Now if they could make a program to build very cheap computers and give one to each child it would be even better
You've heard about the $100 laptop i guess...
And Aliens is not in the list while contact is? Come on give us a break...and please don;t give me the "it's not space, it's a horror movie" argument. I totally agree with Apollo 13 as #1.
off topic: Btw i was so shocked when I saw in one of those NASA documentaries that those guys actually figured out how to make an oxygen generator out of scrap material.
most of the MIS girls here are going to be the project manager types as opposed to computar geeks (me).
Very rarely you will see plain MIS graduates becoming project managers. Software engineering project management requires much more skills that all those poorly designed cs/management MIS undergraduate programs have to offer. I would say that a CS/EECS/EE U/G with MS in MIS sounds more decent. Still employers would prefer a MS in CS or Phd or even better someone with many years of experience to manage their projects.
IMHO MIS programs are a way to make ppl who do not have the ability to be real engineers into studying a computer related field. MIS u/g are not computer scientists/engineers but poorely equipped plain management graduates. CS is not something you learn in 5-10 light courses.
Recently I came across a cool article on the geek/nerd definition (by googling for "it differs from"...) http://portal.wikinerds.org/nerds-and-geeks-defini tion
There are many ppl out there trying to differentiate between the two "species". Personally I find that earthlink add's definition extremely annoying: "A geek gets it done, while a nerd doesn't", whatever...
This article adds to the discussion of geek vs nerd.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I went through the patent:
Motion compensation, intraframes etc... isn't it the MPEG format we are talking about?
JPEG is the static picture encoding format that is based on the cosin transform.
MPEG also uses cosign transform but many other techniques among which motion compensation DPCM etc.
"You can generate collisions at any point in a file simply by starting with the partial MD5 sum up to the point in the file that you want to insert the block at. "
That's incorrect. MD5 operates over 512-bit blocks and uses state generated from the hash of the previous blocks to generate the new state for the current block. The state is actually the 4 words of the 128 digest.
Here is the alg from wikipedia:
init h0
init h1
init h2
init h3
for each 512-bit chunk of message
break chunk into sixteen 32-bit little-endian words w(i), 0 i 15//Initialize hash value for this chunk:
var int a:= h0
var int b:= h1
var int c:= h2
var int d:= h3
//Main loop:
for i from 0 to 63
if 0 i 15 then
f:= (b and c) or ((not b) and d)
g:= i
else if 16 i 31
f:= (d and b) or ((not d) and c)
g:= (5×i + 1) mod 16
else if 32 i 47
f:= b xor c xor d
g:= (3×i + 5) mod 16
else if 48 i 63
f:= c xor (b or (not d))
g:= (7×i) mod 16
temp:= d
d:= c
c:= b
b:= ((a + f + k(i) + w(g)) leftrotate r(i)) + b
a:= temp //Add this chunk's hash to result so far:
h0:= h0 + a
h1:= h1 + b
h2:= h2 + c
h3:= h3 + d
var int digest:= h0 append h1 append h2 append h3//(expressed as little-endian)
What these guys have done is to find 512 bit blocks or larger that return the same hash given the same initial state h0, h1, h2, h3.
As u can see above, if you find a collision for state i, ho, h1, h2, h3 the same collision will not work for the different state MD5 will have say after processing a number of blocks.
It is computationally feasible to find many collisions for the initial state but to find collisions for all possible states and to have these collisions occuring in the original file is very hard.
So, no you cannot simply search the file for blocks that are among the blocks for which u found a collision and then simply replace them with their collision. The MD5 for which you found the collision and the MD5 that is used over the file are essentially two different functions and will not hash to the same value.
As for the rest of your comments: I hope you realize that you don't just give their program an MD5 hash and it outputs two values that hash to that output. MD5 has been shown not to be collision resistant but it is still preimage and second preimage resistant.
I explicitly said that we assume the signer is trusted, you did not need to say anything about trusted parties. If the signer is not trusted the whole signed code scheme is meaningless.
What you are suggesting is efficient compression which is already deployed everywhere (MPEG is a form of compression).
Hashes however have nothing to do with it. Hashes can be viewed as an extremely lossy compression schemes. In fact hash functions are designed to lose all information prior to hashing, since one of fundamental properties of hash functions is their one-wayness. Hash functions are supposed to be one way, you can never recover the original hashed file.
Thus, you would never be able to recover the whole file, perhaps you would be able to retrieve some bits.
Note that the so called attacks on MD5 find collisions, that is random pairs that hash to the same value. That is a far cry from obtaining the preimage of a hash, that is obtaining the file from its MD5.
(in fact i now feel embarrassed that I actually spent 1 minute to argue about that, this should be obvious)
You got the whole deal wrong. The published attacks are not able to find a second preimage that is: for a certain y = h(x) find x' such that h(x')=h(x)=y.
All this salt deal is completely redundant. Salts would make finding second preimages harder but it is already hard.
Ppl need to realize that collision resistance is not the same as second preimage resistance. What the so called attack on MD5 does is finding collisions, random pairs that actually hash to the same value. The probability those pairs hash to hash values that you find in password records is negligible. It is almost as probable as trying random passwords until you find the one you are looking for.
MD5 was designed to be both collision and second preimage resistant. These guys in China showed it is not collision resistant. That is a great theoretical result, but far from useful in practice. It remains second preimage resistant, so enough with this fake hype.
Your passwords are completely safe if stored as hashes.
The described attacks would only work when you are dealing with active document types and only for the particular attack scenarios.
Because of the unfortunate properties of SHA-1, MD-5 like hash functionality implementations, if you find collisions x1, x2 such that hash(x1) = hash(x2) you can have the two different string x1||S and x2||S hashing to the same value, hash(x1||S)=hash(x2||S).
This is because these hash functionality is usually implemented as follows: start by hashing the first block (substring) of the string then take the output and hash it together with the second block, take the output and hash it with the 3rd block etc. If the first block of two different strings hashes to the same value while the rest of the string is identical you will get a collision.
What these guys in Germany do is that they find a collision h(R1)=h(R2) (using the well known technique from China) enter it at the start of the ps document and then generate two different documents that look like this:
A || "if A == R1 present S1 else present S2" || S1 || S2 . The first document has A=R1 and the second A=R2. Obviously these documents differ only by A and because A hashes to the same value they both hash to the same value. Caesar sees the presentation of the document that contains R1, which is S1, he likes it and signs its hash. Alice takes this signed hash and presents it as the signature of a document that contains R2 and effectively. But this document prints S2 and Caesar does not like S2.
This is only usefull if Caesar is stupid enough to sign a document that looks like this. Of course, Caesar being aware that he runs an empire..., will for sure look at the source code of the documents he signs.
Some people also referred to the problem that arises with signing binaries or source code. As somebody else mentioned in this forum, in these cases you trust the signer and the trusted signer (e.g M$) would never create a binary or source code file that looked like:
R1 || "if A==R1 run good application else run virus" ||good application||virus.
Even if the signer/coder was idiot enough to do it, you would still have to find R2 such that hash(R1)=hash(R2). In this case you should be able to find second pre-image of the MD5 hash, not a collision. Second preimage means, that given an y = hash(x) you can find x'such that y=hash(x'). Nobody has even come close to devising a technique for that.
If you could find second pre-images, you would be able to wreak havoc, for example by distributing fake Linux distros with the first block of the iso's being an MD5 second preimage of the valid distro.
In conclusion, I will still use MD5 and SHA-1 until they come up with a practical attack. I think these guys have had enough publicity for nothing already.
I maintain my position that MD5 collisions is a non-issue.
The described attacks would only work when you are dealing with active document types and only for the particular attack scenarios.
