1. How are the photons created in the first place?
2. How are the photons detected?
3. What is the purpose of a repeater?
4. How does a repeater carry out it's purpose?
If you can answer those questions, then my friend, you have your theoretical MiM. All that you need then is the technology to materialize that theory.
If you can't answer those questions, then you don't understand the problem.
Concerning the Man-in-the-middle question: Even the article mentions an item of interest: "Quantum Repeaters"
If you can "Repeat" something, in this case a photon of light, you by definition interfere with the origin photon, measure it's condition (spin), and duplicate. For a man-in-the-middle, just modify the Quantum Repeater to duplicate 2 photons, one for original destination, and one for you. Sounds to me like someone is making bold claims to get bold funding. Next...
This idea that you can't interfere with it is nonsense. The intended receiver must "interfere" with the photons in order to receive the message. The only reason it could be considered "secure" in the short term is because no one has yet invented the technology for Quantum Repeaters. Once those are created, modifying them for exploit is only a short matter of time.
I bet the boys down at DARPA are drooling at this little robot performing the "punch". If they built a 10ft tall version, I wonder if it could run across the desert, off-trail, at 40mph? Throw a couple rail-guns on it's arms and DARPA would blow it's load.
Soccer game, football game, Wargame, what's the difference?
Is it long sleeve compatible? Imagine the tan line! Can you imagine how sweaty it would get under there?! How do I hook it up to my portable keyboard? How do I see what I'm typing while using my portable keyboard (sore neck!). Will Casio make a G-Shock version? I'm always breaking my watches. Why stop there, let's design a friggin' laptop around my entire left arm!
Your point is right on target. The amusing part is that this article sparks a disfunctional discussion of how this inquiry into personal data infringes on personal privacy. When the primary and only significant question remains: At what point can we all agree that air travel is terrorist safe?
If we don't answer that question, then it will only end when every traveler is implanted with RF tag chips, fingerprinted, retinal scanned, strapped into a straight jacket, and chained to their seats. But is that really enough???
Couldn't huge email centers (yahoo, msn, etc.) in real time compare source IP's from all emails moving into their systems, identify SPAM as massive amounts of identical email coming from identical IP addresses, load that data into a filter and then block? Some would always get through, say 100,000 but the rest of the 1.4 million get blocked? Isn't anything like this possible?
Until they start punishing the companies that benefit from the ads this is never going to stop. It should be handled like the drug war. If your company is benefitting from ads spammed to millions of people, you go down unless you reveal who you hired to do it.
Excellent analysis. Off topic, but a very good breakdown of their arguments with logic and reasoning. Not that you are asking for critique, but I will supply one, because I believe your insight is beneficial to discussion. Your comprehensive responses so completely shred the arguments these lessor's are trying to make, that after they read your response, they really have nothing left to say. Hence, not much feed back. You end the discussion. For the sake of this style of forum, make your point in just a few sentences. That won't allow for total destruction of your opponent, which will allow more dialog. That way, I will have more fun watching you toy with these people. Keep it up!
We could send the "Queer Eye" guys up on a large rocket to give the asteroid a makeover. Maybe that'll change it's course! After all, isn't that what they are really good at?
Very good question. Either they some how stop the rotation (which could prove difficult if it's a complex spin with 2 axis) or the robots only spit debris when facing a fixed point in space (which would severley detract from the effectivness of the mission, yet would still push in a single direction).
This idea that they are using this Earth Simulation for studying human interaction with other humans.... cover story.
They already know and understand the dynamics of human interactions to acceptable levels with the combat simulation systems already in place. You have to ask the important question: Why the need for a whole earth in a computer? Humans can manage global strategy without a simulation of the planet in a computer. So why do they need one now? Isn't it obvious?
AI.
They need a testing ground for R&D of current AI prototypes. Let's just hope that once it get's perfected, the AI stays in the simulation.
I'm interested in this common "conservative" paradoxical view concerning funding education vs. defense.
How can you say on one hand that "throwing more money" at education is not a solution, while simultaneously argue the opposite is a solution for Defense?
Both are governement run organizations, explain your reasoning for this apparent contradictory thinking.
By the way, did you know that the U.S. spends more on defense than:
Yeah, let's spend more money on Offense, -oh, I mean-, "defense" because we're scared of some fanatical dudes running around the desert on a different continent with towels on their heads. If the existing military the U.S. had in 2001 was unable to defend against the attack we incurred, what makes you think that spending more money on it would be the "solution"?
You didn't happen to go to public school, did you? Maybe you're right then.
Slashdot Mirror
1. How are the photons created in the first place?
2. How are the photons detected?
3. What is the purpose of a repeater?
4. How does a repeater carry out it's purpose?
If you can answer those questions, then my friend, you have your theoretical MiM. All that you need then is the technology to materialize that theory.
If you can't answer those questions, then you don't understand the problem.
Concerning the Man-in-the-middle question: Even the article mentions an item of interest: "Quantum Repeaters"
If you can "Repeat" something, in this case a photon of light, you by definition interfere with the origin photon, measure it's condition (spin), and duplicate. For a man-in-the-middle, just modify the Quantum Repeater to duplicate 2 photons, one for original destination, and one for you. Sounds to me like someone is making bold claims to get bold funding. Next...
This idea that you can't interfere with it is nonsense. The intended receiver must "interfere" with the photons in order to receive the message. The only reason it could be considered "secure" in the short term is because no one has yet invented the technology for Quantum Repeaters. Once those are created, modifying them for exploit is only a short matter of time.
I honestly can't stop laughing. Amen to Jar Jar Superstar.
Referring to the post about [r50rd.co.uk]...
OMG! Did you see the video where that 12 foot robot stopped the Land Rover in it's tracks!? I'm excited and a little freaked out at the same time.
I was just joking when I said they should make these 1ft robots 10 feet tall... bad joke I guess!
I bet the boys down at DARPA are drooling at this little robot performing the "punch". If they built a 10ft tall version, I wonder if it could run across the desert, off-trail, at 40mph? Throw a couple rail-guns on it's arms and DARPA would blow it's load.
Soccer game, football game, Wargame, what's the difference?
Is it long sleeve compatible? Imagine the tan line! Can you imagine how sweaty it would get under there?! How do I hook it up to my portable keyboard? How do I see what I'm typing while using my portable keyboard (sore neck!). Will Casio make a G-Shock version? I'm always breaking my watches. Why stop there, let's design a friggin' laptop around my entire left arm!
Did Toshiba design this at the request of DARPA?
Your point is right on target. The amusing part is that this article sparks a disfunctional discussion of how this inquiry into personal data infringes on personal privacy. When the primary and only significant question remains: At what point can we all agree that air travel is terrorist safe?
If we don't answer that question, then it will only end when every traveler is implanted with RF tag chips, fingerprinted, retinal scanned, strapped into a straight jacket, and chained to their seats. But is that really enough???
What I mean by "being handled like the drug war" is when a small dealer/user get's busted, either they reveal their source, or do the time.
Couldn't huge email centers (yahoo, msn, etc.) in real time compare source IP's from all emails moving into their systems, identify SPAM as massive amounts of identical email coming from identical IP addresses, load that data into a filter and then block? Some would always get through, say 100,000 but the rest of the 1.4 million get blocked? Isn't anything like this possible?
Yes, but in your example, Slashdot would be cleared once they reveal who they hired, the investigation goes from there.
Until they start punishing the companies that benefit from the ads this is never going to stop. It should be handled like the drug war. If your company is benefitting from ads spammed to millions of people, you go down unless you reveal who you hired to do it.
Okay, now I'm confused. The ISP's are complaining about the Gov't building networks and offering it to the public?
Isn't that what the Internet is? Isn't the Internet a Gov't built network and aren't the ISP's profiting from it's existence?
Can someone please clarify this inversely proportionate paradoxical contradiction?
Who's on first? What's on second?
composer777:
Excellent analysis. Off topic, but a very good breakdown of their arguments with logic and reasoning. Not that you are asking for critique, but I will supply one, because I believe your insight is beneficial to discussion. Your comprehensive responses so completely shred the arguments these lessor's are trying to make, that after they read your response, they really have nothing left to say. Hence, not much feed back. You end the discussion. For the sake of this style of forum, make your point in just a few sentences. That won't allow for total destruction of your opponent, which will allow more dialog. That way, I will have more fun watching you toy with these people. Keep it up!
That's a great idea to paint the asteroid!!
We could send the "Queer Eye" guys up on a large rocket to give the asteroid a makeover. Maybe that'll change it's course! After all, isn't that what they are really good at?
That google search for "miserable failure" was amazing.
Is google using AI in their search engine?
Very good question. Either they some how stop the rotation (which could prove difficult if it's a complex spin with 2 axis) or the robots only spit debris when facing a fixed point in space (which would severley detract from the effectivness of the mission, yet would still push in a single direction).
This idea that they are using this Earth Simulation for studying human interaction with other humans.... cover story.
They already know and understand the dynamics of human interactions to acceptable levels with the combat simulation systems already in place. You have to ask the important question: Why the need for a whole earth in a computer? Humans can manage global strategy without a simulation of the planet in a computer. So why do they need one now? Isn't it obvious?
AI.
They need a testing ground for R&D of current AI prototypes. Let's just hope that once it get's perfected, the AI stays in the simulation.
That is exactly what I'm thinking. The other possibility is that it isn't used for training only humans, maybe it's going to be used to train an AI.
I'm interested in this common "conservative" paradoxical view concerning funding education vs. defense.
, Netherlands,Turkey,Mexico,Kuwait..........Combined !!!?
How can you say on one hand that "throwing more money" at education is not a solution, while simultaneously argue the opposite is a solution for Defense?
Both are governement run organizations, explain your reasoning for this apparent contradictory thinking.
By the way, did you know that the U.S. spends more on defense than:
Russia,China,Japan,UK,France,Germany,Saudi Arabia,Italy,India,South Korea,Brazil,Taiwan,Israel,Spain,Australia,Canada
Yeah, let's spend more money on Offense, -oh, I mean-, "defense" because we're scared of some fanatical dudes running around the desert on a different continent with towels on their heads. If the existing military the U.S. had in 2001 was unable to defend against the attack we incurred, what makes you think that spending more money on it would be the "solution"?
You didn't happen to go to public school, did you? Maybe you're right then.