Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:How nice of them (Score 4, Insightful) 243

Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.

They do NOT have the power to seize property or restrict speech without proving that it is justified. Even if you argue that a domain is not 'property', they interfered with the domain owner's ability to disseminate information without cause.

Comment Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (Score 2, Insightful) 585

The only people that think that the last batch of emails demonstrated any kind of fraud are people who have no fucking clue what the fuck the emails actually said.

But don't let little things like facts and observable reality get in the way of your diatribe of made up facts and fabrications.

Comment Re:Article Makes No Sense (Score 1) 161

Ok, I must be missing how exactly you're controlling Bob's basis then. I guess that's what your blinding trick is supposed to be doing, but my physics is too weak to understand why. (I studied QC from a computer engineer standpoint, not a physics standpoint). My impression from the Nature article was that you could force Bob to see a 0 or a 1. If that's all you could do, then Eve's interference would have been detectable since she would have passed on bad bits when Alice and Bob's bases agreed but Eve's didn't.

Comment Article Makes No Sense (Score 4, Interesting) 161

The article is either missing massive details or these researchers are vastly overstating the power of their technique. The entire _point_ of quantum key exchange is that if Eve intercepts the signal she cannot tell if she read a 0 or a 1 because she does not know which basis the 0 or 1 was generated in. Even IF Eve passed a 1 along every time she read a 1, when Alice and Bob go to do the basis comparison over the standard channel they will notice errors because Eve read the signal in the wrong basis and passed along an incorrect value.

I've tried reading the actual journal paper, but unfortunately they just seem to handwave this problem away. Maybe there's a reason they can, but its sure as hell not explained as far as I can see unless they're assuming Eve has also compromised the classical channel as well as the quantum channel.

Comment Re:Checksums? (Score 1) 437

Insulating the ROM would be much more expensive than just adding error correcting codes or having multiple copies of the ROM and comparing the contents periodically. The problem is no matter what you do, it's going to add cost and complexity, so unless you can show that single event upsets are indeed causing a problem there's no reason to prevent them.

Comment Re:No. (Score 4, Informative) 437

There's a reason that our entire modern world doesn't come crashing to a halt around us every 30 seconds. If every CPU was vulnerable to bit flips from random radiation, every part of your house would be on fire and arcing electricity. Times Square would look like the bridge of the 60s enterprise under attack.

Actually, every CPU _IS_ vulnerable to bit-flips from radiation. That part of it is not speculation. It does occur in commodity processors, and with probabilities large enough that we have ECC ram, and ECC and/or parity in caches. Some servers actually come with built in hardware fault tolerance methods, because when you run hundreds of servers non-stop for years, the probability that a particle strike screws up a register on chip is non-negligible. Now, still, the probability isn't _huge_. Definitely not high enough to be causing these specific problems, especially when the failure is always in the same manner. _That_ part of it is pretty much bullshit.

Comment Re:Why they tell you to turn off your phone... (Score 5, Informative) 437

This is one of the most common methods of error tolerance, actually, N-modular redundancy (typically either dual-modular or triple-modular). It's used in airliners and space shuttles, as well as a number of other critical applications. IBM actually sells servers (the system z series) which automatically runs two copies of everything and compares instruction results, so that failing processors can be detected and avoided.

The proposal by the GP poster is actually much more difficult that it would seem at first glance. About the only place "checksum" style error detection is used is in memories/registers. The reason is that if I do a floating point addition, for example, the only way I know whether the addition gave me the right answer is to do the addition again and check.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson