computers" from engineering is simply creating a problem where one doesn't exist. The IT deparrtment is going to be fighting with engineering over updates and virus scanners and anything else that IT wants to control but aren't necessary or are actually detrimental to the engineering use.
It is exactly this "kind of use" issue that we're facing here at the Uni. The "campus IT" is really good at running desktop systems with Word and IE for the liberal arts folks who use their computers to write fuzzy papers about the life of Wilford Brimley or whatever. They really don't understand what scientists do with their computers, especially computational dynamics or modelers. "First, try rebooting. What do you mean there are 'other users'? Just press 'ctl-alt-del'. What do you mean the computer doesn't have a keyboard or monitor?" We work VERY HARD to keep "campus IT" out of our college, because we need to get work done and "campus IT" would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Scientific method is creating a hypothesis and then carrying out tests to prove or disprove your assumption, this is how science works.
You cannot prove your assumption, that's why it is an assumption.
You cannot prove your hypothesis, only disprove it. For every observed phenomenon, there are a huge number of hypothetical explanations, some or many of which can be disproven by modifying the observation system to account for other effects and making a new observation.
The best you can do in science is say that the observed phenomenon behaves as predicted by the hypothesis within the margin of error of the experiment, and that other hypotheses that have not been or are not testable are unlikely.
Example? Newtonian physics. For many years, those theories were accurate within the margin of error of the experiments designed to test them. Technology got better, and suddenly we were seeing quantum effects, and things like time errors in occultation of stars. Now we know that Newtonian physics is a good and useful approximation, but quantum physics is more correct.
They announced the SC National Guard is going to start practicing with UAVs. The National Guard unit is one specifically tasked to civil disorder operations and "homeland security"......
The article you link to says they are training to use the device for an upcoming deployment. Would you rather send the national guard troops into conflicts without training? They have guns, too. Should they be prohibited from training with guns until they get where they are going?
National Guard units are also tasked with civil disaster relief, which includes the ability to remotely asses the damage and prioritize response. A UAV will give them the ability to view the disaster area from above, something that will help them make better decisions and provide assistance where it is most needed most effectively.
To your example of someone stealing a car, I'd point out that yes the person who *stole* it may be guilty, but mistaken identity happens all the time and that means that you cannot go by one person's word alone that the person labelled as the thief is indeed the thief.
You missed the point completely. The person who stole the car is a thief the moment they stole the car. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". What they are is not the same as a presumption that the government is supposed to make regarding their legal status.
The "illegal alien" is illegal the moment he entered the country illegally. He is illegal not because he has no documents, he is illegal because he broke the law. Calling him "undocumented" is incorrect. Telling me he IS "innocent until proven guilty" is just as incorrect. You can say "the courts must treat him as IF...".
No, the police report only says what the police report says. Anyone can type out a document.
And I can type out a document that says "I didn't do it." I'll make it into a business-sized card. Call it my "get out of jail free" card. Thanks for the idea. I doubt it will work very well, but if it doesn't, you'll pay for my lawyer, right?
To your example of AZ law, the Feds are investigating the sheriff in question...
And you have just provided an example of where you are not assuming "innocent until proven guilty". Arpaio has not been convicted of anything. He is, therefore, according to your philosophy, innocent.
1. There may well be people who have US citizenship (and therefore be entirely legal) who have no documentation to prove it (and thus be undocumented).
I think you are deliberately misinterpreting the difference between "undocumented" and "illegal alien".
The illegal alien is not illegal because he has no documents. He is illegal because he entered the country illegally to start with, or has remained in the country in violation of his visa or other entry permit. Many people have no documents. They are not "illegal aliens" because of that.
In the US (not sure about your country), a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Well, that's the theory, at least.
That is the presumption that the government is supposed to make in a criminal case. That is NOT a presumption of fact. I.e., if someone steals a car from me, he is a criminal, period, end of sentence (no pun intended). He became a criminal and assumed guilt when he committed the crime. The government will require proof of such, and is supposed to treat him as innocent until proven guilty with regards to punishment, but I need no such proof before I do. You could try to argue with a casino or retail establishment, but they can tresspass someone for shoplifting or other crime committed on their premises without a court ajudicating the matter.
The idea that someone IS innocent until proven guilty is a logical fallacy. How he must be treated by the judicial system and what he actually is are two very different things.
And, no, saying someone "looks funny" is not a lawful right.
The AZ law regarding illegal aliens had nothing to do with deporting people because they "looked funny". Looking funny was not sufficient grounds.
I cannot tell from a police report or a media photo whether the person was legally entitled to be in the US. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.
Actually, you can tell quite a lot from a police report. "Subject was observed crossing the border into the US at MIddle of Nowhere, Texas." Taking the subject to the nearest border crossing facility and allowing him to either gain legal entry or remain in Mexico is quite reasonable.
Most of those who are passionate about convicting without prosecuting would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions"
Now if only those who favor ignoring federal law in their attempts at fuzzy warm feel good would remember that.
Except that when the game is over, they are still playing, and only the ref knows the magic number.
When the game is over, the game is over. When they are still playing, the game isn't over yet.
This kind of timekeeping sure kills the defeatism of, say, football, where the team who has the ball when there is 10 seconds on the clock often just spikes the ball just to get it over with and everyone starts running onto the field before the time runs out. Can't score in ten seconds. What if it was really a minute and ten?
Your complaint is actually a strength in soccer. The game keeps going until it is over. The players don't just give up because the time is nearly over.
Why should a clock have to count downward to be able to determine a fixed length of time? And why should a play clock stop just because someone fell down and wants the ref to throw a yellow card at the other guy? Sounds like soccer's clock works pretty well compared to other sports.
Both the value in the query and the contents of the database are encrypted, and the operator of the database can't read either. The operator can not compare two values without the encryption key -
Well, if the article I read was correct, that's not true. The "operator" (DBA) certainly can read the contents of the database. When he created the database, he was told that the "salary" column contains data that needs to be compared, so it will be encrypted with an algorithm that allows comparision of values.
He can easily extract that column and compare the values contained therein, which will sort in exactly the same manner as the cleartext.
The only question is, can he get any significant information from that data. He can certainly do a distribution analysis and probably a rudimentary guess at what the values are close to. (If you know the maximum salary -- CEO, e.g. -- then you should be able to make some pretty accurate guesses at the other numbers.) He might call up HR and ask them what his salary is supposed to be, and then attempt to identify the HR query to locate the ciphertext version that corresponds to his salary by watching the encrypted queries as they come through. ("While I'm on the phone, here's the only query that included what I think is the salary field in the response...")
This is based on number theory. If a set of numbers with a minimum difference of 'eps' (for integers, eps==1, e.g., for salaries, eps is likely to be 0.01) is encoded in a way that maintains both the properties of "same cipher every time" and "maintains sort order", then you should be able to get a lot of information out of a large enough sample.
For example, if three real salaries are $1, $2 and $3, then the cipher versions must have as many possible values between $1 and $2 as between $2 and $3, otherwise you could not encode all the possible values. Either you can do this analysis, or the client does some shuffling of data based on probabilities of occurance and doesn't need to encode all possible values. I don't know which.
Quarterbacks wired to every player and calling plays without a huddle? Really? How does that make the game more fun to watch?
It only makes it fun if it is being done as a desperation move by a losing team running out of time, and they're doing something risky in an attempt at getting that one last score that would have them win.
Make it "normal" and it would lose all allure.
If you are going to get rid of the huddle, why not get rid of the play itself? Simply use modern "fantasy football" rules and decide based on the play being called and the players on the field how it will turn out. Less chance for injury to the players. Less chance for injury to the fans because there won't be as many of them driving home from the stadium drunk -- or in any other condition.
Can you even formulate a query if you don't have the key?
As DBA:
show databases; ...list of databases returned.
use patientData; show tables;
"Database changed"... list of tables returned.
select * from patients; ... encrypted data returned. Damn...
The DBMS is unmodified. It's the data that's encrypted in a way that SQL can deal with it. Mostly. Redefined SUM and other math ops.
how would this do anything to an admin's ability to access the database?
It wouldn't. The admin would have the permissions to do a "select * from..." query. It would, however, present him with only encrypted data as a result. The decryption of the data itself takes place only on the client (or proxy), which we assume is outside his scope of control.
