Do you have an unlimited plan for your cell phone? Do you feel obligated to use it constantly and feel guilty about not using it? Probably not.
Do you have unlimited internet? Do you download large files constantly in order to maximize your usage? Probably not.
Do you go to all-you-can-eat buffets and eat as much as you possibly can and make yourself sick? Probably not.
Dude, this is
And then came the kids, which make watching sports almost impossible anyway, because it isn't purple and doesn't sing or dance. Well, maybe the Ravens.
Did you know that it burns when you snort beer out of your nose? Guess how I just found out? Thanks for that then.
The paper doesn't tell you much about cryptography, but it does illustrate the failures of peer review.
That's why you are seeing it in a physics journal and not being presented at EuroCrypt.
Which is not going to happen because the authors haven't given any reason why anyone should care. We have lots of widely-deployed ciphers which are fast and secure. No one attacks modern cryptographic security systems by breaking the ciphers, they do it by exploiting peripheral flaws in implementation, key management, etc.
A potential patent to deal with just to use it is one more nail in the coffin of this.
Not that I've actually done my own research, but what qualifications do these folks have to state the security of an encryption mechanism? Everybody who finds a new way to twist a message thinks it's secure.
None whatsoever, but that doesn't stop physicists or managers from deluding themselves into thinking that they can do it better. Fortunately they patented whatever method they came up with so no one will want to even go near it as a replacement.
Yes, which means either they're being realistic in the sense that basically all forms of cryptography fall into this category,
Please share with us your crack of the one time pad.
Wouldn't it make more sense to locate these labs in an incredibly isolated area like an island in the middle of the ocean or the Moon? Someplace that CAN be quarantined 100% in the event of a mishap?
Maybe you could put it near the arctic circle and name it Arctic Biosystems.
Do you have any evidence that they are doing it anyway?
He has empirical evidence that supports his claim. That was the whole point of the investigation that the author was doing. When his orders hit the various exchanges at the exact same time, they were all filled. When they hit one exchange before the other, the "later" orders were suddenly unable to be filled.
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
The summary also says that she is now 15, implying that she was younger than that when this happened. At that age she has is a minor and has no legal standing to give them permission, even if she wanted (or was coerced) to. The school district needed to get the parent's permission before taking action and they learned a valuable lesson. The court system worked correctly for once.
When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Citation needed please.
The banks ARE making moves here.
All card terminals in the US need to accept chip & PIN by 2015 because the banks will be mandating it.
The banks are not mandating anything. The credit card networks dictate the conditions by which a merchant or a bank can participate in their system.
One issue that hampers the conversion is the replacement of the card accepting terminals. The US has retailers that have more terminals in a single region than most OECD nations. That's a lot of hardware to replace for merchants who have not been held responsible for anything that happens when they don't.
I wonder how this will impact online payments - how will chip/pin be supported there? Given most of my CC activity is online, I fathom this is a huge loophole to the new security structure...
The impact will be that the majority of CC fraud will move to online merchants.
âoeIf your mining power is more than a third of the system total, this always works,â says Ittay Eyal, who did the research with colleague Emin Gün Sirer. âoeYou may be able to do it with much less,â Eyal adds.
Eyal proposes a modification to the mining protocol that would ensure that only someone controlling at least a quarter of all mining power could profit from selfish mining, and says the Bitcoin community should also make efforts to limit the power of mining operations.
Wait, what? So right now it takes 1/3 of the mining power for selfish mining to work but Eyal is proposing a change that reduces the power needed? I don't get it.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
