The point I was making was not to state to create an unaltered copy of the original but get enough data on the variation of the copies to be able to mess up the watermark enough to render it useless. Random pick of formatting/wording in deviating sections from one of the N copies obtained at each case. The result may be that you have variants A, B and C as source and your scrambling causes it to look like variant K, so the buyer of variant K will be blamed until they figure out that they are chasing in the wrong direction.
And if the publisher do change texts in different e-books anyone that wants to get around it would just need a few copies and use a statistical analysis to blank out the differences.
This is similar to what steganography does, so if you mess up the punctuation inserted then it will be really hard to look up the perpetrator - or even that the wrong party will be pointed out.
And you will always have people that flies under the radar that can create trouble. The Una Bomber is a good example of a person that really wasn't leaving much trace for the investigators to follow. You can't get everyone, the actions taken with passport controls etc. is annoying for the public and won't really achieve anything.
Even more "fun" is that the name is the key they are looking for, not the individual - so if someone changes name on their passport they may pass through unchecked while if someone has an identical name but isn't the same person they may be scrutinized five times to Friday for no result.
And then require the supplier to be on site to do the upgrades to make sure that they do it right. Screw anyone that complains, bring it to the highest level of the organization with hard numbers of how much a stop will cost.
Total isolation of mission critical networks is the only thing that works.
The summary is that there's a mutual authentication key (MAK) that should be different for each vehicle on the road, however if some manufacturer has taken a short cut and used the same key on a large number of vehicles then all those cars are at risk, and looking at the article it seems to be the case - the device works for some vehicles but not other.
As for their habit of going in on the passenger side - that's where the glove compartment is and where it's likely that some valuables are found.
It's a bit tricky there - the old drugs may be effective and have side effects, the new drugs are more focused and has less side effects.
However a drug that is more focused may not be effective in all cases because the problem may not be what the drug targets while the old drug was broad enough to work regardless.
The reason for depression may vary greatly between individuals, and even if it is narrowed down to a genetic reason it may vary a lot even there.
But if you want to measure other things too, or want a method which doesn't require much effort to apply then the Roomba way is interesting since you can just set it up in the area you want to monitor in a few minutes, leave it for a week and then come back to a well-swept room with a decent amount of data.
Of course the performance has improved since the P4, but the point is that it has been by tweaking things like cache, parallel execution with discard of unwanted branches, pre-fetch, various types of pipelining, out of order execution and so on.
All this means that in order to achieve high performance you have an architecture that does a lot of stuff that eventually is getting thrown away because it was done just in case. The catch here is that it costs energy and builds complexity. The benefit is of course that you can get a processor that executes multiple instructions per clock cycle which improves performance.
However there's a limit on the performance gain these improvements can provide.
It's an interesting addition which can be useful for some.
But when it comes to general performance improvement it's rather disappointing. Looks like they have fine tuned the current architecture without actually adding something that increases the performance at the same rate as we have seen the last decades. To some extent it looks like we have hit a ceiling in increased performance with the current overall computer architecture and that new approaches are needed. The clock frequency is basically the same as for the decade old P4, the number of running cores on a chip seems to be limited too, at least compared to other architectures.
One interesting path for improving performance that may be useful is what Xilinx has done with their Zynq-7000 which combines ARM cores with FPGA, but it will require a change in the way computers are designed.
Those extra pixels in height makes a difference, especially if you do something else than watching movies and playing games.
Widescreen for computers isn't really that good since a lot of computer work is about reading and writing, not active content. A 4:3 monitor on a computer makes sense if you work with static content where you want a good overview without resorting to scrolling up and down.
A 1920x1440 monitor would be interesting if it was decently priced.
Has anybody else seen/considered the Xilinx Zync? It's a mix of ARM kernels and FPGA, which could be interesting in supercomputing solutions.
For anyone willing to tweak around with it there are development boards around like the ZedBoard that is priced at US$395. Not the cheapest device around, but for anyone willing to learn more about this interesting chip it is at least not an impossible sum. Xilinx also have the Zynq®-7000 AP SoC ZC702 Evaluation Kit which is priced at US$895, which is quite a bit more expensive and not as interesting for hobbyists.
Done right you may be able to do a lot of interesting stuff with a FPGA a lot faster than an ordinary processor can and then let the processor take care of stuff where performance isn't a critical part.
Those chips are right now starting to find their way into vehicle ECUs, but it's still in an early phase so there aren't many mass produced cars yet with it.
As I see it - supercomputers will have to look at every avenue to get maximum performance for the lowest possible power consumption - and avoid solutions with high power consumption in standby situations.
Having seen both the waterfall model and the agile model I would say that both models needs to be applied correctly to work. The agile is working for incremental development in small steps where you can adjust and adapt as you go, the waterfall works for long iterations but it requires that each step is thoroughly analyzed for problems. It works fine for slow projects but not for quick to market and cheap projects.
Changing process method in the middle of a project is a sure sign that it's time to abandon ship because the management doesn't have a clue what they are doing.
One of the primary reasons for a large project failure is that people aren't working with the same goal in sight. Even the single worker needs to know what the overall picture is and what they are supposed to do and why.
If it is actually possible to utilize the entanglement there are a number of commercial possibilities as well as governmental. Communication that is hard to spy on, faster communication across the globe, instant communication with remote operated vehicles on other planets.
But we don't know until we have freed Schrödingers Cat - or has it actually teleported itself to another plane of existence?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going for the FPGA/ARM competence by fiddling around with a Zedboard.
This seems to be an interesting thing to go on with since it is very useful to have knowledge in how to do custom designs.
I stopped using Altavista when they nuked the "NEAR" keyword.
And even when sending Morse code - is it in a minority language you are communicating or is it encryption?
Yet another proof of the principle.
Now let's see what the cat has to say about it.
You have two alternatives - either to not go online at all or spread your traffic randomly to confuse the matter.
No problem - Windows itself is a bug.
The point I was making was not to state to create an unaltered copy of the original but get enough data on the variation of the copies to be able to mess up the watermark enough to render it useless. Random pick of formatting/wording in deviating sections from one of the N copies obtained at each case. The result may be that you have variants A, B and C as source and your scrambling causes it to look like variant K, so the buyer of variant K will be blamed until they figure out that they are chasing in the wrong direction.
And if the publisher do change texts in different e-books anyone that wants to get around it would just need a few copies and use a statistical analysis to blank out the differences.
This is similar to what steganography does, so if you mess up the punctuation inserted then it will be really hard to look up the perpetrator - or even that the wrong party will be pointed out.
So now the Pandora's box is opened.
I don't even trust myself.
And you will always have people that flies under the radar that can create trouble. The Una Bomber is a good example of a person that really wasn't leaving much trace for the investigators to follow. You can't get everyone, the actions taken with passport controls etc. is annoying for the public and won't really achieve anything.
Even more "fun" is that the name is the key they are looking for, not the individual - so if someone changes name on their passport they may pass through unchecked while if someone has an identical name but isn't the same person they may be scrutinized five times to Friday for no result.
And then require the supplier to be on site to do the upgrades to make sure that they do it right. Screw anyone that complains, bring it to the highest level of the organization with hard numbers of how much a stop will cost.
Total isolation of mission critical networks is the only thing that works.
Getting the right time these days is easy, you have NTP, GPS, DCF77 and Time from NPL to name a few sources in Europe.
And there's another blog entry on it: Where Things Fall Apart: Protocols (Part 2 of 2)
The summary is that there's a mutual authentication key (MAK) that should be different for each vehicle on the road, however if some manufacturer has taken a short cut and used the same key on a large number of vehicles then all those cars are at risk, and looking at the article it seems to be the case - the device works for some vehicles but not other.
As for their habit of going in on the passenger side - that's where the glove compartment is and where it's likely that some valuables are found.
The world is not enough.
It's a bit tricky there - the old drugs may be effective and have side effects, the new drugs are more focused and has less side effects.
However a drug that is more focused may not be effective in all cases because the problem may not be what the drug targets while the old drug was broad enough to work regardless.
The reason for depression may vary greatly between individuals, and even if it is narrowed down to a genetic reason it may vary a lot even there.
Just add a pile of Dallas DS18B20 1-wire sensors.
But if you want to measure other things too, or want a method which doesn't require much effort to apply then the Roomba way is interesting since you can just set it up in the area you want to monitor in a few minutes, leave it for a week and then come back to a well-swept room with a decent amount of data.
Of course the performance has improved since the P4, but the point is that it has been by tweaking things like cache, parallel execution with discard of unwanted branches, pre-fetch, various types of pipelining, out of order execution and so on.
All this means that in order to achieve high performance you have an architecture that does a lot of stuff that eventually is getting thrown away because it was done just in case. The catch here is that it costs energy and builds complexity. The benefit is of course that you can get a processor that executes multiple instructions per clock cycle which improves performance.
However there's a limit on the performance gain these improvements can provide.
It's an interesting addition which can be useful for some.
But when it comes to general performance improvement it's rather disappointing. Looks like they have fine tuned the current architecture without actually adding something that increases the performance at the same rate as we have seen the last decades. To some extent it looks like we have hit a ceiling in increased performance with the current overall computer architecture and that new approaches are needed. The clock frequency is basically the same as for the decade old P4, the number of running cores on a chip seems to be limited too, at least compared to other architectures.
One interesting path for improving performance that may be useful is what Xilinx has done with their Zynq-7000 which combines ARM cores with FPGA, but it will require a change in the way computers are designed.
Those extra pixels in height makes a difference, especially if you do something else than watching movies and playing games.
Widescreen for computers isn't really that good since a lot of computer work is about reading and writing, not active content. A 4:3 monitor on a computer makes sense if you work with static content where you want a good overview without resorting to scrolling up and down.
A 1920x1440 monitor would be interesting if it was decently priced.
Badgers
Cute Badgers
Badgers in the wild
Mounted Badger
[Taxidermist - Man who mounts animals]
As far as I know the fifth amendment can be applied to anything.
If there is a need to restrict it then it shall be done in the Supreme Court.
Has anybody else seen/considered the Xilinx Zync? It's a mix of ARM kernels and FPGA, which could be interesting in supercomputing solutions.
For anyone willing to tweak around with it there are development boards around like the ZedBoard that is priced at US$395. Not the cheapest device around, but for anyone willing to learn more about this interesting chip it is at least not an impossible sum. Xilinx also have the Zynq®-7000 AP SoC ZC702 Evaluation Kit which is priced at US$895, which is quite a bit more expensive and not as interesting for hobbyists.
Done right you may be able to do a lot of interesting stuff with a FPGA a lot faster than an ordinary processor can and then let the processor take care of stuff where performance isn't a critical part.
Those chips are right now starting to find their way into vehicle ECUs, but it's still in an early phase so there aren't many mass produced cars yet with it.
As I see it - supercomputers will have to look at every avenue to get maximum performance for the lowest possible power consumption - and avoid solutions with high power consumption in standby situations.
Having seen both the waterfall model and the agile model I would say that both models needs to be applied correctly to work. The agile is working for incremental development in small steps where you can adjust and adapt as you go, the waterfall works for long iterations but it requires that each step is thoroughly analyzed for problems. It works fine for slow projects but not for quick to market and cheap projects.
Changing process method in the middle of a project is a sure sign that it's time to abandon ship because the management doesn't have a clue what they are doing.
One of the primary reasons for a large project failure is that people aren't working with the same goal in sight. Even the single worker needs to know what the overall picture is and what they are supposed to do and why.
Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done.
Robert A. Heinlein
In the words of Max Headroom:
"W-W-What about H-H-Humble little m-m-m-me?"
If it is actually possible to utilize the entanglement there are a number of commercial possibilities as well as governmental. Communication that is hard to spy on, faster communication across the globe, instant communication with remote operated vehicles on other planets.
But we don't know until we have freed Schrödingers Cat - or has it actually teleported itself to another plane of existence?