Q54arwms is a commonly used password? Is this some part of the collective unconscious I'm unaware of? Half the things in the list seem like they came out of a random generator, yet they are common?
As google told me, these are default passwords from this list
which is in fact much more useful.
See, but I am talking in a mathematical sense. QC is neat, but I too often hear: "Unlike conventional crypto, QC in unbreakable/provably secure/etc."
"Provably secure" in this context means that the probability of eavesdropping can be computed exactly based on the laws of physics and no gain in computing power can change this. The security of RSA is not proven and depends on the speed of factoring algorithms. Using smart protocols the security of QC can be pushed beyond any reasonable doubt.
Of course we can discuss the mathematical sense of words like "always" or "never". Speech is inherently non-mathematical and we would end up with discussions about provability of human perception and such. Sorry, I see this just as a sort of nitpicking.
I never said QC was "unsafe", my point is that it's not "prefectly secure".
This is not going to be a discussion about semantics, is it? If I can push the probability below mere guessing, many people would call it "secure". Not in a mathematical sense, of course.
You end up relying of the knowedge that the probability of an undetected interception of a significant amount of information is very low , as opposed to of the probablility of someone guessing your RSA key which is also very low.
"Low" is relative. Just because me and my friend go home, that doesn't mean we go to the same place. Guessing an RSA key is not the same as guessing the whole message. With this argumentation even an one-time-pad would not be secure, because the message could be guessed.
Anyways, it's seems like you actually read the post you replied to and realized that it's not the "total nonsense" you claimed it was.
Yes it can. If I receive a single photon from the transmission line and then stop listening, you aren't going to be able to tell if the transmitter actually emitted that photon or not. The only way go can tell I'm grabbing your photons is if I start grabbing enough of them so that I start messing up the statistics.
So what? If you intercept one photon you cannot derive the message. If you grab enough photons to derive the message you are detected.
QC is not unsafe just because "statistics" is involved. You can push the probability for undetected eavesdropping to a point where it doesn't matter anymore.
I can guess any message with a probability of 2^-bitlength. If the probability of eavesdropping is lower, it's just a moot point.
"With this kind of method, messages cannot be intercepted without detection, meaning transmission is always safe."
How about if I said, "With this kind of armored vehicle, passengers cannot be intercepted without detection, meaning transport is always safe." Now, the fallacy should be a bit easier to spot.
No. If the passengers are intercepted it would have been like they had never been sent.
It's not like there is an "intercepted"-flag attached to the message. The information is destroyed when intercepted.
*(yeah, yeah, your favourite open source encryption is unbreakable, I know, but come on, the government isn't going to enter any 'break this encryption' contests to show what a kewl ha>or it is and thereby advertise the fact that communications using said encryption are not actually secure, is it?)
Pardon? The known encryption algorithms are insecure because the government doesn't say it can't break them? Reminds me of a little story where a man claps his hands to get rid of elephants in his house. The proof that it works? There are no elephants in his house.
Also it seems strange to imply that Schneier et al are just a bunch of idiots.
They are revelent to the parent post which I will post after this message because it appears that you are having a difficult time clicking the parent link in my post.
I wasn't aware that I had to do that again seing as I said that I had already done so. I am not so stupid as to have to rethink everything everytime I see it.
You have copied some quotes and now you keep repeating that your posts are relevant and others are not. At least show some sign of constructive thinking.
Why do these quotes show what? For all your quotes I can find one that says the exact opposite. Or do you think that quoting another person makes your point of view somehow untouchable?
But if it makes you feel better, go post in the apple portion of/. the url's to my comments and the apple mods that hate me will take care of it.
For what? You did just like I said. Besides, do you think that copying from a google search with the keywords extreme, quotes, environmentalists is a deliberate and constructive way to contribute to a discussion?
I don't believe you. Whithin 47 seconds you just had time to find a compilation of quotes and to copy & paste it. Without checking, without reasoning, without thinking.
Regarding your posting history, you can do better than that.
