Why can you even sue over this? If it's a mathmatical concept it should be public domain. It's the equivilent of suing someone over using the word dozen. You can't trademark a quantity can you??
Because human hearing doesn't work that way. Most people think their mp3's sound fine, but mp3's take huge chucks out of the spectrum. The codecs use phycoacousitcal method to basically trick you into thinking it sounds good when it, from a pure spectral analysis standpoint, isn't even close to good.
Parachutes aren't controllable. By your arguments yes they are less expensive, but I was refering to options that allow to to control your landing site. I suppose a parachute could be designed that was stearable, but as parachutes are already somewhat dangerous that's not a mechanism I would want to complicate. That leaves either rockets or wings. Between the two a winged reentry is going to be less expensive. Both systems are going to need matenance, both need heat shielding (granted the wings require more), but rockets require fuel and rocket fuel ain't cheap. I believe rockets would be more expensive to operate when compared to wings.
I don't think we have the technology to develop a large sized craft that can accomplish a controlled landing via rockets. Taking off via a rocket is alot easyer, just point up and ignite the fucker. The shuttles wings serve as steering. But a decent would require some sort of pitch stabilization system as well as the ability to control the thrust of the rockets. I have yet to see a craft that can do this on a small scale, let alone on a scale the the shuttle is in. All those mechanism are going to add to the install cost of the rocket as well.
When was the last time you saw a a vehicle capable of landing on rocket power alone?? If you've seen it at all it was more then likely an isolated test or whatnot. The reason for that is because it's impractical. To try and do it on a small scale is hard, but to try and do it with something that weighs like 230k pounds! This entire discussion was started over cost effectiveness. You cannot beat the cost effectiveness of a one time instal vs. something that needs to be constantly refuled.
Parachutes are dangerous. They're extrodinarily unreliable. Wings are much, much, safer. In addition I'm abselutely certain the added fuel would weigh more, but weight isn't really the issue. It's cost. Rocket fuel is very expensive to produce. Wings must be paid for once, and then all that is needed is maintenance.
It takes a hell of a lot more fuel to go from zero to 17,000 MPH against gravity than it does to go from 300 MPH to zero against gravity.
I disagree with the implication that landing a rocket vertically would be an insignifigant amount of fuel. The majority of resistance is in the 0-300mph section of the flight when air resistance and gravity are at their max. You're trying to re-burn the hardest part of the trip up. The amount of extra fuel you would have to carry would not be an insignifigant amount.
Wing's will add some resistance, but anything that flies is, as a rule, designed to be aerodynamic. I think the added resistance would be negligable.
But if you take away the wings you need another rocket for the vert. landing. The cost of an entirely new burn is going be orders of magnitude larger then the cost of the fuel it would take because of the added weight of the wings.
Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)?
Am I missing something? Why would you even want a verticle landing? That's such a waste of resources. It's much easyer to bleed kinetic energy through flight then to work against it 100%.
You don't need to hear individual bits. You just need to see a statistical difference in speed over iterated modular exponentiations.
Well in the post I responded to you made mention of spotting you one bit, I responded that the/. article really isn't discussing the possibility of hearing bits.
Timing attacks aren't really relevent either, it's a diffrent type of attack then what we're talking about. They would certainly be more effective when used in tandem, but they are seperate topics.
Me, you, and Transient0 are all in agreement. There is definitly the potential for this to work. But for clarification this isn't about guessing peoples keys or bits or such, it's about guessing the operations and algorithms being performed.
So if my back pocket isn't buttoned a pickpocket has the right to steal my wallet? And all those companies who make jeans without buttons on the back pocket are responcible for my loss? You don't have to inform people not to use your computer, your computer is not a server, it's a client.
True, but a gun is an obvious danger. Are security patches that obvious? You and I would probably both answer yes, but would your average computer illiterate also answer yes?
I think a better analogy then taking your revenge by shooting people would be the HIV analogy. Once you've got it you could give it to other people. So if someone purposefully gives you HIV, and then your ignorance causes you to spread it to others, who it liable? I think that given the fact that purpose of giving you HIV was so that you would spread it, causes the original culprit to be most liable.
Well, microsoft does attempt to lock the doors. That attempt was circumvented. That fact that Microsoft designed a bad lock does not change the fact that there was an active attempt to circumvent that lock. He can't really claim that he just stumbled in.
I think your parent hit it on the nose. You're never going to "hear" individual bits. The computer processes at speeds that are fucking orders higher then the best sample rates known to man. The atoms of air just can't be excited that fast. They can't hold that type of information. Shamir is qualified, but that doesn't mean everything he works on is going to be a cryptographic holy grail. This is really interesting stuff, and there's certainly big potential here, but lets not kid ourselves about the possibilities.
Fourier analysis can detect signals below the noise floor. White noise would certainly make it really fucking hard. But not theoretically impossible. Instead, just buy a soundproof box for the computer, like the kind recording studio's used.
I don't think the idea is to extract certain bits. This hasn't moved out of the concept phase. Even when it does it probably won't go extrodinarily far in terms of practical applications. The point is just that information can be gathered. It may not be bits, but it can tell you how much work the computer is doing, when it's doing it, and as the examples show there is a possibility of determining what type of operations are being performed. Your not going to "hear" they key or anything like that. But you may get a little snippet of info that reduces the time it takes to perform a brute force attack. Every little bit of info helps when talking about breaking encryption.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can you even sue over this? If it's a mathmatical concept it should be public domain. It's the equivilent of suing someone over using the word dozen. You can't trademark a quantity can you??
It looks to me like he's questioning how they know that life died out, not the theory of evolution.
No they didn't. "That's a whole lotta evolution" != "I think evolution is crap"
When he said new paradigm he was talking about the economic factors that bring about the lower inventories, not about the RIAA.
The article doesn't question the theory of evolution....
Because human hearing doesn't work that way. Most people think their mp3's sound fine, but mp3's take huge chucks out of the spectrum. The codecs use phycoacousitcal method to basically trick you into thinking it sounds good when it, from a pure spectral analysis standpoint, isn't even close to good.
Parachutes aren't controllable. By your arguments yes they are less expensive, but I was refering to options that allow to to control your landing site. I suppose a parachute could be designed that was stearable, but as parachutes are already somewhat dangerous that's not a mechanism I would want to complicate. That leaves either rockets or wings. Between the two a winged reentry is going to be less expensive. Both systems are going to need matenance, both need heat shielding (granted the wings require more), but rockets require fuel and rocket fuel ain't cheap. I believe rockets would be more expensive to operate when compared to wings. I don't think we have the technology to develop a large sized craft that can accomplish a controlled landing via rockets. Taking off via a rocket is alot easyer, just point up and ignite the fucker. The shuttles wings serve as steering. But a decent would require some sort of pitch stabilization system as well as the ability to control the thrust of the rockets. I have yet to see a craft that can do this on a small scale, let alone on a scale the the shuttle is in. All those mechanism are going to add to the install cost of the rocket as well.
When was the last time you saw a a vehicle capable of landing on rocket power alone?? If you've seen it at all it was more then likely an isolated test or whatnot. The reason for that is because it's impractical. To try and do it on a small scale is hard, but to try and do it with something that weighs like 230k pounds! This entire discussion was started over cost effectiveness. You cannot beat the cost effectiveness of a one time instal vs. something that needs to be constantly refuled.
Parachutes are dangerous. They're extrodinarily unreliable. Wings are much, much, safer. In addition I'm abselutely certain the added fuel would weigh more, but weight isn't really the issue. It's cost. Rocket fuel is very expensive to produce. Wings must be paid for once, and then all that is needed is maintenance.
Wing's will add some resistance, but anything that flies is, as a rule, designed to be aerodynamic. I think the added resistance would be negligable.
But if you take away the wings you need another rocket for the vert. landing. The cost of an entirely new burn is going be orders of magnitude larger then the cost of the fuel it would take because of the added weight of the wings.
Of course your adding something. Rockets use fuel, you can't burn the same fuel twice. Wings, on the other hand, don't need fuel.
I would think it would matter quite a bit. Rockets cost alot of money, wings don't (besides the original construction).
Am I missing something? Why would you even want a verticle landing? That's such a waste of resources. It's much easyer to bleed kinetic energy through flight then to work against it 100%.
Are you saying it's better to do things the hard way?
Well in the post I responded to you made mention of spotting you one bit, I responded that the /. article really isn't discussing the possibility of hearing bits.
Timing attacks aren't really relevent either, it's a diffrent type of attack then what we're talking about. They would certainly be more effective when used in tandem, but they are seperate topics.
Me, you, and Transient0 are all in agreement. There is definitly the potential for this to work. But for clarification this isn't about guessing peoples keys or bits or such, it's about guessing the operations and algorithms being performed.
So if my back pocket isn't buttoned a pickpocket has the right to steal my wallet? And all those companies who make jeans without buttons on the back pocket are responcible for my loss? You don't have to inform people not to use your computer, your computer is not a server, it's a client.
Completely free from blame? No, certainly not. But I don't think that they are liable.
True, but a gun is an obvious danger. Are security patches that obvious? You and I would probably both answer yes, but would your average computer illiterate also answer yes?
I think a better analogy then taking your revenge by shooting people would be the HIV analogy. Once you've got it you could give it to other people. So if someone purposefully gives you HIV, and then your ignorance causes you to spread it to others, who it liable? I think that given the fact that purpose of giving you HIV was so that you would spread it, causes the original culprit to be most liable.
Theft of system resources??
Well, microsoft does attempt to lock the doors. That attempt was circumvented. That fact that Microsoft designed a bad lock does not change the fact that there was an active attempt to circumvent that lock. He can't really claim that he just stumbled in.
I think your parent hit it on the nose. You're never going to "hear" individual bits. The computer processes at speeds that are fucking orders higher then the best sample rates known to man. The atoms of air just can't be excited that fast. They can't hold that type of information. Shamir is qualified, but that doesn't mean everything he works on is going to be a cryptographic holy grail. This is really interesting stuff, and there's certainly big potential here, but lets not kid ourselves about the possibilities.
Fourier analysis can detect signals below the noise floor. White noise would certainly make it really fucking hard. But not theoretically impossible. Instead, just buy a soundproof box for the computer, like the kind recording studio's used.
I don't think the idea is to extract certain bits. This hasn't moved out of the concept phase. Even when it does it probably won't go extrodinarily far in terms of practical applications. The point is just that information can be gathered. It may not be bits, but it can tell you how much work the computer is doing, when it's doing it, and as the examples show there is a possibility of determining what type of operations are being performed. Your not going to "hear" they key or anything like that. But you may get a little snippet of info that reduces the time it takes to perform a brute force attack. Every little bit of info helps when talking about breaking encryption.