Comment Re:Either provide a significant substitute or STFU (Score 1) 43
Apparently you didn't read the article because crippling an entire industry is what the commission chose not to do.
Apparently you didn't read the article because crippling an entire industry is what the commission chose not to do.
They aren't? They are synthesizing the information into connections within a neural network and then using that network in the future.
It's not identical, of course, but it's similar enough that appeals to treating them differently need to be justified (IMHO).
Are your children building a business model based on the work of others?
Isn't everyone's business model based off of the work of (at least one of) Newton, Watt, Kelvin, Otto, von Neumann, Turing, Alexander Flemming or Louis Pasteur?
Like, isn't this the entire premise of civilization that everything we do, business and otherwise, is based on the work that other people did before. It's not like every generation is reinventing the wheel.
My children study things off the internet and incorporate it into their knowledge stored in their brains.
Do they owe you a chunk of their future paycheck or is this restricted to inorganic computation only?
Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime.
Doing it for free isn't a crime, but being a paid agent of a foreign state without registering with the State Dept is a crime
The question is about calculating the strength, which is (log of) the number of operations required to break it (modulo some constants). For symmetric ciphers this is just key size since it requires trying every possible key. For asymmetric algorithms, however, it's usually about the number of operations to compute the private key for a given public key. So RSA using a 2048b key has a strength of 112 because you have to do approx 2^112 operations (using GNFS) to factor the public key.
This implies that to compute the strength of an asymmetric algorithm, you need to know the best possible factorization method. If you didn't know about GNFS, you would think RSA2048 was stronger than it really is. And in the (unlikely)
In this case, the disagreement boils down to whether Grover's algorithm is the best possible quantum method, which implies quadratic complexity (multiply two numbers) or if a linear search will be possible (add two numbers). As no quantum computers even exist, let alone enough time to believe we've found the best possible method to run on them, this is hardly a "scientific question".
Felon-in-possession is a famously easy charge to prove.
Why take a harder case to the jury when you could take an easy one? It doesn't really matter to anyone (not even the defendant) exactly which section he's found guilt of.
That's like saying your hot water heater/refrigerator/blender needs to payback before their warranty expires. You do not get appliances as an investment opportunity.
I think you aren't engaging the main point. Appliances are not an investment, but the increased cost of a more efficient appliance as compared to other choices has to be evaluated by looking at lifetime operating costs.
The framing here isn't the appliance as an investment -- it's in how to compare and chose between different appliances that perform the same function.
Not to be finished with those retail stores...a different command code handles whether or not the cash drawer opens, which is sent via the receipt printer, and implemented...in the print driver config area.
The rest of your examples sound pretty reasonable, but a POS (ahem) opening the cash drawer by sending customized command codes to a printer is a true WTF.
You know that a court, in addition to granting money as compensation for past conduct, can also enter an injunctive order forbidding future conduct.
So it's not "gets some money" it's "the court orders them to stop doing that and never do it again".
AND you are passing laws to force the service provider to pay if they happen to provide the service product you're demanding, then you are the whiny, insufferable cockknob tyrant politician.
You forgot the best AND! You pass laws that demand that service providers stop "taking content without paying" (whatever that means) AND you get upset when they stop doing the thing you wanted them to stop.
Literally the whole thing was "don't link to Canadian news outlets without paying them" and Meta complying.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here -- AES128 in CMAC mode is 16 bytes and is a perfectly strong cryptographic signature. It's even in the NIST recommendations as good through the end of the decade and adopted by the PIV cards that government agencies use to secure their own buildings and log into their own machines.
Second of all, the key that produces this has to be known to all the gates in the system. It can't just be in the backend because then the gate couldn't see $20 and deduct $2 and then write the new balance.
Finally, none of these systems except the very first "rolled their own crypto". That was a mistake they made once and now have all migrated, first to 3DES then to AES.
Yup, that's the difference between doing it locally (truth on card) and hitting the cloud (truth on server)!.
Assuming that your vehicle (or soon, cell phone) doesn't already have one -- you can buy a satellite emergency beacon for $100 at your favorite outdoor shop. Cheaper than a spare tire, doesn't take up valuable space or weigh down a vehicle.
Plus it's useful if you have any other mechanical failure other than a tire or go on a hike/canoe ride. Just better all around emergency tool than a heavy single-purpose for a bit less than the cost of a donut tire.
Yes. Almost all of these systems are what's called "Truth On Card" which is exactly what it sounds like -- all balances, plans and modifiers are stored locally on the card. This is done for throughput reasons -- having the gate be able to do a local transaction (100-200ms or so) is far quicker than phoning home and adjusting it in a database (>500ms and subject to connectivity). Faster transactions means you need fewer gates in a given station to accommodate a specific volume of passengers, even if it increases the complexity of the gate. For super high volume systems it isn't even possible to add more gates to make up for it, so maintaining throughput is super critical -- Tokyo subway stations often pass 60 passengers per gate per minute at peak hour.
You do intuit correctly though that even in truth-on-card systems, there is a ledger and the backend does periodically reconcile all the transactions with all the gates and they do all feature a denylist system -- although the usual use is for "I lost my card, give me back my balance".
Finally, a small-but-growing number of systems are moving to a "Truth in the Cloud" systems where the cards is just a (secure) account # similar to a chip based credit card. But the transit agencies are slow and many of these systems were put in place decades ago and these transitions are not cheap in an era where transit budgets were wrecked by COVID. Plus there's a lot of "don't fix what ain't broke" here -- and the security story for hacked cards might look bad optically at DEFCON but it isn't actually losing them enough money by fraud to be worth spending what it would take to upgrade. This is especially true with denylisting as an imperfect backup measure.
"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira