Easy solution. Send high-yield nukes to candidate nearby worlds and use spectroscopy to observe element composition. By the time we travel there in-person any radiation would have long since decayed.
(and this is why alien life doesn't have to be intentionally hostile to cause us a great deal of harm)
Destroyed? Because forced handouts to failed states has anything to do with reducing emissions? No, this is rebuffing to rent-seeking under guise of international climate change treaty. Western countries could agree to pay 100% of GDP and the world would be as f*(&ed on climate change.
Emission reductions are key critical component, not cash handouts.
This is good concept when you don't have computing power to use strong symmetric encryption. Like back in 80s. Or with 90s export-grade crypto.
Today this is largely irrelevant. Your smart fridge is capable of AES256 and there is no feasible way to brute force through that. This is not where cryptography fails and not how it is usually attacked.
Because modern symmetric cryptography is so strong, nobody attempts to attack it directly. Instead, it is always side-stepped. You attack key negotiation and extract symmetric keys. You degrade protocols so it is not used. You exploit violations of key assumptions (e.g. weak entropy). You exploit someone who has a key to act on your behalf. To summarize - you don't need to send junk if you use appropriately strong cryptography.
Still, this is not what the original article is talking about. They are talking about flooding fake data to overwhelm spook's ability to collect and analyze any of it. If they have capacity to store 10GB/s of data and you are sending 20GB/s, then encrypted or not they only can only retain 50% of it. This is entirely different from the question of what can they do with it (e.g. metadata analysis) or if they can break the crypto (e.g. derive symmetric keys).
Coating technology fails around seams and welds, where it is very difficult to apply. Also, coating technology fails around impacts (stone chips or collisions, but also manufacturing where pressing used).
You don't have to look far to see bad cases of rust on modern cars. For example, Mazda 3 are notorious for rusting through.
Why would anyone willingly pay $100+ mo for shitty customer service and 15 minutes of commercials out of every hour? I think no commercials, on-demand service for 1/10th of a cost is a very logical and clear winner.
Now that variable resiliency data centers are finally available, I can run my sometimes available services in the partially secure cloud space I am building.
One of us doesn't know what they are talking about.
Presently, there is no drastic efficiency gain in breaking symmetric cryptography. For example, AES does well against QC.. Consequently, brute forcing AES512 is as infeasible with QC as with conventional computing. This may change as new QC algorithms are developed. Crystallographic breakdown due to QC happens at the key exchange stage, where it is possible to efficiently extract keys from the shared secret. If you side-step this by using pre shared keys, then your cryptography will be largely impervious to QC.
Feel free to FUD, but the problem space is already well-defined.
All modern crypto, except key exchange, withstands quantum computing fairly well. Unfortunately, you will get pwned and get your symmetric keys extracted during key exchange. The only work-around that I am aware of is using preshared keys.
Engineers are wanted by all kinds of organizations... on other hand, social studies majors (that published this study) are 9 times less likely to even get a job as a suicide bombers.
Radeon drivers were shit for decades, before they morphed into AMD shit drivers. If you have generation-old GPU, you won't get any support for modern titles.
While I understand there are a lot of cloak and dagger going on with standards and implementations, AMD is consistently on the losing end.
My understanding is that presently Google cars won't self drive outside of specially mapped areas. These are not street-view maps, but detailed telemetry scans that have to be frequently updated to stay relevant.
Google approach of map everything in excruciating detail has one big flaw - it assumes that we could know in advance how the driving environment would look like and navigate based on this. This is not a reasonable assumption, simply because mapping every back road is gargantuan task. Therefore, we will end up with 'good enough' Google cars, that can drive major roads and urban centers.
Tesla (and all other car manufacturers) approach is to have car react to environment with little advanced knowledge. This is gargantuan task and is still computationally unfeasible. Therefor, we will end up with 'good enough' Tesla-like car, that can drive anywhere but still require driver's supervision.
Slashdot Mirror
Ray Bradbury beat us to this idea by many decades.
Easy solution. Send high-yield nukes to candidate nearby worlds and use spectroscopy to observe element composition. By the time we travel there in-person any radiation would have long since decayed.
(and this is why alien life doesn't have to be intentionally hostile to cause us a great deal of harm)
Destroyed? Because forced handouts to failed states has anything to do with reducing emissions? No, this is rebuffing to rent-seeking under guise of international climate change treaty. Western countries could agree to pay 100% of GDP and the world would be as f*(&ed on climate change.
