Ah, the perfect solution to a difficult problem, just kill everyone you don't agree with (or in this case don't want to help). Just think, we could get rid of all the 'bad' people in the world; blacks, gays, Mexicans, redheads, poor people. The possibilities are endless!
Or the "citizens" of North Korea who are brainwashed into believing (or supporting) every word he says.
Give the citizens of North Korea some credit, it isn't really being brainwashed if there's a very real chance of you being sentenced to a few decades hard labor for saying the slightest negative thing about the government.
Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain? If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending. Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy, or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world, or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.
There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet. The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).
If we wanted to we could do much, much better than stone tablets; it's just not the direction that our technology has taken us. If nothing else, I would think etched steel would last longer than stone and have a higher information density. I would argue that this has even already been done, there's a certain Gold record zipping out of the solar system that should last well over a million years. And even if the data is destroyed, it is designed tell an intelligent being things in other ways.
Forget about the limitations of die shrink, what about the limitations of quantum mechanics? I was under the impression that 4 nm is getting awefully close to the point where quantum tunneling makes tansistors unworkable. As in, when you detect a signal, you can't tell if it's there because it should be or because an electron just jumped the gap.
This particular article was pretty good though. Thorough and generally well thought out, it also had that kind of shocked anger of someone who only just realized that they are being taken advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised if the author had started out writing a 'tell both sides of the story' kind of article, only to become more informed on the actual situation over the course of his research.
All that being said, I do take issue with one thing...
Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and others all joined AT&T in bidding huge amounts for wireless spectrum in FCC auctions, some $70-plus billion since the mid-1990s. That all gets passed along to you and me in the form of higher fees and friendly oligopolies that don't much compete on price.
That is not how business works. If a certain behavior on their part can maximize revenues, they will implement it regardless of what the upfront costs were. If they had paid $10 for the spectrum, they would still charge high fees because that is what the market is willing to bear and that is what they feel with maximize their revenues and with that their profits. You can argue that the cost of spectrum raises the cost of entry into the market, but I don't see that as what the author is going for here.
I wonder if it would be possible to make an extension that detected paginated sites and combined them down into a single page. Even if detection is too dificult I would think that you would be able to do one that would be a single button click for the user.
Maybe the reason that everyone uses the slow, noisy, obvious blasters is because the armour can stop everything else? Maybe the armor is for balistics only and that's why no one caries around projectile launchers. And the helmet could be to prevent blinding laser attacks, which is why its hard to see out of.
Lets face it, Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy. And with fantasy I could come up with a somewhat plausible explaination for just about every single one of his issues. Maybe the sarlac releases water vapor into the air that attracts wild animals looking for hydration. Maybe the asteroid worm was a genetically engineered creation that is designed to mine the asteroid for metal. It's not really that hard to explain away problems if you have a little imagination and read enough sci-fi/fantasy books.
It's also not entirely clear to me what is and isn't a failure. My PS3 for example, somewhat frequently has pixel lines (where one point of a model isn't position correctly and causes a giant spike to be sticking out) and less often (and only on EA games so who knows whose fault it is) has lock-ups. Also, sometimes when I start up a game there will be no sound, restarting the game takes care of it but it's still annoying.
I don't want to send it in because you're not guaranteed to get the same console back and I have one of the originals with backwards compatibility (that I actually use) and Linux (which the newest PS3 will not support). Not to mention the repair costs almost as much as a new system all together.
Hmmm, I didn't pay taxes two or three years ago? My point is that the government has all kinds of information about me just by the fact that they are the government. Them knowing my email address really doesn't concern me because them having my email address is no different then them having my home address. If they were breaking into my email, that would concern me, just like if they were breaking into my house. Them knowing what is essentially publicly available information is not concerning to me in the least regardless of which party is in charge.
Maybe, just maybe, this administration has been burned by false email rumors in the past and would like to address any misconceptions, confusions, or outright lies as soon as possible. Look at all the crap that gets thrown around even by higher ups in the Health Care opposition; comparisons to Hitler, Eugenics, Death Panels... can you really blame them for wanting to be able to address these things before they get out of hand?
Besides, the administration likely has access to your physical address, phone number, social security number, employer, mothers maiden name, etc etc. So no, the fact that they might conceivably, possibly have my email address doesn't really concern me.
When the tornados hit Springfield in March 2006, I would not have had phone service for a week were it not for my cell phone.
When the floods hit Iowa in 2008, I did not have cell phone service for 3 days. I'm just saying, you can't really count that as a total win for cell phones; the systems are dangerously under developed when an unusually large number of people are trying to use them all at the same time, which is exactly what happens when a major disaster strikes.
Now, that being said, I was still able to get the occasional text message through by repeatedly sending it until it succeeded. It was enough to at least let my wife know where I was, what my plans were, and that the house was not yet underwater. I'm not sure what the land line situation was like in our city, but the internet was working throughout the two weeks that the problems were on going.
What damage to her reputation? Do you really think that a movie director or fashion show manager is going to be looking for a model and turn her down because some random, tiny, once updated blog calls her a skanky ho? If I were looking for a model and saw that I wouldn't think anything of it, if I saw that she was a litigious, self-righteous pain in the ass (as evidenced by her overreaction to said blog), that would make me think twice about hiring her.
If someone is posting false information that actually damages a persons reputation then sure, but this does not qualify.
Except that isn't what comcast was caught doing. To use your freeway analogy, it's more like Comcast put up a big sign that said "Trucks use this exit" except instead of an exit, it was a cliff. Whenever they detected P2P traffic, they sent a reset packet to both sides of the connection, severing it completely before any significant amount of data could be sent.
Why not re-open research into nuclear thermal rockets? They were able to get them up to 40% efficiency back in 1972, I'm would hope we can do better than that now. Use the reactor to heat a propellant to get you to the moon, then use the reactor on the moon to power the base. If it's time to head home, you only need to ship a relatively stable propellant up, rather than actual rocket fuel.
Have you seen the videos of thousands of teenage girls screaming and throwing themselves at the stage? It isn't the music that's risque, it's the culture that comes with it. Regardless of what the Beatles themselves were doing, eventually you're just selling sex hysteria to the masses.
If it weren't for the chastity rings, you'd see all kinds of parents freaking out over the Jonas Brothers just because of the way their daughters behave. You could even argue (South park obviously did) that the Jonas Brothers image is specifically crafted to make parents feel ok with selling sex to the young children.
To me an innocent appearing person who is also evil would be much more threatening. To quote Douglas Adams "There is nothing they will not do if allowed, and there is nothing they will not be allowed to do.", though in his story, the people actually had the best of intentions. Incidentally and amusingly, Adams was referring to Ronald Reagan in that story.
That depends wildly on how much warning we have. If we spot it two months, or even two years before it gets here, you're probably right. Even then, small rocks are more common than big ones so it would be statistically likely that an evacuation could be done, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
If we spot a rock, even a big one, 30 or 40 years out, we have the technology already to make a difference. Enough nukes detonated all on one side will ablate material off the surface and produce thrust, changing the rocks orbit by a little bit. Luckily, even a minuscule change in direction will produce a significant change in position 30 years down the line.
The really interesting thing is if a rock is detected that will hit in 10-15 years. At that point, it is less likely for our current technology to be fully effective. We'd end up with a crash program that would make Apollo look like chump change. I could even imagine NASA dusting off the old Orion nuclear pulse propulsion ideas if the whole world were at stake; after all, what's a few hundred nukes being detonating in the atmosphere compared human extinction.
I'm going to have to disagree. NASA could survive, but only by doing something relatively radical that actually makes space exploration make sense. At a minimum that means setting up an orbital refueling system, with disposable heavy lifters to bring up fuel and other equipment, relaunchable shuttles to ferry people up and down, and ships that never re-enter the atmosphere but are refueled and stocked in orbit.
Alternatively, NASA could dust off the theoretical nuclear rockets (the closed cycle ones, not the ones that rely on detonating thousands of nuclear bombs) that they had started developing back in the 60's. Or they could start serious research on a non-rocket launch system. A space elevator is probably out of reach right now, but a hypersonic sky-hook, a launch loop, or a laser propulsion system is probably within our technology level (or soon will be).
So we can only call a crime violent if the victim is willing to resist in same manner?
