I’m the administrator of kbin.life, a general purpose/tech orientated kbin instance.

  • 0 Posts
  • 341 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle




  • I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

    Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

    The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

    If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

    So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.


  • Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

    Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

    The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

    What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

    Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.









  • With IPv6 for most use cases there’s actually more security. With privacy extensions (pretty sure it’s enabled on windows by default), when you make connections from your device, it uses a “private” IP. That is a randomly chosen address inside your network’s prefix, that changes regularly.

    These addresses don’t accept incoming connections. You have a main address that doesn’t really change that you accept connections on. Firewall that for ports you want to allow and then hackers need to port scan 2^64 or 2^80 address space to find your real IPs in your prefix. If they capture your IP from a connection to a web server etc, they won’t have luck scanning you.

    Again as per my post above, the biggest risk right now is bad default configurations on many home routers.



  • I’m wondering what combination of features would use 25w on a phone. On flagship models the battery would last less than an hour at that consumption (and might even melt :P).

    Your point still stands by the way, sensors take next to nothing in terms of power. I guess the point of the article is perhaps the processing of the signals is more efficient with this hybrid chip? Again though in real terms it’s a nothing-burger in terms of power consumption.


  • I don’t think there’s ground even for an arrest in my (non professional mind you) opinion.

    The act requires that a message be sent by any electronic means (including transmission) so, this meets that part. But the message must be indecent or grossly offensive. I would argue some pictures of a couple of buddies together shouldn’t be grossly offensive.

    Unless it’s the police’s view that it is offensive because of what Trump may, or may not have done with said now deceased criminal friend. In which case, they should be arresting someone else too.

    Yes, it’s a common police tactic to make arrests around the time of a visit like this. But, they really do need to be grounded in a realistic application of the law.