I think he is from a different country, not US. Some places do that - the community sponsors (or contributes a good part ) its own welfare population. Interesting thing - it could be a good incentive to get everyone working or kick them out, or perhaps to invite good businesses into the area by trying to reduce crime work together to clean up the area and make it look appealing.
The downside is that the people who do want to live in an environment of crime and poverty will eventually congregate into large isolated communities with very high levels of crime, poverty and unimployment.
I agree, it is usually local church leaders and elected officials that control a black community. Instead of pushing kids to study, work hard and do well (in other words "beat" the white people at their own game), they are teaching them to be victims. (This also goes for the white trash neighbourhoods, just replace 'white people' with 'white middle class' people).
Whole family generations have been brought up with the mentantality of a victim: complain to the goverment - you'll get a check, why work when you can figure out some intricate loophole in the law to get more welfare and so on, or if anyone says "let's help you get a job or get you into a local 2 year college" - screw you, you are just trying to oppress me.
But as you said, and I've seen it myself, some people manage to beat the odds and do well, and those usually do very well and they should be the examples to follow.
I got some karma so I'll go ahead and burn some...
Have you been to your local poor neighbourhood, read "ghetto" (oops karma -%25). You will see mostly black teenagers with parents on welfare but who wear $100 Nike or Fubu shoes and have $200 cellphones. They can't read, count and they can't talk coherently in English but they can and do use their 'tricked out' phones, they know how to text message (albeit in Ebonics), download ringtones, send pictures and so on. And there is your target customer base - they are the ones who will pay '2-fitty' for 'fitty-cent's latest song. They won't come within 100 feet of a computer to even know that iTunes has it for $99 cent. These are the people that buy $100 shoes when they don't have enough to pay for their rent. And I am just guessing here, but it seems there are a whole lot of them in this country. So 'a whole lot' X $2.49 = 'a whole a lot' of $
The problem with the issue of glboal warming has become more of a political and even moral issue. It is not any more about scientific research, it became something of a liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs. republican issue. At this point forget about any objective data and solution, it is like finding objective oppinions in the abortion debate. Every scientist already made their mind about the existance/or non-existance of global warming or some about a method to fix it if it exists (tax the oil companies, make people's cars go through e-check every year, cut down the aerosols with CFC...). Also it is a "follow the money" type issue. I am sure there can be a ton of studies sponsored by the oil companies that will make it look as if global warming is as real as tooth fairy. Others just to oppose the first group, will make up their mind that global warming will kill us in the next decade and will produce any study that will seem to show how the earth is suffocating and we'll die a slow and painfull death next year - unless of course we implement the proposed solution and give the researcher fame and $$$.
Honestly I don't know who to believe. I don't trust either camp, I don't know enough geology to critique the papers so I pretty much said "screw it". If we realize the problem together and find a solution - good, if not and we are ignorant enough to not do anything we deserve to have the dinosaurs come back and eat us.
Scientists promptly advised everyone to:
1. Stop drinking water
2. Stop breathing
3. Stop taking showers (note: this doesn't apply to some countries such as France and Mexico)
But is that true only of software, what if a company makes LEDs and somehow a few of those might also end up in a control room that is used for guided missiles? I guess the question is when is there enough moral resposability to start considering not taking the job or leaving the current job, because some part of your work might end up being used by the military?
Quantum encryption will make "man-in-the-middle" impossible. The attack works by reading the information and perhaps retransmitting it. You can do that with a classical line, but in the quantum case the moment someone start "reading" the information there will be a large increase in errors and thus the attempt will be evident.
In other words you can still cut the lines, and stop the communication but you cannot launch a "monkey-in-the-middle" then, since an error will be detected and make your attempt obvious.
If you are thinking of someone (Eve) setting up a completely new channel of communication and fooling one of the parties (say B) that she is other party (Alice), then that is not "man-in-the-middle" it is an authentication problem.
Perhaps using a 1024 bit key is better but beyond that there is no point on using a 2048 bit key at this point. If we are going to continue to rely on current brute force factoring using classical computers 1024 is already _very_ good. If one day though someone figures out how to build a functional quantum computer with relatively large registers (1000+ bits), then even 2048 bit encryption won't help us for very long...
So practically you don't really get better or "more" secure encryption by using 2048 bits, but you will significantly slow down the applications that are supposed to generate the keys of such length. Try generating a 2048 bit public key on a 100 Mhz Pentium, see how long it takes. Would you want to wait that long every time you want to send a message?
I think you are talking about using a quantum computer to factor large integers. So far quantum encryption has nothing to do with that, it is a why to encode a message as quantum states that will change when they are measured. So it makes it possible to create secure communication channel that can be proven according to QM laws to be safe from eavesdropping. That is what is meant by quantum encryption.
It has already been done a couple of times, but is still too expensive for mass production, but there _is_ proof (theoretical and experimental) that quantum encryption is possible.
Then if I can use quantum encryption, I don't have to worry about factoring or P?=NP problem. I'll just send a new key for every block and make it look to someone monitoring the "classical" data channel as if I am using a "one-time-pad" so factoring has nothing to do with it.
Well, having a channel that can be provable to be safe from eavesdropping should be enough. Then both parties Amelie and Bertha (...tired of Alice and Bob) can exchange a key and then they can even use a "classical" channel for communication. Then can send each other a new key for every block, making it in fact look like a "one-time-pad" type encryption.
The 'encryption' does take place - it is encoding information using quantum states (so far photon polarization or particle entanglement) which would make eavesdropping detectable. Imagine encrypting a file and then everytime someone tries to decrypt it, it will actually change the file itself and you cannot make copies.
Also, if you say that what quantum encryption only does is help detect eavesdroppers, I could also claim that the public key distribution schemes also mostly "do nothing but" help distribute keys for further communication in a 'safe way'.
If that was the case, there would be no point in quantum encryption, since you already require a secure "classical" data channel.
There are a couple of schemes of using quantum states/encoding to create a communication channel such that eavesdropping can be detected, thus eliminating the "man-in-the-middle" attacks. One can use the "action at a distance" or enanglement or one can also use the fact that states that are not orthogonal to each other cannot be reliable detected and that 'entangled' particles share some common 'state' and keep that state even when the two are separated by some distance. What both schemes do is make it safe to distribute a key, that's all, but that should be good enough. A new key can be sent over the channel for each block make it look like a "one-time" pad type encryption.
"everytime we come up with a new security mechanism, computing power will overcome it"
-Not always true. Say I can come up with a 2048 bit encryption, that is just increase the key size from 256 to 2048, I can to that in a second. It is going to take _a lot more time_ for the computing power to overcome that increase.
If quantum computing will come around, I'll just switch to quantum encryption. Then you'll have to break the laws of QM to "break" the scheme. There are already rudimentary quantum encryption devices but there are no quantum computers that can take on even a 64 bit key space.
The best bet instead of brute force is to do "human engineering" and look for other ways to obtain the information. The inherent math of the algorithm is rarely the weakest link, it is the people and then the particular implementations of the algorithms that are exploited the most.
Am I allowed then to also reverse engineer any software I buy on a CD?
An executable is also a "binary" source code (series of 1s and 0s), then I can transform it into assembly using a disassember.
So if I buy Windows XP, then I can run some of its parts through a disassembler, so I would have a more readable "source code", then I can change it any way I want, bypass any security mechanism, customize it to my liking and so on.
Well, then IBM should comply and promptly deliver a folder full of plain white paper, a bunch of blank CDs and perhaps about 100,000 new punch cards for the "full" effect.
Actually NASA should just come up with some millitary reason for research (death ray flux capacitors and such.) to get money from Congress. In the proposal they should use the word 'terrorism' and 'WMD' as often as possible then they'll have enough $$$ for research, travel to the Moon, Mars and lots of fun parties with naked strippers, ok maybe not the strippers...
I guess you are right, this article doesn't apply to me. I was just wondering how many other Slashdotters got confused under the barrage of acronyms/company/brand names. Well, I'll crawl back under my rock now...
Let's see, we got:
YouTube
Flickr
Sequia Capital
VC
Yahoo
Google
PayPal
Revver
The only ones I know are Google, PayPal and Yahoo what are the other ones? Anyone care to explain? Is it just me, or is there anyone else who is confused. Without knowing what those products/brands are it is impossible to understand the post.
Let's see -- they go to Harvard to become medics after they graduate with an EE degree, then they want millions of dollars from investors because they claim that they turned QM on its head and can obtain free energy from water. These are some smart people I tell ya
The real trick is to know what to interpret literally and what is a type or symbol or a parable. The Bible quotes Christ as saying "I am the door" - which interpreted literally is a 7 foot wooden plank. But then also there are some events that are described by the 4 evangelists (Luke, Mark, Matthew and John) that are consistent and can be taken literally.
So who decides what can be interpreted literally and what cannot? I think the people who wrote it and composed the Bible out of its many books would know. We don't have them today, the best we have though is their descendants: the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Chruch. Besides the Bible the early Christian also wrote other books like commentaries and they kept alive the oral tradition that was transmitted from generation to generation. The Catholic Church later on changed the creed (the statement of belief), added indulgences, came up with purgatory and other things that ultimately led to the Protestant split, which gave birth eventually to the present day American Evangelists and Fundamentalists.