"Lead Poisoning is the most common environmentally caused disease in the United States,
affecting 4-5% of children nationwide."
link
"Lead poisoning is the leading environmentally induced illness in children. At greatest risk are children under the age of six because they are undergoing rapid neurological and physical development." link
"New research suggests that millions more children than previously thought might have lead-linked mental impairment, while another study supports a strong link between lead exposure and juvenile delinquency." link
"Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death." link
Now on to preprocessor macros. They are useful in statically compiled languages, but in dynamic (VM based) languages they are less than useless. The VM will take any code that it can and inline it, propagate constants, etc.... Macros are not needed.
I think this is more or less a wishlist, at least concerning Java. E.g. using a method in a loop condition has dramatic impact on performance. The Java VM does not determine if a method has no side effects.
Also there is more to a preprocessor than macros.
This Slashdot post was rather unnecessary and pointless. Mostly it seems that this Mary Anne Mohanraj's friend has written this to plug the site's various pages.
I would second this. It wasn't necessary to include 7(!) links to original site just to state that he is not able to browse recipes at work and to cry 'censorship'.
Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society.
Of course there is a universal concept of "right" and "wrong". The real question is what is part of this concept?
Mankind has lived without a 'Magna Charta' for thousands of years and it remains to be proven that our specific moral viewpoint is better than others. If there is an universal truth, it has to be true for everyone at any time. But more often than not, 'universal truth' is just an instrument to impose opinions on other people.
I'm still trying to figure exactly which law was broken to make it an illegal war.
You need a law to make war illegal?
Last time I checked you needed a justification to make it legal.
And most countries in the world seem to agree with
this.
we actually use something similar in the school i work at. Students are monitored by the logger, [...]
To teach children that they are constantly watched and how to get around it (which they certainly will in many cases) might be a good lesson for their future life.
While I don't see any groundbreaking new ideas in Lynds' work, google sure has some interesting links, including the original paper and some strange facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
No. A chemical explosive contains fuel and oxidant. It does not need athmospheric oxygen.
"Provably secure" in this context means that the probability of eavesdropping can be computed exactly based on the laws of physics and no gain in computing power can change this. The security of RSA is not proven and depends on the speed of factoring algorithms. Using smart protocols the security of QC can be pushed beyond any reasonable doubt.
Of course we can discuss the mathematical sense of words like "always" or "never". Speech is inherently non-mathematical and we would end up with discussions about provability of human perception and such. Sorry, I see this just as a sort of nitpicking.
So what? If you intercept one photon you cannot derive the message. If you grab enough photons to derive the message you are detected.
QC is not unsafe just because "statistics" is involved. You can push the probability for undetected eavesdropping to a point where it doesn't matter anymore.
I can guess any message with a probability of 2^-bitlength. If the probability of eavesdropping is lower, it's just a moot point.
Eve? What happened to Carol and Dave?
It's not like there is an "intercepted"-flag attached to the message. The information is destroyed when intercepted.
Pardon? The known encryption algorithms are insecure because the government doesn't say it can't break them? Reminds me of a little story where a man claps his hands to get rid of elephants in his house. The proof that it works? There are no elephants in his house.
Also it seems strange to imply that Schneier et al are just a bunch of idiots.
For what? You did just like I said. Besides, do you think that copying from a google search with the keywords extreme, quotes, environmentalists is a deliberate and constructive way to contribute to a discussion?
I don't believe you. Whithin 47 seconds you just had time to find a compilation of quotes and to copy & paste it. Without checking, without reasoning, without thinking.
Regarding your posting history, you can do better than that.
I think you mean this slashdot story from September last year. It was based on a press release of the Chandra X-ray observatory about sound waves of a black hole.
You need a law to make war illegal?
Last time I checked you needed a justification to make it legal.
And most countries in the world seem to agree with this.
No, it has many. Here is a list of bilateral extradition treaties as of 2002.
To teach children that they are constantly watched and how to get around it (which they certainly will in many cases) might be a good lesson for their future life.
You are right.
Especially if you are working in a large office ...
While I don't see any groundbreaking new ideas in Lynds' work, google sure has some interesting links, including the original paper and some strange facts.