I`m not sure about China, but i`m sure that (east) Asians on average have higher IQ and mental discipline so i`m sure they got the most advanced cryptography aswell.
Some of the asians I have met are clever and very well educated. Are all asians more intelligent? I cannot say. There is a different between "well trained" and "truly gifted" if you see what I mean. Apologize for my rudeness, but nobody cares about your opinion, its a scientific fact, go search on google, plenty of tests have proven that asians have higher IQ, on average, than other sub-races, on average. Alright. But you are talking about intelligence, as measured by a very narrow test. Another measure of intelligence is brain to body mass ratio. Chinese score very low on that test, as do all humans. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratioThe only way to measure "intelligence" as it applies strictly to cryptography is to measure cryptographic skills. My opinion is that the national group 'Chinese' are kicking the shit out of us in that area. My speculation is that it has to do with how their language is ordered and written and so on. If that is accurate then groups with similar language types would also do well in cryptography. A reason for my speculation is that they use single characters to portray words, like creating an alphabet of words with tens of thousands of characters. In English, for example, you must 'know' tens of thousands of words to communicate, but to write you only need to know 26 written letters. In my opinion the differences in intelligence between any two groups decreases the more you know about the lesser group. In other words measurements of intelligence are only commentaries by the ones measuring, a way to say 'such and such is intelligence in my estimation'. So again, my opinion is that having to learn the written pictograph of tens of thousands of words is an exercise that helps the cryptography portion of the brain. Yes there are many definitions of intelligence, and many aspects of it, but what I was refering to is: problem solving & logics, perhaps pattern recognition, that part is needed to be developed to be a good cryptographer. And there are IQ tests specifically designed for that. Also the average IQ test with those pattern recognition tests are a good way to measure that. In other words, you are saying "They are good at cryptography because they are good at cryptography". I can't really argue with that. Why do you think they are good at cryptography? |
|
|
|
I think the chinese language is very complicated but, asians on average have higher IQ by +15 points than western people. (I`m a western guy with 150 IQ) That's a separate issue. Race and intelligence do not correlate unless you ignore the most important variables, like social practices, regional differences etc, and then compare them within a very narrow paradigm for example intelligence = IQ test. I'm a western guy with 100% IQ. Yes it actually does, because its a genetic subgroup of humans, that evolved isolated. Before 1300 we had barely contacts with Asia, so they evolved separately from the western world. When it comes to intelligence its 60% genetics 30% social enviroment and 10% training. Genetics ✓ Social enviroment: Very rational, objectivist, strict and disciplined ✓ Training: Asian education system is very innovative and strict, they definitely will train your brain ✓ Perfect recipe for high IQ. Also if you dont believe me, check any study, there are plenty of them that prove it. Alright. But you are talking about intelligence, as measured by a very narrow test. Another measure of intelligence is brain to body mass ratio. Chinese score very low on that test, as do all humans. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratioThe only way to measure "intelligence" as it applies strictly to cryptography is to measure cryptographic skills. My opinion is that the national group 'Chinese' are kicking the shit out of us in that area. My speculation is that it has to do with how their language is ordered and written and so on. If that is accurate then groups with similar language types would also do well in cryptography. A reason for my speculation is that they use single characters to portray words, like creating an alphabet of words with tens of thousands of characters. In English, for example, you must 'know' tens of thousands of words to communicate, but to write you only need to know 26 written letters. In my opinion the differences in intelligence between any two groups decreases the more you know about the lesser group. In other words measurements of intelligence are only commentaries by the ones measuring, a way to say 'such and such is intelligence in my estimation'. So again, my opinion is that having to learn the written pictograph of tens of thousands of words is an exercise that helps the cryptography portion of the brain. |
|
|
|
I think the chinese language is very complicated but, asians on average have higher IQ by +15 points than western people. (I`m a western guy with 150 IQ) That's a separate issue. Race and intelligence do not correlate unless you ignore the most important variables, like social practices, regional differences etc, and then compare them within a very narrow paradigm for example intelligence = IQ test. I'm a western guy with 100% IQ. |
|
|
|
SHA-1 and SHA-2 have zilch in common, moron. They are totally different algorithms.
Both are derived from sha http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions and as has been mentioned previously, experts have said that some of the hacks used against md5 may be applicable to sha. I'm not saying anything is wrong with sha.
Just saying something doesn't look kosher.
It may well not ”look kosher“ but that's primarily because your own reasoning is being spared the standard of rigour that you insist should be applied to cryptography. The unanimous rejection of your argument by those from whom you sought an opinion in the first place should be a cue for you to re-examine your underlying assumptions. It's likely that your conclusions are flawed because an incorrect assumption is resulting in false premises, an instance of GIGO. OTOH, you may be experiencing a cognitive illusion (PDF, sry) which I've observed to be particularly prevalent in cryptography. Cheers Graham Kind of a polite ad hominem but you did not address a single one of the points raised by others in the previous post. Here it is again A quote from http://web.archive.org/web/20140912134430/https://cdt.org/blog/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-nist%e2%80%99s-cryptographic-standard-sha-3/"In 2005, researchers developed an attack that called into question the security guarantees of an earlier secure hash algorithm, SHA-1. The characteristics of this 2005 attack seemed to hint that it could be refined to attack many of the secure hash functions at the time, including SHA-0, MD4, MD5 and even SHA-2. At the time, for many cryptographers, the message was clear: a new hash algorithm is needed and it should be based on completely different underlying mathematics that are not susceptible to the attacks threatening known hash functions." I'm not saying anything is wrong with sha. Just saying something doesn't look kosher. Plenty of time for developers to move to SHA512 or whatever hash they wish, whenever they deem it's necessary. Bitcoin is not carved in stone I am not trying to be rude, but doesn't the above quoted paragraph indicate that there might have been an indication of some developing problem in 2005. Some posts on another thread from 2011: Interesting discussion, hate to see it stopped there. Having 2 levels of hashing with different algorithms will be much safer. In the New to BitCoin thread ( http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=7269.0) it says The cryptography used in BitCoin is so strong that all the world's online banking would be compromised before BitCoin would be, and it can even be upgraded if that were to start to happen. It's like if each banknote in your pocket had a 100-digit combination lock on it that couldn't be removed without destroying the bill itself. BitCoin is that secure.I sensed a lot of complacency here. What it didn't mention is bitcoin network is much more accessible than online banking systems, which usually are monitored by security staff. If SHA256 is suddenly broken -- however a remote possibility it is -- very likely the fully automated Bitcoin network will suffer the most, as SHA256 is THE cornerstone bitcoin is built on, and all the eggs are in one basket. The banking industry on the other hand has many ways to make human intervention under similar circumstance. If all online banking service is shut down, they still can run computers on their private network and physically secure the communication lines. Please excuse my paranoia but unfortunately with the appreciation of btc, a single private/public key pair can now hold millions dollar of value, the incentive for finding and hacking any weakness has increased exponentially too The cryptography used in BitCoin is so strong that all the world's online banking would be compromised before BitCoin would be, and it can even be upgraded if that were to start to happen. It's like if each banknote in your pocket had a 100-digit combination lock on it that couldn't be removed without destroying the bill itself. BitCoin is that secure.
this is just false, and it's unfortunate that people often claim this. it applies to the public-key encryption that bitcoin uses but to no other feature of the system. 'all the world's online banking' does not depend fully on sha-2 for its security, for example. sha-2 is likely secure for the foreseeable future (although there's too much complacency around certain features of its use in bitcoin), so it may not make much difference in practice. i just hate to see the repetition of the false comparison between bitcoin and the security of unnamed 'banks' when it's patently false. No disrespect to mr Andreson but his comment seems to recall that reply: As you can see, this tries to be more secure by hashing twice. However, this actually reduces security. To break pure SHA256, an attacker needs to find a d' such that SHA256(d') == SHA256(d), for a known d. This is also sufficient to break Hash(). However the attacker can also attack the outer layer of the hash, finding a d' such that SHA256(SHA256(d')) == SHA256(SHA256(d)), even though SHA256(d') != SHA256(d). As you can see, the double hashing here makes it _easier_ to break the hash!
If I understand correctly, you've got two chances to find a collision instead of one. So this decreases the security of SHA256 by a factor of 2... which is just Not a Big Deal. Bitcoin is using, essentially SHA255 instead of SHA256. It'll still take longer than forever to find a collision... Shor's Algorithm. A quantum algorithm which can evidently be used to break RSA encryption. $10M for a quantum computer is not a lot of money to many corporations or even individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithmJust when you thought it was safe to go back into the water. Amazing that the amount $10 million was chosen. http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/rsa-received-10-million-from-the-nsa-to-make/ |
|
|
|
A quote from http://web.archive.org/web/20140912134430/https://cdt.org/blog/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-nist%e2%80%99s-cryptographic-standard-sha-3/"In 2005, researchers developed an attack that called into question the security guarantees of an earlier secure hash algorithm, SHA-1. The characteristics of this 2005 attack seemed to hint that it could be refined to attack many of the secure hash functions at the time, including SHA-0, MD4, MD5 and even SHA-2. At the time, for many cryptographers, the message was clear: a new hash algorithm is needed and it should be based on completely different underlying mathematics that are not susceptible to the attacks threatening known hash functions." I'm not saying anything is wrong with sha. Just saying something doesn't look kosher. Plenty of time for developers to move to SHA512 or whatever hash they wish, whenever they deem it's necessary. Bitcoin is not carved in stone I am not trying to be rude, but doesn't the above quoted paragraph indicate that there might have been an indication of some developing problem in 2005. Some posts on another thread from 2011: Interesting discussion, hate to see it stopped there. Having 2 levels of hashing with different algorithms will be much safer. In the New to BitCoin thread ( http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=7269.0) it says The cryptography used in BitCoin is so strong that all the world's online banking would be compromised before BitCoin would be, and it can even be upgraded if that were to start to happen. It's like if each banknote in your pocket had a 100-digit combination lock on it that couldn't be removed without destroying the bill itself. BitCoin is that secure.I sensed a lot of complacency here. What it didn't mention is bitcoin network is much more accessible than online banking systems, which usually are monitored by security staff. If SHA256 is suddenly broken -- however a remote possibility it is -- very likely the fully automated Bitcoin network will suffer the most, as SHA256 is THE cornerstone bitcoin is built on, and all the eggs are in one basket. The banking industry on the other hand has many ways to make human intervention under similar circumstance. If all online banking service is shut down, they still can run computers on their private network and physically secure the communication lines. Please excuse my paranoia but unfortunately with the appreciation of btc, a single private/public key pair can now hold millions dollar of value, the incentive for finding and hacking any weakness has increased exponentially too The cryptography used in BitCoin is so strong that all the world's online banking would be compromised before BitCoin would be, and it can even be upgraded if that were to start to happen. It's like if each banknote in your pocket had a 100-digit combination lock on it that couldn't be removed without destroying the bill itself. BitCoin is that secure.
this is just false, and it's unfortunate that people often claim this. it applies to the public-key encryption that bitcoin uses but to no other feature of the system. 'all the world's online banking' does not depend fully on sha-2 for its security, for example. sha-2 is likely secure for the foreseeable future (although there's too much complacency around certain features of its use in bitcoin), so it may not make much difference in practice. i just hate to see the repetition of the false comparison between bitcoin and the security of unnamed 'banks' when it's patently false. No disrespect to mr Andreson but his comment seems to recall that reply: As you can see, this tries to be more secure by hashing twice. However, this actually reduces security. To break pure SHA256, an attacker needs to find a d' such that SHA256(d') == SHA256(d), for a known d. This is also sufficient to break Hash(). However the attacker can also attack the outer layer of the hash, finding a d' such that SHA256(SHA256(d')) == SHA256(SHA256(d)), even though SHA256(d') != SHA256(d). As you can see, the double hashing here makes it _easier_ to break the hash!
If I understand correctly, you've got two chances to find a collision instead of one. So this decreases the security of SHA256 by a factor of 2... which is just Not a Big Deal. Bitcoin is using, essentially SHA255 instead of SHA256. It'll still take longer than forever to find a collision... Shor's Algorithm. A quantum algorithm which can evidently be used to break RSA encryption. $10M for a quantum computer is not a lot of money to many corporations or even individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithmJust when you thought it was safe to go back into the water. Amazing that the amount $10 million was chosen. http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/rsa-received-10-million-from-the-nsa-to-make/ |
|
|
|
A quote from http://web.archive.org/web/20140912134430/https://cdt.org/blog/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-nist%e2%80%99s-cryptographic-standard-sha-3/"In 2005, researchers developed an attack that called into question the security guarantees of an earlier secure hash algorithm, SHA-1. The characteristics of this 2005 attack seemed to hint that it could be refined to attack many of the secure hash functions at the time, including SHA-0, MD4, MD5 and even SHA-2. At the time, for many cryptographers, the message was clear: a new hash algorithm is needed and it should be based on completely different underlying mathematics that are not susceptible to the attacks threatening known hash functions." I'm not saying anything is wrong with sha. Just saying something doesn't look kosher. |
|
|
|
|
Say amen. Can I get a halellujah?
I am here in the Ecuadorean jungle with a pack of endangered triple banded spider marmosets. They will go extinct unless I receive enough bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
My stomach hurts so I'm looking for a purse to snatch.  Poor black man. Stuck with bitcoin instead of real money. In 2011. Now you are telling your officers in Baltimore to stand down "or at lease keep dem wild folk away from my mansion". |
|
|
|
Yes there are a lot of lies and half-truths. With regards to Stalin, I can say based on the tragic experience of my own family, that neither Gulag, nor the famine are hoaxes. And virtually every family in the former USSR has been touched by that.
Regarding famine. The hoax that was propagated over the last 20 years is that it was created specifically to target Ukraine. Famine covered large part of Russia and Ukraine, and the death toll was largest in Central Russia. My great-great-grandmother died of hunger in those years - and that branch of my family is from Southern Siberia. Famine was triggered by mismanagement of resources, by the need to industrialise and by USSR's dependence on imports - At that time Western countries refused to sell industrial items for Russian gold, but accepted grain.
Gulag. My great-grandmother, grandmother, her sister and her brother suffered through that system of forced-labour camps, put there on false accusations, and rehabilitated only after Stalin's death. Only my grandmother survived.
Are you saying western countries assisted in the famine? It wouldn't surprize me but I didn't know that. |
|
|
|
... the still-unexplained death of the man, Freddie Gray, 25...
He was arrested, handcuffed and put in a police vehicle. The vehicle headed toward the police station. It pulled over briefly so the cops could do some paperwork. When they arrived his neck was pretty violently snapped. ---- Cancer, diabetes and influenza have been ruled out by now. |
|
|
|
...And what will it take to get the media to behave responsibly and stop inciting riots by playing up lies before there is any real evidence of wrongdoing by police? Ferguson was burned by people chanting lies, and Staten Island was also rocked by lies. We are glad that the National Guard is in Baltimore to stop more nonsense by con artists. We also wonder why they were NOT needed in Utah - why was the Taylor shooting by a police officer different? And why was it covered more extensively in the British news media than by the NY Times?
Here is a thought: how about staying in school, learning to read and do math and/or learning a skill??? Here is another thought: how about taking advantage of what the tax payers offer you....free school and infrastructure? How about not destroying where you live? Or are the 60's a distant memory? How about raising your children with some respect? How about realizing that when you are arrested for breaking the law, it is because you broke the law? Not everything is because you are black.
A person might wonder first if you don't know the difference between Salt Lake City and Baltimore. But the rest of your comment makes it clear that you do. As to the British media, that applies to a lot of stories and it goes against your argument. The Taylor shooting, most people would say, was dort of justified if you have very low standards for law enforcers. But even the lowest standards do not cover things like the Freddie Grey killing. Your second paragraph is not clear. You say something like "How about recognizing when you are arrested for breaking the law it is because you broke the law". Do you understand that some people believe that killing a person in custody who is restrained is more of a crime than, for example, selling drugs? And do you understand that killing a person in custody often does not get treated as a criminal matter? i find your passive words and aggressor in your user name funny.
lets be honest. whites and blacks have different mentalities and different opportunities and positions in the world. whites are comfortable. they have food. jobs. homes. investments. 401K. they are not feeling the pressure. they do not want to lose what they have worked for. so they accept the iron grip of our government. even if all the news coverage was about cops killing white people they still would not care enough to risk their comforts. that's why i said wait till the financial system collapses. when whites have lost everything they worked for due to corruption they will be burning and killing too. then it won't be about black or white. it's the people vs the government.
Although a lot of the attitudes are divided along racial lines, it is quite a bit more complicated, especially when you add in the economy. Americans are taught, by their government, that violence works. So when they have a problem their response is going to be violence. Why? Because it works, according to the government. The racial thing is a sort of sub drama. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, in the days before the Baltimore riots there were warnings that several gangs were going to kill police. Then suddenly the riots erupted. Is that all? The media portrayed the start of the riots as being an idea by some kids to do something having to do with a movie. But now this in Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purgeThe implication of the article is that the police may have triggered the riots as a sort of controlled burn after Freddie Grey. A controlled burn is when you make a small fire to reduce the potential danger from future larger ones. If this was the case, was it misguided or smart? |
|
|
|
-picture-
This is quite distasteful If I saw this advertisment I would not support it, as the message could be presented in a better way. The message consists of certain obvious propositions: 1. Jihad is a word primarily used to indicate a militant struggle by Muslims, and part of that struggle involves killing Jews. 2. There are people and groups (with lots of ad money) trying to give the false impression that this is not the primary use of the word Jihad. Can you suggest a better way to present this? Most of the comments I've seen here just want two things: (1) shut up about Jihadis and (2) dead Jews. Present what? You are not presenting, you are selling. The answer is stop selling shit. |
|
|
|
Can be seen prominently on sites like Reddit. Don't criticize it though or you are going to be labeled anti-semitic Pumping trivial old news makes you irrelevant, not anti Semitic. Almost every interest group has its collection of trolls and spammers, why would zionoids be different? |
|
|
|
I wish the Jihadis who openly believe in and praise killing Jews were as controversial as the people who point it out.
If you're looking for people to compare to the Nazis, how about looking at the people who tortured and murdered Ilan Halimi in 2006? Or if 9 years is too long ago, look at the man who killed the Jews in that supermarket in Paris in January? Or the Jewish kids shot and killed at a school a couple of years ago? All these examples are in France and they were all killed by Jihadis.
Jews actually are being targetted and killed. Today. By the people who say their goal is to kill Jews. Because of their religion.
And you're comparing the people pointing this out to the Nazis. Instead of the people who are actually demonizing Jews, actually targetting Jews, actually killing Jews.
Do you ever stop for a moment and think that maybe you're missing something?
What some people take into consideration, and others don't evidently, are the relative positions of various minorities. A lot of the most powerful people in America and France are Jewish. But there are very few powerful Muslims in those countries. So for example an Israeli wounded by a cheap rocket from Gaza will get a lot of mainstream press but a bunch of Gazans killed by expensive precision weapons that were a few feet off is not so much news. A good place for a person like you to learn a little is the website http://www.ifamericansknew.org/  |
|
|
|
I do not trust an algorithm developed by the nsa.
Why so many people are so quick to use weak arguments to defend the use of an nsa algorithm in bitcoin, I don't know.
I'm not defending the NSA algorithm. I'm truly concerned with your lack of trust of them, but when I ask you what other alternatives you have considered, you start attacking me repeating again and again that I'm defending them. And I'm truly concerned by your trust in the NSA. As for alternatives, again, I'm not in that business but did not litecoin quickly find an alternative that was developed privately and whose security does not involve trusting the NSA? From Wikipedia "As of 2009, the two most commonly used cryptographic hash functions are MD5 and SHA-1. However, MD5 has been broken; an attack against it was used to break SSL in 2008.[9] The SHA-0 and SHA-1 hash functions were developed by the NSA." Did the NSA pay a $10 million bribe to RSA to secretly weaken some respected cryptographic tool? Are those articles false? Or are sha backers saying the RSA bribe was a one time thing and the NSA would never do something like that again? |
|
|
|
In Oct 2013 a young woman with a child bumped a concrete divider near a D.C. attraction. The police got excited. She panicked and tried to flee. The police filled her car with bullets. When they finally stopped shooting she had several bullet holes in her back. The baby that was in the car with her was not hit. The mainstream media started by headlining "Police Rescue Baby". When that became too absurd even for Americans they switched to " Possible Suicide Bomber Killed In D.C." The young lady had lived in Bed Stuy and Baltimore, both places you don't stop for strangers with guns and badges don't really tell you if a person is friendly. ---- Then today Baltimore http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10354477/Woman-shot-dead-after-trying-to-ram-security-barrier-at-White-House.html---- Any connection or coincidence? |
|
|
|
That is another example of the fallacies being used to defend sha in bitcoin.
I'm not defending SHA. Why do you get that impression? Is it not enough that I do not want to use an algorithm that was developed for and promoted by an intelligence gathering agency that for decades has used its data mainly for overseas repression?
This is an ad hominem fallacy. I am not a cryptographer.
Then you will have a hard time convincing cryptographers about what you believe is right. You should consider researching what you defend. I do not trust an algorithm developed by the nsa. Why so many people are so quick to use weak arguments to defend the use of an nsa algorithm in bitcoin, I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