The point is that the Bible that Fundamentalists tout as "the only literal source of truth" has never existed in a vacuum by itself all those thousand+ years until they came around. It had a rich oral tradition and interpretations that sourrounded it. Unless they follow along with that, the interpretations they came up with in the last 100 years will probably be off and cause confusion and a big mess, just the way ID nuts have done.
You are right that traditionally the early church and the present day direct descendants of that Church (Catholics and Orthodox) have never interpreted the Bible literally. Fundamentalism is a relatively recent (compared to 2000 years church history) development.
By the way, I asked an Orthodox priest once what the Orthodox think about Evolution and Genesis and he said "If the science found that it took place, then it took place and we believe that is how God worked". I was expecting he would say that "The world was created in 7 days" and then I would start an argument with him about it, but his answer left me speechless.
I probably would be such a person. I am an Orthodox Christian, yet I have never heard of ID or that Evolution is bad. I was never taught that science and math are evil or wrong by the church. I am a scientist and love science and but I am a Christian too, except when science touches ethical issues, I never felt any personal conflict among the two.
Also note, current Televangelists and Fundamentalists are all advocating a literal interpretion of the Bible. But when the Bible was written and composed, they didn't exist for another 1000 years, and the people who wrote and composed the Bible (the early Christians which the Orthodox and the Catholics are the direct present day followers) never interpreted it literally.
I guess the point is that a couple of crazy ID nuts from Kansas don't represent Christianity, and I wish others would see that way too...
Slashdot Mirror
The downside is that the people who do want to live in an environment of crime and poverty will eventually congregate into large isolated communities with very high levels of crime, poverty and unimployment.
Whole family generations have been brought up with the mentantality of a victim: complain to the goverment - you'll get a check, why work when you can figure out some intricate loophole in the law to get more welfare and so on, or if anyone says "let's help you get a job or get you into a local 2 year college" - screw you, you are just trying to oppress me.
But as you said, and I've seen it myself, some people manage to beat the odds and do well, and those usually do very well and they should be the examples to follow.
Have you been to your local poor neighbourhood, read "ghetto" (oops karma -%25). You will see mostly black teenagers with parents on welfare but who wear $100 Nike or Fubu shoes and have $200 cellphones. They can't read, count and they can't talk coherently in English but they can and do use their 'tricked out' phones, they know how to text message (albeit in Ebonics), download ringtones, send pictures and so on. And there is your target customer base - they are the ones who will pay '2-fitty' for 'fitty-cent's latest song. They won't come within 100 feet of a computer to even know that iTunes has it for $99 cent. These are the people that buy $100 shoes when they don't have enough to pay for their rent. And I am just guessing here, but it seems there are a whole lot of them in this country. So 'a whole lot' X $2.49 = 'a whole a lot' of $
Brain surgery for dummies
or
Nuclear reactor operation for idiots
They'll tell you all about how portability is not that important and how everyone will just embrace the new 64 bit architecture.
If they think they'll make more money in the long run, all things considered, they'll do it.
Honestly I don't know who to believe. I don't trust either camp, I don't know enough geology to critique the papers so I pretty much said "screw it". If we realize the problem together and find a solution - good, if not and we are ignorant enough to not do anything we deserve to have the dinosaurs come back and eat us.
Scientists promptly advised everyone to:
1. Stop drinking water
2. Stop breathing
3. Stop taking showers (note: this doesn't apply to some countries such as France and Mexico)
But is that true only of software, what if a company makes LEDs and somehow a few of those might also end up in a control room that is used for guided missiles? I guess the question is when is there enough moral resposability to start considering not taking the job or leaving the current job, because some part of your work might end up being used by the military?
In other words you can still cut the lines, and stop the communication but you cannot launch a "monkey-in-the-middle" then, since an error will be detected and make your attempt obvious.
If you are thinking of someone (Eve) setting up a completely new channel of communication and fooling one of the parties (say B) that she is other party (Alice), then that is not "man-in-the-middle" it is an authentication problem.
So practically you don't really get better or "more" secure encryption by using 2048 bits, but you will significantly slow down the applications that are supposed to generate the keys of such length. Try generating a 2048 bit public key on a 100 Mhz Pentium, see how long it takes. Would you want to wait that long every time you want to send a message?
It has already been done a couple of times, but is still too expensive for mass production, but there _is_ proof (theoretical and experimental) that quantum encryption is possible.