Because of the unfortunate properties of SHA-1, MD-5 like hash functions
if you find collisions x1, x2 such that hash(x1) = hash(x2) you can have the two different string x1||S and x2||S hashing to the same value, hash(x1||S)=hash(x2||S).
This is because these hash functionality is usually implemented as follows: start by hashing the first block (substring) of the string then take the output and hash it together with the second block, take the output and hash it with the 3rd block etc. If the first block of two different strings hashes to the same value while the rest of the string is identical you will get a collision.
What these guys in Germany do is that they find a collision h(R1)=h(R2) (using the well known technique from China) enter it at the start of the ps document and then generate two different documents that look like this:
A || "if A == R1 present S1 else present S2" || S1 || S2 . The first document has A=R1 and the second A=R2. Obviously these documents differ only by A and because A hashes to the same value they both hash to the same value. Caesar sees the presentation of the document that contains R1, which is S1, he likes it and signs its hash. Alice takes this signed hash and presents it as the signature of a document that contains R2 and effectively. But this document prints S2 and Caesar does not like S2.
This is only usefull if Caesar is stupid enough to sign a document that looks like this. Of course, Caesar being aware that he runs an empire..., will for sure look at the source code of the documents he signs.
Some people also referred to the problem that arises with signing binaries or source code. As somebody else mentioned in this forum, in these cases you trust the signer and the trusted signer (e.g M$) would never create a binary or source code file that looked like:
R1 || "if A==R1 run good application else run virus" ||good application||virus.
Even if the signer/coder was idiot enough to do it, you would still have to find R2 such that hash(R1)=hash(R2). In this case you should be able to find second pre-image of the MD5 hash, not a collision. Second pre-image means, that given an y = hash(x) you can find x'such that y=hash(x'). Nobody has even come close to devising a technique for that.
If you could find second pre-images, you would be able to wreak havoc, for example by distributing fake Linux distros with the first block of the iso's being an MD5 second preimage of the valid distro.
In conclusion, I will still use MD5 and SHA-1 until they come up with a practical attack. I think these guys have had enough publicity for nothing already.
It's so funny how the moderator for our comments assigned score 1, while they are among the few ones that set the facts straight about mesh networks.
Moderators if you don't know about something, simply refrain from assigning score to it. Don't be fooled by techno bubble comments like how would the service of a mesh network compare to the service of cellular networks.
Ofcourse this can happen if the mod is a guy with absolutely no knowledge of comp. science and systems
and just a guy who knows very well how to configure his 802.11 and idiotic technical stuff like that.
We are talking about two totally different systems designed for different purposes and whether or not mesh networking can be used to provide the communication service cell nets currently provide is a completely out of scope question.
Mesh networking is nothing like cellular networks.
In mesh networks each node participates in the routing process, relaying packets intended for other
receivers. Of course this is not the case with traditional cellular networks where routing takes place
only in the based stations and the core network connecting the base stations.
Furthermore, mesh (also called ad-hoc) networks are self-configurable and self-healing. You throw the nodes over an area and they themselves discover who their neighbors are, discover routes to other nodes in the network using distributed on demand or proactive routing protocols, and if a link fails they can automatically reconfigure their routing tables.
Since nodes relay packets destined to other nodes, the range of the covered area can increase with the number of appropriately located devices, unlike cellular networks where the range is solely determined by the base station (BS) and phones' antenna transmission range. There is virtually no single point of failure as is the BS for traditional cell networks.
Issues like hand-over are usually handled by the mesh network gateways.
The defining steps on the subject were done by researchers at UC berkeley and xbow http://www.xbow.com/Products/Wireless_Sensor_Netwo rks.htm.
Another pioneering company in the field of mesh networking is Embernet www.embernet.com, these guys developed commercial h/w and s/w for this purpose more than 3 years ago.
I have seen much less funny and intelligent posts being assigned 5 very funny.
Who ever assigned score 2 for this truly funny post must completely lack any sense of humor
or his sense of humor is restricted on techie Linux/Bill gates/Star trek jokes...
