The fact that the attack involve the theft of credit card data, as opposed to just shutting down the network, screams "not Anonymous" to me. You know, given how Anonymous tends to just shut things down with DDoS attacks, or occasionally overwrite a web page with one that spreads some message.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is worth noting that ants also form colonies and work together...but they do not work together with other colonies. Humans share resources and work together, but only to a point: within families, tribes, or nations, but not so much between nations.
Re:Just finished a final exam on Theory of Automat
on
Forty Years of P=NP?
·
· Score: 2
It was a trick question meant to test how many people were paying attention in their theoretical CS courses.
Except that complexity theory does actually matter in the real world, and a solution to the P=NP problem would have broad implications in applied CS. There are quite a few situations in which we use heuristics where exact solutions would be significantly better (register allocation comes to mind, as does the place and route step for FPGAs), simply because finding an exact solution involves solving an NP-complete problem.
That most programmers do not really need to deal with complexity is really a result of most programmers not working on interesting programs.
"I have a sense of intellectual curiosity, but I just cannot be bothered to look up the meaning of one of the most important open problems in theoretical computer science, for which a solution would have broad impacts in both theoretical and applied CS and would represent a major step forward in technology."
Provably secure cryptography is about scalability, and proving the infeasibility of solving particular problems. Unlike many block ciphers, whose security is stated in terms of statistical tests, cryptosystems like RSA and ElGamal have security stated in terms of reductions to problems that are believed to be infeasible (and if we could show P!=NP, then we could have cryptosystems that are reducible to problems that are infeasible). Public key cryptography is not an engineering problem, it is a theoretical CS (or perhaps we can just say "math") problem.
Re:Just finished a final exam on Theory of Automat
on
Forty Years of P=NP?
·
· Score: 2
When I took a graduate level compilers course, the professor gave a quiz early in the semester on writing CFGs. One of the questions was essentially to write a CFG for this language:
a^n b^n c^n
Quite a few people had trouble finding the right answer...
All known encryption systems that rely on complexity conjectures need stronger claims than P!=NP.
This is not technically true; some cryptosystems based on lattice problems have security reductions to NP-hard problems and ultimately rely only on P!=NP.
The P = NP problem is one of the most important open questions in complexity theory, and a solution to it would have broad implications. For example, if P!=NP, then we would have provably secure cryptography without having to assume as much as we currently do (in layman's terms: cryptography would be a bit easier to "get right"). If P=NP, then a lot of important problems could be solved efficiently (e.g. the travelling salesman problem, the place-and-route problems, etc.). Additionally, a P!=NP proof would likely involve yet-unknown techniques of proving lower bounds on the complexity of problems, as well as providing a straightforward method of proving lower bounds on the complexity of some problems.
Perhaps you should read a textbook on computational complexity, or an algorithms text, or just take a course on theoretical computer science?
In simple terms, problems in P can be solved in a polynomial number of operations on a computer with one processor (or with a constant number of processors), and problems in NP can be solved in a polynomial number of operations on a computer with an unbounded number of processors (or in other words, a computer which can explore an unbounded number of solutions at the same time). This is not the most rigorous definition of the classes, but it is one of the more intuitive.
The problem is this: is P a proper subclass of NP, or are there problems in NP which are not in P? The Cook-Levin theorem established the existence of "NP complete" problems, which are those which are in P if and only if P = NP.
Try rereading my post; I agree, there are some people who trade images of child pornography in exchange for other images. Such people exist at the highest levels of the distribution chain, and those are the people who need to be tracked down, since they are either abusing children or encouraging others to do so. You seem to be unable to perceive the disconnect between the lower levels of distribution, which are nothing by free riders (to couch things in economic terms) with the higher levels.
I am sorry to hear that you think the world is "every man for himself" or that a society built on laws is a tired old idea, but I doubt that you really want to see what society would look like without the rule of law and without legal processes. A society that solves its problems through a legal system rather than gangs of armed men is not a fantasy, it is the reason we managed to escape the dark ages. You claim society is in decline, and then turn around and attack the very concept of having a civilized society, yet you claim I am the one helping society's decline.
Slow yourself down, take a moment to think about what you are saying and perhaps (I know this is asking a lot) take the time to read more than the first three words of my posts, and perhaps this conversation will become worthwhile.
As for this being good news...well, trolling aside, I doubt that this will make much of a difference. There are plenty of other terrorist leaders, and plenty of people who want to fight Americans and attack America.
...and long after most Americans have forgotten why we went to war in the first place. I remember a few years ago, when everyone said we had to attack the Iraqis because they were terrorists. We had to attack the Afghanis because of terrorism, and of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Most people seem to have lost track those reasons at this point, and you would think that fighting Iraqis and Afghanis was just a fact of life. Fighting terrorism now means having a TSA agent fondle you or getting photographed naked.
Which is not to mention that the NSA has done more to contribute to the security of the Linux kernel than they have (at least as far as is publicly acknowledged) done for Windows: SELinux.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the attack involve the theft of credit card data, as opposed to just shutting down the network, screams "not Anonymous" to me. You know, given how Anonymous tends to just shut things down with DDoS attacks, or occasionally overwrite a web page with one that spreads some message.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is worth noting that ants also form colonies and work together...but they do not work together with other colonies. Humans share resources and work together, but only to a point: within families, tribes, or nations, but not so much between nations.
It was a trick question meant to test how many people were paying attention in their theoretical CS courses.
Except that complexity theory does actually matter in the real world, and a solution to the P=NP problem would have broad implications in applied CS. There are quite a few situations in which we use heuristics where exact solutions would be significantly better (register allocation comes to mind, as does the place and route step for FPGAs), simply because finding an exact solution involves solving an NP-complete problem.
That most programmers do not really need to deal with complexity is really a result of most programmers not working on interesting programs.
"I have a sense of intellectual curiosity, but I just cannot be bothered to look up the meaning of one of the most important open problems in theoretical computer science, for which a solution would have broad impacts in both theoretical and applied CS and would represent a major step forward in technology."
"Without having to assume as much as we currently do."
Provably secure cryptography is about scalability, and proving the infeasibility of solving particular problems. Unlike many block ciphers, whose security is stated in terms of statistical tests, cryptosystems like RSA and ElGamal have security stated in terms of reductions to problems that are believed to be infeasible (and if we could show P!=NP, then we could have cryptosystems that are reducible to problems that are infeasible). Public key cryptography is not an engineering problem, it is a theoretical CS (or perhaps we can just say "math") problem.
When I took a graduate level compilers course, the professor gave a quiz early in the semester on writing CFGs. One of the questions was essentially to write a CFG for this language:
a^n b^n c^n
Quite a few people had trouble finding the right answer...
Right, which is why the problem is more than just, "Can integers be factored efficiently?"
All known encryption systems that rely on complexity conjectures need stronger claims than P!=NP.
This is not technically true; some cryptosystems based on lattice problems have security reductions to NP-hard problems and ultimately rely only on P!=NP.
Note that the RSA problem is not known to be NP-complete...
The P = NP problem is one of the most important open questions in complexity theory, and a solution to it would have broad implications. For example, if P!=NP, then we would have provably secure cryptography without having to assume as much as we currently do (in layman's terms: cryptography would be a bit easier to "get right"). If P=NP, then a lot of important problems could be solved efficiently (e.g. the travelling salesman problem, the place-and-route problems, etc.). Additionally, a P!=NP proof would likely involve yet-unknown techniques of proving lower bounds on the complexity of problems, as well as providing a straightforward method of proving lower bounds on the complexity of some problems.
Perhaps you should read a textbook on computational complexity, or an algorithms text, or just take a course on theoretical computer science?
In simple terms, problems in P can be solved in a polynomial number of operations on a computer with one processor (or with a constant number of processors), and problems in NP can be solved in a polynomial number of operations on a computer with an unbounded number of processors (or in other words, a computer which can explore an unbounded number of solutions at the same time). This is not the most rigorous definition of the classes, but it is one of the more intuitive.
The problem is this: is P a proper subclass of NP, or are there problems in NP which are not in P? The Cook-Levin theorem established the existence of "NP complete" problems, which are those which are in P if and only if P = NP.
If you put in years of effort into experimentation, you deserve the reward of a temporary monopoly on your discovery.
Try rereading my post; I agree, there are some people who trade images of child pornography in exchange for other images. Such people exist at the highest levels of the distribution chain, and those are the people who need to be tracked down, since they are either abusing children or encouraging others to do so. You seem to be unable to perceive the disconnect between the lower levels of distribution, which are nothing by free riders (to couch things in economic terms) with the higher levels.
I am sorry to hear that you think the world is "every man for himself" or that a society built on laws is a tired old idea, but I doubt that you really want to see what society would look like without the rule of law and without legal processes. A society that solves its problems through a legal system rather than gangs of armed men is not a fantasy, it is the reason we managed to escape the dark ages. You claim society is in decline, and then turn around and attack the very concept of having a civilized society, yet you claim I am the one helping society's decline.
Slow yourself down, take a moment to think about what you are saying and perhaps (I know this is asking a lot) take the time to read more than the first three words of my posts, and perhaps this conversation will become worthwhile.
Chances are that you would be prosecuted for sexual harassment if you did such a thing.
...do you really think the TSA's antics have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Other than using the attacks as an excuse.
I'm sorry, I missed the story about the United States rolling the clock back by a few centuries; do you have a link to it?
Seriously, head on a spike?
No political posturing? Too late for that one.
As for this being good news...well, trolling aside, I doubt that this will make much of a difference. There are plenty of other terrorist leaders, and plenty of people who want to fight Americans and attack America.
They already had martyrs: all those guys who flew into US buildings on planes they hijacked.
Uh...why is the US army engaged in ground operations near the capital of Pakistan?
Scumbag Obama:
Talk about hope and change.
Continue and expand on Bush-era policies.
...and long after most Americans have forgotten why we went to war in the first place. I remember a few years ago, when everyone said we had to attack the Iraqis because they were terrorists. We had to attack the Afghanis because of terrorism, and of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Most people seem to have lost track those reasons at this point, and you would think that fighting Iraqis and Afghanis was just a fact of life. Fighting terrorism now means having a TSA agent fondle you or getting photographed naked.
I would have thought that his death would be kept quiet to keep up the fear of a looming attack. Well, I was wrong.
(Perhaps he was really killed in 2002 and they waited this long to announce it?)
Which is not to mention that the NSA has done more to contribute to the security of the Linux kernel than they have (at least as far as is publicly acknowledged) done for Windows: SELinux.