Well, I guess this the locks are still "manipulation proof" as they were only able to open the safe with the correct combination.
Link to Original Source
The demonstration will come November 8th at the OWASP 2010 conference in Washington DC and is led by researcher Wong Onn Chee, who first discovered the attack last year in Singapore, according to a report from Dark Reading, a security-focused web site. The technique can crash both IIS and Apache servers using either HTTP or HTTPS protocols, and could conceivably affect anything using a web connection, including SSL, VPN and other "more secure" systems.
Link to Original Source
- Your "anonymous" name, #34103516
- Date and Time: (Tuesday, November 02 @ 6:04PM)
- You were one of the first posts so you probably read Slashdot often. Also, you probably visit Slashdot regularly around 6:00 PM.
- Writing Style: Short messages, funny
So I could search for regular Slashdot users who tend to be active around 6:00 PM, post brief messages, and are often one of the first to comment. Narrow down that list to users who actually did log in on 11/02/2010. Since, we know that you did read this article there is also a decent chance that you commented on this article with your actual user name.
We will find you!
I had been thinking of a scheme where you essentially would add a tunnel between each pair of flowers, and artificially constrain the paths so that the bees have to travel through the tunnels. You could then artificially make the lengths of some of the tunnels longer than others. However, because ETSP itself is NP-Complete we could reduce factoring to ETSP directly.
I would agree that there could potentially a few useful heuristic's for ETSP that we could learn from the bees, but I highly doubt that any of these heuristics will actually allow us to solve the really hard instances.
- 1. Euclidean Traveling Salesman is probably not NP-Complete.
- 2. In fact there is a PTAS (polynomial time approximation scheme) for ETSP so the bees could be computing approximate solutions to ETSP.
- 2. Even if we were solving the standard TSP we are only solving it for 'average' case instances. Just because you can solve 'average' case instance doesn't mean you can solve arbitrary instances. With a few exceptions 3-SAT solvers tend to work well for many 'average' case instances.
I propose a new experiment:
- 1. We can pick a hard cryptographic problem (say factoring a number N). We can take our specific instance N from some large public RSA key.
- 2. We can easily reduce factoring to TSP to get some specific TSP instance T. This ensures that we pick a hard TSP instance (either that or factoring N and breaking RSA wasn't that hard in the first place). Note that these distances are not necessarily Euclidean!
- 3. Add a flower for each vertex in T
- 3. Artificially constrain the pathways between flowers so that only direct path between two flowers has distance corresponding to the length of this edge in T.
- 4. See what solutions the bees find now.
- 5. If the bees do actually find the optimal TSP solution to T then we can use this solution to easily recover the factors of N.
- 1. Pick the RSA key (N=pq) for some large company (say ebay)
- 2. Reduce the problem of factoring N into a traveling salesman instance.
- 3. Let bees find the solution to traveling salesman instance.
- 4. Recover p,q from this solution
- 5. Profit
On the flip side, showing P = NP could be easier, but most people believe this is false, since it would mean that there is essentially one "master algorithm" that can solve any problem in NP efficiently.
The current state of computational complexity theory is that we are no where close to resolving P!=NP, that is unless this proof actually checks out. Honestly, we can't even settle "easier" questions like P vs PSPACE. The implications of a correct proof would be absolutely mind blowing.
First, Moore's law will not necessarily apply to the development of battery technology. Moore's law has been amazing and awesome. In my humble opinion one of the major forces behind this rapid growth in the speed of the processor was the processor itself. It would be very difficult to design a chip by hand, but once you have a processor to run some optimizations automatically and build a better chip. Of course once you've built a more powerful processor you can use it to help design even better chips etc... I don't see how this cycle would apply to batteries....
I personally think that R & D is never wasted (unless we know for certain that we can't achieve the goal). Maybe the new technology will drive down the cost of EV's while making them more convenient, maybe it won't. Even if it doesn't we still may end up developing new technologies in other areas. I say its worth it.
Link to Original Source