Guy 1: Hey, Dude, can I have $5? Guy 2: [reluctantly hands over $5]
Not seeing a crime there.
Guy 1: Hey, Dude, can I have $5? Guy 2: No Guy 1: [Grabs the money and runs]
Then yes, there is a crime there. The difference is that Guy #2 said 'No'. If a rape victem doesn't make it clear that they don't consent, it would be wildly unfair to call that rape.
An ultra-facist, ultra controlling government that...
1) Watches, analyzes, and controls your every move to identify possible revolutionaries. 2) Controls all commerce and businesses 3) Outlaws sex for pleasure (even with your spouse) 4) Convinces children to rat on their own parents. 5) Uses constant warefare, drugs, and pornography to subdue the masses 6) Re-writes history to suit its present needs 7) Tortures and/or kills anyone who resists it 8) Encourages (forces?) racism and nationalism to the point of incoherent rage in every citizen.
versus a private company that...
1) Retrieves information when your phone software crashes
With apologies for the double post, the quoted text from the article was meant to include a bit more. Here is what I had intended to quote.
A program called TrueCrypt achieves something close to this -- TrueCrypt allows you to encrypt a storage volume with two different passwords, so that one password provides access to "innocent-looking" data, while the other password provides access to the data that you really want to keep secure. If someone is compelled to give up their password, they could provide only the password that unlocks the "innocent-looking" data -- and there's no way, from examining the encrypted file, to tell that there is a second password guarding even-more secret data. (Of course, the "innocent-looking" data can't be truly innocent-looking, because it has to look like the kind of thing that someone would believe you might want to encrypt -- so it should look suspicious enough that you would genuinely want to hide it, but not bad enough to get you in real trouble if you're forced to reveal it!) The Achilles heel of this scheme is that just having TrueCrypt on your computer in the first place, would at least signal to an intruder that you're encrypting files. And even if they can't prove that you might have another "super-secret password" guarding more private data on your encrypted volume, they would certainly suspect it, if they already had grounds to be investigating you and if they knew anything about how TrueCrypt works. To provide true plausible deniability of any encryption at all, you need a program that already exists on lots of people's machines, so that an intruder doesn't suspect anything when they find it on your computer.
I'm not saying that Rubberhose and TrueCrypt don't help the situation. However, the author brings up TrueCrypt and its ability to hide an incriminating volume behind a relatively innocent one (which seems to be the same functionality that is offered by Rubberhose) and finds them lacking for the problem he is trying (albeit rather poorly) to describe.
From the Article...
The Achilles heel of this scheme is that just having TrueCrypt on your computer in the first place, would at least signal to an intruder that you're encrypting files. And even if they can't prove that you might have another "super-secret password" guarding more private data on your encrypted volume, they would certainly suspect it, if they already had grounds to be investigating you and if they knew anything about how TrueCrypt works. To provide true plausible deniability of any encryption at all, you need a program that already exists on lots of people's machines, so that an intruder doesn't suspect anything when they find it on your computer.
This is the paragraph that I am addressing when I say that Rubberhose and programs like it don't solve the problem that the author is proposing. What if I install TrueCrypt and never get around to setting it up and an over-zealous investigator is threatening jail time if I don't hand over the non-existent password? What if I set it up and don't use it for months or years and forget the password? The fact that having an encryption utility installed is enough to land you in prison is the real problem. Better never to have the police ask for the password in the first place. That means making encryption software common enough to not rouse suspicion or portable enough to leave no traces (other than the encrypted volume) behind after it's done.
I provided a solution that doesn't have that problem in the first place.
No, you didn't because you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem isn't going to jail or being pressured to give up your encryption password. The problem is being harassed and having your privacy invaded simply because you have a program installed on your computer. If I'm going through customs and get harassed and annoyed because I have TrueCrypt installed, that is still a major problem even if I can provide access to an innocent volumn.
Ideally, the solution would offer both forms of deniability. A) Not having an unusual encryption utility installed and B) Being capable of offering an innocent volumn if pressed for a password anyway. You need A to avoid casual detection and the harassment that stems from it. You need B because a forensic analysis of the disk can still determine that there are encrypted volumns present.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the perfect solution to a difficult problem, just kill everyone you don't agree with (or in this case don't want to help). Just think, we could get rid of all the 'bad' people in the world; blacks, gays, Mexicans, redheads, poor people. The possibilities are endless!
Or the "citizens" of North Korea who are brainwashed into believing (or supporting) every word he says.
Give the citizens of North Korea some credit, it isn't really being brainwashed if there's a very real chance of you being sentenced to a few decades hard labor for saying the slightest negative thing about the government.
Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain? If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending. Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy, or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world, or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.
There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet. The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).
If we wanted to we could do much, much better than stone tablets; it's just not the direction that our technology has taken us. If nothing else, I would think etched steel would last longer than stone and have a higher information density. I would argue that this has even already been done, there's a certain Gold record zipping out of the solar system that should last well over a million years. And even if the data is destroyed, it is designed tell an intelligent being things in other ways.
Forget about the limitations of die shrink, what about the limitations of quantum mechanics? I was under the impression that 4 nm is getting awefully close to the point where quantum tunneling makes tansistors unworkable. As in, when you detect a signal, you can't tell if it's there because it should be or because an electron just jumped the gap.
This particular article was pretty good though. Thorough and generally well thought out, it also had that kind of shocked anger of someone who only just realized that they are being taken advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised if the author had started out writing a 'tell both sides of the story' kind of article, only to become more informed on the actual situation over the course of his research.
All that being said, I do take issue with one thing...
Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and others all joined AT&T in bidding huge amounts for wireless spectrum in FCC auctions, some $70-plus billion since the mid-1990s. That all gets passed along to you and me in the form of higher fees and friendly oligopolies that don't much compete on price.
That is not how business works. If a certain behavior on their part can maximize revenues, they will implement it regardless of what the upfront costs were. If they had paid $10 for the spectrum, they would still charge high fees because that is what the market is willing to bear and that is what they feel with maximize their revenues and with that their profits. You can argue that the cost of spectrum raises the cost of entry into the market, but I don't see that as what the author is going for here.
I wonder if it would be possible to make an extension that detected paginated sites and combined them down into a single page. Even if detection is too dificult I would think that you would be able to do one that would be a single button click for the user.
Maybe the reason that everyone uses the slow, noisy, obvious blasters is because the armour can stop everything else? Maybe the armor is for balistics only and that's why no one caries around projectile launchers. And the helmet could be to prevent blinding laser attacks, which is why its hard to see out of.
Lets face it, Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy. And with fantasy I could come up with a somewhat plausible explaination for just about every single one of his issues. Maybe the sarlac releases water vapor into the air that attracts wild animals looking for hydration. Maybe the asteroid worm was a genetically engineered creation that is designed to mine the asteroid for metal. It's not really that hard to explain away problems if you have a little imagination and read enough sci-fi/fantasy books.
It's also not entirely clear to me what is and isn't a failure. My PS3 for example, somewhat frequently has pixel lines (where one point of a model isn't position correctly and causes a giant spike to be sticking out) and less often (and only on EA games so who knows whose fault it is) has lock-ups. Also, sometimes when I start up a game there will be no sound, restarting the game takes care of it but it's still annoying.
I don't want to send it in because you're not guaranteed to get the same console back and I have one of the originals with backwards compatibility (that I actually use) and Linux (which the newest PS3 will not support). Not to mention the repair costs almost as much as a new system all together.
Hmmm, I didn't pay taxes two or three years ago? My point is that the government has all kinds of information about me just by the fact that they are the government. Them knowing my email address really doesn't concern me because them having my email address is no different then them having my home address. If they were breaking into my email, that would concern me, just like if they were breaking into my house. Them knowing what is essentially publicly available information is not concerning to me in the least regardless of which party is in charge.
Maybe, just maybe, this administration has been burned by false email rumors in the past and would like to address any misconceptions, confusions, or outright lies as soon as possible. Look at all the crap that gets thrown around even by higher ups in the Health Care opposition; comparisons to Hitler, Eugenics, Death Panels... can you really blame them for wanting to be able to address these things before they get out of hand?
Besides, the administration likely has access to your physical address, phone number, social security number, employer, mothers maiden name, etc etc. So no, the fact that they might conceivably, possibly have my email address doesn't really concern me.
When the tornados hit Springfield in March 2006, I would not have had phone service for a week were it not for my cell phone.
When the floods hit Iowa in 2008, I did not have cell phone service for 3 days. I'm just saying, you can't really count that as a total win for cell phones; the systems are dangerously under developed when an unusually large number of people are trying to use them all at the same time, which is exactly what happens when a major disaster strikes.
Now, that being said, I was still able to get the occasional text message through by repeatedly sending it until it succeeded. It was enough to at least let my wife know where I was, what my plans were, and that the house was not yet underwater. I'm not sure what the land line situation was like in our city, but the internet was working throughout the two weeks that the problems were on going.
What damage to her reputation? Do you really think that a movie director or fashion show manager is going to be looking for a model and turn her down because some random, tiny, once updated blog calls her a skanky ho? If I were looking for a model and saw that I wouldn't think anything of it, if I saw that she was a litigious, self-righteous pain in the ass (as evidenced by her overreaction to said blog), that would make me think twice about hiring her.
If someone is posting false information that actually damages a persons reputation then sure, but this does not qualify.
Except that isn't what comcast was caught doing. To use your freeway analogy, it's more like Comcast put up a big sign that said "Trucks use this exit" except instead of an exit, it was a cliff. Whenever they detected P2P traffic, they sent a reset packet to both sides of the connection, severing it completely before any significant amount of data could be sent.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll listen to Reason.
Why not re-open research into nuclear thermal rockets? They were able to get them up to 40% efficiency back in 1972, I'm would hope we can do better than that now. Use the reactor to heat a propellant to get you to the moon, then use the reactor on the moon to power the base. If it's time to head home, you only need to ship a relatively stable propellant up, rather than actual rocket fuel.
Have you seen the videos of thousands of teenage girls screaming and throwing themselves at the stage? It isn't the music that's risque, it's the culture that comes with it. Regardless of what the Beatles themselves were doing, eventually you're just selling sex hysteria to the masses.
If it weren't for the chastity rings, you'd see all kinds of parents freaking out over the Jonas Brothers just because of the way their daughters behave. You could even argue (South park obviously did) that the Jonas Brothers image is specifically crafted to make parents feel ok with selling sex to the young children.
To me an innocent appearing person who is also evil would be much more threatening. To quote Douglas Adams "There is nothing they will not do if allowed, and there is nothing they will not be allowed to do.", though in his story, the people actually had the best of intentions. Incidentally and amusingly, Adams was referring to Ronald Reagan in that story.
We can't stop the stupid thing.
That depends wildly on how much warning we have. If we spot it two months, or even two years before it gets here, you're probably right. Even then, small rocks are more common than big ones so it would be statistically likely that an evacuation could be done, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
If we spot a rock, even a big one, 30 or 40 years out, we have the technology already to make a difference. Enough nukes detonated all on one side will ablate material off the surface and produce thrust, changing the rocks orbit by a little bit. Luckily, even a minuscule change in direction will produce a significant change in position 30 years down the line.
The really interesting thing is if a rock is detected that will hit in 10-15 years. At that point, it is less likely for our current technology to be fully effective. We'd end up with a crash program that would make Apollo look like chump change. I could even imagine NASA dusting off the old Orion nuclear pulse propulsion ideas if the whole world were at stake; after all, what's a few hundred nukes being detonating in the atmosphere compared human extinction.
I'm going to have to disagree. NASA could survive, but only by doing something relatively radical that actually makes space exploration make sense. At a minimum that means setting up an orbital refueling system, with disposable heavy lifters to bring up fuel and other equipment, relaunchable shuttles to ferry people up and down, and ships that never re-enter the atmosphere but are refueled and stocked in orbit.
Alternatively, NASA could dust off the theoretical nuclear rockets (the closed cycle ones, not the ones that rely on detonating thousands of nuclear bombs) that they had started developing back in the 60's. Or they could start serious research on a non-rocket launch system. A space elevator is probably out of reach right now, but a hypersonic sky-hook, a launch loop, or a laser propulsion system is probably within our technology level (or soon will be).
Do not fight, shout, shove, or resist in any way
So we can only call a crime violent if the victim is willing to resist in same manner?
Guy 1: Hey, Dude, can I have $5?