Now, that does raise the question of leaks from the "comparision" columns. That is, those that are encrypted with an algorithm that always returns the same ciphertext and the ciphertext has the same ordering properties as the clear. It would seem that if he knows his own salary, for example, he could figure out all the rest, except that he won't know which row applies to him because the "employee name" data is also encrypted and he doesn't have that key, either.
First, any call regarding location could be decided electronically and instantly. Every time they position the ball after a tackle,
Better than that, they could track the ball's forward progress and never need a ref or ump or whatever the zebras are called. Pressure sensors in every knee and elbow pad tells us when the player was down, the computer tells us where the ball was. Position sensors tell us offsides or even count the number of players on the field. No replays, no bad calls.
but take the refs out of the game,
Fixed that for 'ya.
For a season, the NHL had a tracking device in the puck so the tellyvission could follow it easier and do technical flummery with data. That seems to have gone away quick. Maybe the fans didn't like it? Why wouldn't they? It removes part of the sport from the game.
spend less time referreeing and more time playing.
Most of the time "refereeing" is when the clock is stopped. Less time refereeing, but not more time playing.
Maybe next we apply this to real football and never have an incorrect offsides call again? Think the soccer fans would go for it? And, of course, all kinds of medical telemetry so we can all tell when the cheatin' Man United players fake injuries looking for a yellow card.
This is the part that these researchers seem to have attacked, from my understanding: somehow get the server to do useful queries on encrypted data without decrypting it without the monstrous overhead of the naive solutions.
I looked through the first few pages of the article. It is very much like how Unix passwords work. You don't decrypt the password in/etc/passwd to see if the user can log in, you encrypt his entered password with the same salt and see if there is a match. The trick is that here the DBMS is not doing the encrypting, there is a proxy that takes the performance hit, allowing the DBMS to run at full speeed.
The text comparison (LIKE) is done by encrypting each token in the DB text and allowing a token equality comparison. You can't, therefore, do a "LIKE 'Boston%'" to find things like "Bostonian".
For comparison operations ( select * where salary > 60000) the encryption used maintains order. The encrypted value of 59,999 is less than the encrypted value of 60,000, e.g.. The paper seems to imply that the equality encryption ( cleartext always encrypts to the same ciphertext so an equality of ciphertexts means equality of cleartext) is optional. In reality, order always means equality. I.e., if I search for $val>$x-eps and $val<$x+eps (where eps is the epsilon, or smallest interval in $x) the only answer can be where $val == $x.
Hmmm. Just saying that, I realize that, unless the encryption of data in the DBMS is highly dependent on the actual data in the DB, eps must be the smallest step in the encrypted data, and since order is preserved, the only "encryption" is thus an offset (add or subtract a constant). Thus the DB encryption of data must be dependent on the range of data. I wonder if there is any useful information that can be extracted from that fact?
For corporations, this system would be great. If the DBA didn't pre-define the salary column to be comparable, then nobody could do a "where salary > 100000" to find all the highly paid employees (or "bonus > 1000000", either).
That's nothing compared to being the core of Saturn. You scrub and scrub and scrub and nothing gets rid of those rings, and then Neptune comes home and wants his dinner and doesn't understand that you've been working hard all day. 'Get me a beer!' he hollers as he plops his ass down into the big comfy chair and starts watching Wheel of Fortune.
I tell 'ya, being the core of a planet ain't all wine and roses, I tell 'ya.
Give them a choice, give you a work phone or respect the autonomy of your personal phone if you allow it to be used for work.
You aren't respecting the "autonomy of your personal phone" if you allow it to be used for work, why should they? You've given it away for free, why should the company buy the milk?
Of course, a phone cannot have autonomy, but we'll overlook that...
Find me citations showing that law enforcement in this country puts any real effort into enforcing laws against following too closely. I'll bet you won't find any.
One of the links you ignored would have taken you to a blog where people were discussing the FTC tickets they had gotten. Several of the others were news reports of enforcement actions. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.
One of the problems is that "following too closely" isn't an offense, or any kind of problem at all. Simply put, there's absolutely nothing dangerous about it. If it were, there would be some kind of enforcement against it.
That said, I fully support the aims of this regulation and sincerely hope that it has precisely the desired effect.
When has this kind of regulation ever had "the desired effect"? Mostly all it will do is force ad creation agencies to find new ways to get around the current measure of "loudness" or find some other annoying way to attract attention to their ads.
Just like the wonderful "do not call" list stopped telemarketers. No, all it did was force them to find ways of spoofing caller ID data so it was harder to report them to the FTC when their "this is your last opportunity to avoid higher interest rates, we won't call you again..." barrage hits. I actually got a call from Robert F. Kennedy last week. Fascinating. Don't know what he was selling since he didn't leave a message, and for the same reason I have no way of reporting the violator.
And making the cable provider responsible may be the right thing for local avail ads (ads the cable company inserts into network feeds), but how are they supposed to monitor and control network-sourced ads?
So you haven't experienced the DVDs that force you to sit through previews by disabling skip and fast forward functionality. How nice for you.
I've heard that such things exist, but I've never seen one. Of course, I always slip new disks into the DVD on my computer and let mencoder convert the real content into a computer-usable form before I watch anything. Why would I want to waste my time sitting in front of a TV when I can watch movies at work on the computer?
Slashdot Mirror
"ahh Clem broke de Stephen Hawking..." Unhappy macnam.
Worst case it can be done as a series of recordings from the original chip.
No, worst case would be having Majel Barret record the voice. Or would it be worst? Imagine, one of the most famous scientists of all time speaking in the voice of one of the most famous computer systems of all time?
Or maybe as Hal? "What's the equation for the sixth string dimension, Stephen?" "I can't do that, Dave".
I'd offer my FSW Votrax unit, if I knew which box I had it stored in and it still works.
This is for a graduate assistant to STEPHEN HAWKING.
No, not really. It is for a personal assistant who has some technical skills to maintain the assistive devices he uses.
A graduate assistant position is a part-time position that is used to fund PhD or MS students while they are studying, and the webpage is quite explicit in saying that this is NOT a position for someone who wants to study physics. This position has nothing to do with a graduate student.
One thing universities are quite clear on, at least those I've attended and worked at, is that if you aren't a graduate student you aren't eligible for graduate assistantships. In fact, we just had a student graduate who needed a short-term position until her real job started, and she was not allowed to be a GRA, she had to get an appointment as a faculty assistant.
Not that this job wouldn't be interesting, but it would be more of a caretaker than an academic relationship.
I would start by focusing on what the problems are. Outages from IT problems? Viruses? Downtime? Trouble with TV transmissions? Put a dollar value on the problems and you'll be 80% done with your sales pitch.
I would first start with a good description of what this IT department is supposed to DO, and only then can you see what isn't being done (the "problems").
From the simple description in this article, I don't see where an IT department would be helpful, at least not on the engineering side. Broadcast computing requirements are very very different than what a typical office or company needs. The production switcher, the content delivery systems, and all the other control systems are not just "peecees with windows and powerpoint", they are realtime control systems that need to interact with each other and stay functional.
An IT department that comes around to do a "windows update" on a regular basis may very well cripple the master control room if the updated system changes a critical driver or does something else that would only be annoying in an office.
No, in such an environment, creating an IT department to offload the "computers" from engineering is simply creating a problem where one doesn't exist. The IT deparrtment is going to be fighting with engineering over updates and virus scanners and anything else that IT wants to control but aren't necessary or are actually detrimental to the engineering use.
It is exactly this "kind of use" issue that we're facing here at the Uni. The "campus IT" is really good at running desktop systems with Word and IE for the liberal arts folks who use their computers to write fuzzy papers about the life of Wilford Brimley or whatever. They really don't understand what scientists do with their computers, especially computational dynamics or modelers. "First, try rebooting. What do you mean there are 'other users'? Just press 'ctl-alt-del'. What do you mean the computer doesn't have a keyboard or monitor?" We work VERY HARD to keep "campus IT" out of our college, because we need to get work done and "campus IT" would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Scientific method is creating a hypothesis and then carrying out tests to prove or disprove your assumption, this is how science works.
You cannot prove your assumption, that's why it is an assumption.
You cannot prove your hypothesis, only disprove it. For every observed phenomenon, there are a huge number of hypothetical explanations, some or many of which can be disproven by modifying the observation system to account for other effects and making a new observation.
The best you can do in science is say that the observed phenomenon behaves as predicted by the hypothesis within the margin of error of the experiment, and that other hypotheses that have not been or are not testable are unlikely.
Example? Newtonian physics. For many years, those theories were accurate within the margin of error of the experiments designed to test them. Technology got better, and suddenly we were seeing quantum effects, and things like time errors in occultation of stars. Now we know that Newtonian physics is a good and useful approximation, but quantum physics is more correct.
They announced the SC National Guard is going to start practicing with UAVs. The National Guard unit is one specifically tasked to civil disorder operations and "homeland security"......
The article you link to says they are training to use the device for an upcoming deployment. Would you rather send the national guard troops into conflicts without training? They have guns, too. Should they be prohibited from training with guns until they get where they are going?
National Guard units are also tasked with civil disaster relief, which includes the ability to remotely asses the damage and prioritize response. A UAV will give them the ability to view the disaster area from above, something that will help them make better decisions and provide assistance where it is most needed most effectively.
To your example of someone stealing a car, I'd point out that yes the person who *stole* it may be guilty, but mistaken identity happens all the time and that means that you cannot go by one person's word alone that the person labelled as the thief is indeed the thief.
You missed the point completely. The person who stole the car is a thief the moment they stole the car. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". What they are is not the same as a presumption that the government is supposed to make regarding their legal status.
The "illegal alien" is illegal the moment he entered the country illegally. He is illegal not because he has no documents, he is illegal because he broke the law. Calling him "undocumented" is incorrect. Telling me he IS "innocent until proven guilty" is just as incorrect. You can say "the courts must treat him as IF ...".
No, the police report only says what the police report says. Anyone can type out a document.
And I can type out a document that says "I didn't do it." I'll make it into a business-sized card. Call it my "get out of jail free" card. Thanks for the idea. I doubt it will work very well, but if it doesn't, you'll pay for my lawyer, right?
To your example of AZ law, the Feds are investigating the sheriff in question ...
And you have just provided an example of where you are not assuming "innocent until proven guilty". Arpaio has not been convicted of anything. He is, therefore, according to your philosophy, innocent.
1. There may well be people who have US citizenship (and therefore be entirely legal) who have no documentation to prove it (and thus be undocumented).
I think you are deliberately misinterpreting the difference between "undocumented" and "illegal alien".
The illegal alien is not illegal because he has no documents. He is illegal because he entered the country illegally to start with, or has remained in the country in violation of his visa or other entry permit. Many people have no documents. They are not "illegal aliens" because of that.
In the US (not sure about your country), a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Well, that's the theory, at least.
That is the presumption that the government is supposed to make in a criminal case. That is NOT a presumption of fact. I.e., if someone steals a car from me, he is a criminal, period, end of sentence (no pun intended). He became a criminal and assumed guilt when he committed the crime. The government will require proof of such, and is supposed to treat him as innocent until proven guilty with regards to punishment, but I need no such proof before I do. You could try to argue with a casino or retail establishment, but they can tresspass someone for shoplifting or other crime committed on their premises without a court ajudicating the matter.
The idea that someone IS innocent until proven guilty is a logical fallacy. How he must be treated by the judicial system and what he actually is are two very different things.
And, no, saying someone "looks funny" is not a lawful right.
The AZ law regarding illegal aliens had nothing to do with deporting people because they "looked funny". Looking funny was not sufficient grounds.
I cannot tell from a police report or a media photo whether the person was legally entitled to be in the US. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.
Actually, you can tell quite a lot from a police report. "Subject was observed crossing the border into the US at MIddle of Nowhere, Texas." Taking the subject to the nearest border crossing facility and allowing him to either gain legal entry or remain in Mexico is quite reasonable.
Most of those who are passionate about convicting without prosecuting would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions"
Now if only those who favor ignoring federal law in their attempts at fuzzy warm feel good would remember that.
Except that when the game is over, they are still playing, and only the ref knows the magic number.
When the game is over, the game is over. When they are still playing, the game isn't over yet.
This kind of timekeeping sure kills the defeatism of, say, football, where the team who has the ball when there is 10 seconds on the clock often just spikes the ball just to get it over with and everyone starts running onto the field before the time runs out. Can't score in ten seconds. What if it was really a minute and ten?
Your complaint is actually a strength in soccer. The game keeps going until it is over. The players don't just give up because the time is nearly over.
