Its destiny was not decided by "geeky douchebag hipsters" but by Microsoft. Explain the value proposition in paying US$1000 for an x86 tablet when there are ultrabooks with comparable specs that can be had for almost half the price. Honestly, I'd actually consider buying a Surface Pro, if it were priced at maybe $500-600. Microsoft priced themselves out of the market. They are not and will never be Apple, no matter how much Ballmer wishes otherwise. It's like Toyota marketing a sports car under the Toyota name, with Ferrari prices.
How many companies made Macintosh-compatible computers on the 1980s? How many companies made IBM-compatible computers in the 1980s? How many companies make smartphones that are compatible with the iPhone today? How many companies make smartphones compatible with Android today? The answers to these two sets of questions are the same, and that is the whole point about openness. It illustrates how Apple still has the same mindset they had 30 years ago, and why they'll eventually become marginalised into a niche again.
Dunno if this is related. It seems to have happened to me on occasion since the 4.3 update, although I don't think it's completely off. About once every couple of weeks I'll be listening to music or audiobooks on my Nexus 4, and it will continue playing. The music doesn't stop, and apparently I can still control playback by means of the Bluetooth headset. However, the power button doesn't bring the screen back on, and nothing short of giving the power button a long press, the way I would when turning it on when it has been turned off, will suffice to bring it back up again.
Good points. But then again remember that the NSA, having approved the cipher for use with classified documents, now has to use it themselves if they want to exchange top secret classified information with the rest of the US government! I think it's much more likely that they did apply even more of their vaunted cryptanalytic prowess to it when NIST gave their approval in 2000, and when by 2003 they found no significant weaknesses, they approved it for use with classified information. If they had found a significant weakness in AES and approved it anyway for such use, how arrogant and stupid would that make them? Their own supposedly secure communications with the rest of the government would be compromised as a result! As I said you can accuse the NSA of being many things, but I don't think stupidity is one of them.
Snowden himself said it: "Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on." Emphasis added. The real trouble is there are too many systems out there that use otherwise sound cryptographic primitives in insecure ways, either by incompetence or by design. The NSA has been known to pressure manufacturers of security equipment to do the latter, and naturally they will only certify equipment that hasn't been thus back-doored for government use.
And no, I don't think breaking AES would be career suicide for an academic cryptanalyst. Fermat's Last Theorem would also have been considered career suicide for centuries for the same reasons you cite, but now Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world. True, it's a hard problem, but if you manage to publish a workable break of AES you would become the most famous cryptographer in the world.
I highly doubt that Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen themselves were influenced by the NSA in any way in the design of Rijndael, unless you believe that they influenced all the AES entrants, including Ronald Rivest (RC6) and Bruce Schneier (Twofish). I think the only influence the NSA might have had was in perhaps influencing the NIST selection process that chose Rijndael as the Advanced Encryption Standard. And in the thirteen years since it was thus chosen it has been scrutinised more thoroughly than any algorithm by the best cryptographers in the world, and well, none of the open researchers anyway have found an attack on the cipher capable of breaking it significantly. The NSA might have, but then they approved the cipher for encrypting US government classified documents (a blessing that the NSA notably did not give the original Data Encryption Standard), so I'd consider it highly unlikely that they would have done that. The risk would be too great that their method of breaking the cipher have been obtained by espionage or independently discovered by some other intelligence agency's cryptanalysts. The NSA may be evil, but no one has ever accused them of stupidity.
Given that the best cryptanalysts of the world have had thirteen years to look at it and it remains solid, I'd trust it better than the other AES candidates which have had much less scrutiny, or worse yet, a newly designed cipher that no one who knows anything has bothered to even try analysing.
The other thing is that AES is incredibly efficient even on 8-bit microcontrollers. Around the time the AES contest was ongoing, I implemented Serpent, Twofish, and Rijndael on an 8051-series microcontroller, and Rijndael was consistently the best performing cipher, so I used it in the project, and wasn't surprised to learn that it eventually got selected.
As Hagbard Celine had famously said: "True communication is possible only between equals." Inferiors will be rewarded more often for telling pleasant lies and get punished for telling unpleasant truths.
