It's simply unlikely. AES' 128 bits is too much, and the algorithm has been shown to be too secure at present. It's a highly critiqued algorithm that has been proven not highly vulerable to known techniques of cryptanalysis. AES has a highly mathematic structure (being based on operations on GF(8)) that makes it both easy to test theoretical attacks on as well as provide credibility to its claims of strength.
I'm not attacking the AES algorithm, I'm attacking the AACS implementation, there is a difference.
Similar to DeCSS, there are two keys involved. One is the player key, the other is the disk key. There are multiple player keys that are used to decrypt the disk key and the movie is encrypted with the disk key. It is the disk key encryption I am attacked. There are multiple keys that exist to unlock these disks, so it is effectively less than the actual bit encoding. For example, if there are two keys on a 128 bit encryption, it is effectively 127 bits, 4 keys, 126 bits, 1024 keys, 118 bits and so on.
Second, in DeCSS, there was a pattern to the keys that could be used to unlock the DVDs. For example, some guys were able to guess more keys after seeing a few of them due to the patterns. Looking at some of the information about what various pieces of information goes int these keys, it is possible that this will hold true here.
It should be a lot more difficult to get the keys for a hardware player than for a software player.
Only if you try to get the key directly from the hardware player. I remember reading with DeCSS on the standard DVDs, that the keys were guessable by a human once they found a pattern in them. While they are using 128bit encryption for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and DVD only used 40 bit, they still use multiple keys for unlocking the content, effectively reducing the number of bits by who knows how many. It's possible that once enough keys are found, a smart brute-force of the keyspace could be executed that would find all the keys.
Asking a company delivering content to Japan to be compliant with Japanese laws is not unreasonable.
On the other hand, it is possible that they are not violating Japanese law. As has been already said, the internet is not a broadcast (radio) medium. Also, looking at Japan's constitution:
Article 21:
Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. 2) No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
1) People don't need a 'deposit' to recycle. In my area (Fairfax, VA), the trash company just has an extra bin they give us for recyclables. We don't get any money back directly. Maybe indirectly as a lower trash charge rate. It's the same for my relatives in Chicago.
2) When powered by Coal (as is the case in Australia), compact flourescents have less of a net mercury release, when compared to incandescents. This includes both the mercury contained inside of them and the mercury released by burning coal to power them.
Why are shorts, pants and underpants all referred to as pairs.. in fact they have no singular noun. You can have 1 Pair of shorts, 10 pairs of shorts.. but you can't have 1 short or 1 pant..
Anyway, I had to use that at one of my last jobs. And it can always be used to redirect to a directory with controlled permisions.
One other question, though. Why not just make it so that only the folder/file that it writes to has the permissions set such that only those authorized may read/write to it? We are talking access controls where it can be specified down to the individual user or user group today.
but is this part of either party's official ideology or agenda?
Think about it this way. This bill is a proposal to regulate the internet itself. Specifically, to regulate how an ISP and network backbone company can allocate bandwidth.
If he starts to lose power, "beloved leader" would most certainly stop to care about what would happen to himself. The only way KJI isn't going to launch is if there is no chance of losing power. Once that is gone, well, outlook not so good.
On the other hand, this system is supposed to work against a fairly wide variety of missiles. This includes SCUDS, which are much more widely used.
Simple. Rremap that location to a directory in the user's directory. This should be doable in NTFS given some of the remaping things I've seen done. IT would have to set it up, but once done, that should fix the problem.
instead launch hundreds of missiles, overwhelming any possible defense.
Correction. Overwhelm and current defense. Ideally (realistically?), once the system is developed the cost of the individual interceptor missiles would be cheap enough such that one could have one (or more) for each incoming missile.
* Was there just one incoming target? Why? Even KJI can afford a few dozen missles.
One target, one missile. Why use more than one when you are still testing 1:1 first?
* Was the approximate time and direction of the threat known?
The humans knew it, the computer didn't until after launch.
* Any decoys deployed by the intruder? Why not?
Does any missile currently use a decoy?
* How large an area can it protect before the angle-off becomes unmanageable?
That's called the "range" of the defense system. Anymore "angle-off" and the target is out of range. One would presumably have an overlapping system of these.
* Any jamming from the intruder? Why not?
Placing a jamming system on the target is just making it easier to hit. It is easy to home in on the radio waves emitted by anything with a jammer.>
* How does this help against low-trajectory ICBM's, sub-launched IRBM's, or cruise missles, all capable of carrying sizeable WMD's?
"Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is the only core Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system which will be capable of engaging the full spectrum of theater class ballistic missile threats." http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thaad.htm
it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons
MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.
A paper or electronic receipt system would be crucial, as stated time and time again.
A paper or electronic receipt system would open it up to voter intimidation as all of a sudden your vote is no longer anonymous and some guy can say "Show me you voted for X or something bad happens to little Sussie."
Tell me, when has a commercial jet ever been threatened by ground forces? I'm more worried about a terrorist attack happening ON the plane, seeing as how this method seems to be becoming more popular. "Billions" of dollars could buy the airlines a significant number of air marshals, which would keep us significantly more safer than an anti-missle defence system. Terrorists like to attack from inside the plane--not the outside.
Since when do terrorists not change their tactics? One goes with a multilayer security and does both.
For starters, because I believe the airlines should be paying for this system in the long run and that the system, for how cheap it is, could easily become mandatory for a flights and only increase ticket prices by $2. Possibly less if these systems are added when the plane is initially built. Additionally, the hit they would take in the event a missile actually hit the plains would be far greater both in direct cost to the plane and in inderect cost of fewer people traveling and having lost some faith in the Airline Industry. I believe it took several years for airline travel to get back up to pre-9/11 numbers.
In any case, please, please enlighten me, because I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how you could let so many people get substandard care, lose their businesses, file for bankruptcy or choose between dinner and their expensive heart pills in order to pay for a system that protects against a threat that is currently so low it has never been used against us and if it is used against us is likely to kill only a small fraction of those saved by the medical care.
Because I do not believe that the government should be paying for healthcare and that it should be up to the individual to pay for it. I also believe that the reason that health care is so expensive is because the government keeps steping in and saying "I'll pay for it" causing prices to go up even further.
Would you rather spend $1 to $2 per person, per flight to put some fish-eyes on the ass-end of a plane that'll probably never do anything but feed the investors of Northrop Grumman, or would you rather give 157 thousand people health care for 10 years?
Fish eyes. As the cost can easily be passed onto the fliers.
Do you have enough balls to tell those 157 thousand people that they won't get health care because your program will give a greater benefit to society?
Yes.
More to the point, do you really believe it yourself?
I think this would make good terrorist MasterCard commercial:
A year of nationalized health care in Canada = about $1,900 A year of food in American = about $3,000 A habitat for humanity house = about $35,000
Scaring Americans into spending "billions" to possibly save between zero and a couple of hundred lives instead of spending it where it's guaranteed to make a difference = Priceless
TW Ah, comparison time.
Well, given that each "3 billion" spent on the planes is equivalent to $10/person in the US, I don't really see you point. Remember, the US has about 10 times the number of people Canada has.
Hmm... $1,900 per person for healthcare? 33 million people, $62.7 billion dollars spent by the Canadian government each year on health care alone. Or about 40% of your governments yearly budget.
Were talking something here that won't even hit 1% of the yearly budget.
Also, if you note, the price is supposed to come out to about $300 per flight over the course of the life of the plane. Or, about $1 to $2 per passenger per flight. I think a human life is worth more than that, how about you?
The army has successfully tested self guided howitzer shells. The electronics have withstood 16,000Gs. I think they can make electronics that can withstand a railgun.
Take Gay marriage (which probably put Bush in office the 2nd time). Some are in favor, some are against, and others say that the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. I never ONCE heard the latter point of view on ANY of the 24 hour news channels.
You forgot #4.
Why are we limited to just two people in a marriage? What if I can't be happy without being married to my wife and her twin sister?
Or, under the fairness doctrine:
What if my wife can't be happy without being married to me and my twin brother?
Something tells me you should actually read the text of the Geneva Conventions the US has singed. Hint: http://www.genevaconventions.org/
One reason Al-Queda isn't being given certain protections is that they do nothing to "sufficiently distinguish" themselves from civilians as required, among other things. They are not classified as guerillas, military or anything else. As such, it is not required to declare them as "Prisoners of War".
Slashdot Mirror
It's simply unlikely. AES' 128 bits is too much, and the algorithm has been shown to be too secure at present. It's a highly critiqued algorithm that has been proven not highly vulerable to known techniques of cryptanalysis. AES has a highly mathematic structure (being based on operations on GF(8)) that makes it both easy to test theoretical attacks on as well as provide credibility to its claims of strength.
I'm not attacking the AES algorithm, I'm attacking the AACS implementation, there is a difference.
Similar to DeCSS, there are two keys involved. One is the player key, the other is the disk key. There are multiple player keys that are used to decrypt the disk key and the movie is encrypted with the disk key. It is the disk key encryption I am attacked. There are multiple keys that exist to unlock these disks, so it is effectively less than the actual bit encoding. For example, if there are two keys on a 128 bit encryption, it is effectively 127 bits, 4 keys, 126 bits, 1024 keys, 118 bits and so on.
Second, in DeCSS, there was a pattern to the keys that could be used to unlock the DVDs. For example, some guys were able to guess more keys after seeing a few of them due to the patterns. Looking at some of the information about what various pieces of information goes int these keys, it is possible that this will hold true here.
It should be a lot more difficult to get the keys for a hardware player than for a software player.
Only if you try to get the key directly from the hardware player. I remember reading with DeCSS on the standard DVDs, that the keys were guessable by a human once they found a pattern in them. While they are using 128bit encryption for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and DVD only used 40 bit, they still use multiple keys for unlocking the content, effectively reducing the number of bits by who knows how many. It's possible that once enough keys are found, a smart brute-force of the keyspace could be executed that would find all the keys.
Asking a company delivering content to Japan to be compliant with Japanese laws is not unreasonable.
e nglish-Constitution.html#CHAPTER_IX
On the other hand, it is possible that they are not violating Japanese law. As has been already said, the internet is not a broadcast (radio) medium. Also, looking at Japan's constitution:
Article 21:
Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. 2) No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/
So should Japan be able to enforce Japanese laws on a country operating out of the US then? Because that is what this is all about.
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
1) People don't need a 'deposit' to recycle. In my area (Fairfax, VA), the trash company just has an extra bin they give us for recyclables. We don't get any money back directly. Maybe indirectly as a lower trash charge rate. It's the same for my relatives in Chicago.
2) When powered by Coal (as is the case in Australia), compact flourescents have less of a net mercury release, when compared to incandescents. This includes both the mercury contained inside of them and the mercury released by burning coal to power them.
Why are shorts, pants and underpants all referred to as pairs.. in fact they have no singular noun. You can have 1 Pair of shorts, 10 pairs of shorts.. but you can't have 1 short or 1 pant..
e g
Ah, the dictionary is your friend for this one.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pant%20l
pant leg
-noun
a leg of a pair of pants.
Also called pant.
Wouldn't happen to be in Virginia, would you?
Anyway, I had to use that at one of my last jobs. And it can always be used to redirect to a directory with controlled permisions.
One other question, though. Why not just make it so that only the folder/file that it writes to has the permissions set such that only those authorized may read/write to it? We are talking access controls where it can be specified down to the individual user or user group today.
but is this part of either party's official ideology or agenda?
Think about it this way. This bill is a proposal to regulate the internet itself. Specifically, to regulate how an ISP and network backbone company can allocate bandwidth.
Republicans: Regulation mostly bad.
Democrats: Regulation mostly good.
Capiche?
If he starts to lose power, "beloved leader" would most certainly stop to care about what would happen to himself. The only way KJI isn't going to launch is if there is no chance of losing power. Once that is gone, well, outlook not so good.
On the other hand, this system is supposed to work against a fairly wide variety of missiles. This includes SCUDS, which are much more widely used.
Simple. Rremap that location to a directory in the user's directory. This should be doable in NTFS given some of the remaping things I've seen done. IT would have to set it up, but once done, that should fix the problem.
instead launch hundreds of missiles, overwhelming any possible defense.
Correction. Overwhelm and current defense. Ideally (realistically?), once the system is developed the cost of the individual interceptor missiles would be cheap enough such that one could have one (or more) for each incoming missile.
* Was there just one incoming target? Why? Even KJI can afford a few dozen missles.
d e_Area_Defense
One target, one missile. Why use more than one when you are still testing 1:1 first?
* Was the approximate time and direction of the threat known?
The humans knew it, the computer didn't until after launch.
* Any decoys deployed by the intruder? Why not?
Does any missile currently use a decoy?
* How large an area can it protect before the angle-off becomes unmanageable?
That's called the "range" of the defense system. Anymore "angle-off" and the target is out of range. One would presumably have an overlapping system of these.
* Any jamming from the intruder? Why not?
Placing a jamming system on the target is just making it easier to hit. It is easy to home in on the radio waves emitted by anything with a jammer.>
* How does this help against low-trajectory ICBM's, sub-launched IRBM's, or cruise missles, all capable of carrying sizeable WMD's?
"Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is the only core Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system which will be capable of engaging the full spectrum of theater class ballistic missile threats."
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thaad.htm
"The THAAD system was designed to handle short and medium range ballistic missiles; such as Scuds and derived weapons. However, a limited incidental capability against ICBMs exists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitu
it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons
MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.
A paper or electronic receipt system would be crucial, as stated time and time again.
A paper or electronic receipt system would open it up to voter intimidation as all of a sudden your vote is no longer anonymous and some guy can say "Show me you voted for X or something bad happens to little Sussie."
Tell me, when has a commercial jet ever been threatened by ground forces? I'm more worried about a terrorist attack happening ON the plane, seeing as how this method seems to be becoming more popular. "Billions" of dollars could buy the airlines a significant number of air marshals, which would keep us significantly more safer than an anti-missle defence system. Terrorists like to attack from inside the plane--not the outside.
o otdowns
Since when do terrorists not change their tactics? One goes with a multilayer security and does both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_sh
If we didn't have health insurance
I'm sorry, where did you paying for health insurance along with your employer (instead of the government) turn into you not having health insurance?
For starters, because I believe the airlines should be paying for this system in the long run and that the system, for how cheap it is, could easily become mandatory for a flights and only increase ticket prices by $2. Possibly less if these systems are added when the plane is initially built. Additionally, the hit they would take in the event a missile actually hit the plains would be far greater both in direct cost to the plane and in inderect cost of fewer people traveling and having lost some faith in the Airline Industry. I believe it took several years for airline travel to get back up to pre-9/11 numbers.
In any case, please, please enlighten me, because I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how you could let so many people get substandard care, lose their businesses, file for bankruptcy or choose between dinner and their expensive heart pills in order to pay for a system that protects against a threat that is currently so low it has never been used against us and if it is used against us is likely to kill only a small fraction of those saved by the medical care.
Because I do not believe that the government should be paying for healthcare and that it should be up to the individual to pay for it. I also believe that the reason that health care is so expensive is because the government keeps steping in and saying "I'll pay for it" causing prices to go up even further.
Would you rather spend $1 to $2 per person, per flight to put some fish-eyes on the ass-end of a plane that'll probably never do anything but feed the investors of Northrop Grumman, or would you rather give 157 thousand people health care for 10 years?
Fish eyes. As the cost can easily be passed onto the fliers.
Do you have enough balls to tell those 157 thousand people that they won't get health care because your program will give a greater benefit to society?
Yes.
More to the point, do you really believe it yourself?
Yes.
I think this would make good terrorist MasterCard commercial:
A year of nationalized health care in Canada = about $1,900
A year of food in American = about $3,000
A habitat for humanity house = about $35,000
Scaring Americans into spending "billions" to possibly save between zero and a couple of hundred lives instead of spending it where it's guaranteed to make a difference = Priceless
TW Ah, comparison time.
Well, given that each "3 billion" spent on the planes is equivalent to $10/person in the US, I don't really see you point. Remember, the US has about 10 times the number of people Canada has.
Hmm... $1,900 per person for healthcare? 33 million people, $62.7 billion dollars spent by the Canadian government each year on health care alone. Or about 40% of your governments yearly budget.
Were talking something here that won't even hit 1% of the yearly budget.
Also, if you note, the price is supposed to come out to about $300 per flight over the course of the life of the plane. Or, about $1 to $2 per passenger per flight. I think a human life is worth more than that, how about you?
"A few household chemicals in the proper proportions." would seem to be a better one. Much easier to get a hold of the components.
The army has successfully tested self guided howitzer shells. The electronics have withstood 16,000Gs. I think they can make electronics that can withstand a railgun.
Take Gay marriage (which probably put Bush in office the 2nd time). Some are in favor, some are against, and others say that the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. I never ONCE heard the latter point of view on ANY of the 24 hour news channels.
You forgot #4.
Why are we limited to just two people in a marriage? What if I can't be happy without being married to my wife and her twin sister?
Or, under the fairness doctrine:
What if my wife can't be happy without being married to me and my twin brother?
How about a stuffed pig with an apple in it's mouth? Like this one: http://static.flickr.com/23/25779025_5a0e53faec_m. jpg
Actually, the US has signed the Geneva Convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=37 5&ps=P
Something tells me you should actually read the text of the Geneva Conventions the US has singed. Hint: http://www.genevaconventions.org/
One reason Al-Queda isn't being given certain protections is that they do nothing to "sufficiently distinguish" themselves from civilians as required, among other things. They are not classified as guerillas, military or anything else. As such, it is not required to declare them as "Prisoners of War".
Actually, so long as they do something to "sufficiently distinguish" themselves from the civilian population they would be classified as guerillas.