I live in a large midwestern city. They aren't common by any means but they definitely exist. I'm sure more expensive properties are more likely to have features like this but I've seen starter homes in the mid $100k with scans.
They really helped me as a buyer and while I don't know what they cost, I think I'd spring a couple hundred dollars to have it whenever we sell our house.
I think the biggest problem is that as a seller, I want qualified leads, but I get the feeling realtors just want leads because there's always another house. This mis-alignment of incentives means that in my experience listing agents don't always want to take steps that would limit foto traffic to a property, even if it would be excluding parties that probably wouldn't buy.
>The team managed to send information from one chip to another instantly without them being physically or electronically connected
Doesn't current quantum teleportation require optical connectivity because the state transfers along photons?
The abstract says
>Here, we report the demonstration of chip-to-chip quantum teleportation and genuine multipartite entanglement, the core functionalities in quantum technologies, on silicon-photonic circuitry
So while there may not necessarily be a phsyical connection this does require line-of-sight by my read, and "silicon-photonic circuitry" sounds like this is all on one physical board.
I guess I don't understand how this is "two different chips" as the article claims. Did they use two photomasks? Baby steps, I suppose.
Any form of quantum "teleportation" requires that the two chips first share a pair of entangles particles. Usually this is done by making the two entangled particles on one of the chips and sending one of the particles to the other chip. Usually the particles are photons for engineering reasons.
The quantum teleportation happens after that. Once the particles are entangled, you can destroy yours in a very particular way that forces the other particle to instantaneously become either a copy of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is the same) or the opposite of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is something like a boolean negation). Only you know which one happened (you learn that when you destroy your particle) and need to send one bit of classical information to the other chip in order for it to know as well.
In other words, you can transmit one bit of classical information and sacrifice one entangled pair to "teleport" one qubit of quantum information.
It is called teleportation because the quantum information never actually physically moved, rather it instantaneously went to the other chip. To know how to use it, you still need that classical bit to be transmitted in order to know whether the quantum information underwent a boolean negation.
I'm still so confused. I understand what a photon is (ish... I understand it can behave as a particle or wave, but in this case it is a "particle"). How do you "observe" a single photon? How do you "destroy" a single photon "in a particular way"? Heck, how to do keep something moving at the speed of light stuck inside a chip? Create a fiber optic loop somehow? How is the photon introduced into the loop?
Typically (for polarization qubits) a combination of waveplates, polarizing beam splitters and single-photon detectors (avalanche photodiodes, photomultipliers, or superconducting nano-wire detectors) are used to measure the qubit state. These detectors absorb the photons and turn them into detectable electrical signals. It is also possible to detect photons without destroying them (non-demolition measurement). However, this is much more difficult to do and leads to exactly the same results. After the measurement, the photon is no longer in a superposition state and is no longer entangled with the other one.
There is number of techniques for storing photon qubits. The easiest way is to send the light through a very long optical fiber spool. However, the achievable delay is limited due to absorption in the fiber. It is also possible to transfer the photon state onto a different system, such as a single ion or a superconducting qubit. Then the state of that system can later be measured.
This is an interesting thought. Over the holidays I've been watching my TV than I would during a normal week and I've noticed that my time in front of the screen is much different when there are commercials (forced 2 minute breaks) than when there are not commercials.
I own a couple of these. Because it has multiple options for virtual assistants, nothing is running out of the box as it wouldn't know which account to use or what service to route to. You have to go through an additional setup process after setting up the speaker for music playback.
Do you know something is running / can be triggered? Someone can't prove a negative (X isn't running) as easily as a positive (X is), so the burden of proof should fall on you. Saying "yeah, but how do you know your toaster can't be remotely triggered to record you?" isn't useful.
Maybe your threat model doesn't allow any hardware with a speaker that has updates, but that's not a reason to say it's an invalid setup for everyone's threat model nor to claim that, even without evidence, it's definitely going to be abused.
Ah ok, the burden of proof is on me. Your powerful logic has defeated me and now you are safe and sound with your smart speaker which doesn't eavesdrop on you.
> When you add a work email address to your phone, you’ll likely be asked to install something called a Mobile Device Management (MDM) profile. Chances are, you’ll blindly accept it. (What other choice do you have?)
I use the Nine mail/calendar app[1] to keep all that contained. It integrates nicely with the native Android apps but keeps all of the security and control options within Nine itself. It looks like they are also beta testing an iOS app but I have no experience with that version of it.
For example, if the mail account security settings require a screen lock code, Nine will require a code to access the app but this won't affect the actual phone's unlock screen.
Similarly if a data wipe request is sent from the server it will only affect Nine.
You beat me to it. Nine also allows easy connection to multiple Exchange accounts, has a variety of other nice features and has been around long enough to have a very solid track record.
This kind of sandboxing is one of the things third party apps like this have always been known for, going all the way back to a really old one whose name in blanking on which I believe maintained its own entirely internal calendar, files, etc. (Dataviz maybe?)
Edit: this may still be useful for some people, but the work profiles introduced in Android 5+ may make it less relevant at least for anyone at enterprise scale or otherwise using MDM through a service provider.
Looks cool, but requires ActiveSync to be on. I think a lot of stodgy companies are locking that down and requiring the native Outlook app and its (as mentioned) stealthly MDM stuff.
"A website can request a page from Twitter in the background with JavaScript using standard browser APIs. That request will be made using login credentials (stored in cookies), so if you're logged into Twitter, that request will be made as you.
Our site implements common CSRF protections on POST requests to prevent actions being made on your behalf (for example, being able to send a Tweet). The browser also enforces a number of limitations on cross-origin requests for security reasons. For example, another origin cannot read the response content. However, the requesting page is able to determine how long the request took to load.
This timing data will only reveal information if the response times can be manipulated into result based on a specific user. Generally, your page load time will depend on the Tweets you're viewing, and these aren't easy to predict.
However, when you are blocked by another user, we prevent you from being able to load their profile page, and just show a basic empty page. That page is much faster to load than a profile full of Tweets.
In our tests, profile page load times reliably dropped from around 500ms to about 200ms. In this way, one user can affect the page load time of another user viewing a specific url."
That was an interesting read, now I'm surprised there are so few websites mitigating this kind of timing attack.
Seems like SameSite is still not implemented everywhere: https://caniuse.com/#feat=same-site-cookie-attribute
The infinite zoom project is really interesting. I'm shocked that it never got picked up! The use cases you describe sound incredibly obvious for big events.
