No government needed. If people keep trading in Bitcoin, it will have value, until people stop caring, then it will have no value. The later is what makes fiat money different, and may need days or centuries to happen, but is guaranteed to happen with any kind of fiat money.
Yes, it is expected to be in a certain mass range, have a certain spin (zero), a certain electric charge (zero), a certain color (none - "color" refers to strong force charge), and so on. The LHC can sample all the "places" it is expected to be, and can prove it doesn't exist. Now, of course, somebody can come after that with a different theory, with a different particle and name it after Higg.
That will only open the gate for the employees of the cloud service to get your data. And those are even less loyal to your company, and you have even less control over them than your ones.
The only problem is that algorithms deal quite badly with encrypted data. Your solution is only viable if you want to store the data and do nothing else with it, what I'd have to say, is a quite bad architecture. You'd better saving everything into/dev/null.
You know, you can write a lisp program and have it run on nearly any computer out there (differently from silverlight, that requires Windows). You can even write an object oriented GUI program, and have it run nearly anywhere.
Not many people do that, and most people are right avoiding doing it... But standardized languages and languages with free interpreters/compilers don't really die.
Or, you could put away some 1 or 2% of the population (that was at the time used to have problems with an outdated java) and target 1.2. Life gets much easier when you target 1.2.
"Has it already become so obvious to the OEMs that WinTab 8 will be such an mind-boggling disaster that the only way MS can get it out to the marketplace is to make the hardware themselves?"
MS: Hey, we are comming with Win8, it will run on tablets.
OEMs: Ok, call us when you have something.
MS: Hey, you'd better pay attention, or Windows may become more expensive for you.
OEMs: Ok, we are paying attention. Do you have something to show?
MS: Yes, your hardware must meet that spec...
OEMs: That's insane, it will be too expensive! Nobody will buy it!!! Is that all you propose?
MS: No, you also must get processors only from manufacturer X.
OEMs: <Strong laughs>
MS: Hey, we are serious!!!!
OEMs: <Hangs the phone, laughing>
MW: Ok, it seems we'll have to roll our own hardware.
That's because Apple has a few successes once in a while, and those sucesses do, you know, successfuly hand them some money. Microsoft by their turn had one extremely "successful" product recently, that is nearly the end of its life, and still in the red.
So, I'd say to you call yourself, as you know that it actualy happened. The fact that they aledge it was done by accident changes what? Did they implement that capacity by accident too? And the fact that it is happening all the time with less popular (and less ironic) books doesn't matter either, because those books aren't popular, right?
"That story is a scant 30 years away and it still seems extreme and hyperdystopian."
That story was made less real after the market reacted to the Microsoft-Intel plan to make it real. We were saved, but they sucessfuly brought some governments (between them the quite important US), and still have the plans to try again, and again, untill they get what they want. By the way, the DRM that is quietly creeping into reality on phones, tablets, ereaders and game consoles is based on that plan, and the market isn't displaying the same reaction now.
You simply don't want to have such a machine. You either use a hardware based true random number generator for seeding your random number generator, or you trust the number generation to your client. Also, you don't get to keep history of the seeds, or the private keys.
"While those who share their subscriptions with a spouse or other family members under the same roof almost certainly have nothing to fear"
Well, I bet the GP knows something about cryptography... And by knowing that, he probably knows that if RSA used some proper security, it would be impossible to retrieve the keys by attacking the server (as TFA says that happened). Thus, RSA didn't use propoer security.
Now, I have no idea why RSA didn't use propoer security, it may have even the client that demanded it. But just don't claim they had a secure infrastructure, because they didn't.
Well, we have nothing better than challenge-response for authentication... But I guess I can see the flaw on that protocol: "If the attacker can see both the challenge and the hash, and if the password can be remembered by the user, it will probably be cracked." Here, I hightlighted it.
If you did RTFA, you'd see that they just needed 48 days for a 9 characters long password. Of course, that means that one'd need a bit more than 2 years for a 10 chars long password. I mean, one'd need that time with one current GPU, if he waited those 2 years, 1 more would be enough... And we need to add an extra char at our passwords each 10 years.
We have a name for long passwords that you don't need to remember... It is "cryptographic key", or just "key" to be short. Now, the browsers could start implementing RSA authentication (even the specs are done, SSL is complete) for the end user, and let all this problems with unprotected passwords go away.
Isn't it better to simply get the public RSA key of the user and be done with it? You get a 2048 bits key that won't need replacing often (good till the heat death of the Universe), won't burn your money into useless server cycles (fast algorithm), and is still more secure (older, way more tested than your idea). We just need to adapt the browsers, untill then you just don't limit the size of passowrds on your site, so people can protect themselves with longer ones.
Statistically, the human population will choose '123456', 'password', or 'password123' as they passwords often enough for a hacker to get anything he wants.
It goes to show that we need longer and strong passords. It used to be that only strong was enough, but now it isn't. The future probably is on long computer generated passwords*, stored on a disk. Now, of course, that'll only help if the database administrator does the bare minimum of work and hashes and salt the passords, if he doesn't, there is no solution anywhere.
* If it is long, computer generated, and stored out of the brain, I guess it shouldn't be called "password" anymore, we have the word "key" for those things already.
The second is in a small jar with cesium in it, and has no relation to the speed of light. I guess you were talking about the meter, but then your joke is no fun anymore...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care about any of that. I do all my transactions on carts of salt, and never looked back! (Or forward, whatever fits better.)
No government needed. If people keep trading in Bitcoin, it will have value, until people stop caring, then it will have no value. The later is what makes fiat money different, and may need days or centuries to happen, but is guaranteed to happen with any kind of fiat money.
So, business as usual. People that expected a market to work like a government gets anoyed, and life goes on.
Yes, it is expected to be in a certain mass range, have a certain spin (zero), a certain electric charge (zero), a certain color (none - "color" refers to strong force charge), and so on. The LHC can sample all the "places" it is expected to be, and can prove it doesn't exist. Now, of course, somebody can come after that with a different theory, with a different particle and name it after Higg.
IANAP by the way.
That will only open the gate for the employees of the cloud service to get your data. And those are even less loyal to your company, and you have even less control over them than your ones.
Pssst. The GP never got the joke, but he think he did. Don't disrupt him.
The only problem is that algorithms deal quite badly with encrypted data. Your solution is only viable if you want to store the data and do nothing else with it, what I'd have to say, is a quite bad architecture. You'd better saving everything into /dev/null.
You know, you can write a lisp program and have it run on nearly any computer out there (differently from silverlight, that requires Windows). You can even write an object oriented GUI program, and have it run nearly anywhere.
Not many people do that, and most people are right avoiding doing it... But standardized languages and languages with free interpreters/compilers don't really die.
Or, you could put away some 1 or 2% of the population (that was at the time used to have problems with an outdated java) and target 1.2. Life gets much easier when you target 1.2.
MS: Hey, we are comming with Win8, it will run on tablets.
OEMs: Ok, call us when you have something.
MS: Hey, you'd better pay attention, or Windows may become more expensive for you.
OEMs: Ok, we are paying attention. Do you have something to show?
MS: Yes, your hardware must meet that spec...
OEMs: That's insane, it will be too expensive! Nobody will buy it!!! Is that all you propose?
MS: No, you also must get processors only from manufacturer X.
OEMs: <Strong laughs>
MS: Hey, we are serious!!!!
OEMs: <Hangs the phone, laughing>
MW: Ok, it seems we'll have to roll our own hardware.
That's because Apple has a few successes once in a while, and those sucesses do, you know, successfuly hand them some money. Microsoft by their turn had one extremely "successful" product recently, that is nearly the end of its life, and still in the red.
Publishers can still unpublish their books, even if the reader won't follow the other DRM restrictions.
So, I'd say to you call yourself, as you know that it actualy happened. The fact that they aledge it was done by accident changes what? Did they implement that capacity by accident too? And the fact that it is happening all the time with less popular (and less ironic) books doesn't matter either, because those books aren't popular, right?
That story was made less real after the market reacted to the Microsoft-Intel plan to make it real. We were saved, but they sucessfuly brought some governments (between them the quite important US), and still have the plans to try again, and again, untill they get what they want. By the way, the DRM that is quietly creeping into reality on phones, tablets, ereaders and game consoles is based on that plan, and the market isn't displaying the same reaction now.
You simply don't want to have such a machine. You either use a hardware based true random number generator for seeding your random number generator, or you trust the number generation to your client. Also, you don't get to keep history of the seeds, or the private keys.
Do you know how public key cryptography works?
Well, I bet the GP knows something about cryptography... And by knowing that, he probably knows that if RSA used some proper security, it would be impossible to retrieve the keys by attacking the server (as TFA says that happened). Thus, RSA didn't use propoer security.
Now, I have no idea why RSA didn't use propoer security, it may have even the client that demanded it. But just don't claim they had a secure infrastructure, because they didn't.
Well, we have nothing better than challenge-response for authentication... But I guess I can see the flaw on that protocol: "If the attacker can see both the challenge and the hash, and if the password can be remembered by the user, it will probably be cracked." Here, I hightlighted it.
If you did RTFA, you'd see that they just needed 48 days for a 9 characters long password. Of course, that means that one'd need a bit more than 2 years for a 10 chars long password. I mean, one'd need that time with one current GPU, if he waited those 2 years, 1 more would be enough... And we need to add an extra char at our passwords each 10 years.
We have a name for long passwords that you don't need to remember... It is "cryptographic key", or just "key" to be short. Now, the browsers could start implementing RSA authentication (even the specs are done, SSL is complete) for the end user, and let all this problems with unprotected passwords go away.
Isn't it better to simply get the public RSA key of the user and be done with it? You get a 2048 bits key that won't need replacing often (good till the heat death of the Universe), won't burn your money into useless server cycles (fast algorithm), and is still more secure (older, way more tested than your idea). We just need to adapt the browsers, untill then you just don't limit the size of passowrds on your site, so people can protect themselves with longer ones.
Statistically, the human population will choose '123456', 'password', or 'password123' as they passwords often enough for a hacker to get anything he wants.
It goes to show that we need longer and strong passords. It used to be that only strong was enough, but now it isn't. The future probably is on long computer generated passwords*, stored on a disk. Now, of course, that'll only help if the database administrator does the bare minimum of work and hashes and salt the passords, if he doesn't, there is no solution anywhere.
* If it is long, computer generated, and stored out of the brain, I guess it shouldn't be called "password" anymore, we have the word "key" for those things already.
The second is in a small jar with cesium in it, and has no relation to the speed of light. I guess you were talking about the meter, but then your joke is no fun anymore...
Or gradualy the routing tables will get out of the reach of the routers at some places, and IPv4 will completely stop working.
There are many problems with auctioning IP addresses.