Emission reductions are key critical component, not cash handouts.
This is good concept when you don't have computing power to use strong symmetric encryption. Like back in 80s. Or with 90s export-grade crypto.
Today this is largely irrelevant. Your smart fridge is capable of AES256 and there is no feasible way to brute force through that. This is not where cryptography fails and not how it is usually attacked.
Because modern symmetric cryptography is so strong, nobody attempts to attack it directly. Instead, it is always side-stepped. You attack key negotiation and extract symmetric keys. You degrade protocols so it is not used. You exploit violations of key assumptions (e.g. weak entropy). You exploit someone who has a key to act on your behalf. To summarize - you don't need to send junk if you use appropriately strong cryptography.
Still, this is not what the original article is talking about. They are talking about flooding fake data to overwhelm spook's ability to collect and analyze any of it. If they have capacity to store 10GB/s of data and you are sending 20GB/s, then encrypted or not they only can only retain 50% of it. This is entirely different from the question of what can they do with it (e.g. metadata analysis) or if they can break the crypto (e.g. derive symmetric keys).
Interestingly enough, this will make aluminum use in the cars niche again. Too bad for Ford, that made big investment into production.
Coating technology fails around seams and welds, where it is very difficult to apply. Also, coating technology fails around impacts (stone chips or collisions, but also manufacturing where pressing used).
You don't have to look far to see bad cases of rust on modern cars. For example, Mazda 3 are notorious for rusting through.
Why would anyone willingly pay $100+ mo for shitty customer service and 15 minutes of commercials out of every hour? I think no commercials, on-demand service for 1/10th of a cost is a very logical and clear winner.
Disagree. No cost is too high for protecting our freedoms.
Now that variable resiliency data centers are finally available, I can run my sometimes available services in the partially secure cloud space I am building.
One of us doesn't know what they are talking about.
Presently, there is no drastic efficiency gain in breaking symmetric cryptography. For example, AES does well against QC.. Consequently, brute forcing AES512 is as infeasible with QC as with conventional computing. This may change as new QC algorithms are developed. Crystallographic breakdown due to QC happens at the key exchange stage, where it is possible to efficiently extract keys from the shared secret. If you side-step this by using pre shared keys, then your cryptography will be largely impervious to QC.
Feel free to FUD, but the problem space is already well-defined.
I just got my MS BCCT (Balmer-certified chair thrower) certification. Who wants to hire me?
All modern crypto, except key exchange, withstands quantum computing fairly well. Unfortunately, you will get pwned and get your symmetric keys extracted during key exchange. The only work-around that I am aware of is using preshared keys.
Getting "outed" as Satoshi Nakamoto is the new SWATing, I suggest we call it IRSing and it is much, much worse.
Yes, since it would involves back paying taxes.
Is being outer as Satoshi Nakamoto is the new swatting thing, but with more long-lasting negative consequences?
How? Very easily, they are not engineers and don't understand statistics.
Engineers are wanted by all kinds of organizations... on other hand, social studies majors (that published this study) are 9 times less likely to even get a job as a suicide bombers.
Radeon drivers were shit for decades, before they morphed into AMD shit drivers. If you have generation-old GPU, you won't get any support for modern titles.
While I understand there are a lot of cloak and dagger going on with standards and implementations, AMD is consistently on the losing end.
On a positive note, the code they likely to produce will have very robust privilege checks.
If you use Gmail, they already have all the information to very accurately determine your state of mental health.
Maybe you know something I don't?
My understanding is that presently Google cars won't self drive outside of specially mapped areas. These are not street-view maps, but detailed telemetry scans that have to be frequently updated to stay relevant.
When you factor-in the sheer number of failed startups and come up with success:failure ratio, I don't see how you can call it a "counter-example".
Google approach of map everything in excruciating detail has one big flaw - it assumes that we could know in advance how the driving environment would look like and navigate based on this. This is not a reasonable assumption, simply because mapping every back road is gargantuan task. Therefore, we will end up with 'good enough' Google cars, that can drive major roads and urban centers.
Tesla (and all other car manufacturers) approach is to have car react to environment with little advanced knowledge. This is gargantuan task and is still computationally unfeasible. Therefor, we will end up with 'good enough' Tesla-like car, that can drive anywhere but still require driver's supervision.
Have you actually read the quote you copy-pasted? It states what you claim she never said.
How about Andrea Dworkin?
I could even find SFW link. Shows how isolated you are in your echo chamber.