It wasn't Hitler who said that.
"Today We Say That Greeks Fight Like Heroes, From Now On We Will Say That Heroes
Fight Like Greeks", Winston Churchill
Hitler was too pissed my Mussolini's "fiasko" defeat in Albania by the Greeks and the fact that he was delayed more than a month in the northern Greek borderline, to try to come up with smart sentences like that.
The delay caused by the ill-equipped Greek army was long enough to add more than one month of harsh winter to their campaign in Russia. Some ppl argue it has decicively changed the course of the war.
I am not sure about that, but it definitely was much more contribution than the one by the French and Scandinavians combined...:).
Who would have thought that the Metaxa line would hold much longer than the Maginot line (yes yes...i know that Nazis cut through the Ardennes Forest)?
Greeks offered a lot to the world civilization, however the contributions of Chinese, Indian, Arabs, Hebrew, the European renaissance and so many other's should not be ignored and understated. And one should not forget of the the vastly greater contributions of today's scientists in US, Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
It wasn't Hitler who said that.
"Today We Say That Greeks Fight Like Heroes, From Now On We Will Say That Heroes
Fight Like Greeks", Winston Churchill
Hitler was too pissed my Mussolini's "fiasko" defeat in Albania by the Greeks and the fact that he was delayed more than a month in the northern Greek borderline, to try to come up with smart sentences like that.
The delay caused by the ill-equipped Greek army was long enough to add more than one month of harsh winter to their campaign in Russia. Some ppl argue it has decicively changed the course of the war.
I am not sure about that, but it definitely was much more contribution than the one by the French and Scandinavians combined...:).
Who would have thought that the Metaxa line would hold much more than the Maginot line (yes yes...i know that Nazis cut through the Ardennes Forest)?
Come on ppl. This is plasma propulsion, this is not magnet whatever thruster! It is also not much different from fusion plasma propulsion (You need an energy source to ionize gas, duh!!!)
Plasma propulsion has been around for a while. Do you think these sorry excuses for editors would approve this article for slashdot news? http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-propulsion 2.htm.
Of course not, because this is just encyclopedic... meaning it is not breaking news!
In Europe, dot is used to separate 10^3's and comma to indicate decimal.
so 40,000 is 40 to this guy. 40.000 is 40 000 to at least 300 000 000 of us:).
So stop being a smart ass about the wrong thing. Focus on his english instead, which really sucks.
However I bet this guy is smarter than you because unlike you, he is partly bilingual. Turkish is not Greek or Chinese but is definetely a much more complicated language than English and you should show respect to ppl who can speak it.
It is news worthy no doubt. However this is AP high visility news. Every single newspaper, even your high school daily will have or already had an article on that.
There is no need for slashdot to discuss it unless there is something new or interesting that is not widely discussed about avian flu. A slashdot user should try to find scientific papers or articles on the issue, post a well substantiated comment on that and give us links to those articles/paper.
I read BBC every day by my self, don't need anyone to point me to that.
There is nothing biblical about this. Scientists have been waiting for something like this or much worse since the Spanish flu in 1910's. This is simple science facts.
Cannot believe that supersticious retards are among slashdot users, and even worse they post stupid comments like that
"Obviously this solution is expensive and inconvenient because users have to get their hands on specialized hardware and carry it. Furthermore, synchronization issues need to be addressed. I don't think this time regulated random generators use atomic clocks, GPS or NTP... "
How on earth did you think that this post was referring to one-time passwords. Yes, I admit it was the wrong thing to do to post it as a reply to ur post, but the least u should before you start insulting somebody is to read carefully what he wrote.
Usability and security is not a trivial thing. Research in HCI and Security has been interesting and well respected by the security research community simply because it takes a careful look at what the end-user of the security protocol can and cannot do. Designing protocols to correctly place humans in the authentication loop is not as easy as u may thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if they could make a program to build very cheap computers and give one to each child it would be even better You've heard about the $100 laptop i guess...
hehehe, good one, definetely 5-funny in my book.
