Exactly. I find Wikipedia useful for two things: First, if you know nothing about some topic, it can provide an introduction, and indication of where to look for information. Second, Wikipedia entries (including their history and talk pages) are useful for learning about any controversy that may exist about a particular topic.
I also find Wikipedia's entries on mathematical topics to be fairly useful, mainly because there is usually little or no controversy surrounding them.
If you're going to claim unconditional security under the standard assumptions (which is what, it appears, is meant by "absolute security") then it doesn't matter what current technology is. The statement you're essentially making is, "we don't even know a theoretical way of breaking this, and we believe that there *can't* be one."
Unconditional security is an extremely strong claim. This guy hasn't even mentioned Maxwell's equations, or dealt with the propagation delays involved. Although I haven't actually sat down and completely figured out the paper, the thing just smells fishy to me. I predict that, if this system gets a significant amount of attention, it will be publicly broken within a year.
Huh? Your analogy is right; Germany did have various political and military factions, and not everyone was aware or would have approved of the Final Solution thing. It'd indeed be wrong to claim that all Germans are evil.
Nobody's claiming that all Sony employees are evil, either.
The problem is that this summation doesn't happen instantaneously; It happens at about 2/3 the speed of light, and an attacker can take advantage of this.
Interesting how there is very little mention that this guy was physically beaten because of his beliefs. I imagine that if the guy was a priest who decried atheists, people would go nuts.
Most complex software is currently buggy. Licensing has nothing to do with it. However, with open source software, the most amount of money a particular bug can cost me is no more than a few times the cost of hiring people to fix that bug for me. Proprietary software doesn't have that cost limit. Case closed.
The Encyclopaedia Galactica, in its chapter on "Developing Securely In Windows", states that it is far too complicated to define. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject:
Slashdot Mirror
I also find Wikipedia's entries on mathematical topics to be fairly useful, mainly because there is usually little or no controversy surrounding them.
Hah! Blogmodsters, please mod that up!
Unconditional security is an extremely strong claim. This guy hasn't even mentioned Maxwell's equations, or dealt with the propagation delays involved. Although I haven't actually sat down and completely figured out the paper, the thing just smells fishy to me. I predict that, if this system gets a significant amount of attention, it will be publicly broken within a year.
Nobody's claiming that all Sony employees are evil, either.
Um... We are?
Correction: Most IEEE standards must be purchased. IEEE 802 does not.
The problem is that this summation doesn't happen instantaneously; It happens at about 2/3 the speed of light, and an attacker can take advantage of this.
I love CNN's unbiased reporting.
Most complex software is currently buggy. Licensing has nothing to do with it. However, with open source software, the most amount of money a particular bug can cost me is no more than a few times the cost of hiring people to fix that bug for me. Proprietary software doesn't have that cost limit. Case closed.
If someone mentions Hitler on Ice, does that invoke Godwin's Law?
It can increase the number of software developers who work on touch-screen interfaces.
Right... and totally break DNS search order ( which a ton of people use) while you're at it. Gee, thanks for your brilliant idea, timeOday!
In other news, Netcraft recently confirmed that BSD is dying...
I'm sorry, but those commands have been disabled for security reasons. Please use sstab, sbludgeon, and simpale instead.
Pretty soon, the Hitchhiker's Guide won't just recommend that you carry a towl; It will be your towel!
cf. the Sender ID fiasco.
Why? Ever heard of an AUTHORS file?
Nice excerpt from Babylon 5.
The Encyclopaedia Galactica, in its chapter on "Developing Securely In Windows", states that it is far too complicated to define. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject: