Gweihir is saying you dont understand how digital signatures work, and Im inclined to agree.
The file would be signed by the one distributing it, with a private key. Private keys are not disclosed to outside parties-- not even when you're getting your certificate issued by a trusted root. Even then, you simply generate a CSR, and hold the private key. The CSR and public key are sent to the certificate authority who signs them-- but as they NEVER see your private key, they have no ability to forge digital signatures.
Maybe before making snarky anti-NSA comments you should ensure that you're not speaking nonsense. We need more people to be knowledgeable about encryption and privacy, not fewer.
His ideas are very often absurd, and appear very much as if he recently learned about (or began thinking on) a topic, and immediately crafted an opinion on how everyone else who is an expert in said field is wrong.
There are hundreds more, if you do a search for Bennett Haselton. The guy is well intentioned-- he clearly has a passion for getting rid of censorship and fixing the world-- the trouble is that hes proven massively susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Theres also the fact that his ideas are often enough repellent, such as when he explains how we dont really need the double jeopardy or self incrimination protections of the 5th amendment, or how Computer Acceptable Use Policies and the corresponding network IDS and filtering systems are literally Hitler.
but bear in mind that numerous juice brands use HFCS as a sweetening additive
Honestly, that probably improves the health profile of the juice. Juice is normally "mostly fructose", and is pretty terrible for you in any significant quantity; at least HFCS would add some glucose to that mix.
No, Im just pointing out that is a bit hasty to go after caramel coloring when theres a ton of other things that would be higher on the list.
Where Im a bit hesitant to start going after caramel coloring or sucrose or HFCS is that there doesnt appear to be a really good reason to suspect those particular ingredients; certainly you COULD look everything for telomere shortening. You could look at milk, water, and oxygen. But there doesnt seem to be a good reason to do so right now.
We dont accuse people who doubt the existence of wifi allergies of being anti-science; its not that we're unwilling to look at evidence for it, its that we are unaware of ANY evidence for it, and all discussion on that front appears to be based on hysteria. Ditto with things like caramel coloring and HFCS-- all arguments I've ever seen against them tend to be based on hand-wavy hysteria with no actual substance. When someone remarks that, hey-- HFCS has a 1% other, maybe we should look at what that is-- Im all on board with that. Its only when someone makes a remark about how HFCS is processed differently than sucrose "because it says HIGH fructose" that I take up a defensive posture and point out how utterly wrong they are.
In short-- dont let me stop you if you want to look into steak and beer as potential causes of telomere shortening-- but unless theres substantive results there, Im not going to start panicking yet.
In the entire 7 post thread prior to your most recent post, the word "soda" only occurs twice-- the original post, and the mention you made in your post. I was under the assumption we were discussing HFCS generally.
However if you place a surface perpendicular towards the sun, as the windows of a car are, or a tracking solar panel, then the latitude is IRRELEVANT!
I completely got that. Really. As I said in my post: Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios....A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC.
In other words, if you were to compare ANY situation you can dream of-- a greenhouse, a car, a solar panel-- in DC in the winter and the north pole in the summer, they will be very nearly identical, because: In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt).
I dont know how else to explain this. Where the sun is in the winter for DC is very nearly the same (in relative terms) for where it is for the pole in the summer-- ~65 degrees off of perpendicular. No scenario you set up will change it.
And for the record, summer in siberia is (according to wikipedia) 86 degrees-- which is a relatively mild summer day for DC. Its not remotely close to one of the hottest places; those would be between the 2 tropics (cancer and capricorn). Its also worth noting that Siberia is a huge area covering from 50 degrees north to 90 degrees north, so saying its temperature variation is huge doesnt say much. Some of its areas are halfway to the equator.
Except that you're assuming that all HFCS is the variety with more fructose than glucose; this is not correct. By your logic we should switch all sucrose to the "healthy" HFCS, as it has LESS fructose than either.
Talking about pure fructose in a discussion on HFCS is, as AthanasiusKircher has said, a red herring. We're not talking about pure fructose, we're talking about a blend that is almost chemically indistinguishable (by a few % points) by the body from sucrose.