I agree completely. Isn't he the guy who suggested that having a linux distro that runs over windows (...?!) is a great idea?
And Aliens is not in the list while contact is? Come on give us a break...and please don;t give me the "it's not space, it's a horror movie" argument. I totally agree with Apollo 13 as #1. off topic: Btw i was so shocked when I saw in one of those NASA documentaries that those guys actually figured out how to make an oxygen generator out of scrap material.
most of the MIS girls here are going to be the project manager types as opposed to computar geeks (me).
Very rarely you will see plain MIS graduates becoming project managers. Software engineering project management requires much more skills that all those poorly designed cs/management MIS undergraduate programs have to offer. I would say that a CS/EECS/EE U/G with MS in MIS sounds more decent. Still employers would prefer a MS in CS or Phd or even better someone with many years of experience to manage their projects.
IMHO MIS programs are a way to make ppl who do not have the ability to be real engineers into studying a computer related field. MIS u/g are not computer scientists/engineers but poorely equipped plain management graduates. CS is not something you learn in 5-10 light courses.
Recently I came across a cool article on the geek/nerd definition (by googling for "it differs from"...)i tion
http://portal.wikinerds.org/nerds-and-geeks-defin
There are many ppl out there trying to differentiate between the two "species". Personally I find that earthlink add's definition extremely annoying: "A geek gets it done, while a nerd doesn't", whatever...
This article adds to the discussion of geek vs nerd.
One that got me into trouble when my new gf saw my email to the old one...
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I went through the patent: Motion compensation, intraframes etc... isn't it the MPEG format we are talking about? JPEG is the static picture encoding format that is based on the cosin transform. MPEG also uses cosign transform but many other techniques among which motion compensation DPCM etc.
"You can generate collisions at any point in a file simply by starting with the partial MD5 sum up to the point in the file that you want to insert the block at. //Initialize hash value for this chunk:
var int a := h0 := h1 := h2 := h3
//Main loop: := (b and c) or ((not b) and d) := i := (d and b) or ((not d) and c) := (5×i + 1) mod 16 := b xor c xor d
g := (3×i + 5) mod 16
else if 48 i 63 := c xor (b or (not d))
g := (7×i) mod 16
:= d := c := b := ((a + f + k(i) + w(g)) leftrotate r(i)) + b := temp
//Add this chunk's hash to result so far:
h0 := h0 + a := h1 + b := h2 + c := h3 + d := h0 append h1 append h2 append h3 //(expressed as little-endian)
What these guys have done is to find 512 bit blocks or larger that return the same hash given the same initial state h0, h1, h2, h3.
As u can see above, if you find a collision for state i, ho, h1, h2, h3 the same collision will not work for the different state MD5 will have say after processing a number of blocks.
It is computationally feasible to find many collisions for the initial state but to find collisions for all possible states and to have these collisions occuring in the original file is very hard.
So, no you cannot simply search the file for blocks that are among the blocks for which u found a collision and then simply replace them with their collision. The MD5 for which you found the collision and the MD5 that is used over the file are essentially two different functions and will not hash to the same value.
As for the rest of your comments: I hope you realize that you don't just give their program an MD5 hash and it outputs two values that hash to that output. MD5 has been shown not to be collision resistant but it is still preimage and second preimage resistant.
I explicitly said that we assume the signer is trusted, you did not need to say anything about trusted parties. If the signer is not trusted the whole signed code scheme is meaningless.
" That's incorrect. MD5 operates over 512-bit blocks and uses state generated from the hash of the previous blocks to generate the new state for the current block. The state is actually the 4 words of the 128 digest.
Here is the alg from wikipedia:
init h0
init h1
init h2
init h3
for each 512-bit chunk of message
break chunk into sixteen 32-bit little-endian words w(i), 0 i 15
var int b
var int c
var int d
for i from 0 to 63
if 0 i 15 then
f
g
else if 16 i 31
f
g
else if 32 i 47
f
f
temp
d
c
b
a
h1
h2
h3
var int digest
What you are suggesting is efficient compression which is already deployed everywhere (MPEG is a form of compression). Hashes however have nothing to do with it. Hashes can be viewed as an extremely lossy compression schemes. In fact hash functions are designed to lose all information prior to hashing, since one of fundamental properties of hash functions is their one-wayness. Hash functions are supposed to be one way, you can never recover the original hashed file. Thus, you would never be able to recover the whole file, perhaps you would be able to retrieve some bits. Note that the so called attacks on MD5 find collisions, that is random pairs that hash to the same value. That is a far cry from obtaining the preimage of a hash, that is obtaining the file from its MD5.
(in fact i now feel embarrassed that I actually spent 1 minute to argue about that, this should be obvious)
You got the whole deal wrong. The published attacks are not able to find a second preimage that is: for a certain y = h(x) find x' such that h(x')=h(x)=y.
All this salt deal is completely redundant. Salts would make finding second preimages harder but it is already hard.
Ppl need to realize that collision resistance is not the same as second preimage resistance. What the so called attack on MD5 does is finding collisions, random pairs that actually hash to the same value. The probability those pairs hash to hash values that you find in password records is negligible. It is almost as probable as trying random passwords until you find the one you are looking for.
MD5 was designed to be both collision and second preimage resistant. These guys in China showed it is not collision resistant. That is a great theoretical result, but far from useful in practice. It remains second preimage resistant, so enough with this fake hype.
Your passwords are completely safe if stored as hashes.
IMHO MD5 collisions is a non-issue.
The described attacks would only work when you are dealing with active document types and only for the particular attack scenarios.
Because of the unfortunate properties of SHA-1, MD-5 like hash functionality implementations, if you find collisions x1, x2 such that hash(x1) = hash(x2) you can have the two different string x1||S and x2||S hashing to the same value, hash(x1||S)=hash(x2||S).
This is because these hash functionality is usually implemented as follows: start by hashing the first block (substring) of the string then take the output and hash it together with the second block, take the output and hash it with the 3rd block etc. If the first block of two different strings hashes to the same value while the rest of the string is identical you will get a collision. What these guys in Germany do is that they find a collision h(R1)=h(R2) (using the well known technique from China) enter it at the start of the ps document and then generate two different documents that look like this:
A || "if A == R1 present S1 else present S2" || S1 || S2 . The first document has A=R1 and the second A=R2. Obviously these documents differ only by A and because A hashes to the same value they both hash to the same value. Caesar sees the presentation of the document that contains R1, which is S1, he likes it and signs its hash. Alice takes this signed hash and presents it as the signature of a document that contains R2 and effectively. But this document prints S2 and Caesar does not like S2.
This is only usefull if Caesar is stupid enough to sign a document that looks like this. Of course, Caesar being aware that he runs an empire..., will for sure look at the source code of the documents he signs.
Some people also referred to the problem that arises with signing binaries or source code. As somebody else mentioned in this forum, in these cases you trust the signer and the trusted signer (e.g M$) would never create a binary or source code file that looked like:
R1 || "if A==R1 run good application else run virus" ||good application||virus. Even if the signer/coder was idiot enough to do it, you would still have to find R2 such that hash(R1)=hash(R2). In this case you should be able to find second pre-image of the MD5 hash, not a collision. Second preimage means, that given an y = hash(x) you can find x'such that y=hash(x'). Nobody has even come close to devising a technique for that.
If you could find second pre-images, you would be able to wreak havoc, for example by distributing fake Linux distros with the first block of the iso's being an MD5 second preimage of the valid distro.
In conclusion, I will still use MD5 and SHA-1 until they come up with a practical attack. I think these guys have had enough publicity for nothing already.
I maintain my position that MD5 collisions is a non-issue. The described attacks would only work when you are dealing with active document types and only for the particular attack scenarios. Because of the unfortunate properties of SHA-1, MD-5 like hash functions if you find collisions x1, x2 such that hash(x1) = hash(x2) you can have the two different string x1||S and x2||S hashing to the same value, hash(x1||S)=hash(x2||S). This is because these hash functionality is usually implemented as follows: start by hashing the first block (substring) of the string then take the output and hash it together with the second block, take the output and hash it with the 3rd block etc. If the first block of two different strings hashes to the same value while the rest of the string is identical you will get a collision. What these guys in Germany do is that they find a collision h(R1)=h(R2) (using the well known technique from China) enter it at the start of the ps document and then generate two different documents that look like this: A || "if A == R1 present S1 else present S2" || S1 || S2 . The first document has A=R1 and the second A=R2. Obviously these documents differ only by A and because A hashes to the same value they both hash to the same value. Caesar sees the presentation of the document that contains R1, which is S1, he likes it and signs its hash. Alice takes this signed hash and presents it as the signature of a document that contains R2 and effectively. But this document prints S2 and Caesar does not like S2. This is only usefull if Caesar is stupid enough to sign a document that looks like this. Of course, Caesar being aware that he runs an empire..., will for sure look at the source code of the documents he signs. Some people also referred to the problem that arises with signing binaries or source code. As somebody else mentioned in this forum, in these cases you trust the signer and the trusted signer (e.g M$) would never create a binary or source code file that looked like: R1 || "if A==R1 run good application else run virus" ||good application||virus. Even if the signer/coder was idiot enough to do it, you would still have to find R2 such that hash(R1)=hash(R2). In this case you should be able to find second pre-image of the MD5 hash, not a collision. Second pre-image means, that given an y = hash(x) you can find x'such that y=hash(x'). Nobody has even come close to devising a technique for that. If you could find second pre-images, you would be able to wreak havoc, for example by distributing fake Linux distros with the first block of the iso's being an MD5 second preimage of the valid distro. In conclusion, I will still use MD5 and SHA-1 until they come up with a practical attack. I think these guys have had enough publicity for nothing already.
It's so funny how the moderator for our comments assigned score 1, while they are among the few ones that set the facts straight about mesh networks. Moderators if you don't know about something, simply refrain from assigning score to it. Don't be fooled by techno bubble comments like how would the service of a mesh network compare to the service of cellular networks.
Ofcourse this can happen if the mod is a guy with absolutely no knowledge of comp. science and systems and just a guy who knows very well how to configure his 802.11 and idiotic technical stuff like that. We are talking about two totally different systems designed for different purposes and whether or not mesh networking can be used to provide the communication service cell nets currently provide is a completely out of scope question.
forgive me, its at www.ember.com not www.embernet.com.
Mesh networking is nothing like cellular networks. In mesh networks each node participates in the routing process, relaying packets intended for other receivers. Of course this is not the case with traditional cellular networks where routing takes place only in the based stations and the core network connecting the base stations. Furthermore, mesh (also called ad-hoc) networks are self-configurable and self-healing. You throw the nodes over an area and they themselves discover who their neighbors are, discover routes to other nodes in the network using distributed on demand or proactive routing protocols, and if a link fails they can automatically reconfigure their routing tables. Since nodes relay packets destined to other nodes, the range of the covered area can increase with the number of appropriately located devices, unlike cellular networks where the range is solely determined by the base station (BS) and phones' antenna transmission range. There is virtually no single point of failure as is the BS for traditional cell networks. Issues like hand-over are usually handled by the mesh network gateways. The defining steps on the subject were done by researchers at UC berkeley and xbow http://www.xbow.com/Products/Wireless_Sensor_Netwo rks.htm.
Another pioneering company in the field of mesh networking is Embernet www.embernet.com, these guys developed commercial h/w and s/w for this purpose more than 3 years ago.
I have seen much less funny and intelligent posts being assigned 5 very funny. Who ever assigned score 2 for this truly funny post must completely lack any sense of humor or his sense of humor is restricted on techie Linux/Bill gates/Star trek jokes...
It wasn't Hitler who said that. "Today We Say That Greeks Fight Like Heroes, From Now On We Will Say That Heroes Fight Like Greeks", Winston Churchill Hitler was too pissed my Mussolini's "fiasko" defeat in Albania by the Greeks and the fact that he was delayed more than a month in the northern Greek borderline, to try to come up with smart sentences like that. The delay caused by the ill-equipped Greek army was long enough to add more than one month of harsh winter to their campaign in Russia. Some ppl argue it has decicively changed the course of the war. I am not sure about that, but it definitely was much more contribution than the one by the French and Scandinavians combined... :).
Who would have thought that the Metaxa line would hold much longer than the Maginot line (yes yes...i know that Nazis cut through the Ardennes Forest)?
Greeks offered a lot to the world civilization, however the contributions of Chinese, Indian, Arabs, Hebrew, the European renaissance and so many other's should not be ignored and understated. And one should not forget of the the vastly greater contributions of today's scientists in US, Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
It wasn't Hitler who said that. "Today We Say That Greeks Fight Like Heroes, From Now On We Will Say That Heroes Fight Like Greeks", Winston Churchill Hitler was too pissed my Mussolini's "fiasko" defeat in Albania by the Greeks and the fact that he was delayed more than a month in the northern Greek borderline, to try to come up with smart sentences like that. The delay caused by the ill-equipped Greek army was long enough to add more than one month of harsh winter to their campaign in Russia. Some ppl argue it has decicively changed the course of the war. I am not sure about that, but it definitely was much more contribution than the one by the French and Scandinavians combined... :).
Who would have thought that the Metaxa line would hold much more than the Maginot line (yes yes...i know that Nazis cut through the Ardennes Forest)?
?? You don't make any sense, cmdr Taco
Come on ppl. This is plasma propulsion, this is not magnet whatever thruster! It is also not much different from fusion plasma propulsion (You need an energy source to ionize gas, duh!!!) Plasma propulsion has been around for a while. Do you think these sorry excuses for editors would approve this article for slashdot news? http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-propulsion 2.htm.
Of course not, because this is just encyclopedic... meaning it is not breaking news!
In Europe, dot is used to separate 10^3's and comma to indicate decimal. so 40,000 is 40 to this guy. 40.000 is 40 000 to at least 300 000 000 of us :).
So stop being a smart ass about the wrong thing. Focus on his english instead, which really sucks.
However I bet this guy is smarter than you because unlike you, he is partly bilingual. Turkish is not Greek or Chinese but is definetely a much more complicated language than English and you should show respect to ppl who can speak it.
It is news worthy no doubt. However this is AP high visility news. Every single newspaper, even your high school daily will have or already had an article on that. There is no need for slashdot to discuss it unless there is something new or interesting that is not widely discussed about avian flu. A slashdot user should try to find scientific papers or articles on the issue, post a well substantiated comment on that and give us links to those articles/paper. I read BBC every day by my self, don't need anyone to point me to that.
There is nothing biblical about this. Scientists have been waiting for something like this or much worse since the Spanish flu in 1910's. This is simple science facts. Cannot believe that supersticious retards are among slashdot users, and even worse they post stupid comments like that
"Obviously this solution is expensive and inconvenient because users have to get their hands on specialized hardware and carry it. Furthermore, synchronization issues need to be addressed. I don't think this time regulated random generators use atomic clocks, GPS or NTP... " How on earth did you think that this post was referring to one-time passwords. Yes, I admit it was the wrong thing to do to post it as a reply to ur post, but the least u should before you start insulting somebody is to read carefully what he wrote. Usability and security is not a trivial thing. Research in HCI and Security has been interesting and well respected by the security research community simply because it takes a careful look at what the end-user of the security protocol can and cannot do. Designing protocols to correctly place humans in the authentication loop is not as easy as u may thing.