Then if I can use quantum encryption, I don't have to worry about factoring or P?=NP problem. I'll just send a new key for every block and make it look to someone monitoring the "classical" data channel as if I am using a "one-time-pad" so factoring has nothing to do with it.
The 'encryption' does take place - it is encoding information using quantum states (so far photon polarization or particle entanglement) which would make eavesdropping detectable. Imagine encrypting a file and then everytime someone tries to decrypt it, it will actually change the file itself and you cannot make copies.
Also, if you say that what quantum encryption only does is help detect eavesdroppers, I could also claim that the public key distribution schemes also mostly "do nothing but" help distribute keys for further communication in a 'safe way'.
There are a couple of schemes of using quantum states/encoding to create a communication channel such that eavesdropping can be detected, thus eliminating the "man-in-the-middle" attacks. One can use the "action at a distance" or enanglement or one can also use the fact that states that are not orthogonal to each other cannot be reliable detected and that 'entangled' particles share some common 'state' and keep that state even when the two are separated by some distance. What both schemes do is make it safe to distribute a key, that's all, but that should be good enough. A new key can be sent over the channel for each block make it look like a "one-time" pad type encryption.
-Not always true. Say I can come up with a 2048 bit encryption, that is just increase the key size from 256 to 2048, I can to that in a second. It is going to take _a lot more time_ for the computing power to overcome that increase.
If quantum computing will come around, I'll just switch to quantum encryption. Then you'll have to break the laws of QM to "break" the scheme. There are already rudimentary quantum encryption devices but there are no quantum computers that can take on even a 64 bit key space.
The best bet instead of brute force is to do "human engineering" and look for other ways to obtain the information. The inherent math of the algorithm is rarely the weakest link, it is the people and then the particular implementations of the algorithms that are exploited the most.
Am I allowed then to also reverse engineer any software I buy on a CD?
An executable is also a "binary" source code (series of 1s and 0s), then I can transform it into assembly using a disassember.
So if I buy Windows XP, then I can run some of its parts through a disassembler, so I would have a more readable "source code", then I can change it any way I want, bypass any security mechanism, customize it to my liking and so on.
Well, then IBM should comply and promptly deliver a folder full of plain white paper, a bunch of blank CDs and perhaps about 100,000 new punch cards for the "full" effect.
Actually NASA should just come up with some millitary reason for research (death ray flux capacitors and such.) to get money from Congress. In the proposal they should use the word 'terrorism' and 'WMD' as often as possible then they'll have enough $$$ for research, travel to the Moon, Mars and lots of fun parties with naked strippers, ok maybe not the strippers...
I guess you are right, this article doesn't apply to me. I was just wondering how many other Slashdotters got confused under the barrage of acronyms/company/brand names. Well, I'll crawl back under my rock now...
YouTube
Flickr
Sequia Capital
VC
Yahoo
Google
PayPal
Revver
The only ones I know are Google, PayPal and Yahoo what are the other ones? Anyone care to explain?
Is it just me, or is there anyone else who is confused. Without knowing what those products/brands are it is impossible to understand the post.
So who decides what can be interpreted literally and what cannot? I think the people who wrote it and composed the Bible out of its many books would know. We don't have them today, the best we have though is their descendants: the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Chruch. Besides the Bible the early Christian also wrote other books like commentaries and they kept alive the oral tradition that was transmitted from generation to generation. The Catholic Church later on changed the creed (the statement of belief), added indulgences, came up with purgatory and other things that ultimately led to the Protestant split, which gave birth eventually to the present day American Evangelists and Fundamentalists.
The point is that the Bible that Fundamentalists tout as "the only literal source of truth" has never existed in a vacuum by itself all those thousand+ years until they came around. It had a rich oral tradition and interpretations that sourrounded it. Unless they follow along with that, the interpretations they came up with in the last 100 years will probably be off and cause confusion and a big mess, just the way ID nuts have done.
By the way, I asked an Orthodox priest once what the Orthodox think about Evolution and Genesis and he said "If the science found that it took place, then it took place and we believe that is how God worked". I was expecting he would say that "The world was created in 7 days" and then I would start an argument with him about it, but his answer left me speechless.
Also note, current Televangelists and Fundamentalists are all advocating a literal interpretion of the Bible. But when the Bible was written and composed, they didn't exist for another 1000 years, and the people who wrote and composed the Bible (the early Christians which the Orthodox and the Catholics are the direct present day followers) never interpreted it literally.
I guess the point is that a couple of crazy ID nuts from Kansas don't represent Christianity, and I wish others would see that way too...
Long live Bittorrent!