Why should a clock have to count downward to be able to determine a fixed length of time? And why should a play clock stop just because someone fell down and wants the ref to throw a yellow card at the other guy? Sounds like soccer's clock works pretty well compared to other sports.
Both the value in the query and the contents of the database are encrypted, and the operator of the database can't read either. The operator can not compare two values without the encryption key -
Well, if the article I read was correct, that's not true. The "operator" (DBA) certainly can read the contents of the database. When he created the database, he was told that the "salary" column contains data that needs to be compared, so it will be encrypted with an algorithm that allows comparision of values.
He can easily extract that column and compare the values contained therein, which will sort in exactly the same manner as the cleartext.
The only question is, can he get any significant information from that data. He can certainly do a distribution analysis and probably a rudimentary guess at what the values are close to. (If you know the maximum salary -- CEO, e.g. -- then you should be able to make some pretty accurate guesses at the other numbers.) He might call up HR and ask them what his salary is supposed to be, and then attempt to identify the HR query to locate the ciphertext version that corresponds to his salary by watching the encrypted queries as they come through. ("While I'm on the phone, here's the only query that included what I think is the salary field in the response...")
This is based on number theory. If a set of numbers with a minimum difference of 'eps' (for integers, eps==1, e.g., for salaries, eps is likely to be 0.01) is encoded in a way that maintains both the properties of "same cipher every time" and "maintains sort order", then you should be able to get a lot of information out of a large enough sample.
For example, if three real salaries are $1, $2 and $3, then the cipher versions must have as many possible values between $1 and $2 as between $2 and $3, otherwise you could not encode all the possible values. Either you can do this analysis, or the client does some shuffling of data based on probabilities of occurance and doesn't need to encode all possible values. I don't know which.
Quarterbacks wired to every player and calling plays without a huddle? Really? How does that make the game more fun to watch?
It only makes it fun if it is being done as a desperation move by a losing team running out of time, and they're doing something risky in an attempt at getting that one last score that would have them win.
Make it "normal" and it would lose all allure.
If you are going to get rid of the huddle, why not get rid of the play itself? Simply use modern "fantasy football" rules and decide based on the play being called and the players on the field how it will turn out. Less chance for injury to the players. Less chance for injury to the fans because there won't be as many of them driving home from the stadium drunk -- or in any other condition.
Can you even formulate a query if you don't have the key?
As DBA:
show databases;
...list of databases returned. ... list of tables returned.
... encrypted data returned. Damn...
use patientData; show tables;
"Database changed"
select * from patients;
The DBMS is unmodified. It's the data that's encrypted in a way that SQL can deal with it. Mostly. Redefined SUM and other math ops.
how would this do anything to an admin's ability to access the database?
It wouldn't. The admin would have the permissions to do a "select * from ..." query. It would, however, present him with only encrypted data as a result. The decryption of the data itself takes place only on the client (or proxy), which we assume is outside his scope of control.
Now, that does raise the question of leaks from the "comparision" columns. That is, those that are encrypted with an algorithm that always returns the same ciphertext and the ciphertext has the same ordering properties as the clear. It would seem that if he knows his own salary, for example, he could figure out all the rest, except that he won't know which row applies to him because the "employee name" data is also encrypted and he doesn't have that key, either.
For one thing, the rule on the tackle
The introduction of technology could easily introduce changes in the rules. Don't be a luddite.
First, any call regarding location could be decided electronically and instantly. Every time they position the ball after a tackle,
Better than that, they could track the ball's forward progress and never need a ref or ump or whatever the zebras are called. Pressure sensors in every knee and elbow pad tells us when the player was down, the computer tells us where the ball was. Position sensors tell us offsides or even count the number of players on the field. No replays, no bad calls.
but take the refs out of the game,
Fixed that for 'ya.
For a season, the NHL had a tracking device in the puck so the tellyvission could follow it easier and do technical flummery with data. That seems to have gone away quick. Maybe the fans didn't like it? Why wouldn't they? It removes part of the sport from the game.
spend less time referreeing and more time playing.
Most of the time "refereeing" is when the clock is stopped. Less time refereeing, but not more time playing.
Maybe next we apply this to real football and never have an incorrect offsides call again? Think the soccer fans would go for it? And, of course, all kinds of medical telemetry so we can all tell when the cheatin' Man United players fake injuries looking for a yellow card.
