No objections from me.... sample_size++;
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Where's my space elevator!?
Thats what I'm saying, in this case the backdoor is in the math itself.
No. Sorry. Government-only backdoors do not exist. They're by definition public. At the very least, they are public enough that every OTHER government will have the keys to it, too.
Not necessarily, Dual_EC_DRBG's potential back door lies in being able to choose the parameters of the protocol - namely choosing two points on the eliptic curve P and Q such that they know e where eP= Q. The only other way to "discover" this back door key would be solving the discrete logarithm problem which is the hardness assumption thats being used in the first place.
The original researcher wrote a book on his discovery:
IE7 on Vista or later supports SNI...
Its relevant as it highlights the effect of the underlying gerrymandering...
1 - How long will the melted down core remnants needs to water to be applied? Can the corium still sustain a nuclear chain reaction if it were exposed?
2 - Whats would occur if water were interrupted at this point? (They called it cold shutdown a year ago but sources seem to conflict)
3 - How long will water need to be applied to the spent fuel ponds? From my understanding the fuel above reactor 4 is somewhat precarious since the building was compromised during the original explosions. Would these fuel rods ignite without water? Is there a real criticality danger if removal does not go exactly as planned? (Wikipedia seems to say criticality in fuel pools is a low-probability event under normal conditions)
4 - Whats your worst case scenario?
Just trying to find some basic scientific answers here, hoping someone can provide insight.
It was your second line actually...
"There are still brilliant mathematicians older than that, but they're not the ones who are doing the most important new work."
Zhang pwned the younglings...
They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38.
I'm betting most people lose at least eight IQ points by the time they turn 38.
That's why the mathematicians who do the groundbreaking work mostly are younger than 38. There are still brilliant mathematicians older than that, but they're not the ones who are doing the most important new work.
Born in 1955 - recently had a breakthrough paper showing that there are infintely many primes with a gap at most 70million
He should have said "Proving that P=NP doesn't necessarily make anything tractable"
Actually in some ways it would be really really exciting and almost certainly a really good thing in the long run, because there are a lot of important, currently-intractable problems that become tractable if P=NP.
Proving that P=NP doesn't make anything tractable, unless you use the ridiculous definition where tractable is the same as polynomial time. What would have practical applications is if someone finds a very fast algorithm for solving all the NP problems. Whether P=NP is not really very much related to the question of whether such an algorithm exists. ML has exponential-time type checking, yet ML compiles don't take that long. Polynomial time is not the same as practical - it fails in both directions.
Factoring is in NP... If P=NP, factoring is in P...
Factoring could be in P anyways as well...
You can't compare symmetric key lengths (based on AES) with RSA modulus sizes. An extra bit in a symetric key gives you alot more security than an extra bit in the RSA key..