In the beginning was the plan,
and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
and the specification was void.
And darkness
was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
and smells as of a sewer."
And the leader took pity on them,
and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the project leader
spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."
The section head then hurried to his department manager,
and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
and none may abide its strength."
The department manager carried these words
to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
and it is very strong."
And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful."
The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!"
And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good.
Not all problems tractable on a quantum computer are so easily amenable to such verification. For example, the original problem that motivated the quantum computer, that of the simulation of quantum processes, is a case in point. All known algorithms for doing that on classical computers take exponential time. How do you verify the results of a complex simulation thus done on a quantum computer?
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Göring.
Bruce Schneier once again hit the nail on the head: The Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse. "Beware the Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, and child pornographers. Seems like you can scare any public into allowing the government to do anything with those four."
Their domain int3.cc is an allusion to the one-byte software interrupt instruction on 16-bit x86 systems. Opcode 0xCC disassembles to int 3, and it's most frequently used by debuggers, which patch a single byte of code with it to make a breakpoint.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
AES has gotten scrutiny from the best cryptanalytic minds in the world for well over a decade, and not one of them has been able to find an attack on it capable of breaking the algorithm significantly faster than brute force. If Edward Snowden is to be believed, not even the NSA's vaunted cryptanalytic ability has been able to find a sufficiently serious flaw in AES either. I agree that we need more algorithms, perhaps a dozen or so, but not hundreds. Too much diversity will have the effect of diffusing the pool of open experts that subject these algorithms to cryptanalytic scrutiny and the chances increase that one or more of the algorithms in use will have a serious flaw.
True. However, does Richard Stallman now seem so stupid for asking that everyone call "Linux" systems "GNU/Linux" systems? We now have Android/Linux as well as GNU/Linux, so the distinction actually turns out to be a rather important one to make. Everyone likes to joke about how RMS is a crackpot with bad hygeine, but it seems he's been right more often than not.
Once the discovery of the element is confirmed, the people who discovered it get dibs on naming the new element. The funny names like 'Ununpentium' are the temporary IUPAC systematic element names used for elements whose synthesis has not yet been confirmed. Of course, priority of discovery and confirmation of discovery can be a highly politicised process, so the systematic name remains in use until this gets settled.
Why not just build a robot then? Then the world becomes its own best model. Or are sensors that allow a robot to experience the world as a human would still that hard? I don't think this is true for vision or hearing, though it probably is for other senses.
And that just goes to show how terrible a marketing misstep Microsoft made here. One device is an otherwise normal PC that can run every application ever written for the WinTel platform. The other has a rather paltry set of applications by third party developers and doesn't even have an x86 architecture processor. They're both called 'Microsoft Surface', and both run 'Windows 8'. Did Microsoft really expect that most people would be able to immediately tell that there was such a major difference between the Surface RT and Surface Pro?
...as self-fulfilling prophecy. The trouble is that the leaders of the world read books like 1984 and Brave New World and see them as instruction manuals rather than warnings.
Not sure if that is true. Ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis can only produce elements up to iron, because nuclear fusion of iron or any other heavier element produces less binding energy per nucleon, and thus cannot be a viable means of producing energy for a star. The s-process that takes place in stars prior to going supernova is capable of producing elements like gold, all the way up to bismuth. Heavier elements are produced by the r-process, that is supposed to occur in core collapse supernovae.
Try to find a machine without Windows 8 on it, if you can do so. That way you don't pay Microsoft any money for their misbegotten operating system. This is becoming ridiculously difficult to do and can only get harder as time goes by.
It's strange that articles here only seem to have one of those icons with them nowadays. I could remember a time when there were three or sometimes even four icons relevant to a story when you opened it up (e.g. Google and Microsoft icons for stories involving both companies). Wonder why that stopped.
There was an article about it here a few years ago. A followup someone made to a comment I wrote to the article mentions some work being done by some guy from Purdue that sounds a lot like what's being done here. IBM also seems to be doing work on canary trap-based ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Its destiny was not decided by "geeky douchebag hipsters" but by Microsoft. Explain the value proposition in paying US$1000 for an x86 tablet when there are ultrabooks with comparable specs that can be had for almost half the price. Honestly, I'd actually consider buying a Surface Pro, if it were priced at maybe $500-600. Microsoft priced themselves out of the market. They are not and will never be Apple, no matter how much Ballmer wishes otherwise. It's like Toyota marketing a sports car under the Toyota name, with Ferrari prices.
How many companies made Macintosh-compatible computers on the 1980s? How many companies made IBM-compatible computers in the 1980s? How many companies make smartphones that are compatible with the iPhone today? How many companies make smartphones compatible with Android today? The answers to these two sets of questions are the same, and that is the whole point about openness. It illustrates how Apple still has the same mindset they had 30 years ago, and why they'll eventually become marginalised into a niche again.
Dunno if this is related. It seems to have happened to me on occasion since the 4.3 update, although I don't think it's completely off. About once every couple of weeks I'll be listening to music or audiobooks on my Nexus 4, and it will continue playing. The music doesn't stop, and apparently I can still control playback by means of the Bluetooth headset. However, the power button doesn't bring the screen back on, and nothing short of giving the power button a long press, the way I would when turning it on when it has been turned off, will suffice to bring it back up again.
Good points. But then again remember that the NSA, having approved the cipher for use with classified documents, now has to use it themselves if they want to exchange top secret classified information with the rest of the US government! I think it's much more likely that they did apply even more of their vaunted cryptanalytic prowess to it when NIST gave their approval in 2000, and when by 2003 they found no significant weaknesses, they approved it for use with classified information. If they had found a significant weakness in AES and approved it anyway for such use, how arrogant and stupid would that make them? Their own supposedly secure communications with the rest of the government would be compromised as a result! As I said you can accuse the NSA of being many things, but I don't think stupidity is one of them.
Snowden himself said it: "Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on." Emphasis added. The real trouble is there are too many systems out there that use otherwise sound cryptographic primitives in insecure ways, either by incompetence or by design. The NSA has been known to pressure manufacturers of security equipment to do the latter, and naturally they will only certify equipment that hasn't been thus back-doored for government use.
And no, I don't think breaking AES would be career suicide for an academic cryptanalyst. Fermat's Last Theorem would also have been considered career suicide for centuries for the same reasons you cite, but now Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world. True, it's a hard problem, but if you manage to publish a workable break of AES you would become the most famous cryptographer in the world.
I highly doubt that Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen themselves were influenced by the NSA in any way in the design of Rijndael, unless you believe that they influenced all the AES entrants, including Ronald Rivest (RC6) and Bruce Schneier (Twofish). I think the only influence the NSA might have had was in perhaps influencing the NIST selection process that chose Rijndael as the Advanced Encryption Standard. And in the thirteen years since it was thus chosen it has been scrutinised more thoroughly than any algorithm by the best cryptographers in the world, and well, none of the open researchers anyway have found an attack on the cipher capable of breaking it significantly. The NSA might have, but then they approved the cipher for encrypting US government classified documents (a blessing that the NSA notably did not give the original Data Encryption Standard), so I'd consider it highly unlikely that they would have done that. The risk would be too great that their method of breaking the cipher have been obtained by espionage or independently discovered by some other intelligence agency's cryptanalysts. The NSA may be evil, but no one has ever accused them of stupidity.
Given that the best cryptanalysts of the world have had thirteen years to look at it and it remains solid, I'd trust it better than the other AES candidates which have had much less scrutiny, or worse yet, a newly designed cipher that no one who knows anything has bothered to even try analysing.
The other thing is that AES is incredibly efficient even on 8-bit microcontrollers. Around the time the AES contest was ongoing, I implemented Serpent, Twofish, and Rijndael on an 8051-series microcontroller, and Rijndael was consistently the best performing cipher, so I used it in the project, and wasn't surprised to learn that it eventually got selected.
As Hagbard Celine had famously said: "True communication is possible only between equals." Inferiors will be rewarded more often for telling pleasant lies and get punished for telling unpleasant truths.
In the beginning was the plan,
and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
and the specification was void.
And darkness
was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
and smells as of a sewer."
And the leader took pity on them,
and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the project leader
spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."
The section head then hurried to his department manager,
and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
and none may abide its strength."
The department manager carried these words
to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
and it is very strong."
And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful."
The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!"
And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good.
Not all problems tractable on a quantum computer are so easily amenable to such verification. For example, the original problem that motivated the quantum computer, that of the simulation of quantum processes, is a case in point. All known algorithms for doing that on classical computers take exponential time. How do you verify the results of a complex simulation thus done on a quantum computer?
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Göring.
Bruce Schneier once again hit the nail on the head: The Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse. "Beware the Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, and child pornographers. Seems like you can scare any public into allowing the government to do anything with those four."
Their domain int3.cc is an allusion to the one-byte software interrupt instruction on 16-bit x86 systems. Opcode 0xCC disassembles to int 3, and it's most frequently used by debuggers, which patch a single byte of code with it to make a breakpoint.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
AES has gotten scrutiny from the best cryptanalytic minds in the world for well over a decade, and not one of them has been able to find an attack on it capable of breaking the algorithm significantly faster than brute force. If Edward Snowden is to be believed, not even the NSA's vaunted cryptanalytic ability has been able to find a sufficiently serious flaw in AES either. I agree that we need more algorithms, perhaps a dozen or so, but not hundreds. Too much diversity will have the effect of diffusing the pool of open experts that subject these algorithms to cryptanalytic scrutiny and the chances increase that one or more of the algorithms in use will have a serious flaw.
They're compared in terms of surface area. Both Olympus Mons and the Tamu Massif occupy an area approximately 300,000 square kilometres.
True. However, does Richard Stallman now seem so stupid for asking that everyone call "Linux" systems "GNU/Linux" systems? We now have Android/Linux as well as GNU/Linux, so the distinction actually turns out to be a rather important one to make. Everyone likes to joke about how RMS is a crackpot with bad hygeine, but it seems he's been right more often than not.
Once the discovery of the element is confirmed, the people who discovered it get dibs on naming the new element. The funny names like 'Ununpentium' are the temporary IUPAC systematic element names used for elements whose synthesis has not yet been confirmed. Of course, priority of discovery and confirmation of discovery can be a highly politicised process, so the systematic name remains in use until this gets settled.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Why not just build a robot then? Then the world becomes its own best model. Or are sensors that allow a robot to experience the world as a human would still that hard? I don't think this is true for vision or hearing, though it probably is for other senses.
And that just goes to show how terrible a marketing misstep Microsoft made here. One device is an otherwise normal PC that can run every application ever written for the WinTel platform. The other has a rather paltry set of applications by third party developers and doesn't even have an x86 architecture processor. They're both called 'Microsoft Surface', and both run 'Windows 8'. Did Microsoft really expect that most people would be able to immediately tell that there was such a major difference between the Surface RT and Surface Pro?
...as self-fulfilling prophecy. The trouble is that the leaders of the world read books like 1984 and Brave New World and see them as instruction manuals rather than warnings.
Not sure if that is true. Ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis can only produce elements up to iron, because nuclear fusion of iron or any other heavier element produces less binding energy per nucleon, and thus cannot be a viable means of producing energy for a star. The s-process that takes place in stars prior to going supernova is capable of producing elements like gold, all the way up to bismuth. Heavier elements are produced by the r-process, that is supposed to occur in core collapse supernovae.
Might as well reopen the Star Chamber while they're at it.
Try to find a machine without Windows 8 on it, if you can do so. That way you don't pay Microsoft any money for their misbegotten operating system. This is becoming ridiculously difficult to do and can only get harder as time goes by.
It's strange that articles here only seem to have one of those icons with them nowadays. I could remember a time when there were three or sometimes even four icons relevant to a story when you opened it up (e.g. Google and Microsoft icons for stories involving both companies). Wonder why that stopped.
There was an article right here about it not a few days ago: MS To Indie Devs: You Have To Have A Publisher.
There was an article about it here a few years ago. A followup someone made to a comment I wrote to the article mentions some work being done by some guy from Purdue that sounds a lot like what's being done here. IBM also seems to be doing work on canary trap-based ideas.