There are comments here trying to contrast Nash's work to modern cryptography, as though that's somehow fair. Nash never had access to anything remotely like a personal computer and this is just after the age - and in fact still one - where physical and mechanical devices were being used to perform encryption.
The better thing to do would be to compare (rather than contrast) his work. Look at this letter. Nash essentially predicts trapdoor functions and the P/NP gap... in a mere letter.
We were lucky to have Nash and his contributions. It's unfortunate that most of his academic work is largely unknown and that pop science focuses disproportionately on his work on equilibrium in symmetric games.
May he rest in peace.
Merely, it's a shame that MORE of Nash's contributions haven't been as popularly traded. This popular science emphasis at the opportunity cost of others leads to the impression that this is all Nash has contributed. That's all I was getting at. :)
I can imagine the awkwardness of grad students presenting their work in a room where he was present ... "and so-and-so forms a nash equilibrium ... (silence, looking for approval from Johns face, sigh of relief from grad student when professor does not shake head in dismay)"
It's not like the military is not used to being precise about titles (i.e. ranks)
Princeton considers itself a unique institution in this way. They do not accept transfer students, they do not have any professional degree programs, etc.
"Out of respect for the founder of the University who did not have a Ph.D., University faculty are referred to as Mr. or Mrs. instead of Doctor, even if they have a Ph.D. Students and faculty historically addressed each other in this manner. Medical doctors are the exception to the rule and they should be referred to as Doctor."
Would you have a reference for this? This is really interesting.
> “Use the title Dr. only when referring to a medical doctor.”
P.S. A more specific link would be the "Titles" subsection, http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r...
To the root point, your citation has absolutely nothing to do with a proper title for a Princeton alumnus.
An instructor of mine in college had attended Princeton, and thus the information came to me from him by word of mouth.
Interesting, I think, the statement that Nash's machine requires "comparatively" too much hardware. This implies the NSA did have auto-keying systems at the time that had higher security, and lower hardware burden.
Remember, in '55 we didn't have single-chip CPUs, we barely had practical transistors, we didn't have planar process circuits (invented in about '60 according to the computer history museum).
Nash believed in helping the US keep its secrets safe, and exposing the secrets of the enemy. One thing to remember when you look at Snowden's papers exposing not just domestica activities but foreign activities.
If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations.
Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.
Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit, benefits, etc.) The military offers all sorts of bonuses and recruiting tactics to hire people, like other companies. You're not forced into the military, and when he joined, the various divisions were actually quite picky and it took a while to find a properly compensating match, just like other employers. (Though in my cousin's case, after suffering severe damage on base, they had no trouble discharging her to a rather miserable life, hey just like other corporations.)
That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger.
Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking across the entire population in question, that it is possible to reduce the risk of harm by taking specific actions that have general impact.
In the case of the military, it's always a double-ended question. There is the risk added or reduced for your force in particular, but also the risk added or reduced for the adversary forces.
E.g. you put "insurgent" in scare-quotes when mentioning that they actually pose a danger to your family in the military, but without seeming to realize that many of the NSA programs Snowden leaked are directly aimed at those very same insurgents putting your family at risk. Even if we take it as true that the U.S. managed to unilaterally create insurgencies (which is by no means the case), that is not the fault of U.S. servicemembers like your family any more so than any other non-U.S. politician.
To loop back to my point about managing general risk, the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, including second- and third- order effects. Beyond improving the security posture of U.S. insurgent adversaries and terror networks (terror networks that strike against U.S. allies in addition to the U.S. itself, I might add), Snowden's leaks also had the effect of weakening the national intelligence agencies of important U.S. allies, and reducing Western nations to infighting even as they needed to be able to present a united front due to geopolitical changes. It's hard to make statements about past "what-ifs" (though that has never stopped Snowden's supporters from chicken-littling about future what-ifs...), but certainly the joint U.S./E.U. reaction to Russia's invasion of Crimea would be more meaningful without Snowden's actions a year earlier.
But just because these risks (for the U.S. and for the possible adversaries or the U.S.) can't be quantified or laid out in short and simple flowcharts doesn't mean that those risks don't exist.
I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. Have you consider that it is the government who has placed the troops in harm's way by undertaking such outrageous, immoral, and illegal actions as opposed to the guy who merely told us about it.
He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah?
What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.
But Wikileaks told Snowden to go to Russia, and in any event China told Snowden to leave. Why would China do that? Because Snowden wasn't their asset...
That is not my claim, succinctly or otherwise. The fact that you believe my comment reduces to that claim means that you did not understand my comment. That may be my fault in making it unclear or your fault in not trying to read and understand what I was actually saying (instead of simply seeing what you thought I meant), but either way you're replying to something I didn't say.
My comment was in response to someone who felt mentioning essentially that why are we even mad at Snowden, it's not like anything bad happened. You seem to agree with me that his actions did result in real negative consequences, so in that regard you agree with me about the only substantive thing I mentioned in my own reply.
But to address what you brought up, let's say it's true that Snowden revealed government wrongdoing. I happen to be of the opinion that merely revealing government wrongdoing doesn't excuse every other possible wrong that may have been committed by a 'whistleblower'. Especially in cases like Snowden's where any "whistleblowing" portion of his leaks is dwarfed in magnitude by leaks that don't indicate any government wrongdoing at all, but still result in disastrous effects that you admit occurred as a result of his actions.
Otherwise a spy would be able to leak whatever they wished by simply throwing a scrap to the media while they tunnel the real secrets to their political masters. And at this point we still can't prove Snowden did something like this: The secrets he revealed to the world via the media were all (but one) stolen while he worked at Dell, but before leaving the NSA he deliberately took a position at Booz-Allen Hamilton in order to take higher-level ("Tier 3") secrets. That Tier 3 was the source of the "NSA spying on these specific Chinese IPs" story soon after Snowden landed in Hong Kong, but those Tier 3 secrets have been revealed to no other journalists (or even angry Internet bloggers...).
Why did Snowden need Tier 3 secrets if he wasn't going to give them to journalists? Who did he give them to, if not journalists?
As for being picky about how people think about what the military does, "serving" or "working", you've got to think about it again. It's definitely a service. It should be apparent from overwhelming consensus on the matter. However, if you want to make the argument that "oh hey, you volunteered for it" -- sure, keep in mind that if there weren't volunteers, we'd have conscription, and the US would be a significantly less free country than it is today. Freedom is choice. Volunteer soldiers means you choose, which means we have freedom.
I am sorry to hear that your cousin was chewed up and spit out. In this way the military is exactly like a corporation. Not everyone gets what they deserve, but I would like to think most people are compensated fairly.
Should probably disclose, I am in the Army.
Some of us believe that the best way of protecting our service members is by not putting them in harms way in the first place.
This also entails after service privileges. We should be spending infinitely more on our service members, not less (in terms of healthcare, education, housing, everything.) Instead, were spending an incredibly large amount of money on corporate welfare for things that will probably be either useless, or worse than useless (in that they are dangerous to our troops, for just one example, the infamous A-10 vs JSF debacle. One is a proven way of saving US lives on the ground, the other is a giant waste of money.)
Second, we may also feel that the service members (our friends and family) are here to protect the People, not the Government, and thus enforce the ideals behind the Constitution. This entails protecting our (I would go so far as to say everyone's, but I know that's a rather radical interpretation) freedom, from illegal search and seizure that the NSA has very obviously been violating all of our rights, including our soldiers.
Secrecy of communications is one thing, but the NSA (and the military) has shown that they care less about that, than they do in actually spying on everyone. The US military's communications system is such a clusterfuck that you often times have troops that are within a mile (in 3d space, so this very much applies to aircraft), that cannot communicate with one another.
Maybe I took your comment out of context, but I believe that we should take care of and protect our troops. But that doesn't mean we subvert the ideals of the country that our troops are theoretically fighting for.
Difficult to understand how creating enemies abroad is protecting us here.
However I can assure you that is not the case man. I am in the Army and I have never been in a place with as many sane people as this...
Extreme beliefs are not even close to being the norm. Most people are just concerned about taking care of their families and are quite moderate politically.
Are you talking about the justice systems before or after their tour?
The first independent justice system that the service(s) use is a concept from Roman times , that predates any form of 'Court of Justice' we have in the states, and is really just there to punish soldiers that rebel, not really anything having to do with a split between civilian and soldier.
The second form, post tour 'veteran's court', is really just a way to damage-control dependancy-stricken veterans from causing too much publicity in public courts, and as a way to fast-track such people into lighter sentences than their civilian counterparts. 90 percent completion rate and zero percent recidivism! Remarkable, it must be those values instilled by the service(s).. (the same values that lead them to that court, by the way..)
He did serve.
I am as skeptical of your anecdotal assurances as you are of mine.
Come on, if you're going to go all nationalist on us do it wholeheartedly.
A few years ago I implemented it with software: http://blog.practical-scheme.net/gauche/20120715-nash-cipher...
This seems a bit harsh!