The comparison of "natural" to "processed" also makes me uncomfortable, as it strikes me as way too similar to the HFCS scare: ambiguous language, unclear definitions, vague claims, and no suggested mechanism of action. Theres plenty of natural things that are just plain bad for you, and plenty of synthetic that are quite good. Ill take a synthetic Vitamin D supplement over bitter orange any day; one prevents rickets, while the other can cause death. Guess which is which?
HFCS is bad because it's associated, causally, with the over-sweetening of processed foods in general.
Thats fair enough, but getting rid of HFCS wouldnt change the fact that people want sweet foods and generally dont like artificial sweeteners. Replace all HFCS in the world with sucrose, its not gonna make that 40g of sugar in that Dr Pepper healthy.
1) This chart shows values for horizontal surfaces. It's inapplicable to heating the inside of a car because it's not a flat object
Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios. The insolation at the pole in summer is equivalent to that of DC in the winter. A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC. And I can tell you from experience in DC that during the winter the interior of the car doesnt get warmer than ~110 degrees F on the sunniest of days.
This is easy to demonstrate; summer for the pole will be when the sun at a 23 degree north angle to the equator, whereas winter will be when it is 23 degrees south. In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt). No matter what scenario you set up, you cannot change the fact that the pole will never get more solar radiation per area than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter.
2) Your Washington example may reach higher level-surface insolation for a short while, but your North Pole object will get insolated constantly.
Im not clear what you mean. The pole can have cloudy days as well. All that chart indicates is that on its sunniest day the pole will recieve less radiation / sq meter than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter on a similarly sunny day. Thats not an average either; its simply taking the amount of energy put out by the sun and calculating the theoretical surface exposure depending on the sun's angle and whether the exposure is oblique or not.
Transparent aluminum implies that its NOT pure aluminum, because pure aluminum isnt transparent.
If the goal of this exercise is to say that "you cant name something thats pure, unaltered aluminum BUT doesnt have aluminum's properties!", then you win.
No, Im someone who bothered to look it up before loosing my marbles.
Sucrose is glucose+fructose joined by a single bond, which is cleaved by sucrase into its constituent sugars. HFCS is a mix (roughly 50-50, depending on which variety of HFCS you get) of fructose and sucrose.
One of those varieties has some 3% "other" (could be other types of sugar, not sure). But generally, if you were to say that HFCS and Sucrose are processed 97% the same in your body, you would be correct. The only real difference is the sucrase step. Is speaking verifiable chemistry fact now the sign of shilling?
Unless the car is a perfect insulator, the ambient temperature IS relevant, and even in summer the temperature at the poles will be quite low.
In fact, according to this site, Washington DC at noon on the winter solstice will get the more solar radiation per square foot than the north pole at the height of its summer (~750W/sq. m at the poles vs ~825 W/sq. m at 40 degrees north)
It doesnt really matter how long you leave it in the car if your ambient temperatures are sub zero and you get practically no solar radiation.
What has the latitude to do with that? Even at the north pole during 'polar day' it easy gets over 100 degrees C inside of a car.
The temperature the inside of the car can achieve is going to depend on a few factors:
* How insulating the car is
* How much energy is being recieved
* The ambient temperature
Polar latitudes are going to have a low insolation and and a low ambient temperature, which will massively lower how hot the car can get.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring?
1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates. 2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.
I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.
Slashdot Mirror
Gweihir is saying you dont understand how digital signatures work, and Im inclined to agree.
The file would be signed by the one distributing it, with a private key. Private keys are not disclosed to outside parties-- not even when you're getting your certificate issued by a trusted root. Even then, you simply generate a CSR, and hold the private key. The CSR and public key are sent to the certificate authority who signs them-- but as they NEVER see your private key, they have no ability to forge digital signatures.
Maybe before making snarky anti-NSA comments you should ensure that you're not speaking nonsense. We need more people to be knowledgeable about encryption and privacy, not fewer.
Was. His account no longer exists. All prior articles no longer have a link to his profile page, and manually typing it in gets a "not found".
His ideas are very often absurd, and appear very much as if he recently learned about (or began thinking on) a topic, and immediately crafted an opinion on how everyone else who is an expert in said field is wrong.
Notable entries in this category:
* Why the 5th amendment is totally unnecessary.
* More questions about the 5th amendment, indicating a lack of understanding of its background and purpose (leading one to question in what way Bennett was qualified to raise objections to it).
* Why corporate network filtering and intrusion prevention are tyranny
* Why you should ignore every lawyer's advice of "dont talk to cops".
There are hundreds more, if you do a search for Bennett Haselton. The guy is well intentioned-- he clearly has a passion for getting rid of censorship and fixing the world-- the trouble is that hes proven massively susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Theres also the fact that his ideas are often enough repellent, such as when he explains how we dont really need the double jeopardy or self incrimination protections of the 5th amendment, or how Computer Acceptable Use Policies and the corresponding network IDS and filtering systems are literally Hitler.
The Microsoft success (1980s) came prior to the anti-trust stuff (mid 90s).
You may need to revisit your history of microsoft.
You might be missing the side of Amazon's business that is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) cloud providers.
but bear in mind that numerous juice brands use HFCS as a sweetening additive
Honestly, that probably improves the health profile of the juice. Juice is normally "mostly fructose", and is pretty terrible for you in any significant quantity; at least HFCS would add some glucose to that mix.
No, Im just pointing out that is a bit hasty to go after caramel coloring when theres a ton of other things that would be higher on the list.
Where Im a bit hesitant to start going after caramel coloring or sucrose or HFCS is that there doesnt appear to be a really good reason to suspect those particular ingredients; certainly you COULD look everything for telomere shortening. You could look at milk, water, and oxygen. But there doesnt seem to be a good reason to do so right now.
We dont accuse people who doubt the existence of wifi allergies of being anti-science; its not that we're unwilling to look at evidence for it, its that we are unaware of ANY evidence for it, and all discussion on that front appears to be based on hysteria. Ditto with things like caramel coloring and HFCS-- all arguments I've ever seen against them tend to be based on hand-wavy hysteria with no actual substance. When someone remarks that, hey-- HFCS has a 1% other, maybe we should look at what that is-- Im all on board with that. Its only when someone makes a remark about how HFCS is processed differently than sucrose "because it says HIGH fructose" that I take up a defensive posture and point out how utterly wrong they are.
In short-- dont let me stop you if you want to look into steak and beer as potential causes of telomere shortening-- but unless theres substantive results there, Im not going to start panicking yet.
In the entire 7 post thread prior to your most recent post, the word "soda" only occurs twice-- the original post, and the mention you made in your post. I was under the assumption we were discussing HFCS generally.
However if you place a surface perpendicular towards the sun, as the windows of a car are, or a tracking solar panel, then the latitude is IRRELEVANT!
I completely got that. Really. As I said in my post:
Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios....A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC.
In other words, if you were to compare ANY situation you can dream of-- a greenhouse, a car, a solar panel-- in DC in the winter and the north pole in the summer, they will be very nearly identical, because:
In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt).
I dont know how else to explain this. Where the sun is in the winter for DC is very nearly the same (in relative terms) for where it is for the pole in the summer-- ~65 degrees off of perpendicular. No scenario you set up will change it.
And for the record, summer in siberia is (according to wikipedia) 86 degrees-- which is a relatively mild summer day for DC. Its not remotely close to one of the hottest places; those would be between the 2 tropics (cancer and capricorn). Its also worth noting that Siberia is a huge area covering from 50 degrees north to 90 degrees north, so saying its temperature variation is huge doesnt say much. Some of its areas are halfway to the equator.
Except that you're assuming that all HFCS is the variety with more fructose than glucose; this is not correct. By your logic we should switch all sucrose to the "healthy" HFCS, as it has LESS fructose than either.
Talking about pure fructose in a discussion on HFCS is, as AthanasiusKircher has said, a red herring. We're not talking about pure fructose, we're talking about a blend that is almost chemically indistinguishable (by a few % points) by the body from sucrose.
The comparison of "natural" to "processed" also makes me uncomfortable, as it strikes me as way too similar to the HFCS scare: ambiguous language, unclear definitions, vague claims, and no suggested mechanism of action. Theres plenty of natural things that are just plain bad for you, and plenty of synthetic that are quite good. Ill take a synthetic Vitamin D supplement over bitter orange any day; one prevents rickets, while the other can cause death. Guess which is which?
If it does, we need to look at steak, beer, and caramel too.
HFCS is bad because it's associated, causally, with the over-sweetening of processed foods in general.
Thats fair enough, but getting rid of HFCS wouldnt change the fact that people want sweet foods and generally dont like artificial sweeteners. Replace all HFCS in the world with sucrose, its not gonna make that 40g of sugar in that Dr Pepper healthy.
That talks about fructose, which is a different thing than HFCS.
It would be like finding an NIH article on H2SO4 and assuming that its contents apply to H2O because they contain some of the same things.
1) This chart shows values for horizontal surfaces. It's inapplicable to heating the inside of a car because it's not a flat object
Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios. The insolation at the pole in summer is equivalent to that of DC in the winter. A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC. And I can tell you from experience in DC that during the winter the interior of the car doesnt get warmer than ~110 degrees F on the sunniest of days.
This is easy to demonstrate; summer for the pole will be when the sun at a 23 degree north angle to the equator, whereas winter will be when it is 23 degrees south. In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt). No matter what scenario you set up, you cannot change the fact that the pole will never get more solar radiation per area than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter.
2) Your Washington example may reach higher level-surface insolation for a short while, but your North Pole object will get insolated constantly.
Im not clear what you mean. The pole can have cloudy days as well. All that chart indicates is that on its sunniest day the pole will recieve less radiation / sq meter than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter on a similarly sunny day. Thats not an average either; its simply taking the amount of energy put out by the sun and calculating the theoretical surface exposure depending on the sun's angle and whether the exposure is oblique or not.
Im sure HFCS DOES cause obesity. Just, not because its different than sucrose. Butter causes obesity, too.
If you said something like "drinkable hydrogen" it would be fair to assume we were speaking of a hydrogen compound, not hydrogen itself.
Good gravy slashdotters are pedantic.
Transparent aluminum implies that its NOT pure aluminum, because pure aluminum isnt transparent.
If the goal of this exercise is to say that "you cant name something thats pure, unaltered aluminum BUT doesnt have aluminum's properties!", then you win.
No, Im someone who bothered to look it up before loosing my marbles.
Sucrose is glucose+fructose joined by a single bond, which is cleaved by sucrase into its constituent sugars.
HFCS is a mix (roughly 50-50, depending on which variety of HFCS you get) of fructose and sucrose.
One of those varieties has some 3% "other" (could be other types of sugar, not sure). But generally, if you were to say that HFCS and Sucrose are processed 97% the same in your body, you would be correct. The only real difference is the sucrase step. Is speaking verifiable chemistry fact now the sign of shilling?
Unless the car is a perfect insulator, the ambient temperature IS relevant, and even in summer the temperature at the poles will be quite low.
In fact, according to this site, Washington DC at noon on the winter solstice will get the more solar radiation per square foot than the north pole at the height of its summer (~750W/sq. m at the poles vs ~825 W/sq. m at 40 degrees north)
It doesnt really matter how long you leave it in the car if your ambient temperatures are sub zero and you get practically no solar radiation.
What has the latitude to do with that? Even at the north pole during 'polar day' it easy gets over 100 degrees C inside of a car.
The temperature the inside of the car can achieve is going to depend on a few factors:
* How insulating the car is
* How much energy is being recieved
* The ambient temperature
Polar latitudes are going to have a low insolation and and a low ambient temperature, which will massively lower how hot the car can get.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring?
1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates.
2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.
I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.
Transparent aluminum would probably be sapphire, and Im not sure what genius thought it impossible.