Guy 2: [reluctantly hands over $5]
Not seeing a crime there.
Guy 1: Hey, Dude, can I have $5?
Guy 2: No
Guy 1: [Grabs the money and runs]
Then yes, there is a crime there. The difference is that Guy #2 said 'No'. If a rape victem doesn't make it clear that they don't consent, it would be wildly unfair to call that rape.
Hmmm, lets see how accurate 1984 is in this case:
An ultra-facist, ultra controlling government that...
1) Watches, analyzes, and controls your every move to identify possible revolutionaries.
2) Controls all commerce and businesses
3) Outlaws sex for pleasure (even with your spouse)
4) Convinces children to rat on their own parents.
5) Uses constant warefare, drugs, and pornography to subdue the masses
6) Re-writes history to suit its present needs
7) Tortures and/or kills anyone who resists it
8) Encourages (forces?) racism and nationalism to the point of incoherent rage in every citizen.
versus a private company that...
1) Retrieves information when your phone software crashes
Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.
With apologies for the double post, the quoted text from the article was meant to include a bit more. Here is what I had intended to quote.
A program called TrueCrypt achieves something close to this -- TrueCrypt allows you to encrypt a storage volume with two different passwords, so that one password provides access to "innocent-looking" data, while the other password provides access to the data that you really want to keep secure. If someone is compelled to give up their password, they could provide only the password that unlocks the "innocent-looking" data -- and there's no way, from examining the encrypted file, to tell that there is a second password guarding even-more secret data. (Of course, the "innocent-looking" data can't be truly innocent-looking, because it has to look like the kind of thing that someone would believe you might want to encrypt -- so it should look suspicious enough that you would genuinely want to hide it, but not bad enough to get you in real trouble if you're forced to reveal it!) The Achilles heel of this scheme is that just having TrueCrypt on your computer in the first place, would at least signal to an intruder that you're encrypting files. And even if they can't prove that you might have another "super-secret password" guarding more private data on your encrypted volume, they would certainly suspect it, if they already had grounds to be investigating you and if they knew anything about how TrueCrypt works. To provide true plausible deniability of any encryption at all, you need a program that already exists on lots of people's machines, so that an intruder doesn't suspect anything when they find it on your computer.
I'm not saying that Rubberhose and TrueCrypt don't help the situation. However, the author brings up TrueCrypt and its ability to hide an incriminating volume behind a relatively innocent one (which seems to be the same functionality that is offered by Rubberhose) and finds them lacking for the problem he is trying (albeit rather poorly) to describe.
From the Article...
The Achilles heel of this scheme is that just having TrueCrypt on your computer in the first place, would at least signal to an intruder that you're encrypting files. And even if they can't prove that you might have another "super-secret password" guarding more private data on your encrypted volume, they would certainly suspect it, if they already had grounds to be investigating you and if they knew anything about how TrueCrypt works. To provide true plausible deniability of any encryption at all, you need a program that already exists on lots of people's machines, so that an intruder doesn't suspect anything when they find it on your computer.
This is the paragraph that I am addressing when I say that Rubberhose and programs like it don't solve the problem that the author is proposing. What if I install TrueCrypt and never get around to setting it up and an over-zealous investigator is threatening jail time if I don't hand over the non-existent password? What if I set it up and don't use it for months or years and forget the password? The fact that having an encryption utility installed is enough to land you in prison is the real problem. Better never to have the police ask for the password in the first place. That means making encryption software common enough to not rouse suspicion or portable enough to leave no traces (other than the encrypted volume) behind after it's done.
I provided a solution that doesn't have that problem in the first place.
No, you didn't because you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem isn't going to jail or being pressured to give up your encryption password. The problem is being harassed and having your privacy invaded simply because you have a program installed on your computer. If I'm going through customs and get harassed and annoyed because I have TrueCrypt installed, that is still a major problem even if I can provide access to an innocent volumn.
Ideally, the solution would offer both forms of deniability. A) Not having an unusual encryption utility installed and B) Being capable of offering an innocent volumn if pressed for a password anyway. You need A to avoid casual detection and the harassment that stems from it. You need B because a forensic analysis of the disk can still determine that there are encrypted volumns present.