This is the part that these researchers seem to have attacked, from my understanding: somehow get the server to do useful queries on encrypted data without decrypting it without the monstrous overhead of the naive solutions.
I looked through the first few pages of the article. It is very much like how Unix passwords work. You don't decrypt the password in /etc/passwd to see if the user can log in, you encrypt his entered password with the same salt and see if there is a match. The trick is that here the DBMS is not doing the encrypting, there is a proxy that takes the performance hit, allowing the DBMS to run at full speeed.
The text comparison (LIKE) is done by encrypting each token in the DB text and allowing a token equality comparison. You can't, therefore, do a "LIKE 'Boston%'" to find things like "Bostonian".
For comparison operations ( select * where salary > 60000) the encryption used maintains order. The encrypted value of 59,999 is less than the encrypted value of 60,000, e.g.. The paper seems to imply that the equality encryption ( cleartext always encrypts to the same ciphertext so an equality of ciphertexts means equality of cleartext) is optional. In reality, order always means equality. I.e., if I search for $val>$x-eps and $val<$x+eps (where eps is the epsilon, or smallest interval in $x) the only answer can be where $val == $x.
Hmmm. Just saying that, I realize that, unless the encryption of data in the DBMS is highly dependent on the actual data in the DB, eps must be the smallest step in the encrypted data, and since order is preserved, the only "encryption" is thus an offset (add or subtract a constant). Thus the DB encryption of data must be dependent on the range of data. I wonder if there is any useful information that can be extracted from that fact?
For corporations, this system would be great. If the DBA didn't pre-define the salary column to be comparable, then nobody could do a "where salary > 100000" to find all the highly paid employees (or "bonus > 1000000", either).
There is alot of pressure at the core of Jupiter.
That's nothing compared to being the core of Saturn. You scrub and scrub and scrub and nothing gets rid of those rings, and then Neptune comes home and wants his dinner and doesn't understand that you've been working hard all day. 'Get me a beer!' he hollers as he plops his ass down into the big comfy chair and starts watching Wheel of Fortune.
I tell 'ya, being the core of a planet ain't all wine and roses, I tell 'ya.
Give them a choice, give you a work phone or respect the autonomy of your personal phone if you allow it to be used for work.
You aren't respecting the "autonomy of your personal phone" if you allow it to be used for work, why should they? You've given it away for free, why should the company buy the milk?
Of course, a phone cannot have autonomy, but we'll overlook that...
Find me citations showing that law enforcement in this country puts any real effort into enforcing laws against following too closely. I'll bet you won't find any.
One of the links you ignored would have taken you to a blog where people were discussing the FTC tickets they had gotten. Several of the others were news reports of enforcement actions. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.
One of the problems is that "following too closely" isn't an offense, or any kind of problem at all. Simply put, there's absolutely nothing dangerous about it. If it were, there would be some kind of enforcement against it.
You don't know what you are talking about.
That said, I fully support the aims of this regulation and sincerely hope that it has precisely the desired effect.
When has this kind of regulation ever had "the desired effect"? Mostly all it will do is force ad creation agencies to find new ways to get around the current measure of "loudness" or find some other annoying way to attract attention to their ads.
Just like the wonderful "do not call" list stopped telemarketers. No, all it did was force them to find ways of spoofing caller ID data so it was harder to report them to the FTC when their "this is your last opportunity to avoid higher interest rates, we won't call you again..." barrage hits. I actually got a call from Robert F. Kennedy last week. Fascinating. Don't know what he was selling since he didn't leave a message, and for the same reason I have no way of reporting the violator.
And making the cable provider responsible may be the right thing for local avail ads (ads the cable company inserts into network feeds), but how are they supposed to monitor and control network-sourced ads?
So you haven't experienced the DVDs that force you to sit through previews by disabling skip and fast forward functionality. How nice for you.
I've heard that such things exist, but I've never seen one. Of course, I always slip new disks into the DVD on my computer and let mencoder convert the real content into a computer-usable form before I watch anything. Why would I want to waste my time sitting in front of a TV when I can watch movies at work on the computer?
Livermorium, holy yuk!
Especially when I first read that as "liverandonionium".